Replacing the Jianghus and sub-chasers?

planeman said:

Just out of curiosity, what is the military need for the 76mm gun - wouldn't it make sense to ditch it and go for a better SAM system? Just a thought.

Click to expand...

Layered defence. First line is SAM's, followed by chaff/flares, followed by main gun, and finally, the CIWS. The 76mm is still fairly effective against aircraft and ships. It also serves as a good weapon for firing warning shots against civilian ships. Nice, packs a lot of punch, and also: CHEAP.

I would also ditch telescopic hanger and go for a longer hull, myself.

tphuang said:

hmm, I just want to comment on Kashtan, it's really not regarded very highly in PLAN. Especially the missile that comes with Kashtan. As for HQ-7, it's considered to be the best defensive missile vs sea skimmers. It's range might not be fantastic, but neither are the range of RAM and Barak.

Click to expand...

I guess that this depends on missiles PLAN purchased(probably 9M311K)... 9M-335 missiles are quite improvement over 9M311K and should have same range as HQ-7 but considerably better performance.
Currently Russians are considering use of 57E6 whit Kasthan. 57E6 missile has range of 20km and speed of 4680 km/h...
All in all system has great potential and I doubt that HQ-7 can provide same level of performance...
Don’t get me wrong; I really think that HQ-7 is good system, especially improved version but I don’t see much growth potential for it… Also I’m somewhat surprised that PLAN is unsatisfied whit Kashtan since they really don’t have to much experience operating this system…

planeman said:

Ok, here's a start. I've presumed the 76mm to be the Russian AK-176 which is already in PLAN service. The only other 'modern' 76mm gun they could probably get their hands on is the Iranian version of the OTO-Melara 76mm.
Tell me what to change/add and where to put things and we'll build her up.

The telescopic hanger adds weight and reduces utiliy, but saves space.

Click to expand...

76mm gun is AK-176 since it is already in PLAN service. Kasthan would be placed behind the main gun.SSM launchers would be installed in the midship section behind radar mast. The launchers would be installed in a crossed configuration, one facing port and one starboard.

planeman said:

Just out of curiosity, what is the military need for the 76mm gun - wouldn't it make sense to ditch it and go for a better SAM system? Just a thought.

Click to expand...

Like Pointblank mentioned 76mm gun provides layered defense. Also it is cheaper to use 76mm gun against low threat targets. On 76mm shell is much cheaper then SSM. Also PLAN could developed 76mm guided ammunition similar to OTO Melara Davide for AK-176.

isthvan said:

I guess that this depends on missiles PLAN purchased(probably 9M311K)... 9M-335 missiles are quite improvement over 9M311K and should have same range as HQ-7 but considerably better performance.
Currently Russians are considering use of 57E6 whit Kasthan. 57E6 missile has range of 20km and speed of 4680 km/h...
All in all system has great potential and I doubt that HQ-7 can provide same level of performance...
Don’t get me wrong; I really think that HQ-7 is good system, especially improved version but I don’t see much growth potential for it… Also I’m somewhat surprised that PLAN is unsatisfied whit Kashtan since they really don’t have to much experience operating this system…

Click to expand...

PLAN sent people to check out the testing of Kashtan in Russia, they weren't impressed by the results at all. Type 730 showed far better performance in PLAN trials. You can just see how a lot of subsystems from 956 were bought by PLAN for its other ships, but Kashtan isn't one of them. Don't let the range or speed of a missile fool you into think it's actually that affective. The most important aspect of the spec is still single hit probability.

As for HQ-7, it has plenty of area for improvement. You can improve its guidance, ECM and make it compatible with a common VLS. In terms of range, 15 km and 11km vs missiles is adequate for the tasks it needs to do.

tphuang said:

PLAN sent people to check out the testing of Kashtan in Russia, they weren't impressed by the results at all. Type 730 showed far better performance in PLAN trials. You can just see how a lot of subsystems from 956 were bought by PLAN for its other ships, but Kashtan isn't one of them. Don't let the range or speed of a missile fool you into think it's actually that affective. The most important aspect of the spec is still single hit probability.

As for HQ-7, it has plenty of area for improvement. You can improve its guidance, ECM and make it compatible with a common VLS. In terms of range, 15 km and 11km vs missiles is adequate for the tasks it needs to do.

Click to expand...

Well I don't doubt that type730 is very capable system that can outperform GSh-30K... On other hand improved KashtanM has significantly better guidance system and response time compared to basic Kasthan. According to Russian sources KashtanM has 96% kill probability. Also you cant judge system performance based on one test...

