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

[IblinI]

Because I don't seriously believe they build 5 last year.

You believed 4 were build last year, giving it another 1 this year make it 5? Enhancing it by saying "YOU DO KNOW"?So, eventually it all come back to Belief?

 

[jhungary]

You believed 4 were build last year, giving it another 1 this year make it 5? Enhancing it by saying "YOU DO KNOW"?

I don't believe they have build 4 either, and again, YOu do know is not to enhance, you do know is a phase for you, to say that do you know they claim they build 5 last year.

YOU DO KNOW this always not the case, as you said Sina is hardly a believable source.

but hey, you can claim whatever you want, I have no problem about it, you can say China is going to build 100 J-20 this year, and I will believe you

 

[IblinI]

but hey, you can claim whatever you want, I have no problem about it

That makes both of us.

 

[jhungary]

That makes both of us.

Then what is your problem? You can go ahead and believe the Chinese can build 100 J-20 in 5 year or 1 year or 1 day, why you have a problem for me to say "By the time the Chinese build 100th J-20, the US would have been flying 6th Gen" At least my "PROJECTION" is more believable than you.

LOL, Yet you still did not tell me how China can build 10 this year lol.

 

[IblinI]

Then what is your problem? You can go ahead and believe the Chinese can build 100 J-20 in 5 year or 1 year or 1 day, why you have a problem for me to say "By the time the Chinese build 100th J-20, the US would have been flying 6th Gen" At least my "PROJECTION" is more believable than you.

LOL, Yet you still did not tell me how China can build 10 this year lol.

You claim 2018 was not seen in 2016, so you doubt 5 were made last year,so we do not see new pics of J20 for quiet a while, that makes it zero so far this year?

 

[gambit]

Sure the US can design one, but can it build a viable one? I don't think you understood what I meant by viable. It's not enough to just satisfy mission requirements, it needs to be cost effective and be able to be produced in quantity. The US can design almost anything better than anyone in the world, but it has lost the ability to effectively get the designs off the drawing board. Almost all major new systems produced by the Americans since the end of the cold war has suffered from this. The F-22 was cancelled early due to cost, the Zumwalt was cut to just 4 ships due to cost, and the LCS is a disaster that costs well over $300 million!

There's a lot of tech and even more industry involved in turning a design into an viable product, and the US no longer posses them.

Absolutely we can. And I think it is YOU who do not understand the meaning of 'viable'.

Simply put...To make something viable is to make it work successfully as intended and designed to satisfy intentions. Cost is not a factor in trying to make something viable. If the urgency is high enough, cost effectiveness is discarded and viability will be achieved in the shortest time. Cost effectiveness matters when there are competing projects under the same budget plan.

 

[jhungary]

You claim 2018 was not seen in 2016, so you doubt 5 were made last year,so we do not see new pics of J20 for quiet a while, that makes it zero so far this year?

Well, you said that, not me.

I doubt the Chinese build 5 last year, they can build 100 or 1000 of J-20 and not showing you one, that's not my pejorative. The word "PROJECTED" mean nothing, it mean it should be at that level, reality is, whether or not they reach, or went over the projected number is up to the people who is working on the production line. They can build 100 J-20 and not telling you shit about it, that's up to them, but without seeing one, would you believe they build a 100 is up to you, for me, I don't think they build 5, they could, and I am happily to be proven wrong, WITH EVIDENCE, not just by what you said.

The core argument is this, even 5 is not the right number, let's say you are right, they are builing 10 this year, would still wouldn't make 100 in 5 years, yes, raise of number is possible, but raising by 300% production rate in 5 years? That is NEVER heard of, again, you can claim Chinese Spirit, and you can believe that would happen, and Again, I don't

You can believe what you believe, I am okay with that, remember, I am not the one who first doubt what I said, you are, by asking the question in post #65. If you have no problem with it too, that's where your replies "You and me both" coming in at #94, then why raise the question on #65?

 

[52051]

You believed 4 were build last year, giving it another 1 this year make it 5? Enhancing it by saying "YOU DO KNOW"?So, eventually it all come back to Belief?

Dont waste your time on them, the two simply have no life, and can write walls of words of nothing 24/7/365, so just provide evidence and then ignore them, let other see their pathetic reasoning and be done with them.

 

[gambit]

I think you misunderstood me just as gambit did. Your entire post is wasted on me because I agree with all of it. Read my above reply to gambit to see what my argument is. Sure the US can design and make a semi-submersible arsenal ship, but does it have the tech and industry to make it into a viable program? Or would it flounder like the Zumwalt?

