Equation
Lieutenant General
PLAN freedom of navigation ops.View attachment 88198
Liaoning transiting Miyako Strait with full set of aircraft on deck.
PLAN freedom of navigation ops.View attachment 88198
Liaoning transiting Miyako Strait with full set of aircraft on deck.
I see your point , then maybe the main problem is the radar and the fire control .
But is still follows the logic I stated , to solve the problem of low hit rate , the Russians went with higher RPM , the Chinese replaced the radar .
I see your point , then maybe the main problem is the radar and the fire control .
But is still follows the logic I stated , to solve the problem of low hit rate , the Russians went with higher RPM , the Chinese replaced the radar .
I don't agree. LSTs are large ships and the force they are supposed to carry is extremely valuable and politically important. So I don't think a nation should go light in an LSTs defense. SHORAD is cheap, compact, and can save lives. I would have 2 x short-range air defense systems on board. The HQ-10 is already available and is fit for the job. Soft kill measures need to exist too.
130 mm gun is more debatable since modern targeting and networking can enable other ships to do that job. But an LST would undoubtedly benefit from being able to support the landing. It can be offloaded to another vessel but the capability needs to exist. 76 mm is OK too and it can be used as a CIWS too. Just like the HQ-10, a modern naval gun is compact and light for an LST and its price is nothing compared to what the ship is supposed to carry.
For example:
Other than these the 074A already has good helicopter capability and a modern structure with a stern ramp.
LSTs are not large ships. They're only up to 5000 tons and are actually really inexpensive.
The Teluk Bintuni LSTs built by Indonesia are roughly comparable to the Type-072 LSTs, so the Type-072 LST might only cost $13 Million.
Also remember that most of the time, LSTs will be transporting trucks and supplies. I'd be surprised if this sort of cargo would be worth more than $3 Million in total.
Yes, SHORAD systems are comparatively cheap, but even a HQ-10 would be comparable to a TOR system ($25 Million) which is a land-based Kashtan CIWS/SHORAD. So such an air defence system would be significantly more expensive than the LST plus its typical cargo.
And I would expect the area where LSTs are operating to be flooded with air defence destroyers and frigates, whose job would be to provide air defence.
We had a short discussion on LSTs/LPDs/LHDs in the post below.
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
Amphibious vehicles like the ZBD-05 can't cross the entire strait on their own can they? I see wikipedia listing a 500km range but idk if that's on land or what. If they actually can that would negate a huge need for ships. The range of the ZBD-05 at sea must not exceed 60 km. The AAV which is...www.sinodefenceforum.com
093B is launched recently.Is there any translation for this interesting chart
What I know Red is China, Blue is US
View attachment 88180
Here's more details about the 2012 incident during the joint exercise with AK-630. The drone involved was a and the Russian ship taking a shot was Varyag of the Russian Pacific Fleet, another Slava class. She opened fire with four AK-630 and didn't score any hits on the first pass. Afterwards the Russians explained that their AK-630 was designed to defend against missiles and not against such a slow target.
That explanation is what makes me a bit nervous about any PLAN ships armed with AK-630 or derived CIWS.
Left side (Blue coloured-figures, USA):Is there any translation for this interesting chart
What I know Red is China, Blue is US
Lots of Frigates on Chinese side, meaning a strong green-water navy. The blue water elements growing in size in time while the US Navy stays mostly on blue water power projection.Left side (Blue coloured-figures, USA):
View attachment 88297
Title: US Navy Shipbuilding Plan (for the next) 30 Years
Left to Right:
Fiscal Year
Support Ships
Combat Logistic Force (Ships)
Amphibious Assault Ships
Ballistic Missile Submarines
Attack Submarines
Small Surface Combatants (Here I think Frigates and LCSs)
Large Surface Combatants (Here I think Destroyers and Cruisers)
Aircraft Carriers
Total (Number of Ships for) the USA
Right side (Red-coloured figures, China):
View attachment 88298
Title: Chinese (PLA) Navy Shipbuilding Plan (for the next) 30 Years
Left to Right:
Total (Number of Ships for) China
Aircraft Carriers
Destroyers
Frigates and Minesweepers
Attack Submarines
Strategic Submarines (Here I think Ballistic Missile Submarines)
Amphibious Assault Ships
Supply Ships
Support Ships
Year
My attempt at translation may not be completely accurate. Feel free to point out any mistakes in the translation.