Does ST marine secretly helps PLAN design and build 071??
-
From many angle,it looks so similiar.
PLAN just looks like a enlarge version of RSN endurance class LSD
-
Hmm.. the exterior form may have some similarities, but then again, hull forms are easily available designs. This amphibious ship does not appear to have a bow ramp as well.
-
I thought a few yrs ago, there was a thread here that claims ST Marines sold/collaborate with PRC regarding Endurance design
-
If i did remember correctly. PRC Minister of defense did visit endurnce class LSD few years ago and was feature in Pioneer Magazine....Originally posted by equlus84:I thought a few yrs ago, there was a thread here that claims ST Marines sold/collaborate with PRC regarding Endurance design -
so the design [ exterior ] is the same but not the interior
-
The design hardly looks similar to the Endurance.Originally posted by equlus84:I thought a few yrs ago, there was a thread here that claims ST Marines sold/collaborate with PRC regarding Endurance design
I would think it looks like a Chinese-modified variation of the Galicia-class LPD built by Navantia in the late 90s. With a lower bridge superstructure, streamlined bow and side profile. -
Every countries did have their requirement. It is not surprising they did modify some parts different from Endurance class.. But the core is there...Originally posted by oOprinceOo:so the design [ exterior ] is the same but not the interior
The last pic showing the flight deck and the crank looks damm alike of Endurance. -
looks different perharps functionally its design have taken shap. is there any restriction from us designing military equipment for PLA?
-
I'm more concerned about them copying our design.Originally posted by Arapahoe:looks different perharps functionally its design have taken shap. is there any restriction from us designing military equipment for PLA? -
Type 071 LPD currently is attending the North neighborÂ’s LPD bid, so I donÂ’t think SG contributed anything substantial to the PLANÂ’s new LPD project. Otherwise, Singapore would have stopped such a tender at the 1st place.
-
China is well know for copying... Both military wise and commercially wise...
-
You think too much la
-
Well, I think China is fully capable of designing a ship without anyone's help.
Plus the only design for a LPD is to have the weapon systems forward, the superstructure in the middle and flight deck aft so all of the world's LPDs look similar. -
Pls note that China ship building capability is among the top 3 in the world; Top 1 is Jap, Second place goes to Korea. The commerical ship building technological capability is fully capable to assist Chinese Navy to get its hand on most ship types & designs it wants - except a full Aircraft carrier.
In addition, Chinese naval yard is fully capable to constructing double hull submarine with full automated welding technology - that our ST shipyard is still looking. So it is very very very very unlikely that they want our LST design.
unless our LST can transform itself just like the navy advertisement few years ago. -
It is surprising that the Chinese Navy plan to build at least ten 'modern' tank-landing ship had preferred to follow a 6,000 ton LST design that is entirely unique to RSN, while other navies operate similar types of vessel classed as LSD and are of heavier design.
The following is an extract from a report that detailed 'The evolution of China's military policy and military doctrine', which provide additional material for discussion:
''In early 2007, the PRC Navy could accept into service a new type of a lead tank-landing ship (the entire series of approximately 10 ships). With an estimated displacement of 5,000 to 6,000 tonnes, it will have capacity to carry up to one tank company and up to an amphibious landing battalion. Right now the Chinese Navy has more than 50 amphibious warfare ships with capacity to land up to a marine corps brigade in the first assault wave. Putting into service a new series of amphibious warfare ships with improved specifications will almost double the Chinese Navy's capacity for amphibious landing of personnel and equipment--up to a marine corps division, which is already an operational-tactical level. ''
Note one part of the report - [officially denied] - had also included the following:
''According to reports in the media, China's Navy modernization program includes the building of three aircraft carriers with a displacement of up to 40,000 tonnes with Su-27 class aircraft aboard (up to 40). (19) The keel of the first warship has already been laid
Judging by the existing experience, the aircraft carrier group could be comprised of up to six to eight surface warships, two to three attack nuclear submarines, and one or two auxiliary vessels.''
Although the report provide plausible reason for China's naval modernisation and expansion as a force projection to protect its growing global economic interests, it growth path seems to be more aggressive then defensive by design.
