Title123
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2016
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
why you did.
China unveils a new concept of naval warships - semi-submersible arsenal-ship
- Thread starter 52051
- Start date
It takes a long time before an idea becomes a product, so long that it's often irrelevant who came up with the idea first. Is it more relevant which ancient tribe first came up with the idea of reaching the moon, or which men first actually stepped on it?
China will be the first one to make a semi-submersible arsenal ship, while the US lacks the tech and the industry to make it viable as your linked articles demonstrate.
BTW, you should stop these false flag arguments. This ship isn't meant to be a super quiet SSGN that'll act as a lone sniper, it's your average-Joe relatively noisy arsenal ship that uses semi-submersibility as a passive defense against incoming missile attacks when needed, and maneuver like a regular ship when it's not needed. It'll be just as vulnerable to submarines and thus require protection from escorts as any other arsenal ship.
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
Actually, the US has already "BUILT" Arsenal Ship, in a way of converting 3 Ohio Class SSGN, which is currently operational, so the title is indeed false.
Arsenal Ship was a concept, be it submersible like Ohio SSGN, Semi-submersible or Surface variant (LPD-17 Class) it would be of the same usage, it is not that US cannot build Semi-Submersible Arsenal Ship because it lacked tech and industry (US built both semi-Submersible and arsenal ship), they did a study on it, comes up with the idea of Submersible Arsenal Ship would not be of best interest of the US Navy (For reason, see post 30), instead of dropping the Arsenal Ship concept, the US Navy opt for building a submerged Arsenal Ship and float around the concept of Surface Ballistic Defence Ship.
If I remember correctly, the then CNO of US Navy actually commented on the semi-submersible Arsenal Ship as "instead of designing a whole new concept we would rather just build a tanker and put a lot of VLS on it".
You're right, the USN SSGNs indeed function very much like an arsenal ship, but they're converted, exorbitantly expensive SSBNs and not a clean, purposeful design. An arsenal ship is a glorified porter, using SSGNs as an arsenal ship is a poor use of resources for what are merely porters. It is the better choice for the USN because its lack of tech and industry make designing a whole new class an even poorer use of resources. Just look at any of the new designs of the USN, the Zumwalt and the LCS for example all have absurd cost to performance ratios.
I stand by what I said, the USN no longer has the tech and industry to make viable new designs such as the semi-submersible arsenal ship. All they can make now is incremental improvements, e.g. Burke flight III's, Ford class, Ohio SSGNs, etc.
The US designed those submarines during the cold war, all the new designs as mentioned above are complete failures. The USN can no longer come up with viable new designs, but it can still survive off of achievements of the cold war for a few more decades.
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
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.
Last edited:
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
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
Arsenal Battleship
CG-21 (cancelled) Arsenal Ship concept
Submersible/Semi-submersible Hull Arsenal Ship
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......
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
For yrs on this forum I have always said this about the Chinese here...That they GENUINELY believes that if China cannot or do not make something -- no one else can.
jkroo
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 1,177
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Ridiculous. Naive and rude just like some Yankees maybe some others. lol
The same causes can installed on US perfectly and even more suitable. lol
BTW Who the hell care about what you said about Chinese and who the hell give you the rights to seriously BS to Chinese? lol
To be frank , you are just a NOBODY in my eyes who keep catching eyeballs on PDF even in the Chinese Defence Forum section.
Just stay calm and stop posting such rude sentences try to act like an adult, pls. And no thanks and no response will be better to end this 'conversation'.
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
Well........If they want to think like that, let them lol...
There are a lot of Experimental Naval Design the US studied by either drawing, mock up, modelling or even sea trial that they never even think of. The design of Sea Jet and Zumwalt Class is beyond the Chinese reaches, yet they think the US cannot design or make a Semi-submersible Arsenal Ship, go figure lol.
Who want to build a useless, underarmed and highly expensive 10000tons fat pig Zumwalt cruiser? Even your USN cut down the number of intended build from 20 to just 1. More or less show what a failure it is. Instead of bragging China can't, its more of nobody want to make the same stupid mistake like USN. It just like the "New Emperor Clothes" for the USN
While China instead of making a highly unstable reduced RCS design, Chinese just submerged the hull to have better reduced RCS while packed with hundred of missiles. Brilliant.
Last edited:
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
Who want to build a useless, underarmed and highly expensive 10000tons fat pig Zumwalt cruiser? Even your USN cut down the number of intended build from 20 to just 1. More or less show what a failure it is. Instead of bragging China can't, its more of nobody want to make the same stupid mistake like USN. It just like the "New Emperor Clothes" for the USN
While China instead of making a highly unstable reduced RCS design, Chinese just submerged the hull to have better reduced RCS while packed with hundred of missiles. Brilliant.
Zumwalt is not about Firepower, it is a technological demonstrator, you can put whatever you want in it ANYTIME. The ship is not important per se, the DESIGN, which is modular, is. Can a Chinese ship load different mission package on a same ship so you don't need a ASW specific ship Specifically for ASW, and a AA Ship specifically for Enemy Air Threat and a Anti Surface ship specially for enemy surface combatant. You only need one ship. And it can load 3 different mission package in it.
The whole idea of Zumwalts is not that we need it, but we need the TECHNOLOGY WE HAVE IN IT. The technology we gain by making Zumwalts has transferred to Arleigh Burke Class and Ticonderoga Class, effectively, making these ship just as deadly as Zumwalts, thus why would we need a large amount of new hull if the existing one already enough to deter navy like the Chinese or Russian? Or you do think we do not have enough money to actually build 20 Zumwalts? Bear in mind the 3 ship cost around 2.6 billions each, where as a AB Class flight II cost around 2.1 Billions each, we can as easy build 30 Zumwalts with 15 billions more instead of building 30 AB Flight III.
LOL, by saying what you said, you just show you have no idea of future warship design. Zumwalts only ever made 3 is because the US feel the edge is too much, and it does not needed more when we can transfer it tech on existing class of ship, when China or Russia get to that level in some decays, maybe we will build more Zumwalts, or better class of ship, but still, that's YEARS if not DECADES away from China catching up with the US.
And LOL, you do not know anything about Submersible. Anything that big in shallow water would create large drag, and it will both make it noisy near water surface and making it slow, again, this is the reason why the US did not build them in 1996 in the first place. Or do you think the American can build a fully submerged Submarine Arsenal Ship but not a semi-submersible? Just because US chuck it out as Rubbish Idea and China pick it up, it does not make that Idea change form Rubbish to Gold. If China think this is a good idea, well, good on you, I hope you good luck, but US studied it, developed it, and think it's bad. Does that mean anything about the US navy??
I don't want something and I can't build something are two different concepts.
But Again, please do believe US Navy cannot build Semi-Submersible, I have no intention of stopping you believing that, in fact, if some of the Top Ranking PLAN brass believe that, I think the US Navy will be too glad.
Last edited:
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Just like your technically ignorant friend, you cannot tell the difference between what is a design flaw and what does not meet mission/doctrine requirements.While China instead of making a highly unstable reduced RCS design, Chinese just submerged the hull to have better reduced RCS while packed with hundred of missiles. Brilliant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_carburetor
The Spitfire satisfied mission/doctrine requirements of the RAF, but it had a design flaw -- gravity fed carburetor.
Essentially, under maneuvers that often involves negative-g, the Spitfire would lose engine fuel supply. If my target go into a dive I would have to execute an inverted roll before pursuing, costing me time and even putting myself into a vulnerable position. The flaw was fixed one yr into the war.
So explain to us, with valid technical info, on how this Chinese semi-submersible ship, which is nothing more than a concept, is more 'advanced' than the discarded American version.
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 attack the search 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？
The use of large fleet with a large fleet, the cruise missile submarine with submarines, not used to use this. Carrier battle group is a system, attack the ship is not there. Regional refusal is also a system, attack the ship is not there inside. It is a odd job. One of the two navies on Earth is not zero work? Then fight guerrilla also line ah. Do not forget how to fight guerrilla warfare?
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，也不會太心痛。
This is a cheap, stealth, efficient, high-speed equipment, suitable for use in the secondary direction. Loss, and will not be too sad.
Google Translated
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
Because there is no submarine pressure shell, "often dive" attack ship has a lot of space to install the vertical launch system.
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?
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).
.
Similar threads
