What's new

China unveils a new concept of naval warships - semi-submersible arsenal-ship

A good laugh.
IT is very diverse.
The harder you try to cover your incompetence the more you show your ignorance.
Your attempt to use the current high speed supercomputer lead by China as somehow indicative that the PLA can or have made innovations to the arsenal ship concept is misleading, to be kind about it. THAT is the joke.

For starter, China hired a lot foreign mercenary engineers to achieve that goal and other related fields in the semiconductor industry. I know because I was headhunted by two Chinese companies, not for the supercomputer project, but in refining the manufacturing processes of their current product lines. Next, a supercomputer consists of many cores, so how have China been superior in the manufacturing processes of a single core ? That is the issue and where real innovation occurs.

No one makes the battleship any more. No one -- other than US -- can afford even an exploration of it. China either cannot find or will have difficulties finding experienced designers and builders for the arsenal ship, the replacement of the battleship. You can bet your next yr's salary that China hired a lot of experienced and knowledgeable foreigners to build up the current PLAN fleet, including the aircraft carrier Liaoning. The hulk was purchased in 1998 and finished as the Liaoning in 2012. Then came the next carriers based upon that experience. There are more knowledge and expertise for the aircraft carrier than there are for the battleship. So for this semi submersible arsenal ship concept, try looking at about 10 yrs, give or take one or two yrs, just to build a test model. By then, what are the odds that the USN will have a battle doctrine that will render the arsenal ship obsolete ? What if we decide to pursue the same concept ? For that question, you can be assured that the US will bring to bear every bit of archived knowledge of the battleship to build an arsenal ship that will render vulnerable the entire PLAN fleet.

What you are describing is the electronics part of IT, it does not qualify you to know all and sundry in IT.
Then what make you think YOU are qualified to use the Chinese supercomputer as proof that China can make this semi submersible concept work ?

Likewise the Chinese could have identified that this submersible could prove useful to the Chinese Navy.
I didn't say that it is new, not my words.
The Chinese could be making this submersible with a NEW and NOVEL design.
.
Yeah...We can visit this subject in about 10 yrs.
 
.
Your attempt to use the current high speed supercomputer lead by China as somehow indicative that the PLA can or have made innovations to the arsenal ship concept is misleading, to be kind about it. THAT is the joke.

For starter, China hired a lot foreign mercenary engineers to achieve that goal and other related fields in the semiconductor industry. I know because I was headhunted by two Chinese companies, not for the supercomputer project, but in refining the manufacturing processes of their current product lines. Next, a supercomputer consists of many cores, so how have China been superior in the manufacturing processes of a single core ? That is the issue and where real innovation occurs.

No one makes the battleship any more. No one -- other than US -- can afford even an exploration of it. China either cannot find or will have difficulties finding experienced designers and builders for the arsenal ship, the replacement of the battleship. You can bet your next yr's salary that China hired a lot of experienced and knowledgeable foreigners to build up the current PLAN fleet, including the aircraft carrier Liaoning. The hulk was purchased in 1998 and finished as the Liaoning in 2012. Then came the next carriers based upon that experience. There are more knowledge and expertise for the aircraft carrier than there are for the battleship. So for this semi submersible arsenal ship concept, try looking at about 10 yrs, give or take one or two yrs, just to build a test model. By then, what are the odds that the USN will have a battle doctrine that will render the arsenal ship obsolete ? What if we decide to pursue the same concept ? For that question, you can be assured that the US will bring to bear every bit of archived knowledge of the battleship to build an arsenal ship that will render vulnerable the entire PLAN fleet.


Then what make you think YOU are qualified to use the Chinese supercomputer as proof that China can make this semi submersible concept work ?


Yeah...We can visit this subject in about 10 yrs.

Chinese Supercomputer progress is a solid evidence, that China is capable in chasing US and replace US leadership in High Technology.

IT is true that China try to hire a lot of semiconductor engineer, because semiconductor is one of a few technology that China still lag US and South Korea and she try to chase.

