PLA Navy news, pics and videos

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
3.36M*3.36M*12.86M????
Isn’t that ICBM size?
That's what I'm wondering about.

The estimated dimension of said VLS modules does look capable of carrying BM and HGV-sized payloads (given that only one missile is carried per module), though certainly not intercontinental range-capable.

More realistically would be BMs and HGVs that are medium range-capable, if not intermediate range-capable.

However, I'm thinking more about the possibility that this cell module being quad-packable, assuming a 2x2 configuration.

Even by taking away the spaces in between the individual VLS cells, there's around 1500mm of VLS cell diameter to boast.

The 850mm UVLS cells doesn't seem to make much sense in this case, because:
1. 2x 850mm cells side-by-side is 1700mm, i.e. huge waste of spacing in between the cells;
2. 3x 850mm cells side-by-side is 2550mm, i.e. again, smaller but still rather large waste of spacing in between the cells (and how would they be arranged inside the 052D's hull, anyway?); and
4. 4x 850mm cells side-by-side is 3400mm, i.e. bigger than the VLS modules in the photo, with zero spacing in between the cells.

VLS cell depth-wise, I think somewhere around 9-10 meters would do (if not 11 meters).

Hence, I'm mystified by this. Something doesn't look right.

Or, conversely - It could just be my (and 大包CG's) poor judgement. They might really just be very normal-looking UVLS modules for the 052Ds - Or perhaps they aren't even VLS modules to begin with (and that we are just overthinking things).
 
Last edited:

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
That's what I'm wondering about.

The estimated dimension of said VLS modules does look capable of carrying BM and HGV-sized payloads (given that only one missile is carried per module), though certainly not intercontinental range-capable.

More realistically would be BMs and HGVs that are medium range-capable, if not intermediate range-capable.

However, I'm thinking more about the possibility that this cell module being quad-packable, assuming a 2x2 configuration.

Even by taking away the spaces in between the individual VLS cells, there's around 1500mm of VLS cell diameter to boast.

The 850mm UVLS cells doesn't seem to make much sense in this case, because:
1. 2x 850mm cells side-by-side is 1700mm, i.e. huge waste of spacing in between cells;
2. 3x 850mm cells side-by-side is 2550mm, i.e. again, smaller but still rather large waste of spacing in between cells (and how would they be arranged onboard the 052Ds anyway?); and
4. 4x 850mm cells side-by-side is 3400mm, i.e. bigger than the VLS modules in the photo, with zero spacing in between cells.

VLS cell depth-wise, I think somewhere around 9-10 meters would do (if not 11 meters).

Hence, I'm mystified by this. Something doesn't look right.

Or, conversely - It could just be my (and 大包CG's) poor judgement. They might really just be very normal-looking UVLS modules for the 052Ds - Or perhaps they aren't even VLS modules, to begin with (and that we are just overthinking things).
I don’t think you are over thinking. These look real.

The volume, as a single cell, is way more than a Trident D5, see
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I also can’t see how DF26, or 27 will efficiently fit these modules as google is saying they have 1.4m diameter.
 

Taiban

Junior Member
Registered Member
Latest CMSI Report- Summary below

China’s development of a credible sea-based deterrent has important implications for the PLAN, for China’s nuclear strategy, and for U.S.-China strategic stability. For the PLAN, the need to protect the SSBN force may divert resources away from other missions; it may also provide justification for further expansion of the PLAN fleet size. For China’s nuclear strategy and operations, the SSBN force may increase operational and bureaucratic pressures for adopting a more forward-leaning nuclear strategy. For U.S.-China strategic stability, the SSBN force will have complex effects, decreasing risks that Chinese decisionmakers confront use-or-lose escalation pressures, making China less susceptible to U.S. nuclear threats and intimidation and therefore perceiving lower costs to conventional aggression, and potentially introducing escalation risks from conventional-nuclear entanglement to the maritime domain.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top