Absolutely we can, provided the program suits our battle doctrine. Unlike you and your fellow Chinese on this forum, Gary and I have the benefit of ACTUAL military experience to understand the relationship between doctrine and hardware.

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

An arsenal ship is essentially a replacement for the battleship. A battleship is essentially a fire support component whose main guns are mobile and can reach some distance inland. As the guns gets smaller, they are more for self defense rather than attacking a target.

In the Battle of Leyte Gulf, (US) airpower pretty much killed the (Japanese) battleship. In real life and later in combat doctrine as we eventually retired the battleship.

I have said it before on since '09 that no one on this forum is a more ardent proponent of airpower than I and have given plenty of examples where airpower made the difference. In the Battle of Leyte Gulf, airpower made the difference by showing everyone, from the stars down the to chevrons, that the day of the battleship is over.

Sure, you can partially submerge the Chinese arsenal ship, but with today's modern 'smart' munition, that capability will not do you much good. By the time there is a Chinese arsenal ship, one B-one will be able to drop a dozen 'smart' bombs down the length of its hull before the ship's crew knew what the hell happened.

So by all means -- build it.

 

[Oldman1]

Not sure the point of semi submersible arsenal ship. Should just make a fully submerge submarine able to hide in water with full arsenal and not have to be attached to a carrier group for protection. Or just go full surface warship as well. Especially in need of ballistic missile defense.

 

[Beast]

Not sure the point of semi submersible arsenal ship. Should just make a fully submerge submarine able to hide in water with full arsenal and not have to be attached to a carrier group for protection. Or just go full surface warship as well. Especially in need of ballistic missile defense.

Submarine lack the ability to be a surface warship. For example, anti air and shore bombardment? Command and control needs powerful sensor and datalink which Submarine needing to dive deep can't afford the space to place such luxury.

By submerging just below waterline, they are not meant to mimic submarine but to reduce their surface for radar detention while still maintain the kind of tower sensor of surface radar. By submerging most of their hull below waterline. It will complicated anti-warship missile attack since most anti-ship missile are profile to sea skim at near waterline and slam onto side of the hull. Anti-ship missile are not designed to slam onto top surface of surface warship. If anti-ship missile once goes underwater, the rocket boaster will be extinguished by water and stop working. Unless it is attack by ASBM which is a top down attack but currently, only China and Iran possess ASBM.

The ship will retain most function just like a surface ship while reduce RCS and complicated antiship missile attack from enemy.

 

[52051]

Not sure the point of semi submersible arsenal ship. Should just make a fully submerge submarine able to hide in water with full arsenal and not have to be attached to a carrier group for protection. Or just go full surface warship as well. Especially in need of ballistic missile defense.

Submarine dont have radar and remote sensor like surface ships do so they require other system and data-link to hit remote targets, yet they suck at commuications/data-linking things.

Submarine also dont have creditable protection (assumes any at all) against aircrafts or even helicopters.

So SSNs/SSBNs are depend on external commands unless they shot pre-programmed and therefore very limited fixed targets.And to make the situation worse, the only creditable way to get communication in submarine once submarised is through long-wave microwave, and guess what? the transmission rate is terrible, we are talking about a few bytes of data every 5 or so mins.And when at surface mode, the submarine's speed is very slow

So basically SSN/SSBNs are blind unless using floating data reciver, which will make anti-submarine aircrafts way easier to find them, and they are hopeless and defenseless against such aircrafts.

In contrasts, this Chinese high speed new conecptal hybrid mode battleship will have both massive anti-air and anti-ship firepower, and can data-linking with other ship and remote sensor networks to attack remote mobile targets, can travel at high speed whether its afloating or submerised, have way lower RCS than any stealth ships and way better eyes/ears comparing to submarines, not to mention much faster speed and needless to say anti-submarine stuff like P-8s will be a joke to them, let along anti-submarine helicopters.

So basically Chinese new ship is like a sniper who has very good eyes/ears, carrying a massive sniper gun and can defend themselves well even if they are caught, and can run like Mr. Bolt or some other olympicans.

The last massive navy war is the era of aircraft carriers, the reason it replace battleships is that it can out-range and out-gun battleships.

The same reason applies to this ship and CVs, it will out-stealth, out-speed, out-range and out-guns (think about AShBMs and other massive anti-ship missiles) against CVs.

