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

[Speeder 2]

Imagine this ship is able to surface out of nowhere and then raise it's AESA radar, scan and detect many dozens of targets, fire both SAM and SS missiles and then disappear back into the depths of the ocean.

With its 2 dozens ASBM (DF-21D) on board, the more important purpose of such a beast is to equalise Nimitz & Ford carriers for the time being in a potential stand-off situations - think about it both carrier-based F18s and P8 are useless against this beast. This could drastically elevate PLAN's real-fight capabilities VS. the elite USN battle force. On a standalone basis, DDG1000 and AB III in comparison are outclassed in both stealth and speed, apart from outgunned. The rest of its functions are secondary. It truely is something "sputnik" .

 

[Beast]

What tactical benefit that this ship will have? My question is, why it submerge and act like Submarine, and why it go to the surface and act like a destroyer? With that kind of design CG, where will the radar will be put on? I think the benefit of destroyer tower is to mount big radar that can scan and search the area. Including the air area. But if it has radar tower, then the stealth that the submarine has will be compromised, and reduced. Yet, if it has no radar tower, then it won't be able to act like destroyer.

So where the role this new ship class will be fit?

By not needing to go as deep as real submarine, it can save lots of pressurize hull space for carrying more missiles and sensor.

By going just submerged underwater with most of its main hull, it can reduce its cross section radar against detection with few protruding radar/sensor conning tower just on top while still maintain the kind of detection, situation awareness like normal air defense destroyer. With hull submerged under water, it can prevent anti-ship missile attack as most ASM are profile to seaskim few metre above water level and slammed into hull.

With only small tower above surface, chances of hitting it will be reduced.

 

[gambit]

By not needing to go as deep as real submarine, it can save lots of pressurize hull space for carrying more missiles and sensor.

By going just submerged underwater with most of its main hull, it can reduce its cross section radar against detection with few protruding radar/sensor conning tower just on top while still maintain the kind of detection, situation awareness like normal air defense destroyer. With hull submerged under water, it can prevent anti-ship missile attack as most ASM are profile to seaskim few metre above water level and slammed into hull.

With only small tower above surface, chances of hitting it will be reduced.

WW II submarines were not 'real' submarines. They were just surface ships capable of subsurface travel. Essentially, you are building a WW II era vessel vulnerable to modern day ASW capabilities.

 

[Beast]

WW II submarines were not 'real' submarines. They were just surface ships capable of subsurface travel. Essentially, you are building a WW II era vessel vulnerable to modern day ASW capabilities.

You mean ASW to sink surface ships? Fancy you call yourself a military expert.

Do WWI sub has cruise missiles,AESA radar and long range anti-ship missiles(ASBM)? Once again typical cheapshot trying to misled the mass thinking PLAN is building a obsolete new concept warship.

 

[gambit]

You mean ASW to sink surface ships? Fancy you call yourself a military expert.

Absolutely I can. If this surface ship goes underwater, what else can it be but ASW ?

Do WWI sub has cruise missiles,AESA radar and long range anti-ship missiles(ASBM)?

Can any of these things be used underwater while being pursued by ASW vessels ?

Once again typical cheapshot trying to misled the mass thinking PLAN is building a obsolete new concept warship.

What make you think the PLAN is immune from making mistakes ?

A real submarine already have enough problems. It cannot pursue because if it run fast enough, it will be detected. It is literally blind and its sonar have limitations. Once it is being hunted, its crew will be focused on staying alive rather than in combat.

But now the PLAN is contemplating the idea of a surface vessel that while can go underwater, it cannot go as deep as a real submarine. They are packing a lot of munition on a pseudo-sub that cannot go as deep as a real submarine to escape detection and attacks.

 

[Beast]

Absolutely I can. If this surface ship goes underwater, what else can it be but ASW ?

Can surface ship escape ASW torpedo?


Can any of these things be used underwater while being pursued by ASW vessels ?

Can a surface ship used any of those when pursue by ASW vessels? IF the concept ship surface , can this ship used any of those same like surface ships?


What make you think the PLAN is immune from making mistakes ?

Maybe Zumalt cruiser is not a mistake

A real submarine already have enough problems. It cannot pursue because if it run fast enough, it will be detected. It is literally blind and its sonar have limitations. Once it is being hunted, its crew will be focused on staying alive rather than in combat.

But now the PLAN is contemplating the idea of a surface vessel that while can go underwater, it cannot go as deep as a real submarine. They are packing a lot of munition on a pseudo-sub that cannot go as deep as a real submarine to escape detection and attacks.

