Sadly it is a self-media post. Given the author's track records of clickbait titles, I won't bet my money on it.
PLA Navy news, pics and videos
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Sadly it is a self-media post. Given the author's track records of clickbait titles, I won't bet my money on it.
Obviously it's this picture which is the important part of the article... frankly we don't even need that article itself, just posting the picture is enough.
Additional information:
This arsenal ship is suppossed to be high-speed as well. People speculate that it would maybe really be nuclear powered, or at least have IEP and water-jet propulsion - or even supercavitating capability with a bubble generator at the bow. Another claim is MHD, which was kinda implied by one research paper.
In any case, what we see here isnt just a mere missile barge that can submerge, but actually a "Fast Battle Cruiser" of some sort. The acronym cqshygszzpt 常潜式海洋高速作战平台 has "high speed 高速" in its name, after all.
This arsenal ship is suppossed to be high-speed as well. People speculate that it would maybe really be nuclear powered, or at least have IEP and water-jet propulsion - or even supercavitating capability with a bubble generator at the bow. Another claim is MHD, which was kinda implied by one research paper.
In any case, what we see here isnt just a mere missile barge that can submerge, but actually a "Fast Battle Cruiser" of some sort. The acronym cqshygszzpt 常潜式海洋高速作战平台 has "high speed 高速" in its name, after all.
Also look here:
Especially at this excerpt on page 20:
CONCRETE STEPS
And yet, an examination in practical terms of the concrete steps the US military services are taking to transform their forces reveals a mixed picture. The US Navy has elements of a strategy in place — for example, its ‘network centric warfare’ concept and its shift in focus to the littoral battlefield — but these concepts have not yet been expanded into a complete roadmap for transformation. As a result, some of the Navy’s planned acquisitions may be inconsistent with the new security environment. It continues to centre its fleet on the aircraft carrier, even though these large platforms are likely to be increasingly at risk from landbased anti-ship missiles. It is also purchasing a significant number of new carrier-based fighters, such as the Joint Strike Fighter, which would be similarly at risk. In this context, it may make more sense for the Navy to focus on a force projection platform such as the Arsenal ship, a semi-submersible, stealthy barge armed with hundreds of missiles, few sailors and no (manned) tactical aircraft.
Especially at this excerpt on page 20:
CONCRETE STEPS
And yet, an examination in practical terms of the concrete steps the US military services are taking to transform their forces reveals a mixed picture. The US Navy has elements of a strategy in place — for example, its ‘network centric warfare’ concept and its shift in focus to the littoral battlefield — but these concepts have not yet been expanded into a complete roadmap for transformation. As a result, some of the Navy’s planned acquisitions may be inconsistent with the new security environment. It continues to centre its fleet on the aircraft carrier, even though these large platforms are likely to be increasingly at risk from landbased anti-ship missiles. It is also purchasing a significant number of new carrier-based fighters, such as the Joint Strike Fighter, which would be similarly at risk. In this context, it may make more sense for the Navy to focus on a force projection platform such as the Arsenal ship, a semi-submersible, stealthy barge armed with hundreds of missiles, few sailors and no (manned) tactical aircraft.
That is true, although I would wonder what "high speed" really refers to. If it means being able to make 30+ knots like a major surface combatant or a carrier, well for a ship of its size and more importantly, its role/configuration that would be quite fast and would be a useful speed given its likely concept of operations.
But if they're aiming for well over 30 knots to something like 40 knots then I have to wonder how feasible or necessary that is.
by78
General
I wonder if the 'high-speed' requirement is for evading torpedoes... It doesn't have to be faster than a torpedo; it only has to be fast enough to outrun it.
Lethe
Captain
Great article, thanks.
So the reason to make an arsenal ship rather than a submarine is cost. But there are some wrinkles here. The first is the value of the payload. The point is to carry a lot of missiles, yet the more missiles are carried the greater the value of the payload, both in dollar terms and the operational consequences of losing it. Therefore, the idea of a super-cheap arsenal barge is a non-starter. Indeed, given that a semi-submersible design is undoubtedly more expensive than a conventional hull, clearly the project has already made the decision to start climbing the cost/survivability curve. And so the question becomes: where does one stop? If you go too far, you might as well build a submarine.
Relatedly, high speed (>20 knots) capability seems foolish given the emphasis on cost control and passive survivability.
I think the cost vs survivability curve is one which is different for different Navies if they were considering an arsenal ship.
If the Chinese Navy are seriously going with this proposal, then I think the only conclusion we can reach is that the semi submersible idea is apparently one which fits the right overlapping point for whatever their cost/survivability requirements may be.
So the reason to make an arsenal ship rather than a sub is cost, yes, but the reason to make the arsenal ship a semi-submersible one rather than a conventional hull ship is because of survivability. Unfortunately we don't know how that ends up working out on a scale, like is the end result of a semi submersible which is substantially more survivable than a conventional hull ship while being only marginally more expensive, or instead does the increase in survivability mean a proportional increase in cost? If an increase in survivability means a proportional increase in cost then such a design/configuration might not be seen as worth it. But if an increase in survivability means only a relatively smaller increase in cost then it might be seen as quite worth it
Lethe
Captain
As you say, if the project is real then all we can assume is that PLAN has identified some cost/capability/survivability "sweet spot" where such a platform makes sense for their requirements.
The major reason for pursuing a semi-submersible design would appear to be to reduce the vessel's radar and visual signatures. It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that acoustic signature reduction would also be a high priority, and that the vessel would therefore adopt some of the same measures that submarines do, potentially driving the cost of the platform closer to that of a submarine.
I'm also not convinced that PLAN needs such a vessel. If you compare the Chinese case for an "arsenal ship" to the American, two things stick out: that USA is more likely to need and use an arsenal ship, as part of an interventionist global foreign policy that seeks "full spectrum dominance", and secondly that USN already has large numbers of warships with large numbers of VLS cells, plus ten supercarriers which of course are the gold standard in terms of power projection. For USN, an arsenal ship is a niche capability that supports an already very robust array of more flexible, general purpose capabilities. For China, the picture is very different, and I suspect that there is more to be gained by further investment in those more flexible, general purpose capabilities, i.e. large surface combatants, carriers, amphibs, bombers.
The major reason for pursuing a semi-submersible design would appear to be to reduce the vessel's radar and visual signatures. It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that acoustic signature reduction would also be a high priority, and that the vessel would therefore adopt some of the same measures that submarines do, potentially driving the cost of the platform closer to that of a submarine.
I'm also not convinced that PLAN needs such a vessel. If you compare the Chinese case for an "arsenal ship" to the American, two things stick out: that USA is more likely to need and use an arsenal ship, as part of an interventionist global foreign policy that seeks "full spectrum dominance", and secondly that USN already has large numbers of warships with large numbers of VLS cells, plus ten supercarriers which of course are the gold standard in terms of power projection. For USN, an arsenal ship is a niche capability that supports an already very robust array of more flexible, general purpose capabilities. For China, the picture is very different, and I suspect that there is more to be gained by further investment in those more flexible, general purpose capabilities, i.e. large surface combatants, carriers, amphibs, bombers.