075 LHD thread

[OppositeDay]

Because to make use of the HQ-10, you need to install proper air search radars to find incoming missiles so you can point the HQ-10 at their directions.

Didn't realize HQ-10 wasn't a complete CIWS. Can't they fit HQ-10 with fire control system of Type 730?

 

[vincent]

Didn't realize HQ-10 wasn't a complete CIWS. Can't they fit HQ-10 with fire control system of Type 730?

730 doesn’t have an air search radar. It has a fire control radar that continuously point at the incoming missile so it can track exactly where it is. It still need an air search radar installed somewhere else to tell it where to point its fire control radar.

 

[blindsight]

Because to make use of the HQ-10, you need to install proper air search radars to find incoming missiles so you can point the HQ-10 at their directions.

Or upgrade the 071 with the HQ-10.

 

[AndrewS]

HQ-10 is likely more attractive than Type-730 on LSTs and modified civilian ships. So your price estimate of $15 million is probably off as it's based on the assumption PLAN will use Type-730. Without the need for feeding/reloading/storage system of gun-based CIWS HQ-10 should have smaller footprint and easier to fit on civilian ships. It's probably cheaper to maintain (and store) as well since there are fewer moving parts. Look at Type 056, when there's only one CIWS, PLAN's choice is HQ-10 and not Type 730.

I'm not the one advocating for CIWS guns on LSTs. I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't make sense.

I agree that HQ-10s would be preferred over CIWS, but that wasn't the initial question.

In any case, automated point defense is so radically different in both purpose and operation from additional air defense ships, I really don't see them as competitors. And when China is actually ready to land on Taiwan, spending additional few billion dollars on automated systems that require no additional crew to operate is just a no-brainer. I really don't see how this can be controversial.

But complex weapon systems do require some crew to operate and more crew to maintain as well.

If you've got an extra $2 billion, I think it would be better to buy more frigates or destroyers for area air defence.

Alternatively, that money could buy say 1000 extra DF-17 missiles to prevent ships and airbases from operating in the Western Pacific for an extended time. That would vastly reduce the number of potential incoming antiship missiles.

It all goes back to the point that CIWS guns shouldn't be placed on LSTs.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

With the new increase in tensions and the increase likelihood that China would be drawn into an armed reunification in the coming months or years by the actions both of outsiders and the political landscape within China itself, I think that these vessels in particular and vessels like them in general will probably be receiving more and more investment, research, and development in the coming future. I'll be really interested to see what direction Chinese naval architects take these particular designs though. I think we might be seeing more of vessels similar to the type 075 that are built, more specifically, for landings and generating infantry and armored divisions on the beachhead in the event of a Taiwan contingency.

That does make me wonder, though, if there's a large need to keep pumping out more and more of these 075 vessels. These type 075 can generate both infantry forces on beachheads and support such landings with rotary airframes. That said, I can't help but think that this might be putting too many eggs in one basket. I am not exactly an expert at force design, so it's hard for me to say either way, but it does seem to me like China would be better served by creating vessels that are built more specifically for anti-submarine roles on one hand and for amphibious assault tasks on the other. Frigates and destroyers are capable of functioning as ASW platforms more effectively, are able to travel more quickly, and can also perform other tasks. Vessels that are built, specifically, to break beachheads like the type 072 seem more suited for the tasks of actually assaulting amphibiously, and are likely cheaper than the type 075 to boot. Does the type 075 still have a place in the PLA doctrine and will we see more of these vessels being built in the future to any significant scale? What do the people here think?

I actually think the 075 would be used more as a helicopter carrier for the flat deck portion and a UUV/USV carrier for the well deck portion for the first phase, and then switch to amphibious layout later in the campaign.

USVs in particular would be devastating in both ASW mode with active sonar/towed array, and in land assault mode as mobile artillery/missile platforms.

 

[antiterror13]

I'm not the one advocating for CIWS guns on LSTs. I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't make sense.

I agree that HQ-10s would be preferred over CIWS, but that wasn't the initial question.



But complex weapon systems do require some crew to operate and more crew to maintain as well.

If you've got an extra $2 billion, I think it would be better to buy more frigates or destroyers for area air defence.

Alternatively, that money could buy say 1000 extra DF-17 missiles to prevent ships and airbases from operating in the Western Pacific for an extended time. That would vastly reduce the number of potential incoming antiship missiles.

It all goes back to the point that CIWS guns shouldn't be placed on LSTs.

DF-17 is awesome but I think it will be more than $2M each, perhaps $5-10M

The problems with purchasing large number of the system (i.e 1,000 DF-17) is that ... what would you do when it becomes obsolete. Nowadays, obsolescence for weapon system is significantly faster, that including DF-17, soon we may see the much improved version. lets called DF-19

 

[antiterror13]

So I think Chinese procurement method is very good, buy reasonable number while keep upgrading the technologies, unless the system is modular and upgradeable (i.e J-20, 052D, 055, etc)

 

[tphuang]

Did I just read that one antiship missile is going to sink a 075? If plan didn't build 075s to withstand multiple anti ship missiles, then they designed the ships horribly. The damage control system on 075 should be a magnitude better than slava class or 052d or 054a. 054As are fine as escort. If you want to install hq10 on them, that would work too. But let's not pretend one hit is going to kaboom.

 

[daifo]

I think it would make sense to arm a few LST type ships with CIWS. Besides covering while in transit, you can have them beach themselves to provide covering fire from missiles and rockets for other landing crafts.

 

[Tam]

730 doesn’t have an air search radar. It has a fire control radar that continuously point at the incoming missile so it can track exactly where it is. It still need an air search radar installed somewhere else to tell it where to point its fire control radar.

True.

HQ-10 however does not need a fire control radar. It does need an air search radar, which can tell the HQ-10 launcher where to point at. The best way to look at it is to look at the Type 056.

You just need that rotating radar on the top. I think this already equips the Type 071, the Type 901, the 903 and the 053H3 refits.

I think it would make sense to arm a few LST type ships with CIWS. Besides covering while in transit, you can have them beach themselves to provide covering fire from missiles and rockets for other landing crafts.

CIWS has limited range and accuracy. It is well understood that a 76mm could do ground support, attack land targets and still act as a dual role CIWS against aerial targets and cruise missiles.

For that, lets use the 76mm gun instead of the HQ-10, then add the Type 347G FCR (the dish or rice hat like thingie) and/or EO balls (see the thingies at the top of the bridge here).