Next generation Japanese destroyers, what it means for PLAN

crobato said:

But this is not the place to talk about economics.

Click to expand...

I'd like to respond, but this statement is true. Economics is not the topic of this forum.

You're talking in vagueries. Type 094 and 093 has been speculated for a long time. J-10 is also well known. Frankly I have not seen anything at least from published Pentagon reports

Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm trying to be vague here. But not everything makes official reports. Believe me when I say US Naval officers are talking about China in the context of 2015 right now. And yes, in 1995 and such, they were pretty correct about where China stands now.

Maybe ONI knows more but since you are no longer in the service, I think all this is from your opinion and I don't think you represent ONI who isn't going to say anything.

Click to expand...

This is no "007" stuff here. LOL. Or ONI or anything. I know naval intel knows a heck of alot more. I'm talking about discussions around a table with fellow officers who've been around the block. Highly educated warfighter types. And also engineers and naval scientists. Nothing serious here. Nothing "top secret". Nothing of a secretive nature will be discussed on an internet forum. But if these guys know this stuff and analyzed it correctly, I know naval intel has a better handle on it considering they have much greater capabilities of data collection and analysis methods.

And so, how do you think the Chinese were able to develop similar technologies in parallel?

Click to expand...

I do know, and you do also, that China does alot of things "by hook or by crook". I can't say for sure, and neither can you, but something tells me that there may be reverse engineering at play here. Nothing more. Maybe they worked the issue themselves. But it's more likely they got some info from somehwere else, like maybe that downed F-117 in the Balkans.

Technology isn't executed by looking at pictures. There is an entire mathematical framework behind concepts that is needed to turn them into executing realities. Maybe you can copy an "idea" from pictures (aka Chinese engineers seeing the serragated windows on the F-117) but to figure out how they work, you need to go into a lot of technical formulas, and that you cannot get from pictures alone.

Click to expand...

And then again, do you know for sure this concept works as designed? It probably does, but maybe it doesn't. But China has not fielded anything like this concept before the USA's F-117. And the rest of the Chinese military infrastructure does not demonstrate a further implementation of this concept.

zyun8288 said:

Thanks. In fact, I think sometimes your actually just want to keep the discussion hot.

Click to expand...

No. It's just that I'm honest about what I contribute. It gets hot because some people want to assign China capabilities they don't have, nor have they demonstrated yet.

Roger604 said:

It does not mention the new indigenous systems. There is no mention at all about the 052 series, and only one mention of the old 051 LUDA class. There is no mention at all about 093 or 094 subs.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect it to mention those things. Yes, I and many others knew that China was trying to develop new nuclear submarines in the mid-1990's. Bill Gertz knew it. The entire Washington Times knew it. And most other open source databases such as Jane's knew it. But no, I wouldn't expect it to be on an annual report to Congress in 2000 because even now in 2006, China shows no evidence of these subs. They simply aren't proven to be even built yet. There are some reports in USA circles that say that they are fielded, but I would take that with a grain of salt for many reasons already discussed. That annual report to Congress is about what China currently has now, and it's audience is members of Congress and their constituents.

Sea Dog said:

.......
I do know, and you do also, that China does alot of things "by hook or by crook". I can't say for sure, and neither can you, but something tells me that there may be reverse engineering at play here. Nothing more. Maybe they worked the issue themselves. But it's more likely they got some info from somehwere else, like maybe that downed F-117 in the Balkans...........

Click to expand...

There u go again, from 'I can't say for sure' and 'maybe', u somehow came to decide China does a lot of things 'by hook or by crook'. U say they may have worked on some issues themselves, but somehow just choose to say it's 'more likely' they got it from the downed F-117 without providing any evidence.
I'm sorry dude, this sounds very much like a car maker saying a competitor copied them because their cars have 4 wheels as well.

