Naval launchers, guns and others

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
I noticed late in the evening yesterday, before I fell asleep, I had been thinking about the blockbuster in bottom-right which might fit something like a Tochka

(minus the wings LOL) so I had been thinking about dozen of AShBMs launched in the middle of Pacific which would be the ultimate plunging fire, like one century after the US and Japanese Navies came out with the requirement for plunging fire in the middle of Pacific
The bottom right full-bore cold-launch option is intended for missiles like the HHQ-26 and future ultra-long range cruise missiles.
 

antiterror13

Brigadier
I've been meaning to draw this for a while:
View attachment 42685
I forgot who, but somebody earlier drew a rough sketch of a dual-packed missile which I wanted to draw on Paint. Here each box is 85cm x 85cm. The two upper tubes have 10cm width peripheral exhaust vents represented in red. This allows for a maximum missile diameter of about 32cm. The bottom dual-packed configuration allows for a maximum missile diameter of about 45cm. This was somewhat eye-opening for me, as I did not expect such a large diameter would be possible with dual-packing. This opens up the possibility that a missile like the CY-5 or the Yu-8/missile booster or even a modified HHQ-16 with folding fins and strakes, could all be dual-packed in a 7m UVLS tube.

Excellent! @Iron Man . It was an eye opening for me as well.

Would it be possible (cold launch) to still have quad packed with 2x 45cm missile and the other 2 are smaller, let's say 25cm? ... so the space is optimised
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Excellent! @Iron Man . It was an eye opening for me as well.

Would it be possible (cold launch) to still have quad packed with 2x 45cm missile and the other 2 are smaller, let's say 25cm? ... so the space is optimised
Yes, but all 4 would have to be cold-launched. The thing with smaller missiles is that they tend to be last-ditch or nearly last-ditch air defense missiles which means you need them to have a rapid reaction capability, which is best achieved by hot launch. Cold launch is significantly slower and really relevant mainly for the massive long ranged missiles like HHQ-9, HHQ-26, etc.
 
The bottom right full-bore cold-launch option is intended for missiles like the HHQ-26 and future ultra-long range cruise missiles.
OK

I'm wondering if in the future they'll develop like
Dong-Feng AShBM scaled down to fit in
if you know what I'm saying

would be cool (and "just great" for the Opfor SAG)
 
Yes, but all 4 would have to be cold-launched. The thing with smaller missiles is that they tend to be last-ditch or nearly last-ditch air defense missiles which means you need them to have a rapid reaction capability, which is best achieved by hot launch. Cold launch is significantly slower and really relevant mainly for the massive long ranged missiles like HHQ-9, HHQ-26, etc.
entertainingly, missiles' area is almost the same for the two arrangements in the upper row of your chart Yesterday at 9:10 AM
Another graphic:
View attachment 42692

The 32 and 61cm tubes are somewhat arbitrary given we don't know what the exhaust venting requirements are for any of the missiles, but the 45 and 77cm tubes are close to the maximum size that is physically possible.
:
two times pi*0.225^2 is about 0.318;
four times pi*0.16^2 is about 0.322

I like the whopper though LOL of course not only because of
pi*0.385^2 = 0.466
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
OK

I'm wondering if in the future they'll develop like
Dong-Feng AShBM scaled down to fit in
if you know what I'm saying

would be cool (and "just great" for the Opfor SAG)
That is an interesting thought, but I'm not sure if such an ASBM would achieve enough velocity or altitude to adversely affect enemy sensors.

entertainingly, missiles' area is almost the same for the two arrangements in the upper row of your chart Yesterday at 9:10 AM
Actually they are exactly the same size cells and missile diameters. I was illustrating the difference in how a finned missile and straked missile could be packed into the same size cell.
 
That is an interesting thought, but I'm not sure if such an ASBM would achieve enough velocity or altitude ...
my lunch break is coming to an end so I'll be quick:

had they used a Tochka (LOL hope it's obvious they wouldn't have used a Tochka), they could've gotten up to 26 km according to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


as for speed,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
says 1100 meters per second

have to go
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
my lunch break is coming to an end so I'll be quick:

had they used a Tochka (LOL hope it's obvious they wouldn't have used a Tochka), they could've gotten up to 26 km according to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


as for speed,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
says 1100 meters per second

have to go
Hmm, mach 3 with a range of only 120km. I think I would rather have a YJ-18 in that tube. The short range makes the high speed and high terminal approach less of a worthwhile tradeoff in today's environment with ubiquitous SM-3 and SM-6. Double that range and maybe there's an argument for it.
 
Hmm, mach 3 with a range of only 120km. I think I would rather have a YJ-18 in that tube. The short range makes the high speed and high terminal approach less of a worthwhile tradeoff in today's environment with ubiquitous SM-3 and SM-6. Double that range and maybe there's an argument for it.
thought I made it clear something newer than a Tochka would be needed LOL

but you might be right in the sense it would be a waste of resources to first spend money on a mini-AShBM (LOL) and then take up the space which could be used by regular AShMs which would be simply used in a saturation attack

I've been intrigued though by the idea of a volley of warheads as heavy as 12" shells, fired well over-the-horizon in the middle of the Pacific, falling at some really steep angle, doing several-Mach ... the time of flight of several minutes
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
thought I made it clear something newer than a Tochka would be needed LOL

but you might be right in the sense it would be a waste of resources to first spend money on a mini-AShBM (LOL) and then take up the space which could be used by regular AShMs which would be simply used in a saturation attack
It's not necessarily a bad idea, since not all Aegis ships are getting updated to the BMD baseline. That would make them more susceptible to ballistic missile attacks from above, I reckon. It would just have to have the right range, which in the case of a ballistic missile happens to depend on its speed and trajectory, so if you increase the speed, you get more range and higher trajectory to boot. OTOH you only have a volume of about 85 x 85 x 900cm to work with. And you would have some serious minimum range issues.

I've been intrigued though by the idea of a volley of warheads as heavy as 12" shells, fired well over-the-horizon in the middle of the Pacific, falling at some really steep angle, doing several-Mach ... the time of flight of several minutes
Targeting would be a serious challenge, as there is no good way to recalibrate your fires when you miss unless you have a spotter near enough to your target to call in corrections. During a flight time of say 5 minutes a ship traveling at 30 knots would already have moved 4.6km from its initial position, potentially in any direction. This is the same reason large naval guns had ranges that were limited to the visual horizon (WW1) or radar horizon (WW2).
 
Top