Ideal PLAN missile boat

A

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
I think it'd be better illustrated with an overhead photo:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


BUT I'd also note that, in case of the Paracel islands, the PLAN actually occupied the whole island chain and are in posession of real islands and not reefs.

In case of Spratleys, other nations have already occupied true "islands" and the PLAN only occupied about a dozen reefs. So to build an airstrip the size seen on Woody island, you'd need a lot of construction to build an artificial island on top of a reef.

But since this is a naval thread, let's get back to ships.

IMO there's no reason why you cannot build facilities in the Spratley reefs to support Type 022 FAC's. However I'd question the need. Right now the area is not in open conflict, so all you need are prolly some coast guard OPV's. Plus the other nations in the area don't have strong navies anyway:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


If I'm not mistaken, the Philippine navy doesn't have any ships armed with anti-ship missiles.
 
Last edited:
K

Kongo

Junior Member
The amount of support for planes back then is no different then now. The fundamentals are the same, you need a runway, hangar, planes, fuel, parts, pilots, ground crew, ordinance, quarters, control tower. Same then, same now. If the notion is so ridiculous, why does Woody Island in the Paracels have a 8100 feet long runway with airplane hangars and fuel storage?
Click to expand...

While the type of support remains the same, the amount of support needed to maintain current high tech fighters and firghters of WW2 era are of different orders of magnitude. I suggest you find out the support requirements needed to run a squadron. Then realise that just 2 aircraft will still need all those equipment that's needed to run a full squadron, though maybe in lesser quantities. All for what? If things turn hostile, 2 fighters are going to do diddly shit when in such close proximity to opposing forces.
 
planeman

planeman

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Kongo said:
While the type of support remains the same, the amount of support needed to maintain current high tech fighters and firghters of WW2 era are of different orders of magnitude. I suggest you find out the support requirements needed to run a squadron. Then realise that just 2 aircraft will still need all those equipment that's needed to run a full squadron, though maybe in lesser quantities. All for what? If things turn hostile, 2 fighters are going to do diddly shit when in such close proximity to opposing forces.
Click to expand...

I don't see the point of having any military forces in those islands, but on the topic of "token" combat aircraft deployments, the British maintained a flight of Harrier GR3s in Belize for years having a dramatic detterent affect on the Guatamalans, and similarly maintain a flight of interceptors (Phantoms later replaced by Tornado F3s) on the Falklands post 1982 war. Maintaining a "couple' of fighters, such as J-7s, might make sense to many PLA people. Missile boats can have a similar effect.
 
Finn McCool

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
I have to agree with Kongo-why put planes on vunerable and isolated bases in the Spratleys when the PLAAF has inflight-refueling and the PLAN will soon have an aircraft carrier.

However, getting back on topic, an engagement against the Phillipine Navy or the Vietnamese Navy in that area would be an excellent job for the Type 22-which is why the PLAN should keep what Type-22s it has but probably should not put more resources into FACs in the future.

Does anyone wanna get a close up of that base-it looks like there might be some ASM launchers, beach defence implacements, and radars.
 
Last edited:
A

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
planeman said:
I don't see the point of having any military forces in those islands, but on the topic of "token" combat aircraft deployments, the British maintained a flight of Harrier GR3s in Belize for years having a dramatic detterent affect on the Guatamalans, and similarly maintain a flight of interceptors (Phantoms later replaced by Tornado F3s) on the Falklands post 1982 war. Maintaining a "couple' of fighters, such as J-7s, might make sense to many PLA people. Missile boats can have a similar effect.
Click to expand...

China lost control of those islands in the first place, because they failed to occupy it. Same with Northern Siberia and other territories lost. If you want to maintain your hold to territory, you must have boots on the ground.

Rather than building airstrips and military buildings, I'd like to see them follow Malaysia's example and build up those reefs into artificial islands for habitation and economic activity. I'd also like to see boat docks and artificial harbors.

If the PLANAF needs fixed wing aircraft coverage, they could build up woody island in the Paracels. Aircraft can be ferried from Hainan to Woddy, then flown to patrol the Spratley area. At sea, I think for now all they need is some OPV's with a CIWS gun and 2 GP machineguns for fishery and EEZ enforcement.
 
planeman

planeman

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Pride is no reason to esculate situations regardless of wonded ego or past wrongs. Anyway, a search and rescue flight that you offer your neighbours, for a price, is far more worthwhile.
 
crobato

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Looking at the past conversations about the air defense of the Type 22, I would agree that the boat might be vulnerable to air attack. But that's an if...a rather BIG IF, you can manage to find it, then if you actually get to make a lock on it, then if you can get the antiship missile to lock on it.

