By: raptor2019 - 25th January 2012 at 15:33
New USN Aircraft Carrier’s Electromagnetic Launcher
General Atomics Completes Delivery of Motor Generators for Electromagnetic Launcher for New Aircraft Carrier. General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems Group (GA-EMS) celebrated a significant milestone with the delivery of the 12th and final Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) energy storage system motor generator set to Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) for installation in the new Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, CVN 78.
By: edisonone - 27th October 2004 at 23:01
Mr. Burgerman, you gotta be careful the exact words you use…”nationalistic”….then edisonone will tell you heshe’s not a Chinese citizen…that’s the funny part, serious complexes…
Huh !!!! Confused as always! But, definitely
no full-fledge no full-blooded all the way kinda Dutchman however.
Merely a Dutchman of a different ethnicity.
Foolish Mr. Pinkov :p… Giving the
http://www.kanwa.com/free/2004/06/e0604b.htm
ChiCom’s more credit than they deserve :confused: :p ???
.
By: plawolf - 26th October 2004 at 20:58
No problem!.
ahhh, much better, cheers mate! 😉
Gunships as aircover for FACs is a bit of a stretch isnt it?
well, not really if the opposition is only ship-bore helos.
the harrier would be ideal, but then nothing is perfect.
If you want to cover a patrol zone you dont do it with a vessel who’s primary search sensor is limited to 20nm or so!. You do it with a vessel that, preferably, has an aviation capability. If it is in a contested area that better be a comprehensively equipped GP hull too!. China has a very comprehensive new FFG design in the 054 thats were the money should be going – into a decent patrol frigate.
unfortunately, ATM, there is not one chinese warship that matches that description. the only chinese warships that comes close are the 052B/C. however, one is lacking in AA while the other is deficient in ASW.
the 054 with only eight short-range, point defence HHQ7/9s will have little chance against the Su30s everyone in the neighbourhood seems to be buying.
given the current situation, submarine threats in the area seems to be low while air threats are high, so the 052C would be the best vessle to patrol the area. unfortunately, the PLAN desperately needs all the 052Cs it got around taiwan, and cant afford to have any of them wondering the south china seas while RoCAF F16s and FCK1s are shooting up the chinese fleet.
[this is going to go into some of the other points u meantioned in ur last post, but i think its best to keep the train of thought going.]
do keep in mind that no matter if it is FACs or frigates/destroyers that are patroling the area, they/it will not be able to stop a well planned and determined land grab on their own. if someone is truely determined to take an island or a dozen from china, they can shoot through any reasonable defence the chinese can put down there during peace time.
this is pretty much the worst case scenario, and then the question would be, ‘what did u loose on the first day’?
with the FACs on patrol, u loose a couple of FACs (sounding very cruel here 🙁 ) that can be easily replaced. with the 054 (and god forbid!) the 052C on patrol, u loose one of the major components of ur entire navy! and with it, perhaps even ur very ability to effectively respond!
remeber that a military presence is meant to be more symbolic then it is military. for example, from what i gather, argintina only finally committed to taking the falklands AFTER the UK had decommisioned its arctic partol ship, (removing almost all military presence) and the argintinians took that as the UK not take the falklands as too important. and there is a great deal of speculation that argintina would not have attacked had the partol ship not been laid off.
the FACs will be sent there to remind ppl that china is still interested in the disputed islands. they also act as a political ‘tripwire’, as in order to take a disputed island, u will most likely have to kill chinese servicemen in the process, hence drastically increasing the chances of china taking the issue to the next level. the flip side is that these FACs will be fairly unimportant to the PLAN’s capabilies in general, so loosing them will not hinder the PLAN’s ability to respond. (there is a difference between deterrance and temptation 😉 how tempted would argintina have been had the RN sent one of its carriers to partol the falklands on its own before the conflict. )
before, without a military presence, if someone takes a disputed island, then the only realistic way china can get it back is to send troops to expell the ‘hostile’s who have landed there. but there is every chance of bloodshed and escalation, and so the difficult political decision will have to be made by beijing, and beijing will most likely take all the international wrap for a small shooting war if things get out of hand. (thats why china is stuck to complaining about landgraps so far).
however, with FACs there, it will be the ppl who decide to take the islands that will have to make the hard decisions (and face the political baggage if things go wrong). this effectively raises the stakes for them, and so it is hoped that this will help to deter them from further ‘advantures’.
if it doesnt, (again sounding creul) the PLAN wont loose anything important, and it gives china the inititive and political mandate to re-take the islands.
Fine. What are the FACs doing in the meantime though?. Very little presumably so there value is equivalently very little isnt it!
well, apply that idea to the military as a whole, and what does that mean? one should not have a military unless one is about to go to war?
hope u see where this is going. 😉
the idea is to be better safe then sorry, and its not a just a short-term thing either. if the PLAN do someday feild a new FFG that emcompases all the expectations u have of the 054, then these will most likely be, first and foremost, deployed to patrol china’s long sea lanes, and also to beef up the 052C/sov centric battle groups. my guess is that only after at least a decade of it being introduced into service will some new FFG be available to patrol the disputed islands of the south china sea. seeing, how there is no such vessel at the moment, and it will take at least serval years to upgrade the 054 to that level, time does not seem to be on ur side here. as by the time u get these FFGs, there might not be much left to patrol (at the rate islands have been ‘disappearing’ off chinese maps).
think of it this way, how much is a dozen or so of these new FACs going to be worth? compare that to the natural resources under these islands and the benefits of fishing rights there.
ideally, the PLAN should send 054s with 052C level of AA capabilties to patrol these islands. however, given the situation at hand, FACs will be the best option until a better FFG or DDG becomes available.
i’ve got other points to make about the rest of ur post, but i really have to go now. so i will post the rest of my reply when i have more time.