But not necessarally for shipbuilding - especially submersible arsenal ship as China has already had experience in building advanced submarine (095 & 096) and advanced destroyer (type 052D). So your assumption is baseless.

Btw what is your real profession? a pilot, or semicon engineer?
 
Last edited:
.
Your attempt to use the current high speed supercomputer lead by China as somehow indicative that the PLA can or have made innovations to the arsenal ship concept is misleading, to be kind about it. THAT is the joke.
For starter, China hired a lot foreign mercenary engineers to achieve that goal and other related fields in the semiconductor industry. I know because I was headhunted by two Chinese companies, not for the supercomputer project, but in refining the manufacturing processes of their current product lines. Next, a supercomputer consists of many cores, so how have China been superior in the manufacturing processes of a single core ? That is the issue and where real innovation occurs.
I am giving you 1 real life example, in a very significant technology category, that China can leapfrog the US.
I am afraid the joke is on you.
You will find mostly Chinese engineers in a China lab.
What's wrong to have a few foreign engineers(mostly overseas Chinese) to help quickly close the technology gap with the US in all fields and as long as it is made in China and technology transfered.
That is a clever thing to do. You are right that China is now eyeing the electronics chips sector.

If you visit Silicon Valley, you will find many engineers that are not born in the USA.
The US drains talent from all over the world to fuel its growth.
Or else why there is this H1B and similar programs.
Next, a supercomputer consists of many cores, so how have China been superior in the manufacturing processes of a single core ? That is the issue and where real innovation occurs.
You are getting incoherent.
The latest Sunway Taihulight uses home grown chips.
The Tianhe-2 is 2x faster than the Titan(USA) using made in USA Intel Phi for 6 years running.
China is beating the USA step by step.

May I know which modern supercomputer uses a single core processor(486) or even a single processor(Pentium) with multi cores. I believe you are confusing cores with processors.
Even Cray supercomputer 50 years ago used multi processors(not home PC type).
You continue to humiliate yourself on a subject I believe is not your forte.

Lets continue to just talk about ships.
.
 
.
To admit, I'm already lost in that discussion that concentrates more on chip-performances, ship-building capabilities and no longer on that concept nor what role it could o will play in the PLAN, why the PLAN should be more successful in adopting this concept and even more what's the current status? Is a sub-scale prototype already tested ?

Deino
 
.
To admit, I'm already lost in that discussion that concentrates more on chip-performances, ship-building capabilities and no longer on that concept nor what role it could o will play in the PLAN, why the PLAN should be more successful in adopting this concept and even more what's the current status? Is a sub-scale prototype already tested ?

Deino
That is typical behavior of the Chinese members and their supporters -- that when they cannot support their arguments of the topic, they deviate to something else that they argue as 'proof' that China can do or is superior.

My argument in post 151 stands. It took China 20 yrs to field a training aircraft carrier and of a form that is inferior to the USN version. Now China took a discarded idea and all of a sudden, it is made into something shockingly new.
 
.
On its own, it is quite an interesting idea and, provided it can be implemented, a potential revolution in naval warfare. The difference between US Navy and PLAN is so wide that Chinese are bound to think unconventional to try to bridge the gap as fast as they can. For the interest of this discussion I am here attaching an article from a reputed journal:

jfq-58.jpg
2.jpg
3.jpg
 
.
How big are these OTH radars? What does it look like on the 052 destroyers?

If it was hard to find submerged contact with periscope up, they wouldn't worry about timing how long it would be up. And if a ship that size was surfacing, it can be detected from long range. Just launching ASMBs will reveal itself easily!

Well will see when that comes to fruition.

Of cause launching ASBMs will make them easier to detect, but doens that change anything? They are maybe 2000 km away from your nearest P-8s/ASW helicopters/warships, so by the time you reach that location, they have already travel somewhere 200 kms away (its a high speed ship afterall), and maybe some stealth fighters like J-20s will reach the location first to wait quietly to take down any of the "lucky" or rather unlucky P-8s finally made there...

