PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?
Yeah I agree cold-launch makes more sense. As long as PLAN is using an HQ-9 derivative for primary air defense, I don't see the point in investing R&D into a hot launched version of the same.
Here's my trimaran design with six over-sized SSM bins. Each bin is almost 10m long and 3 m tall/wide, allowing for up to 9 regular sized SSMs, including the 'large' YJ-62. So it could carry up to 54 SSMs, including LACMs, ASROC and Anti-Ship. So whilst the destroyer only has 48 HHQ-9s (no more than Type-052B), it has much more land-attack capability.
Here's another trimaran I found among my collection of sketches.
Yeah I agree cold-launch makes more sense. As long as PLAN is using an HQ-9 derivative for primary air defense, I don't see the point in investing R&D into a hot launched version of the same.
Here's my trimaran design with six over-sized SSM bins. Each bin is almost 10m long and 3 m tall/wide, allowing for up to 9 regular sized SSMs, including the 'large' YJ-62. So it could carry up to 54 SSMs, including LACMs, ASROC and Anti-Ship. So whilst the destroyer only has 48 HHQ-9s (no more than Type-052B), it has much more land-attack capability.
Here's another trimaran I found among my collection of sketches.
usaf0314
Junior Member
Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?
hmm just my personal view of an unstoppable attack carrier fleet
2 PLAN Carrier
2 Type 052B DDG
2 Type 051C DDG
4 Type 054A Frigate
2 Type 093 Shang Class Nuclear Attack Submarine.
of course china will have to make more of those new DDGs they looks very powerful, i'd say its one of the deadlist Destroyer out there, so are the new frigates for that fact. for the first time since Zhenghe's fleet, china is on the road to reclaim sea donminat in the pacific.
hmm just my personal view of an unstoppable attack carrier fleet
2 PLAN Carrier
2 Type 052B DDG
2 Type 051C DDG
4 Type 054A Frigate
2 Type 093 Shang Class Nuclear Attack Submarine.
of course china will have to make more of those new DDGs they looks very powerful, i'd say its one of the deadlist Destroyer out there, so are the new frigates for that fact. for the first time since Zhenghe's fleet, china is on the road to reclaim sea donminat in the pacific.
Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?
-ran designs I like. But I prefer to extend the sides of the hulls to completely conceal all the sides and present a singular angled side for RCS reduction, kind of like the 022. Make it look like its carved out of a single block of metal.
-ran designs I like. But I prefer to extend the sides of the hulls to completely conceal all the sides and present a singular angled side for RCS reduction, kind of like the 022. Make it look like its carved out of a single block of metal.
Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?
Here's the final rendering of the Next-Gen destroyer. The camo took ages I don't think I'll try drawing that again
Also, I drew the original so large that MS Paint and the program I use for the rendering both kept crashing on me....
There would also be a version with only two of the SSM/LACM bins, allowing greater internal volume, and three hangers plus a larger helicopter deck.
I'm sure Golly will agree, multi-hulls with centralised AAA (not CIWS) are the way forward
Actually re CIWS, I think the argument that it's better to have the sensors on the mount is flawed.... future ships should have integrated close-in defense.
Here's the final rendering of the Next-Gen destroyer. The camo took ages I don't think I'll try drawing that again
Also, I drew the original so large that MS Paint and the program I use for the rendering both kept crashing on me....
There would also be a version with only two of the SSM/LACM bins, allowing greater internal volume, and three hangers plus a larger helicopter deck.
I'm sure Golly will agree, multi-hulls with centralised AAA (not CIWS) are the way forward
Actually re CIWS, I think the argument that it's better to have the sensors on the mount is flawed.... future ships should have integrated close-in defense.
Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?
Now that concept looks really nice Planeman, well done.
Having launch canisters on outer hulls to save space in the main center hull is interesting.
I'm wondering if 76mm isn't a bit too small a caliber for such a ship though. Why not have at least one 127mm gun?
Furthermore, the CIWS don't seem to be able to provide 360° coverage. While one can maneuver the ship, I think it's only the second best way.
Last, wouldn't you want perhaps one HH-16 box for point defence?
Now that concept looks really nice Planeman, well done.
Having launch canisters on outer hulls to save space in the main center hull is interesting.
I'm wondering if 76mm isn't a bit too small a caliber for such a ship though. Why not have at least one 127mm gun?
Furthermore, the CIWS don't seem to be able to provide 360° coverage. While one can maneuver the ship, I think it's only the second best way.
Last, wouldn't you want perhaps one HH-16 box for point defence?
Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?
Thanks for the kind words. In answer to j=your questions, here's my thoughts:
My design assumes China copies this concept. The 76mm guns are therefore more like longer-ranged CIWS, say 6km.
Shore bombardment with regular guns isn't something I think warships should be doing - Lebanon and Falklands both showed that warships shouldn't try it unless their guns significantly out-range the enemies shore batteries. Long ranged guided munitions is a possibility, but I see this designs land-attack capability being far better served by LACMs - that's why there are much more SSM launch positions than normal warships - some would be LACMs.
Combining HHQ-16 with HHQ-9 isn't such a cool idea IMO. HHQ-16 is very capable I'm sure but it's not active seeking. Far better to have active seeking versions of HQ-9, plus a smaller version of HQ-9 for medium range intercepts (maybe borrowing seeker from PL-12). This line of development mirrors the S-400 and patriot families. I'd also try for an ABM version of HQ-9 also.
Thanks for the kind words. In answer to j=your questions, here's my thoughts:
The AK-176 is probably more reliable than the PLAN 100mm gun, and both are big enough to have "smart" guided anti-aircraft shells like the OTO-Melara Strales (previously known as Davide) system:
My design assumes China copies this concept. The 76mm guns are therefore more like longer-ranged CIWS, say 6km.
Shore bombardment with regular guns isn't something I think warships should be doing - Lebanon and Falklands both showed that warships shouldn't try it unless their guns significantly out-range the enemies shore batteries. Long ranged guided munitions is a possibility, but I see this designs land-attack capability being far better served by LACMs - that's why there are much more SSM launch positions than normal warships - some would be LACMs.
Good point I'm well aware of. The undrawn helicopter version I described would have the 35mm guns giving 360 degrees coverage. Technically the AK-176 provides AAA for forward arc.
Combining HHQ-16 with HHQ-9 isn't such a cool idea IMO. HHQ-16 is very capable I'm sure but it's not active seeking. Far better to have active seeking versions of HQ-9, plus a smaller version of HQ-9 for medium range intercepts (maybe borrowing seeker from PL-12). This line of development mirrors the S-400 and patriot families. I'd also try for an ABM version of HQ-9 also.
Re: Ideal PLAN carrier escorts?
While I am sure that a lot of the official max range figures (espcially on newer systems) are just ballpark figures and that 100km+ can often mean 150km - that logic still does not explain all of the vast discrepancies between size and cited range figures.
How on earth can SM3 reach as far as it does, while much larger s300/hg9 reaches just half the distance? (i would think rocket fuels can't be THAT different, new advances in that field should be incremental) Also, it would seem PAC3 has a much longer range than it is usually associated with - as that missile is certainly not little.
While I am sure that a lot of the official max range figures (espcially on newer systems) are just ballpark figures and that 100km+ can often mean 150km - that logic still does not explain all of the vast discrepancies between size and cited range figures.
How on earth can SM3 reach as far as it does, while much larger s300/hg9 reaches just half the distance? (i would think rocket fuels can't be THAT different, new advances in that field should be incremental) Also, it would seem PAC3 has a much longer range than it is usually associated with - as that missile is certainly not little.