By: F-18 Hamburger - 25th October 2004 at 20:10
Vortex: What’s your email? I tried to PM you something but yours is disabled
By: Jonesy - 22nd October 2004 at 02:56
first off, would u mind using the ‘quote’ function please? just makes skimming lot easier. cheers.
No problem!.
well, if they are based on or near some of the larger islands, then there is no reason why gunships cant also be based there should the situation merits it.
Gunships as aircover for FACs is a bit of a stretch isnt it?.
however, the main tasks these FACs will likely take on would be enforing chinese claims in the area by patroling. normally it might take a destroyer or frigate, but seeing how china donr have that many of the newer versons of these babies and also that they will be needed much more up north, these FACs can fill in the gap in peace time.
If you want to cover a patrol zone you dont do it with a vessel who’s primary search sensor is limited to 20nm or so!. You do it with a vessel that, preferably, has an aviation capability. If it is in a contested area that better be a comprehensively equipped GP hull too!. China has a very comprehensive new FFG design in the 054 thats were the money should be going – into a decent patrol frigate.
in the extremely unlikely situation that tensions do boil over, these FACs wont be left to fend for themselves. PLAN reinforcements will be sent in. the critical factor is the amount and type.
Fine. What are the FACs doing in the meantime though?. Very little presumably so there value is equivalently very little isnt it!.
with the FACs in area, there will already be some seriouse anti-shipping firepower in the area. the PLAN can probably get away with only sending down 2 or 3 of its heavy warships, maybe consistancing of one 052C for airdefence and 2 052Bs or 054s for escort and anti-sub (plus some flankers).
Whats more valuable in a forward deployed situation where air cover is less than total – a flotilla of missile craft or an extra couple of 054 FFG’s with associated aviation and comprehensive air, surface and subsurface sensor capability?. I’d take a 052C and four 054’s as a task force over the 052C, two 054’s and 8 2208’s every time. The first group may not pack the nearly 90 SSM’s of the second, but, it still sports at least 40 antiship missiles – a number quite sufficient to cope with an opposing frigate force of comparable or greater numbers. The frigate group, more importantly, would be significantly more able to deal with air and submarine threats unsupported.
if conflict do erupt across the straits, and the US opt not to get directly involved in the fighting (as i believe). then some might try a land grab while china’s is focused on taiwan.
Every bit more the reason to have task force units capable of independent operation.
having these FACs means that china can maintain a credibale military deterrance even if its main surface fleets are all engaged elsewhere.
How credible are these things, on their own, if they can only self-designate within 20nm from target, IF they get that close, and have no anti-air or ASW capability?. FACs are a false economy PLAWolf – they always have been.
im a little confused, what area of operation are u talking about here? chinese coast or south china sea? china will most likely keep its older FACs for EEZ enforcement around the mainland, while sending the new FACs down south if deemed necessary.
I think some clarification in terms is necessary here. Most nations claim a 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone around their coastlines. In areas where the zones of different coutries overlap you get boundary area disputes on fishing and mineral rights and the like. These require patrolling by assets that can cover a maximum amount of area at one time. That is NOT the description of a fast missile craft – stealthy or not!.
also, u seemed to have gotten the wrong emphysis. the main task of the FACs will be to provide a military presence, with anti-piracy as a secondary mission.
What do you mean providing a military presence?. You can put a frigate patrol zone in an area as a military presence?. Thats what the RN do with their various patrol taskings. Why do you need to build a base and stick a flotilla of FACs in the area to provide a presence?.
buying off-the-shelf western kit isnt really an option for the PRC because of the arms ban. the EU is talking of lifting the ban
An arms embargo that stops the French is a rarity. Plus didnt Racal sell a couple of Searchwater surface-search sets to the PRC a couple of years back?.
Well, in peace time u cant just sink someone cos u dont like the look of them (even if u might want to ), but if u want to maintain a steak on a piece of land, u have to be there on the spot to enforce ur claim, or the otehr guy might take it as u have abandoned ur claim if u stopped patroling there, or didnt show up to drive off anyone who landed there. (hey, thats the way things work down there, and china has lost the most number of islands that way )
Yeah we had a similar problem with a group of islands we didnt patrol properly a few years back!. The siting of a flotilla of Fast Missile Boats on the Falklands wouldnt have done much to prevent that invasion that a properly equipped and manned garrison and a few shore-based missile batteries wouldnt have achieved much cheaper. I suspect a similar situation exists in the South China Sea.
there is also the matter of the sheer number of islands in dispute. for the price of one destroyer, u can have at least a dozen FACs, more numbers means more islands protected. and being stealthy means its harder for the others to track u and take the islands u dont patrol.
I thought you had that fundamentally wrong. Do you think you can buy a dozen or so FACs and sprinkle them around a couple of island chains and maintain any kind of surveillance with them?. Take Malaysia as an example, they have extensive island strewn waters to cover and look what theyre acquiring to do the job – Meko A100 OPVs – chopper capable and with good endurance and sensors. Just two of these vessels, with choppers, will be able to maintain surveillance over a greater area than your 12 FACs and they will be able to stay out longer on station with lower crewing and support requirements.
also, if the fighting is in and around the island chains, then FACs will have a natural advanatge over larger ships, as the islands might interfer with long range radar.
