Personally, IMHO that design is a fanciful construct of a wish list. Bear this in mind:
I had dealings with DERA (before they became Quinetic) some 4 years ago. I attended a conference where DERA discussed trimaran designs that they had bought from Russian researchers. The Russians were keen on large scale trimarans as solutions for littoral work and arsenal type vessels. The persistent limitation was vessel size. At that stage all the evidence was pointing to a limit on vessel tonnage and length (as a ratio - which I unfort can't remember and can't find in my notes). Unless there has been a quantum leap in technology improvements, then I can't see the 10,000ton trimaran as being deliverable. The larger trimaran designs are not classic shapes like this - they can't be designed as such at this stage. Also, I find it hard to see that any nation would start off with their first trimaran as a large capital sized vessel. All the countries that have a demonstrated experience with trimaran designs did test and development work on nautical CTD's of a smaller tonnage. China has yet to demonstrate a build and design comprehension on a smaller vessel first. - A larger one based on the shown design seems really, really unlikely.
Also the weapons fitout for that vessel is imbalanced (as a trimaran). The size of the AUR's alone indicates that it's a wish list and not a practical design. You can make educated guesses by comparing known dimensions of the helo and then extrapolate them to other vessel dimensions.
armage said:
IF this picture is real then count the revolver VLS each have 8 lids, theres 16 of those revolver VLS... so 8x16(128)
Much like the 52C with 6 lid and and 8 revolver VLS 6x8(48)
But I doubt it will look like this the PLAN will probably go with box launch instead of this...
No, au contraire. VLS cannisters are a better solution by a considerable margin. I would doubt that the PLAN would go for older technology solutions when the advantages of a VLS are well established. Thats why they copied the concept in the first place. No nation building a new technology solution with the apparent design doctrine shown, will go to a box launcher. It completely disrupts the design principle and probably design doctrine for that vessel.
armage said:
But it also depends on if they want cold launch or hot launch...
:help Anyone know what that aritcle is talking about? :?
Cold Launch capability:
The missile is ejected from the launch silo by a gas or steam jet before ignition of its primary or first stage motor.
A cold launch greatly reduces the damage to the silo, on a land based system it also reduces the silo rearming effort considerably.
Hot Launch capability:
The missile is ejected from the launch silo by ignition of its primary or first stage motor within the silo - ie it is hot boosted out.
This is a much more equipment destructive process as it requires armouring and thermal cladding of the cannisters so as to not effect nearby systems, and if near another cannister, you do not want that heat triggering side effects.
It is highly highly unlikely that any AUR cannister would be a hot launcher in a vessel like that. It would weigh a little bit more I suspect, and the cannister designs would be larger to compensate for heat and electrical cladding issues (IMO).
I'd want to see a bit more evidence than what has been shown in a "painted" concept.
: