I personally think the H/AJK-16 is a virtual copy of the Mk.41, but it copies only the air defense version of such which is at the depth of 5.3 meters. That is deep enough for the HQ-16, which is about a little over 5 meters in length and has a similar weight to the Standard SM-2. Mk. 41 has 6.8 meter Strike version for Tomahawks, and a 7.7 meter Tactical version for the SM-3 and SM-6. But in the Chinese side, this territory is left for the U-VLS.
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
I personally think the H/AJK-16 is a virtual copy of the Mk.41, but it copies only the air defense version of such which is at the depth of 5.3 meters. That is deep enough for the HQ-16, which is about a little over 5 meters in length and has a similar weight to the Standard SM-2. Mk. 41 has 6.8 meter Strike version for Tomahawks, and a 7.7 meter Tactical version for the SM-3 and SM-6. But in the Chinese side, this territory is left for the U-VLS.
The better question to ask is how many VLS uses the Concentric Canister Launcher concept. or CCL. This design lets you hot launch missiles without the need for a complicated system of transfer channels to a center plenum.
CCL is basically like a tube inserted inside something that is shaped like a huge test tube. The missile is inserted inside the inner tube.
This is in contrast to the hot launched VLS with center channels the Mk. 41 is famous for. The H/AJK-16 uses this example as well as the Sylvers. Russian and Royal Navy SAM VLS like Osas and CAMMs are cold launched however with dedicated VLS usable only to that missile alone.
There are only two other CCL VLS in the world.
One is the Russian UKSK VLS.
And the other is the Mk. 57 VLS used in the Zumwalt.
However, the UKSK is only known to fire Kalibr antiship and cruise missiles, which are hot launched. I don't think its used to fire Russian SAMs which are cold launched but the theoretical option is always there to quad pack the smaller ones into a UKSK cell, which might even be slightly larger than the U-VLS cell. Modern Russian warships are equipped with UKSK, but they are equipped only for Kalibr and Onix missiles, which are namely antiship and cruise missiles, and these warships have dedicated cold launched VLS for their SAMs.
Redut and CAMM VLS.
As for the Mk. 57, they plan on using the Zumwalts as a surface to surface fighter, which means dual use Tomahawks, SM-6s and maybe LRASMs. All these are hot launched, so there is no opportunity to ever test or require the cold launch capability, given the US doesn't have any cold launched missile that I know of. In theory, if there should be one, it would work.
Last edited:
Length is based on air defense version length that can be used on extreme ends of VLS layouts, since there likely isnt enough depth for a longer cell.
Weight is based on Similar vls cell (Uksk) weight limitations.
It'll be best if such a missile is cold launched, to make use of max diameter of the cell.
That would be unnecessary, and producing it in large numbers may turn out to be cost prohibitive.
A missile with a weight of 300-400 kg with warhead at 10% of the weight will have a range of about 50km. Thats close enough for ample illumination by an X band radar.
You can see the cost escalation for the ESSM block 2.
That design seems wasteful in that it doesn't use the shaded region in this illustration to vent.CCL is basically like a tube inserted inside something that is shaped like a huge test tube. The missile is inserted inside the inner tube.
Doing so would decrease - if not eliminate - the distance between the outer and inner tubes, which would accommodate larger missiles.
I don't think the American MIC can be used as anything but a cautionary tale of the effects of rampant corruption. They have cost escalation for buying coffee cups, of course they're going to price-gouge on missiles. I'm sure the Chinese MIC would love to be able to get away with this banditry, but it can't. There shouldn't be a huge difference in cost between SARH and ARH missiles.
There are significant benefits to this:
- The ship radar is free to track other targets without having to worry about babysitting a SARH missile.
- I'm not sure of the radar height for an 055/052D, but there could be a region between the ship's radar horizon and the maximum engagement range of the missile where a target could duck under the horizon to lose the lock, which would leave a defensive gap. This would be impossible with an ARH missile.
That design seems wasteful in that it doesn't use the shaded region in this illustration to vent.
Doing so would decrease - if not eliminate - the distance between the outer and inner tubes, which would accommodate larger missiles.
That is what they seem to be doing here, as they load a YJ-18 canister. Or that could be a square cover over a circular tube, with the circular canister loaded as the inner tube.
Last edited:
- Status