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

[TaiShang]

 

[dingyibvs]

Yeah...China is so 'advanced' that the new ramps for the Chinese aircraft carriers are better than catapults.

It is clear to me that you do not have the full understanding of what is a 'failure' in design and mission requirements.

If you assign a Ferrari to haul cargo, is that a 'failure' in design or a 'failure' in meeting mission requirements ? Of course, you can say that a Louis Vuitton luggage is 'cargo' and therefore the Ferrari is suitable for the job, but who is going to accept that ? No one.

The US rejected the concept of a semi-submersible combat ship because the concept did not meet mission requirements, not because the concept is a 'failure'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-submersible_naval_vessel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile_submarine

If an SSBN can launch at less than 50 meters depth, explain to the forum, in technical aspects, on why the US cannot design a ship that can launch a missile at 10 meters or less depth.

Sure the US can design one, but can it build a viable one? I don't think you understood what I meant by viable. It's not enough to just satisfy mission requirements, it needs to be cost effective and be able to be produced in quantity. The US can design almost anything better than anyone in the world, but it has lost the ability to effectively get the designs off the drawing board. Almost all major new systems produced by the Americans since the end of the cold war has suffered from this. The F-22 was cancelled early due to cost, the Zumwalt was cut to just 4 ships due to cost, and the LCS is a disaster that costs well over $300 million!

There's a lot of tech and even more industry involved in turning a design into an viable product, and the US no longer posses them.

Start to think you're trolling and have zero understanding between military need and military design.

First of all, not making something because it does not suit the US Navy need does not mean US navy does not have the technology and capability to make it, it simply mean they don't see the need to make one.

Arsenal Ship, whether or not build as a new hull or a conversion, is not actually a new design even when the US pick up the concept back in 1996, it was started by the French in 1993 to study the need of a way to saturate land base defence by the mean of naval bombardment. It was make to replace the Battleship.

However, the US studied commissioned in 1996 turns out the ships, be it Submerged, Semi-Submersible or Surface Arsenal Ship have limited use. Submerged Arsenal Ship have low number of launcher, effectively more or less the same level as a Ticonderoga Class Cruiser, then why not simply use a Ticonderoga Class cruiser?

Semisubmersibles is too slow to be kept with a battle group. Also, the time to transit between submerged and surfaced take time, and cannot mount conning tower (if you want it to be submerged) hence no radar capability to guide the missile. Again, as the CNO said, you may as well put VLS on a tanker.

Surface Arsenal Ship (Or Missile Barge) is slow and vulnerable as it would have been able to tow by something and the barge itself cannot move anywhere unless the mothership is present in the area

Some early Arsenal Ship design by the US Navy

View attachment 401370

Arsenal Battleship

View attachment 401371

CG-21 (cancelled) Arsenal Ship concept

View attachment 401372

Submersible/Semi-submersible Hull Arsenal Ship

View attachment 401373
Arsenal Cruiser

All these design is REJECTED by the Navy, because it does not suit their way of fighting. The use of Ohio Conversion does not mean the US cannot make these into a concept, the better question is why? Why would I put money in it when I can simply convert some existing hull into that function? I get that function I want, which is to deliver concentrated firepower, but I don't need to make a new ship just to do it. Or are you against saving money?

Another point is, Arsenal Ship is a concept, a functionality, it is NOT A SHIP CLASS. If US or any other country make arsenal ship, that alone will not be a subclass of warship, instead, it would be a variant of the current subclass.

For example, a Submerged Arsenal Ship would have been classed as a Guided Missile Submarine. a Semi-Submersible Arsenal Ship would have been classed as Semi-Submersible Naval (Support) Vessel, a surface arsenal ship would have been classed as Guide Missile Battleship (BBG) or Guided Missile Heavy Cruiser depending on size.

So, in the end, it (Arsenal Ship) is not a new concept, or new design, it merely can be called a design to begin with, and just because China is making it and US not does not mean the US cannot make these ship from ground up because it was lack of technology and mean. But well, if you believe US can design and make complicated ship such as Ford Class and Zumwalt Class but cannot design and make a semi-submersible arsenal ship then......

I think you misunderstood me just as gambit did. Your entire post is wasted on me because I agree with all of it. Read my above reply to gambit to see what my argument is. Sure the US can design and make a semi-submersible arsenal ship, but does it have the tech and industry to make it into a viable program? Or would it flounder like the Zumwalt?

