BlitzoI believe they are AORs that serve the maritime agencies rather than cutters. They actually operate a variety of ships (I think even ice breakers and scientific research ships). The largest cutters are probably in the 5000 ton range.
Every other place I’ve read it from seems pretty adamant they are meat to be cutters rather than AORs.
It might be large enough to act as a refuelled for smaller cutters on long distance missions, but if it was really “only” an AOR I think we would be hearing something it phrased differently.
BlitzoA ****ing contest is still better than going at each other with fists and knives, which is what sending naval ships instead of law enforcement ships would be an equivalent to.
BlitzoThe way I see it, investing into coast guards is safer than investing into navies and is more conducive to regional peace.
After all, contesting territorial disputes with meagrely armed coast guard cutters is far less prone to accidental crises than sending naval ships. So by all means, one up-man ship is a good thing so long as it is mostly contained to lightly armed cutters.
But then again, the PLAN is getting ready to build the 12K+ ton 055 “destroyer,” so it will be interesting to see how Japan responds, even if naval ships will have no role in contesting disputed waters.
BlitzoSounds like it could be for the 12,000 ton cutter, as it says it would be the biggest law enforcement vessel in china once completed.
And the fact that JN is building it supports that idea given I think JN isn’t contracted with other maritime law enforcement ships (that I know of)
The beam of that module in the picture probably isn’t indicative of the full beam of the ship, so if we add on a few meters to either side then it would be about the right beam for a 12,000 ton cutter built to mixed civilian/military standard. Looks like that is the aft of the ship as well, given what appears to be the shaped openings for shafts.
BlitzoOh the two 12k ton cutters have been long predicted.
Makes sense to have a few big ships that are not heavily armed but can confront JCG’s shikishima class cutters which are the world’s current largest. They can act as the final “big stick” before the navy in a territorial dispute, and their size allows it to maneuver and contest waters against almost any naval ship currently in service. And their status as a coast guard ship, armed only with a measley 76mm gun and two 30mm guns, provides the warning power of a navy cruiser but with the armament and thus the deniability of a far smaller coast guard cutter.
Their coast guard building programme is already pretty massive. I think once it is all done, they will out displace JCG and USCG combined.
I posted a summary over on SDF a while ago:
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/navy/china-coast-guard-patrol-vessels-22-4068.html#post266589
BlitzoI can’t be bothered quoting everything so my responses are done chronologically for each of your sections.
I’m well aware of the benefits of a rail gun in storing propellant-free rounds. However that has nothing to do with railguns being anymore “easily” able to shift between offense and defense than any other gun.
I am well aware of extended range rocket propelled munitions. That may well be a possibility for a rail gun round but will mean a rail gun loses one its main advantages of having propellant-less, cheap kinetic rounds. More importantly, even a rail gun round with extended range modifications still won’t be anywhere near the range of an IRBM class AShBM.
I never said it would be difficult to fuse a rail gun round, I said it would be expensive because you claimed it would be cheap, which is incorrect. A kinetic railgun slug will be cheap. A rail gun round fused and equipped with a datalink will be expensive.
I also never challenged the idea of sufficient power for railguns, what I said was a limitation was whether the barrel could survive the heat of consecutive firing which will limit its overall rate of fire. Read my replies more carefully.
And the difference between AShBM is that it hasn’t been marketed at all by the people who made them, all we know is from carefully pilfered information by academics on this side of the fence.
BlitzoThe most interesting part of this shipboard solution is how the rail gun can quickly switch from defense to offense.
that isn’t interesting. Any gun can switch from defense to offense, and those with a fuse can do it just as easily.
Anti carrier ballistic missile systems like the much discussed DF-21D can be neutralized by rail gun fired clouds of steel pellets and then rail gun fired kinetic rounds engaging the firing site even before the incoming missile warhead has been eliminated.
Err even the most optimistic range estimate for rail guns doesn’t go anywhere near the kind of range that a freaking IRBM has. A few hundred kilometers at most versus a few thousand kilometers.
With the low cost of rail gun slugs, DF-21D warheads stand to meet a wall of steel as they attempt to penetrate the carrier defenses.
A rail gun firing a shell that can release a cloud of steel pellets will be similar to a an AHEAD round. Not exactly cheap. Kinetic rail gun rounds will be cheap. fused rounds generally are not.
