Naval News website reports that a new Chinese corvette has
begun sea trials.[1] The vessel has an
extreme (think Visby) stealth design, what appears to be some sort of water jet
propulsion, and a Zumwalt-type stealth mounting for the forward gun. The ship is likely a one-off prototype.
This is what a modern ship should look like. I’d reduce the superstructure significantly
but what’s there is clearly designed for maximum stealth. There are almost no protruding objects to
cause an increase in the ship’s radar (and visible) stealth signature. This is easily up there with the Visby as
regards stealth. Compare this design to
our newest ships, the Constellation and Burke Flt III. Both are radar beacons compared to this. We’re so locked into obsolete designs that,
for all practical purposes, we’re giving future naval victories to the Chinese.
The other noteworthy aspect of this is China’s willingness
to construct one-off prototypes to explore new designs. Compare this to our recent new ship designs
such as the LCS where we committed to 55 ships before the first was even
designed or the Constellation where we committed to 20 ships before the first
was even designed or the Burke where we’re committed to a never ending number
of ships because we so terrified of a new design failure (with good reason but
infinite stupidity!).
China is doing its naval buildup correctly and quickly. In comparison, we are decommissioning ships
at a faster rate than we build new ones and are shrinking the fleet.
China is screaming warnings at us and we’re flat out
ignoring them.
Nothing good will come of this.
________________________
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/05/chinese-experimental-corvette-starts-sea-trials/
They likely noticed how that used to be a successful approach, back when we used to do things that way!! If only we'd reread and re-apply history and lessons we already learned!!!
ReplyDeleteLet's wait for more information comes out as China has not yet even given an official name (type??) of it. It could be a prototype or an export design.
ReplyDeleteBesides, this is an unmanned drone which China showed in this month's Defense Exhibition in Malaysia (DSA 2024) for export (yes, for sale):
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/05/dsa-2024-new-torpedo-launching-uuv-from-china/
"new-torpedo-launching-uuv-from-china/"
DeleteDo you see a valid use for something that has significant support requirements, limited range, limited speed, limited sensors, and can launch two torpedoes?
No
DeletePentagon should do what China does on new design. After thorough studies, build one or two prototypes, test then pass to Navy for further tests. After that, make modifications if necessary until mature. Only in real naval operations we can decide if a design works or not.
ReplyDeleteUnlike US, China has no urgency. Their land based weapons can well cover PLAN around the First Island Chain. Unlike US, they don't get entangled in international conflicts. For instance, they have naval ships under UN mission of anti-Somali pirates which is close to Yemen yet they did nothing to fight Houthi even though they openly called Houthi to end threat to commercial ships.
Delete"China has no urgency."
DeleteI wouldn't quite say that. They are under great pressure to 'reunify' Taiwan and the only way that will happen is by force which likely means fighting the US. Hence, the need to quickly build their Navy for the coming war with the US.
"and the only way that will happen is by force"
DeleteWhat makes you say that?
Taiwan is a democracy, meaning they can just fund/bribe a pro-China party into power.
That would be a lot cheaper than a war, and wouldn't damage the extremely valuable infrastructure that the CCP would like to get their hands on. Take TSMC for example...
DeleteAnything is theoretically possible but if non-kinetic methods haven't worked in several decades of effort, it's highly unlikely that it will suddenly work in the next several years which is the timetable that China has stated must happen.
DeleteThe time pressure here is self-imposed. If China was content to play the long game, reunification with Taiwan would become an inevitability, especially as Taiwan's economic influence wanes, and the memories of the KMT and the Republic of China fade away. The Taiwanese Army already has no will to fight and is making procurement decisions on the basis of prestige for domestic political posturing. China has existed for centuries, Taiwan has been a breakaway province for 70 years, what's another decade or two to that number?
DeleteHowever, Xi has committed to reclaiming Taiwan within a decade, a decision chosen more on the basis of ideology than strategic planning. The course is locked in.
"The Taiwanese Army already has no will to fight"
DeleteCan you document this? If not, please do not make unsupported statements.
If China were smart and patient, they could achieve economic reunification - which is the most important kind of reunification - by simply offering peaceful, fair trade arrangements. This, however, is not China's way (Hong Kong, for example, demonstrates China's unwillingness to allow this).
Within the self-imposed time period for reunification, military force is the only avenue.
China has no urgency because Chinese leaders think time is on their side thus PLA's current goal is to maintain stability than seek opportunity to fight US.