China is surely building up a Navy that will allow it to invade Taiwan - in the event that a Taiwanese maverick President declare independence - and with a navy strong enough to fend off any American naval intervention. -
They are going to need more than just 3 40K tonne Aircraft carriers, as the US Navy can bring to bare 4-5 90K tonne Aircraft carriers with their accompanying carrier battle groups. Of course, they can make the operation costly for the US Navy to persecute, but the question is how much are the Chinese willing to risk their fleet in a massive duel not seen since WWII.
That aside, I vaguely recall the French deploying a new class of LSTs which are significantly larger than ours and many navies are employing helicopter carriers which also serve to deploy troops. I guess we should expect the Chinese to move in that direction as well. -
The advantage is with the Chinese Carrier Battle Group operating closer to home than the USN.
The three Carrier Battle Group will be reinforced by the massive land based air assets.
The Chinese will make it very costly for the US Government to deploy the USN as an intervention force to prevent China from using its military to stop Taiwan from any unilateral declaration of independence.
Even if the Chinese air assets may not be technically comparable to the air assets of the five US Carrier Battle Group, it will be almost impossible for the combined numbers of USN air assets to cope with such Chinese numbers.
The massive number of China's land based air assets will form a massive wave of hardware - that can be similar to iits aggressive human wave frontal assault.
Even if each USN carrier based aircraft can target 15 separate targets, it will hardly have sufficient on-board air-to-air missiles to neutralise the entire Chinese land and sea based air assets. -
Whereas that is true, and the Chinese are known to employ old Soviet swarm tactics, there is also the Aegis defence system which can track up to 100 targets, though the Koreans are using a newer and more capable version, and the US Navy has a total of 50 or so Arleigh Burke destroyers, and in addition, the Ticonderonga class cruisers. This is by no means saying that this is going to be an easy fight of course.Originally posted by Atobe:
The advantage is with the Chinese Carrier Battle Group operating closer to home than the USN.
The three Carrier Battle Group will be reinforced by the massive land based air assets.
The Chinese will make it very costly for the US Government to deploy the USN as an intervention force to prevent China from using its military to stop Taiwan from any unilateral declaration of independence.
Even if the Chinese air assets may not be technically comparable to the air assets of the five US Carrier Battle Group, it will be almost impossible for the combined numbers of USN air assets to cope with such Chinese numbers.
The massive number of China's land based air assets will form a massive wave of hardware - that can be similar to iits aggressive human wave frontal assault.
Even if each USN carrier based aircraft can target 15 separate targets, it will hardly have sufficient on-board air-to-air missiles to neutralise the entire Chinese land and sea based air assets.
Plus, we shouldn't forget that the US Airforce could base assets in Japan and Taiwan. Congress might finally get down to upping the no. of F-22s if tensions rise sufficiently high enough to merit more advanced fighters. -
1st, Aegis can track 100 targets doesnÂ’t mean it can intercept the similar amount targets. SM-2 only can be launched subject to fire channel available, thereÂ’re only 2 APG-62 FCR on board Aegis DDGs. As such, if a combo attack from joint air & naval operation, the engagement by CVGs will become very complicate. Because CVBGs not only need handle sea skimming subsonic AshM like C802/803, but also supersonic missiles like Sunburn and Club-S or Club-N, as well as supersonic Anti-radiation missiles like KH-31P. In a real war, I doubt a complicate system will function perfectly as theoretically predicted. The Israeli SAAR V is a vivid example, the capable 3D volume search radar even canÂ’t detect a single C802 in time. Imagining, in real war, any miss handled missile means a punch and probably the breakthrough point to destruct the coordinated air defens.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Whereas that is true, and the Chinese are known to employ old Soviet swarm tactics, there is also the Aegis defence system which can track up to 100 targets, though the Koreans are using a newer and more capable version, and the US Navy has a total of 50 or so Arleigh Burke destroyers, and in addition, the Ticonderonga class cruisers. This is by no means saying that this is going to be an easy fight of course.
Plus, we shouldn't forget that the US Airforce could base assets in Japan and Taiwan. Congress might finally get down to upping the no. of F-22s if tensions rise sufficiently high enough to merit more advanced fighters.
