054/A FFG Thread II

[Iron Man]

Fair enough, regarding the merits of an universal VLS, although my comment was mostly directed at your suggestion that the 054B be armed with 16 strike-length VLS tubes. Of course, budgetary concerns (assuming the UVLS is more expensive) would be another story no matter how tactically-justified the UVLS is.

I seriously doubt 2 9m length modules are going to be significantly more expensive than 2 7m length modules, enough to make anyone hesitate if they saw the tactical need to choose the 9m option. It's the electronics, not the extra sheet metal, that makes these things more or less expensive. In general I suspect that the choice of module length is far more dictated by ship design than by module cost.

Sure 054A or B can host very big VLS with 9 m cell's ?

9m length modules located amidships (between the mast and the stack for example) would provide enough depth for 4 decks worth of modules, which is what a 9m module would require. It would be conveniently located just forward of the engine room.

5m long option would be there for quadpacking, of course. as there might be space wasted if one quadpacks a 7m cell. that doesn't mean 7m ones can't be quadpacked as well, but most of the time there shouldn't be a need for such missiles (6.5 meters long and 35cm body diameter? Not the most common missile design)

7m cell is enough for for all but the large, supersonic ashm and large land attack missiles. so yj83-like missile and hypothetical next gen subsonic ashm will fit in there just fine. Heck, even hhq9 can fit inside 7 meters.

There is no evidence of any hypothetical next generation ASCMs and LACMs. Talking about the ones we know, YJ-18 and CJ-10 will probably not fit into a 7m cell. It's possible the new winged ASW missile will not fit either, though that would depend on the dimensions of the YJ-83 which we do not have measurements for. A vertical-launch YJ-83 mod would almost certainly require a booster to be launched vertically so even if the YJ-83 could fit into a 7m cell the YJ-83 + booster may not. In the end it's all about ship design and tactical/logistical considerations, and IMO the PLAN will install the longest possible tubes that every one of its ships can accommodate physically.

 

[SinoSoldier]

The 7-meter VLS module could potentially house the YJ-83 (with booster) and a smaller, LACM variant/cousin of the YJ-18 family. The YJ-18A variant is supposedly the longest member of the family, and with developments in Chinese turbofan engines, the next-generation LACM could be significantly more compact than the CJ-10.

 

[Iron Man]

The 7-meter VLS module could potentially house the YJ-83 (with booster) and a smaller, LACM variant/cousin of the YJ-18 family. The YJ-18A variant is supposedly the longest member of the family, and with developments in Chinese turbofan engines, the next-generation LACM could be significantly more compact than the CJ-10.

Why would a LACM variant of the YJ-18 be any smaller than the ASCM version? Unlike a solid motor which is compact to begin with, an LACM would require an actual fuel-burning engine like a turbofan or turbojet, along with a fuel tank and a pop-down air intake. At the very least it would not be any smaller. If we are talking hypothetical, I could start hypothesizing all kinds of sizes for missiles which would be complete guesses. We are talking about what (little) we know now. Regardless of all this, if a PLAN warship could physically fit a 9m tube instead of a 7m tube, I think it would do exactly that. Again, if you can justify any significant cost increase from a 7m tube to a 9m tube besides the cost of the extra sheet metal and the minimal extra R&D needed to make it, I'd like to hear it.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Why would a LACM variant of the YJ-18 be any smaller than the ASCM version? Unlike a solid motor which is compact to begin with, an LACM would require an actual fuel-burning engine like a turbofan or turbojet, along with a fuel tank and a pop-down air intake. At the very least it would not be any smaller. If we are talking hypothetical, I could start hypothesizing all kinds of sizes for missiles which would be complete guesses. We are talking about what (little) we know now. Regardless of all this, if a PLAN warship could physically fit a 9m tube instead of a 7m tube, I think it would do exactly that. Again, if you can justify any significant cost increase from a 7m tube to a 9m tube besides the cost of the extra sheet metal and the minimal extra R&D needed to make it, I'd like to hear it.

The ASCM variant of the YJ-18 requires both ramjet engines along with a end-stage rocket booster for the final supersonic dash. There are also rumors that the YJ-18 has a subsonic cruise phase, implying that it too would require a turbofan engine (on top of the final rocket booster). A LACM equivalent of the YJ-18 would almost definitely be shorter than the ASCM variant since the former does away with the final rocket stage as well as aerodynamic refinements applied to the missile's fuselage (e.g. pointed nose).

Nobody doubts that the PLAN would go for 9m tubes if it had the resources and ability to do so. Clearly, this hasn't happened with the 052D (or so the rumors claim). Nevertheless, being limited to 7m cells does not preclude land-attack or AShM capabilities for the 052D in the near future.

 

[Iron Man]

The ASCM variant of the YJ-18 requires both ramjet engines along with a end-stage rocket booster for the final supersonic dash. There are also rumors that the YJ-18 has a subsonic cruise phase, implying that it too would require a turbofan engine (on top of the final rocket booster). A LACM equivalent of the YJ-18 would almost definitely be shorter than the ASCM variant since the former does away with the final rocket stage as well as aerodynamic refinements applied to the missile's fuselage (e.g. pointed nose).

Nobody doubts that the PLAN would go for 9m tubes if it had the resources and ability to do so. Clearly, this hasn't happened with the 052D (or so the rumors claim). Nevertheless, being limited to 7m cells does not preclude land-attack or AShM capabilities for the 052D in the near future.

You say "clearly" but you definitely and clearly contradicted yourself here:

Just going by what the buzz says. Its shape certainly doesn't match any other missile.

This also indirectly confirms that the 052D has strike-length missile tubes.

You made this post just yesterday LOL

 

[SinoSoldier]

You say "clearly" but you definitely and clearly contradicted yourself here:

You made this post just yesterday LOL

Yesterday's post was before I read Henri K.'s update.

 

[Iron Man]

And yet Henri's update says the 052D has at least 16 strike length cells, which again clearly contradicts this statement:

Nobody doubts that the PLAN would go for 9m tubes if it had the resources and ability to do so. Clearly, this hasn't happened with the 052D (or so the rumors claim).

 

[SinoSoldier]

And yet Henri's update says the 052D has at least 16 strike length cells, which again clearly contradicts this statement:

Perhaps I should've put that statement more in context, but the preceding discussion was centered around the idea that the PLAN should go for 9m cells whenever they can, and should push for the ability for vessels to accommodate such modules. The 052D was used as an example in which the system was clearly not designed around the goal of accommodating the max # of strike-length modules.

 

[Iron Man]

Perhaps I should've put that statement more in context, but the preceding discussion was centered around the idea that the PLAN should go for 9m cells whenever they can, and should push for the ability for vessels to accommodate such modules. The 052D was used as an example in which the system was clearly not designed around the goal of accommodating the max # of strike-length modules.

That argument and my argument are not identical. I said that PLAN should and would put the largest possible module length that a hull can accommodate, not necessarily that a hull should be designed to accommodate the largest possible module length.

 

[SinoSoldier]

...not necessarily that a hull should be designed to accommodate the largest possible module length.

And yet you wrote:

This is why it would behoove the PLAN to design a 054B with 32 universal cells instead of 32 HHQ-16 cells. It could easily accomplish this in a hull similar to the 054A by splitting them into 2 banks of 16 cells each, with the second bank amidships so it could house the 4-deck high 9m strike length VLS modules.

... in other words, you would propose modifying or outright designing a hull with accommodating 9m cells in mind.

The Type 052D shows that the PLAN isn't interested in incorporating large VLS modules as its primary goal (assuming of course that the rumors are true).