Ask anything Thread


davidau

Junior Member
Registered Member
Here are some statistics...
Can easily lift/carry 100.000 ton in sea state 8..
Deck area 13 500 sq. m. ...equal to two football fields...
Vital statics, L=225 m, W=68 m, draught=30.5m..Loading deck=210 m
With service speed 14.5 knot, can carry 98 000 ton








 

Lethe

Senior Member
Pursuant to previous theorising regarding a prospective Sino-Kirov...

Where the Americans have enough ships and bases to maintain constant "presence" in sensitive waters around the globe, the Russian model, is one of an independent task force and this model favours a few large ships over many medium-sized ones.

For the foreseeable future, Chinese naval power projection capabilities beyond the first and second island chains seem destined to fall somewhere between the Russian and American models in terms of sustaining presence. While it may be possible by 2030 for China to sustain a carrier group in the Indian Ocean / Persian Gulf region, such a group will be a long way from assistance should it be needed. Under such circumstances, I believe there is a place for a Sino-Kirov able to bring the firepower of multiple destroyer-sized combatants to bear.

To reiterate: the vessel I am considering runs something along the following lines...

30,000 tons displacement
Nuclear propulsion
Featuring the most powerful radar systems ever fitted to a surface combatant
256-320 VLS cells (most dedicated to offensive weapons, 055-class defensive loadout plus ABM capabilities)
Robust railgun or naval artillery support (Zumwalt-class or better)
Relatively modest airborne component (maybe +50% hanger space vs. 055)

Essentially the vessel would combine elements of the American DDX, CGX, and SSGN programs. I envision 6-8 units, enough for 1 to accompany each carrier plus a couple extras either for independent ops or to cover/provide fire support for amphibious groups.

To reiterate the advantages that this vessel would bring over 2-3 055-class vessels:

Greater range, speed, endurance.
Powerful radar providing unparalleled performance against VLO aggressors (shared resource with battlegroup)
More offensive firepower (4-6x 055)
Symbolic value
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
More eggs in one basket. Also, weakest link principle applies. You're going to have frigates sailing along with the carrier anyway for ASW and local air defense. They will be the limiting factor in the CSG's range, not a 055 or 052D. Regardless, if China is going to sustain a presence in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf, it will need that String of Pearls to become a reality.
 

Lethe

Senior Member
The question is if any number of smaller ships can replicate the capabilities of a larger vessel. VLS cells, yes. But radar and railgun capability?
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
If a Zumwalt can do it, a 055 or a derivative of a 055 can do it. If rumors are correct they are almost the same size.
 

Lethe

Senior Member
If a Zumwalt can do it, a 055 or a derivative of a 055 can do it. If rumors are correct they are almost the same size.
And yet CG(X) -- the AAW-focused design -- was meant to be significantly larger than Zumwalt, in the 20-25,000 ton range. Why, if not to house the necessary capabilities?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


As for railguns, they are not mooted for Zumwalt-class vessels because Zumwalts are the ideal platform to support them, but because those are the best ships available for the task, and it is a good way to make use of some otherwise under-developed and under-utilised hulls. And of course there are railguns, and then there are railguns:

 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
And yet CG(X) -- the AAW-focused design -- was meant to be significantly larger than Zumwalt, in the 20-25,000 ton range. Why, if not to house the necessary capabilities?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


As for railguns, they are not mooted for Zumwalt-class vessels because Zumwalts are the ideal platform to support them, but because those are the best ships available for the task, and it is a good way to make use of some otherwise under-developed and under-utilised hulls. And of course there are railguns, and then there are railguns:

No doubt you could demand a radar or a rail gun that's too large for whatever size ship you dislike to carry and then say "look, this ship is too small!" The issue isn't whether you can put a CG(X)-sized radar or some kind of super-railgun on a Zumwalt-sized ship, but whether you actually need such a radar or such a railgun, and whether it's even worth the price to do so. For the US, clearly the answer has been no, no and no. So why does China need these things?
 

Lethe

Senior Member
CG(X) wasn't cut because its capabilities were irrelevant, but for budgetary reasons. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but USN (aided by the War on Terror) have made a right mess of things over the past generation, and have had to pick up the pieces as best they can. What USN has ultimately decided or not decided to do is beside the point -- it's what they considered and why that should be looked at.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
For the record as the CG(X) concept evolved, The Navy did say that if they build if they would modify the hull. Lengthening was included as an option. Hull forms are just that a hull form. and Ships are not built on an assembly line. Each ship of a class is unique. So if the USN had approved construction of a CG(X) they would have redesigned the hull to better match the mission aim.
CG(X) wasn't cut because its capabilities were irrelevant, but for budgetary reasons. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but USN has made a right mess of things over the past generation, and have had to pick up the pieces as best they can. What USN has ultimately decided or not decided to do is beside the point -- it's what they considered and why that should be looked at.
No, The USN decided that they did not need the new cruisers as using satellites and sensors on other platforms networked through the Arleigh Burke Class they could perform the mission without the Radar system proposed for the CG(X).
 
...

No, The USN decided that they did not need the new cruisers as using satellites and sensors on other platforms networked through the Arleigh Burke Class they could perform the mission without the Radar system proposed for the CG(X).
I didn't have time to follow Naval Affairs back at the time when CG(X) had been axed (EDIT in 2010, I didn't know even the year), so now I have an impression you're spinning because
  1. on top of my google search is “Last time we looked at a cruiser replacement we spent $30 million on a study to tell us a cruiser replacement was unaffordable… You can’t spend $6 billion on a first of class cruiser,” Fanta said.
    Navy Weighing Options for a Family of Future Surface Ships
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


  2. I happen to know how messed up the current USN projects have become: in real world, not in fantasy world full of large ships with plenty of rail-guns, lasers and other pipe dreams, there's no funding for testing even pretty basic stuff, as in Dec 31, 2016
    ... Additionally, the Program Executive Office for LCS sent a letter
    to the Navy’s Surface Warfare Director (N96) stating that Independence variant air
    warfare testing cannot be executed at current funding levels. ...
    (just tell me if you want to hear more example :)
but who knows (as I said, I wouldn't know the theories floated around three or more years ago), so please provide link(s) to back up your sentence I quoted above
 
Last edited:

Top