Yes, and in any such task force, it is more likely that all ships in the taskforce with multirole VLS (i.e.: the UVLS) will have mixed loadouts of varying priorities, and very unlikely for a ship to be fully equipped with an all single role loadout.
====
I don't like this question because:
1. We don't know how many 9m length VLS the 055 has on its current 112 cells to begin with. I personally believe it is anywhere from 32 to 64 of the 9m length, but we don't know the real number at this point in time, so any such comparison is invalid in the first place when we don't know the true state of it.
2. More importantly, it makes it seem like the decision between 112 UVLS and 128 UVLS has any sort of major relationship with the percentage of cells that are 9m in length, whereas in reality that is more reflective of the length of the ship and the arrangement of internal subsystems of the ship, which is not a simple matter of "configuration".
3. Also, your choice of number -- 128 cells -- again makes it seem like there is some kind of important role for 128 VLS. Why not 144 or 112 or 96 instead?
If you are trying to ask whether it is better for a surface combatant (in general) to carry a slightly lower total VLS count of all strike/longer length VLS versus carrying a slightly higher total VLS count of mixed strike/longer length and medium length VLS, then that is a more reasonable question but that is still dependent on the design of the ship and the hull and internal subsystem arrangements and also the role/mission and cost of the ship.
In short -- there's no clear answer, because it's not just a matter of "reconfiguring" a ship.
Don’t think I ever suggested a single-role loadout, which is why I inquired about land-attack missiles in addition to AShMs. I’ve repeatedly emphasized that the strike (deep) cells offer the greater variety of load options. Unless I’m mistaken, that is, and strike-cells can’t accommodate defensive loads? However, as far as single-role loads are concerned, before one offers axiomatic pronouncements, one might look into those scenarios in which USN destroyers were front-loaded and re-loaded with single-role (strike) loadouts in order to fulfill a specific function within a larger Task/Strike-Force engaging specific situational contingency. Despite personal sympathies, they are the ones who’ve done this most and done it best. Therefore, it’s to them one might look for examples of how it’s done. But then, China may never achieve the level of numbers that would allow this type of mission specificity.
The critical factor is not how a ship is front-loaded, but it’s reload speed and reload capacity. Or, are we expecting PLAN to engage solely in single load out exchanges? I know it’s fun to theorize about ideal approaches to this and that. But knowing what this and that actually are is the determining factor in deciding any approaches. In other words, the specific situational circumstances of each mission dictate the approaches to be taken, not any idealized, theorized, one-size fits-all set-up. That’s rules of engagement 101, SMEAC!
When sailing in a general state of preparation, sure, a balanced mix is the obvious choice, as there is no specific mission. In this state you’re equally prepared for whatever. Alternatively, when there is, or are, a specific objective, or objectives, and when there are specific, known obstacles and challenges, those ratios may be skewed, and heavily, to one or the other emphasis.
