Next generation Japanese destroyers, what it means for PLAN

zyun8288

Junior Member
That's why I said European countries are in a much more comfort environment: you don't have a non-friendly Naval power's big ships constantly cruising 50KMs off your coast.
That's what have been the case for china since 1949. In fact it's only until 1970's when china's own AShM missiles were test lauched several times that those ships start to keep a 50KM distance.

Now, I think they are staying 100KMs away, but it's exactly because China's previous efforts on coastal defense that force them to be careful. And China will try to make sure they have absoutely no chance at least in the shallow coastal waters.

Different country have different requirement. At current stage, China still needs to solidify her coastal defense, although to many Euro countries, it's really a waste of resources.
 

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Requirment may different but the the mentioned misshaps of FACs (small size, ligthly build and therefore vibrating masts, and lack of AAW) comes from general shipbuilding/operaitonal experience and arent relevate to individual defence doctrines or choises. Ship whit such a ligth mast as in Tyep22 suffers considerably from vibration and therefore cannot aim or alunch its missiles while on high-speed wheter what tacktics are you using. ANd when the speed needs to be low, it makes the craft vunerable for helicopter launched SSMs. period. And even more importantly, Type22 cannot lay mines, so its single-purpose bound and in that purpose it is insuitable

And to those euro countryes that still builds coastal defences (Sweeden, Finland, Norway and Greere) its certainly not a waste of resources but only understandaple way of maritime strategy.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
If the US economy comes crashing, pretty much everybody else does too. You're forgetting where China's money comes from.

You mean the IOUs? The reason why the Americans can still spend is because the Chinese and other Asians are pumping money back to the house of cards, only to suck it out again. Rinse and repeat.


Not true. These newer PLAN ships have been known about for years before they hit the water. We're still hearing about type 093 & 094 and there's not one shred of evidence that they actually exist yet. J-10 has been a known quantity long before it's first test flight in the late 90's. I think the only real surprise was the Yuan SSK. But it also looks earily similar to a Kilo so it might have been missed for obvious reasons.

Quite wrong.

Not only did no one knew about the Yuan, they didn't know about the improved Song, they didn't know about the 052B, the 052C, the 054, and the Type 22 until they are already nearly assembled in the docks. No one also knew the KJ-2000, the KJ-200, the Y-8 variations, until all those photos leaked out in the Internet. What about the new IFV? Or the Type 98 and 99 tank until China either started parading them or showing in cable TV.


Nope. The Scandinavians have had concepts for these technologies many years before PLAN started fielding anything like them.

Concepts?

Big difference between concepts and implementation.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Requirment may different but the the mentioned misshaps of FACs (small size, ligthly build and therefore vibrating masts, and lack of AAW) comes from general shipbuilding/operaitonal experience and arent relevate to individual defence doctrines or choises. Ship whit such a ligth mast as in Tyep22 suffers considerably from vibration and therefore cannot aim or alunch its missiles while on high-speed wheter what tacktics are you using. ANd when the speed needs to be low, it makes the craft vunerable for helicopter launched SSMs. period. And even more importantly, Type22 cannot lay mines, so its single-purpose bound and in that purpose it is insuitable

And to those euro countryes that still builds coastal defences (Sweeden, Finland, Norway and Greere) its certainly not a waste of resources but only understandaple way of maritime strategy.

Ahem, but the Type 22 happens to skim over water, with minimal hull contact on the water. That gives you a very fast, stable ride.
 

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
yeas, but the vibration effects to every hull moving fast, and that reflects on the missile systmen itself as well on the mast structures. as a catamran, type22 cannot sustain much of topweigth, so the masts cannot be build as stable as they are on modern conventional hulled vessels.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Vibration does not affect missile launching unless it is extremely severe, and does not need aiming since they are self guiding. Aircraft are often subjected to vibrations much worst than ships. And what has the mast has to do with it? Missiles are launched from launchers attached to the hull. The ship has no fire control radar on its own.
 

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Well we dont know it as we arent the engineers installing the systems, but sea vibration is bit different than something in the air. Many navy has find out that Missiles systems tend to fauilure in heavy seakeeping or high speed cruising.
But if there isent any radars onboard the ships, the mast thing comes to differnt ligth, but in the same breathstake, what can we say about the boats themselves?? Useless. Relying on aircratf or other vessel considerably reduces their tactical flexibility and makes them only suitable to coastal operations, where the target is visually obseraple?? Not something that I would brag about....
 

duskylim

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Dear Goll:

I would just like to point out to you that the first successful launching of an anti-ship missile occured from Soviet-supplied Egyptian Komar-class patrol boats firing the Styx missile (NATO designation SSN-2) at the Israeli destroyer Eilat.