DeleteThey believe that soon they will be strong enough militarily and economically so Taiwanese will give up hope of independent. They will find US' inability to help them. Taiwanese are same ethnicity as Chinese and speak same language. They have no problem in case of saying sorry and cave in ONCE NEED.
Taiwan is an issue, but there is no specific deadline on it. So China can afford to take their time in that regard, so long as there is no actual open talk of de jure independence there is no real urgency.
DeleteI would hazard a guess that 2030 was chosen as the deadline for unification by Xi because the 50 year old Taiwanese in 2030 was around 20 years old in 1990, which is the last generation that was educated to believe they are Chinese rather than Taiwanese under the old KMT dictatorship and old enough to have significant political power. Anything later than that then people that identify as Chinese in Taiwan will be aged out.
DeletePLAN has been doing the same thing with the carrier program. Only build one of each type, learn and move to the next type. I personally figure that by that time they get to the Type 005 they may move into fleet production. Instead of the Ford debacle.
ReplyDeleteChina's type 003's EMALS uses a different technology to USS Fords'. Let's see if it works better or not.
DeleteUSS Ford's EMALS uses A/C power coupled with flywheel power storage system.
Type 003's EMALS uses D/C power coupled with supercapacitor power storage system.
It's going to be fascinating. I expect as a minimum the system won't have to be completely taken down to repair one cat. I never did like the idea of flywheels in something that can expect to be shaken up a lot. And to have to spin it all the way down, do repairs, then spin it back up is just goofy. Supercaps make more sense, on the surface at least without knowing the exact implementation. But the design is a lot newer than a Ford, and I have little doubt that the PLAN has a lot of detail of the Ford's engineering problems to learn from.
DeleteFrom the rumors I'm hearing the Type 004 will be bigger, have 4 cats, and probably nuclear power. Shake the bugs out of that and the Type 005 should be a fleet carrier.
D/C or A/C powered EMALS, each has its own pro/con. Key is which team is able to manage these cons. This requires deep knowledges on electromagnetic. In EMALS, they use magnetic force generated from electricity.
DeleteVisby will beat this in terms of LO all week. Visby isn't problem free, but their use of composites with the other LO features and actual size is one thing they seem to have right for what they wanted the ship to do.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think that this ship, it's size and it's stealth is not doing what the Chinese want it to do in their scheme of things.
DeleteNothing goes head to head and one on one, not even in chess. So why in war. Every piece is part of a puzzle call the battle fleet, which operates based on tactics and strategies of the navy.
"Visby will beat this in terms of LO all week."
DeleteExcellent! You must have some data on radar signatures that allows you to draw that conclusion. Please share it with us.
It seems as if you also know that the Chinese ship does not use composites. Again, please share your knowledge of the Chinese ship's construction, materials, coatings, etc.
Of course, if you don't have any actual data or information then you're engaging in totally unfounded speculation and presenting it as fact. That would not be permissible on this blog and the comment would be removed. So, please share your information.
If it were all composite it your be by far the largest composite ship ever. If you look in the 3rd picture you can see welds. The deck house may be composite, but I doubt it. The other 2 are a TWZ article on Visby and a Covert Shores on the stealth of type 22 missile boats.
Deletehttps://www.twz.com/31333/photo-emerges-showing-swedens-stealthy-visby-class-corvettes-tiny-radar-signature
https://news.usni.org/2021/09/27/this-is-what-a-chinese-stealth-warship-looks-like-on-radar
https://www.zona-militar.com/en/2024/05/17/the-first-images-emerge-of-what-could-be-a-new-stealth-frigate-for-the-chinese-navy/
Deleted my comment w/o comment, aye?
Delete"Deleted my comment w/o comment, aye?"
DeleteNo. Your comment was labeled spam and removed. This happens to several comments a week. Almost all the time the comments are from months or years ago so I just restore them and no one even knows it happened. This just happened to occur on a recent comment. Unfortunately, there's nothing I can do about the problem other than check the spam folder several times a day. Your comment should have reappeared by the time you read this.
"you can see welds."
DeleteIt is not at all obvious to me that there are metal weld seams. One photo may show a seam of some sort but it may be a composite seam (ultrasonic thermoplastic welding, for example) or joint. Or, it may be metal. Regardless, that offers no evidence or data that proves Visby is stealthier than this ship. There is so much more to stealth than just materials. Again, if you have actual data, please share it. Otherwise, refrain from presenting opinions as fact. Thank you.
So random thought here... But stealth ships are built with angles meant to deflect radar from other surface ships and minimize or eliminate the returns, correct??
