054B/new generation frigate

I swear 054B is gonna end up more like a budget 052D of similar dimention than 054A. At its conception 052D it was the best of the best China had to offer. Now 055 is taking over the high end path. 054B is the similar sized ship budgeted to not have the luxury features of first rate destroyer, but largely same capability as 052D. Time will tell if my prediction is right or I am delusional.

Blitzo said:

But I think, if I had my way, it would be preferable to not install H/AJK-16 on any additional ships going forwards, and to standardize on UVLS on all new ships that require VLS, and in turn standardize those ships with 5-5-5 and HQ-9 variants as their standard VLS launched SAMs.

Click to expand...

People have been speculating about the future of these two VLS systems for a decade now. In a few short months we will actually have the answer. If 054B has H/AJK-16 VLS or even a mixed UVLS & H/AJK-16 arrangement, we will know that PLAN envisions a long-term role for the latter and that UVLS is not a replacement for H/AJK-16, but rather a complement to it. Alternatively, if 054B has UVLS only, that is probably the end of the road for the H/AJK-16 VLS.

Lethe said:

People have been speculating about the future of these two VLS systems for a decade now. In a few short months we will actually have the answer. If 054B has H/AJK-16 VLS or even a mixed UVLS & H/AJK-16 arrangement, we will know that PLAN envisions a long-term role for the latter and that UVLS is not a replacement for H/AJK-16, but rather a complement to it. Alternatively, if 054B has UVLS only, that is probably the end of the road for the H/AJK-16 VLS.

Click to expand...

Well, even if 054B does have H/AJK-16 in some form, the question regarding the future of HQ-16 (for ships that only have UVLS, i.e.: 055 and 052D and/or future ships) will still very much be something of note.

Blitzo said:

Not exactly, because it is accepted that hot launch places limits on available diameter as well as length to a degree (both due to the CCL venting system), while cold launch places limits on maximum length only (due to the cold launch mechanism) while enabling maximum diameter/cross section to be used.

We can see by weapons like the UVLS ASBM/HGV and the big two stage ABM/SAM weapon that they both take advantage of the available cross section, while still being quite lengthy missiles.

Click to expand...

Is it possible to design a hot launch canister that uses all the available space? I'm thinking of using the 4 corners as the exhaust gas venting channels so the cylinder size can be expanded, but I'm not sure if it'll create weak spots in the canister itself.

The Observer said:

Is it possible to design a hot launch canister that uses all the available space? I'm thinking of using the 4 corners as the exhaust gas venting channels so the cylinder size can be expanded, but I'm not sure if it'll create weak spots in the canister itself.

Click to expand...

If you're hot launching a missile, the bigger the missile the more venting volume/flow you need.
I suspect that pursuing a hot launch canister that uses "all available space" in terms of diameter/cross section, means that the residual four corners won't provide anywhere near enough volume/flow for the exhaust to be vented (even if we assume that structurally such a canister would be viable, which may not be the case).


The cold launch system in a 9m long UVLS already allows them to vertically launch the world's largest missiles, and more importantly to take advantage of the full diameter of the cell.



I think you may have looked at UVLS originally with the wrong impression in terms of "maximizing weapon size".

The hot launch CCL application in the UVLS does not enable the UVLS to launch the largest weapons it has potential for. It wasn't designed for it. I would be surprised if the UVLS is ever able to hot launch anything much bigger than YJ-18 (which itself isn't exactly a small weapon).

However, it is cold launch that allows the UVLS to launch the largest weapons available to it. There's a reason why the huge weapons like that UVLS launched ASBM/HGV and the two stage BMD missile are both cold launched.

I think you may have looked at UVLS originally with the wrong impression in terms of "maximizing weapon size".

The hot launch CCL application in the UVLS does not enable the UVLS to launch the largest weapons it has potential for. It wasn't designed for it. I would be surprised if the UVLS is ever able to hot launch anything much bigger than YJ-18 (which itself isn't exactly a small weapon).

However, it is cold launch that allows the UVLS to launch the largest weapons available to it. There's a reason why the huge weapons like that UVLS launched ASBM/HGV and the two stage BMD missile are both cold launched.

Click to expand...

I suppose I'm just stuck with the tight packaging of Mk.41 as my standard and anything less is "a waste of space".

Though at the same time, IMO HJ-18 packaging does look particularly space inefficient for the space that UVLS took.

The Observer said:

I suppose I'm just stuck with the tight packaging of Mk.41 as my standard and anything less is "a waste of space".