There is no deny, the ship, once builit, with ASBMs and other weapons, will change the way how navy battle will fight, the sooner you adopt to the change the better rate of surivial you are in the next navy war, being in denial wont give you anything to deal with such revoluationary new battleships.

Once China deployed ASBMs, I was thinking they should put such missiles onto some nuclear submarines, making some ASBMs version of Oscar-class SSNs, and lets such submarines travelling with CVs to outrange and outgun other CVs.

But it seems that the guys in PLA Unviersity of Navy Engineering think a better idea.
 
.
Of cause launching ASBMs will make them easier to detect, but doens that change anything? They are maybe 2000 km away from your nearest P-8s/ASW helicopters/warships, so by the time you reach that location, they have already travel somewhere 200 kms away (its a high speed ship afterall), and maybe some stealth fighters like J-20s will reach the location first to wait quietly to take down any of the "lucky" or rather unlucky P-8s finally made there...

There is no deny, the ship, once builit, with ASBMs and other weapons, will change the way how navy battle will fight, the sooner you adopt to the change the better rate of surivial you are in the next navy war, being in denial wont give you anything to deal with such revoluationary new battleships.

Once China deployed ASBMs, I was thinking they should put such missiles onto some nuclear submarines, making some ASBMs version of Oscar-class SSNs, and lets such submarines travelling with CVs to outrange and outgun other CVs.

But it seems that the guys in PLA Unviersity of Navy Engineering think a better idea.

Thats based on maybe. And you wouldn't put stealth fighters around the area where you put your submarines at. Thats equivalent to putting F-22s around the Ohio class submarines at all times.

The U.S. Navy thought about using conventional Tridents but that usually leads to nuclear war. Even Rumsfeld shot that idea down.

Of course the ship has to surface in order to fire missiles, but it doesn't need to remain at the surface after firing missiles right? Like I said: after the ship has launch hundred missiles aimed to CBG, and aircrafts launched from carrier, at also aimed to missiles launched by aircraft or ships, it will go submerge.

And yes, there is other way to guide missile, which is by tandem this ship with other destroyer like 052D, where radar on 052D will illuminate and guide the missiles on the submersible via datalink.

Firing missiles on surface takes times. You look at the past launches and they take minutes, not seconds. Especially if you are launching hundreds of missiles.



Based on the size, where the P-8 is smaller than E-3 Sentry.

Yes, but how long is the detection range of AAS?

Smaller don't mean crap. You have the newer AWACs aircraft and they have longer range detection but smaller profile.

Its like the F-35 with better radar but smaller than F-15. You should know this!
 
.
Firing missiles on surface takes times. You look at the past launches and they take minutes, not seconds. Especially if you are launching hundreds of missiles.

Thats also applied with it's enemy right? so itis squared.
The submersible ship / 052D sees US CBG, then US CBG sees the submersible ship/052D.
Both side are firing missiles, when both finish firing then submersible go submerged.

Even if the submersible will wait and see if it's HQ-9 sucessfull or not hitting US' LARSM or not, it still have 10 - 15 minutes from that's point to submerge.


Smaller don't mean crap. You have the newer AWACs aircraft and they have longer range detection but smaller profile.

Its like the F-35 with better radar but smaller than F-15. You should know this!

What make you think P-8 radar range longer than AWACS E3 Sentry?
Why dont you tell me the radar detection range and ASW range then.
 
.
Please just leave those two troll with their so called 'logic', OK? Stick to the topic, stop debating those two, obviously whatever why they so 'kind' stick in here, we are in 'different league' of way of thinking with them? So from here, anything new info about this China's semi-submersible-warship concept?
 
.
Thats also applied with it's enemy right? so itis squared.
The submersible ship / 052D sees US CBG, then US CBG sees the submersible ship/052D.
Both side are firing missiles, when both finish firing then submersible go submerged.