Its intention is not go as deep as submarine. Its aim is to stay most of its hull underwater to reduced cross radar section from modern radar. That is better than USS Zumalt, right? While when it surface, it can pack more punch than even a Kirvov battlecruiser with its huge arsenal of missiles.

 

[gambit]

Maybe Zumalt cruiser is not a mistake

The Zumwalt is not a mistake. It is expensive, but hardly a mistake. But I can go that route by saying that China's J-20 is a mistake considering the US have 3 'stealth' platforms, thereby have a gross advantage in how to fight 'stealth'.

Its intention is not go as deep as submarine. Its aim is to stay most of its hull underwater to reduced cross radar section from modern radar. That is better than USS Zumalt, right? While when it surface, it can pack more punch than even a Kirvov battlecruiser with its huge arsenal of missiles.

No, it is not better.

Water is a high drag medium. By being 'semi-submersible', this new PLAN vessel will probably be slower than similarly displace vessels, and again, the US is ahead of China in terms of experience with 'stealth'. I have said it many times in this forum, the US have effectively defeated 'stealth'. Whatever China or Russia brings -- DOA.

 

[Beast]

The Zumwalt is not a mistake. It is expensive, but hardly a mistake. But I can go that route by saying that China's J-20 is a mistake considering the US have 3 'stealth' platforms, thereby have a gross advantage in how to fight 'stealth'.


No, it is not better.

Water is a high drag medium. By being 'semi-submersible', this new PLAN vessel will probably be slower than similarly displace vessels, and again, the US is ahead of China in terms of experience with 'stealth'. I have said it many times in this forum, the US have effectively defeated 'stealth'. Whatever China or Russia brings -- DOA.

American is the inventor of modern desktop computer of IBM but yet the world fastest supercomputer is currently made in China and not America. Past glory is useless to gauge a future technology.

Tell me a semi- submerisble with only two small coning tower with proper RCS reduction design is more easier detected by radar or a huge zumalt whole floating above the water with RCS reduction design?

 

[gambit]

American is the inventor of modern desktop computer of IBM but yet the world fastest supercomputer is currently made in China and not America. Past glory is useless to gauge a future technology.

Please...

Just about every other yr someone builds a faster computer. Further, the best indicator is the widespread adoption of a technology and not the esoteric ones that are available only to the few.

Tell me a semi- submerisble with only two small coning tower with proper RCS reduction design is more easier detected by radar or a huge zumalt whole floating above the water with RCS reduction design?

Easier ? Twisting my words is not going to help you. Dishonest debating is typical of you guys. I understand radar principles better than ALL of you combined. You are under NO obligations to believe me when I said the US effectively defeated 'stealth'. Repeat -- NO OBLIGATIONS. You clear on that ?

 

[Foo_Fighter]

Love when 2 superpower members resort to healthy defense related debates... Unlike few who just bring religion, poverty and education in every argument in a defense forum... *grabs a bag of popcorn*

 

[j20blackdragon]

The Zumwalt is not a mistake. It is expensive, but hardly a mistake.

The Zumwalt is just god-awful.

The Zumwalt does not have a CIWS.

The Zumwalt is missing the AN/SPY-4 S-band Volume Search Radar.

The Zumwalt runs on non-Aegis software that does not have the capability to fire and use the SM-2/3/6 “Standard” series of missiles.

The Zumwalt's tumblehome wave-piercing hull could be inherently unstable and might capsize under the right conditions.

Ken Brower, a civilian naval architect with decades of naval experience was even more blunt: “It will capsize in a following sea at the wrong speed if a wave at an appropriate wavelength hits it at an appropriate angle.”

 

[Globenim]

The US is set to deploy the 200 petaflop Summit supercomputer within the next 6-12 months, twice as fast as the current record holder, and an exascale supercomputer by 2021. China's "lead" in supercomputing speed comes down to level of investment, not technological capability.

So, congratulations on your confidence to beat Chinas technological capabilities of the past, some day in the distant future and expecting at least some results from all those investments you made and plan to make?

 

[gambit]

China is that someone who builds a faster computer every other year for 6 years running continuously, tested twice a year. We are talking about the fastest supercomputer, what widespread adoption nonsense are you talking about. We are talking about Koenigsegg Agera R and Ferrari and you want to mention Ford and GM.

And how does this make China 'more advanced' than US ? If that is what you are implying.

Nazi Germany had the world's first operational jet engine, yet who lost the air war ? Sure, you can argue that other factors were involved and not the decision in keeping the jet engine restricted to fighters and not long range heavy bombers, but Nazi Germany had nothing comparable to the Allies' four-engines bombers and a four jet engines bombers could made have a difference, at least in damaging Allies' airbases where those heavy four-engines bombers operated from.

