Replacing the Jianghus and sub-chasers?

Well in effect the Jiangweis and Jiankais (054/A) are or at least should be the Jianghu replacements. I'm not exactly sure how it is toughted in PLAN, but I would expect that when the 054A will enter service in larger quantives (rumousr speaks 2+ hulls already laid down so I hope that it will finally be the next new mass produced chinese major combatant) the Jianghu's number will decrease rapidly. Not by one-to-one, there really isen't big need for that, but that about 6-8 054A will replace all the existing Jianghus. Or that at least is how it should be done.

So by principle there is no need to replace the Jianghu's as such, but still between the coastal force and the larger warship there should be some vessel roughly the size of 1000 tons. It should be toughted more as replacement of the Hainan and it's subvariants, as they are not by any standarts fit for modern naval warfare.

Before I give my suggestion, few things to be clarified:
OPV and corvette/light frigate are two entirely different things. A corvette is a warship assigned to the navy and OPV is a patrol ship assigned to the martime security and survelance agencys what ever they might be in various countries. These ships may look like each others, but are not the same ships and it's not wise to have single ship operating in both duties. They may be build using the same common hull type (as will it be in my suggestion) but not that one particular ship is acting as both.

Alright. My suggestion.

We need ship with large enough hull to field all the neccecerical equipment and to have good endurance which however doesen't mean bluewater operations. The term Bluewater is used as to descripe some naval forces ability and capability to operate far from it's homewaters, practically anywhere around the wolrd. It's not simply just the endurance of the individual ships, but the over all capability of the entire fleet (support, lads, remember support, the key in all aspects of all warfare)
So where were we? Yeas, the size. As these ships should be able to perform effecient ASW operations (which means helicopter), have surface strike ability, decent airdefence, good sensors and act/pass EW suite and the already mentioned endurance we are facing one proplem: How can you fit all these in to 1000 ton hull? Well you cannot. At least not with balanced and ungrowed hull. And to add to this multipurpose hulls are not ideal solution if you have enough money so we need to at least three different class of ships.

But as the ships are approx. the same size, it's wise to use the common hull principle. So we will have a dedicated ASW frigate, a SRK (guard ship) and a OPV. The common hull will be based on the OPV build for Thailand. Some general data about the hulls: They will be ~95 meters long and 1000-1500 ton displacement. Propulsion will be 2 diesels.

The ASW frigate will be roughly analog to the Thailands ships. It has one 76mm gun in the bow and 8 YJ83 (and in this scenario we pretend that the CY-2 exists so some of the missile tubes will have it onboard) SSMs. The main difference is in the helicopter hanger. Unlike the Thailands ship, there will be a telescopic hangar and the rest of the space between the hangar and the funnel will be the main Air defence unit. Now as we paly along with the CY-2, we will also pretend that the land Based LD-2000 with the TY-90 along side the type 730 CIWS is adoptable for naval use also and thus we have somewhat Kahstan like powerfull anti-missile-missile and CIWS hyprid. The telescopic hangar accommodates one Z-9 size helicopter. A new small size LF VDS is fitted along new bow mounted LF sonar.

The SRK variant is basicly the same as the ASW version, only that the large funnel is not fitted (diesel powered ships are not tied to the funnels as steam and gas operated ships). As so total of 16 SSMs can be fitted. The SRK has only the bow mounted sonar.

The OPV variant is as the Thailands ships. The Helicopter hangar is fixed and there is no CIWS. Two single barreled 37mm AA or new dual 14.5 mm MGs will be fitted alongside the hangar. SSMs are intended but not carried. The sonar is hull mounted and not fit for active search and attack.

Now I will post a linedrawing of this ship as soon as I'm getting there (I'm actually drawing all the chinese major surface ships) so it may take a while...

I like the US LCS and British River Class OPV:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/littoral/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/river_class/

Both ships use the storage-container mission modules, which makes it very flexibile. The River class OPV even has 25 ton crane to lift the mission modules.


Does anyone have specs on Royal Thai Navy's new OPV?

Originally Posted by adeptitus

Does anyone have specs on Royal Thai Navy's new OPV?

length: 95.5 metres
beamwidth:11.6 metres
displacment: 1,440 tonnes
crewed: 84 personnel

It is powered by twin Rushton 16RK270 diesel engines driving twin controllable-pitch propellers. The armaments package comprises one OTOBREDA 76/62 main gun and twin 40mm secondary guns and can carry helicopter in Z-9 class...