Even if the submersible will wait and see if it's HQ-9 sucessfull or not hitting US' LARSM or not, it still have 10 - 15 minutes from that's point to submerge.




What make you think P-8 radar range longer than AWACS E3 Sentry?
Why dont you tell me the radar detection range and ASW range then.

You wouldn't want to stay up, you have to stay submerged and move since you have to watch out for subrocs.

LOL! The new 737 AWACs is more powerful than the old E3. Can see farther, more than 500km range. And its smaller than that plane. As I've pointed out, the F-35 can see farther than the F-15 and its smaller. The P-8 radar can see far.
AIR_E-737_Peace_Eye_Takeoff_ROKAF_Boeing_lg.jpg


On its own, it is quite an interesting idea and, provided it can be implemented, a potential revolution in naval warfare. The difference between US Navy and PLAN is so wide that Chinese are bound to think unconventional to try to bridge the gap as fast as they can. For the interest of this discussion I am here attaching an article from a reputed journal:

View attachment 406487 View attachment 406488 View attachment 406489

Sorry but when anti tank weapons or surface to air missiles lead to articles about the end of warplanes or tanks, it didn't happen. Surface ships will be around for a long time.
 
.
因爲沒有潛艇的耐壓殼,常潛攻搜艦有大量的空間來裝置垂直發射系統,因此對空對地對海的火力都很强大;騎浪型設計則給予它極高的速度。目前有傳言說它排水量兩萬噸,極速在60節以上,但是這實在有些駭人聽聞,我認為5000噸(不含壓艙水的空重,和052D大小類似;但是因爲它特殊的半潛設計,滿載排水量可能高達空重的兩倍,即10000噸)和40節以上是比較保守合理的估計。高速加上火力,是二戰之前巡洋艦(現代美軍的巡洋艦,已經改變成空戰指揮艦的代名詞)的定義和特徵。當時的主力艦(即戰列艦Battleship和戰列巡洋艦Battle cruiser)以艦隊決戰為專業,前出偵察、打擊小型目標以及威懾殖民地則是巡洋艦的活兒。我預期這型常潛攻搜艦在戰術運用上,將成爲現代版的舊式巡洋艦。共軍把它稱爲“攻搜艦”,也就是“攻擊”加“搜索”,基本上已經明示了它的用途
Because there is no submarine pressure shell, "often dive" attack ship has a lot of space to install the vertical launch system, so the air to the sea of firepower is very powerful; ride design is given it a very high speed. There are rumors that it has a displacement of 20,000 tons and a speed of more than 60 knots, but it is really horrifying, and I think 5000 tons (excluding ballast water, and the size of the 052D is similar; but because of its special semi-submersible design, Full load displacement may be as high as twice the weight, that is, 10,000 tons) and 40 or more is a more conservative and reasonable estimate. High speed plus firepower, before World War II cruiser (modern US military cruiser, has changed to air combat command ship synonymous) definition and characteristics. At that time the main ship (that is, battleship Battleship and Battle cruiser Battle cruiser) to fleet battle for the professional, before the reconnaissance, against small targets and deterrent colonies is the cruiser's job. I expect this type of potential attack ship in tactical use, will become a modern version of the old cruiser. The army called it "attack ship", that is, "attack" plus "search", basically has been its use
那麽它的半潛式設計有什麽好處呢?這主要是因爲現代的預警機,可以在400-600公里之外發現5000噸級的中型艦艇,因此獨立進行偵察和作戰的水面艦艇很容易被航母戰鬥群或岸基敵軍發現並擊毀,這是現代艦隊不再有舊式巡洋艦的原因,也是我一再强調國軍自建驅逐艦是自找死路的理論基礎。要在現代戰場的複雜電磁環境裏獨立執行任務,只有高速是不夠的,必須有很强的隱身能力,亦即減低雷達截面積至少兩個數量級;因爲探測距離與截面的四次方根成正比,預警機的探測距離將被壓縮到150-200公里。美軍遵循這個思路的發展結果是DDG-1000 Zumwalt級隱身艦,但是因爲設計期間太過低估共軍的技術潛力,專注於炮擊岸上目標,完全犧牲了對艦、反潛、防空和反導性能,以至未服役就已過時。

