Replacing the Jianghus and sub-chasers?
- Thread starter planeman
- Start date
The thing is, CATs do not necessarily have a wide underside. The 22 happens to be quite narrow, and the underside is quite high. You can deal with wave crests hitting the bottom by raising the deck height. In extreme forms, you can for example, design massive floating city like CATs that resemble floating oil rigs.
I've been in catamarans of this size and bigger in trips along the Chinese coast, some in fairly rough conditions. I should even add that the seas along the Chinese coast and at certain times of the year is even rougher than the deep Pacific.
joshuatree
Captain
Are anti-ship missiles & torpedoes necessary on the OPV version?
Certainly not necessary, but I thought it ought to have the equipment, just without them actually fitted. Remember that the biggest gun onboard is likely to be a twin 37mm, or a 30mm CIWS.
Re the AK-176 76mm gun. Here's it to scale on the foredeck of my concept Corvette:
I've given it a stealthy profile where the whole upper casing move in elevation with the barrel, reducing the radar cross-section:
(Note that the dimensions are completely wrong)
Adding the 3m tall gun to the foredeck has meant having to raise the bridge. In a toss-up between a CIWS, a 76mm gun and SAMs (PL-12), I'd still ditch the 76mm.
Last edited:
joshuatree
Captain
Actually I would suggest removing the torpedoes, anti-ship, and anti-air missiles from the OPV. You can upgrade the main gun to a larger caliber and add GP machine guns. With the removal of the missiles, you can also probably move the hanger further midship and have a larger aft deck which can be fitted with fire-fighting, disaster relief, anti-pollution, minesweeping, or dive support equipment if needed. Think the OPV and the corvette should share the basic hull and engines to cut costs but the weapons on the corvette would seem to be overkill for an OPV.
You have a very logical point, but another angle to consider is that OPVs can also be seen as reserve corvettes. The stealth lines of the many recent OPVs illustrates this attitude. Granted not all follow this approach. But in wartime these would be re-rolled as corvettes, and even in peace time may be used as a cheaper "expeditionary frigate".
A few "corvettes in OPV's clothing" just waiting for minor modifications to become a true light frigate:
A. Commandante class, Italy:
b. Oceanica class(s), Mexico:
A few "corvettes in OPV's clothing" just waiting for minor modifications to become a true light frigate:
A. Commandante class, Italy:
b. Oceanica class(s), Mexico:
Main refinement is seperating the main missile silos to further reduce RCS and allow crew to pass from one end f the deck to the other. I've alse lengthened the bridge area to provide more space for command/control in the flortilla leader and expeditionary roles.
I'll agree with that one.
Box/turret launchers like those are really designs from a different era. i.e. Crotale, RAM, Sea Dart, Sadral (Mistral), etc. The Sea RAM was designed as a plug-in replacement for Phalanx CIWS, so you couldn't assume there's space below deck for VLS system.
For newer (or updated) ship-based SAMs like VL Sea Wolf, VL MICA, Barak, etc., the preferred configuration is VLs cels. It provides better 360-degree coverage, faster rate of fire, and gets rid of reloader & missile magazine hardware. You simply put the missiles in TLC's and plug 'em in.
The down-side to VLS system is below-deck space requirement. If you're refitting an older ship, this might not be an option. But for newer ships, you can design them with VLS cels to begin with.
So if we were re-fitting Jianghu-class ships, then we might not have a choice and have to use above-deck SAM system. But if we were designing the replacements, then I think underdeck VLS should be incorporated from start.
If the PLAN is looking to upgrade some of its older ships with better air-defense capability, what they need is something like the RAM/Sea RAM that can be installed as a plug-in replacement for the dual-37mm AAA guns. The standard AAA system on older PLAN ships is Rice Lamp fire control radar + 4 x twin-37mm AAA guns. The HQ-7 is way too big to serve as a plug-in replacement. If they can find a smaller, lighter and more compact SAM system for it, it'd improve the air defense capability by quite a bit.
If they're working on SD-10/PL-12 solution, I'd like to see something similiar to the Israeli Spyder system:
joshuatree
Captain
Your point is also valid but I think we need to assess it according to how PLAN is shaping up. Right now, it appears PLAN intends to have the 054(a) mass produced, which means the 054s will replace the Jianghus. In our thread here, we are hypothetically considering a smaller and cheaper corvette to fulfill a 1:1 replacement of the Jianghus and basically to act as a reserve force to the 054s. Assuming there will be a significant number of 054s and a significant number of your proposed corvette, it would seem to be overkill to have a reserve-reserve force of OPVs. Granted, maybe in a long and drawn out war, the OPVs may be pressed into wartime service. But what are the chances of that? So during peacetime, it would seem to be a waste of money and performance of the OPV to carry around armament ill-suited to civilian OPV duties.
If you want to give the OPVs the flexibility to quickly be converted into a corvette, then let's say keep the hangar where it is, but still remove the torpedeos, anti-ship, anti-air missiles. Where the anti-ship missiles are located, you should place two boarding craft which would come in handy in law enforcement scenarios, i.e. anti-pirate, anti-smuggling operations. The other freed up space would merely give this OPV more capacity for stores to further extend operational endurance.
In most navies, OPV's go to Coast Guard service, and they're rarely equipped with fixed missile launchers. Some carry MANPADS or light MANPAD mounts, but are usually only armed with guns.
There are some exceptions... Brunei operates British-built Nakhoda Ragam Class OPV and those are equipped with Exocet SSM's and 16-cel VL Sea Wolf SAM. But that's a tiny country without a real navy, so their OPV's have to serve dual role.
If we're looking at building OPV's for EEZ patrol, it should go under the Coast Guard branch and PLAN warship fleets. Coast Guard requirements differ from warships, instead of SSM's they need speed boats, expanded medical facility, and other search and rescue equipment.
If you're going to put missiles on OPV's, I think it'd be better to install "defensive" systems like HQ-7, instead of YJ-83's.
There are some exceptions... Brunei operates British-built Nakhoda Ragam Class OPV and those are equipped with Exocet SSM's and 16-cel VL Sea Wolf SAM. But that's a tiny country without a real navy, so their OPV's have to serve dual role.
If we're looking at building OPV's for EEZ patrol, it should go under the Coast Guard branch and PLAN warship fleets. Coast Guard requirements differ from warships, instead of SSM's they need speed boats, expanded medical facility, and other search and rescue equipment.
If you're going to put missiles on OPV's, I think it'd be better to install "defensive" systems like HQ-7, instead of YJ-83's.