Until their choppers appear and blast your FACs with Penguins or Sea Skuas!.
did u miss the section when i explained why it is unlikely the USN would be able to amass a force the size u are thinking of before the war is over?
No, I didnt miss it, it was just inaccurate. I gave you the names of the three US carriers that are right now, as I type this, within several days steaming of the South China Sea. Irrespective of whether they would respond or not they are very much there and they could respond given the order. That is a simple, indisputable, fact Wolf.
first off, there is currently only one US carrier group based permanatedly in the asia-pacific area, there is talk of adding a second one, but as far as i know, that is not final yet.
There may be only one permanently forward based, but, there is more often than not at least one other carrier group in the Pacific and, nearly always, another in or around the Arabian Gulf.
secondly, the chinese will never fight an all out war with the US over some islands in the south china sea. if there is any fighting at all down there, it will be low intensity frictional fighting between a couple of hot headed captains. at worst it will escalate into a limited war, focusing mainly on sea and air battles. no reason whatsoever for the USN to get involved in the fighting. at most the USN will show up to break it up.
Absolutely irrelevent. The fact remains that those carriers are there and can force entry whenever. The point at issue was that in the face of air threat the 2208 design FACs are unquestioningly vulnerable. You suggested that only the single US CVSG would face them so the air threat is manageable. I’m showing you where that air threat will come from.
They will do if u are thinking of amassing a fleet the size u want (6~7 full carrier battle groups). u cant just pull ships away from their previous ops without finding replacements to fill in, and u cant just pull that many ships away without consequences and reprocussions.
No. I said 6 carriers in Desert Storm. I went on to say, with the leaner USN today, that 4 carrier groups are more likely (the three I’ve mentioned plus another from San Diego). This may leave the fifth fleet without a carrier until one can come in from the Med or Atlantic but they’ve done that before. No major gapping necessary, hell, they may even get the French to deploy the de Gaulle to the gulf for a bit!.
well, the only thing the PLAN is really afraid of is the USN, and maybe very intimidated by the JDFN. however, there is only one remotely likely scenario that would bring the PLAN in direct combat with any of those two – taiwan. as such, its not about picking and choosing what battles to fight, but rather proparing for the only likely one. (just think about it, what is there in the south china sea is worth china and the US having a go at each other over?)
This is politics though Wolf. We’re discussing the practicalities of a weapon system you maintain the PLAN is developing. What you seem to be suggesting is that, as its never likely to face any serious opposition to expose its limitations, its a powerful system. Forgive me for saying this but thats nuts!.
might be a case for the AK, as it can somewhat help to simular the main gun, but the YJ83 missiles are completely out of place. unless they are planning to fit ICBMs on the ‘full sized’ versons, there is little useful data they can get from such weapons trials.
Except the impact of vibration loads from the new hullform on missile electronics, except the RCS values of the launcher housings, except the stability of the design as a gun platform etc, etc!.
Quote:
Believe me there is no way a 10knt sub heading south is going to get an intercept in on a 30knt carrier group going east-west. Like I said SSK’s dont do much chasing!.well no offence, but i really dont have much taste for such blankest statements (mainly because i get an erge to take it as a challenge and end up spending way too much time trying to disprove it 😛 ).
I said that the only way a Kilo would be useful is if it were positioned immediately on the bows of the carrier fleet. YOU said the sub could come in from either beam. I’ve shown you that a carrier fleet at speed is not going to be caught by a 10knt sub, attempting to remain discrete, coming in from a position abeam of the carrier group. They simply do not have the speed to make the cutoff angle and would end up in a tail chase that they would lose. Simple as that.
By: plawolf - 21st October 2004 at 23:16
first off, would u mind using the ‘quote’ function please? just makes skimming lot easier. cheers. 😉
Wolf
What use are these FACs without air-support? Remember what happened to the small vessels of the Iraqi Navy when they tried to operate without top cover?. They were easy meat for chopper-launched light AShM’s. Most of, even the smaller, fleets in theatre have some form of organic chopper capability and light AShM’s of the Penguin, Sea Skua or AS15TT types are hardly prohibitively expensive systems for anyone.
well, if they are based on or near some of the larger islands, then there is no reason why gunships cant also be based there should the situation merits it.
however, the main tasks these FACs will likely take on would be enforing chinese claims in the area by patroling. normally it might take a destroyer or frigate, but seeing how china donr have that many of the newer versons of these babies and also that they will be needed much more up north, these FACs can fill in the gap in peace time.
in the extremely unlikely situation that tensions do boil over, these FACs wont be left to fend for themselves. PLAN reinforcements will be sent in. the critical factor is the amount and type.
with the FACs in area, there will already be some seriouse anti-shipping firepower in the area. the PLAN can probably get away with only sending down 2 or 3 of its heavy warships, maybe consistancing of one 052C for airdefence and 2 052Bs or 054s for escort and anti-sub (plus some flankers).
obviously, in normal times, the PLAN wont have to resort to such measures as they can just send in the southern fleet.
however, noting china’s growing military power, i serisouly doubt any of china’s neighbours will make a military move to take disbuted territory without china’s attention first being dirverted elsewhere (que in taiwan).
if conflict do erupt across the straits, and the US opt not to get directly involved in the fighting (as i believe). then some might try a land grab while china’s is focused on taiwan.
having these FACs means that china can maintain a credibale military deterrance even if its main surface fleets are all engaged elsewhere.
also, because the bulk of the anti-shipping firepower will be carried on the FACs themselves, any fighters sent in to provide CAP will not need to carry bulky AShMs. this means that they can loiter for longer periods and also means that a south china sea campaign will not need to pull valuable strike ac like the JH7 and MKK away from taiwan.
