055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Solaris]

I think the only fair way to compare the volume inefficiency versus the PLAN method versus a pure hot launch method like MK-41 or sylver or 054As VLS is to design it so both VLS types have similar effective cell width, similar cell "length" i.e.: the PLAN VLS would reduce the length of the cells to a minimal degree that would be equal to the Mk-41 while allowing for extra length needed for the cold launch system, e.g. a gas driven piston.

In that sense, I believe the mk-41 will have higher cross sectional deck area, compared to the PLAN VLS which will have smaller deck cross section (due to result of no common VLS) but will be slightly longer (to accommodate the extra length of the cold launch system, but is imagine this would only make the cell length a meter longer at most, compared to the longest Mk-41 cell length)

That counterpart VLS to the Mark 41 would not be able to hot launch in your scenario if you reduce the cell width to that of the Mark 41. In that case you would be comparing a pure hot launch system to a pure cold launch system. That comparison would favor the cold launch system I agree, but the CCL is both hot and cold launch, necessitating a bigger cell.

And I dont imagine there would be a separate cold launch system outside of the VLS that is intrinsic to their design if that is what totoro meant: otherwise that would be a poor use of space if a hot launch CCL missile is used in the VLS cell. More likely the extra length of the VLS is meant to self sufficiently hold a cold launch mechanism like a piston.

Yeah I can't imagine that the PLAN would accept such an inelegant solution to a cold launch system, for a ship at least. BTW are you sure it's a piston? I thought the cold launch method was sending a puff of expanding gas into the bottom of the cell that ejects the missile.

I was under the impression that venting a larger motor in hot launch required an exhaust with a greater cross section (like increasing the diameter of a pipe to allow more water to flow through it rather than increasing the length of the pipe which doesn't change the exhaust volume per unit time that can escape). I've read that a bigger exhaust was one of the design features of mk-57, with hopes that would allow it to carry larger missiles with larger motors in future.

My bad, I thought you were referring to the bottom needing space for both a hot launch exhaust manifold as well as provisions for cold launch hardware. I can imagine the need for a larger cross sectional exhaust for bigger missiles, but I'm not sure that a cell the size of a Mark 41 cell could not handle a modest increase in missile size/thrust. For example, I believe the latest proposed SM-3 variant (SM-3IIB) is even bigger than the Tomahawk and literally fills all the available width and depth inside a Mark 41 cell.

The Mark 41 uses a complex venting system so of course it does not have gas injection. According to you the gas injection is not a part of the system because it is "elsewhere on the ship" but nobody said the injection system is any distance away from the cells so its just baseless conjecture on your part.

And how do you exactly fit a missile longer than a 7.7m cell? Since you seem to think so and claim its more efficient. Magic?

If you cannot follow the flow of the conversation perhaps you should bow out. It was not me who suggested there could be some external gas injection system, but rather totoro. I responded to him, then you quoted my response and then proceeded off in your own tangent. And I have no idea what you mean by fitting a missile longer than a 7.7m cell. That sentence is not grammatically sensible and I don't know what you are trying to ask here.

 

[Blitzo]

That counterpart VLS to the Mark 41 would not be able to hot launch in your scenario if you reduce the cell width to that of the Mark 41. In that case you would be comparing a pure hot launch system to a pure cold launch system. That comparison would favor the cold launch system I agree, but the CCL is both hot and cold launch, necessitating a bigger cell.

Wait what? I agree that some missiles in a Mk 41 counterpart VLS won't be able to be hot launched, especially larger ones, however smaller ones such as SAMs or quad packed missiles with smaller motors should be able to get hot launched without too much problem

IMO PLAN VLS's bigger cell width is a result of both allowing the hot launch option (hot launch CCL) for missiles of a slightly larger diameter, but also to allow cold launch of even larger missiles that can utilize the full 0.85m cell width

Yeah I can't imagine that the PLAN would accept such an inelegant solution to a cold launch system, for a ship at least. BTW are you sure it's a piston? I thought the cold launch method was sending a puff of expanding gas into the bottom of the cell that ejects the missile.

I've heard it referred to as a piston, but also what you described.
Maybe calling it a cold launch apparatus would be more accurate, but that's quite a mouthful.

My bad, I thought you were referring to the bottom needing space for both a hot launch exhaust manifold as well as provisions for cold launch hardware. I can imagine the need for a larger cross sectional exhaust for bigger missiles, but I'm not sure that a cell the size of a Mark 41 cell could not handle a modest increase in missile size/thrust. For example, I believe the latest proposed SM-3 variant (SM-3IIB) is even bigger than the Tomahawk and literally fills all the available width and depth inside a Mark 41 cell.