As for HQ-7 I personally think that PLAN would be better developing new VL missile based on SD-10 family... French dropped Crotale missile and replaced it whit faster and more manoeuvrable VT1 missile rather then improving basic missile...

Ps. Maybe it would be good idea if PLAN would made CIWS based on type730 whit Kashtan missiles...

May I ask where is this information of "PLAN not being impressed of Kahstan"? comming from?

It's just that it sounds bit too labeled statement, analog with other russian-bahsing mentality that seems to be present in some chinese military enthusiast communities.

You can just see how a lot of subsystems from 956 were bought by PLAN for its other ships, but Kashtan isn't one of them.

Click to expand...

Well thats bit missinformative as the orginal pr. 956Es that where sold to China (from which these subsystem aqustions were made) didn't have Kashtans, but the old Ak-630 which chinese did copy quite egerly. Suddenly completely different (new) generation system is regarded as a inferior as to their own technically simpler system...sounds bit of wishfull thinking don't you think?

The reasons why china haven't choosen the Kahstan is far more simplier. You have own designed (and paid!) CIWS system, potential SAMs that could be envolved into anti-missile systems and so on. There's no reason to jeopardise these programs by buying a foreing system which performance is only slightly better than the existing systems in chinese inventory (or potentially to become in service).

I agree with Isthvan, Crotale should be let to retair. It's an old system which dates back to early 60's. There are new systems like the TY-90 or the SD-10/PL-12 and even the mysterios hq-16 (what ever it may be) which may proove to be much more potential than the old rattlesnake...

planeman said:

I have a few of my own ideas, but how about this for an offer: You guys tell me the charactristics you think it should have and I will try to illustrate your concepts - together we can come to a solution. I draw to approx scale )say 20cm accuracy on most aspects) so I if you give hull dimensions I can actually see what equipment fits depending on the suggested layouts.

So:
Length
Width
Description of weapons/ placement
Other charactristics

Click to expand...

Hi planeman, here would be my suggestion. If you do have the time to put this into an illustration, that be cool.

Trimaran hull based on the Austal MRC.


Length - 100m
Width - 20m
Standard crew - 60
Displacement - 2000tonnes
Sprint speed - 45 knots
Range - up to 3500nm

I would use the illustration of the MRC as the basis with some mods. Folks mentioned of a telescopic hangar. I would like to see a helipad more like the elevator on an aircraft carrier. The helipad on the MRC would have the ability to be raised or lowered. When a heli is taking off or landing, the pad would be at the same level as the top deck where the radar/comm masts are. But when it's time to store the heli, the deck lowers to where the MRC has it and a retractable roof closes up, so the heli pad is the hanger itself to save space. And since I've lengthened the hull from the MRC's 72m to 100m, the top extra space can be standardized slots and this could be a mix and match of weapons needed for the mission, SSM, SAM, ASW. Ducts will be built in with slats that will open up on the port and starboard side during firing to vent the exhaust. Bow should have a 76mm cannon. I would keep the rear like the MRC with the starboard side with the ramp to load mission modules or gear for any special ops. Perhaps the ramp can be redesigned to be better flushed to reduce radar signature. The port rear opening can also be covered with a panel for reduced radar signature when not in use. Otherwise that opening can be used to install a towed sonar and it's accompanying deploy and recover equipment when you want the boat to be configured for ASW. Or it can be installed with mine laying equipment if the mission calls for it. Last but not least, on the MRC, both the rear port and starboard has nooks to carry smaller boarding vessels. I would only have the port side carry a boarding vessel and perhaps install a moveable panel to cover the vessel when not in use, again to reduce radar sig. Starboard side I would rather install another loading ramp in case the boat can't load/unload from the rear depending on pier facilities. Boat should be powered with diesel/waterjet combo, that would eliminate need for rudder and reduce draft. Hull should be nonferrous.

OPV would use the same hull but obviously a lot of the panels I mentioned to reduce radar sig can be left out to reduce cost. And of course, the weapons suite would be more in line with OPV. That about sums up my vision. Let me know what you guys think, plausible design?

Firstly this oversized enthusiaism towards catamarans and trimarans is bit weird...I mean are you choosing them just for the sake of good looks?

The proplem with trimarans and catamarans is that their seakeeping cababilities are considerably weaker than of normal displacement hulls. They are fast in calm seas, but when the seastate worsens these ships cannot go to the sea...too big default for a corvette size warship...

Seccondly that helicopter hangar has one big ich...Topweight. A balance of a ship is very important and the general rule is, the higher the weight is placed, the bigger is the pich and roll eg. the ship is vibrating badly. In this suggestion the proplems emerge when the helicopter is inside the hangar. With ships of this size, all the weight should be as low as possiple...

