BlitzoOne of the standout features of the H6-K for me is the rear turret, a feature that can directly trace its lineage back to the B-17 Flying Fortress of W2.
Err H-6K doesn’t have a rear turret. I don’t think any new build H-6s in the last decade have had rear turrets… and many on older variants were removed.
BlitzoThe title of the thread and the article and the article of the first post are not that related… that said, there are articles recently with state media introducing the need for a long range bomber. The need for a long range bomber has been known for a while now, and we’re patiently waiting for the stealthy flying wing to emerge. It’s kind of like the mid 2000s period prior to J-20.
—
As much as I’m sure the air force would like a supersonic regional bomber, it seems like they’re going for the flying wing instead… or first.
BlitzoPost 1338.
My answer was to clarified the fact that I don’t believe you’d had modified the picture yourself, what Blitzo last comment was somewhat suggesting. But we are OT.
No, I’m a bit curious about this. The point I’m making, and the point I made, is that I don’t think the picture in post 1338 is modified at all. Why do you think that picture is PSed?
What remains interesting is that the Tandem Wing suggests (or confirms) that Chinese Industry still face trouble designing wings regarding aeroelasticity.
I’m not sure if a twin hull arrangement like so is possible without tandem wings with our current materials technology… not sure if it has anything to do with designing high aspect ratio wings capable of withstanding high aerolasticity.
If it was a single hull with tandem wings then your suggestion might have a bit more virtue, but even then it’s not necessarily valid, see proteus.
BlitzoI never intended to say otherwise.
? You said there was too much PS? Which picture were you referring to?
BlitzoToo much PS to say anything. But the UAV is publicized as a tandem wings design.
Pretty sure there’s no PS in Deino’s pic at post 1338.
It corresponds with the initial self-censored pics.
why are the wings of this UAV located so farther away back from the center of gravity? most of the weight on the rear?
I expect so. There’s also quite a large front canard wing
BlitzoIt’s semantics to some extent of course and, I agree, there is a debate that can be had….in fact is being had, inappropriately for this thread, here I guess. The point at hand though is whether there is enough accuracy in the term printed by the journalist to support his claim. I suspect we’ll need to amicably disagree but, to me, that answer still has to be ‘no…there isnt’ the journalist has gone for the snappy soundbyte and missed his target in my view.
Compare the sensor/weapons/comms fit of a Moskva or Kiev to that of a same-generation Sov RK. Take away the aviation and the ship functions as an equivalent combatant….as stated they, the Kiev’s at least, were always intended to deploy shipboard weapons and sensors primarily in their mission prosecution. How does that make the ship anything other than a ‘surface combatant’. Its a ‘surface combatant’ with an extended aviation dept maybe…but very definitely one able to function without that element.
Take a Shirane and compare its fitout to that of an equivalent DD of the day. Take Veneto or Andrea Doria and compare to a contemporary CG/DDG. In each case these are ships that possess the combat capability of an equivalent non-aviation hull….but have the aviation enhanced. It requires much squinting to see these ships as anything other than ‘surface combatants’.
For me the line is drawn between Japan and Italy!. The differences between Hyuga and Guiseppe Garibaldi that make one (properly) a CLH and the other a CVS despite outwardly comparable hull sizes and sensor/weapons fit. Perhaps this is another thread though to be debated at another time?!
I agree that the title is meant to be a snazzy one and may miss some of the intricacies of what a surface combatant should be defined as (I’ve confirmed with the author that he meant surface combatant rather than surface warship), but even if we leave the discussion of what a surface combatant should mean for a later date, I think Jeffrey Lin is far from ignorant in using the surface combatant term to refer to ships like cruisers, destroyers, frigates, corvettes (and battleships), given that it is still a widely accepted definition of the term in many circles.
The discussion has been an interesting one, and I’ll end it here, but I should say that all my points were to support the main issue I had, which was to dispute that the article or title was facepalm worthy.
I rest my case, cheers.
BlitzoTechnology has changed. Definitions should change to reflect that.
Many navies operate warships which have guns & missiles, but have their chief capability to sink other vessels (submarines, in many cases) in aircraft carried on board. The majority of these ships probably carry only one or two helicopters. Their other weapons are usually chiefly meant to defend the ship from other aircraft. Are they not surface combatants? Why classify an ASROC & ASW helicopter-carrying frigate as a surface combatant, but not Ise? Surely, she’s just a scaled-up, more powerful, version of the same thing, with secondary capabilities omitted?