Schumacher said:

There u go again, from 'I can't say for sure' and 'maybe', u somehow came to decide China does a lot of things 'by hook or by crook'. U say they may have worked on some issues themselves, but somehow just choose to say it's 'more likely' they got it from the downed F-117 without providing any evidence.
I'm sorry dude, this sounds very much like a car maker saying a competitor copied them because their cars have 4 wheels as well.

Click to expand...

We do know that a bulk of China's modernization efforts have been due to Russian assistance. Much of what's in their newer naval vessels have alot of elements in them from other sources. Including French influence in Luhu and Luhai. They are trying to build a ship crudely from the elements of Arleigh Burke/Kongo specification in 052C. Some of China's torpedoes have technologies from other sources. Like for example modified SET-53 which has pirated active/passive homing technology from British models. The type 730 gun is based crudely on Dutch goalkeeper systems. HQ-9 is said to be derived from technologies built in Russian SA-10. And much much more. The infrastructure has shown alot of reverse engineering/copying/absorbtion of systems. But it has not matured to the point of total indigineous sustainment.

Nobody can say for sure, but China has not demonstrated a high level of indigineous design. Without Russian assistance, China would be much further behind. I have no doubt China grew alot just from the aquisition of Kilo and Sovremenny technologies. The timeline of growth from these purchases coincide with one another. Sometimes you have to make an analysis based on demonstrated capability and tie in a few factors. I have no proof, but it's my opinion that China found a way to make use of that downed F-117. It's my opinion only. You are free to take it or leave it. But China has not demonstrated they have an equivalent base of stealth technology or the infrastructure to field it as such. These window designs are only a small piece.

Offcourse Facs doesent need mast for long range and heavy radars, but for simple fire control and target illumators. But even those have suffered difficoulties.
And I have Also been onboard catamaran hulled ships of quite large size, on somewhat typical baltic enverioment, and those vessels did roll quite considerably if compared to normal ship hulled vessels that I have used to cross the finnish gulf... Perhaps the speed vibration migth get to be reduced, but the seaworthyness of all surface effect hulled ships arent par whit traditional hulled....Rivers customally doesent offer such sea-states as the crafts normal operational enverioment gives.

Click to expand...

The river is right off the sea since this is in the Shanghai area, and the surface water conditions reflect that of the Pacific nearby. I've been in the normal hulled boats and they rolled more than the various double hulled catamarans used to ferry passengers along the river mouths and the coastal towns.

For what's its worth, your contention that the double hulled catamaran is unstable to launch ASMs is pretty weak and goes against basic concepts. I have never seen a normal ship hulled vessel that is more stable than a double hulled catamaran and the design shows it. Have you heard the basic concept that wider is better? You are putting and spreading your weight across a wider and more spread out base and reduces roll motion. This increases stability. Less width = less roll motion. At the same time, your weight is concentrated more on the smaller contact areas than spread out. This high loading decreases vibration. In other words, less surface contact = less vibration.

ASMs don't use illuminators by the way, and really, air defense is something you leave best for larger ships.

Nobody can say for sure, but China has not demonstrated a high level of indigineous design. Without Russian assistance, China would be much further behind. I have no doubt China grew alot just from the aquisition of Kilo and Sovremenny technologies. The timeline of growth from these purchases coincide with one another. Sometimes you have to make an analysis based on demonstrated capability and tie in a few factors. I have no proof, but it's my opinion that China found a way to make use of that downed F-117. It's my opinion only. You are free to take it or leave it. But China has not demonstrated they have an equivalent base of stealth technology or the infrastructure to field it as such. These window designs are only a small piece.

Click to expand...

I just have to roll my eyes. You seem to assume things happen like magic from a black box. Sorry but engineering is not a magic box where you can take the magic box and transfer to another thing and it would work.

These things are so specific to the design of one particular craft that it works as a tightly knit package. To put it this way, if you copy the serragated windows on the F-117 and B-2 dimension by dimension and implemented it on the Type 22, it ain't going to work. There is the difference of the idea and the execution behind it. Maybe you can get the idea from looking at pictures, but the execution, all the mathematical formulas and proofs and the sweat to turn it in a reality is something else.