 

[jhungary]

I think you misunderstood me just as gambit did. Your entire post is wasted on me because I agree with all of it. Read my above reply to gambit to see what my argument is. Sure the US can design and make a semi-submersible arsenal ship, but does it have the tech and industry to make it into a viable program? Or would it flounder like the Zumwalt?

You missed my point.

It's never about money, or how "Cost-Effective" you want with the equipment. How much "Cost-Effective" you can fought a war with? Can you put a price on a human life? Nobody in any army would think about "Cost". If someone tell me I cannot fire my rifle or no artillery support at certain hour at war because they want the war to be fought in a cost effective manner, I would tell them to go to hell.......

The question is not whether or not the US can make something cost effective, but do the US Military need them? Does they have any use for them? Because if they are useful for any sort of war effort, you will want to get it regardless how much it cost or how disproportional to the cost and effectiveness. But if that thing is not useful, I don't care if you can get it for free, you would not want it.

My point was, not that US cannot make it in any way or form, the US have studied it, and found that useless, it does not matter if the cost is 100 millions, 400 millions or 400 billions, when something is useless to a military, you don't want to go ahead with the procurement.

Zumwalts, F-22 and LCS production is NEVER ABOUT COST. Can US afford more F-22 and Zumwalts? As I said, F-22 cost about 150 millions each in 2008, however, a large chunk of the cost already paid toward R&D and if we double the number of F-22, the cost will be down to 110 millions per planes which is roughly the same price as a F-35A now. The Third Zumwalt cost 2.6 billions to build, compare to a 2.1 Billions for a Flight III AB Class destroyer. The US can definitely afford more F-22 and ZUmwalt, if they choose to do them, because as with any other military project, the majority of cost translation is from R&D, and that was already paid during production run, building the 188th and 189th F-22 or 4th or 5th Zumwalts would not have another R&D cost associated with it, and only the material cost. Meaning? The more you build, the cheaper the per unit cost.

Both F-22 and Zumwalts is the trail-blazer to their class (First Stealth Fighter and First Modular Warship) we learn from what we make, which so that we can applies to later project. The problem is the edge, why would we need to build 1000 F-22 back in 2001 when we don't see any country, China, Russia, India, UK et al. Even have double digit Stealth Fighter today 16 years later??

When China started building their 100th Stealth Fighter, then maybe the US would have restarted the F-22 production line, but a good chances are, by then the US would have started 6th Gen Fighter production.

Zumwalts is the same story, the gauge is that there exist any number of country can challenge the US in 1995, but if you look at the Navy around the world now, can anyone actually challenge the US navy even with 65 odd Arleigh Burke Class destroyer?

Answer these question and you will know why Zumwalts and F-22 is discontinued.

 

[IblinI]

When China started building their 100th Stealth Fighter, then maybe the US would have restarted the F-22 production line, but a good chances are, by then the US would have started 6th Gen Fighter production.

So you are saying US would have enter 6th gen era in about 5 years time, because that's basically the time China required to build 100 stealth fighter.
I would say the good chances are both country will have their 6th gen fighter at the same time.

 

[52051]

You missed my point.

It's never about money, or how "Cost-Effective" you want with the equipment. How much "Cost-Effective" you can fought a war with? Can you put a price on a human life? Nobody in any army would think about "Cost". If someone tell me I cannot fire my rifle or no artillery support at certain hour at war because they want the war to be fought in a cost effective manner, I would tell them to go to hell.......

The question is not whether or not the US can make something cost effective, but do the US Military need them? Does they have any use for them? Because if they are useful for any sort of war effort, you will want to get it regardless how much it cost or how disproportional to the cost and effectiveness. But if that thing is not useful, I don't care if you can get it for free, you would not want it.

My point was, not that US cannot make it in any way or form, the US have studied it, and found that useless, it does not matter if the cost is 100 millions, 400 millions or 400 billions, when something is useless to a military, you don't want to go ahead with the procurement.

Zumwalts, F-22 and LCS production is NEVER ABOUT COST. Can US afford more F-22 and Zumwalts? As I said, F-22 cost about 150 millions each in 2008, however, a large chunk of the cost already paid toward R&D and if we double the number of F-22, the cost will be down to 110 millions per planes which is roughly the same price as a F-35A now. The Third Zumwalt cost 2.6 billions to build, compare to a 2.1 Billions for a Flight III AB Class destroyer. The US can definitely afford more F-22 and ZUmwalt, if they choose to do them, because as with any other military project, the majority of cost translation is from R&D, and that was already paid during production run, building the 188th and 189th F-22 or 4th or 5th Zumwalts would not have another R&D cost associated with it, and only the material cost. Meaning? The more you build, the cheaper the per unit cost.

