Its called cold launched for a reason. Using dynamite or some explosive would have negated the safety benefits of a cold launched.
The HQ-9 should have copied the system used by its inspirational ancestor, the S-300.
054/A FFG Thread II
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Its called cold launched for a reason. Using dynamite or some explosive would have negated the safety benefits of a cold launched.
The HQ-9 should have copied the system used by its inspirational ancestor, the S-300.
Cold launched system would have looked like this. It would simply be the easiest if a near 7m missile is used on a 9m cell with the cold launch gas bottle filling up part of the balance.
U-VLS is both cold and hot launched. If hot launched the system would have functioned like the picture on the right. The 054A's AJK-16 would have functioned much like a Mk. 41.
I am theorizing ways how a near meter cold launched missile fit on a shorter VLS cell.
A hot launched VLS is physically longer than its cell length to allow for hot gases to escape from the bottom (#4 and #7). I am theorizing that if the CCL is fitted with a cold launched missile, the space below (#7) would have been used for the gas container, with the missile canister length stretching into the region where #7 is. The canister diameter could be wider to fill as the side channels for venting won't be needed for a cold launched so this could allow for larger gas container on the bottom without extending its length further. In any case, its not likely that U-VLS fitting the HHQ-9 is truly only 7 meters deep physically. 7 and 9 meter lengths might not be holy canon that the U-VLS might be following.
Last edited:
Dynamite does not necessarily mean solid rocket fuel in the booster. Did you notice the smoke arising out from the launcher? Where do you think it is coming from?
If dynamite is used the missile and the VLS itself would have been blown up.
broadsword
Brigadier
Why don't you just tell us what you know instead riddling us?
broadsword
Brigadier
1: the Grigorovich class is comparable to 054A, however both it and 054A are very much ships of an older era.
2: Redut is capable of firing some fairly long range missiles like 9M96.
3: Yet the Type 26s have the capability to carry LR SAMs in their strike length Mk-41s if needed.
Counter example: The USN's requirements for FFGX demands the ability to fire new SM-2 variants (SM-2IIIC). The Chinese example would be modernized variants of HHQ-9 (I believe there is a PLAN SM-6 equivalent in development as well).
(slide 3 above)
So I think it is quite reasonable for us to consider it a reasonable requirement for 054B to have the ability to carry and fire a certain number of LRSAMs if the need arises.
I belive the main focus of 054B should be ASW and AAW, with competent ASuW.
- ASW will obviously be done via 054B's more advanced sonar suite+helicopters+VLS launched ASROC type weapons (likely newer and larger ones that can use the UVLS full space)
- For AAW I envision it being able to carry HHQ-9 variants, the new quad packable 3-5 missile that's been rumoured, and also able to carry and guide older HHQ-16 variants as well. For different missions the composition of the AAW missile load could differ between mostly quad packed missiles or a mix between quad packed missiles and HHQ-9 variants. I envision HHQ-16s would not be integrated into the UVLS, and instead HHQ-16 will only be fielded on ships with the old VLS type (054As, 051C, and any other ships upgraded with the old VLS type). The new UVLS will be oriented around 3 SAM types: the new quad packed MR SAM, HHQ-9 variants, and the rumoured new VLRSAM.
- For ASuW, I envision 054B carrying 8 slant launched AShMs or having an additional 8 dedicated UVLS for AShMs, either or.
No solid rocket fuel isn't dynamite. The difference between solid fuel propellant and explosive is the rate which energy is released. With rockets this is gradual and controlled.. With explosive, it comes all of a sudden. Its like the difference between running a 100 meter sprint vs. a 10km marathon.
The point of a cold launch system is safety. There are no combustibles used for its launch and there is less wear and tear with its use. If something goes wrong with the missile, it won't blow up inside the VLS but only after it is ejected. Hence cold launched is preferred for larger missiles, and the HQ-9 is nearly twice as heavy as an HQ-16 (1300kg vs. 700kg). Ironically, the YJ-18 ASM, which may weigh between 2000 to 2500kg, is hot launched, but that's probably because the missile itself it too big to include a cold launch system.
