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

[Oldman1]

Yes, it is, this is from the inventor of this ship's own PPT, you can just ignore the fan arts:

So that is what it will look like? Does it fire missiles underwater or does it have to surface to fire missiles?

 

[52051]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/sinking-enemy-warships-the-us-navys-fiery-new-weapon-15132

Dave Majumdar

February 5, 2016

TweetShareShare

The United States Navy’s fleet of Aegis cruisers and destroyers are getting a massive boost in lethality. For years, many believed that America’s mighty surface combatants were on track to be outgunned by their Russian and Chinese counterparts—however, a newly unveiled modification to the Raytheon Standard SM-6 changes of all of that.

“I'm announcing today new capability for the SM-6. We're modifying the SM-6, so that in addition to missile defense, it can also target enemy ships at sea at very long ranges,” U.S. defense secretary Ashton Carter said at Naval Base San Diego in California on February 3.

“This is a new anti-ship mode. It makes the SM-6 basically a twofer. Can shoot down airborne threats,” Carter said. “And now you can attack and destroy a ship at long range with the very same missile.”

While the long-range SM-6 was known to have an extremely potent air and missile defense capability, this is the first time the Pentagon has acknowledged that the weapon has an anti-surface mode as well. The older, shorter-range version of the Standard—the SM-2—also had an anti-surface mode, though it is not exactly far reaching.

The SM-6—which incorporates an active radar seeker and networking—was designed to engage targets beyond a ship’s radar horizon. Using the Naval Integrated Fire Control battle network, an Aegis warship could engage over-the-horizon targets—including aircraft and missiles—by using targeting data from a Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye.

The physical radar horizon for a S-band radar like that of the Aegis is about 250 nautical miles for a target flying at about 30,000 feet. For target flying at lower altitudes, the radar detection range would be shorter—which is where the E-2D comes in. While the range for the SM-6 is classified, the weapons range could potentially be greater than 250 nautical miles.

Because the E-2D has the capability to track air and surface targets, the SM-6 would effectively allow U.S. warships to engage enemy surface combatants over-the-horizon with a Mach 3.5+ missile. While the SM-6’s warhead was designed to kill aircraft—and as such is relatively tiny—the fact that it also has ballistic missile defense capability suggests it has a hit-to-kill capability.

Its not hard to engage surface ship at OTH range, most of China's 052D DDGs are equiped with OTH radars, what is hard is to find a submerised target at any range.

So that is what it will look like? Does it fire missiles underwater or does it have to surface to fire missiles?

They can launch ASBMs in the water, and can employ EM railguns and laser defence when at surface mode, and they can detect aircrafts in semi-submerised mode (mode 2 in the picture).

 

[Oldman1]

Its not hard to engage surface ship at OTH range, most of China's 052D DDGs are equiped with OTH radars, what is hard is to find a submerised target at any range.



They can launch ASBMs in the water, and can employ EM railguns and laser defence when at surface mode, and they can detect aircrafts in semi-submerised mode (mode 2 in the picture).

How big are these OTH radars? What does it look like on the 052 destroyers?

If it was hard to find submerged contact with periscope up, they wouldn't worry about timing how long it would be up. And if a ship that size was surfacing, it can be detected from long range. Just launching ASMBs will reveal itself easily!

Well will see when that comes to fruition.

 

[antonius123]

Like I've said before, radars can detect the periscope easily, even from the air. Thats why they don't keep periscope up for a long time. Only a few seconds. But in this case your concept ship are two large sails, so its like a submarine on the surface, making it easier to detect.

I know radar can detect periscope, but the question is: within what range?

The largest airborne radar is E-3 Sentry, and if it can detect ship as far as 400km, then for the periscope sized object the range should be shorter than that. And remember HQ-9 range is 300km while the range of HAAWC is still in question.

Your second question, you have to remember the the P-8 can launch long range missiles and torpedoes from far distance even future JASSM missile with 1000km range. So your question goes back to how can it counter that?

JASSM range 1000km is for land target, for Anti Ship version the range is only 500km due to naval sensors. Yes it is still long range anti ship missile, but the most important thing is: submersible can submerge, while LRASM cannot hit submerged object; only HAAWC can hit submerged ship, however the limited range of HAAWC + sonar sensor or radar capability in detecting small object - wont be effective against submersible with SAM.

