PLAN Fleet supply vessels

D

delft

Brigadier
Iron Man said:
Hmm, I actually do wonder if an AEW/C aircraft could physically take off from the waist position....
Click to expand...
It is a turbo-prop and has a lower minimum flying speed than the Flankers. A well design turbo-prop has a good acceleration at take off. There was even an article a few years ago ( I haven't saved it ) that claimed that Northrop-Grumman had told the Indian Navy that the E-2D would be able to take off from Vikramaditya.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Iron Man said:
Hmm, I actually do wonder if an AEW/C aircraft could physically take off from the waist position....
Click to expand...
@delft

I agree wth Delft. A properly designed turbo-prop that was basically STOL could do so with the right amount of airflow over the deck.

Would it be as effective as a Hawkeye? I seriously doubt it because all of the weight that is jammed into the Hawkeye and sitting on top of it.

But I believe they still should be able to design, build, and implement something better than the KA-31 for the AEW role.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
FORBIN said:
I see 4 CIWS guns, Type 730 ? and possible after an HQ-10 ?
View attachment 34850
Click to expand...
Yes, IMHO, these larger replenishment vessels should be very well armed for self defense.

4 x 30mm CIWS
2 x ESM Type launchers
2 x RAM Type launchers
6-8 x 12.7mm Machine guns

Would be a good base for them. They are so critical.

...and of course a full, well trained, NAval crew.

IMHO, the US made a lare mistake in taking the armament and the naval crews off of its replenishment ships. Cost savings are fine...but for such vessels so critical if there were a conflict, they simply are too expensive to afford.

Loss of such a vessel would lead to potential loss of, or neutering of an entire carrier strike group or Amphibious Expeditionary UNit.

There are no savings there.
 
J

Janiz

Senior Member
lol, for me she's pretty... massive! She's looking waaay cooler than any of aircraft carriers around the world ;)
 
FORBIN

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Jeff Head said:
Yes, IMHO, these larger replenishment vessels should be very well armed for self defense.

4 x 30mm CIWS
2 x ESM Type launchers
2 x RAM Type launchers
6-8 x 12.7mm Machine guns

Would be a good base for them. They are so critical.

...and of course a full, well trained, NAval crew.

IMHO, the US made a lare mistake in taking the armament and the naval crews off of its replenishment ships. Cost savings are fine...but for such vessels so critical if there were a conflict, they simply are too expensive to afford.

Loss of such a vessel would lead to potential loss of, or neutering of an entire carrier strike group or Amphibious Expeditionary UNit.

There are no savings there.
Click to expand...
IIRC only 2 replenishment classes has missiles, SAM launchers Soviet Berezina SA-N-4 and Sacramento a Sea Sparrow but without magazine i have with also 2 CIWS.

All USN replenishments classes disarmed when transfered from USN to the Combat Logistic Force of MSC in 2003 about some classes have a Phalanx, now Kaiser can receive 2 CIWS in war time i think also Supply and Lewis and Clark.
 
FORBIN

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
PLAN First Type 901 Replenishment Oiler Started Sea Trials Off Shenzhen, China

Chinese ship spotter pictures from December 18th show the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN or Chinese Navy) first Type 901 large replenishment oiler starting its sea trials. The 240 meters long vessel displacing 48,000 tons was launched December 15th 2015 by the GSI shipyard (member of CSSC).

Type 901 is fitted with 5x wet cargo transfer stations (3 on port side) for fuel and water, as well as and 2x dry cargo stations which is comparable with the next class of American supply vessel, the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


It has to be notted that according to our colleagues from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the PLAN classification for Type 901 is "general supply vessel" (综合补给舰) similar to the Fleet Replenishment Oiler (AOR) classification of the U.S. Navy... And not Fast Combat Support (AOE) although Type 901 was designed to support all ships in a carrier strike group, including the aircraft carrier.
Existence of the Type 901 programme emerged in 2011, roughly one year before the commissioning of aircraft carrier Liaoning.

In its initial configuration, the Type 901 was set to be fitted with several self-defense weapon system, such as the H/PJ-11 11-barrel CIWS with a rate of more than 10,000rpm, the HQ-10 missile-based CIWS and a complete electronic countermeasures and warfare suite.

However the final configuration appears to be different (the latest sea trial pictures of Type 901 show that HQ-10 are not fitted after all). As shown in the past, PLAN vessels weapon fits depend on budget, and the Chinese navy is known to "cut" systems when the budget is not enough.

The key features of the Type 901 compared to the old-generation tankers in service in the Chinese Navy, such as the Type 903, Type 905 and Type 908, is the implementation of a sophisticated logistics support system. It allows to monitor and calculate in real time, via data links, the consumption and also the stock of all types of ships under its assignment. The system then automatically proposes optimized refueling plans according to the missions to be carried out and the conditions at sea.

Like the other Chinese tankers, the Type 901 is equipped with several medical stations to accommodate patients, although the Chinese navy has its own hospital ships. The spotter photos also show two hangars at the stern, the size of which is sufficient to accommodate 13-tonnes helicopters such as the Z-8S and Z-8JH for example.

To date, despite a fairly large fleet of Tanker vessels with one Type 908 of 37 000 tonnes, two Type 905 of 22 000 tonnes and eight Type 903 / Type 903A of 23 000 tonnes, the PLAN is still severely lacking in terms of tankers, able to escort and support the first-line ships in the "Blue water" missions that are becoming increasingly frequent.

When, for example, the US Navy has on average one supply vessel for 5 first-line ships, this figure falls to 1 for 15 in the PLAN. The direct consequence is an average of 200 days per year spent at sea for PLAN latest, most modern tankers. This raises a concern in operational flexibility, crew management and hardware fatigue.

It is therefore not surprising to see a new orders for offshore supply vessels since the 12th Five-Year Plan (2010-2015) - in a single year 2016,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
have been inducted in active service.

The construction of this new class of 40,000 tons supply vessel (the keel of the second would have already been laid) is not only proof that the PLAN is taking the rise of their CSGs very seriously. It also shows an intention to operate in an increasingly "global" way.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top