The catamarans in questions are those that travels agross the Gulf of Finland from Helsinki to Tallin. The ships had basicly the same catamaran arragment that is found in the type 22, only that the ships where somewhat larger. There where both high and slow speed movements. If the conditions where good, the ship was quite stable even in the high speeds. But as soon there was even small waves, the ship pitched so badly that the liqour bottles didn't stay in the table
. If the wind gets near 20 m/s those ships are not allowed to go to the see at all.
The word cheap pretty much sums the issue of Type 22 up. They are cheap, thats true. But does cheap means superior quality? Hardly. I've said in this thread and in several others that the Type 22 isen't fit for modern battlefield enviroments and if it comes agross enemy helicopters with ASM (the most potent adversors of modern FACs) it's changes are quite nil. In fact a aging OSA class missile boat have much better active defense systems against helicopters as it's AAA guns at least have fire control radar.
But the handling devices, recovery devices, the datalinks and radars to controll that UAV would cost great deal of money not to mention about the proplems with practical use...UAVs were once toughted to be the solution for seaborne operations, but for example the USN DASH project revealed the truth...
I did...but back then the "corvette" was offered to fullfill the role of frigates in which they are not suited basicly for the same reasons as small FACs are no longer adequate for modern coastal defence.
I'm not saying you should forget small boats completely, only that alone they are adequate enough. Type 22 is like said, cheap, small and easily to be build in large quantives, but we all know that china has done that mistake earlier with many other military project. Quantity doesen't replace quality. So personally I hope that this type 22 phase will soon pass and to acomppany them a bigger missile corvette design will emerge.
Yes, rough weather will make life on these smaller vessels hell but many small vessels tackle rough conditions just fine. The crew just needs to be trained under those conditions. The US Coast Guard uses many small patrol boats off the coast of Oregon (notorious for bad wave conditions) to do its job of patrol and SAR and they do it just fine. These boats are monohull too so they are really tossed around in the sea. I think if the weather gets so fierce where you can't operate, it also means the enemy can't too so it evens out.
Cheap is the key and having said that, I really don't think PLAN made a mistake, in fact, it's a pretty calculated choice IMHO. Hear me out.
First of all, the weapons platform looks limited. But the hull itself looks pretty flexible. Instead of carrying ASM, I don't see it being hard in building a hull with anti-air in mind, like say the HQ-7 system? I know that's not the latest and the best but I think people tend to keep forgetting in the discussion thread, a FAC is not a ship of the line. It's not a complete stand alone package. And I don't see why an anti-sub version can't be built too, though someone did say that would significantly slow the speed of the vessel down in order to have the towed sonar work properly. But overall, the vessel itself appears capable of being fitted out in any of these functions. So if you have one boat with anti-air and another anti-ship, they stand a good chance against a heli firing a missile at them.
Second, I myself got carried away with thinking of how to extend the radar range of this boat. But we need to look again at its purpose. It's not supposed to be a standalone weapons platform. So the datalink can be linked up to a variety of possibilites to extend range - satellite, AWACS, land based radar, UAVs. I suggested earlier that maybe the FACs carry small UAVs but that does increase cost/complexity so I retract that. But a land based UAV like a Global Hawk equivalent can provide the extended range the FAC needs. Overall, the boat does not operate by itself in a battlefield scenario. So I don't think a FAC is obsolete, in a limited battlefield engagement, it can be a significant contributor.
Third, everyone seems to be focused on how the FAC will stack up against the USN in a Taiwan conflict scenario. Has it ever occurred that in such a scenario, if PLAN does trade blows with the USN, everything is fair game? Why wouldn't the USN inflict a counter strike on a mainland Chinese port or military target? And although PLAN is building a credible blue water navy, the current number is good to engage in the Taiwan area, but what do you have to defend if the USN and allies send additional navy ships to harass the Chinese mainland coast? Thus the FAC is a cheap a viable defence since it will be backed up by land weapons and airforce.
Fourth, this is opposite of the last thought. Maybe the FAC isn't built with the USN in mind. In spite of all the potential clash PLAN may have with USN, there are still other neighbor countries and their navies to deal with. A FAC is a decent solution to show the flag and if needed, to engage the limited navies of say Vietnam or maybe the Philippines. Remember, the Spratly Island issue hasn't been resolved, it's just been put on the backburner. If PLAN wanted to based some vessels on those island fortresses out in the South Sea, FACs are a cheap and easy solution. FACs can also serve a dual purpose of patroling against pirates and smugglers. It does have the top end speed to engage in pursuits.
Fifth, I believe another moderator here posted something that the FAC production may be shifted to a shipyard in Guangxi? I'm not a shipyard expert but I don't ever recall Guangxi having any quality shipyards so maybe building a cheap and simple FAC is also a good way to introduce these smaller shipyards to the art of building military vessels? This would also free up capacity on the mature shipyards to work on the larger boats. So to conclude, I think PLANs stealth FAC is actually already the ideal PLAN FAC.
