Future Chinese Missile Destroyer?

kw64 said:

The 10-meter-long Granit anti-ship missiles are mounted in VLS, which allows as many as 20 of such huge missiles to be fitted onto a single Russian warship. By adopting VLS for ASM can greatly increase the number of missile can be carried.

Click to expand...

You also increase complexity. It is not like you can put a couple of tubes in the hull of a ship and slide the missiles in. You need to vent the hot exhaust from the launch in a safe manner, of which the current angled launchers do. The Kirov's are a very large ship; they have the internal hull space to fit the launch system. The much smaller Slava class cruisers fit their anti-ship missiles in a angled launcher because they lack the internal space.

Don't forget that the more you put into the hull as internal space, the less room there is for other items, such as engines, generators, crew compartments, fuel, etc.

Pointblank said:

You also increase complexity. It is not like you can put a couple of tubes in the hull of a ship and slide the missiles in. You need to vent the hot exhaust from the launch in a safe manner, of which the current angled launchers do. The Kirov's are a very large ship; they have the internal hull space to fit the launch system. The much smaller Slava class cruisers fit their anti-ship missiles in a angled launcher because they lack the internal space.

Don't forget that the more you put into the hull as internal space, the less room there is for other items, such as engines, generators, crew compartments, fuel, etc.

Click to expand...

As for the hot air exhaustion problem, don't the PLA already use cold launching VLS for their AAMs? Can't they just used the same method for their ASMs?

kw64 said:

As for the hot air exhaustion problem, don't the PLA already use cold launching VLS for their AAMs? Can't they just used the same method for their ASMs?

Click to expand...

SAM's are a whole lot smaller than anti-ship missiles, which means that a cold launch system for them is smaller and can be fitted within the hull.

Firing ASMs from an angle gives better range than to VL it. And of course, as PB mentioned it, its simpler to use angled cannisters and takes up less space. Not to mention its easier to reload that way.

I think its ultimately more elegant in the long run to evolve a joint missile that can be used for both antiaircraft and antishipping purposes, of course with an active radar seeker. Current SAMs can be used against ships, so long the illuminating radars have a direct line of sight to the ship targets.

crobato said:

Firing ASMs from an angle gives better range than to VL it. And of course, as PB mentioned it, its simpler to use angled cannisters and takes up less space. Not to mention its easier to reload that way.

I think its ultimately more elegant in the long run to evolve a joint missile that can be used for both antiaircraft and antishipping purposes, of course with an active radar seeker. Current SAMs can be used against ships, so long the illuminating radars have a direct line of sight to the ship targets.

Click to expand...

The Americans used to use the Standard missile as a anti-shipping weapon in their arm-based launchers. Since the United States have moved past the arm launchers to the vertical launch systems, they have discontinued the use of the Standard missile as a anti-ship weapon.

Pointblank said:

The Americans used to use the Standard missile as a anti-shipping weapon in their arm-based launchers. Since the United States have moved past the arm launchers to the vertical launch systems, they have discontinued the use of the Standard missile as a anti-ship weapon.

Click to expand...

we are talking about future missile destroyer,next generation should not expose missile launcher out side on the deck,what ever US,japan,Europe,you can check those design....not DDG 1000 that far.

crobato said:

I think its ultimately more elegant in the long run to evolve a joint missile that can be used for both antiaircraft and antishipping purposes, of course with an active radar seeker. Current SAMs can be used against ships, so long the illuminating radars have a direct line of sight to the ship targets.

Click to expand...

A DP anti-ship and anti-air missile is going to be seriously half assed! What warhead are you going to use? A 30 pound pre frag ideal for taking down aircraft, or a 400 pound penetrating warhead for taking out a large ships?
This isn`t like ADATS where you can do to things reasonably well.
Do you want a few horrendously big and expensive SAMs, or do you sixty anit-ship missiles that will only scratch the paint?

Kinda expected more from you Crobato

maozedong said:

we are talking about future missile destroyer,next generation should not expose missile launcher out side on the deck,what ever US,japan,Europe,you can check those design....not DDG 1000 that far.

Click to expand...

DDG 1000 isn't equipped with any anti-ship missiles. The Tomahawk's they do carry are of the tactical Tomahawk series, only capable of land attack. The USN phased out TASM a long while ago.

Pointblank said:

The Americans used to use the Standard missile as a anti-shipping weapon in their arm-based launchers. Since the United States have moved past the arm launchers to the vertical launch systems, they have discontinued the use of the Standard missile as a anti-ship weapon.

Click to expand...

Are you sure of that? Seems contradictory to the marketing material, but what you said sort of does make sense.

Skorzeny said:

A DP anti-ship and anti-air missile is going to be seriously half assed! What warhead are you going to use? A 30 pound pre frag ideal for taking down aircraft, or a 400 pound penetrating warhead for taking out a large ships?
This isn`t like ADATS where you can do to things reasonably well.
Do you want a few horrendously big and expensive SAMs, or do you sixty anit-ship missiles that will only scratch the paint?

Kinda expected more from you Crobato

Click to expand...

Actually there is a serious US Navy proposal on this. Can't remember the name though, something I browsed upon once, but you can expect the first letter means "Joint".

As for the missile requiring a large warhead to take out large ships, you are forgetting that it is not necessary to sink a large ship, but only to mission kill it.

Once you get past the hull line and to the superstructure, a large warship is much more delicate and vulnerable than what you think. A fragmentation explosion from a relatively small missile can already be taking out radars, datalinks, sensors and all other stuff, not to mention crew casualties. The metal used on the superstructure is rather thin, and in some parts, even composite to reduce radar cross section. Consider also the speed and kinetic energy of the SAM hitting the superstructure; the damage lets say being hit by an S-300 sized missile like a 48N6E2 would be considerable. A hit like that and the warship can be out for the duration of the conflict, not to mention being left vulnerable for a real big size antiship missile to kill it.

Consider also that an active radar AAM and an ASM are technologically synergistic in one aspect---both are actively radar guided. Long before there was AMRAAM, the first ever actively guided operational missile was perhaps the Soviet Styx (aka Silkworm) antiship missile. The seeker technology can be developed to such a point, it can actively lock against surface targets by differentiating against sea surface clutter. Thus there is no need for a dual seeker system.