Future PLAN Forecast Thread: Number, disposition, etc.

[tphuang]

WRT the engine issue I'd think that the COGES (combined gas-electric-steam) approach would be very effective in improving combat efficiency, the concept is such that it can even be implemented in automobiles which have many more stop-start cycles than ships. Gas turbines produce electricity and provide heat to steam turbines which then power electric generators.

except that PLAN has pretty much gone with CODOG for DDGs. I don't know what that would mean if they wanted to have larger DDGs. Would they event have the propulsions that are appropriate for 10,000 ton DDGs. I'm not sure.

I honestly don't like where this conversation is heading. We are talking about PLAN here, not the Indian Navy. The point is that there are so much building going on that we don't need to speculate and dream up fantasy ships. We are seeing a huge building boom right now. Just be patient and wait.

 

[montyp165]

except that PLAN has pretty much gone with CODOG for DDGs. I don't know what that would mean if they wanted to have larger DDGs. Would they event have the propulsions that are appropriate for 10,000 ton DDGs. I'm not sure.

At the very least the PLAN has domestic high hp-output maritime gas turbine in the wings (>50,000 shp) mentioned here and elsewhere, that's on top of the licence-produced Ukrainian turbines, so the PLAN has plenty of options for scaling up if so needed.

 

[tphuang]

At the very least the PLAN has domestic high hp-output maritime gas turbine in the wings (>50,000 shp) mentioned here and elsewhere, that's on top of the licence-produced Ukrainian turbines, so the PLAN has plenty of options for scaling up if so needed.

Actually, I posted most of the info on that. 052C uses basically the same propulsion as 052B and 052A. I'm sure it has improved propeller and gearbox reduction and such but the engines/turbines themselves are the same. Having 2 QC-280 + 2 diesel engines just can't generate the same power as 4 LM-2500+. To go from powering a 6000 ton ship to powering 10,000 ton ship is a huge jump. They'd have to come up with a whole new design using a new propulsion arrangement in order to power a larger DDG. I really don't know how that would look like.

 

[montyp165]

Actually, I posted most of the info on that. 052C uses basically the same propulsion as 052B and 052A. I'm sure it has improved propeller and gearbox reduction and such but the engines/turbines themselves are the same. Having 2 QC-280 + 2 diesel engines just can't generate the same power as 4 LM-2500+. To go from powering a 6000 ton ship to powering 10,000 ton ship is a huge jump. They'd have to come up with a whole new design using a new propulsion arrangement in order to power a larger DDG. I really don't know how that would look like.

This was an article link discussing the gas turbine topic, if it hadn't been mentioned earlier:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[tphuang]

This was an article link discussing the gas turbine topic, if it hadn't been mentioned earlier:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It does not seem all that well written. Our naval propulsion thread has more info than that. Please make a note off which projects are ongoing and which are complete. We are going to have to see if china build a larger ddg than now like in the 8000 to 9000 ton range, what kind of propulsion arrangement they use.
What I am trying to point out to you and others here is that they're arte serious design constraints that all chinese naval ship designers face. Think about that before arguing about how many missiles they can fit on each ship.

 

[EDIATH]

Actually, I posted most of the info on that. 052C uses basically the same propulsion as 052B and 052A. I'm sure it has improved propeller and gearbox reduction and such but the engines/turbines themselves are the same. Having 2 QC-280 + 2 diesel engines just can't generate the same power as 4 LM-2500+. To go from powering a 6000 ton ship to powering 10,000 ton ship is a huge jump. They'd have to come up with a whole new design using a new propulsion arrangement in order to power a larger DDG. I really don't know how that would look like.

QC280 must be pretty big otherwise they would have fitted four into a DDG below 10k tons. I'm still keen to see QC185 making it onto the main stage of naval propulsion, hopefully the "185" numerals does not denote 18.5 MW shaft power for this engine.