Gollevainen said:

Firstly this oversized enthusiaism towards catamarans and trimarans is bit weird...I mean are you choosing them just for the sake of good looks?

The proplem with trimarans and catamarans is that their seakeeping cababilities are considerably weaker than of normal displacement hulls. They are fast in calm seas, but when the seastate worsens these ships cannot go to the sea...too big default for a corvette size warship...

Seccondly that helicopter hangar has one big ich...Topweight. A balance of a ship is very important and the general rule is, the higher the weight is placed, the bigger is the pich and roll eg. the ship is vibrating badly. In this suggestion the proplems emerge when the helicopter is inside the hangar. With ships of this size, all the weight should be as low as possiple...

Click to expand...

Hi Golle, I'm not choosing a trimaran for the sake of looks. I really think there is potential in cat/tri designs. You can mask your heat exhaust between the hulls and it gives much more width space on the decks above the waterline. You also reduce the draft of the ship. Are those attributes not worth investigating?

Regarding topweight and stability, I'm really not sure about your argument, not because it isn't valid, but I think you're viewing the problem too much from a monohull's point of view. In terms of the heli, when the heli's in the hanger, it means the pad is lowered, so the ship's center of gravity is lowered. And as a trimaran, you have the 2nd and 3rd hulls to create a wider footprint to counter topweight. Also, I'm no ship architect but I surmise in these 3 hulls below the water line, you will have engines, fuel, and ballast tanks to contribute to the lower center of gravity as well. And I'm not trying to fit every possible weapon on the hull in one sitting like the Eilat. I've suggested ala carte as the mission dictates. But I do think going the way of modularity is beneficial because it offers maximum flexibility.

If you check out the austal link I posted earlier, click on the trimaran tech brochure. It's pdf but on page 3, there is a chart that shows stability vs sea condition, it appears the trimaran beats a monohull or cat of the same size when looking at the overall range.

monohulled vessel are slightly more seaworthy, especially in deep ocean or in large storm. The center of gravity of the blast tend to keep monohulled vessel steady and more stability against rolling over and capisze when hit by breaking wave. And when ships of both design to end up capsizing, the monohull design has a much easier time recover, where as a cart. vessel is actually more stable floating upside down.

but in the end, most of the military multihulled vessel like MRC resemble a single hulled ship more than a classic cart or tri, so i dont think really suffer too much from the problems mentioned above, and it also imply that it wont offer too much of the advantages of a classic catamarans hull like significant improvement in speed, which just begs the question of whether the extra cost of such a design is worth it.

And Golle, who actually find catamarans ships look good? i thought they look absolutely hideous, and i thought most people agrees with me.

isthvan said:

76mm gun is AK-176 since it is already in PLAN service. Kasthan would be placed behind the main gun.SSM launchers would be installed in the midship section behind radar mast. The launchers would be installed in a crossed configuration, one facing port and one starboard.

Click to expand...

Still have some waty to go:

Powerplant
Below-waterline features and accessories
Stealthisation
Superstructure
Fitting the torpeados in (?)
Sensors

Like Pointblank mentioned 76mm gun provides layered defense. Also it is cheaper to use 76mm gun against low threat targets. On 76mm shell is much cheaper then SSM. Also PLAN could developed 76mm guided ammunition similar to OTO Melara Davide for AK-176.

Click to expand...

A fair argument, but who would the PLAN get close enough to to use a 76mm gun on? - underarmed opponents = bullying? Warning shots can be done with 30mm or more realistically by machine guns from helicopters. and shore bombardment is an undue risk, even Hezbollah could ruin your day committing expensive corvettes within 76mm range.

And layered defence is questionable if fitting the 76mm gun is exactly what is preventing you from mounting better SAMs in the first place(?).

The potential of "smart" air-defence rounds like those being developed by OTO-Melara change the picture, but my thoughts are going away from mounting a 'main' gun on my corvette concepts. Whilst they are nice to have, the space is better occupied with other combat systems and if you look at the wider PLAN fleet, there is no shortage of guns to do the cheap bullying of inadequate foes anyway. Just my thoughts, but your corvette concept is your concept, I'm just the artist. :coffee:


______________________________________________________
Joshuatree,

Hi planeman, here would be my suggestion. If you do have the time to put this into an illustration, that be cool.

Click to expand...

Maybe in time, but I will concerntrate on Isthvan's concept first just because he got there first. The Austal corvette design is interesting, a lot like Vosper Thornicroft designs.