054B/new generation frigate

The Observer

The Observer

Junior Member
Registered Member
Blitzo said:
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.
Click to expand...

I suppose it's because we have a slightly different view of the relationship between H/AJK-16 & UVLS.

Personally, I used to see UVLS as a replacement for H/AJK-16, but now I think of it as a complement for H/AJK-16, specifically for launching large, cold-launched missiles. Meanwhile, H/AJK-16 will handle the smaller, hot-launched missiles.

In this case, HJ-18 is an exception within PLAN VLS missiles, being so big yet also hot-launched. So I'm thinking if PLAN had known they'll have a large, hot launched AShM like HJ-18, they'll design H/AJK-16 to handle it as compact packaging saves space. After all, they definitely knew about USN Mk. 41 and its modularity while designing H/AJK-16.

BTW, another pet peeve of mine when talking about PLAN VLS is the PLAN SAM systems that fill them. HHQ-16 is hot launched, while HHQ-9 is cold launched. They also have different guidances, which further complicate compatibility.

Compared with USN's SM-2MR/ER, SM-3, and SM-6, which are all hot-launched and compatible with Mk. 41, PLAN SAM selection is just messy. And let's not talk about how land-based HQ-16 actually went cold-launched... :rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
A

ashnole

New Member
Registered Member
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...
Back in the 1990s, US Navy successfully launched navalized 24-inch diameter ATACMS missiles from MK41 cells that have an internal dimension of 25 inches x 25 inches. They apparently came up with a new missile canister that had just 1-inch thick walls.

That project was later discarded because during testing they found out that those ultra-thin canisters, even though they worked, weren't safe at all.
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
They could always go back to cold launching the HHQ-16 for the U-VLS, after all the land version, the main version, the HQ-16, has always been cold launched.

Why the PLAN have to hot launch the HHQ-16 in the first place has always been a mystery for me. Traditionally, the sea based version of the SAM has always followed the launch system of it's land based original. Just like RIF-M is cold launched, after S-300 missiles are all cold launched. If there was any peculiar and unique reason why the PLAN wanted a hot launch missile, you can look at the HHQ-9, being cold launched like it's counterpart. If you look at the Russians again, their naval versions of the Buk are also cold launched like their land counterparts.

With regards for the 052D and 055 being not compatible with the HHQ-16, this is on top of all the reasons, a radar issue dealing with terminal illumination. The fix is obvious. Switch future variants of the HHQ-16 to Active Radar Homing. This is why news of the HQ-16FE having an active homer can be very exciting.
 
Last edited:
H

Hitomi

Junior Member
Registered Member
The Observer said:
I suppose it's because we have a slightly different view of the relationship between H/AJK-16 & UVLS.

Personally, I used to see UVLS as a replacement for H/AJK-16, but now I think of it as a complement for H/AJK-16, specifically for launching large, cold-launched missiles. Meanwhile, H/AJK-16 will handle the smaller, hot-launched missiles.

In this case, HJ-18 is an exception within PLAN VLS missiles, being so big yet also hot-launched. So I'm thinking if PLAN had known they'll have a large, hot launched AShM like HJ-18, they'll design H/AJK-16 to handle it as compact packaging saves space. After all, they definitely knew about USN Mk. 41 and its modularity while designing H/AJK-16.

BTW, another pet peeve of mine when talking about PLAN VLS is the PLAN SAM systems that fill them. HHQ-16 is hot launched, while HHQ-9 is cold launched. They also have different guidances, which further complicate compatibility.

Compared with USN's SM-2MR/ER, SM-3, and SM-6, which are all hot-launched and compatible with Mk. 41, PLAN SAM selection is just messy. And let's not talk about how land-based HQ-16 actually went cold-launched... :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Regarding the different SAM guidance issue, I don't think it's a huge issue as HHQ-16 and HHQ-9 are not used on the same vessels and I don't think the PLAN intends to, not to mention that the latest HQ-16F variant (which I think is likely to be adopted) has dual mode guidance.
 
The Observer

The Observer

Junior Member
Registered Member
Tam said:
They could always go back to cold launching the HHQ-16 for the U-VLS, after all the land version, the main version, the HQ-16, has always been cold launched.

Why the PLAN have to hot launch the HHQ-16 in the first place has always been a mystery for me. Traditionally, the sea based version of the SAM has always followed the launch system of it's land based original. Just like RIF-M is cold launched, after S-300 missiles are all cold launched. If there was any peculiar and unique reason why the PLAN wanted a hot launch missile, you can look at the HHQ-9, being cold launched like it's counterpart. If you look at the Russians again, their naval versions of the Buk are also cold launched like their land counterparts.

