Ideal PLAN missile boat

LOL. A fishing trawler will have a higher RCS than this ship. A fishing trawler is full of vertical surfaces. If you want to understand the relationship of RCS to a ship, think of the ship's cross section outline and put in relation to the water surface. Count how many right and acute angles you can make from the hull, to the mast and to the funnel.

The Type 22, right from the waterline on top of the two submerged hulls, present an open angle (beyond 90 degrees) that has a tendency to deflect radio waves up high, and not back to the horizon to feed either the radar of an antishipping missile, or the radar of a ship or patrol aircraft.

Even many ships that claim stealthiness through "fancy" superstructure designs, cannot eliminate the 90 degree and lower acute angles posed by the main hull against the water surface. Its an effort in expensive futiilty to add highly detailed RCS reduction measures when you have the slab face of your monohull doing a 90 degrees with the water surface.

If you have a radar guided antiship missile in the vicinty of a trawler and a Type 22, it will likely ignore the 22 and attack the trawler.

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.

Click to expand...

It depends on how curved the surface is. If you can actually visually see an optical highlight in the curved surface, chances are it can produce a radar highlight. Though I have never seen a highlight from the slightly curved skirts of the Type 22.

I actually like the 2208 class very much. With datalink, having these boats launch a over-the-horizon missile attack on a CVBG is a viable tactic.

stealth features on the AK630 turret

Umm, let's refine the areas of the Chinese coast where FACs are useful.

What countries currently use mainly FACs? Suomi, since their seas are narrow and have a lot of islands to hide in, big ships don't fair well in its not so deep water.
Where in the Chinese coast do these conditions exist, or lack ships?
I can only think of Bohai (The Gulf North of Yellow Sea near Beijing.) Gulf of Tonkin (Next to Vietnam, but the South Fleet already have a bunch of Type 37X FACs) Maybe Shanghai (There is a small bunch of small islands near the mouth and is closest area to Taiwan outside the strait and to the Ryukyu chain)

A missile boat is a boat with missiles onboard and systems that help to deliver them. Common role is anti-ship. Can't go much further.

Issues talked of on the "Type 22": the mast, AAW, sonar.

I don't think the mast will be a problem, at least structually. Just look at the masts for the Type 37s, they are pretty tall and gives the boats a good 80km reach. That should be a good enough reach. How much weight will covering the mast cost though?
And if you need more radars, there's always the space between the missiles, just like that of the Huangfeng.

As for AAW, I doubt you can install VLS, especially in the front. Maybe Baraks in between the ASMs, though I doubt China will buy them at all. The Palma or FL-2000 will do, though you'll need a CIWS with the FL-2000 of some sort in the back just in case a missile comes in from there.

Is it possible to fit a sonar somewhere in one of its ..............floats?
ASROCs would do better than just torpedoes.....Torpedoes'd land on the deck when launched..... Anyone think this thing can lay mines or depth charges?

You don't need a MP main gun on this thing, and it's impossible to fit one.

PS. 20m/s? Is that the common way to measure wind speed in Europe? Just never thought people'd use it for the wind. If the wind is blowing at 35 knots, I doubt the enemy would be shooting at you though.

FACs as other small combatants are usefull and the best cost-effective solution in waters near the coastline. A rude arghipelago, like we have is more of ruling out bigger ships than it is to justificate the FACs. The use of FACs alongside mines is the ideal and only reasonable solution in our case but it doesen't mean you cannot use them in other type of coastlines.

The key element of FACs in good and bad is the small size. It makes the cheap and more agile than bigger ships which is ideal solution when the operational range is short. The small size however reduces the ammount of systems being fitted and most importantly the provisions and suplies which affects to the endurance. This rules out the use of FACs in long distances and thus eliminates their use in "fleet operations"

Now countries like Finland can rely on FACs simply becouse we don't have acsess to oceans and our political goals and ampitions doesen't require us to "show the flag" around the world. Many countries which geological situation gives them acsess to oceans rely's on FACs simply becouse the cost (or political reasons).

But it's evident that large navies, which goals and roles are different than o smaller countries have not invested on FACs so much (other than in export purposes). France, Italy, Spain, United Kindom, Japan and of course USA have only using FACs in very limited scale in the modern era. The reason to this is simple: The idea of big fleets is to meat and intercept enemy naval precense far away from the homewaters. Tough it may seem practical to have sort of "back-up fleet" made from FACs, it really isen't plausible as A: the big fleet can do the same task much better and much furter away from your home and B: the cost of FACs is still a factor and big fleets needs to cut down the budget where ever they can...

The exeption to the rule is ofcourse Russia/soviet union which has been the pioneer in FAC development troughout the history. There's many reasons to it, mainly the unique geological situation of russia. In fact the main naval theatres which are close to the main populated areas of Russia are Baltic (which the russian acsess has always been limited) and the Black sea which both are ideal waters for FAC use. The oceanic reach of Russia are the Artic sea in the north and Pasific ocean in the siberia. I'm sure you all know the infrastructical and other limits of those two areas so I'm not going to explain their unsutability to ideal naval use any longer.
So the russian naval history has always been dragged to the geological impossibility to build a combined Oceanic fleet. They have always need to focus on too many theatres at one time so the logical way to compensate this has been building small combatants. Only the increased political influence in global scale forced russians to start paying attention to more dominant bluewater naval operations.

So now we get to China. The chinese naval development has followed somewhat the same pattern as the soviet fleet. Since the 1949, PRC had basicly have to build the entire naval branch from the scratch and it followed the ideas poisoned by the soviets during the small period of co-exsistence. But added to that soviet somewhat illthinking came chinese own "masterplans" which pretty much dictated the entire chinese naval development and it is only started to recove from that in the last decade.

