You are using words like "quite a number", "many", and "most" while grouping all AORs and AOEs into one giant class, which is not the correct way to talk about it. They need to be viewed with their armaments as appropriate to their displacement. "Most" AORs are in the 10 to 20,000 ton displacement range, and as such their armament is going to be appropriately lightweight, that is to say, not much. But then again, I never argued that these types of ships were going to be heavily armed. My original contention was that the 901 was lightly armed FOR ITS SIZE and compared them to the only other ships of the same type (AOEs), and by that comparison they are most definitely underarmed. But you insisted that smaller AORs be used in the comparison and then said "see, most of these ships are lightly armed". Well yes, they are, aren't they? But then again, they are also mostly, what, 3 to 4 times smaller than the 901? And almost all of the rest are about half the size of the 901. The one class that actually approaches the 901 in displacement, the 32,000t Fort Victoria class, is rather well protected with, as I said, 2 Phalanx and 2 20mm cannons.
PLAN Fleet supply vessels
- Thread starter delft
- Start date
Okay first of all, as I mentioned in my last post, in this discussion I was only talking about CIWS capability/armament. The efficacy of autocannons or DP guns, vs true CIWS capable mounts like Phalanx or AK630 obviously differ, especially for aerial and cruise missile targets.
Second of all, my statements are made with relative displacements in mind, and I obviously understand that relative armament does scale as displacement increases on average. So when I talk about "most" or "many" other AORs, it's spoken with calibration of their CIWS capability relative to their displacement already made.
So overall, I'm saying that even if 901 class only has four AK630s as ciws armament for its size, I believe its CIWS capability is not that much lower than other smaller AORs which have similarly capable (or rather, incapable) overall CIWS capabilities for their size.
The most significant exception to this trend would be the Deepak class tanker, which has four AK630 mounts despite being a relatively light 28k ton vessel, but I believe it is an outlier when looking at the CIWS capability vs displacement trend of other replenishment ships in the world.
====
If we're talking about overall armament instead of CIWS capability, then I would slightly more readily agree that four AK630s on 901 class is slightly underarmed -- but I would also wait to see what if any armament they put aboard the forward platform first before calling it.
Well at least you have admitted to "not that much lower", which is a recognition that they are in fact, underarmed for their size.
So you have:
Supply (48,800t): 2x Phalanx, 1x Sea Sparrow (before removal and transfer to civilian operators)
901 (45,000t): 4x 630
Fort Victoria (32,000t): 2x Phalanx
Deepak (28,000t): 4x 630
Most of the rest below this displacement don't have anything technically considered CIWS, except for the Spanish 17,000t Patino with its dual Meroka 20mm CIWS.
Which of the above clear is underarmed for its size? And if we talk about retired classes, the contrast is even more obvious.
Err, the statement "not that much lower" was made in context relative to 901 class's scaled up size relative to others... the full sentence needs to be taken altogether: "I'm saying that even if 901 class only has four AK630s as ciws armament for its size, I believe its CIWS capability is not that much lower than other smaller AORs which have similarly capable (or rather, incapable) overall CIWS capabilities for their size."
In other words, I'm saying I believe 4 AK-630s is consistent with the "CIWS to tonnage ratio" trend that is dictated by most other current replenishment ships of varying sizes in the world.
However, that statement is also directly saying that I think most current replenishment ships in the world are all somewhat underarmed for their size (aside from a few exceptions like Deepak class)... and that the 901 class does not differ from this trend.
I don't really know what you're asking here, so I'll just describe my position.
I think most current classes of replenishment ships are underarmed in terms of "CIWS to tonnage" ratio (apart from possibly the Deepak class) -- but when I say I think they are "underarmed" I'm describing it in terms of what I think a replenishment ship's CIWS armament should be relative to their tonnage.
However, I also believe that 901's "CIWS to tonnage" ratio is also consistent with that of most other current replenishment ships in service (aside from Deepak class, again, which is the exception).
In other words, I'm basically saying the 901's CIWS armament is lower than I'd prefer for its tonnage yes, but almost everyone else's CIWS armament for their tonnage is low as well, so 901 is just as compromised a compared to others.
I'm not sure why you keep referring to the Deepak as an exception. How many other AORs of ~28,000t displacement can you find? How many other Fort Victoria-sized AORs can you find? When you get up to that size of AOR, there are very few. You can't say this is an exception and that is an exception. They are the rule. And when you view them as the rule, then my list very clearly demonstrates that the 901 is underarmed for its size CIWS-wise. And like I said, I could easily include the Wichitas and Sacramentos and Cimarrons, all in the upper size ranges of AOE/AORs, which would make the 901's CIWS deficiency even more glaringly obvious.
I'm measuring all of these replenishment ships in terms of CIWS to tonnage ratio. I've used that term in various forms at least four times in my last post and put it in quotation marks three times to emphasize it.