If the Chinese thought that the DF-21D was the magic weapon that spelled the end of the super carrier I wonder how they will view rail gun equipped carrier battlegroups sailing off their coasts.
With a bemused air I presume.
The Chinese probably thought the DF-21D was the magic weapon that spelled the end of carriers as much as the the inventor of the SAM thought it would spell the end of airpower.
The point of DF-21D was that it provided a means to get around USN fighter interceptors and layered SAMs — the arguable strong point of a CSG’s defences and strike them at long range. Obviously AShBMs will still have BMD missiles to contend with, and whatever future ABM measures that are developed, as well as vulnerabilities in the kill chain.
—
I’m more interested about how fast a rate of fire this thing can achieve. From what I’ve read about rail guns, it seems like barrel damage is one of the biggest limitations in achieving a higher rate of fire from the heat generated. I imagine it won’t be able to out do a Mk-45 5″ gun by much, especially if the gun is larger.
In that sense, what they’re building is basically a really massive single barrel Oerlikon gun with a much reduced rate of fire. Maybe a larger warhead will make a railgun based gun a more realistic air defence weapon and make up for a low rate of fire?
Of course, railguns will still be immensely powerful at engaging surface and land based targets where a high rate of fire isn’t as important. But I’m skeptical about their claims of it as an anti air weapon.
Oh and roovliak, consumer beware, yeah? Be vigilant about enthusiastic marketing.
BlitzoRegardless of who is to blame, i think the big story is if half of all MKIs in IAF service is grounded…
BlitzoI sure we wouldn’t mind taking a look at those documents if the Sunday guardian was open to sharing.
But if these really are leaked documents and the numbers are true (as in not being misconstrued by media), then this is quite a story.
BlitzoWhen is she expected to be commissioned? Wikipedia says 2013 but obviously that isn’t the case.
Most of the sensors look finished and ready, but the absence of the main gun is still notable.
Also, can 9M96 or 9M100 be quad packed in the Redut VLS? (Going by 9M100’s diameter, I imagine it can be)
Finally, is it 9M96 or 9M96E/M which is equipped on gorshkov? The E/M appears to be a medium range missile with a range of 40km(?) and the 9M96 appears to be a long range SAM of 120km?
Cheers.
BlitzoThanks both for the info 🙂
Is there a reason the MoD is late or non compliant with payment? Shortage of funds, corruption, or just bureaucratic inefficiency
BlitzoWhen was INS Teg (the first Yantar talwar) laid down?
If they can get all six commissioned by 2016 I would be very impressed.
But if we take an optimistic estimate of one year needed for each ship to be fit out and trialled after launch, then Yantar will need to launch all the remaining boats 2-6 by late next year to meet the 2016 deadline.
BlitzoOh there is no doubt the grigorovich class will be more modern than the talwars, I’m just not sure if they’ll be fitted out and enter service any faster, which tbh should be a reasonable expectation even accounting for newer systems, considering this ship should be a familiar design by now. However the fact that they still took three years from lay down to launch, and in a relatively incomplete state, gives the impression that fitting out and trials will be a similarly long process.
I’m not too familiar with the situation, but I suspect it is the shipyard’s limitations forcing the MoD to do a longer contract than the MoD wanting to drag out the construction process and receive a warship later rather than sooner.
At the very least, I would be very impressed if they can get this ship in service within a year. I expect they’ll be quicker about epithelium fabrication process for hulls 2 onwards as well, now they’ve sharpened their teeth again.
BlitzoHmm, Yantar built the last three of the six talwars for the Indian navy, and it took an average of two and a half years for them to go from launch to commissioning. Unless they’d dramatically improved their efficiency I can’t imagine they can manage the entire fitting out and sea trial process in just a year. Two years is more realistic, or one and a half years, perhaps.
And the fact that it took them four years from lay down to launch is still rather concerning. It is almost as long as Indian shipyards take to launch one of their ships.
BlitzoYeah but that wasn’t the question. It was “would you rather have one larger carrier or two smaller ones?”
Actually the original question was about whether a Nimitz or kuznetsov was more cost efficient and/or personnel efficient, and the Nimitz vs 2 kuznetsov comparison arose from that, with the (incorrect IMO) idea that you could spend the amount of money and personnel for two kuznetsovs, with a further idea that two kuznetsovs are also more capable than a lone Nimitz.
Sign In