2nd, it’s always true, Air power determines sea power. So the most reliable air defense of CVBGs is their shipborne fighter jets. Not Aegis, however, if it’s too close to the Chinese coast, it may face superior numbered land based fighter jets, plus PLA shipborne fighters in future. Unfortunately, Taiwan is” too close to the mainland, and too far from God”.
3rd, F-22 is a asymmetrical weapon towards PLA, but F-22 currently has very limited A2G ability and no anti-ship ability. PLA also has its own asymmetrical means to handle CVGs, itÂ’s reported China developed & is deploying Anti-ship Ballistic Missile:
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=174893
itÂ’s reported China can blind YanksÂ’ satellite & even shoot down them by Ballistic missile as well.
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=232513
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=212526
PLA is featuring dozens of quiet SSKs and several NG SSNs. Those all pose credible threat to CVBGs operating around Taiwan. -
Originally posted by coolant:
That's because they were caught with their pants down. The radar was switched off because of potential misfires.
1st, Aegis can track 100 targets doesn’t mean it can intercept the similar amount targets. SM-2 only can be launched subject to fire channel available, there’re only 2 APG-62 FCR on board Aegis DDGs. As such, if a combo attack from joint air & naval operation, the engagement by CVGs will become very complicate. Because CVBGs not only need handle sea skimming subsonic AshM like C802/803, but also supersonic missiles like Sunburn and Club-S or Club-N, as well as supersonic Anti-radiation missiles like KH-31P. In a real war, I doubt a complicate system will function perfectly as theoretically predicted. The Israeli SAAR V is a vivid example, the capable 3D volume search radar even can’t detect a single C802 in time. Imagining, in real war, any miss handled missile means a punch and probably the breakthrough point to destruct the coordinated air defens.2nd, it’s always true, Air power determines sea power. So the most reliable air defense of CVBGs is their shipborne fighter jets. Not Aegis, however, if it’s too close to the Chinese coast, it may face superior numbered land based fighter jets, plus PLA shipborne fighters in future. Unfortunately, Taiwan is” too close to the mainland, and too far from God”.
Aegis, if you would like to know, is considered for theatre anti-Ballistic missile defence for the reason that their radar and missiles, the SM-3s, have the range to do so. True that fighter jets are the real power projection tool, but by no means are the only tools around.3rd, F-22 is a asymmetrical weapon towards PLA, but F-22 currently has very limited A2G ability and no anti-ship ability. PLA also has its own asymmetrical means to handle CVGs, itÂ’s reported China developed & is deploying Anti-ship Ballistic Missile:
And the US cannot sink Chinese satellites? So what if the F-22 can't do ground ops? They are specialised fighter killers designed to negate the fighter spam of the PLA.
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=174893
itÂ’s reported China can blind YanksÂ’ satellite & even shoot down them by Ballistic missile as well.
As for that Anti-Ship Ballistic missile, don't count on the Yanks having no countermeasures for that. The Yanks are not sitting on their laurels and it will be a mistake to assume so. Eventually, the Yanks will have their anti-Ballistic missiles working. Why do you think Russia is so pissed about the US placing a radar on their backyard? Because they know it might potentially work!http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=232513
And the USN has more advanced submarines than the PLA at the moment and are building the Virginia class which were designed for littoral ops etc. with more advanced sonar than what the Chinese have.
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=212526
PLA is featuring dozens of quiet SSKs and several NG SSNs. Those all pose credible threat to CVBGs operating around Taiwan. -
How many of them are deployed to pacific? BTW, SSN is not optimal to be used in shallow water around Taiwan, only east of Taiwan is in deep water.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:And the USN has more advanced submarines than the PLA at the moment and are building the Virginia class which were designed for littoral ops etc. with more advanced sonar than what the Chinese have.
Last year a Chinese type 039 SSK just surfaced in miles within Kitty Hawk CVN without being detected is a demo of the Submarine could well be the surprise. -
That's because they were caught with their pants down. The radar was switched off because of potential misfires.
No, the 3D volume search radar was never off, which only gave 20 seconds early warning time, considering such a short timeframe, even the FCR is on or off is immaterial.Aegis, if you would like to know, is considered for theatre anti-Ballistic missile defence for the reason that their radar and missiles, the SM-3s, have the range to do so. True that fighter jets are the real power projection tool, but by no means are the only tools around.