The trend of CIWS to tonnage ratio across replenishment ships that are currently in service in various navies, across multiple different tonnages is why I'm saying the Deepak class is the exception, and is why I'm saying 901 class follows the general trend of CIWS to tonnage ratio that most other replenishment ships in service have set.
This supposed "CIWS to tonnage ratio" is going to be ZERO for most AORs per your own definition of using only actual CIWS weapons and not including guns that could possibly be used against incoming missiles, so there is no "trend" at all, only a flat line until you get to the Deepak and higher tonnage AORs. Deepak is not any exception, the rule starts with the Deepak and goes higher from there the larger the ship you go. If there is any "exception" it is the 17,000t Patino, which as far as I can find has no peers or near peers with weapons that are technically considered CIWS. And if you start with the Deepak and go higher, it is quite obvious that the higher you go, the more CIWS weaponry you will be packing, EXCEPT for the 901, which as I said, is underarmed for its size. I don't understand how you're not getting this at this point.
Actually, I would rank autocannons to have some CIWS capability -- for instance if a Phalanx or AK630 was "1 unit" of CIWS capability then a 30mm autocannon might be "0.25 units". I never actually said guns like Oilerkons had no CIWS capability, merely that they are not CIWS. And in all my last few posts, I always used the term "CIWS capability" not "CIWS mounts". (edit: I can understand there to be some confusion in this regard, due to the variability of use of different terms on the last page -- however I did try to be consistent in the last few posts -- and even in my first post #382 I did use the term "CIWS capability")
The trend I'm describing therefore results from plotting the tonnage of ships vs the qualitative CIWS capability -- and what emerges should be a number of dots that should follow a rough gradient/line. And if we look at some of those dots, the Deepak class would be a bit of an outlier with a higher CIWS to tonnage ratio and slightly "off" from the gradient, whereas the 901 class would be quite close to the gradient set by the majority of the dots.
I feel you should not use the term "qualitative" CIWS "capability" since these terms are so vague you could construct any kind of graph to represent any result you want. For example, what if I don't agree that a "30mm autocannon" gets "0.25 units"?
In general, in order for these less-than-CIWS cannon to have any chance of hitting an ASCM, they can't be manually-laid; they need radar and/or E/O guidance. I've already looked through photos for several of these oilers, and they aren't even like the 30mm mounts on the 056s; at least that mount has an E/O ball turret, and I'm not even sure that mount has any real effectiveness against ASCMs. I'm willing to bet all or almost all of the autocannons on these AORs are manually-laid. The Russian 22,500t Boris Chilikin does have a radar-guided AK-725 mount, though (which I looked up); OTOH it is apparently totally ineffective against antiship missiles. Again, your CIWS capability trend is to me more like a flat line until you get to a high enough displacement, at which point legit CIWS weapons start appearing. There are actually a couple blips in the general sea of zero effective CIWS capability on the numerous lower end classes, like the Spanish 17,000t Patino with 2 Merokas, and also the Italian/Greek 13,400t Prometheus with 1 Phalanx. Again I don't see the Deepak as an outlier; I do see the 45,000 ton 901 as an outlier, however.
Well you're free to disagree.
The MLG-27 autocannon on the Berlin class have EO targeting systems, and can be operated remotely or locally:
Finding clearer pictures for other replenishment ships like Durance class to determine the guidance for their guns are more difficult.
But yes, I do agree that many of these autocannon systems are not official CIWS as we know it -- however that is not to say that they offer zero CIWS capability, and cumulatively I consider them to offer a fraction of the CIWS capability that a standard true CIWS can do. These autocannons or even DP guns (such as the case may be) are unable to shoot down cruise missiles or fighter jets, but can shoot down helicopters and slower flying aircraft, as well as surface targets which are still part of the overall role of CIWS mounts even if it is at the lower end. And as you say, even among smaller displacement replenishment ships they field either a small number of CIWS systems or older AAA-like systems, and thus offering their own CIWS capability.
So no, I do not believe that "CIWS capability" should be dismissed for only "CIWS mounts" which only start on replenishment ships once they reach a given displacement, but rather it is fairer to say that there are a number of smaller replenishment ships offering either a very small number of CIWS systems or autocannons with low end CIWS capabilities, which along with larger displacement vessels with their own CIWS capabilities, helps to provide enough datapoints to describe a trend.
If you disagree with that logic then there's not much more to say.
I can only re-state that I think the only sensible way of judging 901's CIWS capability is by comparing it with the average CIWS capability to tonnage ratio of all replenishment ships in the world, and that dismissing the CIWS capability of a vast group of replenishment ships below a certain displacement threshold which are armed with autocannons, and beginning with only ships that are equipped with CIWS mounts is illogical, because the role of CIWS is not only against higher end targets like AShMs and/or jets, but also includes slower aerial targets and some surface targets.