As for understanding stealth, it does appear China is already heavily researching on this topic, and do thinkgs like why don't you check the theses coming out from Chinese universities. The Type 22 is the first attempt to use low observable technology on a platform and just because it is the first, it won't be the last. China has publicly shown RAM coatings as early as 1998 in their defense expos.

Roger604 said:

That's an excellent point. Here is the 2000 Annual Report to Congress on the Military Power of China:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It does not mention the new indigenous systems. There is no mention at all about the 052 series, and only one mention of the old 051 LUDA class. There is no mention at all about 093 or 094 subs. But the report does talk at length about the Sov's and the Kilo's.

The implication is that during this time period, the Pentagon saw China as only capable of fielding imported Russian gear.

Now compare that to the 2006 Annual Report, and you see how huge the leap has been (in perception at least).

Click to expand...

Pretty much it says everything.

At the same time, all of China's future plans are still mired in speculation.

There is a reason why the DoD wants China's military and its future plans to be more transparent.

crobato said:

The river is right off the sea since this is in the Shanghai area, and the surface water conditions reflect that of the Pacific nearby. I've been in the normal hulled boats and they rolled more than the various double hulled catamarans used to ferry passengers along the river mouths and the coastal towns.

For what's its worth, your contention that the double hulled catamaran is unstable to launch ASMs is pretty weak and goes against basic concepts. I have never seen a normal ship hulled vessel that is more stable than a double hulled catamaran and the design shows it. Have you heard the basic concept that wider is better? You are putting and spreading your weight across a wider and more spread out base and reduces roll motion. This increases stability. Less width = less roll motion. At the same time, your weight is concentrated more on the smaller contact areas than spread out. This high loading decreases vibration. In other words, less surface contact = less vibration.

ASMs don't use illuminators by the way, and really, air defense is something you leave best for larger ships.

Click to expand...

It's true what Crobato is saying about catamarans, when I went on vacation to Key West, Florida we took a catamaran hull ship (I would say around a little smaller than the FAC, it had a glass bottom and two decks). The trip started from a state park in Key West and went out to the Atlantic, lasting about 1 to 1:30 to see dolphins and the reefs. The trip was very stable even when the ship was cruising at max speed. In fact the park there didn't even sell motion sickness pills because they guaranteed that you'll most likely not get sea sickness.

Cats have been noticed because of their many benefits over monohulls. First and foremost is their greater stability in rough waters. When it comes to sailing this advantage is definitely noticed. Monohulls tilt to one side while sailing due to their v-shaped hull. Passengers have to deal with the fact that while the boat is sailing they have to tilt to one side the entire time. This creates discomfort when trying to move around the vessel. Catamarans stay consistently level while sailing, allowing for passengers to get around without having to bend and contort to maintain balance.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect it to mention those things. Yes, I and many others knew that China was trying to develop new nuclear submarines in the mid-1990's. Bill Gertz knew it. The entire Washington Times knew it. And most other open source databases such as Jane's knew it. But no, I wouldn't expect it to be on an annual report to Congress in 2000 because even now in 2006, China shows no evidence of these subs. They simply aren't proven to be even built yet. There are some reports in USA circles that say that they are fielded, but I would take that with a grain of salt for many reasons already discussed. That annual report to Congress is about what China currently has now, and it's audience is members of Congress and their constituents.

Click to expand...

Only reason I see DoD giving that report to Congress is so their budget won't shrink.

crobato said:

I just have to roll my eyes. You seem to assume things happen like magic from a black box. Sorry but engineering is not a magic box where you can take the magic box and transfer to another thing and it would work.

These things are so specific to the design of one particular craft that it works as a tightly knit package. To put it this way, if you copy the serragated windows on the F-117 and B-2 dimension by dimension and implemented it on the Type 22, it ain't going to work. There is the difference of the idea and the execution behind it. Maybe you can get the idea from looking at pictures, but the execution, all the mathematical formulas and proofs and the sweat to turn it in a reality is something else.