SM-3 is designed to intercept Ballistic missile in boosting stage and midcourse, not in the descending stage of the Ballistic missile. That means Aegis DDG with SM-3 can theoretically intercept any BMs flying over it, not in a descending stage towards it. Remember, SM-3 is designed to intercept any RV outside atmosphere with a minimum height of 80-90 kms.And the US cannot sink Chinese satellites? So what if the F-22 can't do ground ops? They are specialised fighter killers designed to negate the fighter spam of the PLA.
Well, but you have to ask urself who counting more on satellites? F-22s have to take off hundreds miles away to reach the scene, how much is the impact on PLAAF is debatable, thatÂ’s why I count it as asymmetrical means by yanks. But whatÂ’s the ground ops you count on? You mean F-22 will strike directly in Chinese territory? I hardly believe such will be the case as US and china fought many times. Korean war/Vietnam war, but none US directly bomb any targets within Chinese territory. If F22 strikes land targets in China, well, I think PLA will also retaliate LACM & Ballistic missiles attack on the air base where the F-22 is launched.
As for that Anti-Ship Ballistic missile, don't count on the Yanks having no countermeasures for that. The Yanks are not sitting on their laurels and it will be a mistake to assume so. Eventually, the Yanks will have their anti-Ballistic missiles working. Why do you think Russia is so pissed about the US placing a radar on their backyard? Because they know it might potentially work!
For anti-Anti-ship Ballistic missile, can you elaborate what US countermeasures will be featured? -
Perhaps my previous post was too simplistic by comparing only a confrontation of air assets, without complicating the scenario with other elements such as shore based surface-to-surface sea skimming missiles launched from Mainland China, or the ship borne air defense system of the USN.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Whereas that is true, and the Chinese are known to employ old Soviet swarm tactics, there is also the Aegis defence system which can track up to 100 targets, though the Koreans are using a newer and more capable version, and the US Navy has a total of 50 or so Arleigh Burke destroyers, and in addition, the Ticonderonga class cruisers. This is by no means saying that this is going to be an easy fight of course.
Plus, we shouldn't forget that the US Airforce could base assets in Japan and Taiwan. Congress might finally get down to upping the no. of F-22s if tensions rise sufficiently high enough to merit more advanced fighters.
As 'Coolant' had detailed in his post, the USN Carrier Battle Group can be effectively neutralised by having its air defense system overwhelmed through a combined assault from the Chinese air assets and missiles from both land bases and sea platforms.
Even if the land based assets of the USAF were to be transferred to Japan, Okinawa, or South Korea - these are still too far away from the immediate Taiwanese theatre, and will be vulnerable during any air-to-air refuelling operation to extend any effective time for in-theatre operation.
The basing of USAF air assets on Taiwan soil will be provocative, and will surely add to the cross-straights tension that are unnecessarily fanned by Taiwanese maverick politicians.
Any first wave of combined assault by missiles and aircrafts, will neutralize the USAF air assets, as much as the Taiwanese air force - and will only shed American blood unnecessarily in useless defense of petulant Taiwanese maverick politicians.
The present military efforts of the Chinese Government is to build up the numbers as much as they are improving the technological edge.
Compared to the old Soviet or new Russian technologies, the Chinese are presently more exposed to advanced dual-use technologies from the vast numbers of consumer based industries that foreigners have set up in China.
The Chinese Military has benefitted from it as seen in the new military assets that are produced currently.
The Chinese have been more willing - then the Russians - in incorporating foreign military hardware to enhance the best Russian or European equipment that they can purchase; and those countries that are not easily subjected to US political pressure - are only too willing to profit from the Chinese military build-up.
Most of the Chinese military build-up of their land, sea and air assets are all geared towards offensive in nature - to isolate Taiwan to prevent any unilateral declaration of independence, and with the view of building a modern military to deter any US support and interference in any Taiwan conflict.
In this 21st Century, the Chinese leadership is more open to the challenges of the Technological Age, and over the last ten years, the Chinese military has shrunk in size and reinforced by new investments in advance technology, training, and highly qualified personnel.
