I unfortunately see 630 mounts at bow and stern locations, probably 4 in total. Clearly this is a cost-saving measure. A ship like that with all its eggs in one basket is going to be a massive target for sure.
Well the only truly peer comparison is another AOE, which only the USN has. The previous Sacramento class AOEs each had 2 Phalanx CIWS as well as an 8-cell Sea Sparrow launcher. The current Supply class AOE had the same along with Mk88 25mm cannon emplacements, though these were apparently later all removed once the ships were transferred to the US Military Sealift Command, and are now operated by civilian crews, which are cheaper and more efficient than USN crews. Unfortunately these ships are now being retired (due to excessive operating costs, no less) and soon only the PLAN will be operating AOE class ships.Still better than what 903/As have; which are autocannons without any real AA ciws capability at all.
That said, I wonder how common it is for navies to arm their replenishment vessels with capable ciws?
I think most US MSC replenishment ships are very lightly armed if armed at all, and the RN's RFA replenishment ships are typically minimally armed as well. Of course, those are not strictly "naval ships" as they are not operating within the "navy" as such... but even for other navies like Marine Nationale, or the Deutsche Marine, their installed ciws defences for their replenishment ships are quite minimal as well.
So while I personally wouldn't mind if 901 class came with some H/PJ-11 or even HHQ-10, its armament of "only" four H/PJ-13/AK-630 mounts seems kind of par the course.
Well the only truly peer comparison is another AOE, which only the USN has. The previous Sacramento class AOEs each had 2 Phalanx CIWS as well as an 8-cell Sea Sparrow launcher. The current Supply class AOE had the same along with Mk88 25mm cannon emplacements, though these were apparently later all removed once the ships were transferred to the US Military Sealift Command, and are now operated by civilian crews, which are cheaper and more efficient than USN crews. Unfortunately these ships are now being retired (due to excessive operating costs, no less) and soon only the PLAN will be operating AOE class ships.
Cutting all the weapons out of the Supply class is IMO unique to the Supply class, and possibly to USN AOEs, and clearly this supposedly cost-saving measure did nothing to save this class from its impending fate in the scrapyards. Also, it seems to be a matter of practice to fully disarm USN ships before transferring them to civilian operators. The original intention of these ships, as fully realized in the previous Sacramento class, was a very respectable dual cannon CIWS in addition to a short range air defense missile system. This clearly and significantly exceeds what the 901 has.I'm not so sure about the Supply class under the USN as being the only peer comparison to judge 901 class's armament by.
I think that we can make some inferences regarding the armament of replenishment ships, by looking at their armament across differing tonnages that are currently in service across various navies, and then projecting upwards to the rough tonnage and force value of 901 class and Supply class, and comparing.
Overall, I think we can see a trend that replenishment ships in general are not particularly "well armed" in terms of ciws, but that's probably because all the navies operate with some variant of doctrine that likely necessitates replenishment ships to operate alongside capable surface combatants during wartime. Also, most navies probably have all calculated cutting ciws as one of the most "sensible" cost saving measures that they can manage to eke out.
Cutting all the weapons out of the Supply class is IMO unique to the Supply class, and possibly to USN AOEs, and clearly this supposedly cost-saving measure did nothing to save this class from its impending fate in the scrapyards. Also, it seems to be a matter of practice to fully disarm USN ships before transferring them to civilian operators. The original intention of these ships, as fully realized in the previous Sacramento class, was a very respectable dual cannon CIWS in addition to a short range air defense missile system. This clearly and significantly exceeds what the 901 has.
Looking back in history at AORs, actual USN ships (with USS prefixes) all had extensive self-defense weapons systems. The Wichita class AOR had the same exact 2 Phalanx + 1 Sea Sparrow outfit. The Cimarron AO class had 2 Phalanx + 2 25mm cannons + 4 .50cal MGs. The current Henry J. Kaiser class is built from the ground up as USNS (civilian-operated) ships and have no weapons systems at all. Given that there is no Chinese civilian counterpart to the Sealift Command, there is also no reason at all not to arm them to historically appropriate standards.
Disarming the AOEs and other replenishment vessels was and is viewed by most serious Naval analysts as a foolish move by usually either liberal or progressive administrations (and that does not mean Democrat because GOP has done the same) to try and reduce costs.Cutting all the weapons out of the Supply class is IMO unique to the Supply class, and possibly to USN AOEs, and clearly this supposedly cost-saving measure did nothing to save this class from its impending fate in the scrapyards. Also, it seems to be a matter of practice to fully disarm USN ships before transferring them to civilian operators. The original intention of these ships, as fully realized in the previous Sacramento class, was a very respectable dual cannon CIWS in addition to a short range air defense missile system. This clearly and significantly exceeds what the 901 has..
Okay, well the current 32,000t Fort Victoria class has 2 Phalanx and 2 20mm Bofors cannons. The current 27,500t Deepak class has 4x 630s. The current 20,000t Berlin class has 4 27mm autocannons and MANPADS. And so on with lesser tonnage ships; as you go smaller in tonnage, you get lesser weapons. They are by no means all "lightly-armed". They are armed appropriately for their size, except as I noted the 901 class for probably cost reasons, and the Supply class for reasons of both cost and for civilian operations.In other words, even if we ignore the MSC or even the RFA, both of which are not strictly part of their respective navies which they serve, and only look at the armament of replenishment ships of nations who do operate as part of their respective navies, I think we will find that most other navy AORs are relatively lightly armed.
Okay, well the current 32,000t Fort Victoria class has 2 Phalanx and 2 20mm Bofors cannons. The current 27,500t Deepak class has 4x 630s. The current 20,000t Berlin class has 4 27mm autocannons and MANPADS. And so on with lesser tonnage ships; as you go smaller in tonnage, you get lesser weapons. They are by no means all "lightly-armed". They are armed appropriately for their size, except as I noted the 901 class for probably cost reasons, and the Supply class for reasons of both cost and for civilian operations.