RE: Naval and Defense News (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

Hongjian -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/17/2016 11:26:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

Two serial-production of Y-20s is commissioned at 15 June. It used the 781 color scheme (near-black) than latter prototypes (low observable grey):

And I think I don't see Y-20 in DB3000, as its commissioned, I will find it's speculation and post to DB3000 update thread.

SN is blotted and picture is watermarked, can't find the original picture yet.


The Y-20 has a confirmed serial number of 11052, which indicates the 4th Transport Division, 12th Regiment.

[image]http://i67.tinypic.com/o7ttug.jpg[/image]

Maiden flight in 2013, delivery in 2016. Still with D-30/WS-18s, but still; what a speed.

If only China's C919 will be that fast...

Anyway, Jane's has predicted it and also quotes Chinese officials in saying that China would need 1000 of those (prerhaps throughout the decades):

http://www.janes.com/article/61026/china-needs-more-than-1-000-xian-y-20-transport-aircraft
http://www.janes.com/article/58397/china-s-y-20-transport-aircraft-may-enter-service-in-2016



Dysta -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/17/2016 12:29:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

Anyway, Jane's has predicted it and also quotes Chinese officials in saying that China would need 1000 of those (prerhaps throughout the decades):



Janes quote too fast for this part. From my memory there are four times of estimated number of Y-20 China needs.

At first is 2013's 400, which is rumored China will order over 1000 D-30 engines for their domestic planes' production and maintenance. However, the quantity of this order is far too vast for Russia to produce, not even for a decade to complete. Chinese medias also scolded this report, but many military fans persists that China also could use them for H-6K's production.

If that's true, then it should order 3200 D-30s for 400 Y-20's 4-engines configuration, and another set for maintenance.

(It was later the rumored WS-18 is increasing, to replace D-30 with domestic engines, but yet to confirm even for H-6K)

Then is 1000 Y-20s, must be mis-referred from 'thousands aircraft engines' to 'thousands aircrafts'. Even a complete number of engine production without spares for maintenance, that will needs humongous aircraft industry to finish this order, and in MANY decades. Not only it's very slow and unrealistic, but also very wasteful when they can spare more for developing better cargo planes.

The more recently heard is around 200-300, then more likely heard is 300 later on before the commission. As the PLAAF general being interviewed by media about Y-20, and guessimate the Chinese military and disaster relief's capability to think how many planes is 'basically adequate' for their fleets.

And the most recent one, which is just prior the day from the commission is 100, Military speculator Xu mentioned because Y-20 is still not in par with USAF's C-17, and most of the specification are sub-standard compare to other competitors. He believed that only 100 of them will be made to immediately becomes a strategic (but primitive) Air Force. Then the better model will be developed to make it properly comparable to C-17, or even surpassing it as the second series of productions.

http://military.china.com/important/11132797/20160617/22890493_1.html



Hongjian -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/17/2016 12:52:08 PM)

It all depends on the progress of the WS-20 engine, which is currently tested on a IL-76 testbed.
The WS-18/D-30 also isnt so bad, though, with immediate 66 ton payload capacity. According to the earlier information, the WS-20 would up that number to at least 10 more tons - which would make the Y-20 on par with the C-17. And I see no reason why it shouldnt, as it is a strategic airlifter of that class and displacement.

Chinese military commentators have consistently understating the capabilities of Chinese weapon systems (remember the J-15 'flopping fish' story?). This has tradition in Chinese military circles and can be attributed to the "peaceful rise/hide capability and bide your time" narrative that some are still clinging on, not taking the note that Big Boss Xi Jinping is completely different in that regard.

The Y-20 would also be the base for AWACS and Tankers, or even just civilian transports (or even future airborne lasers), so I could think that in the long run, this number could be approached.



Hongjian -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/21/2016 4:06:26 AM)

First real and clear photo showing the new Type 093G improved Shang-class SSGN.

