Modern Naval Vessels

continued from OT discussion in the F35 vs Flanker thread.

Sorry, in the real world SSK's just don't appear and disappear with ease.....

Many of them can if you're unlucky enough to sail close to one... which was my whole point.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-b ... k-us-18383
Don't take my word for it though - ask any current or recently serving submariner and you'll hear much the same thing.

Surface Action and Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups don't operate within the Littorals. Just waiting for an SSK to pick them off.

Correct, you're aggressively agreeing with me again

Plus, of those choke points that you often bring up. You ever think that during times of conflict or war. That Allied SSK's wouldn't be operating within those areas too! Along with MPA like the P-1, P-3, P-8, and drones like the MQ-4C Triton....

Also, as long as you bring up Chinese SSK's. You really want to compare PLAN Kilo, Song, and Yuan Classes of Diesel Submarines. Compared to Japanese (Oyashio & Sōryū), South Korean (KSS-II & KSS-III), and Australian (Collins and future Attack Class) Boats....

MPA ops would be heavily restricted in the 1st island chain that I am referring to. The airspace would be extremely contested and inhospitable to such vulnerable aircraft. You can invoke allied SSKs if you like, but that is shifting the goal posts a little. If we want to talk about allies you also need to consider that the ROK and Japan would still need to keep an eye on NK's ~70 odd (mostly mini) subs. They might suck but quantity has a quality all of its own. We would need every sub we could get our hands on to sanitize that part of the ocean, because the PLAN is on the way to 40 modern SSKs, with close to 70 subs in total... all devoted to that one theatre.

Which, is not to say the PLAN Submarine Force is no threat. Yet, they aren't likely to success in just about any scenario you could come up with either....

Depends on how you define success. They are certainly capable of inflicting some very unpleasant losses on anything that crossed their path (both to our subs and surface vessels). Would their losses be heavier than ours? Sure. It wouldn't be a fun time trying to root them all out though. Again, don't take it from me - ask an expert.

By my count the PLAN has 14 x Luyang DDG and 1 x Renhai CG (+5 in fitout), which makes for 15 major surface combatants at a comparable (& in some cases higher) level of technological sophistication to US Aegis vessels, with dozens of smaller or less modern vessels behind them that would probably be used as ASW skimmers and AShM launchers. By comparison, the US 7th Fleet has (I believe) 3 x Ticonderoga CG and 7 x Arleigh Burke DDG in theatre, so it's a pretty respectable fleet we're talking about, and one that is growing rapidly.

While their SSN fleet is still very rudimentary, their newer SSK's are a real worry - just ask any Australian or Swedish submariner what a modern SSK can do to an unsuspecting vessel that gets too close. This is especially true in shallower water/choke points where they can lie in wait with the diesels off in near total silence, masked by ambient noise levels.

PLAN has 1 055 commissioned (101) and 6 more launched. The 7th was just launched on Apr 28. At least 1 more under constuction. They also have 13 052D Luyang III commissioned with a further 11 launched and a few more under construction. That is in addition to 6 052C Luyang II and 2 051C Luzhou (with the Russian S-300) already commissioned, which potentially means ~40 comparable DDG/CGs. In contrast, US has 7-8 Burkes under construction as well (DDG 118-125), not exactly chump change either.

SSKs are designed to operate in the littorals which in China's case is masked by busy commercial traffic in normal times. however, in war time, that may not be the case as commercial traffic is generally stopped. However, the addition of AIP means quieter and longer submerged range. Add new ASCMs (CM-708 UNB) but the Yuans, which copy in part the Kilos, carry only 4. SSNs generally operate in deeper water.

USN is CVBG centric so PLAN would need to venture out into deeper waters if they want to challenge the USN. I doubt USN will send surface fleets without air cover against China so its less relevant to compare surface fleet to surface fleet. Same goes with the sub fleet where USN only operates SSNs and so have the advantage against PLAN SSKs in deeper waters. Note, because of the long ranged TacToms, the USN subs don't really need to go very near to China's coast to strike targets. whereas in China, its been surface fleet focused since before 1990. Its only recently that PLAN CVBGs appeared (and thus SSNs). So unlike Russia which used SSNs as a tactical weapon, PLAN appears to develop SSNs to support CVBGs. The PLA surface fleet would thus rely on air based land cover (PLAN naval aviation).

PLAN has 1 055 commissioned (101) and 6 more launched. The 7th was just launched on Apr 28. At least 1 more under constuction. They also have 13 052D Luyang III commissioned with a further 11 launched and a few more under construction. That is in addition to 6 052C Luyang II and 2 051C Luzhou (with the Russian S-300) already commissioned, which potentially means ~40 comparable DDG/CGs. In contrast, US has 7-8 Burkes under construction as well (DDG 118-125), not exactly chump change either.

SSKs are designed to operate in the littorals which in China's case is masked by busy commercial traffic in normal times. however, in war time, that may not be the case as commercial traffic is generally stopped. However, the addition of AIP means quieter and longer submerged range. Add new ASCMs (CM-708 UNB) but the Yuans, which copy in part the Kilos, carry only 4. SSNs generally operate in deeper water.

USN is CVBG centric so PLAN would need to venture out into deeper waters if they want to challenge the USN. I doubt USN will send surface fleets without air cover against China so its less relevant to compare surface fleet to surface fleet. Same goes with the sub fleet where USN only operates SSNs and so have the advantage against PLAN SSKs in deeper waters. Note, because of the long ranged TacToms, the USN subs don't really need to go very near to China's coast to strike targets. whereas in China, its been surface fleet focused since before 1990. Its only recently that PLAN CVBGs appeared (and thus SSNs). So unlike Russia which used SSNs as a tactical weapon, PLAN appears to develop SSNs to support CVBGs. The PLA surface fleet would thus rely on air based land cover (PLAN naval aviation).