No doubt Mk-41 can handle a modest increase, but how modest will it be?
Putting it another way, if we were to develop a Mk-41 hot launch system with the same cell width of the PLAN VLS, how large would its common exhaust vent have to be, and how much volume efficient would it be compared to the PLAN VLS?


But I think we both agree that cold launch is more space efficient than hot launch overall.

I also think calling the PLAN VLS as "CCL VLS" is not entirely reflective of its function because I see the cold launch mechanism as the more primary means of launching heavier missiles (and of course cold launch doesn't require CCL) while the hot launch route is for smaller missiles (which does require CCL).

 

[nameless]

If you cannot follow the flow of the conversation perhaps you should bow out. It was not me who suggested there could be some external gas injection system, but rather totoro. I responded to him, then you quoted my response and then proceeded off in your own tangent. And I have no idea what you mean by fitting a missile longer than a 7.7m cell. That sentence is not grammatically sensible and I don't know what you are trying to ask here.

Its not a conversation. It consists mostly of your baseless assertions. You are the one claiming that it is a separate system and is more inefficient not him. No need to lie about it. You have no evidence except for your conjectures. Again how can you claim that Mark 41 is more efficient even though it can not carry longer missiles like the ccl, even when we know that as the missile gets to a certain size the exhaust system would need to be changed as well. Too bad you seem to no understand basic logic, just don't blame it on other people's grammar.

 

[Solaris]

Wait what? I agree that some missiles in a Mk 41 counterpart VLS won't be able to be hot launched, especially larger ones, however smaller ones such as SAMs or quad packed missiles with smaller motors should be able to get hot launched without too much problem

IMO PLAN VLS's bigger cell width is a result of both allowing the hot launch option (hot launch CCL) for missiles of a slightly larger diameter, but also to allow cold launch of even larger missiles that can utilize the full 0.85m cell width

Well you said this:

I think the only fair way to compare the volume inefficiency versus the PLAN method versus a pure hot launch method like MK-41 or sylver or 054As VLS is to design it so both VLS types have similar effective cell width, similar cell "length" i.e.: the PLAN VLS would reduce the length of the cells to a minimal degree that would be equal to the Mk-41 while allowing for extra length needed for the cold launch system, e.g. a gas driven piston.

To which I responded that if you reduce the width of the PLAN CCL VLS to that of a Mark 41 you would not be able to hot launch. I guess you could theoretically hot launch a much smaller missile like a single ESSM, but you certainly would not be able to quad-pack a missile this size into a CCL the size of a Mk 41 cell AND provide enough internal volume to vent the exhaust out of it.

I think if the 9m length holds out the CCL VLS could definitely launch a full-diameter (0.85m) missile that the Mark 41 could not. But I'm not convinced a hot launched missile would still have more available space than a Mark 41 cell. BTW, one thing to consider is that a vertically cold launched missile requires even more confidence in the missile motor than a hot launched missile, a consideration avoided by the 052C's system because it launches at an angle outboard of the ship, such that if the missile fails it will simply fall into the ocean. I'm not sure the PLAN is going to dive wholesale into entirely cold launched missiles for this reason.

No doubt Mk-41 can handle a modest increase, but how modest will it be?
Putting it another way, if we were to develop a Mk-41 hot launch system with the same cell width of the PLAN VLS, how large would its common exhaust vent have to be, and how much volume efficient would it be compared to the PLAN VLS?

I don't think anybody here knows the answer to these questions, so I don't think you can make a definitive claim either way.

But I think we both agree that cold launch is more space efficient than hot launch overall.

I will withhold my judgment on that for now.

 

[Solaris]

Its not a conversation. It consists mostly of your baseless assertions. You are the one claiming that it is a separate system and is more inefficient not him. No need to lie about it. You have no evidence except for your conjectures. Again how can you claim that Mark 41 is more efficient even though it can not carry longer missiles like the ccl, even when we know that as the missile gets to a certain size the exhaust system would need to be changed as well. Too bad you seem to no understand basic logic, just don't blame it on other people's grammar.

Hey man you need to start getting a clue already:
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/nav...tion-destroyer-thread-41-6480.html#post277734

both s300 and hq9 canisters on tel vehicles use half a meter longer canister than the length of missiles inside. While i don't have data concerning where exactly the whole cold launch mechanism is, it would seem logical that, even if it is not all contained within those half a meter of difference, that it is modular enough that part of it can be placed away from the launch tubes themselves on the TELs. And if so, similar approach may be used on ship launchers as well.

 

[nameless]

Hey man you need to start getting a clue already:
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/nav...tion-destroyer-thread-41-6480.html#post277734

where exactly did he say it was inefficient? Where did he say such a configuration is in fact on the type 055? And what is the distance he was referring to between the missile and the gas injection what would make it inefficient? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Seems like you are drawing baseless conclusions on what others have said.