QC280 and QC185 are pretty much all the options they have got for an engine solution, though they might leap frog from CODOG to IEP (currently being tested on a 1500-ton survey ship) for propulsion :coffee:

 

[maozedong]

I have read the article from chinese BBS,that said QC185 is chinese research mid size gas tubine engine,it's chinese own copy right, but QC280 is copied Ukraine GT-25000,and improved it to western standard, if I don't make mistake, 4 of QC280 for 9,000ton-10,000ton future PLAN war ship.
here is the photo, maybe it already had been post before.

 

[plawolf]

the new DDGs should have a 130 mm caliber main gun that would be used to attack surface target like AK-130 on Sov. At the same time, the launchers for YJ-62 can easily be replaced by tubed launchers for LACMs (052C is capable of this already). So if that's what PLAN chooses, it would do this.

True enough, but in this day and age, how often would it be a good idea to park a warship within gun range of a hostile coast to bombard it? Even then, the reach of the gun limits how far inland the targets the ship can engage.

As for replacing AShMs with LACMs, well again doable, but how much impact is 4-8 LACMs per ship going to make? All that would be good for would be the odd symbolic strike. In a full scale war, such a small number of missiles would be unlikely to make a meaningful contribution.

This all seems like a stop-gap measure instead of a real solution.

However, if the PLAN really wants a makeshift cruise missile launching platform, the 071 LPD and any future LHD might make more interesting options.

Just load a couple of their land mobile DH10 launchers, a few reloading vehicles and as many missiles as would fit in the well deck instead of LCACs, open the back ramp without flooding the deck and fire away.

They could also keep one or two launchers in the hanger instead of the Z8s, (or even erect a temporary shelter at the back of the flight deck so they can also maintain some flight ops) and then just roll the launchers out into the flight deck to fire in any direction they please.

I haven't done an actual measurement, but it seems that the new LCAC might be big enough to carry on of their land mobile DH10 launchers, if that was the case, that opens up all sorts of other possibilities.

This is going off topic, but technically, if the LCAC is big enough, this could also work with S300 and HQ9s. If the 071 can carry 3 LCACs, then thats enough to deploy a radar vehicle and two launchers. This could provide some interesting asymmetrical warfare options, especially in littorals or small island chains.

 

[montyp165]

A universal VLS tube system for different munitions is still the necessary approach for future surface combatants, as it also simplifies upgrades and improvements as new developments occur.

 

[ZTZ99]

Just load a couple of their land mobile DH10 launchers, a few reloading vehicles and as many missiles as would fit in the well deck instead of LCACs, open the back ramp without flooding the deck and fire away.

It's unlikely the ventilation system inside the well deck is going to be able to handle multiple launches of a DH-10 system (or possibly even a single launch), even if the ramp is open. I also doubt the deck surfacing has been toughened to withstand the high temperatures involved.

They could also keep one or two launchers in the hanger instead of the Z8s, (or even erect a temporary shelter at the back of the flight deck so they can also maintain some flight ops) and then just roll the launchers out into the flight deck to fire in any direction they please.

This is a more likely scenario, since they can point the exhaust over the edge of the flight deck and ventilation is not a problem.

I haven't done an actual measurement, but it seems that the new LCAC might be big enough to carry on of their land mobile DH10 launchers, if that was the case, that opens up all sorts of other possibilities.

This may be possible, but I doubt it would be a practical use of the LCAC. There isn't anything a DH-10 launcher can do on an LCAC that it can't do on the flight deck of the 071, which incidentally is a far more stable firing platform than the LCAC.

This is going off topic, but technically, if the LCAC is big enough, this could also work with S300 and HQ9s. If the 071 can carry 3 LCACs, then thats enough to deploy a radar vehicle and two launchers. This could provide some interesting asymmetrical warfare options, especially in littorals or small island chains.

Stability is probably a far more important issue for SAM's and their radars than it is for SSM's, and especially for land-based SAM's like the S-300. For example, I doubt the S-300's tracking radar is programmed to take into account the pitch and roll of the LCAC that PLAN naval radars are designed to compensate for, making it harder if not impossible for the S-300 radar to track targets at sea. Given that the LCAC is a much smaller vessel than the 071, the pitching and rolling will be much more pronounced, adding even more to the problem.