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

OK here are my proposals:

I would replace Jianghu´s with something similar to Steregushchy class; 90-100m long corvette, 1500-2000t displacement, diesel propulsion…
Armed with 76mm gun, Kahstan( since its range is better then HQ-7 if new missiles are used), 4-8 YJ-83 SSM, two triple Yu-7 torpedo tubes, same sonar suit as Golly proposed, and Z-9/Ka-27( in telescopic hangar)…

OPV would be similar to Thai OPV but armed with 76mm gun on bow and two 14.5mm machineguns fitted alongside the hangar for EC-120/Z-11/Z-9 helicopter. Ship would also be fitted for 2-4 YJ-8 but wouldn’t carry them… For air defense OPV would be fitted with shipboard MANPAD similar to French Simbad…

For FAC flotilla leader/ costal ASW I would build 60-70m corvette, 500-700t displacement. It would be armed whit 76mm gun, 8 YJ-83, 4 Yu-7 torpedo’s and helicopter deck for smaller hello… Basically something similar to Visby class…

Originally Posted by isthvan

OK here are my proposals:

I would replace Jianghu´s with something similar to Steregushchy class; 90-100m long corvette, 1500-2000t displacement, diesel propulsion…
Armed with 76mm gun, Kahstan( since its range is better then HQ-7 if new missiles are used), 4-8 YJ-83 SSM, two triple Yu-7 torpedo tubes, same sonar suit as Golly proposed, and Z-9/Ka-27( in telescopic hangar)…

OPV would be similar to Thai OPV but armed with 76mm gun on bow and two 14.5mm machineguns fitted alongside the hangar for EC-120/Z-11/Z-9 helicopter. Ship would also be fitted for 2-4 YJ-8 but wouldn’t carry them… For air defense OPV would be fitted with shipboard MANPAD similar to French Simbad…

For FAC flotilla leader/ costal ASW I would build 60-70m corvette, 500-700t displacement. It would be armed whit 76mm gun, 8 YJ-83, 4 Yu-7 torpedo’s and helicopter deck for smaller hello… Basically something similar to Visby class…

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.

Here's a Kashtan ADGMS video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3zKG0JBBwo

The Kahstan system has some advantages. It can integrate several combat modules and lay out streams of lead. Technologically wise, it's a bit old, but for its time, I think it was a good "heavy metal" weapon that can really dish it out.

As for the HQ-7, I wish they'd develop it into a VLS system like the Barak or Sea Wolf VLS. It'd make a good point-defense missile for light frigates and corvettes. It needs multiple interception capability. Unlike Falklands era aircraft, which only carried 1-2 anti-ship missiles, today most strike aircraft carries 4.

But the most pressing shortcoming... I think is in ASW weapons. PLAN really needs some ASROC type missiles, and if they cannot develop one, they should just import them from the Russians. ASW Helicopters are great, but they cannot be used in all weather conditions.

Going back to the original post, I think to replace Jianghu class ships, the 054 platform will do just fine. I think the 054 can be developed into GP (General Purpose) and ASW variant, as well as high-endurance coast guard ship. But for the future, they should definately look at the modular designs like that of LCS.

Originally Posted by isthvan

OK here are my proposals:

I would replace Jianghu´s with something similar to Steregushchy class; 90-100m long corvette, 1500-2000t displacement, diesel propulsion…
Armed with 76mm gun, Kahstan( since its range is better then HQ-7 if new missiles are used), 4-8 YJ-83 SSM, two triple Yu-7 torpedo tubes, same sonar suit as Golly proposed, and Z-9/Ka-27( in telescopic hangar)…

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.

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.

Question, for a certain length, let's just say 100m to make it easy, will a monohull have more space and stability or will a catamaran or trimaran? I know the question is not directly related to the thread but it does have an impact on the design. A catamaran/trimaran should have a lighter draft so that would be good for littoral areas but will it affect it's blue water ability?

Originally Posted by planeman

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.

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.

Originally Posted by tphuang

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.

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…

Originally Posted by planeman

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.

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.

Originally Posted by planeman

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.

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.

Originally Posted by isthvan

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…

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.

Originally Posted by tphuang

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.

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.

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...