Both F-22 and Zumwalts is the trail-blazer to their class (First Stealth Fighter and First Modular Warship) we learn from what we make, which so that we can applies to later project. The problem is the edge, why would we need to build 1000 F-22 back in 2001 when we don't see any country, China, Russia, India, UK et al. Even have double digit Stealth Fighter today 16 years later??

When China started building their 100th Stealth Fighter, then maybe the US would have restarted the F-22 production line, but a good chances are, by then the US would have started 6th Gen Fighter production.

Zumwalts is the same story, the gauge is that there exist any number of country can challenge the US in 1995, but if you look at the Navy around the world now, can anyone actually challenge the US navy even with 65 odd Arleigh Burke Class destroyer?

Answer these question and you will know why Zumwalts and F-22 is discontinued.

Dont lie, US will be luck to get F-35 (which is considered anywhere between 4.5 gen to 4.9 gen) working properly in 10 years, let along field a 6th gen fighter in 5 years.

 

[Beast]

You missed my point.

It's never about money, or how "Cost-Effective" you want with the equipment. How much "Cost-Effective" you can fought a war with? Can you put a price on a human life? Nobody in any army would think about "Cost". If someone tell me I cannot fire my rifle or no artillery support at certain hour at war because they want the war to be fought in a cost effective manner, I would tell them to go to hell.......

The question is not whether or not the US can make something cost effective, but do the US Military need them? Does they have any use for them? Because if they are useful for any sort of war effort, you will want to get it regardless how much it cost or how disproportional to the cost and effectiveness. But if that thing is not useful, I don't care if you can get it for free, you would not want it.

My point was, not that US cannot make it in any way or form, the US have studied it, and found that useless, it does not matter if the cost is 100 millions, 400 millions or 400 billions, when something is useless to a military, you don't want to go ahead with the procurement.

Zumwalts, F-22 and LCS production is NEVER ABOUT COST. Can US afford more F-22 and Zumwalts? As I said, F-22 cost about 150 millions each in 2008, however, a large chunk of the cost already paid toward R&D and if we double the number of F-22, the cost will be down to 110 millions per planes which is roughly the same price as a F-35A now. The Third Zumwalt cost 2.6 billions to build, compare to a 2.1 Billions for a Flight III AB Class destroyer. The US can definitely afford more F-22 and ZUmwalt, if they choose to do them, because as with any other military project, the majority of cost translation is from R&D, and that was already paid during production run, building the 188th and 189th F-22 or 4th or 5th Zumwalts would not have another R&D cost associated with it, and only the material cost. Meaning? The more you build, the cheaper the per unit cost.

Both F-22 and Zumwalts is the trail-blazer to their class (First Stealth Fighter and First Modular Warship) we learn from what we make, which so that we can applies to later project. The problem is the edge, why would we need to build 1000 F-22 back in 2001 when we don't see any country, China, Russia, India, UK et al. Even have double digit Stealth Fighter today 16 years later??

When China started building their 100th Stealth Fighter, then maybe the US would have restarted the F-22 production line, but a good chances are, by then the US would have started 6th Gen Fighter production.

Zumwalts is the same story, the gauge is that there exist any number of country can challenge the US in 1995, but if you look at the Navy around the world now, can anyone actually challenge the US navy even with 65 odd Arleigh Burke Class destroyer?

Answer these question and you will know why Zumwalts and F-22 is discontinued.

When USN start building the first shaftless electric propeller SSN, PLAN already has probably 10 of it in service.

 

[jhungary]

So you are saying US would have enter 6th gen era in about 5 years time, because that's basically the time China required to build 100 stealth fighter.
I would say the good chances are both country will have their 6th gen fighter at the same time.

So you are saying China can build 100 J-20 in 5 years? You do know the projected LRIP Production of J-20 this year is 5. It will take about 8 years to reach 100 J-20. By then it would have been 2025 and US predicting to fly 6th gen in 2025 and produce it in 2030.

I would NOT say both China and US would fly 6th gen at the same time. China can only do it if they abandon 5th gen program now, and I don't see this coming.

 

[IblinI]

So you are saying China can build 100 J-20 in 5 years? You do know the projected LRIP Production of J-20 this year is 5. It will take about 8 years to reach 100 J-20. By then it would have been 2025 and US predicting to fly 6th gen in 2025 and produce it in 2030.

I would NOT say both China and US would fly 6th gen at the same time. China can only do it if they abandon 5th gen program now, and I don't see this coming.