常潛攻搜艦的妙處,就在於它的隱身性能更勝Zumwalt,卻不必在外形上做太大的妥協,在武器容量、價錢和航速上,都有極大的優勢。再加上它的高速和(高速時)極淺的吃水使它對魚雷完全免疫,對反艦飛彈也因極小的雷達截面,而大幅加强了本身電子反制系統的作用,賦予它很强的戰場存活能力,因此完全可以獨立遂行偵察、打擊、防空、反潛和掩護己方潛艇等等任務(不過可能依照對不同任務的側重,會有不同的配置和型號,這應該也是爲什麽它叫做一個”平臺“的原因)。據稱共軍的第一批次訂單為三艘,但也有傳説競標仍在進行中。考慮到它的革命性新設計,我想共軍如果采用這個設計,就必須像航母系列一樣,花一段時間在各種實驗上,以學習最佳的戰術運用,并且研究設計本身的進一步優化

So what is the benefit of its semi-submersible design? This is mainly because the modern early warning aircraft, can be found in the 400-600 km outside the 5000-ton medium-sized ships, so independent of the reconnaissance and combat surface ships can easily be aircraft carrier battle group or shore base enemy found and destroyed, this is Modern fleet no longer have the reasons for the old cruiser, but also I have repeatedly stressed that the national self-built destroyer is the theoretical basis for self-seeking dead end. It is necessary to have a strong stealth capability, that is, to reduce the radar cross-sectional area of at least two orders of magnitude; because the detection distance is proportional to the square root of the section, the early warning machine The detection distance will be compressed to 150-200 km. US military to follow this idea is the development of the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class stealth ship, but because the design period is too underestimated the technical potential of the army, focusing on the shelling of the shore target, completely sacrificed the ship, anti-submarine, air defense and anti- Not obsolete
Often attack the magic of the ship, is that its stealth performance than Zumwalt, but do not have to do too much compromise in the shape, in the weapons capacity, price and speed, have a great advantage. Coupled with its high speed and (high speed) very shallow draft to make it completely immune to the torpedo, anti-ship missiles because of a very small radar cross-section, and greatly enhanced its own electronic counter system, giving it a strong Battlefield survivability, so it is entirely possible to carry out independent reconnaissance, combat, air defense, anti-submarine and cover their own submarines and so on the task (but may be in accordance with the different tasks focused, there will be different configurations and models, which should also be why it is called a "platform "s reason). It is said that the first batch of orders for the army of three, but there are legendary bidding is still in progress. Taking into account its revolutionary new design, I would like to use this design, it must be like the aircraft carrier series, spend some time in a variety of experiments to learn the best tactical use, and study the design itself to further optimize
該用大艦隊的用大艦隊,該用巡航導彈潛艇的用潛艇,用不上的才用這個。航母戰鬥群是一個體系,攻搜艦不在那裏面。區域拒止也是一個體系,攻搜艦也不在那裏面。它就是個打零工的。地球上數一數二的海軍沒有零工活?那麽打游擊也行啊。難不成共軍已經忘了怎麽打游擊戰了?

一艘隱身艦,偷偷摸摸地到了你沒有防禦的交通路綫上,放下被動拖曳聲納,聽到你路過的潛艇就冷不餿地打一發反潛魚雷,你不怕?你的核潛艇比它貴幾十倍,可是打也打不過,跑也跑不掉,你不煩?
A stealthy ship, sneakily move to somewhere along your traffic route that you are unaware of, with passive towed sonar, can listen to the passing of submarine and coolly fire off a torpedo, are you not afraid? Your nuclear submarine is tens of times more expensive than it, but cannot out fight it, and cannot outrun it, don't you worry?