ReplyDeleteBut what about airborne radars? How extreme do those angles need to be to not give excellent returns to an aircraft? Of course composites, coatings, etc could be a factor, but this just occurred to me. With some basic data on a ships angles and simple geometry/math, we could figure out the range and altitudes that would make a stealth ship give the radar returns of say, an old slab-sided Spruance...
This was just an abstract thought- sure, theres problems with getting any active aerial radar that close to a warship, but thats another topic. It just occurred to me that theres some point where the stealth shaping becomes completely ineffective...
" theres problems with getting any active aerial radar that close to a warship, but thats another topic."
DeleteNO! It's the entire topic!
You are exactly correct that angled surfaces are intended to work against, essentially, horizontal radars. If a surface sloped at, say, 20 deg, is approached from the air, there would come a point where the aircraft is exactly perpendicular to the angled surface which gives the MAXIMUM radar return. You can calculate the horizontal distance from the target ship as a function of altitude. It's simple geometry.
The extreme example of this phenomenon is the Zumwalt.
For example, for a superstructure like the Zumwalt, if it was slanted at, say, 20 deg, an aircraft flying at 30,000 ft altitude would reach a perfect perpendicular at 15.8 miles horizontal distance. At that point, the Zumwalt would be like a shining billboard ... but would the aircraft have had any chance of survival reaching that point?
If the aircraft were to fly lower, say, 5000 ft, the perpendicular point would be 2.6 miles horizontal distance. Likely a long dead aircraft.
Assuming I did my quick math correctly, did that answer your question?
I've thought about doing a post on this but it seems awfully dry. What do you think?
"I've thought about doing a post on this but it seems awfully dry. What do you think?"
DeleteA short story format might make it juicier, just sayin'.
Yes CNO, thats where I was going!! So now, with an understanding of the modern naval battlefield, the likely, and not so likely means of detection- this makes me wonder if stealth shaping is worth any tradeoffs it puts into a design. If a Zumwalt becomes a perfect reflector at X distance, that means the slab sides of a Spru or Tico are now the stealthy ones!!! So if we cleaned up all the other things like guns, masts, all the deck fittings, etc, those old ships would seemingly be less detectable by air than the Zumwalt!! Now I'm taking this to the extreme, but I think its valid logic. So the bizarre shaped interior, and pyramidal shapes that make the Zumwalt what it is- how much of that was a PITA to work with and make everything fit??
ReplyDeleteSo this to me is now like your convention about single purpose ships, and that you can add anything that doesnt detract from its primary mission. It could be argued that the Zumwalts design purpose was to be stealthy. But maybe we should be designing in stealth as a secondary feature- that we do what we can, BUT, focusing on the ship FIRST being lethal at whatever its function is?? For instance, a Tico follow on needs all its current deckhouse volume. So we enclose the masts, redesign the 5in turret, recess all the deck fittings, etc...but dont worry about building everything into a pyramid on the hull.
For that matter- on this same tact, maybe Burkes need an "upgrade" to Tico/Spruance deckhouses that are stealthier!!
Are all the new stealth measures too costly or too problematic to the designs vs their true value???
"that means the slab sides of a Spru or Tico are now the stealthy ones!!!"
DeleteWhoa! Slow down a moment. Bear in mind that any airborne radar, regardless of altitude, at the moment it crosses a target's radar horizon, is essentially at sea level, meaning perfectly perpendicular to the target. If that target has vertical surfaces (no angle) it will stand out on radar.
In order to reach that perfect anti-Zumwalt reflectance point, the airborne radar must approach the target quite closely, all the while radiating. A large, slow, non-stealthy, radiating aircraft is what we, in combat, call 'dead' long before it can detect a target.
Think through ALL the geometries of this before you crown the Tico as the king of stealth platforms!
In a normal ship, the deck and the side walls of a super structure are at right angles to each other or 90 degrees. In such a case any ray would fall on the wall then bounce on the deck and go back straight down the exact direction it came from. This happens at all angles.
ReplyDeleteHence for the rays to not go back the direction they came from, the angle between deck and side walls should be as far away from 90 as possible theoreticaly.
Sure, but with todays designs needing lots more internal volume, superstructures that span the beam are becoming more the norm, and decks that run a ships length uninterrupted and becoming an oddity. But until external decks disappear completely, they'll always be a bounce return provider. It wouldnt be difficult, and probably even useful to say, expand a Ticos deckhouse amidships to eliminate the external deck. Include that with the other suggested mods, and suddenly the Tico design becomes less detectable than a ship with stealth design (from the air)...
