055 Large Destroyer Thread II

[doggydogdo]

It's very much likely that the HHQ-9C can only be dual-packed inside the 850mm VLS cell.

This video by 水雷屋 on Bilibili explains very well on the multi-packability of the HHQ-9C inside the 850mm VLS cell:
【【水雷屋】海红旗-9C能一坑几弹？】

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

On the other hand, quad-packing the HHQ-9C inside a 950mm VLS cell should be possible.

There's also the potential of being able to dual-pack the HHQ-9B (which has a larger diameter than the HHQ-9C) in the 950mm VLS cell, in contrast to the 850mm VLS which can only fit one HHQ-9B per cell.

As for the 1200mm VLS cell - Those cells are better off reserved for long-range strike missiles (e.g. navalized DF-16B/C or DF-17) and strategic anti-ballistic/anti-hypersonic missiles (e.g. navalized HQ-29) only.

Theres a lot of different measurements for HHQ-9C diameter, if the diameter is slightly smaller than what the video is showing the likely chance for quad packing is a lot more.

Also, the video also makes a glaring mistake in the size of the gap, 850mm - 2x 380mm = 90mm not 40mm. He accidentally used 800 instead of 850. So, the chance of quad packing is higher than what the video shows even if the diameter of the missile is correct.

My belief is that PLA would not make a new system that's almost quad packable but instead dual packable that wastes a lot of space. Considering how the YJ-21 and YJ-17 takes up almost all the available space it's provided I doubt PLAN would accept something like that.

 

[qwerty3173]

Theres a lot of different measurements for HHQ-9C diameter, if the diameter is slightly smaller than what the video is showing the likely chance for quad packing is a lot more.
View attachment 164892
Also, the video also makes a glaring mistake in the size of the gap, 850mm - 2x 380mm = 90mm not 40mm. He accidentally used 800 instead of 850. So, the chance of quad packing is higher than what the video shows even if the diameter of the missile is correct.

My belief is that PLA would not make a new system that's almost quad packable but instead dual packable that wastes a lot of space. Considering how the YJ-21 and YJ-17 takes up almost all the available space it's provided I doubt PLAN would accept something like that.

Both HQ9C and HQ19 are land based projects later converted into naval versions, the missiles are thinner because much higher maneuverability are needed for new missile defense roles: missiles too thick cannot generate enough turning force. The increased adaptability on launch vehicles and in VLS canisters is just a side benefit compared to the technical necessity.

 

[charles18]

Hi,
the only change in near future in 055 will be/should be nuclear fuel and may be some
more VLS set in this case i near future ACCs with nuclear fuel will be roaming around the
world with more robust and without any hindrance but that all depend on umber of ACCs
with nuclear fuel etc, why I am advocating this scenario is China is not having much bases
around the rim of the world like USA
thank you

The US navy did a report and concluded that nuclear powered cruisers/ destroyers were cost prohibitive. However this report examined nuclear reactors from the 1960's. That was a long time ago! Surely technology must have progressed within the past 60 years. Using today's technology would it be possible to build reasonably priced nuclear powered cruisers? I think the answer is yes and China will do it.

Of course this is not going to happen tomorrow. Maybe 15 years down the road we'll see....

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Theres a lot of different measurements for HHQ-9C diameter, if the diameter is slightly smaller than what the video is showing the likely chance for quad packing is a lot more.
View attachment 164892
Also, the video also makes a glaring mistake in the size of the gap, 850mm - 2x 380mm = 90mm not 40mm. He accidentally used 800 instead of 850. So, the chance of quad packing is higher than what the video shows even if the diameter of the missile is correct.

My belief is that PLA would not make a new system that's almost quad packable but instead dual packable that wastes a lot of space. Considering how the YJ-21 and YJ-17 takes up almost all the available space it's provided I doubt PLAN would accept something like that.

Perhaps it's only you who measured the missile booster's diameter to be 0.31 meters? Most measurements I've seen starts at the high-0.3 meters of diameters.

