China unveils a new concept of naval warships - semi-submersible arsenal-ship

[sinait]

Am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt -- for now.

The bottom line is that the concept is nothing new. The US Navy explored it, at least on paper, and rejected it as unsuitable for US strategy and tactics. There are vulnerabilities that our Chinese members refused to acknowledged and insists that the concept is new. Go figer...

Unsuitable for the US doesn't mean its not useful for what the Chinese intent to use it for.
We need to wait to see if the outcome will be similar to how the Chinese outdid the US in the supercomputer race.
The Chinese surprised the US with their home grown chips to continue taking the crown again after the the US thought they could stop the Chinese by banning the sale of Intel chips to the Chinese.
So we wouldn't know what surprises are in store with the Chinese version of this submersible.
But it surely is exciting to anticipate something may appear, just like how the J-20 came about.
.

 

[antonius123]

I have removed national interest as my source.

Waiting Gambit's explanation on what the advantage of using PESA than AESA.

 

[52051]

What am reading here is that the Chinese hypothetically stacked the deck against the Americans, no matter what. Chinese surface radars somehow magically is more capable than American airborne radars. Case closed.

Maybe thats magic to you, but its pretty simple to others: the ship you mentioned get a displacement of over 20,000 tonnes and very likely to be nuclear-powered, and therefore it have much more electrity power and much larger room to accomodate larger and more powerful radar.

See, it helps if you can at least learn to use logic to see things.

 

[gambit]

Unsuitable for the US doesn't mean its not useful for what the Chinese intent to use it for.

Often, the platform dictate the use. If you have a tracked vehicle, not likely you are going to use it racing against wheeled vehicles, correct ? Sure, you can race a tank against a VW Beetle, but which is going to win ?

Likewise, if you build an aircraft carrier, you are not going to use it to transport cargo. An arsenal ship is a fire support vehicle. You cannot effectively use it as a deterrence like an aircraft carrier. Sure, you can use it as a threat, but an aircraft carrier or even a destroyer off the coast of your target will do even better. Look at another analogy -- artillery. Sure, you can parade an artillery piece in front of your target, but a tank or even a rank of troops will be a more effective message.

We need to wait to see if the outcome will be similar to how the Chinese outdid the US in the supercomputer race.
The Chinese surprised the US with their home grown chips to continue taking the crown again after the the US thought they could stop the Chinese by banning the sale of Intel chips to the Chinese.

Did the Chinese have a different and innovative method of production ? No. So let us say that the Chinese chip is faster. Is its use any different than the American chip ? No. The difference is like you walking at a faster pace than I. The real difference is if you change your legs to wheels.

 

[sinait]

Often, the platform dictate the use. If you have a tracked vehicle, not likely you are going to use it racing against wheeled vehicles, correct ? Sure, you can race a tank against a VW Beetle, but which is going to win ?
Did the Chinese have a different and innovative method of production ? No. So let us say that the Chinese chip is faster. Is its use any different than the American chip ? No. The difference is like you walking at a faster pace than I. The real difference is if you change your legs to wheels.

Frankly, you speculate too much.
The Chinese could have usage of this submersible in a way that is out of your limited knowledge.
Just like you presupposed that the Chinese Supercomputer is faster because it is using a faster chip.
Use your logic, how the Chinese could get faster Intel chips that is controlled by the US.
They did want to use the faster Intel chip before it was banned, though, but it is not any faster than what is available to the US, as yes, it is made by the US.
Don't try to be a genius of all subjects.
.

 

[gambit]

Frankly, you speculate too much.

Actually, you guys have been the ones speculating too much. This ship, according to you guys, is going to change the nature of naval warfare completely. There will be no defenses against it. And so on...

The Chinese could have usage of this submersible in a way that is out of your limited knowledge.

And you are telling me that I speculate too much ?

Don't try to be a genius of all subjects.

Tell that to your Chinese friends. This is a military oriented forum. How many of them served in the PLA in any capacity to speak about military subjects the way they have been ?