What do you need a battery of 200km range SSMs for coastie operations for?. Look at the Indian Navy and coastguard for a good force mix for EEZ enforcement – adapted light transport aircraft and economical, lightly armed, high endurance OPVs with chopper capability are the types of systems you want checking nets and for antipiracy operations. No antiship missiles are really required!
im a little confused, what area of operation are u talking about here? chinese coast or south china sea? china will most likely keep its older FACs for EEZ enforcement around the mainland, while sending the new FACs down south if deemed necessary.
also, u seemed to have gotten the wrong emphysis. the main task of the FACs will be to provide a military presence, with anti-piracy as a secondary mission.
with a couple of c80X missiles onboard, these things will prove very intimidating to the captains of even the largets warships. especially in peace time, when they dont have the option of just shooting at it at arm’s length.
PS. the C803 is only one missile option, if the FAC can carry the C803, i dont really see it having a problem carrying a less ‘wasteful’ c801 (or a mix of the two) for none-specific operations. that is if missiles are to be carried at all. the missile bays could be usful in ferrying SF across the strait with little chance of detection in times of conflict.
Fair comment, but, investment into research is a critical method of bypassing technical ‘bottlenecks’. Hell, if they used the money spent on this 2208 vessel and its design to purchase a couple of modern Thales towed arrays they’d be better off!
lol, if only it were that simple. the PLA would probably have been willing to buy Thales itself if it meant them getting at the lastest western sonar tech. buying off-the-shelf western kit isnt really an option for the PRC because of the arms ban. the EU is talking of lifting the ban, and if it does, expect massive PLA perchases of ‘none-offensive military equipment’ like radar and sonar, but at the moment that is still some way off. as such, in the short term, the only viable option is R&D. but there is only so much money one can reasonable put into a project without it becoming wasteful.
That still infers that the major surface units of the PLAN would be locked in port, no more effective than the Argentine surface fleet in 82, in the face of a sub threat. That is surely an intolerable situation.
not necessarily. i have already given an example of a situation where the main fleet is unavailable for other reasons.
also, if the fighting is to be limited to purely military targets for political and economical reasons, then the PLAN can concerntrate its ASW assets on protecting its surface fleet. and may indeed choose to use the surface fleet as bait to trade boats, if the enemy only has limited sub-surface assets. (if the enemy takes the ‘bait’, then the PLAN’s remaining surface heavys can roam free after the enemy’s sub force has been destroyed. if they dont, the surface fleet can take on its normal missions.)
the FACs can be employed to keep the enemy surface fleet at arm’s length so that the PLAN’s heavys can concerntrate on a single task at a time.
Wolf I agree with every word you’ve written there. The strides the PLAN have made in AAW and AsuW are considerable and impressive. They still have a long way to go, but, they are clearly on the right track. This is why I dont comprehend the interest in this vessel as anything other than a trials boat to evaluate the hullform. Such a missile craft suggests a reversion to their brown-water doctrine and its brown-water, in this case, that is already well covered, against air/surface incursion, by existing assets.
as i said, the main area of operation for these boats would be the south china sea’s disputed islands. which are brown-water in effect. without carriers, the PLAN’s main surface fleet cannot operate in that area effectively without needing to deploy an unacceptably large force to ensure the security of the ships, or the construction of major AFBs on some of the largest islands.
neither are likely because such moves will carry grave economical and political consequences with little reward (after all, the PLAN already has enough problems down there without having to also deal with the massive arms purchases everyone is going to make if they feel threatened).
Do you think a heavy warship will be approaching a hostile Chinese coast without, at very least, radar reconaissance from its own chopper?. If a captain acted so galactically stupidly he deserves a missile boat closing him down. In reality what makes you think one of these FACs would get to 20nm without some form of air attention?. Remember too that the 20nm I suggested was just a hit on a 70ft masthead so it may take further time to develop the surface plot before they could start with target selection.
well, in peace time u cant just sink someone cos u dont like the look of them (even if u might want to 😉 ), but if u want to maintain a steak on a piece of land, u have to be there on the spot to enforce ur claim, or the otehr guy might take it as u have abandoned ur claim if u stopped patroling there, or didnt show up to drive off anyone who landed there. (hey, thats the way things work down there, and china has lost the most number of islands that way 🙁 )
u see the problem here for the captains of larger ships?
lets face it, the whole point of having a bigger ship is so u have bigger guns and so the other guy is more lilkely to back off from a fight, meaning u can get ur way more often. thats part of the reason why the PLAN hasnt sent FACs to patrol there before. whats the point in having a boat there if that boat is just going to be forced to back off all the time? (its not like china or anyone else other there is going to have an all out war over a couple of sunken boats).
now, if the smaller ship has bigger guns, it kinda defeats the point of having a bigger boat. 😎
there is also the matter of the sheer number of islands in dispute. for the price of one destroyer, u can have at least a dozen FACs, more numbers means more islands protected. and being stealthy means its harder for the others to track u and take the islands u dont patrol.
also, if the fighting is in and around the island chains, then FACs will have a natural advanatge over larger ships, as the islands might interfer with long range radar.