Planes do have big radars. Its well known fact.

The Zumwalt has been known to have the signature of a small boat. But its not invisible to the radar. So your concept ship wouldn't be invisible either if you point that out. Not to mention not completely submerged hull and large sails to carry large radars.

That is not look down radar like that of AWACS. So the radar only detect the object in front of its radome or a very far big surface object (not periscope) it is heading to. It can carry HAAWC but again the question is: how far the range of radar or sonar sensor and HAAWC, if the range is below 250km then P8 will be easily hit by HQ-9 before it could launch HAAWC.

The most important one is: how to identify whether the small object detected is periscope or just floating wood/wreck/garbage etc?

Yes zumwalt is not invisible, but if it sail alone, enemy may not be able to identify whether it is just a small sail or warship, that is the point zumwalt made for.

 

[Oldman1]

I know radar can detect periscope, but the question is: within what range?

The largest airborne radar is E-3 Sentry, and if it can detect ship as far as 400km, then for the periscope sized object the range should be shorter than that. And remember HQ-9 range is 300km while the range of HAAWC is still in question.

HQ-9 range is 300km but you have to detect the plane over the horizon and accurately. And if its on the surface as it shows in powerpoint presentation, than is most vulnerable to surface attack.

JASSM range 1000km is for land target, for Anti Ship version the range is only 500km due to naval sensors. Yes it is still long range anti ship missile, but the most important thing is: submersible can submerge, while LRASM cannot hit submerged object.

Only HAAWC can hit submerged ship, however the limited range of HAAWC + sonar sensor wont be effective against submersible with SAM.

The ship comes up, the LRASM can hit it. The HAWWC can hit it if the ship is submerged and cannot launch missiles.

That is not look down radar like AWACS. So the radar only detect the object in front of its radome or a very far big surface object (not periscope) it is heading to. It can carry HAAWC but again the question is: how far the range of sonar sensor and HAAWC, if the range is below 250km then P8 will be easily hit by HQ-9.

The most important one is: how to identify whether the small object detected is periscope or just floating wood/wreck/garbage etc?

Yes zumwalt is not invisible, but if it sail alone, enemy may not be able to identify whether it is just a small sail or warship, that is the point zumwalt made for.

So what do you think it is? Below the P-8?

Important question is will the ship surface to launch even though it will be vulnerable or submerged and get chased by the torpedo and it won't go fast because of its size, depending on its specs as arsenal ship.

 

[antonius123]

HQ-9 range is 300km but you have to detect the plane over the horizon and accurately. And if its on the surface as it shows in powerpoint presentation, than is most vulnerable to surface attack.

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.

The ship comes up, the LRASM can hit it. The HAWWC can hit it if the ship is submerged and cannot launch missiles.

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

So what do you think it is? Below the P-8?

Important question is will the ship surface to launch even though it will be vulnerable or submerged and get chased by the torpedo and it won't go fast because of its size, depending on its specs as arsenal ship.

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.

 

[gambit]

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.

 

[Beast]

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.

Your awacs is still pesa while ours are aesa. How capable is it?

 

[antonius123]

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.

Type 052B destroyer, a S-band APAR would have a range in excess of 300 km, 50% higher than the original PLAN requirement of 200 km.[4][5][8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_346_Radar

That will be enough to support locking target at the distance of HQ-9's max range.

How far is the radar range of P-8 for surface object?

 

[gambit]

Your awacs is still pesa while ours are aesa. How capable is it?

This tells me you have not learned what I have been saying about radar operations and tactics for the past 8 yrs.

With volume search, the AESA advantages over PESA often are tactically negligible. That does not mean those technical advantages are not useful, only that they may not be useful based upon mission requirements. Volume search means stability requirements in everything, such scan rate to signal characteristics, to reduce false returns because of the expanse of airspace involved. The larger the volume, the greater the odds of anomalies, weather phenomenas, and so on. Volume search means a large beamwidth and with the variability of anomalies, an AESA system offers no useful advantages simply because an AESA system must produce the same beamwidth and must suffer the same effects produced by those anomalies.

Text books have been written about the subject so am not going to waste my time with you Chinese since you have made up your (physics defying) minds any way. Yours is an immature understanding of the technical and tactical issues involved. You think that just because China uses a newer technology, it must means the US is stupid for using something older, never mind the fact that no one in the world have more experience than US at using that older technology in situations that your China may never experience. Not once have any Chinese in this forum ever had the honesty to admit he maybe mistaken, let alone wrong, so there is no point in showing you where your argument is flawed, which I just did this once.