Not only do we see a Virginia-styled "curved" sail/conning tower, but also the hump in the back for the VLS, as predicted via satellite pictures years before.

[image]http://i65.tinypic.com/5lnuif.jpg[/image]


This is a very rare occassion of the Chinese military media organs openly publishing a picture of their very newest nuclear guided missile attack submarine.
Maybe this is a sign that there will be more transparency in the future, that would require us to guess the PLAN's newest developments with less fuzzy photos taken by satellites or wall-climbers.

At the same time, some research papers were made public, showing the possible design of the VLS tubes. It would give one a clue about the propable quantity of VLS cells, even though the total number is unknown. If the VLS is actually 3 tubes in a row, possible VLS numbers would be either six, nine, twelve, fifteen etc. and not four, eight, twelve, sixteen etc.

[image]http://i64.tinypic.com/dewhog.png[/image]
[image]http://i64.tinypic.com/2jaydrq.jpg[/image]

Even though the hump in that above picture looks short due to perspective, we have seen in previous satellite images, that the hump-back is actually fairly large. With the 3-in-a-row VLS laylout, there could be actually twelve VLS in total, which would fit with the previous rumors and leaks, which indicated that number in some way. After all, the 093G was also stretched to 110m length from the previous 100m. That would be enough space for a four-row module.

But I would still wait for more image confirmation about the actual VLS-cell count. The current 8-cell layout in the database is a good and realistic stopgap measure.

In any case; I still would think that the 093G, with its visible hydrodynamic improvements due to the new, more blended sail-design, would have some level of improved acoustic stealth compared to the previous version. If we only could get a shot of its aft, we would know more; as rumor has it that this sub is driven by a pump-jet or at least with a shrouded screw.



Dysta -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/21/2016 4:42:26 AM)

What I am more care to know is the sensory equipments, especially TASS. The beam bump does not present as obvious as rumored leak of 093 (not VLS variant). It still raise question does the improved one has it or not.

Consider I played the game with 093 added a TASS, it becomes a killing machine with detection advantage at initial strike. Of course the 200dB acoustic emission is still very unacceptable, that first strike will usually becomes the last strike by enemy RUMs. Without TASS, I have no idea what's the value for 093A(G?) or whatever the future nuclear attack subs. 12 VLS to act as a cruise missile delivery platform is underpowered, if compare to Ohio (with adapters for tomahawks) or Virginia classes. At best will be comparable to early-model of LA, but it's also a good sub attacker, rather than just shoot missiles.



Hongjian -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/21/2016 12:31:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

What I am more care to know is the sensory equipments, especially TASS. The beam bump does not present as obvious as rumored leak of 093 (not VLS variant). It still raise question does the improved one has it or not.

Consider I played the game with 093 added a TASS, it becomes a killing machine with detection advantage at initial strike. Of course the 200dB acoustic emission is still very unacceptable, that first strike will usually becomes the last strike by enemy RUMs. Without TASS, I have no idea what's the value for 093A(G?) or whatever the future nuclear attack subs. 12 VLS to act as a cruise missile delivery platform is underpowered, if compare to Ohio (with adapters for tomahawks) or Virginia classes. At best will be comparable to early-model of LA, but it's also a good sub attacker, rather than just shoot missiles.


Dont know about TASS, but please note those huge conformal sonar arrays in those huge humps. I bet that there will be range and sensitivity improvements over those early 2000 or late 90s era sonars as modeled in the DB.
In any case, there are obvious silencing measures, so I dont think that this sub is 200db anymore (wasnt it 110db, like early LA class?). Not Virginia level yet, but probably at least improved LA level. In any case, it would be high time for the PLAN anyway...



Dysta -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/21/2016 1:45:54 PM)

TASS stands for towed array sonar system. Subs has it too:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towed_array_sonar

EDIT: And yeah, I think the bulge is side-mounted conformal sonar when I see this picture. It's a low-cost and durable solution and newer subs has it more than the towing sonar with limitations to operate. I don't know if either one is better, but it's definitely better than old-school bing-bings (active sonar, I doubt if it will ever be used beside surface ships).