 

[Beast]

Tell that to your Chinese friends. This is a military oriented forum. How many of them served in the PLA in any capacity to speak about military subjects the way they have been ?

How does serving in military related to the topic of know how for supercomputer? Trying to divert the earlier accusation?

 

[Oldman1]

The ship wont remain on the surface all the time. Once it detect P-8 and launch HQ-9, it should submerged to avoid radar detection or LRASM. Even if P-8 has a chance to launch LRASM, it wont be able to hit the submerged ship. Because with subsonic speed it takes 20 - 30 minutes for LRASM to reach the ship; while the 20 minutes is quite a long time for the ship to go submerged.

A ship like that has to surface if it wants to fire a missile at an aircraft. And it has to illuminate the target from hundreds of kilometers away. Unless you know another way to guide the missile.

Yes, that is the purpose of submerging, to avoid missile hit too.
I dont think P-8 will have any chance to launch HAAWC due to more limited range of HAAWC; because P-8 will become debris due to HQ-9 hit before its able to launch HAAWC

The submerged contact will have to surface if it wants to launch.

I doubt that AAS under P-8 is as powerful as that of E-3 Sentry, perhaps the detection range is much shorter than 400km for ship.

Your scenario is too simplified.

The realistic one is: within 300km range P-8 can only launch LRASM assuming the AAS can detect 300km sail ship sized object, and submersible ship can launch HQ-9; so both of them probably could launch missile approximately at the same time. After missile launched, submersible can hide by submerging, but P-8 can't hide anywhere. So the looser will be P-8. The possibility P-8 can launch HAAWC is if only submersible cannot detect P-8 at shorter range (say 80km) which is very small possibility considering the ship's radar should be more powerful than P-8 radar.

You doubt the AAS is powerful based on what? Don't perhaps.

Hey I can make a scenario to. Realistic, another submarine or aircraft can follow the arsenal ship and provide info for torpedoes or missile guidance from P-8.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Airborne_Sensor

The Advanced Airborne Sensor (AAS) is a multifunction radar installed on the P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft. The radar is built by Raytheon as a follow-on to their AN/APS-149 Littoral Surveillance Radar System (LSRS).

The AAS has its roots in the highly classified AN/APS-149 LSRS, which was designed to provide multi-function moving target detection and tracking and high resolution ground mapping at standoff ranges covering land, littoral, and water areas. The radar was deployed on a small number of P-3C Orions, with "game changing" results. Containing a double-sided AESA radar with near 360-degree coverage, it could scan, map, track, and classify targets, and do all of these tasks near simultaneously; it was reportedly sensitive enough to pick up a formation of people moving over open terrain.[1]

Building upon the LSRS, the AAS also has a double-sided AESA radar, which contains a moving target indicator (MTI) that can detect, classify, and track targets on land and at sea at the same time, with synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and inverse synthetic aperture radar (ISAR) for picture-like radar imagery of both inland and ocean areas at the same time; these can profile vessels from a long distance and generate fine resolution without relying on optical sensors, especially in day or night and in adverse weather conditions. Once it detects and classifies a hostile vessel, the P-8 can send targeting information to another armed platform and guide a networked weapon (e.g. Tomahawk cruise missiles, SLAM-ER, JASSM, LRASM, SDB II) to it through a data link. The AAS is in ways superior to the AN/APY-7 used on the U.S. Air Force's E-8 Joint STARS, looking both port and starboard rather than just being side-looking. Other potential missions could include detecting and tracking low flying and stealthy cruise missiles, communications relaying, and electronic warfare as a standoff platform to penetrate contested airspace, since AESA radars are capable of radar jamming, producing fake targets, frying electronic components, and even cyberwarfare.[1][2]

 

[sinait]

Actually, you guys have been the ones speculating too much. This ship, according to you guys, is going to change the nature of naval warfare completely. There will be no defenses against it. And so on...

And you are telling me that I speculate too much ?