With regards for the 052D and 055 being not compatible with the HHQ-16, this is on top of all the reasons, a radar issue dealing with terminal illumination. The fix is obvious. Switch future variants of the HHQ-16 to Active Radar Homing. This is why news of the HQ-16FE having an active homer can be very exciting.
Click to expand...

My guess of how HHQ-16 is hot launched is whichever design institute tasked with developing it took "liberal inspiration" from the Shtil missile on PLAN Sovremenny. That thing is hot-launched, and maybe they also took a peek at Mk 41, saw it is hot-launched, and then go "well, hot launch it is then."

HQ-16 is the weird one in the family for being Cold-launched. That is until the Russians also used Cold-launch for their naval Shtil-1.

I suppose the incompatibility between HHQ-16 and HHQ-9 can be chalked up to them having different manufacturers, which are also competitors. That said, it's weird PLAN never designated a common illuminator for both missiles.

​

 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
The Observer said:
I suppose it's because we have a slightly different view of the relationship between H/AJK-16 & UVLS.

Personally, I used to see UVLS as a replacement for H/AJK-16, but now I think of it as a complement for H/AJK-16, specifically for launching large, cold-launched missiles. Meanwhile, H/AJK-16 will handle the smaller, hot-launched missiles.

In this case, HJ-18 is an exception within PLAN VLS missiles, being so big yet also hot-launched. So I'm thinking if PLAN had known they'll have a large, hot launched AShM like HJ-18, they'll design H/AJK-16 to handle it as compact packaging saves space. After all, they definitely knew about USN Mk. 41 and its modularity while designing H/AJK-16.
Click to expand...

I think it's better to view the division of the naval VLS as:
- H/AJK-16: HHQ-16 SAM family and Yu-8 VLASROC only
- UVLS: everything else (hot and cold launch) including future systems yet to be developed


At the time that H/AJK-16 was being designed it would've been the early 2000s if not earlier.
The H/AJK-16 would have been limited by scope and by limited future payload options.

Whereas with UVLS, they would've gone out of their way to make it as modular and flexible as practically possible to be as future proof as possible to enable ALL the prospective current and future payloads of relevance to be integrated if needed.
 
T

test1979

Junior Member
Registered Member
The Observer said:
My guess of how HHQ-16 is hot launched is whichever design institute tasked with developing it took "liberal inspiration" from the Shtil missile on PLAN Sovremenny. That thing is hot-launched, and maybe they also took a peek at Mk 41, saw it is hot-launched, and then go "well, hot launch it is then."

HQ-16 is the weird one in the family for being Cold-launched. That is until the Russians also used Cold-launch for their naval Shtil-1.

I suppose the incompatibility between HHQ-16 and HHQ-9 can be chalked up to them having different manufacturers, which are also competitors. That said, it's weird PLAN never designated a common illuminator for both missiles.

​

Click to expand...
It is easy to understand that the land-based hq-16 adopts cold launch. not have a reliable smoke exhaust device and a hoard to prevent flames from burning like the VLS on the ship. In addition to HQ-16, you can also refer to 9M331, which is also launched vertically and has much smaller tail smoke. Using cold launch to throw the missile into the air and then ignite it can be the easiest way to avoid a lot of smoke and flames
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
Blitzo said:
- H/AJK-16: HHQ-16 SAM family and Yu-8 VLASROC only
- UVLS: everything else (hot and cold launch) including future systems yet to be developed
Click to expand...
YJ-83 and YJ-12 - don't fit UVLS.
Depending on the actual PLAN intentions for 054B, UVLS's U may not be all that U.
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
The Observer said:
My guess of how HHQ-16 is hot launched is whichever design institute tasked with developing it took "liberal inspiration" from the Shtil missile on PLAN Sovremenny. That thing is hot-launched, and maybe they also took a peek at Mk 41, saw it is hot-launched, and then go "well, hot launch it is then."

HQ-16 is the weird one in the family for being Cold-launched. That is until the Russians also used Cold-launch for their naval Shtil-1.

I suppose the incompatibility between HHQ-16 and HHQ-9 can be chalked up to them having different manufacturers, which are also competitors. That said, it's weird PLAN never designated a common illuminator for both missiles.

​

Click to expand...

That is because the HHQ-9 has always been, from the very beginning, an active homing missile right from it's inception on the 052C. So right from the start, it never used an illuminator and this continues to be absent from the 052C to the 055. What it has instead on the ship are small arrays that serve as a command link to the missile during it's initial and midphase flight, with the missile going active and autonomous during it's terminal phase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top