Who would try and challenge the PLAN, PLANAF and PLAAF in China’s 200 mile EEZ (the effective radius for a small FAC such as we’re discussing) with a single carrier group? Come on wolf your stacking the deck a bit in your own favour there. Like I said Desert Storm saw the employment of no less than six carriers! You think China would warrant less attention?
did u miss the section when i explained why it is unlikely the USN would be able to amass a force the size u are thinking of before the war is over? :confused:
Here your missing the true power that full-up attack carriers bring to a Navy. Mobility, mobility, mobility!. Right now there are three carriers within roughly 7 days steaming of the South China Sea – Kitty Hawk and Stennis on PACFLT deployment and the Kennedy attached to 5th Fleet in the Persian Gulf. Are you suggesting that the PLAN could assemble the naval assets you are talking about – 100+ FACs, major surface units, subs and hundreds of tactical aircraft for a major fleet action in the South China Sea without tipping off the US more than 7 days in advance?
first off, there is currently only one US carrier group based permanatedly in the asia-pacific area, there is talk of adding a second one, but as far as i know, that is not final yet.
secondly, the chinese will never fight an all out war with the US over some islands in the south china sea. if there is any fighting at all down there, it will be low intensity frictional fighting between a couple of hot headed captains. at worst it will escalate into a limited war, focusing mainly on sea and air battles. no reason whatsoever for the USN to get involved in the fighting. at most the USN will show up to break it up.
See above – they dont need months of warning!
they will do if u are thinking of amassing a fleet the size u want (6~7 full carrier battle groups). u cant just pull ships away from their previous ops without finding replacements to fill in, and u cant just pull that many ships away without consequences and reprocussions.
So if the PLAN has the ability to pick and choose its fights as your suggesting what does it need these FACs for? They are little use in a battle against the USN even in absurd numbers, they’re little use forward deployed to island bases as, according to what you say, the top-cover they depend on cannot be guaranteed too far out and for coastal defence really they just reinforce a capability that hardly needs it when you consider the other requirements the service has!
well, the only thing the PLAN is really afraid of is the USN, and maybe very intimidated by the JDFN. however, there is only one remotely likely scenario that would bring the PLAN in direct combat with any of those two – taiwan. as such, its not about picking and choosing what battles to fight, but rather proparing for the only likely one. (just think about it, what is there in the south china sea is worth china and the US having a go at each other over?)
currently the PLAN has the ability to respond to any seriously agressive land grabs in the south china sea. (and the US would have no excuse to object under those circumstances). fine, problem arises if the land grap takes place during a taiwan conflict, when the bulk of the PLAN will be tied down and unable to respond. and by the time the war is over in the straits, the PLAN might not have the ability to assure victory in another war (and by the time the PLAN recovers, so much time would have passed that the international community would see china as an agressor if it went after its lost territories).
here is where the value of the FACs comes in, as meantioned above, with minimal support, the FACs could pose a serious military threat to anyone wishing to take advanatge of the PLAN’s temparay absence, and so, hopefully deter agression, or at the very least limit its damage.
Very much not the case and I’ve already given you part of the reason why. This boat is trialling the SWATH hullform. One of the main factors that the PLAN will be studying is platform stability and the effects of that stability on weapons mounts are particularly pertinent.
might be a case for the AK, as it can somewhat help to simular the main gun, but the YJ83 missiles are completely out of place. unless they are planning to fit ICBMs on the ‘full sized’ versons, there is little useful data they can get from such weapons trials.
I would really disagree with that though!. 100 FAC’s in line abreast with a safe amount of sea room (presumably you want these things blatting along at 30knots) is a formation over 3km long!. I dont think many opponents will give your flotilla commanders enough time to assemble that kind of formation really because it certainly wont be difficult to miss and wont be accomplished quickly!
well, i said it before in another post, but when i was talking about the 100 FAC example, i wasnt thinking of having them all in one massive ball charging at the enemy. but rather in serveral smaller groups of no more then a dozen each coming at different directions.
this will of course be difficult to co-ordinate, but by no mean impossible.
Believe me there is no way a 10knt sub heading south is going to get an intercept in on a 30knt carrier group going east-west. Like I said SSK’s dont do much chasing!.
well no offence, but i really dont have much taste for such blankest statements (mainly because i get an erge to take it as a challenge and end up spending way too much time trying to disprove it 😛 ).
but anyhow (loosing willpower to restrain), as i said, its not about chasing after a target, but rather trying to guess where he is about to go, and heading for that spot. have a good number of boats and there is everychance one or more will get lucky. and as i said before, this is only a sideline issue, so please, dont temp me further with it. 😮 😉
By: Nitin_V - 19th October 2004 at 17:26
Crobato
If you think No. 37 is LO, you are quite mistaken. See that big bulb there? That gleams radar off like a beacon. The first thing that is a no no in an LO design is 90 degree surfaces. The second thing is round and curved surfaces. No. 37 has the bulb, the spherical turret, and the cylindrical AshM launchers. If you cannot understand the disvalue spherical and curved surfaces are to RCS, don’t bother talking about “carefully contoured”.
Curved surfaces can produce varying effects on RCS dependent on the design – they may not reduce RCS but they can de-emphasize particular zones on a ship and magnify others to confuse, for example, a missile seeker as to ship aspect. The comment you made is overly simplistic.
Within the gross parameters of that simplistic statement, that curved surfaces and radomes dont necessarily equal low-observability, was the reason why I said ‘presumably’ in my comment as I couldnt see any special value in it myself. That the artist then went on include, in the design, these very intricately detailed rails added further incomprehension to an incomprehensible design.
Haley,
Again I dont know what you are trying to suggest with that last post but the way it reads, if you said that to my face, I’d put you on the deck for it. I’ll take it that you dont quite understand what you said and ask you to remove your post.
Jonesy, thats a complicated explanation. That curved ship looks ugly. And is hence non stealthy. My limited understanding of naval matters.:D
PS: Did I say that it looked ugly?