Tell that to your Chinese friends. This is a military oriented forum. How many of them served in the PLA in any capacity to speak about military subjects the way they have been ?

Your words

The US Navy explored it, at least on paper, and rejected it as unsuitable for US strategy and tactics.

Sorry, my only contention is that you state that this submersible is unworkable just because the US had rejected its version of it.
Jury still out on whether it will change the nature of naval warfare completely.
Most probably it will not but may(hopefully) significantly augment and strengthen the Chinese Navy.

The Chinese may most probably use it in a principally defensive manner which is different from the US, an all mode or principally offensive vessel in a global setting.
Speculate on what are its deficiencies and vulnerabilities by all means as we don't have its details but not dismiss it outright based on US requirement considerations.

How many of them served in the PLA in any capacity to speak about military subjects the way they have been ?

I believe a lot of us are here on our leisure time and learn some military developments and enjoy wonderful military pictures in a easily accessible website.
Most Singaporeans have military experience but maybe not as much as yourself.
I hope that does not disqualify us from making comments and liven up the discussion, coming from you who profess to be from the land of free speech.
.

 

[gambit]

How does serving in military related to the topic of know how for supercomputer? Trying to divert the earlier accusation?

How does NEVER served in ANY branch of service at all related to this thread ?

 

[gambit]

Your words

Sorry, my only contention is that you state that this submersible is unworkable just because the US had rejected its version of it.

Not my words. If the US Navy rejected it, then the rejection is not 'my words'.

Jury still out on whether it will change the nature of naval warfare completely.
Most probably it will not but may(hopefully) significantly augment and strengthen the Chinese Navy.

Now it is YOU who are speculating here.

I believe a lot of us are here on our leisure time and learn some military developments and enjoy wonderful military pictures in a easily accessible website.
Most Singaporeans have military experience but maybe not as much as yourself.
I hope that does not disqualify us from making comments and liven up the discussion, coming from you who profess to be from the land of free speech..

Then why do you felt the need to disqualify me from commenting on Chinese military affairs ? Your style of debating is typical of the Chinese here, that only Chinese are allowed to discuss Chinese military affairs, but they can go anywhere and talk about anything they want.

But to return to the topic...

Yes, the US Navy rejected the concept, but no, that does not mean the PLAN cannot use it. However, when the world's premier navy rejects something at a conceptual level, that is enough to give people pause as to why and examine their own reasons. Recently, it came out that the PLA is testing new rifles for its troops. Why ? The PLA have found out the hard way the limitations of the bullpup designs. As a gun owner, in my opinion, any mass adoption of the bullpup design for any army is misguided, to be polite about it.

As an Air Force guy, I will use something in aviation -- compression lift.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_lift

To sum up the concept, with compression lift, the body essentially 'surfs' the supersonic shockwaves it produces. The idea was abandoned because of improved missile threats, not because it was unaffordable or unworkable. Here is where China can take up where the US stopped, at least for transoceanic civilian air transport, and perhaps even outshines the US.

So now you have three examples. The arsenal ship was abandoned at the conceptual level, the rifle being reconsidered because of practical experience, and compression lift remains open ended.

An intellectually honest debate about this topic would have people leave their nationalistic passions at the door. There are plenty of examples of successes, failures, and uncertainty that anyone can research and think about them. It took me five minutes to bring up the other two examples, one of them directly involved the PLA.

 

[antonius123]

A ship like that has to surface if it wants to fire a missile at an aircraft. And it has to illuminate the target from hundreds of kilometers away. Unless you know another way to guide the missile.

The submerged contact will have to surface if it wants to launch.

Of course the ship has to surface in order to fire missiles, but it doesn't need to remain at the surface after firing missiles right? Like I said: after the ship has launch hundred missiles aimed to CBG, and aircrafts launched from carrier, at also aimed to missiles launched by aircraft or ships, it will go submerge.

And yes, there is other way to guide missile, which is by tandem this ship with other destroyer like 052D, where radar on 052D will illuminate and guide the missiles on the submersible via datalink.