The missile boats were out at sea at the time and lauched the heavy missiles while underway (i.e. moving at sea). Several direct hits sunk the Eilat with a large loss of life. This occured sometime after the Six-Day War.

The Komar class boat is much smaller and more unstable than the Type 22 FAC of the PLAN. Their Styx missiles were designed in the 1950's and were slower and had shorter range than the modern Chinese missiles.

The ships radar and detection system were 50's era Soviet stuff on a tiny vessel, displacing some 85 tons. The missile guidance system was pretty primitive. Only in the warhead was that thing awesome - 500 kilograms of high explosive!

It was this very experience that woke Western navies up to the potential of the anti-ship missile, and led directly to Israels' developement of the Gabriel.

Here's the article from Global Security:

"Project 183R PTG Komar Class
Soviet missile boats include Komar [Mosquito] class, with a range of 800 nautical miles at 25 knots and 400 nautical miles at 30 knots respectively. They are armed with the Styx missile, which has a range of 18 miles and carries a 1100-pound conventional warhead. The development of the P-15 Styx SS-N-2 missile began in 1954, with the first launch in October 1957 from a Komar FAC prototype.

The first in the world missile boats were built at ALMAZ. Manouevring high-speed boats of 183Ð project equipped with ship-to-ship cruise missiles became new efficient arms of the Navy. In compliance with higher requirements of the Navy to the composition of arms, navigability and operational capability a project of a new steel hulled missile boat was developed. The results of performed scientific-and- engineering works and full-scale tests of the boat of 183Ð project underlay the basis of creation of the boat of 205 project.

The October 1967 destruction of the Israeli destroyer Eilat by 'Styx' anti-ship missiles fired from an Egyptian Komar-class vessel which set off the explosion in fast attack craft [FAC] sales. This followed the proliferation of Soviet-produced Project 183R Komar-class and Project 205 Osa-class FAC in the navies of the then Warsaw Pact and other Soviet client states.

The usage of boats with missile weapons in combat actions proved to be very important for increasing the defensive capacity of the country. Missile boats are a universal means of destruction of an enemy's ships and vehicles, of guard of the coastal area and of struggle against landing troops.

The boat of the project 183P "Komar" had a hangar type launcher, and the wings of a rocket did not unfold. The launcher rails were were rigidly fixed at an angle of 11,5 °. The launcher was originally made 4.5 meters long, and then it was shortened to 2,75 m. The weight of the launcher is 1100 kg. Under the project the boat of the project 183P could fire rockets at speeds from 15 up to 30 knots and a condition of the sea up to sea state 4. Reloading launchers it was made in base, thus on one rocket it was spent about 30 minutes. On the boat it was placed PUS "Klen" which obtained the data from RLS "Rangout". Function PUS was development of a fighting rate of a boat and its deduction on a rate, development of time of independent flight of a rocket, parameters onboard and keel rolling for stabilization of a rocket etc. Reserve means for targeting was optical sight PMK-453"


So as we can see it is entirely possible to operate and launch even very large anti-ship missiles from a small patrol boat at a much larger warship.

Best Regards,

Dusky Lim
 

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
well I have never claimed that SSMs couldnt be launched from small boats (why on earth would they field them att first place????) Only that ue high speeds, the smaller vessels vibrate so much that usually their ligthly build masts vibrate along in such manner that the radars maulfunction, thats why there is some cases (like in singaporean and Israeli excamples) that normal ligth latice masts have been replaced whit strong and cumpersome looking towers. Those in otherhand effect on ships topweigth and makes them poor sea boats. Thats why the general trend has gone for bigger FACs than the first generation presented (this plus the fact that whit small boats, it was too difficoult to add AAW or CIWS onboard whitout sacrificing the offensive load)

So despite the fact that the famous egyptian Komar was on harbor, just leaving her pierside and not on anyway near its full speed whe she launched the famuos attack AFTER the actual six days of 1967 war....I think you should read bit kore carefully what I wrote, dont you think?

best regards,
Kiero Kurja Gollevainen, taatto vanha vaivainen....
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Goll,

Masts and long range radar is near useless in small boats anyway. You cannot have a mast high enough to suit the range of most longer ranged ASMs. Not to mention the mast will cost you your RCS. Better to focus the design into excelling in one basic function.

For ASMs you only need the targeting data as provided to you from the battle management network. Command guide the missiles then let them go autonomous in the final stage.

You have to understand that you reduce vibration by reducing surface contact and putting maximum load on those contact points. This is simiilar to the high wing loading principle in aircraft. The double hull catamaran design is a lot more stable at high speeds than conventional hulls, which is why they were picked for high speed boats.

When I was in China for a trip, I got to ride in a double hulled catamaran which is used as a river ferry in the same river or seas you see with those Type 22s. The speed and stability of the ship is amazing it's like riding a car over water.
 
Top