Maybe someone can calculate the physical length of an HQ-9 canister using that of the land based variant, which is also cold launched.
9M96E is still a fairly small missile. At 490kg, its smaller than a Shtil or HQ-16 or SM-2 MR class missile which are at 700kg. The Aster 30 used in European frigates and Type 45 are also at 490kg. You are getting long range from small missiles. You are not putting large missiles for longer ranges.
If needed but it is not originally spec'ed to it.
But again SM-2 variants would be in the same size and weight category as the HQ-16. Or better yet to say, the HQ-16 is equivalent to an earlier version of the SM-2. It might just be better to evolve the HQ-16 to a point where it can be longer ranged. The size of the missile and the amount of propellant that can be put on it can allow for a longer ranged missile. Its possible the HQ-16's range is limited by how far the range of the Front Dome illuminators go.
HHQ-9 is more the equivalent of the SM-2ER, which gave way to the SM-6. You are talking of 1300kg + sized missiles here as opposed to 700kg sized missiles like the SM-2MR series.
It would be more efficient if they take the route of improving the HQ-16 rather than stuffing the HQ-9 into the 054B. The HHQ-9 and more advanced derivatives of it will be the justification for keeping 052X and 055X category vessels.
Using a more advanced HQ-16 does not preclude the use of U-VLS however. You can use HQ-16 on U-VLS, although this might feel like a thin person on oversized pants. You need the space between the missile canister and the wall of the VLS as the transfer channel for exhaust gases anyway. What an HQ-16 allow you to have is a shorter U-VLS. Not 3.3 meters, but maybe around 5.3m to 5.5m, as an HQ-16 is around 5 meters. You can fit the ASROC in it too. The extra diameter of the U-VLS will allow you to develop a cold launched quad pack system, and I say cold launch as there won't be enough space for transfer channels for the exhaust gas for a hot launched system. Note that the Russian Shtil VLS and the Redut VLS for the 9M96 and 9M100 missiles are also cold launched. These missiles can be larger than the ESSM and maybe more of the 9M96E2 or Aster 30 class of missile, allowing you over 100km ranges from quad packed missiles. Mind you the 9M96 missile family was originally intended to be quad packed into S-300 missile canisters on land.
I think this becomes more of a question about HHQ-16 then.
Either way I believe 054B should be designed with the ability to carry and launch LRSAMs of a certain number. Whether it is HHQ-9 or some kind of future advanced HHQ-16 variant is largely immaterial to me.
The reason I would prefer HHQ-9 is because I believe the HHQ-16s do not have a future beyond the 054As and ships upgraded with 054A's weapon and sensor suites. If they end up developing a much improved variant of HHQ-16 and integrating it on the U VLS then it could be an option.
But in that case the PLAN would basically have four tiers of naval VLS SAMs that can be fired from its UVLS, from smallest to largest:
- Future quad packed MR SAMs
- HHQ-16 family SAMs (MR to LR)
- HHQ-9 family SAMs (LR)
- HHQ-X family SAMs (VLR, SM-6+ class)
It's far from unreasonable, but I think it would be neater to take out the HHQ-16 category that straddles the MR and LR category.
Hyperwarp
Captain
Regarding "hot vs cold" launch,
What happens if the missile fails to fire its rockets in time during cold launch? In the 052C the VLS is angled and the missile would likely just fall into the ocean. But what about the VLS in the 052D and 055 (as well as several Russian systems)? The missile would fall back onto the ship. In hot launch, any missile ignition failure would mean the missile just sits in the VLS.
Like to know your thoughts on this.
What happens if the missile fails to fire its rockets in time during cold launch? In the 052C the VLS is angled and the missile would likely just fall into the ocean. But what about the VLS in the 052D and 055 (as well as several Russian systems)? The missile would fall back onto the ship. In hot launch, any missile ignition failure would mean the missile just sits in the VLS.
Like to know your thoughts on this.