Replacing the Jianghus and sub-chasers?
- Thread starter planeman
- Start date
Pointblank
Senior Member
I still say dump the telescopic hangar. It adds unnecessary weight to the ship for very little gain. Your still better off with either a fixed hangar or no hangar only landing pad for top weight. Lengthen the hull by 15m, and you can accommodate a complete fixed hangar which is both lower in weight and complexity. Remember: KISS (Keep It Simple, Silly). Don't add anything that is of unneeded complexity.
The torpedoes tubes can be integrated into the hull on the stern, like this:
The torpedoes tubes can be integrated into the hull on the stern, like this:
No, but if you compare the ride in 16m/s wind in bigger monohull, you hardly even notice that you are in the boat. Same apply to the usage of the weaponry. Specially in small ships, its very important to what extence they can use their weapons and sensors, and sad thing is, that of the monohull and catamaran, the later one beguns to suffer more
.
No, IN all cats the hulls are underwater to some extense, we are not talking about hydrofoils or WIGs...The idea in the SWATH is that the hulls are very narrow in the waterline and the big bulge beguns in the submerged part. The 022 hulls arent that, they are simply common catamaran hulls with wavepiercing bow.
Why does this beguns to smell like "Hmm...now he says that cats are not good...lets dig up all we can get from cats...Hmm, that SWATH seems to be the solution, so chinese Catamaran offcourse has to be one....after all, it is a CHINESE catamaran..."
No. They were loaded only to the "main deck" level, they didnt have supersturctures and mostly the weigth dispreadence were OK, its rather simple task whit simple boat, no matter how many hulls you have...
As for the helicopter, Your suggestion sounds only too complicated one, and takes too much space from the level were all the heavy equipment needs to be. Helicopter hangar isent the most hevyest equipment, and expecially aboard catamaran, where all the heavy equipment needs to be almoust over the waterline, you really doesen't have the luxury for this....or else you need to have a lot bigger ship....
the lack of volume for heavy ordanance comes mostly present in one cruicial factor for patrol combatant, the endurance. For example, Nanucha class monohull (that has its own shortcomings as a seaboat) has the endurance of 4000sea miles, a typical frigate standars, where as a example of these highly praised catamarans, a 1,000 tonner Bora has endurance only 2000 sea miles.
Last edited:
I ask joust because I'm interested in mod HQ-7 operational status. I remember some speculation that type054 will be modernized to type054a standard so installment of basic HQ-7 could make sense. I mean PLAN probably has quite large stock of this missiles and they wouldn't be only navy that still use older missiles. For example German Brandenburg class frigates still use SeaSparrow
missiles and not ESSM... Not to mention costs of such upgrade...
Well like I said I don't doubt that type730 CIWS is capable system but there are some limitations to what single CIWS can do. I joust don't see how could single CIWS shot multiple missiles coming from multiple vectors in such limited time.
Well I would put YJ-7s at midship similar to this design:
Also they could be placed at the stern and Kashtan could be placed in the back(similar position like second AK-630 on this Russian design):
I don't think that is correct. Looking at SWATH hull designs throughout the web I don't see the model you are looking at. There are SWATH designs with relatively small hulls.
No, not all cats have their hulls underwater, and certainly in the original concept of sailing catamarans, the hulls are not underwater, or shaped like submarines like the Type 22 does.
They have structures like small houses on them and are often loaded with stores.
Last edited:
joshuatree
Captain
If you compare the ride in 16m/s wind in bigger monohull......aren't you missing the point of comparison if you're gonna start throwing in boats of different sizes?
As for my suggestion of the heli pad/hangar, I see it no more complicated than your suggestion of a telescopic hangar.
Btw, in my suggestion, I said trimaran, not cat, just want to reiterate since some of this discussion has drifted to just cats.
well, it's not just older missiles, you can upgrade the sensors and control system. Even missiles themselves, you can upgrade different parts of them, but probably there is no need.
the idea is that these missiles should be able to be detected from much further out and then attack. And then, they can be engaged from 1500 m in. If you can read Chinese, it talks about goalkeeper going against 4 different missiles at the same time. And how they can engage against them.
this one from good ol' wikipedia...You can do the comparision yourself to the Type 022...
all boats hulls goes underwater, unless they use some magic to fly over the waterline
Type22 doesent have submarine shaped hull, why would it otherwise descriped as wavepiercing?? ...or have Wave piercing bows??No. Ships of the Catamaran size but monohull rarely needs to remain in shore in our ports. Major ship size vessel have rarely sunked in the baltic for strorm alone, there has always been desing fault alongway...
.
But I say that it is...so guess we are down in the sadbox dirt throwing phase...I use to be quite good in it back in kindegarden
My last word would be, that if it wouldn't be anymore complicated than the telescopic one, why there isent ones in ships whose size would allow telescopic one, but only in two small missileboat oddities???
Since this has become a bit of a multi-hull bashing thread, I think I'll fuel the flames with a trimaran layout. This form of trimaran hull has been looked at by the RN and USN, and is regarded to have excellent seakeeping as well as the general multi-hull advantage of potentially accomodating a disproportionately large helipad compared to monohulls of the same displacement.
Triton (unarmed hull testbed):
The builder, Vosper Thornycroft in UK who are well known for their forward thinking design concepts, bringing us the wave-piercing Sea Wraith in the 1990s, are currently marketing a corvette/frigate based on this technology:
From
Triton (unarmed hull testbed):
The builder, Vosper Thornycroft in UK who are well known for their forward thinking design concepts, bringing us the wave-piercing Sea Wraith in the 1990s, are currently marketing a corvette/frigate based on this technology:
From
Last edited:
mehdi
Junior Member
The only thing I don't like about the design is the Helicopter deck. Could have been better anyway it was a great design just too bad the British were too short sighted and ended the project. Could have been used as a template for a future Destroyer or even an aircraft carrier.