PLAN Fleet supply vessels


by78

Lieutenant General
High-resolution images of 901 combat support ship performing replenishment at sea.

50993061637_26660ab767_o.jpg

50993061682_a473be0763_o.jpg

50993061727_06271d90d2_o.jpg

50992249083_6ca820f8f5_o.jpg
 

Tam

Colonel
Registered Member
There are little details published about the armaments and sensors of the Type 901. From the pictures I can determine the following:

4 x AK630 namely its Chinese version, H/PJ-13. Two in the front, two in the back.

Type 364 radar on top of the first funnel.

Type 349 fire control radar on top of the bridge.

Type 363 radar on the mast. This is the same radar used with the Type 056 corvette and is used as the main search radar on the ship.

Two larger SATCOMs.

Two smaller, flat circular SATCOMs.

Then it has something like this, that I have not seen in any other ship but on test ship 892. The large round thing on the upper right corner.


1364563835_94776.jpg


In the Type 901, this sphere also sits in the back. The test ships either tests new radars or weapons, so I presume this might be a new radar of some kind.

At this point of view, the Type 349 FCR at the front cannot service the two H/PJ-13 at the back, which has to rely on an EO stalk. If the sphere is a new radar, it would be capable of servicing the rear guns.


50993062042_6fa1047e0e_o.jpg
 

xyqq

Junior Member
Registered Member
885 Qinghaihu and Type 054A FFG-572 Hengshui:

885-572-small.jpg

Fuel supply:

885-572-supply.jpg

30mm cannon firing:

885-30gun.jpg

885 did not have the cannon by 2016:

885-noGun.jpeg

But had two installed for the escort mission in the Gulf of Aden in 2017:

885-gun.jpeg

Helicopter deck on 885:

885-helicopter-deck.jpg
 

Tiberium

New Member
Registered Member
There is one thing I don't understand that the inferiority of 901 armament. As a high value asset, it should be at least 1 1130 + 1 HQ10 for CIWS on 901, 4 630s is quite a cheap solution and would really jeopardize its survivability once war happening. From this pov, I don't think PLAN would plan to go to war in the near future.
 

Tam

Colonel
Registered Member
There is one thing I don't understand that the inferiority of 901 armament. As a high value asset, it should be at least 1 1130 + 1 HQ10 for CIWS on 901, 4 630s is quite a cheap solution and would really jeopardize its survivability once war happening. From this pov, I don't think PLAN would plan to go to war in the near future.


Nothing feeble with these guns, they are still among the best CIWS in the world in my opinion, with their 30mm shells.




There is something that people don't see when you have two of these guns vs. one Type 1130. When two of these H/PJ-13 are engaged on a single target, the two streams of shells can converge to form an X or a scissor just in front of the target with a combined 10,000 rounds per minute. With a ship like Type 901 or Type 071, with H/PJ-13 at four corners, you can create an X front, aft, port and starboard.
 
Last edited:

dankris

Junior Member
Registered Member
Nothing feeble with these guns, they are still among the best CIWS in the world in my opinion, with their 30mm shells.




There is something that people don't see when you have two of these guns vs. one Type 1130. When two of these H/PJ-13 are engaged on a single target, the two streams of shells can converge to form an X or a scissor just in front of the target with a combined 10,000 rounds per minute. With a ship like Type 901 or Type 071, with H/PJ-13 at four corners, you can create an X front, aft, port and starboard.
actually, according to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Type 901 was originally planned with Type 730/1130 and HHQ-10, but the budget killed that plan.

On a side note, too bad PLAN doesn't have quick mount/dismount CIWS like the Phalanx and SeaRAM that can be quickly installed in case of emergency to bolster the last line of defense. AK-630/ H/PJ-13 was good enough 20 to 30 years ago, but right now it feels like they're getting long in the tooth.
 

Tam

Colonel
Registered Member
actually, according to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Type 901 was originally planned with Type 730/1130 and HHQ-10, but the budget killed that plan.

On a side note, too bad PLAN doesn't have quick mount/dismount CIWS like the Phalanx and SeaRAM that can be quickly installed in case of emergency to bolster the last line of defense. AK-630/ H/PJ-13 was good enough 20 to 30 years ago, but right now it feels like they're getting long in the tooth.