The recent news is to deliver more than 10 this year, so i do not have to reply for the rest.

 

[jhungary]

Dont lie, US will be luck to get F-35 (which is considered anywhere between 4.5 gen to 4.9 gen) working properly in 10 years, let along field a 6th gen fighter in 5 years.

lol F-35 not working properly? Did they tell the UK, Italy, Japan, Turkey about it? Because beside US, Japan, Italy and Turkey are building their own F-35 at the moment.

http://inhomelandsecurity.com/first-foreign-made-usaf-f-35b-fighter/
https://www.themanufacturer.com/articles/bae-systems-behind-the-scenes-of-the-f-35-fighter/
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...ts-very-first-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-21018

You do know F-35 is now in Production stage, not Low Rate Production Stage, there are, at this point, 231 F-35 ALREADY built and another 24 in the pipeline around the world, J-20 is not in the same league....

US has been researching for 6th gen in about 4 years, concept around 7, how long ago did Chinese start 6th Gen Aircraft Project, if at all??

The recent news is to deliver more than 10 this year, so i do not have to reply for the rest.

lol, 10 a year. How many year that will take to make it 100? Your answer? 5.....

LOL, aren't Chinese are supposed to be good at maths?

 

[IblinI]

I would NOT say both China and US would fly 6th gen at the same time. China can only do it if they abandon 5th gen program now, and I don't see this coming.

Black and White situation?

You do know the projected LRIP Production of J-20 this year is 5. It will take about 8 years to reach 100 J-20.

Math is only about plus and minus in your world?So, do tell me where did you get this 5 from?

 

[jhungary]

When USN start building the first shaftless electric propeller SSN, PLAN already has probably 10 of it in service.

China haven't had that too, read the Pop-Sci article again,

Chinese are at this stage fitting IEPS system on a sub, not even tested or release any information on it, and you said they already have 10 in service?? Did they just come out of nowhere??

 

[IblinI]

S has been researching for 6th gen in about 4 years, concept around 7, how long ago did Chinese start 6th Gen Aircraft Project, if at all??

I thought you can read Chinese, it seems that i was wrong.

 

[jhungary]

Black and White situation?

Can you put resource to build aircraft or can you put resource to research?

You cannot do both, because both take up resource and manpower, China have a lot of manpower, but not much resources, unless you are talking about doodling on a paper, you do not have factory to put the concept into reality, because all these factory would have been used to produce 5th gen aircraft.

This is universal for EVERY COUNTRY, but I guess, in your eyes, China is the greatest, there are no greater country than China, they literally have UNLIMITED manpower and UNLIMITED resources.

Math is only about plus and minus in your world?So, do tell me where did you get this 5 from?

EDIT:: MY BAD< I thought you quote a different post.

Where do I get 5 LIRP for J-20??

China build 5 J-20 in 2016 2014,2015,2106,2107,2108 according to SinaBlog (Yes I do read Chinese)

http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/jssd/2016-01-11/doc-ifxnkkuy7894954.shtml

Nobody know how many J-20 will be produced by China in 2017, as 2017 has not yet ended.

I thought you can read Chinese, it seems that i was wrong.

What have that got to do with reading Chinese

There are all sort of Rumor, Chinese and ENGLISH circulating that China is currently developing 6th Generation Fighter, the problem is, doesn't matter is it CDF, People Daily, or China Arms, all the "Concept" simply look like the US NGAD Fighter but butting the 8-1 insignia on it.

There are no "Confirmation" officially offered by anyone insight that a 6th Gen is in the pipeline, the only thing comes close to a confirmation is "China are always equip one generation, develop one generation and pre-develop one generation" if this is the case, then China is "Pre-Developing 6th gen"

On the other hand, US have already started development in 2012.

 

[IblinI]

You do know the projected LRIP Production of J-20 this year is 5

Before we go to the next stage , first you need to tell me where is your source of this 5 came from?Based on this "5", wouldn't it be 20 years based on your "simple math problem"?

This is universal for EVERY COUNTRY, but I guess, in your eyes, China is the greatest, there are no greater country than China, they literally have UNLIMITED manpower and UNLIMITED resources.

Carry on please, anyway i appreciated your effort for the long reply.

 

[Beast]

China haven't had that too, read the Pop-Sci article again,

Chinese are at this stage fitting IEPS system on a sub, not even tested or release any information on it, and you said they already have 10 in service?? Did they just come out of nowhere??

They are the system has already fitted on the latest attack sub which is bring build. I know you will be selective in comprehend the info.