China has surprised us with its tremendous advancement in the modern global economy, and has build up a tremendous national reserves in such a short span of twenty years.
China will surely surprise the World Community in any military confrontation, with a modernised military that is presently kept under wraps.
We can only hope that the swords will remain sheathed, and all we hear will be the rattling to deter its use. -
Well, but you have to ask urself who counting more on satellites? F-22s have to take off hundreds miles away to reach the scene, how much is the impact on PLAAF is debatable, thatÂ’s why I count it as asymmetrical means by yanks. But whatÂ’s the ground ops you count on? You mean F-22 will strike directly in Chinese territory? I hardly believe such will be the case as US and china fought many times. Korean war/Vietnam war, but none US directly bomb any targets within Chinese territory. If F22 strikes land targets in China, well, I think PLA will also retaliate LACM & Ballistic missiles attack on the air base where the F-22 is launched.
Broadly speaking, the US has been working on the use of lasers to intercept artillery and mortar rounds with a fair bit of fast reaction time. They just demoed the system against mortar rounds recently with 100% success. In theory, it is possible to use the same system and tweak it such that it might work against Ballistic missiles as well.
For anti-Anti-ship Ballistic missile, can you elaborate what US countermeasures will be featured?
AS for the F-22s, the objectives of the F-22s will be to fend off the Chinese Fighter squadrons and attempt to keep them at bay. The need to launch deep strike missions will be likely turned over to stealth bombers and a possible new stealth bomber which is an idea that has been floating around for a while.
Also, it is highly unlikely the USN will approach too close to the Chinese shore since that is inviting trouble from shore based batteries. Likely the initial objectives will be to weather to wave of Chinese attacks and then at the appropriate opportunities, attempt to neutralise the shore batteries and perhaps launch some deep strike missions. It should be noted however, the USN with its current stock of fighters can't really launch deep strike missions since they lack the range to do so.SM-3 is designed to intercept Ballistic missile in boosting stage and midcourse, not in the descending stage of the Ballistic missile. That means Aegis DDG with SM-3 can theoretically intercept any BMs flying over it, not in a descending stage towards it. Remember, SM-3 is designed to intercept any RV outside atmosphere with a minimum height of 80-90 kms.
My bad, I was referring to the SM-2 for its primary role as an anti-missile and anti-air missile which has a range of up to 370km.How many of them are deployed to pacific? BTW, SSN is not optimal to be used in shallow water around Taiwan, only east of Taiwan is in deep water.
Technically, USN is working on the problem and I think they loaned a Swedish sub so as to work on the tactics.
Last year a Chinese type 039 SSK just surfaced in miles within Kitty Hawk CVN without being detected is a demo of the Submarine could well be the surprise.
Admittedly, it is not the best state of affairs, although that instance involving the the Chinese Sub and the Kitty Hawk isn't exactly new. The Soviets themselves have shadowed US carriers before, sometimes undetected. Though there was one incident involving a November class and the Enterprise and the former was actually capable of keeping up for a while even though the latter tried to shake the other off at full speed. -
Sorry, I have to say, some more basic knowledge on submarine warfare may let one know more facts behind the everybody known story.
1. Basic fact 1, nobody use SSK to shadow CVGs, only SSN got the stamina & pace which can barely chase a CVG constantly moving at a speed easily over 20 knots. If a SSK running at such a speed, the battery will be flat in hours and the generated noise can be easily picked up by anti-submarine warfare.
2. But how come can a PLA SSK intercept a CVN thousand kms away from the Chinese coast? IMO, it actually reveals a more fearsome capability of PLA, That is PLA now can effectively detect and track CVGs thousand kms away from its coast. That ability requiring credible space/surface based surveillance asserts, airborne or space based Elint/Sigint asserts. Long range OTH radar, and C4IR network. Only PLA can track the CVGs moving, then can venture its SSK silently into the path of the Kitty Hawk CVN. Do remember, Kitty Hawk CVG then was in a drill and only broadcasted roughly location in the sea” off Okinawa”, put Okinawa as the center and using 100kms as the radius, you can easily draw a circle with a area over 31400 sq kms. No way, a slow moving PLA SSK can intercept the CVN by luck.