You doubt the AAS is powerful based on what? Don't perhaps.

Hey I can make a scenario to. Realistic, another submarine or aircraft can follow the arsenal ship and provide info for torpedoes or missile guidance from P-8.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Airborne_Sensor

The Advanced Airborne Sensor (AAS) is a multifunction radar installed on the P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft. The radar is built by Raytheon as a follow-on to their AN/APS-149 Littoral Surveillance Radar System (LSRS).

The AAS has its roots in the highly classified AN/APS-149 LSRS, which was designed to provide multi-function moving target detection and tracking and high resolution ground mapping at standoff ranges covering land, littoral, and water areas. The radar was deployed on a small number of P-3C Orions, with "game changing" results. Containing a double-sided AESA radar with near 360-degree coverage, it could scan, map, track, and classify targets, and do all of these tasks near simultaneously; it was reportedly sensitive enough to pick up a formation of people moving over open terrain.[1]

Building upon the LSRS, the AAS also has a double-sided AESA radar, which contains a moving target indicator (MTI) that can detect, classify, and track targets on land and at sea at the same time, with synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and inverse synthetic aperture radar (ISAR) for picture-like radar imagery of both inland and ocean areas at the same time; these can profile vessels from a long distance and generate fine resolution without relying on optical sensors, especially in day or night and in adverse weather conditions. Once it detects and classifies a hostile vessel, the P-8 can send targeting information to another armed platform and guide a networked weapon (e.g. Tomahawk cruise missiles, SLAM-ER, JASSM, LRASM, SDB II) to it through a data link. The AAS is in ways superior to the AN/APY-7 used on the U.S. Air Force's E-8 Joint STARS, looking both port and starboard rather than just being side-looking. Other potential missions could include detecting and tracking low flying and stealthy cruise missiles, communications relaying, and electronic warfare as a standoff platform to penetrate contested airspace, since AESA radars are capable of radar jamming, producing fake targets, frying electronic components, and even cyberwarfare.[1][2]

Based on the size, where the P-8 is smaller than E-3 Sentry.

Yes, but how long is the detection range of AAS?

 

[sinait]

Not my words. If the US Navy rejected it, then the rejection is not 'my words'.
Now it is YOU who are speculating here.

That is not speculation, I used 'may' and 'hopefully'. Its my wish that every venture that the Chinese embark on will be successful, like how the Chinese have successfully achieved a lot of things for the past 30 years.

Then why do you felt the need to disqualify me from commenting on Chinese military affairs ? Your style of debating is typical of the Chinese here, that only Chinese are allowed to discuss Chinese military affairs, but they can go anywhere and talk about anything they want.

Following is what I post. Did you find anything to substantiate what you quote above?
If what you said is true, I would not be posting as well.

Speculate on what are its deficiencies and vulnerabilities by all means as we don't have its details but not dismiss it outright based on US requirement considerations.

Yes, the US Navy rejected the concept, but no, that does not mean the PLAN cannot use it.

I see you are agreeing with me. The PLAN could have found it useful from the Chinese Navy perspective.

The PLA have found out the hard way the limitations of the bullpup designs. As a gun owner, in my opinion, any mass adoption of the bullpup design for any army is misguided, to be polite about it.

The bullpup has pros and cons and both types have their specific advantages. I am not a gun owner, but I had being using the SAR21 and I very much prefer it. Well to each his own.
You may have your opinion though which amounts to zilch.

As an Air Force guy, I will use something in aviation -- compression lift.

That is one reason why I do not press you on your shortcoming in IT matters.

An intellectually honest debate about this topic would have people leave their nationalistic passions at the door. There are plenty of examples of successes, failures, and uncertainty that anyone can research and think about them.

Maybe you should follow what you preach.
You will seldom find me engaging in matters that are out of my scope.
I just find it hilarious that you are writing off and put down this submersible based on US requirement considerations.
.