The Hovercraft is cool though, I am gonna order me a couple- should I place your order as well? Runnin on a short notice here,gotta takeover the world by next weekend.
By: Hyperwarp - 19th October 2004 at 10:10
……..
By: Wanshan - 19th October 2004 at 08:04
She did roll round laughing when she saw WanShans avatar though! 😀
I’ll take that as a compliment. Glad to hear somebody is amused by it!
By: crobato - 19th October 2004 at 04:56
This article on the JH-7A from a Chinese newspaper has nothing to do with the 2208 at first glance. But read carefully. Babelfish enclosed. Keep in mind that the JH-7A uses the same AshMs as the 2208 and other PLAN vessels.
From a Chinese news article posted in the CDF by xinhui.
simplified chinese encoding needed
Quote:
据军报刘同庆、记者钱晓虎报道：金秋的江南某海军航空兵机场，一架架新型“飞豹”战机携带新型导弹，直冲云霄。数分钟内，搜索、跟踪、锁定，一连串战术动作一气呵成。“攻击！”随着指挥员一声令下，导弹飞出。顷刻间，目标凌空爆炸。紧接着，“飞豹”战机编队在与水面舰艇进行的一体化训练中，为舰艇编队提供了强有力的空中支援，同时对海上目标实施导弹攻击，目标再次被连续击中。
此次演练成功，标志着“飞豹”战机编队协同和舰机协同能力跃上新台阶。由我国自行设计、自行研制、自行生产的多用途、全天候、超音速歼击轰炸机“飞豹”装备部队后，先后多次完成重大演练任务，受到总部、海军的表彰。
装备“飞豹”战机的海军航空兵某师，为飞出“飞豹”最大性能，他们着眼未来战场，从难从严要求，强化战机和舰艇联合训练，几年来，先后在夜间复杂气象、夜间海面超低空、导弹超视距攻击等高难课目训练中取得突破。飞行间隙，该师师长李庆双告诉记者：如今，装备先进系统的“飞豹”战机，不仅可以飞得更远、打得更准，还可以自动跟踪、搜索、发现目标，超视距远程实施攻击和轰炸，作战能力明显提高。
The babelfish version
Quote:
According to armed force newspaper Liu rejoices alike, by Qian Xiaohu Jin Qiu Chiangnan some naval air force airport, a frame new “flies the leopard” the fighter plane to carry the new missile, direct impact Yunsiao. In several minutes, the search, the track, locking, a succession of tactical movement forms a coherent whole. “Attack!” Issues an order along with the director, the missile departs. In a little while, the goal flies high the detonation. Is following closely, “flies the leopard” the fighter plane formation in the integrated training which carries on with the surface vessel, has provided the powerful air support for the formation of naval vessels, simultaneously to the seaborne target implementation missile attack, the goal continuously is hit once more. This time trains successfully, symbolized “flies the leopard” the fighter plane formation coordination and in the ship machine coordination ability leap the new stair. Independently designs, independently develops, voluntarily produces multipurpose, all-weather, the supersonic ground attack bomber aircraft after our country “flies the leopard” the equipment army, successively many times completes significantly trains the duty, receives the headquarters, navy’s commendation. The equipment “flies the leopard” fighter plane naval air force some teacher, for departs “flies the leopard” the biggest performance, they will focus the future battlefield, from difficult severely to request, to strengthen the fighter plane and the naval vessel joint training, for several years, successively in at night complex meteorology, at night sea level minimum altitude, the missile beyond line of sight attack and so on in the highly difficult topic training will obtain the breakthrough. The flight gap, this Shi Division Commander Li Qingshuang tells reporter: Now, the equipment advanced system “flies the leopard” the fighter plane, not only may fly far, hits, but also may the automatic tracking, the search, the discovery goal, beyond line of sight long-distance implement attacks and bombing, operational capacity distinct enhancement.
By: crobato - 19th October 2004 at 01:29
Crobato
If you think No. 37 is LO, you are quite mistaken. See that big bulb there? That gleams radar off like a beacon. The first thing that is a no no in an LO design is 90 degree surfaces. The second thing is round and curved surfaces. No. 37 has the bulb, the spherical turret, and the cylindrical AshM launchers. If you cannot understand the disvalue spherical and curved surfaces are to RCS, don’t bother talking about “carefully contoured”.
Curved surfaces can produce varying effects on RCS dependent on the design – they may not reduce RCS but they can de-emphasize particular zones on a ship and magnify others to confuse, for example, a missile seeker as to ship aspect. The comment you made is overly simplistic.
I’m not refering to the curved surfaces on the body. The rounded, cylindrical and spherical surfaces you see in the bulb, the turret and the AshMs certainly do not help in reducing RCS, rather they worsen it.
By: Jonesy - 19th October 2004 at 01:15
Crobato
If you think No. 37 is LO, you are quite mistaken. See that big bulb there? That gleams radar off like a beacon. The first thing that is a no no in an LO design is 90 degree surfaces. The second thing is round and curved surfaces. No. 37 has the bulb, the spherical turret, and the cylindrical AshM launchers. If you cannot understand the disvalue spherical and curved surfaces are to RCS, don’t bother talking about “carefully contoured”.
Curved surfaces can produce varying effects on RCS dependent on the design – they may not reduce RCS but they can de-emphasize particular zones on a ship and magnify others to confuse, for example, a missile seeker as to ship aspect. The comment you made is overly simplistic.