With a low RCS ship, the seeker acquisition range of the missile will be drastically cut. An active radar guided antiship missile will have to stay longer in higher altitude in the midphase flight, then loiter to try and hunt for the target, where it needs to be much closer to the ship before the seeker can detect it.

Which leads you to the next problem. Once you get this faint radar return, what can tell the missile if this is the ship its trying to target, or something else. A flight of low flying birds, a school of dolphins, a whale on the surface, small fishing boats or yachts... If the missile detects a more conventional radar ship signature, one for a larger ship, the missile may decide to target it instead.

This is the kind of ship that gives an active radar guided AshM the fits. The kind of missile better used against these shpis are stuff like the Penguins which has electroopical seekers. An AGM-65 Maverick would be better choice than a Harpoon. Of course the ROCAF just happens F-16s with Mavericks.

But this appears to have been anticipated. If a missile can lock onto the ship with its EO seeker, you would also be in range that the ship's own IRST can lock onto the plane or missile, so the AK-630 can fire. Another is the rather confusing patterns of strange camouflage being applied to several Type 22 vessels; this may be an experiment designed to confuse the pattern and shade recognition routines of EO seekers.
 
Finn McCool

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
crobato said:
Looking at the past conversations about the air defense of the Type 22, I would agree that the boat might be vulnerable to air attack. But that's an if...a rather BIG IF, you can manage to find it, then if you actually get to make a lock on it, then if you can get the antiship missile to lock on it.

With a low RCS ship, the seeker acquisition range of the missile will be drastically cut. An active radar guided antiship missile will have to stay longer in higher altitude in the midphase flight, then loiter to try and hunt for the target, where it needs to be much closer to the ship before the seeker can detect it.

Which leads you to the next problem. Once you get this faint radar return, what can tell the missile if this is the ship its trying to target, or something else. A flight of low flying birds, a school of dolphins, a whale on the surface, small fishing boats or yachts... If the missile detects a more conventional radar ship signature, one for a larger ship, the missile may decide to target it instead.

This is the kind of ship that gives an active radar guided AshM the fits. The kind of missile better used against these shpis are stuff like the Penguins which has electroopical seekers. An AGM-65 Maverick would be better choice than a Harpoon. Of course the ROCAF just happens F-16s with Mavericks.

But this appears to have been anticipated. If a missile can lock onto the ship with its EO seeker, you would also be in range that the ship's own IRST can lock onto the plane or missile, so the AK-630 can fire. Another is the rather confusing patterns of strange camouflage being applied to several Type 22 vessels; this may be an experiment designed to confuse the pattern and shade recognition routines of EO seekers.
Click to expand...

Now I might be mistaken about this but I think some issues were raised about the Type 22's RCS. I was under the impression that although it has a stealth profile it is not that stealty. I could be wrong though. However I would certainy say that it is a misconception to say that the Type 22 has the same RCS as a surfacing whale.

That's an interesting point you raise about the Type 22's camoflauge. It could quite possible be designed to fool missles. This would probably have some effect on TV guided missles as well.
 
planeman

planeman

Senior Member
VIP Professional
I think that the Type-022 is VERY stealthy by warship standards. The attention to detail of the windows and such like simply wouldn't be cost-effective otherwise. The only combat capable ships that probably beat it for stealth are the Visby and Skjold (spelt?) classes which have the advantage of using composite materials for an even cleaner finish.

Another aspect is IR signiture suppression - the engines clearly exhausts between the hulls which will give it a much smaller IR signiture than most other warships.

I have seen no photographic evidence that points towards flaws in its stealth application.

The only area I am unsure about is the curved area where the catamaran bows meet the central hull, and the chaff/flare tubes in front of the bridge.
 
J

joshuatree

Captain
Finn McCool said:
Now I might be mistaken about this but I think some issues were raised about the Type 22's RCS. I was under the impression that although it has a stealth profile it is not that stealty. I could be wrong though. However I would certainy say that it is a misconception to say that the Type 22 has the same RCS as a surfacing whale.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would have a RCS of a surfacing whale but maybe a fishing trawler? But even at that level, that's plenty to confuse the enemy since we're not out in the open ocean and I'm sure there are plenty of fishing boats around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top