 

[gambit]

That is not speculation, I used 'may' and 'hopefully'. Its my wish that every venture that the Chinese embark on will be successful, like how the Chinese have successfully achieved a lot of things for the past 30 years.

If you did not speculate, then neither have I, as you falsely accused. So far, all the Americans have said in this thread is that the concept is not new. Why is that so difficult for you to understand ? I have been the Chinese who have been doing the speculating, anywhere from how it can defend itself to how powerful is its radar.

Following is what I post. Did you find anything to substantiate what you quote above?
If what you said is true, I would not be posting as well.

Yeah...Your attitude that I speculated.

I see you are agreeing with me. The PLAN could have found it useful from the Chinese Navy perspective.

The operative word here is 'could'. Not 'would', but 'could'. The word is loaded and ripe for speculations, which your Chinese friends have been doing.

The bullpup has pros and cons and both types have their specific advantages. I am not a gun owner, but I had being using the SAR21 and I very much prefer it. Well to each his own.
You may have your opinion though which amounts to zilch.

Not just my opinion, buddy, but the PLA's. My prediction is that the PLA will abandon the bullpup for its troops. WHEN that happens, your opinion will amounts to zilch.

That is one reason why I do not press you on your shortcoming in IT matters.

I work in the Probe Engineering dept of a major NAND manufacturer, which shall remain unnamed, sub specialty 'Probe Process'. I am also directly involved in Intel's new 3D CrossPoint NVM product. When I say directly, I mean as in I have direct physical and software involvement with the product. I work with Product Engineering in helping them refine their fab processes, with Quality Assurance, with Functional, with Parametric, and with Wafer Level Reliability. Simply put, at the logical level, no wafer is shipped without my group's consent.

Maybe you should follow what you preach.
You will seldom find me engaging in matters that are out of my scope.

Maybe YOU should.

I just find it hilarious that you are writing off and put down this submersible based on US requirement considerations..

Where did I 'write it off' ? You are being overly sensitive. Like it or not, the US rejection of the concept is significant, especially when the PLA is modeling itself after US. For all we know, all the PLA have done is read up on what the US have done, and published an exploratory paper on some things, but your Chinese friends in this forum blew it all out of proportions.

 

[sinait]

I work in the Probe Engineering dept of a major NAND manufacturer, which shall remain unnamed, sub specialty 'Probe Process'. I am also directly involved in Intel's new 3D CrossPoint NVM product. When I say directly, I mean as in I have direct physical and software involvement with the product. I work with Product Engineering in helping them refine their fab processes, with Quality Assurance, with Functional, with Parametric, and with Wafer Level Reliability. Simply put, at the logical level, no wafer is shipped without my group's consent.

A good laugh.
IT is very diverse.
The harder you try to cover your incompetence the more you show your ignorance.

Some people can make a handsome living just maintaining SAP, doing backups or restoring systems.
There is also specialization on IOS, Android, Windows or programming NOR flash EEPROM.
Even virus programming and hacking are all under IT.
What you are describing is the electronics part of IT, it does not qualify you to know all and sundry in IT.
Do you know how to code a stack buffer overflow exploit?
Or maybe you don't even know how the CPU stack and registers work as most people don't use assembly language programming anymore.
Even assembly language would seem easy as at times we have to know the machine codes stored in little 'e n d i a n' layout. (they don't allow e-n-d-i-a-n)

Anyway you are not incompetent, nor ignorant.
On the contrary, quite knowledgeable, but must learn to accept our limitations.
The Chinese are brilliant in identifying the supercomputer performance bottleneck is in the interconnects data throughput and went on to solve the problem and proven correct when they have the Fastest Supercomputer for 6 years non-stop.
All the brilliant US scientists went holiday or sleeping for 6 years in a technology considered critical?
Likewise the Chinese could have identified that this submersible could prove useful to the Chinese Navy.
I didn't say that it is new, not my words.
The Chinese could be making this submersible with a NEW and NOVEL design.
.