SinoSoldier
Colonel
Whoops, major brain fart on my part. I was referring to the aftward VLS cells of the bow complex (i.e. the cells directly in front of the Type 730).
PLA Navy news, pics and videos
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Whoops, major brain fart on my part. I was referring to the aftward VLS cells of the bow complex (i.e. the cells directly in front of the Type 730).
antiterror13
Brigadier
do you know what you are talking about ... do you know how credible POP3 is?
don't make a comment that you don't know about
I have not seen that many pictures of the YJ-18. But from the few, including the ones that were being launched, look like a close copy of the 3M-54 Klub or Kalibr. It goes along with a known pattern of copying Russian air frames and concepts, but improving on it with indigenous electronics.
U-VLS is said to have three lengths, 3.3m, 7m and 9m versions.
This one is from Blitzo's own blog which he references a document.
GJB 5860–2006
I am not sure if there is some mistake about the 3.3m length, even if this one is for self defense only. The only thing here that might fit in as a VLS would be the the short ranged HQ-17, but there is no naval version of this.
I might likely think that this should be 5.3m instead of 3.3, as the self defense version of the MK. 41 is 5.3m. 5.3m could fit the HQ-16 if it is 5m in length.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
I think we should be cautious about judging these missile systems based on outer appearance alone. The development of the YJ-18 wouldn't have been so tedious and its designer given a top scientific award if it were merely a reverse-engineered Klub. With the level of changes that they've made to the interior subsystems, it is not unreasonable to expect changes to its physical dimensions as well if the need for it is there.
Given the fact that the Tomahawk is less than 7 meters long, there are no technical limitations preventing the Chinese from developing a similar member for its YJ-18 family.
The 3.3 m VLS hasn't been deployed anywhere, so its usefulness isn't a point of contention at this point. I suspect that it doubles as an ATGM launcher and SAM system for short-ranged land-attack systems such as the CM-501G or HJ-series. Heck, you might even pack a few DK-9 SAMs.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
It’s more about internal volume efficiency. If you know your ship will always need to carry XX number of SAMs for self and fleet defence, what benefit is there to have an oversized VLS for those missiles? Better to install a shallower VLS so you can use the saved internal volume for something else. Space is at a premium on warships.
If you are leaving room for a 9m VLS, what benefit is there in installing a shorter VLS in that space, just to need to change that out for a deep cell if you want to load bigger missiles? Having a 9m VLS does not mean you can only fire strike length missiles from it. You can absolutely load and fire smaller missiles from it.
However, because of the aforementioned internal volume considerations, I would be surprised if all the VLS, especially for a smaller ship like the 052D, would all be 9m, which means those deep cells are at a premium, and would not normally be used for shorter missiles unless the ship was on a very specific air defence only mission.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
That would totally render the advantages offered by the UVLS obsolete, mainly the capability to switch missile loadouts depending on the mission circumstances. Now I truly understand the value of space aboard a tightly packed hull, but it will seem equally odd to me that the 052D designers would want to negate what is probably the biggest advantage that the 052D has over it's contemporaries.
Not really -- the 7m cells are still able to accommodate missiles of that length or smaller.
Obviously it would be optimal to have as many 9m cells in a ship as sensibly possible without compromising the rest of the ship's internals, but given that 052D relatively speaking is a smaller ship and that a 9m long, 0.85m diameter VLS cell is among the largest 8 cell block configurations in the world in terms of dimensions, then internal space may indeed be at more of a premium.
We don't know what kind of trade offs of internal arrangement vs 9m long VLS modules they would've had to make, but I'm sure it wasn't a choice they made lightly and they would've squeezed as much out of the hull to get as many 9m long VLS cells in there as practically/safely as possible.
Tomahawk is only 5.6 meters long, 6.2 meters with the booster. Launch mass is said to be 1300kg. Missile with booster is said to be 1600kg. (Wiki entry)
3M-14E is 6.2 meters long with booster. I don't have figure for the bare missile. This is sub launched. The 8.2 meter long 3M-14TE comes from its booster. Weight figures from the Ross brochure is undoubtedly with the boosters on. But 3M-14E with the booster is 1696, which is only a small difference from the Tomahawk. So the question is why does the missile need a huge booster for VLS launch?
In any case its hard to find a cruise missile that will use up 7 meters in length. HN-1 (Hong Niao-1) is around 6.4m long, this is old cruise missile, later evolved to the CJ series. Weighs 1400kg.
YJ-62 is about 6.1m and probably 7m with booster, with a launch mass of 1140 kg to 1350kg. This ASM is based on other cruise missiles, and I think this is a good indicator of Chinese cruise missile design. The external appearance looks exactly like the DF-10 or DJ-10, it would be hard to tell them apart from the looks alone.
The culprit here is the booster. What is the minimum to lift the missile out of the VLS, and what kind of solid fuel propellant technology the booster can have. Also less weight for the missile itself, and you need less booster length too. How long do you need the booster to be? Being .85m wide, you can also have a booster that is shorter but wider.
Just my opinion, its possible to have a Chinese cruise missile launched from a 7m long VLS. 7m long VLS can have either HQ-9 or CM option, while the ASM are for 9m long VLS.
As a note, SCALP cruise missiles fired by French frigates against Syrian targets were from 7m long A70 VLS.
Is there any chinese quad packing capability demonstrated amongst any pair of missile-vls as of yet? (Dk-10a etc)
I think it'll be one of the most important developments for the u-vls,
Not only clearing space for more important long range interceptors and AShM but also increasing Probability of Kill for each Uvls module available for anti air operation
I think it'll be one of the most important developments for the u-vls,
Not only clearing space for more important long range interceptors and AShM but also increasing Probability of Kill for each Uvls module available for anti air operation
hmm, you are apparently talking about western firefighters.
Worst of all, you are calling these three "fools" by saying they did not do as you expected.
But, I will leave it as it is since we have different standard of hero and fool.