Well yes of course, but neither of those are VLS compatible either.
I of course meant VLS launched weapons when dividing between H/AJK-16 and UVLS.
It's the reason why I didn't include, say YJ-62 or HQ-7 or Yu-11 slant launch ASROC.
054B/new generation frigate
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Well yes of course, but neither of those are VLS compatible either.
I of course meant VLS launched weapons when dividing between H/AJK-16 and UVLS.
It's the reason why I didn't include, say YJ-62 or HQ-7 or Yu-11 slant launch ASROC.
Yes, that's true.
But my point was, the universality of UVLS depends on the tasks of the ship.
If we build, for example, an all-purpose near seas combatant (like 054a) - we either develop a VLS-launched universal subsonic missile, or we simply install canisters. If we do the latter - ASCM(and probably strike at large) capability of our frigate is basically 'covered', thus h/ajk-16 and uvls are basically equal - and we only choose based on the merits of their respective SAM and ASROC.
?okay.
But I do not see how that is relevant to my post 856 and the discussion that was a part of, as that discussion was about the way in which the roles and flexibility of the H/AJK-16 and UVLS related to one another and the PLAN's overall VLS compatible arsenal.
If this is an entirely separate topic you're raising up, fine, but I don't see why your previous post needed to quote me.
Like, yes of course the weapons that a UVLS would be predominantly equipped with would depend on the role of the ship. That sort of goes without saying.
But no, simply adding slant launchers for non-VLS weapons to a ship with H/AJK-16 doesn't suddenly make it "basically equal" with UVLS.
The whole point of the difference between H/AJK-16 versus UVLS is the weapons that have been integrated onto both respectively and their ability to receive and be integrated with future weapons as they are developed.
Question: There will be an incentive to keep the H/AJK-16 to support foreign users, and too sustain the current 054A class. Would it not make sense to keep production of the system for export orders, or maybe attempt to sell off rights to production/export rights to Pakistan?
UVLS will be the preponderant VLS going forward. It doesn't make much sense to keep a second, especially when the capabilities are so close. I.E. a new long range VLS for ballistic missiles will be much more useful.
Anyways, my thoughts on this matter.
What is up with the obsession of yj18? They are going to have way better missiles in the future that would require uvls. Frankly, they need a 1.2m diameter vls on 055 to launch 3000km range hypersonic missiles.
Better is the enemy of good enough.
Huge, 3000 km-ranged hypersonic missile may be nice against US navy - but it may very well not be frigates' concern.
It may, however, fail against small, fast, and nimble ROCN or say Vietnamese missile corvette, operating within the vicinity of fishing boats (some may very well be Chinese). Which may very well be spotted juuust over the horizon - deep in the dead zone for any fancy missiles.
Or a small US tank landing ship, delivering marine detachment in coastal clutter, or hiding upstream in the river.
Or, don't know, damaged surfaced sub, trying to sneakily do emergency repairs hiding in a pile of floating trash and wrecks.
Perhaps more crucially - light ASCM is ship captains' own weapon, which he is free to use for his own concerns. Long-ranged munitions are theater weapons, they aren't really his.
Recently Russian navy went as far as mixing light ASCM canisters with their strike VLS (which boasts all the large bad missiles one can dream of) on now upgraded Udaloy class heavy frigates. While they never named the reasons, as one can see - there are plenty.
Physically they could, providing there is enough clearance for the intakes. In fact, the last Zhuhai, we have pics of YJ-83 on U-VLS in the placards and models, which suggest it may either be possible in the PLAN in the future and/or offered in export models.
What to remember is that the YJ-83 is turbojet powered and the YJ-12 is ramjet powered. The YJ-18 in comparison, at least in the cruise stage, is on a turbofan. A turbofan has a lower ignite airspeed than a turbojet, which in turn has a lower ignite speed than a ramjet. Thus, once the missile leaves the VLS, the YJ-18 can ignite its engines at a lower air speed, so you can use smaller boosters. A turbojet AshM on the other hand, needs to be traveling at a much higher airspeed to get air into its intakes, so for a smaller missile, you may need a bigger booster to get to that air speed. It is for that reason why these missiles are fired mainly slanted, so it takes less of a booster to get to that airspeed faster.
Considering the YJ-83 is rather small --- it weighs as much as an HQ-16 without the booster --- you would have to come up with a new booster for it. The current YJ-83 with existing booster is already 6.86 meters in length. So it would fit right in. But the existing booster won't get you the air speed need to ignite the engine, so you are going to need a new booster with a more energy dense propellant, although by now, solid propellant technology in China has advanced since the days the YJ-83 began its development.
There is that other alternative, that, is, to redesign the YJ-83 itself by replacing the turbojet with a turbofan. This can even give you a range increase with the efficiencies of the turbofan. The counter alternative to this is to offer the YJ-18 in a mini all subsonic version. That is, the AshM no longer is a twin stage one, but a whole solid subsonic single stage airframe. Without the twin stage, you can fit a shortened all subsonic YJ-18 in a 7 meter VLS, and also offer this in a subsonic land attack variant or dual seeker with anti ship or land attack.
As for the YJ-12, a ramjet requires an even much higher airspeed for ignition, but the missile itself uses an integral rocket chamber. That is, similar (copied?) from the Sunburn missile, the ramjet chamber is filled with solid fuel rocket propellant. Rockets ignite independently of air speed, you only need to flip the missile towards the right direction. So after the booster is fired, expended and ejected, the missile fires its integral rocket booster, and its on its way. Once the rocket fuel burns away, everything is clear in the ramjet chamber, and with sufficient airspeed, the ramjet can ignite.
This still leaves you with the question if there is enough solid fuel in the integral chamber to reach ignition speed. There is a question if the design with four diverters and intakes at the sides is the optimal design. This is probably why, for this reason, the Russians use a nose intake with a variable diverter cone, the design you see on the Oniks, for a VLS launched all supersonic route missile rather than the Sunburn's design. But then again, in Zhuhai, we already have seen a proposed Chinese AshM design model similar to the Oniks. But obviously, I don't think the PLAN is planning to go into this idea and is devoted to the YJ-18 and a ballistic missile based antiship missile.
Very nice CG made by Redshark. Probably the closest to the real thing atm.
I though based on the satellite image, the VLS' are likely to be located mid section? Most CGs of 054B still put the VLS' in the bow immediately after the main gun.