Though at the same time, IMO HJ-18 packaging does look particularly space inefficient for the space that UVLS took.

Click to expand...

Yes, using that frame of mind would lead to that conclusion.

The thing about UVLS is that it is designed to be able to cold launch larger diameter weapons as well.

If UVLS was only designed to launch YJ-18 then it would be somewhat space inefficient. But it is designed to accommodate a variety of weapons including much larger weapons, so it can't be viewed only in the scope of YJ-18.

If the goal was to design a VLS to densely pack as many YJ-18s in an area as possible without regard for launching any other weapons (or other larger weapons) then sure, they could probably make it more "efficient". But then you also lose out on modularity and the universal part of the UVLS, and lose the ability to carry larger weapons.

Blitzo said:

Yes, using that frame of mind would lead to that conclusion.

The thing about UVLS is that it is designed to be able to cold launch larger diameter weapons as well.

If UVLS was only designed to launch YJ-18 then it would be somewhat space inefficient. But it is designed to accommodate a variety of weapons including much larger weapons, so it can't be viewed only in the scope of YJ-18.

If the goal was to design a VLS to densely pack as many YJ-18s in an area as possible without regard for launching any other weapons (or other larger weapons) then sure, they could probably make it more "efficient". But then you also lose out on modularity and the universal part of the UVLS, and lose the ability to carry larger weapons.

Click to expand...

Could the reason why PLAN wants UVLS to be hot-launch capable is that HJ-18 couldn't fit into H/AJK-16?

Because the rest of PLAN VLS missiles are either small enough to fit into H/AJK-16 (HHQ-16, CN VL-ASROC) if they're hot-launched or gigantic poles of explosives that are cold-launched (aka HHQ-9).

I'd guess if they could start over, they'll enlarge H/AJK-16 and integrate HJ-18 into it. UVLS will be a Hot/Cold-launched VLS instead of a hybrid (my guess is cold because as you said, exhaust gas management in VLS for large missiles is a pain).

TL;DR. Chinese version of K-VLS & K-VLS 2

The Observer said:

Could the reason why PLAN wants UVLS to be hot-launch capable is that HJ-18 couldn't fit into H/AJK-16?

Because the rest of PLAN VLS missiles are either small enough to fit into H/AJK-16 (HHQ-16, CN VL-ASROC) if they're hot-launched or gigantic poles of explosives that are cold-launched (aka HHQ-9).

I'd guess if they could start over, they'll enlarge H/AJK-16 and integrate HJ-18 into it. UVLS will be a Hot/Cold-launched VLS instead of a hybrid (my guess is cold because as you said, exhaust gas management in VLS for large missiles is a pain).

TL;DR. Chinese version of K-VLS & K-VLS 2

Click to expand...

I think it's better to view the UVLS as a ground up, future proof VLS system rather than just seeing it in relation to YJ-18 as if it is the primary weapons system for the UVLS.

If they went for a H/AJK-16 or Mk-41 style VLS arrangement and they still wanted to have a large diameter like 850mm to accommodate cold launched large diameter weapons that can't be managed by a hot launch vent, well you'll end up being more space inefficient for launching those sorts of weapons than the UVLS.

Everything is a trade-off.

And no, we don't have any evidence to believe HQ-9 could fit in the H/AJK-16 VLS.
YJ-18 definitely cannot fit in the H/AJK-16 VLS.
We never had any indication that they intended those weapons to be fit in the H/AJK-16 VLS to begin with.
The H/AJK-16 VLS is not very flexible, because it can only carry Yu-8 and HHQ-16 that we know of.

The UVLS we know can launch YJ-18, HHQ-9, new dual stage ABM, new ASBM/HGV, and likely a number of other missiles in development given that the UVLS is newer and the standard VLS for the PLANs high end combatants and given it is also much larger and more flexible than H/AJK-16.
That's why I see H/AJK-16 VLS as more of a dead end and more limited than UVLS. It's just far less future proof.


Tbh I'm surprised you would see the UVLS as space inefficient -- personally I see it as quite an elegant solution for being able to accommodate large diameter weapons while also being able to hot launch weapons if they choose so for individual cells, without needing the extra space needed for a dedicated common venting system.

It means each individual cell had the option to be cold or hot launch as one sees fit.

@Blitzo do you think there will be a revised version of UVLS to accommodate 5m, instead of 3.3m ? so will be 5, 7 and 9m. I don't really know what the 3.3m UVLS for, in this era