It just confuse me though, since I saw the older one has substantial bulge along a whole hull instead of few bumps, and I realized it's located at starboard, not beam. Like this picture I found for 093(A?) compare to 093A(B? VLS version as recently rumored the 'correct' designation):

[image]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e71/mywoem2002/23576818734_3d6eef7e1d_o_zpsmk6x3hzd.jpg[/image]

To double-confirm, this isn't draining gap nor Han-class (091), the previously seen 093's starboard has no bulge at all:

[image]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e71/mywoem2002/1427589406075_zpsyobq8pzi.jpg[/image]



Hongjian -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/21/2016 2:19:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

TASS stands for towed array sonar system. Subs has it too:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towed_array_sonar

EDIT: And yeah, I think the bulge is side-mounted conformal sonar when I see this picture. It's a low-cost and durable solution and newer subs has it more than the towing sonar with limitations to operate. I don't know if either one is better, but it's definitely better than old-school bing-bings (active sonar, I doubt if it will ever be used beside surface ships).

It just confuse me though, since I saw the older one has substantial bulge along a whole hull instead of few bumps, and I realized it's located at starboard, not beam. Like this picture I found for 093(A?) compare to 093A(B? VLS version as recently rumored the 'correct' designation):

[image]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e71/mywoem2002/23576818734_3d6eef7e1d_o_zpsmk6x3hzd.jpg[/image]


The sub in that post is the 093A, which feautures the conformal TASS mount, but not the hydrodynamic improvements of the 093B/G, as well as neither the VLS. The 093A could thus be regarded as an incremental improvement/test-bed for some technologies apparent onboard the 093B/G.

Even if it would make sense, it is unknown whether the 093B/G SSGN has the same conformal TASS-hump at the starboard side of it's immediate predecessor. But those two divided humps on the port-side on the 093B/G are most probably not TASS housings, but for those new flank-arrays that numerous articles from naval equipment research institutes were speaking about.






Dysta -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/22/2016 4:19:14 AM)

I see. Well, we know conformal sonars has chosen, I have to readjust the the sensor mounts in game scenario, before the update has it.



mikmykWS -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/22/2016 4:33:37 AM)

Holy bumbling bull cookies !



Dysta -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/22/2016 5:54:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Holy bumbling bull cookies !

Wait, do I miss something? Oh yeah, more pictures and official reports. Now I am done here.



tjhkkr -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/23/2016 1:18:20 AM)

This is interesting.

Marine Corps forced to pull warbirds out of 'boneyard' after new fleet delay

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/marine-corps-forced-to-pull-warbirds-out-of-boneyard-after-new-fleet-delay/ar-AAhppQQ



Dysta -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/23/2016 3:51:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr

This is interesting.

Marine Corps forced to pull warbirds out of 'boneyard' after new fleet delay

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/marine-corps-forced-to-pull-warbirds-out-of-boneyard-after-new-fleet-delay/ar-AAhppQQ

I tried to google and wiki what's the purpose of USMC with hornets, but only a pile of unrelated informations. Wasn't carrier op is belongs to the Navy? And how do they deploy them if they are only land and take off from airfields?



mikmykWS -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/23/2016 4:00:30 AM)

Here you go

http://www.gonavy.jp/usmcindex.html

You can also look at carrier deployments and see they've embarked a squadron or three on Navy carriers regularly since WWII.

Mike



Dysta -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/23/2016 4:14:00 AM)

Wow, many thanks.



Hongjian -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/24/2016 12:53:58 AM)

The Type 001A improved Admiral Kutznesov-class (Or "Liaoning-II class") carrier is progressing fast. Now, the flight deck became unmistakenly visible. No doubts anymore, that this will be a fixed wing carrier. Red parts are those recently added.

