As proposed and written of in the
The concept envisioned an entire task force including jump-jet carriers for air defense, attac subs, SSGNs and the amphibious vessels.
Aphibious warfare using the submarine??
- Thread starter Autumn Child
- Start date
As proposed and written of in the
The concept envisioned an entire task force including jump-jet carriers for air defense, attac subs, SSGNs and the amphibious vessels.
Thanks. Been very busy with family, work and the holidays. Hope to be able to get more frequent again soon.Jeff, you're back!
And I love it every time you show those pics.
Those larger subs in the novels and depicted in the pics are in the 40,000 ton range. The amphib variant have hatches on the sides, right at the waterline, for LCAC operations, as well as hangar spaces for helos and jum-jets. The carriers have a wing of F-35s and AEW V-22 variants, as well as V-22 anti-sub variants.
Also, if interested, check out my .
Hope you and yours (and everyone at Sino Defence Forum) had a Merry Christmas and are looking forward to a great New Year.
same to you, Jeff. Glad to see you are back. Nice update to your website, I think this promises to be a really busy year in PLAN, so you might be updating that page a few more times.
Thanks tphuang.
I believe you are right. I expect to see more frigates on the ways, maybe more DDGS, maybe another LPD, certainly more landing craft, more subs (like the apparent new mod on the Juan), etc...and who knows what will transpire with the Varyag.
It will be interesting for sure!
Nice for you to drop by Jeff. But you know if I were you I would clean up or delete some of those pictures of subs under construction in your website because I don't think they belong to the PLAN. I think one is a Scorpene, two are Kilos which may or may not be the PLAN's, and two are of the Zvaardis that was actually meant for the ROCN.
The one page regarding the growth is older and may well have a left over error or two on it. Thanks for bringing them to my attention.
The point however is simple...and it is without question or contention. The PLAN has made dramatic progress in its own construction and acquisition of modern diesel electric subs...Song, Juan, and Kilos...over the last few years. There has been significant construction associated with this. They are now making significant progress in the nuclear sub area...which I must add, was much needed, given the Hans and single SSBN.
They have made equally, very impressive progress in the modernization and construction and acquisition of their surface combatants. Tremendous ship building has been associated with that as well, and it is an amazing and phenominal buildup they have embarked on over the last 6-7 years.
I guess this is the Welcome back Jeff thread! So happy to see you posting again..Be sure to check out all the PIX I have posted...
The USN Ohio class SSGN are capable of landing a entire SEAL team. At this time this is the extent of an amphip landing conducted by a sub. And that would be a covert mission.
I can't imangine the cost of the subs proposed in this thread.
So happy to see you posting again..Be sure to check out all the PIX I have posted...The USN Ohio class SSGN are capable of landing a entire SEAL team. At this time this is the extent of an amphip landing conducted by a sub. And that would be a covert mission.
I can't imangine the cost of the subs proposed in this thread.
As everyone else here has made abundantly clear, it's good to have one of our most knowledgeable members back, Jeff Head. Welcome back Jeff.
A weapons systems cost is never an issue once it has been built and proved worthwhile in combat. When it comes to budgeting for the military governments work by inertia. It's tough to get them to approve a new piece of hardware or other expense, but once a service has gotten what it wants, it's hell to get them to give it up (unless of course it has proved to be ineffective in combat).
A weapons systems cost is never an issue once it has been built and proved worthwhile in combat. When it comes to budgeting for the military governments work by inertia. It's tough to get them to approve a new piece of hardware or other expense, but once a service has gotten what it wants, it's hell to get them to give it up (unless of course it has proved to be ineffective in combat).
I guess this is the Welcome back Jeff thread!
The USN Ohio class SSGN are capable of landing a entire SEAL team. At this time this is the extent of an amphip landing conducted by a sub. And that would be a covert mission.
I can't imangine the cost of the subs proposed in this thread.
The kind of subs being envisioned in Jeff's picture resembles those of the Typhoon class in concept, that is where the storage is moved to the front of the tower rather than on the back. As a matter of fact, the Typhoon actually had cargo sub proposals based on her design. Now you're looking at 20,000mt minimum of surface displacement for such ships.
Cost is relative. What makes subs expensive to make, refit or even scrap is cutting, welding, bending of even harder and thicker steel. That means a sub with higher and better quality steels is not only more expensive from the materials point of view, but from labor point of view. One of the reasons why there is a jump in price from LA class to Seawolf is the change from HY-80 steel to HY-100. The French, their subs not cheap either, is using HY-120 steel. As I mentioned in another thread, the fact that US sub designs are single hulled, also makes them more expensive, because you have to form those plats that form the pressure hull, into a hydrodynamic shape also, whereas in a double hull design, complicated shaping of pressure hull plates is not needed, since the hydrodynamic shape can be bent and welded using the thinner steel plates for the outer hull.
Basically the reason for using higher quality steels is to go deeper.
But for a "carrying" sub we can reduce costs by using more moderate parameters. An operational maximum depth of 300m instead of something like 400 or 500m. A double hull construction might be in order too.