A stealth ship, sneakily to your defense without traffic on the route, put down the passive drag sonar, you heard the passing of the submarine on the cold and rancid to play an anti-submarine torpedo, you are not afraid? Your nuclear submarine is several times more expensive than it, but playing also beat, but also run away, you do not bother?
這是一款廉價、隱身、高效、高速的裝備,適合用在次要方向。損失了,也不會心痛。
This is a low cost, stealthy, efficient, high speed equipment, suitable for use in an auxiliary role. Loss of which will not be greatly felt(no heart pain).
Google Translated
 
.
You wouldn't want to stay up, you have to stay submerged and move since you have to watch out for subrocs.

LOL! The new 737 AWACs is more powerful than the old E3. Can see farther, more than 500km range. And its smaller than that plane. As I've pointed out, the F-35 can see farther than the F-15 and its smaller. The P-8 radar can see far.
AIR_E-737_Peace_Eye_Takeoff_ROKAF_Boeing_lg.jpg

Sorry your data is far from accuracy; that 500km (600km actually) is for "look-up mode", while look down mode is only around 240km which is for frigate sized maritime target.

The radar is capable of simultaneous air and sea search, fighter control and area search, with a maximum range of over 600 km (look-up mode). When operating in look-down mode against fighter-sized target, the maximum range is in excess of 370 km. When used against maritime targets, the maximum range is over 240 km for frigate-sized targets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_AEW&C

In the meantime 052D radar could see airborne plane in more than 400km range. That means 052D will see 737 AWACS (more over P-8) first before 737 or P-8 can see 052D, and leave alone submersible with smaller RCS; the submersible doesnt need to submerge at all in order to shoot P-8 / 737 AWACS.

And dont forget china is developing 2 kind of arsenal ship: one is surface ship that will submerged if needed, and the other one is remain submerged therefore will launch missile while submerged. The surface one can escape the missile rain from enemy by going submerged, while the other one could not be touched by conventional missile at all.

There are two concepts in circulation:
1. a high-speed warship with much of its hull submerged but otherwise has a functional superstructure with defense weapons and radar
2. other is almost completely submerged arsenal ship with two conning towers.

Both ship designs could displace roughly about 20,000 tons at full load.

These warships could carry hundreds of guided missiles.

The arsenal ship would have most of its hull inherently submerged, with only the bridge and a few other parts of the ship above the waterline which reduce the radar cross section. This would be in situations where the ship is hiding or trying to protect itself.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/...oplaning-mode-and-submersible-capability.html