SomePLAOSINT measured that to be ~0.40 meters, 水雷屋 (or his source) measured that to be ~0.38 meters, and SOYO measured somewhere between 0.390-0.425 meters (including the folded fins).



So even when 水雷屋's measurement of the VLS cells dimension is incorrect (in that he used 800mm instead of 850mm) - That 380mm is only taking the booster diameter into account, and not the inner diameter of the missile tubes which is definitely going to be larger than the diameter of the missile itself - Let alone the need of in-between walls to separate the missile tubes.

Here's another, which measured the missile to only be ~0.36 meters in diameter, and with the fins included:



TL;DR - We shouldn't really expect the 850mm VLS cells to be able to quad-pack the HHQ-9C as a forgone conclusion. And if that 950mm VLS cell project really does exist, then it's certainly a very sound move for the PLAN to pursue.

 

[Shahryar]

All this is a bit offtopic and should be more discussed in the next gen thread?

 

[RoastGooseHKer]

Do we have a record on who at Dalian or Shanghai is currently at what stage or even has which number? I must admit; I've totally lost it after #108 and I don't know how credibel the CHinese Wiki-site is:

View attachment 164490
View attachment 164491
View attachment 164492

Sounds like the original 052 CNS Qingdao and CNS Harbin will join the Qingdao naval museum soon. Their LM2500s will be the key museum piece, a symbol of a long-gone historical era (the Carter-Reagan-Bush Sino-U.S. honeymoon).

 

[doggydogdo]

Perhaps it's only you who measured the missile booster's diameter to be 0.31 meters? Most measurements I've seen starts at the high-0.3 meters of diameters.

SomePLAOSINT measured that to be ~0.40 meters, 水雷屋 (or his source) measured that to be ~0.38 meters, and SOYO measured somewhere between 0.390-0.425 meters (including the folded fins).

View attachment 164896

So even when 水雷屋's measurement of the VLS cells dimension is incorrect (in that he used 800mm instead of 850mm) - That 380mm is only taking the booster diameter into account, and not the inner diameter of the missile tubes which is definitely going to be larger than the diameter of the missile itself - Let alone the need of in-between walls to separate the missile tubes.

Here's another, which measured the missile to only be ~0.36 meters in diameter, and with the fins included:

View attachment 164894

TL;DR - We shouldn't really expect the 850mm VLS cells to be able to quad-pack the HHQ-9C as a forgone conclusion. And if that 950mm VLS cell project really does exist, then it's certainly a very sound move for the PLAN to pursue.

The fins shown here are too long, if it's shorter it can take advantage of the corner space wasted.

 

[AndrewS]

All this is a bit offtopic and should be more discussed in the next gen thread?

The context is that the next Type-055 variant will use a new 950mm VLS cell

 

[AndrewS]

The US navy did a report and concluded that nuclear powered cruisers/ destroyers were cost prohibitive. However this report examined nuclear reactors from the 1960's. That was a long time ago! Surely technology must have progressed within the past 60 years. Using today's technology would it be possible to build reasonably priced nuclear powered cruisers? I think the answer is yes and China will do it.

Of course this is not going to happen tomorrow. Maybe 15 years down the road we'll see....

In the West, barely any new reactors have been built in decades. Research has also been minimal.

In China, construction of modern reactors and cutting-edge research is still very recent

---

And in the Chinese context, the Navy is focused on Western Pacific contingencies and readiness. Not on long deployments with lots of sailing, so nuclear reactors make even less sense for the Type-055

 

[AndrewS]

For an efficient destroyer design ship size follows radar size, not the other way around, so a revolutionary ship size without a revolutionary radar is just a waste of resources.

It's more than just the radar.

It's the overall mission of the ship.

For example, if there is a requirement for a significant number of anti-ship ballistic missiles, the size of the radar doesn't matter but it will drive a larger number of VLS cells, which drives the size of the ship.

And we are also in an era where we have datalinks and cooperative engagement. For long range air defence, the ship's radar horizon likely means it will rely on offboard targeting