Within the gross parameters of that simplistic statement, that curved surfaces and radomes dont necessarily equal low-observability, was the reason why I said ‘presumably’ in my comment as I couldnt see any special value in it myself. That the artist then went on include, in the design, these very intricately detailed rails added further incomprehension to an incomprehensible design.
Haley,
Again I dont know what you are trying to suggest with that last post but the way it reads, if you said that to my face, I’d put you on the deck for it. I’ll take it that you dont quite understand what you said and ask you to remove your post.
By: edisonone - 19th October 2004 at 00:46
In my defence my 9yr old daughter
was watching over my shoulder when I was looking through the thread
the other day and she said she thought this 2208 boat was ugly!
Hahahaha!!! Now, let’s see….
In the same token….
…. it would probably scare the livin’ daylights out of her…
“And, it would probably make her wonder if God was really that ….. to her :p!”
No hard feelin’s since it is, IMHO, a punch for a punch….
:p
By: crobato - 19th October 2004 at 00:35
So long you avoid a 90 degree angle perpendicular to the ocean surface, that’s the important thing. If you rake it like the way it does, with flat surfaces, that gives a low radar contrast, especially against sea clatter. Housing the AshM launchers, then provide RAM and temperature lowering coating to that, is so much better than leaving them fully exposed on the deck.
If you think No. 37 is LO, you are quite mistaken. See that big bulb there? That gleams radar off like a beacon. The first thing that is a no no in an LO design is 90 degree surfaces. The second thing is round and curved surfaces. No. 37 has the bulb, the spherical turret, and the cylindrical AshM launchers. If you cannot understand the disvalue spherical and curved surfaces are to RCS, don’t bother talking about “carefully contoured”.
By: Jonesy - 19th October 2004 at 00:10
Your thinking of this like a plane Crobato. Ships roll and pitch…oscillate if you wish….in a swell.
From the frontal aspect the sharp rake on the bridge superstructure, the rake of the mast and the angle on the missile bays may be great enough to deflect radar energy.
Look at the rake on the beams though. The angle of rake on each side looks to be about 8 degrees or so?. So, not only will some return will be getting back to the emitter on the flat, but, if the vessel has anymore than an 8 degree roll to port or starboard the stealth will be neutralised for that period of oscillation where the flanks are at right angles to the surface.
So frontal aspect stealth may be quite good, however, at any aspect off direct frontal that stealth is goig to be patchy at best. If you make the comparison to the Scandinavian boats both their designs offer a low freeboard to minimise this beam aspect signature. It being clear to them that you cannot always contrive the situation where you can present a bows-on aspect to every emitter.
As for the no.37 design well it was the rails I found most remarkable there. A carefully contoured boat, presumably intended as some form of LO measure, that has dozens of effective reflecting straight edges and inside angles is a little bit mental IMO!.
By: crobato - 18th October 2004 at 23:44
I don’t see how the housings in 2208 being RCS increasing. Rather, their angles are quite correct, you need to throw the radar vertically to the sky. In addition it most probably has RAM.
Compare that to ship no. 37 there. That ship is a lot more unstealthy. There is a preponderance of spherically shaped surfaces like the radar bulb. In addition the turret shows rounded surfaces.
Anyone who does not house their ASHMs launchers like No. 37 there increases their RCS as those cylinders are going to reflect radar major. Most of the other designs I’ve seen has no provisions for large AshMs and are more like design exercises. The moment you put the launchers, there goes the RCS.
By: Jonesy - 18th October 2004 at 22:56
Ha ha! Nitin you probably have a point there! 😀
In my defence my 9yr old daughter was watching over my shoulder when I was looking through the thread the other day and she said she thought this 2208 boat was ugly! She did roll round laughing when she saw WanShans avatar though! 😀
By: Nitin_V - 18th October 2004 at 21:18
Jonesy you are a wetblanket.:p
By: edisonone - 18th October 2004 at 15:40
😮
And who the hell should credit go here, I wonder???
Source: http://www.wforum.com/wmf/posts/4225367.html
😮
By: Jonesy - 17th October 2004 at 23:57
Wolf
some dont have a choice in the matter. many SE asian nations have territorial disputes with china in the south china sea. this has been a traditional worry for china as its hard to get decent aircover for PLAN taskforces in that area, even today with things like MK2s and tankers.
What use are these FACs without air-support? Remember what happened to the small vessels of the Iraqi Navy when they tried to operate without top cover?. They were easy meat for chopper-launched light AShM’s. Most of, even the smaller, fleets in theatre have some form of organic chopper capability and light AShM’s of the Penguin, Sea Skua or AS15TT types are hardly prohibitively expensive systems for anyone.
even hear, the FACs wont be expect to hold off a determined assault, but merely to act as a deterance, as well as patrol against pirates and illegal fishing etc. far more cost effective and safer then to send out destroyers or frigets.
What do you need a battery of 200km range SSMs for coastie operations for?. Look at the Indian Navy and coastguard for a good force mix for EEZ enforcement – adapted light transport aircraft and economical, lightly armed, high endurance OPVs with chopper capability are the types of systems you want checking nets and for antipiracy operations. No antiship missiles are really required!.
and the PLAN is trying its utmost to fill in that gaping hole. although there is no solid evidence in one way or the other, i feel that it is technical bottlenecks that are current restraining the PLAN’s efforts in that feild and not financial. as such, it could take quite some time before a suitbale ASW suit can be perfected to be fitted onto new PLAN ‘heavys’ to filling address the issue.
Fair comment, but, investment into research is a critical method of bypassing technical ‘bottlenecks’. Hell, if they used the money spent on this 2208 vessel and its design to purchase a couple of modern Thales towed arrays they’d be better off!.
however, in the meantime, threats still exist, and these FACs can act as a stop gap should something happen before the PLAN proper is fully ready to take on a strong oppent.