因爲沒有潛艇的耐壓殼,常潛攻搜艦有大量的空間來裝置垂直發射系統,因此對空對地對海的火力都很强大;騎浪型設計則給予它極高的速度。目前有傳言說它排水量兩萬噸,極速在60節以上,但是這實在有些駭人聽聞,我認為5000噸(不含壓艙水的空重,和052D大小類似;但是因爲它特殊的半潛設計,滿載排水量可能高達空重的兩倍,即10000噸)和40節以上是比較保守合理的估計。高速加上火力,是二戰之前巡洋艦(現代美軍的巡洋艦,已經改變成空戰指揮艦的代名詞)的定義和特徵。當時的主力艦(即戰列艦Battleship和戰列巡洋艦Battle cruiser)以艦隊決戰為專業,前出偵察、打擊小型目標以及威懾殖民地則是巡洋艦的活兒。我預期這型常潛攻搜艦在戰術運用上,將成爲現代版的舊式巡洋艦。共軍把它稱爲“攻搜艦”,也就是“攻擊”加“搜索”,基本上已經明示了它的用途
Because there is no submarine pressure shell, "often dive" attack ship has a lot of space to install the vertical launch system, so the air to the sea of firepower is very powerful; ride design is given it a very high speed. There are rumors that it has a displacement of 20,000 tons and a speed of more than 60 knots, but it is really horrifying, and I think 5000 tons (excluding ballast water, and the size of the 052D is similar; but because of its special semi-submersible design, Full load displacement may be as high as twice the weight, that is, 10,000 tons) and 40 or more is a more conservative and reasonable estimate. High speed plus firepower, before World War II cruiser (modern US military cruiser, has changed to air combat command ship synonymous) definition and characteristics. At that time the main ship (that is, battleship Battleship and Battle cruiser Battle cruiser) to fleet battle for the professional, before the reconnaissance, against small targets and deterrent colonies is the cruiser's job. I expect this type of potential attack ship in tactical use, will become a modern version of the old cruiser. The army called it "attack ship", that is, "attack" plus "search", basically has been its use
那麽它的半潛式設計有什麽好處呢?這主要是因爲現代的預警機,可以在400-600公里之外發現5000噸級的中型艦艇,因此獨立進行偵察和作戰的水面艦艇很容易被航母戰鬥群或岸基敵軍發現並擊毀,這是現代艦隊不再有舊式巡洋艦的原因,也是我一再强調國軍自建驅逐艦是自找死路的理論基礎。要在現代戰場的複雜電磁環境裏獨立執行任務,只有高速是不夠的,必須有很强的隱身能力,亦即減低雷達截面積至少兩個數量級;因爲探測距離與截面的四次方根成正比,預警機的探測距離將被壓縮到150-200公里。美軍遵循這個思路的發展結果是DDG-1000 Zumwalt級隱身艦,但是因爲設計期間太過低估共軍的技術潛力,專注於炮擊岸上目標,完全犧牲了對艦、反潛、防空和反導性能,以至未服役就已過時。

常潛攻搜艦的妙處,就在於它的隱身性能更勝Zumwalt,卻不必在外形上做太大的妥協,在武器容量、價錢和航速上,都有極大的優勢。再加上它的高速和(高速時)極淺的吃水使它對魚雷完全免疫,對反艦飛彈也因極小的雷達截面,而大幅加强了本身電子反制系統的作用,賦予它很强的戰場存活能力,因此完全可以獨立遂行偵察、打擊、防空、反潛和掩護己方潛艇等等任務(不過可能依照對不同任務的側重,會有不同的配置和型號,這應該也是爲什麽它叫做一個”平臺“的原因)。據稱共軍的第一批次訂單為三艘,但也有傳説競標仍在進行中。考慮到它的革命性新設計,我想共軍如果采用這個設計,就必須像航母系列一樣,花一段時間在各種實驗上,以學習最佳的戰術運用,并且研究設計本身的進一步優化

So what is the benefit of its semi-submersible design? This is mainly because the modern early warning aircraft, can be found in the 400-600 km outside the 5000-ton medium-sized ships, so independent of the reconnaissance and combat surface ships can easily be aircraft carrier battle group or shore base enemy found and destroyed, this is Modern fleet no longer have the reasons for the old cruiser, but also I have repeatedly stressed that the national self-built destroyer is the theoretical basis for self-seeking dead end. It is necessary to have a strong stealth capability, that is, to reduce the radar cross-sectional area of at least two orders of magnitude; because the detection distance is proportional to the square root of the section, the early warning machine The detection distance will be compressed to 150-200 km. US military to follow this idea is the development of the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class stealth ship, but because the design period is too underestimated the technical potential of the army, focusing on the shelling of the shore target, completely sacrificed the ship, anti-submarine, air defense and anti- Not obsolete
Often attack the magic of the ship, is that its stealth performance than Zumwalt, but do not have to do too much compromise in the shape, in the weapons capacity, price and speed, have a great advantage. Coupled with its high speed and (high speed) very shallow draft to make it completely immune to the torpedo, anti-ship missiles because of a very small radar cross-section, and greatly enhanced its own electronic counter system, giving it a strong Battlefield survivability, so it is entirely possible to carry out independent reconnaissance, combat, air defense, anti-submarine and cover their own submarines and so on the task (but may be in accordance with the different tasks focused, there will be different configurations and models, which should also be why it is called a "platform "s reason). It is said that the first batch of orders for the army of three, but there are legendary bidding is still in progress. Taking into account its revolutionary new design, I would like to use this design, it must be like the aircraft carrier series, spend some time in a variety of experiments to learn the best tactical use, and study the design itself to further optimize
該用大艦隊的用大艦隊,該用巡航導彈潛艇的用潛艇,用不上的才用這個。航母戰鬥群是一個體系,攻搜艦不在那裏面。區域拒止也是一個體系,攻搜艦也不在那裏面。它就是個打零工的。地球上數一數二的海軍沒有零工活?那麽打游擊也行啊。難不成共軍已經忘了怎麽打游擊戰了?