As for understanding stealth, it does appear China is already heavily researching on this topic, and do thinkgs like why don't you check the theses coming out from Chinese universities. The Type 22 is the first attempt to use low observable technology on a platform and just because it is the first, it won't be the last. China has publicly shown RAM coatings as early as 1998 in their defense expos.

Click to expand...

Which is why I wonder if it works as intended. Believe me, I know engineering methods. And I also understand production process methods. China may be studying these matters, but they have no real demonstrated stealth infrastructure. The USA has pioneered a bulk of stealth design, and low-observable technologies. The USA also has a foundation built in this area. China lacks this foundation. Or at the very least they aren't very far in building one.

Here are simple yacht advertisements to put it in perpective.



The difference between monohull and catamaran designs is astounding. The fundamental advantage is achieved by having two relatively narrow hulls instead of a single much broader one. The power catamaran configuration minimizes water displacement which can deliver better fuel economy and higher cruising speeds per applied horsepower. Catamarans also offer a smoother, more pleasant ride in rough sea conditions.

Apart from performance advantages, catamaran designs are inherently wider therefore providing much larger deck and lounge areas. This translates to more "lifestyle and guest-friendly" floorplans.

Catamaran cabin layouts are also much larger in comparison to monohulls of similar size. Our designers have maximized bedroom space to make Quantum catamarans truly "liveable" boats.




The Unique One Power Catamaran was created by Unique Yachts as a luxury, spacious, and stable motoryacht designed to handle effortlessly the wide range of sea conditions found in New Zealand inshore and coastal waters. It incorporates all the advantages of the catamaran design from increased stability and additional space through to fuel efficiency unobtainable on mono-hull designs. Each Unique Motor Yacht is built to a superior standard fully utilising the reknown boat-building skills of New Zealand craftsmen




Yet, the speed, stability, comfort, and efficiency of the catamaran hull design is well documented. For those of you who have been waiting, we have good news. Now you can have it all... Defiant. Explore a new world of capability, luxury, and flexability. Explore in a Defiant.

Sorry I meant more width = less roll motion.

crobato said:

For what's its worth, your contention that the double hulled catamaran is unstable to launch ASMs is pretty weak and goes against basic concepts. I have never seen a normal ship hulled vessel that is more stable than a double hulled catamaran and the design shows it. Have you heard the basic concept that wider is better? You are putting and spreading your weight across a wider and more spread out base and reduces roll motion. This increases stability. Less width = less roll motion. At the same time, your weight is concentrated more on the smaller contact areas than spread out. This high loading decreases vibration. In other words, less surface contact = less vibration.

ASMs don't use illuminators by the way, and really, air defense is something you leave best for larger ships.

Click to expand...

You've obviously never have been out on a ship in a high sea state. If you have, you would have a better understanding why there is alot of validity in what Gollevainen is saying. There are many reasons why modern navy's have moved away from this concept...this is only one reason.

Which is why I wonder if it works as intended. Believe me, I know engineering methods. And I also understand production process methods. China may be studying these matters, but they have no real demonstrated stealth infrastructure. The USA has pioneered a bulk of stealth design, and low-observable technologies. The USA also has a foundation built in this area. China lacks this foundation. Or at the very least they aren't very far in building one.

Click to expand...

Given the size of the people that would put these serragation into a dimensional perspective, they're not direct copies size by size. For what its worth, the Chinese have optimized the dimensions to cater against the type of radar frequencies that are used to detect and track ships, which is quite different from those against planes.

Like I said, "stealth" isn't a black box that you can transfer from one thing to another.

If China hasn't have a foundation yet, they're certainly working on one, and it does seem to me, they already have quite an understanding on the mathematical equations behind it, working to exploit it for their own use (RAM coatings) or against it (development of bistatic and multistatic radar).