 

[gambit]

What is CFAR ?

It stands for Constant False Alarms Rate.

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

...detection refers to a common form of adaptive algorithm used in radar systems to detect target returns against a background of noise, clutter and interference.

Basically, what this mean is that for any given airspace volume, no matter which size based upon beamwidth, there is an automatic assumption that there are false returns. Whether that assumption is true or not, is not the point. The point is that we should always make that assumption, then create a method to disprove our own assumption. That is the core of CFAR algorithm.

The argument in post 128 is typical of the Chinese in this forum. It is physics defying. It assumes that just because the Chinese AWACS uses the newer AESA technology, unwanted signals such as ground/sea clutter magically disappeared.

The reality is that in a volume search situation like an AWACS type mission, the larger the volume, the greater the complexity of CFAR algorithm since the radar must distinguish the background variations of sky vs ground vs sea. If there are 100 unwanted signals, they will exists whether the array is the old mechanical planar, PESA, or AESA. The real advantage here is ESA over the old mechanical planar array, not AESA over PESA even while there are advantages of AESA over PESA.

 

[antonius123]

This tells me you have not learned what I have been saying about radar operations and tactics for the past 8 yrs.

With volume search, the AESA advantages over PESA often are tactically negligible. That does not mean those technical advantages are not useful, only that they may not be useful based upon mission requirements. Volume search means stability requirements in everything, such scan rate to signal characteristics, to reduce false returns because of the expanse of airspace involved. The larger the volume, the greater the odds of anomalies, weather phenomenas, and so on. Volume search means a large beamwidth and with the variability of anomalies, an AESA system offers no useful advantages simply because an AESA system must produce the same beamwidth and must suffer the same effects produced by those anomalies.

Text books have been written about the subject so am not going to waste my time with you Chinese since you have made up your (physics defying) minds any way. Yours is an immature understanding of the technical and tactical issues involved. You think that just because China uses a newer technology, it must means the US is stupid for using something older, never mind the fact that no one in the world have more experience than US at using that older technology in situations that your China may never experience. Not once have any Chinese in this forum ever had the honesty to admit he maybe mistaken, let alone wrong, so there is no point in showing you where your argument is flawed, which I just did this once.

But AESA offer better LPI and jamming resistant than PESA can offer.

Furthermore the advantage of type 346R (052D's radar) performance over Arleigh Burke's AN/SPY-1D are:

Detection Range. 052D radar's detection range: >400km, vs 100nm of Arleigh Burke's one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_346_Radar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPY-1

 

[antonius123]

What is CFAR ?

It stands for Constant False Alarms Rate.

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

Basically, what this mean is that for any given airspace volume, no matter which size based upon beamwidth, there is an automatic assumption that there are false returns. Whether that assumption is true or not, is not the point. The point is that we should always make that assumption, then create a method to disprove our own assumption. That is the core of CFAR algorithm.

The argument in post 128 is typical of the Chinese in this forum. It is physics defying. It assumes that just because the Chinese AWACS uses the newer AESA technology, unwanted signals such as ground/sea clutter magically disappeared.

The reality is that in a volume search situation like an AWACS type mission, the larger the volume, the greater the complexity of CFAR algorithm since the radar must distinguish the background variations of sky vs ground vs sea. If there are 100 unwanted signals, they will exists whether the array is the old mechanical planar, PESA, or AESA. The real advantage here is ESA over the old mechanical planar array, not AESA over PESA even while there are advantages of AESA over PESA.

Then what make you think that Arleigh Burke still use PESA instead of AESA?

The AMDR (Air and Missile Defense Radar, now officially named AN/SPY-6)[1] is an active electronically scanned array[2] air and missile defense 3D radar under development for the United States Navy.[3] It will provide integrated air and missile defense, and even periscope detection, for the Flight III Arleigh Burke class destroyers.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPY-6

 

[Deino]

And since when is the nationalinterest a reliable source !??

By the way, can we come back to the topic - aka this semisubmersible ship - instead of making once again a Penis-contest on who has the longer one?

 

[gambit]

And since when is the nationalinterest a reliable source !??

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...