Geologically China has the ability to be dominant naval power in the Eastern hemisphere, but in fact it has been basicly the "world largest small fleet". It's naval doctrines have been very primitive and focused only to the defence of the very-near coastal waters. Thats the reason why the numbers of FACs in quatitically have been enormous.
But like it's evident, the transformation of the PLAN is started and I expect in longterm future trend will be dramatically decrease the number of fast attack crafts. The entire fleet structure will transform to resamble more of the western navies. China has no geological barriers as Russia has so it really doesen't need to focus FACs in the future. But the transition phase will last at least few decades meaning at least one generation of usefull shiphull age. So it's still lucrative to invest to FACs as the building of the bluewater fleet takes alot of time. The type 22 is the one of the new designs and I hope to see more potent FAC being introduced as well before the balance is totally shifted in fafour of bigger ships, A sort of Swansong to the FAC oriented navy...

PS. 20m/s? Is that the common way to measure wind speed in Europe? Just never thought people'd use it for the wind. If the wind is blowing at 35 knots, I doubt the enemy would be shooting at you though.

Click to expand...

Yeas: M/S= meters per seccond. I still keep on wondering why on earht are US and UK still sticking to the ageing imperial system...Why cannot they see the benefits of the decametrical system...

Hmm, I think sometimes you guys get too hung up on the whole package. As long as the Hull, Engines and Communications work fine, any weapons and other superstructure can be optional (space restrictions applied of course).

Many countrues do have a Littoral Navy to complemet the Deep Water ships, most of them are called the Coast Guard. This is how I think the PLAN's FAC fleet will evolve over the next few decades and in the intervening time I would not be surprised to see varient Type 22's deigned for other Functions, ie Air Defence, Anti Sub, Minesweeper etc as well as Fast Intercept and Inspection.

Well, China has only two bodies of water with limited access points: Bohai and the Gulf of Tonkin. Gulf of Tonkin already has Type 37 coverage. Bohai don't have much though.
And China will need some sort of littoral ship once China becomes a superpower. The frigates and carriers aren't always going to be there.
And relying on shore based ASMs would yield limited resistance.
When someone attacks China's shore. (Hey, if you have no ships defending the shore, it will be late Qing Dynasty with the Europeans, again.) FACs will be used as a deterent and to attack ships/subs when war comes around. You don't need much AD other than CIWS, fighters will be out.

So China needs FACs. Not much, but some.

PS. UK uses both systems, though somehow we use different gallons.......
But why aren't wind measured in km/h? I am surprised. Here, wind is measured in mph just like cars.

The type 22 is the one of the new designs and I hope to see more potent FAC being introduced as well before the balance is totally shifted in fafour of bigger ships, A sort of Swansong to the FAC oriented navy...

Click to expand...

I agree with that. This is an odd ship, does fall into the predicated pattern how we expect the PLAN to modernize.

But I believe that how the Chinese themselves percieve how the PLAN to modernize and how Westerners and outsiders percieve how the PLAN to modernize is quite differnent. For that matter, even with regards to the PLAAF.

To those in the outside, they think-predict that PLAN/PLAAF should modernize in terms of projecting power. So they envisioned a potentially regionally/globally force with units that have long reach.

Such as for example, bombers. Topics of long range bombers. Or long range nuclear subs. Or cruisers, large ships like carriers. Look at all the freaking discussion threads about the potential Chinese carrier once the story about potential Su-33 buy leaked out.

On the other hand, those from the inside think of the PLA like some kind xenophobic like defense. If you want to talk about the Soviet Navy's First Salvo doctrine, the PLAN itself is a reflection of that. In some ways, so does the PLAAF. Its kind of like one big kamekaze. Kill as many before you get taken out yourself. The Type 022 fits that image of a kamekaze ship. In a way, the Soviet Navy FAC strategy is kind of a kamekaze approach too.

In a way, the Type 022 also has its airborne contemporary, the J-7G. They're still manufacturing this short ranged point defense interceptor, despite the lack of a common sense modern doctrine to support such. Lacking both legs in its range and its radar, the J-7G as well as all the J-7s are expected to be vectored en masse by a controlling unit towards hostile targets.

Well, I came up with this idea/design of a FAC/Corvette (depends on your standards. This is in the same field as the recent enough Type 37 and 520T FAC, but punchier.) while in English class.

DO NOT ATTEMPT.

This ship however, doesn't have the equipment/size to be converted into an OPV or something along the line.
Here it is:


Standard defences:
LD-2000-ised Type 730 front.
Type 730 in the back.
2 x 37mm gun behind bridge 1 port, 1 starboard. (MP, especially for patrols, when all other weapons are useless.)

The space in the back behind all of the superstructures is for the seamen to watch and drop DCs/mines. (Though it can removed if one thinks it is unnecessary.)

The propulsion system is a concept. (Well, I don't know the structure of a real hydrojet.) The part of the hull below the waterline recides into a...............a minimal drag configuration like like of a modern canoe......... and of course, this allows for better manuverbility. The "lone" end of the hull, still angled like any other frigate, is stuck to hull due to surface tension. This should increase stability. I didn't do anything to reduce the drag for that, but I think fitting the diesel exhaust right above the waterline should do much to solve that.

The bow is designed just like that of the La Fayatte Frigates so that the gun will have no problem facing forward, while water easily slips back out. The bridge ends a story higher than the hull to create a stronger structure that won't break in half, but if the weapons in the back is hit, it'll be useless. It won't sink, at least not so quick: the weapons are above the hull. But the ship totally unseaworthy.

Anyway, any comments? Do you think this should be a FAC or a corvette?