 

[Blitzo]

Well you said this:

To which I responded that if you reduce the width of the PLAN CCL VLS to that of a Mark 41 you would not be able to hot launch. I guess you could theoretically hot launch a much smaller missile like a single ESSM, but you certainly would not be able to quad-pack a missile this size into a CCL the size of a Mk 41 cell AND provide enough internal volume to vent the exhaust out of it.

I imagine a VL ASROC or a single MR-LR missile like an earlier SM-2 variant could be hot launched, but Tomahawk, SM-6, etc probably would find it difficult.

I think if the 9m length holds out the CCL VLS could definitely launch a full-diameter (0.85m) missile that the Mark 41 could not. But I'm not convinced a hot launched missile would still have more available space than a Mark 41 cell. BTW, one thing to consider is that a vertically cold launched missile requires even more confidence in the missile motor than a hot launched missile, a consideration avoided by the 052C's system because it launches at an angle outboard of the ship, such that if the missile fails it will simply fall into the ocean. I'm not sure the PLAN is going to dive wholesale into entirely cold launched missiles for this reason.

I'm not sure whether 052C's VLS are slanted. I know that Russian cold launch VLS in the past have been.

Some pictures of 052C firing HHQ-9 seem to show the missile being cold launched at a non 90 degree angle suggesting slanted tubes, but I've also read that 052C doesn't slant its VLS tubes (although I could remember wrongly, it was literally years ago).

I think we have had pics of 052C's VLS below decks. If we could have pictures of that may shed light.

Also, if the PLAN are adopting a non slanted VLS cold launch system with their new VLS it may simply reflect that they have confidence in their cold launch systems. After all, land based HQ-9 and S-300s are all cold launched as well, and are generally not that much more unreliable than hot launched SAMs.

I don't think anybody here knows the answer to these questions, so I don't think you can make a definitive claim either way.

Fair enough. (Although I'm really asking an open ended question rather than making any definitive claim)

 

[MwRYum]

Well that's really immature cus its almost ruined the freggin picture

If you've been there, you'd realise their online communities are just as infantile as anywhere else, perhaps a bit more.

But, despite their infightings, if against Piknov and Kanwa, you'd only hear one voice.

 

[MwRYum]

Wow, are you serious?

You don't just put a multi-billion dollar piece of kit into the water without first doing a mock up on land.

Lockheed's PR department would love to have you. Medium.com has an opening as well, I heard.

Yeah but do the Chinese really have to mock up that much of upper structure? see the others only mockup the major bit, this the Chinese did from the forward VLS well all the way to the aft, probably where the helicopter hanger should be.

 

[Solaris]

where exactly did he say it was inefficient? Where did he say such a configuration is in fact on the type 055? And what is the distance he was referring to between the missile and the gas injection what would make it inefficient? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Seems like you are drawing baseless conclusions on what others have said.

No, I said it was inefficient because this separate gas injection setup is not seen or needed on a system like the Mark 41. Or on the 052C VLS. Or the 054A VLS for that matter. At least now your tune is finally "what others have said", and you aren't still accusing me of being the one to make up the idea of the separate gas system, after I showed you totoro's post with a link and bolded script just to make it painfully clear for you. Honestly I don't know why I even bother with you, since it is obvious you have come raging through this thread without understanding what anybody is saying, even yourself.

I'm not sure whether 052C's VLS are slanted. I know that Russian cold launch VLS in the past have been.

Some pictures of 052C firing HHQ-9 seem to show the missile being cold launched at a non 90 degree angle suggesting slanted tubes, but I've also heard that 052C doesn't slant its VLS tubes (although I can't cite a source, it was literally years ago).

I think we had pics of 052C's VLS below decks. If we could have pictures of that may shed light.

They are definitely slanted. The front 6x6 section is slanted 3 to port and 3 to starboard. The rear 2x6 section is slanted one each to port and starboard. And the fact that they are slanted is a big testament to the concern the PLAN and earlier the Russian navy had for the reliability of its S-300 and HQ-9 missile motors, since slanting in this manner essentially obligates the launched missile to targets only in its own half of the battlespace, and is therefore not truly a 360 degree VLS.

Also, if the PLAN are adopting a non slanted VLS cold launch system it may simply reflect that they have confidence in their cold launch systems. After all, land based HQ-9 and S-300s are all cold launched as well, and are generally not that much more unreliable than hot launched SAMs.

The two other possible answers to the non-slanted CCL system are 1. they have plans for a big missile and have no other choice, and/or 2. they have confidence in SOME but not necessarily all of their missiles. Or more specifically the missile motors. Not so much the cold launch mechanisms, which I would expect to be fairly mature by now.