一艘隱身艦,偷偷摸摸地到了你沒有防禦的交通路綫上,放下被動拖曳聲納,聽到你路過的潛艇就冷不餿地打一發反潛魚雷,你不怕?你的核潛艇比它貴幾十倍,可是打也打不過,跑也跑不掉,你不煩?
A stealthy ship, sneakily move to somewhere along your traffic route that you are unaware of, with passive towed sonar, can listen to the passing of submarine and coolly fire off a torpedo, are you not afraid? Your nuclear submarine is tens of times more expensive than it, but cannot out fight it, and cannot outrun it, don't you worry?

A stealth ship, sneakily to your defense without traffic on the route, put down the passive drag sonar, you heard the passing of the submarine on the cold and rancid to play an anti-submarine torpedo, you are not afraid? Your nuclear submarine is several times more expensive than it, but playing also beat, but also run away, you do not bother?
這是一款廉價、隱身、高效、高速的裝備,適合用在次要方向。損失了,也不會心痛。
This is a low cost, stealthy, efficient, high speed equipment, suitable for use in an auxiliary role. Loss of which will not be greatly felt(no heart pain).
Google Translated

This submersible arsenal are for 3 purposes:

1. For huge fire power, as huge as a carrier.
2. Stealth; both partial submerged has small RCS especially the full submerged one.
3. Self protection against missile (AShM).
 
Last edited:
.
Sorry your data is far from accuracy; that 500km (600km actually) is for "look-up mode", while look down mode is only around 240km which is for frigate sized maritime target.

The radar is capable of simultaneous air and sea search, fighter control and area search, with a maximum range of over 600 km (look-up mode). When operating in look-down mode against fighter-sized target, the maximum range is in excess of 370 km. When used against maritime targets, the maximum range is over 240 km for frigate-sized targets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_AEW&C

In the meantime 052D radar could see airborne plane in more than 400km range. That means 052D will see 737 AWACS (more over P-8) first before 737 or P-8 can see 052D, and leave alone submersible with smaller RCS; the submersible doesnt need to submerge at all in order to shoot P-8 / 737 AWACS.

And dont forget china is developing 2 kind of arsenal ship: one is surface ship that will submerged if needed, and the other one is remain submerged therefore will launch missile while submerged. The surface one can escape the missile rain from enemy by going submerged, while the other one could not be touched by conventional missile at all.

There are two concepts in circulation:
1. a high-speed warship with much of its hull submerged but otherwise has a functional superstructure with defense weapons and radar
2. other is almost completely submerged arsenal ship with two conning towers.

Both ship designs could displace roughly about 20,000 tons at full load.

These warships could carry hundreds of guided missiles.

The arsenal ship would have most of its hull inherently submerged, with only the bridge and a few other parts of the ship above the waterline which reduce the radar cross section. This would be in situations where the ship is hiding or trying to protect itself.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/...oplaning-mode-and-submersible-capability.html



This submersible arsenal are for 3 purposes:

1. For huge fire power, as huge as a carrier.
2. Stealth; both partial submerged has small RCS especially the full submerged one.
3. Self protection against missile (AShM).

Eh wrong. Ship radars cannot see that far. Especially at the horizon. So your data would be inaccurate.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom