It seems redundant when you have Type 055 or other such projects down the pipeline. If analysts are correct to question the survivalbility and deterrence of aggressive LACM arsenals ships that aren't SSGNs like Zumwalt/SC-21, then this projects sole purpose seems to be the usual surface, air-defence engagements, and always escorted as its easily monitored. Definitely a moderate cost-to-survivalbility benefit to explain if it goes beyond the drawing board.
PLA Navy news, pics and videos
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
I actually don't think it would be reasonable to assume that they would seek to pursue acoustic signature management similar to that of a submarine.
Let's consider why they may be interested in reducing an arsenal ship's surface signature -- it is essentially to make it a smaller target, in domains of RCS and visual/EO, but RCS especially imo.
An arsenal ship is usually conceived as a fairly large platform given the priority of putting many missile tubes into a single platform with not much space for little else, the bigger it gets.
The bigger the target it is, the bigger the RCS and visual profile it is and the more easy it is for the current primary long range ISR/tracking-midcourse-terminal kill chain to work (with the modern kill chain largely centred around around radar platforms and fire control radars for the detection/tracking/midcourse phase, and using active radar seekers and as passive EO/IR seekers for the terminal phase). But by putting most of the ship under water, I think the goal is to significantly reduce the ship's RCS and visual profile and thus also significantly reduce their vulnerability to the tracking-midcourse-terminal kill chain at all levels in the radar and visual/EO domains. A small radar and EO/visual signature means it's much harder for the enemy to know if your arsenal ship is actuall there at long range and at the tracking/midcourse guidance phase, and it's also hard for the enemy's missiles or FCRs to positively identify and engage at the terminal phase.
OTOH, when we consider acoustic stealth requirements for submarines, it is because they rely on the ability to achieve something as close to absolute stealth as possible, which I think is quite different to the signature management goal of a semi submersible arsenal ship.
This isn't to say that they won't seek to appropriately manage the acoustic signature of such a ship -- they're definitely not going to go out of their way to make it loud -- but I think it would be acceptable for such a ship to have an acoustic signature similar to an equivalent surface ship of its size, considering it is not meant to be a submarine and that in a high intensity contingency it would likely operate in as part of a task force made up of other fairly conventional surface ships (DDG, FFG, CV) which will generate a fair amount of noise as well. As part of a task force, the idea of signature management for the arsenal ship would be to make it very difficult for the enemy to confirm whether such a ship is even present in the task force for the longer range tracking/midcourse guidance part of the kill chain, and in the terminal phase of the kill chain the goal is to make it very difficult for the enemy to command their AShMs to deliberately ID and focus on the arsenal ship (given an arsenal ship would very much be a high value target as part of the task force) by having such a small target within the task force that it's difficult to ID and lock onto it in the first place, especially given the layers of hard kill and soft kill measures there would be.
An arsenal ship of course would have a similar vulnerability to submarines as all other surface ships in the task force and the responsibility of ASW would be with the rest of the task force's surface ships, but it's not like the arsenal ship would be somehow more vulnerable to submarines in a tactical sense than surface ships just because of its semi submerged nature. At most, being semi submerged means the arsenal ship will sink faster if it's hit by a torpedo (or even a missile as well) compared to a surface ship, but being semi submerged shouldn't make the arsenal ship any easier to detect, track or engage by submarines compared to other conventional surface ships in the task force.
However, being semi submerged does make the arsenal ship much harder to detect, track and engage by radar and EO sensors or radar and EO guided weapons, compared to other conventional surface ships in the task force.
To be honest I'm not entirely convinced that the Chinese Navy needs such a vessel either -- as you say, the USN's original idea for it was as part of a desire to have "full spectrum dominance" and such a ship would very much be the icing on top of the rest of the large and impressive cake with many carriers, surface combatants and submarines which make up the bulk of their primary combat force.
If the Chinese Navy really are pursuing such a ship, it may be because they have identified a requirement in their own warfighting strategy that they are seeking a unique solution to, and/or they might be developing such a ship because they too want to seek "full spectrum dominance" and that this semi submersible arsenal ship is merely one part of their overall procurement plans (which we don't know of) and those plans may include a substantial amount of the flexible/conventional forces that you described. So such an arsenal ship may still very much be the icing on the cake for the Chinese Navy as well.
Jura The idiot
General
I skimmed through this new topic here of 'semi-submersible arsenal ship' and have a question
(sorry if it's been already discussed, actually I'll be scrolling back right now)
what missiles would such a ship launch? (I'm guessing these would be land-attack missiles only, because for other missiles (anti-shipping, anti-air, anti-sub) extensive communications would be needed which should be avoided in the case of "surreptitious" ship)
(sorry if it's been already discussed, actually I'll be scrolling back right now)
An arsenal ship would have datalinks to communicate with other ships and aircraft. It will not have much of any sensors of its own and would rely on the sensors of other platforms via datalinks.
Jura The idiot
General
I'm not sure what the answer to my question
"what missiles would such a ship launch?"
would it then be ... perhaps "any"? (LOL I'm not trying to answer for you, just wonder)
I mean launching a missile is just the beginning, the tough part follows after that ... of course assuming over-the-horizon engagements, Opfor with the ability to jam ...
Well your question about "what missiles can it launch" is entirely dependent on what kind of sensor information it has access to.
I answered that such a ship will likely be datalinked with a variety of other platforms including ships, aircraft, and probably satellites as well. So yes, in theory the answer is "potentially any".
Maybe AShMs, maybe LACMs, or even AShBMs, possibly even SAMs. The exact priority would depend on the Navy's choice but I think it would be more offensively minded than defensively minded.
Jura The idiot
General
in the meantime I noticed a problem (originally in
#1041 Bltizo, Yesterday at 1:27 AM
at the point which I don't want to take out of context, but which was "... it is part of a battle group ..."):
such a ship would be only as effective as the rest of the battle group
(OK according to me
in the meantime I noticed a problem (originally in
#1041 Bltizo, Yesterday at 1:27 AM
at the point which I don't want to take out of context, but which was "... it is part of a battle group ..."):
such a ship would be only as effective as the rest of the battle group
(OK according to me
Yes, it's part of a battle group and in a high intensity warfare situation it would definitely be so.
The information it would receive would be from the battlegroup or task force it is datalinked with as well as probably other assets outside of the task force like surveillance aircraft, satellites, and other ships. That would all provide information for it to launch its missiles.
I imagine this should make complete sense to you.
Jura The idiot
General
actually I think such a vessel as the part of a SAG would be more a vulnerability than an asset: if the communications went down (and in a high-intensity combat they likely would to some extent), said SAG would be better off if the missiles were mounted on Type 055, 052D, ... ships instead
in short now: no, I don't believe in "stealth at sea"
055s and 052Ds and other ships will all have their own missiles, it isn't like the arsenal ship's missiles means other ships will not also have full VLS cells.
As for communications and datalinks -- you realize that they are the very cornerstone of modern warfare right? If the arsenal ship had its datalinks severed then chances are the datalinks between all of your other ships and aircraft in the task force are compromised as well and then it won't matter whether your arsenal ship is able to fire its missiles or not because everyone is collectively screwed due to an inability to communicate.
Anyway, what you describe seems to be more about the arsenal ship concept in itself rather, because the whole idea of an arsenal ship even in the original USN proposals was that it would rely on datalinks and offboard sensors from other ships and aircraft.
The role of having the ship be semi submerged and harder to track and engage has not much effect on the ship's role of a traditional arsenal ship concept and it remains dependent on offboard sensors and datalinks. Being semi-submerged would be just to increase the ship's survivability by reducing its RCS and visual signature, that's it.