[image]http://i67.tinypic.com/t0jewg.jpg[/image]
[image]http://i67.tinypic.com/15e70ut.jpg[/image]

A launch by the end of this year or early next year might be entirely possible.

Time for a "Liaoning-II class" entry? I think not, until the improvements/alterations over the CV-16 Liaoning clearly visible. CIWS loadout, deck-space and such...



Dysta -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/24/2016 1:46:55 AM)

The ski ramp is already curved and raised high enough, and now the rounded edge? Somebody's radar is going to be very happy. If they are building low observable frigates and destroyers, then why isn't the carrier should do the same?



mikmykWS -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/24/2016 2:26:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

Time for a "Liaoning-II class" entry? I think not, until the improvements/alterations over the CV-16 Liaoning clearly visible. CIWS loadout, deck-space and such...



Agreed. At the rate they are building though it won't be too much longer!


Mike



xavierv -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/24/2016 5:53:30 PM)

Found something quite interesting at a (rather small and local) naval defense show in Poland this week:

IAI Elta Showcasing Navantia F100, DCNS FREMM & BAE Type 26 Designs with MF-STAR Radar
quote:

At the 14th Baltic Military Fair BALT-MILITARY-EXPO 2016 held this week in Gdansk, Poland, Israeli company IAI Elta was showcasing (via a video) several frigates designs fitted with the MF-STAR multifunctional Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) naval radar for long-range air and surface surveillance and tracking. These designs are contenders in the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) program and IAI just joined forces with Rheinmetall Canada to propose the MF-STAR to the Canadian Navy future surface combatant.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4118

Balt Military Expo 2016: DAMEN Unveils SIGMA 10514PL Designs Based on SIGMA 10514 PKR
[img]http://i.imgur.com/anHu9it.jpg[/img]
quote:

At Balt Military Expo 2016 held in Gdansk, Poland, from 20 to 22 June 2016, Dutch shipbuilder DAMEN unveiled updated designs of its SIGMA family. A company representative explained to Navy Recognition that the updated designs feature more sleek, modern and stealthy lines. It is based on the same hull as the SIGMA 10514 PKR already selected by the Indonesian Navy (TNI AL).

The two designs unveiled at Balt Military Expo, are representative of what DAMEN is offering to the Polish navy for the Miecznik (Damen designation: SIMGA 10514PL Coastal Defense Ship) and the Czapla offshore patrol vessels (Damen designation: SIGMA 10514PL Patrol Ship).

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4104




Broncepulido -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/24/2016 7:20:12 PM)

I doubt very much an aircraft carrier can be designed with a lot of stealth on mind, because the signal mess created by the aircraft and ancilliary equipment parked and packed on the deck (But Gerald Ford has some stealth design, think in her island, and also the newer SPS-49 mast in Nimitz-class replace the lattice with a stealthier closed mast).



thewood1 -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/24/2016 7:28:25 PM)

The talk I saw on stealth design for large warships, and especially carriers, was not to hide them or even retard detection. It was to make them look more like a commercial ship.



bradinggs -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/24/2016 7:42:49 PM)

I like the look of those SIGMA's.



Dysta -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/25/2016 12:49:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradinggs

I like the look of those SIGMA's.

Yea, especially the bridge. Extended size for better observability, without being looks unaesthetic.



Hongjian -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/26/2016 1:08:17 PM)

http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2016/06/run-loud-run-shallow.html

quote:

Run loud, Run Shallow

Just a few days after unveiling the new Type 093B Shang Class SSN to the public (Our friend Jeffrey Lin has a good write-up on this new sub here), a Type 093A and her entourage just sail across the Strait of Malacca in broad daylight while singing "we are not hiding anymore" along the way.


Final confirmation of the existence of the Type 093A Shang-class boat, which is the predecessor of the 093B/G SSGN.