That still infers that the major surface units of the PLAN would be locked in port, no more effective than the Argentine surface fleet in 82, in the face of a sub threat. That is surely an intolerable situation.
as for the AAW 170s and sovs, well everyone has to start somewhere, and i feel its far better to stretch out purchases over a long time, building what u can based on what level of tech u have and gradually building up to a fully spectrum force. as opposed to waiting until u have mastered all the tech needed and then suddenly laying down a hundred or so hulls at the same time.
Wolf I agree with every word you’ve written there. The strides the PLAN have made in AAW and AsuW are considerable and impressive. They still have a long way to go, but, they are clearly on the right track. This is why I dont comprehend the interest in this vessel as anything other than a trials boat to evaluate the hullform. Such a missile craft suggests a reversion to their brown-water doctrine and its brown-water, in this case, that is already well covered, against air/surface incursion, by existing assets.
well, it has the ability to sink a heavy warship even if it has to close to 20nm, still works. and remeber heavy warships arent the only targets in the sea, so for some heavy targets, 20nm is more then enough.
Do you think a heavy warship will be approaching a hostile Chinese coast without, at very least, radar reconaissance from its own chopper?. If a captain acted so galactically stupidly he deserves a missile boat closing him down. In reality what makes you think one of these FACs would get to 20nm without some form of air attention?. Remember too that the 20nm I suggested was just a hit on a 70ft masthead so it may take further time to develop the surface plot before they could start with target selection.
well, i was thinking more in terms of one carrier battle group or a surface task force with shore based fighter support, as there is no way the PLAN and PLAAF can take on half the USN never mind friends.
Who would try and challenge the PLAN, PLANAF and PLAAF in China’s 200 mile EEZ (the effective radius for a small FAC such as we’re discussing) with a single carrier group? Come on wolf your stacking the deck a bit in your own favour there. Like I said Desert Storm saw the employment of no less than six carriers! You think China would warrant less attention?
another important elemint of the attack plan is suprise (hence the emphysis on stealth FACs), so the enemy isnt given the chance to concentrate his forces and position them as he would like.
Here your missing the true power that full-up attack carriers bring to a Navy. Mobility, mobility, mobility!. Right now there are three carriers within roughly 7 days steaming of the South China Sea – Kitty Hawk and Stennis on PACFLT deployment and the Kennedy attached to 5th Fleet in the Persian Gulf. Are you suggesting that the PLAN could assemble the naval assets you are talking about – 100+ FACs, major surface units, subs and hundreds of tactical aircraft for a major fleet action in the South China Sea without tipping off the US more than 7 days in advance?.
well, first off, u are assuming that the USN is going to know months in advance of the conflict and have a steady build up of forces. that just doesnt fit the operational realities in any probably conflict scenario involving the PLAN and USN!
See above – they dont need months of warning!.
given the timescale, the USN would likely get 2 carriers and support ships at most in threater in time to help. the plan of the PLA is to present an ability to fight and defeat those two battle groups, and so force them to wait for reinforcements to come in before engaging. however, by the time the USN has gathered enough forces to be able to have a good chance of victory, the war would be over and there will no longer be a reason for them to fight.
Again see above. The PLAN will not have months of free-rein before the USN could react.
as such, it would be pointless to try and address how the PLAN is going to fight half the USN, as 1) that is never likely to happen; 2) if such an event did occur, the USN would so easily domonate the PLA that there is little point in discussion; and 3) if faced with such a situation, the chinese will not be relying on the PLA but rather other means to try and get its way.
So if the PLAN has the ability to pick and choose its fights as your suggesting what does it need these FACs for? They are little use in a battle against the USN even in absurd numbers, they’re little use forward deployed to island bases as, according to what you say, the top-cover they depend on cannot be guaranteed too far out and for coastal defence really they just reinforce a capability that hardly needs it when you consider the other requirements the service has!.
i dont think it is just a demonstrator, there are too many operational additions. (the AK, the C803 etc). we certainly dont see any of that on the sea shadow, and the presence of such additions would screw up any test info to the extent that u wont get any useful data to apply to the design of bigger ships.
Very much not the case and I’ve already given you part of the reason why. This boat is trialling the SWATH hullform. One of the main factors that the PLAN will be studying is platform stability and the effects of that stability on weapons mounts are particularly pertinent.
the only thing for sure is that stealth is a major influence in its design, however i seriously doubt it was the only consideration, as i feel other factors such as cost and ease of mass production would have also been major factors.
I wouldnt disagree with that.
well, i was thinking of having the FACs form a line perpendicular to the incoming missile, maybe i should have meantioned that eariler, no relock issues there.
I would really disagree with that though!. 100 FAC’s in line abreast with a safe amount of sea room (presumably you want these things blatting along at 30knots) is a formation over 3km long!. I dont think many opponents will give your flotilla commanders enough time to assemble that kind of formation really because it certainly wont be difficult to miss and wont be accomplished quickly!.
well, i dont see much problem for the kilo to move in from either beam, u can try and predict the oppenent’s course and plot one that brings u into his path. if u factor in things like course changes, well that will also affect an SSk’s ability to close from dead ahead. the key is to put out a couple of SSKs in a pattern and hopefully one will get a chance to close.
Believe me there is no way a 10knt sub heading south is going to get an intercept in on a 30knt carrier group going east-west. Like I said SSK’s dont do much chasing!.
Sign In
October 11, 2004 at 3:21 am