DeleteDon't forget the sea surface when looking at reflector angles. You can hit the sea surface, bounce onto a vertical hull surface, and come off that in a perfect line back to the radar aircraft. Obviously, the more the sea state is disturbed, the less this may be a factor. Or not.
Delete"fall on the wall then bounce on the deck and go back straight down the exact direction it came from. This happens at all angles."
DeleteNo, that's not quite correct. Only for a perfect 45 deg angle of incidence would the reflected ray go straight back to the source. For any other angle, the reflected ray will return at a different angle than the incident ray. This is the principle behind stealth shaping. What right angles do is potentially help concentrate rays in the general direction of the source.
Consider a pool table. Neglecting offset, the only shot that will see the pool ball come directly back to the shooter is a perfect 45 deg. Any other shot will miss coming back to the shooter although it will be somewhere in broad vicinity of the shooter.
"Hence for the rays to not go back the direction they came from, the angle between deck and side walls should be as far away from 90 as possible theoreticaly."
Again, incorrect. If you were correct, the perfect, invisible stealth object would be a flat surface since it has no angled walls. In reality, a flat surface is a huge radar reflector from any angle in the vicinity of perpendicular. As you get further from perpendicular, the reflected radar wave gets more and more dispersed away from the source and, hence, stealthier. In theory, a flat surface of zero thickness is invisible to radar when viewed from the same plane as the surface (the side, so to speak).
And understand im not suggesting we do this, I was just using a Tico as an example. But where this is leading me is that the stealth shaping of a ship MIGHT actually be counterproductive, especially considering that its much more likely to be hunted by an airborne platform than a surface one. This also suggests that high altutude surveillance can actually profit from a ships stealth shaping. It also brings me to think that long range, high altitude sensors (drone?, repurposed missile?) are somthing that we need to be pursuing.
ReplyDelete"stealth shaping of a ship MIGHT actually be counterproductive"
DeleteOnly at one, very specific and combat irrelevant altitude and distance.
"suggests that high altutude surveillance can actually profit from a ships stealth shaping."
Again, only at one, very specific and combat irrelevant altitude and distance. All the rest of the time/altitude/distance the stealth shaping is still effective to varying degrees. Also, and I cannot stress this enough, the aircraft must be radiating in order to see a target and, like all radiating sources, it can be seen much further away than it can see the target. There's a reason why E-2 Hawkeyes are kept far away from actual combat instead of out front, leading the search!
There was an obituary in the Telegraph recently for the RN officer who was the last skipper (in the RN at least) to sink an enemy vessel by ramming. https://archive.ph/IJ2NT
ReplyDeleteHis craft was a minesweeper and because of the risk of magnetic mines it was built of mahogany.
Would mahogany have much of a radar signal? Should we revert to "wooden walls"? Or would modern composites have equally good anti-radar properties?
Yes, wood reflects radar although not as strongly as metal. Also, the metal objects inside a wooden aircraft or ship would still reflect.
DeleteThat said, I would love to see HMS Victory take to the seas again!
Its builder said that it is a comprehensive test ship. Then, it is like Pentagon's X-**** test platform.
ReplyDeleteOne new stuff on this test ship is type 2030 CIWS. Speculation is its firing speed is > 20,000 rounds/min, almost twice of type 1130. Other new stuff are not able to see from outside.
"type 2030 CIWS"
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing you're referring to the 20-barrel prototype? That's impressive but useless unless the magazine/feed system can support it. Otherwise, the gun is empty in a split second.
There's also the accuracy issue, as with any gun. A million rounds per millisecond is useless if they aren't accurate. If it is accurate, one round is sufficient.
CIWS is considered last defense against an incoming missile after it has penetrated precision weapons' interception. For PLAN, this means HQ-9, HQ-16, HQ-10 all failed to intercept. CIWS relies on high density of ammunitions at designated area. Its sensor, gun, ammunition supply (type 1130 use two chains), vibration control, ... etc. all need to work. If they don't work together to perform, then, this type 2030 will be deemed as failure. This is whole point of sea trial than just land tests. Unlike US' Phalanx, China and Russia use 30mm ammunitions for CIWS.
DeleteRussia uses two AT-630 to achieve >12,000 round/min. However, vibration from one interfered the other's accuracy. Decades ago, China purchased AT-630 from Russia (still use on some ships such as type 022). After learned from them, China then developed type 730, 1130, now 2030 to be tested on this ship.