650mm is the same of the Mk-41. I should add that the HQ-16 is slightly physically bigger than the SM-2MR. The Mk. 41 might be longer however, but there seems to be a bit of inefficiency with the Mk. 41, so that the 4.75 meter SM-2 requires the Tactical 6.8 meter Mk. 41, while the 6.2 meter Tomahawk and 6.5 meter SM-2ER/SM-6 requires the 7.7 meter Strike Mk. 41. In contrast let's say, the 4.3 meter Aster 30 only needs the 5 meter Sylver VLS. I believe the AJK-16 might be around 650mm wide, but depth might be shorter than Mk. 41, probably around 5.5 to 6 meters or so, making it quite efficient, with the HQ-16 length around 5.2 meters. The U-VLS is also efficient, 6.8 meter HHQ-9 on 7 meter VLS, and 8.2 meter YJ-18 on 9 meter VLS.
054/A FFG Thread II
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
650mm is the same of the Mk-41. I should add that the HQ-16 is slightly physically bigger than the SM-2MR. The Mk. 41 might be longer however, but there seems to be a bit of inefficiency with the Mk. 41, so that the 4.75 meter SM-2 requires the Tactical 6.8 meter Mk. 41, while the 6.2 meter Tomahawk and 6.5 meter SM-2ER/SM-6 requires the 7.7 meter Strike Mk. 41. In contrast let's say, the 4.3 meter Aster 30 only needs the 5 meter Sylver VLS. I believe the AJK-16 might be around 650mm wide, but depth might be shorter than Mk. 41, probably around 5.5 to 6 meters or so, making it quite efficient, with the HQ-16 length around 5.2 meters. The U-VLS is also efficient, 6.8 meter HHQ-9 on 7 meter VLS, and 8.2 meter YJ-18 on 9 meter VLS.
szbd
Junior Member
650*650, so it's wider than MK41?
CASIC is the one responsible for the HT-1 (U-VLS), HHQ-9, YJ-18 and pretty much all the stuff that's going to the U-VLS. I do not believe that a single institution would have multiple designs, each institution would champion a single design and different institutions would context for the contract. FM3000N is probably far well advanced in its development stage that it would have be CASIC's champion for the contract. It does not mean there are other institutions that may be vying, the closest I can think of would be CASIC's rival, CASC, which is more into space technologies. CASC however, has an overlap and is responsible for the HQ-16 systems. I would think that CASC's LY-70 design might be the other contender. Its similar in size with the ESSM and features mid body wings. The other contender might be NORINCO with its SD-30 but its a very dark horse as far as I am concerned. CASIC's position in the Chinese defense industry might give the FM3000N a front runner status, but CASC's LY-70 might still be a worthy competitor.
antiterror13
Brigadier
555 is ....... 50 kms, 5G and what the last 5 means ?
no. 710mm is for the Mk. 57 on the Zumwalt.
50km, Mach 5, 50G.
Right now, the only two weapons that we've confirmed to be compatible with the UVLS is HHQ-9 and YJ-18.
There are no indications that the PLAN's UVLS will favour CASIC products, nor am I 100% confident that the HT-1E is actually the export variant of the PLAN's proper UVLS to begin with.
As for the FM-3000N itself, I have nothing against the weapon shown, but I feel like if it were the 3-5 missile, then someone with a track record would've made more noise about its identity, which is why I hold significant doubts.
There are of course a number of candidate missiles we have seen on export that might be a candidate for the 3-5 missile, but it is also very plausible that it is simply a clean sheet design as well.
Is there a reason why the PLAN does not have a long range SAM (say 150+ km range similar to early versions of the SM-2) that could be fitted into the VLS on 054As? Or a smaller cruise missile (like LRASM/JASSM) that could be launched from 054A? Since there are so many 054A (50+) in service in the foreseeable future, why not arm to the teeth to give them bigger punch?