Fair points, and I agree that the topic is worthy of debate. You are free to believe ships like Hyuga class are correct in being called surface combatants, while others may believe the term should be reserved to ships in the traditional cruiser, destroyer, frigate and corvette mold. Personally I call Hyuga an ASW helicopter carrier to more clearly differentiate its role from typical helicopter carriers, conventional aircraft carriers, and conventional surface combatants.
However the very fact that this is a matter to be debated means the article’s classification of what a surface combatant means is far from unacceptable and would likely be considered valid in many if not most circles, meaning facepalming isn’t quite justified imo.
BlitzoDoctrinally though the Soviet aviation cruisers were exactly that though….cruisers. Their prime mission was to sit astride the atlantic sealanes and use powerful shipboard radar/missile suites to make a bloody nuisance of themselves…the aircraft embarked were adjunct to that mission…reuseable SAM first-stages almost. They fit better with this notion of a ‘surface combatant’ than any modern concept of carrier doctrine. Hyuga is the same…doctrinally its an ASW group leader….it has the C4I and weapons embarked to perform that task without its aircraft. The only difference to what I would stick with calling an ‘escort’ really is that they dont have a traditional pointy end with a gun on it. Would a Shirane, Moskva or Veneto DDH be similarly considered a seperate case to you?.
I personally consider those three listed ships at the end to be more uncoventional mixes of surface combatants and aircraft carrying cruisers. Like I said, I think there is a spectrum in a ship’s organic weapons (guns, missiles) and any complement of helicopters or fighters or what not.
I think the best way of looking at it is seeing how much total “fully loaded” combat capability a ship has and what proportion of that capability is dependent on a complement (whether it’s fighters, AEW and helicopters in the case of carriers, helicopters for helicopter carriers, or helicopters and landing craft for amphibious assault ships), versus what proportion of its total combat capability is “organic” to the ship, relative to its primary missions. Somewhere along that spectrum is a line which should delineate conventional surface combatants from other types of surface warships, and where it is, is up to debate.
I had also mentioned proposed ships like UXV and Iowa battlecarriers, which are also not conventional surface combatants.
But regarding the example at hand, yes I do think comparing ships like Hyuga and Kiev and Shirane or Moskva to be the same type compared to the likes of ships ranging from Burkes, Ticos, 055, 052D, FREMM, OHP, sigma corvettes, etc, is not logical. (I’ll admit there’s a bit more leeway for Shirane and Moskva, though).
—
certainly in the case of 055, I think popsci isn’t incorrect if it had said it is the largest surface combatant built in asia since WWII, and the largest non-battleship combatant since the Tone class heavy cruiser (the article says surface warship but having talked with the author, surface combatant was the term intended).
BlitzoBy definition an aircraft carrier is a surface combatant as much as the lightest of patrol gunboat is. What I imagine the article is reaching for is the concept of ‘escort’ to define a vessel able to prosecute and engage targets itself from embarked, ship mounted, weapons and sensors.
Unfortunately for the article the writer clearly doesnt understand that the Japanese Hyuga’s come with advanced bow and flank sonar arrays coupled to an arsenal of VL ASROC missiles and, even without its air group, the ship represents a competent ASW unit. Maybe Sputnik chappy should have said ‘largest warship….that doesnt sort of look like an aircraft carrier’. Not such a snappy tagline though is it?.
Swerves facepalm detection is dead on though either way!
All fair points, however I think there is a significant distinction between “aircraft carrying cruisers” like Kiev class, Kuznetsov class, Hyuga class, among others, compared with true surface combatants like cruisers, destroyers, frigates, corvettes.
I’m not sure if there is actually a standard definition for modern day surface combatants (versus general surface warships), if there is one I’d like to see it.
I hate to refer to wikipedia, but I actually agree with its definition for surface combatants:
Surface combatants (or surface ships or surface vessels) are a subset of naval warships which are designed for warfare on the surface of the water, with their own weapons.
…
Surface ships include cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and corvettes, and several outdated types including battleships and battlecruisers. The category does not include aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, and mine hunters, as these generally do not use on board weapons system (i.e. aircraft carriers generally only attack with their aircraft, and mine hunters are not primarily combat vessels). However some warships combine aspects of the surface combatant and other roles, such as the Russian Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier, which carries both aircraft and an array of conventional armament (the class is sometimes termed a “heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser”)
And in some official assessments, the term surface combatant is also restricted to ships like cruisers, destroyers, frigates, etc.