And that, via photo of it openly sailing the the Malacca Strait in broad daylight! As if the PLAN has nothing to hide anymore. Damn, looks like my feeling was right after the release of that 093B photo earlier: The PLAN is starting to get more open about their nuclear submarine fleet, formerly the most secretive of all Chinese branches.

[image]http://i68.tinypic.com/qz10kh.png[/image]

No VLS hump in the back, but notice the Virginia-styled conning tower of this sub (still with diving planes, though). This is the very first clear picture of the intermediate upgrade of the improved Shang-class SSN.

Chinese SSN roaming the Indian Ocean should become a routine, after this. No point in hiding now.



Dysta -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/26/2016 2:08:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

The PLAN is starting to get more open about their nuclear submarine fleet, formerly the most secretive of all Chinese branches.



Still not quite. There's a clear difference between showing and presenting.

CCTV had reported the size, tonnage, speed and somehow even sensor and weapon suites for some surface vessels in many years, as well as the newly commissioned ship's name and pennant number.

But for submarines, even the non-nuclear powered types are very rarely reported, besides the crew's mission, journey and training being shown on TV. There's none being reported about the actual specification since the indigenous designs like Song, Han and Xia classes, and the relative information are vague and general.

There are some rumored and leaked theatrical reports about Chinese submarine developments, but Chinese officials never addressed them. So the recent exposure of Chinese subs at foreign waters are more for giving clear message of naval presence (a rather primitive attempt consider it's surface warship's job), and showing the capability of long-distance operation.



mikmykWS -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/26/2016 4:57:12 PM)

A good scenario would be to see how one of these stacks up hunting against an Indian Akula or Kilo.

Mike



Hongjian -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/26/2016 5:34:38 PM)

Seems like this news were first brought by the Indonesian Navy. Here, we see their 'take' on that first-ever open crossing of the Malacca Strait by PLAN SSN.

[image]http://i68.tinypic.com/2ue33b7.jpg[/image]
[image]http://i67.tinypic.com/2e2duok.jpg[/image]

Regarding the 093 Shang-class, it seems like we suddenly know a lot about that family of nuclear subs. (or called "09III" in original Chinese designation, as "Project 09" is the designation for all nuclear submarines, while "III" means the "third member" of the "Project 09". I will from now on use this original designation:

1.Type 09III, Dec 1998 - two vessels of this first design delivered 2002 and 2003 respectively. The 'most common' Shang-class that you will find when you google it, straight conning tower and generally looks like a LA-class, but with lookout windows on the tower.

[image]http://i68.tinypic.com/2qn4c34.jpg[/image]
^This commemorative coin is providing evidence of the date of construction, which is the only confirmed data we have.

2.Type 09III TASS Testbed, mid 2000s, unknown number, but suggested that there should be one boat. Features same conning tower as the basic Shang-class, but has the long 'external' TASS housing on starboard side (as posted by Dysta earlier). Probably a test-bed for the TASS.

3. Type 09IIIA, late 2000s, unknown number, but suggested that there should be two of them around. Features a conning tower with a bit more blended design like the Virgina-class but with diving planes, and apparently still with the soviet-styled lookout windows. The only pictoral evidence of that boat, aside of photoshopped or extremely blurred leaks, are the photos above, taken during its transit of the Malacca Strait.

4. Type 09IIIB, mid 2010s, at least three boats confirmed as per satellite images from 2013. Features another new conning tower that lacks the lookout windows and has a more 'rounded' design in general. VLS hump confirmed by satellite and that magazine scan released in June 2016. This type should be China's first real SSGN.
[image]http://i63.tinypic.com/2vtwgtl.jpg[/image]
^Commemorative coin does not show the construction date, sadly, but the hump behind the back. Perhaps it even shows an early variant of that does not feature the Virginia-styled conning tower, even though it has a hump, not to mention that the conning tower looks extremely long as well. Mysterious indeed.


So, we could have identified four seperate sub-classes of the Project 09III family by piecing this puzzle together. This work took at least ten years, looking back at the earliest (and most blurred) images that were posted on the web. Kudos to the PLAN hiding these boats for so long from public eyes.