On the US side, what happened to the idea of 'compression lift' supersonic flight as proven feasible by the XB-70 ? The idea of 'compression lift' flight is when the aircraft effectively 'surfs' the supersonic shock waves it produces. Saves fuel and extends range. Am willing to bet you guys on this forum never heard of this idea.

The point here is that just because something is seemingly workable on paper, it does not mean it will be workable in real life, and technology history is filled with abandoned and even failed ideas.

Water is a high drag medium. So instead of designing an appropriate surface vessel to reduce RCS, you are going to make this surface vessel partially submerged, making it slower while having no increased protection from airborne ASW countermeasures.

Maybe they are teaching voodoo at the PLAN academy.

The Zumwalt is just god-awful.

The Zumwalt does not have a CIWS.

The Zumwalt is missing the AN/SPY-4 S-band Volume Search Radar.

The Zumwalt runs on non-Aegis software that does not have the capability to fire and use the SM-2/3/6 “Standard” series of missiles.

The Zumwalt's tumblehome wave-piercing hull could be inherently unstable and might capsize under the right conditions.

Ken Brower, a civilian naval architect with decades of naval experience was even more blunt: “It will capsize in a following sea at the wrong speed if a wave at an appropriate wavelength hits it at an appropriate angle.”

Yeah...You guys said the same things about the F-22, F-35, and the V-22. On this MILITARY ORIENTED forum, you Chinese do not have a good history of being correct.

 

[Beast]

And how does this make China 'more advanced' than US ? If that is what you are implying.

Nazi Germany had the world's first operational jet engine, yet who lost the air war ? Sure, you can argue that other factors were involved and not the decision in keeping the jet engine restricted to fighters and not long range heavy bombers, but Nazi Germany had nothing comparable to the Allies' four-engines bombers and a four jet engines bombers could made have a difference, at least in damaging Allies' airbases where those heavy four-engines bombers operated from.

On the US side, what happened to the idea of 'compression lift' supersonic flight as proven feasible by the XB-70 ? The idea of 'compression lift' flight is when the aircraft effectively 'surfs' the supersonic shock waves it produces. Saves fuel and extends range. Am willing to bet you guys on this forum never heard of this idea.

The point here is that just because something is seemingly workable on paper, it does not mean it will be workable in real life, and technology history is filled with abandoned and even failed ideas.

Water is a high drag medium. So instead of designing an appropriate surface vessel to reduce RCS, you are going to make this surface vessel partially submerged, making it slower while having no increased protection from airborne ASW countermeasures.

Maybe they are teaching voodoo at the PLAN academy.

Why you think this partial submerged ship has no defense against airborne ASW? Being partial submerged , it can quickly surface and pop a few long range HQ-9 air defense missile at your P-8 unlike submarine which is helpless against airborne target.

Speed is not a big priority but more of RCS reduction , sensor and huge arsenal of weapon.

 

[jhungary]

What tactical benefit that this ship will have? My question is, why it submerge and act like Submarine, and why it go to the surface and act like a destroyer? With that kind of design CG, where will the radar will be put on? I think the benefit of destroyer tower is to mount big radar that can scan and search the area. Including the air area. But if it has radar tower, then the stealth that the submarine has will be compromised, and reduced. Yet, if it has no radar tower, then it won't be able to act like destroyer.

So where the role this new ship class will be fit?

Benefit is not much, and this is not a new idea, the US Navy have the idea of Arsenal Ship back in 1996, money was awarded to defence contractor, it was designed, at that time, to replace the Iowa Class battleship (Having a hull number of 72 in the designation), the project was scraped by the congress in FY98.

The ship concept is flawed (in 1996) because exactly what you mentioned. The ship would originally to be a stand alone warship, but since lacking of conning tower, that mean the ship cannot designate target on its own, later design make it into a remote controlled warship, either by AEGIS destroyer or by E-2 Hawkeyes or E-3 Sentry, but doing so would have limited the ship's range (which can only function when it was in range of the mothership) Hence the project was scrapped.

The original AS-72 would have the following armament

500 + VLS Launcher
Submersible Capability.
Onboard Fire Control System.
Nuclear Powered

In 2013, US Navy is restarting the program in 2 ways. 1 is using Ohio Class Ballistic Submarine and convert it into an ASM Arsenal Ship with 154 VLS launcher for Tomahawk Missile. The other is using a LPD-17 (San Antonio Class LPD) and put 288 Mk-41 VLS. The first 3 Ohio have been converted into SSGN and the remaining 15 would be doing the same after the new Columbia Class enter the US Navy Service. And the LPD-17 concept is currently being study.