I don't think so. This weapon is a classic. A single AK-630/PJ-13 is the firepower of the tank killing gun on the A-10. Each shell weighs around .39kg vs. .10kg on the Phalanx, with a firing rate of 5000 rounds per minute up vs. 4500 on the Phalanx. That's a throw weight of over 4x.

Another difference is that you reload the gun underneath, rather than externally via drums. You are not limited to the ammo feed of a drum. There is more damage and weather protection there, although at the expense of using space underneath.

images (11).jpeg


I like the point of having a separate radar from the gun. This lets you use different radars whether its a MR123 Bass Tilt, a Type 347G or a Type 349 monopulse radars. The radar can be located higher for a higher radar horizon, and you have more radar options, including more powerful ones. Or you can link the gun with an EO option instead.

One thing I like about the gun is that it has a nearly vertical 90 degree elevation, good for threats dropping high altitude bombs or PGMs.

If you want to quick mount something on the Type 901, they can do it with an HQ-10 or Type 730.

The gun is much lighter than say a Type 730, Goalkeeper or a Phalanx.

The problem I see with a Type 1130 and an HQ-10 is the gun covers only the front arc of the ship, and the missile the back arc. That may not be a problem for a faster and more maneuverable ship, but if I am fighting fast boats that are encircling the ship, it would be nicer to have a gun option covering all four quadrants of the ship.
 

dankris

Junior Member
Registered Member
I don't think so. This weapon is a classic. A single AK-630/PJ-13 is the firepower of the tank killing gun on the A-10. Each shell weighs around .39kg vs. .10kg on the Phalanx, with a firing rate of 5000 rounds per minute up vs. 4500 on the Phalanx. That's a throw weight of over 4x.

Another difference is that you reload the gun underneath, rather than externally via drums. You are not limited to the ammo feed of a drum. There is more damage and weather protection there, although at the expense of using space underneath.

View attachment 70830


I like the point of having a separate radar from the gun. This lets you use different radars whether its a MR123 Bass Tilt, a Type 347G or a Type 349 monopulse radars. The radar can be located higher for a higher radar horizon, and you have more radar options, including more powerful ones. Or you can link the gun with an EO option instead.

One thing I like about the gun is that it has a nearly vertical 90 degree elevation, good for threats dropping high altitude bombs or PGMs.
IIRC the reason PLAN developed Type 730 and then Type 1130 is because they deem the dispersion of H/PJ-13 as too much, hence lowering the hit probability. Type 1130 was developed because ~10000 rounds/min was what their research finally determine is needed to have a sufficient chance of shooting down modern AShM. The drum vs deck penetration ammunition supply choice seems to come from PLAN preference to be able to choose where they want to put the CIWS. Having deck penetration means you're limited on where you can put your CIWS, and PLAN seems to prefer not having to deal with that headache.

the high angle elevation capability is pretty nice, but I do think having a radar integrated is better as that means the radar doesn't need to pick and choose which target to illuminate, especially in a saturation attack. It probably also shortens the reaction time as there's not much processing loop to go through.

p.s. I found
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
about Type 730's origin that I'm referencing.

If you want to quick mount something on the Type 901, they can do it with an HQ-10 or Type 730.

well, yes, but I presume it isn't as painless as putting a Phalanx or SeaRAM. Having a drop-in CIWS like Phalanx seems to be a good idea, especially for ships that are pressed into service/ current ships that operate in really high threat environments.

The gun is much lighter than say a Type 730, Goalkeeper or a Phalanx.
which gun?

The problem I see with a Type 1130 and an HQ-10 is the gun covers only the front arc of the ship, and the missile the back arc. That may not be a problem for a faster and more maneuverable ship, but if I am fighting fast boats that are encircling the ship, it would be nicer to have a gun option covering all four quadrants of the ship.

for the CIWS part, I do agree with you. However, if you're just fighting fast boats, why not put H/PJ-17 in the blind spot? that's even cheaper and it's sufficient for the job.
 
Last edited:

Top