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/41xx/doc4130/report.pdf
Today, the U.S. Navy numbers about 300 ships, including a force of 115 surface combatants (cruisers, destroyers, and frigates).
Existing definitions aside, I have to disagree the facepalm on basis of common sense. I don’t think we can equate ships like burkes, 052Ds, FREMM, type 45 and what not to be the same type of warship as Hyuga, or Kiev or Kuznetsov. I can agree that there is a spectrum of surface warships whose fighting capability may lay wholly in an onboard complement of aircraft or other vessels versus wholly using its own organic weapons, or even an even mix between them (such as the proposed UXV or even proposals for the Iowa battleships to be converted into half Harrier-carriers), but I think there is a line in that spectrum which separates generally accepted primary surface combatants versus other aviation carrying ships which may have a significant organic weapons load.
If Popsci had stated “largest warship built in asia since WWII” then I’d wholly agree that the title is incorrect. But the term surface combatant should be quite obvious to readers what the article means.
“Escorts” is also a valid term to describe such vessels, however that would imply ships like cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and corvettes are only ever relegated to an escort role, when escort is better thought as one mission of many for their classification of warship. For instance, when we describe a surface action group composed of Burkes and Ticos loaded with both SAMs and tomahawks, it’s misleading to describe them only as “escort type” ships.
BlitzoWellll . . . . . since they float on the surface & are designed to sink other naval vessels (albeit mainly submerged ones) using weapons fired from the ships as well as from the helicopters they carry, what else would you call them?
Err do you consider aircraft carriers surface combatants as well?
BlitzoWhere’s the facepalm smiley when you want it? Has Sputnik International not heard of Hyuga, Ise & Izumo? Or Vikrant? Real ships, two of them in commission, two incomplete but afloat (plus a sister ship to Izumo building), not mockups on an inland site.
Sputnik is directly quoting Eastern Arsenal there, and I think by surface warship the original author meant surface combatant… in which case I believe he’s quite correct… unless we seriously consider the “DDHs” of JMSDf as surface combatants 😀
Of course other IJN battleships were produced and commissioned after the two Tone class cruisers, so it’s more correct to say that 055 will be the largest domestically built surface combatants post-WWII rather than post-Tone.
BlitzoI’d agree with those preliminary estimates. Definitely seems to be at least global hawk sized, in terms of overall dimension. MTOW is probably somewhat greater considering Divine Eagle’s twin hull arrangement.
I think huitong is severely underestimating the endurance, although keeping it at “>10 hours” is a good way of hedging bets while keeping up a conservative appearance.
rick fisher has noticed it too. I swear he reads SDF or CDF…
http://www.janes.com/article/51759/images-emerge-of-new-chinese-twin-fuselage-hale-uav-concept
Images emerge of new Chinese twin-fuselage HALE UAV concept
Richard D Fisher Jr, Washington, DC – IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly
26 May 2015
Images have appeared on a Chinese website of a new large twin-fuselage turbofan-powered unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that could serve as a new high-altitude, long-endurance (HALE) multi-mission platform.
Reportedly produced by the 601 Institute of the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC), the large twin-fuselage UAV concept, called ‘Project 973’ or ‘Shen Diao’ (‘Divine Eagle’), has been the subject of speculative conceptual drawings since 2012.
These drawings showed a leading-edge mounted canard-wing configuration, but indicated platform was to perform as a high-altitude near space vehicle conducting surveillance, cuing, and communication missions.
What may be the first actual images, however, show the UAV employs two bulbous-nosed fuselages while the canard wing is mounted between them but not at the leading edge.
BlitzoFor those unfamiliar with Divine Eagle UAV, this is a relatively accurate article on all we know prior to the new photos
http://www.popsci.com/china-flies-its-largest-ever-drone-divine-eagle
The new photos seem to show some modifications, namely the front of the aircraft now uses a “twin hull, twin nose” arrangement, probably retaining a bridge between them at the front. There still seems to be a single engine at the back, however.
And of course we don’t really know how big this thing is… current estimates run from global hawk wingspan to a wingspan of 60m, I’m sure more photos will be illuminating.
Blitzoits an upgrade
at least the Chinese are not doing this anymore
Yea, now they’re doing this:
BlitzoAlso in a related news although not at all surprising
It’s weird, the beginning of the article says US officials claim a drone of theirs was jammed but the rest of the article they don’t confirm or deny it or even go into much detail about drone flightpath… I can’t help but feel this is bill gertz trying to squeeze one past us.
Sign In