Anathema -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/27/2016 5:16:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2016/06/run-loud-run-shallow.html

quote:

Run loud, Run Shallow

Just a few days after unveiling the new Type 093B Shang Class SSN to the public (Our friend Jeffrey Lin has a good write-up on this new sub here), a Type 093A and her entourage just sail across the Strait of Malacca in broad daylight while singing "we are not hiding anymore" along the way.


Final confirmation of the existence of the Type 093A Shang-class boat, which is the predecessor of the 093B/G SSGN.

And that, via photo of it openly sailing the the Malacca Strait in broad daylight! As if the PLAN has nothing to hide anymore. Damn, looks like my feeling was right after the release of that 093B photo earlier: The PLAN is starting to get more open about their nuclear submarine fleet, formerly the most secretive of all Chinese branches.

[image]http://i68.tinypic.com/qz10kh.png[/image]

No VLS hump in the back, but notice the Virginia-styled conning tower of this sub (still with diving planes, though). This is the very first clear picture of the intermediate upgrade of the improved Shang-class SSN.

Chinese SSN roaming the Indian Ocean should become a routine, after this. No point in hiding now.

It is very difficult for a sub to transit through Indonesia from the SCS into the Indian Ocean (or vice versa) while submerged because the waters are very shallow in most places. Even US subs have to transit the Straits of Malacca on the surface because from memory it is only around 90 feet deep in places and full of deep draught surface vessels. It is even too shallow for some large commercial ships and they have to use the Lombok Strait instead.



Dysta -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/27/2016 6:52:55 AM)

It's more like a collision hazard with other civilian ships than lacks of sea depth. Submerging and creeping around oil tankers is a very bad idea. Periscope depth may do since it need around 15 meters (50 feets) to submerge, and some commercial-intensive straits are deep enough for it.

Interestingly, Indonesian media regard it is a normal and safe transit, as long as it's under surveillance/supervision by foreign navies. They never mention it's a direct response of SCS dispute from China, which is yet to confirm if Chinese Navy really meant it.



Anathema -> RE: Naval and Defense News (6/27/2016 9:39:23 AM)

That was basically my point. A sub sharing that small stretch of water of water that is only 90 feet deep with commercial shipping that often have a draught of 60 or 70 feet is obviously a recipe for disaster. The Malacca Strait is one of the busiest stretches of water in the entire world and one of the few places where you get the equivalent of a maritime traffic jam with ships queuing up to make the passage and hundreds of ships passing through it every day, which I believe also requires a pilot as well.

I basically meant that the PLAN sub or any other navy doesn't have a choice and if you want to transit the Malacca Strait in a sub you have to do it on the surface and reveal to the world your previously secret sub because the alternative is just too risky. It is also fairly useless in wartime because your enemies would know your sub is coming and could simply wait at the other end for it, or simply strike while it is surfaced. Indonesia is basically a chokepoint with only a few possible routes for subs or large ships with a deep draught, but that means they are obviously very busy with commercial traffic as well, so the options are limited for subs wanting to stay submerged and not risk a collision with a surface vessel.

For a sub in the SCS it would be far better to sail into the Celebes Sea, down through the Makassar and Lombok Strait into the Timor Sea, then the Indian Ocean because that is a journey you could make while submerged without having to worry about hitting a commercial ship and why I said it was difficult, not impossible. But again in wartime that isn't the best idea simply because it is the most obvious route and where you would concentrate any ASW efforts.

I never meant it as a comment on the SCS disputes and Indonesia would be foolish to start refusing transit to anyone because so much of the world's shipping passes through their waters and would probably anger almost every SCS, Pacific and Indian Ocean nation, as well as the Persian Gulf states who would all worry about their own shipping, although I do believe the strait is under joint Malaysian, Indonesian and Singaporean control.



Page: <<   < prev  32 33 [34] 35 36   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125