 

[Oldman1]

Submarine lack the ability to be a surface warship. For example, anti air and shore bombardment? Command and control needs powerful sensor and datalink which Submarine needing to dive deep can't afford the space to place such luxury.

By submerging just below waterline, they are not meant to mimic submarine but to reduce their surface for radar detention while still maintain the kind of tower sensor of surface radar. By submerging most of their hull below waterline. It will complicated anti-warship missile attack since most anti-ship missile are profile to sea skim at near waterline and slam onto side of the hull. Anti-ship missile are not designed to slam onto top surface of surface warship. If anti-ship missile once goes underwater, the rocket boaster will be extinguished by water and stop working. Unless it is attack by ASBM which is a top down attack but currently, only China and Iran possess ASBM.

The ship will retain most function just like a surface ship while reduce RCS and complicated antiship missile attack from enemy.

Sorry it may sound good but having a large sail especially containing radar as powerful sensors for anti air or land attack will make the ship huge even if its hull is below water. You ever seen the sail of the Typhoon?

And don't doubt the anti ship missiles especially when they can be programmed to hit ships that have sails. And I haven't even mentioned subroc missiles anti submarine that can hit submarines that are partially submerged.

Submarine dont have radar and remote sensor like surface ships do so they require other system and data-link to hit remote targets, yet they suck at commuications/data-linking things.

Submarine also dont have creditable protection (assumes any at all) against aircrafts or even helicopters.

So SSNs/SSBNs are depend on external commands unless they shot pre-programmed and therefore very limited fixed targets.And to make the situation worse, the only creditable way to get communication in submarine once submarised is through long-wave microwave, and guess what? the transmission rate is terrible, we are talking about a few bytes of data every 5 or so mins.And when at surface mode, the submarine's speed is very slow

So basically SSN/SSBNs are blind unless using floating data reciver, which will make anti-submarine aircrafts way easier to find them, and they are hopeless and defenseless against such aircrafts.

In contrasts, this Chinese high speed new conecptal hybrid mode battleship will have both massive anti-air and anti-ship firepower, and can data-linking with other ship and remote sensor networks to attack remote mobile targets, can travel at high speed whether its afloating or submerised, have way lower RCS than any stealth ships and way better eyes/ears comparing to submarines, not to mention much faster speed and needless to say anti-submarine stuff like P-8s will be a joke to them, let along anti-submarine helicopters.

So basically Chinese new ship is like a sniper who has very good eyes/ears, carrying a massive sniper gun and can defend themselves well even if they are caught, and can run like Mr. Bolt or some other olympicans.

The last massive navy war is the era of aircraft carriers, the reason it replace battleships is that it can out-range and out-gun battleships.

The same reason applies to this ship and CVs, it will out-stealth, out-speed, out-range and out-guns (think about AShBMs and other massive anti-ship missiles) against CVs.

Submarines basic survival is stealth. Sorry but semi submerge ships are not that fast compare to submarines fully submerged. And it won't outrun something like P-8 or any other ASW aircraft. You talk about carriers obsolete but you are building more. Your Chinese military leaders disagree with that.

 

[52051]

Submarines basic survival is stealth. Sorry but semi submerge ships are not that fast compare to submarines fully submerged. And it won't outrun something like P-8 or any other ASW aircraft. You talk about carriers obsolete but you are building more. Your Chinese military leaders disagree with that.

With their anti-air asrenal, they dont need to run away from things like P-8, instead, they may run for them.

China build CVs for land-attack/invasion, basically its just floating airport, and they build things like this for future navy battles.

 

[antonius123]

Sorry it may sound good but having a large sail especially containing radar as powerful sensors for anti air or land attack will make the ship huge even if its hull is below water. You ever seen the sail of the Typhoon?

And don't doubt the anti ship missiles especially when they can be programmed to hit ships that have sails. And I haven't even mentioned subroc missiles anti submarine that can hit submarines that are partially submerged.



Submarines basic survival is stealth. Sorry but semi submerge ships are not that fast compare to submarines fully submerged. And it won't outrun something like P-8 or any other ASW aircraft. You talk about carriers obsolete but you are building more. Your Chinese military leaders disagree with that.

Basically all ships sailing on or under the surface of sea could be hit by missile or torpedo; however this submersible will be tougher since its actually a destroyer/cruiser with very low radar signature and higher flexibility than conventional destroyer.

Dont forget: submarine could'not kill P-8 or any other flying objects which is the weakness of it, but submersible could, therefore P-8 etc may not be effective againts submersible.