No arguments here. Just goes to show what an incredible weapon the Tomahawk is. Such a simple concept and yet it is still relevant against peer adversaries all these years later.

Honestly, wouldn't be much of a contest. As the US and her Allies would bottle up the PLAN in their ports. While, our navies would cut off all imports and exports to and from the Chinese Mainland.


This would be nothing short of devastating to the Chinese Economy and little they could do about it....

With a naval force based on the US 7th Fleet? Not likely. The only way this would be remotely possible is by committing the entire USN to the task, requiring months of warning and buildup before the outbreak of hostilities and the total compliance of other geopolitical rivals like Russia, Iran and NK during the conflict. You are cherry picking the most favourable of the possible scenarios here.

Honestly, wouldn't be much of a contest. As the US and her Allies would bottle up the PLAN in their ports. While, our navies would cut off all imports and exports to and from the Chinese Mainland.


This would be nothing short of devastating to the Chinese Economy and little they could do about it....

With a naval force based on the US 7th Fleet? Not likely. The only way this would be remotely possible is by committing the entire USN to the task, requiring months of warning and buildup before the outbreak of hostilities and the total compliance of other geopolitical rivals like Russia, Iran and NK during the conflict. You are cherry picking the most favourable of the possible scenarios here.

The US and her Allies could shut down China very quickly. First, they would cut off her Sea Lanes to Europe and Asia. While, bottling up the PLAN in their ports and like I said they could do nothing about it...

China couldn't do the same thing in reverse.....(not even remotely so)

Honestly, wouldn't be much of a contest. As the US and her Allies would bottle up the PLAN in their ports. While, our navies would cut off all imports and exports to and from the Chinese Mainland.


This would be nothing short of devastating to the Chinese Economy and little they could do about it....

With a naval force based on the US 7th Fleet? Not likely. The only way this would be remotely possible is by committing the entire USN to the task, requiring months of warning and buildup before the outbreak of hostilities and the total compliance of other geopolitical rivals like Russia, Iran and NK during the conflict. You are cherry picking the most favourable of the possible scenarios here.

The US and her Allies could shut down China very quickly. First, they would cut off her Sea Lanes to Europe and Asia. While, bottling up the PLAN in their ports and like I said they could do nothing about it...

China couldn't do the same thing in reverse.....(not even remotely so)

Apart from play the nuke card perhaps. At any rate this is a straw man. My original argument related to how competitive the PLAN would be inside the first island chain. The answer is "very" which is why it is being increasingly viewed in the context of A2/AD. A blockade of China would likely have to occur in deeper water where we would hold a decisive advantage.

[quote="boogieman]
Apart from play the nuke card perhaps. At any rate this is a straw man. My original argument related to how competitive the PLAN would be inside the first island chain. The answer is "very" which is why it is being increasingly viewed in the context of A2/AD. A blockade of China would likely have to occur in deeper water where we would hold a decisive advantage.[/quote][/quote]

Your missing the point. The US and her Allies would first just cut off China. Then contain her and finally just wear her down...

The PLAN couldn't come without facing utter destruction. While, the PLAAF could do little but to try in vain to maintain "Air Superiority" over the mainland. Yet, against F-22's, F-35's, and B-2's. I doubt they could even do that...

Honestly, I'll take the US cards over China anyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

Your missing the point. The US and her Allies would first just cut off China. Then contain her and finally just wear her down...

The PLAN couldn't come without facing utter destruction. While, the PLAAF could do little but to try in vain to maintain "Air Superiority" over the mainland. Yet, against F-22's, F-35's, and B-2's. I doubt they could even do that...

Honestly, I'll take the US cards over China anyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

Nope haven't missed a thing, you're just talking at cross purposes. I haven't actually contradicted any of the above, save for pointing out that the USN would require massive additional mobilisation to pull this off, even with allies in play (simply wouldn't be possible in a lot of contingencies). I guess we'll just have to agree to... agree.

Your missing the point. The US and her Allies would first just cut off China. Then contain her and finally just wear her down...

There's a lot of politics that will come in between that. As we have seen historically, even NATO allies aren't as "united" as they should be on paper, there are a lot of allies that just won't tag along.

And Against China, half a world away, Uncle Sam will need to rely more on her Asian allies, S.Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Australia are the main allies on paper with some having Bilateral defense agreements,

Thailand, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia and maybe even Vietnam are more of West leaning countries that may ally with the US when the bullets start flying.

But even with China's aggressive sea grab in the SCS, most US allies are still pretty neutral and are unwilling to form a joint hedge against the PLAN.

Basically what I'm saying is, the US needs to rely on her own against China unless China does something really aggressive, because Allies may not exactly jump on the bandwagon. Most may go neutral, just like some NATO allies.

I think we need to hold allies from this topic because it isn't 100% unrealistic China involve Russia in war, because last thing Russia want is their important buyer and quasi ally (they are protecting Russian back) be beaten.

So no allies.

I am watching Burk and Tico ships. Lot of Burks and all Ticos are build before 2000. I don't think those ships will sail lot longer.

Another problem is tracking radar on this ships. It is very outdated that is something which folks don't know they think if it is Aegis then tracking radars are also PESA or AESA. Nope they are MESA and quite old MESA , it was used as part of Aegis because of cost cuts Aegis was already very expensive and new track radar was out of question so they used what they have.

SPG-62 is based on SPG-51 which was tracking radar for RIM-24 and RIM-66 on per Aegis ships.

In that time it was okey, you didn't need to counter smallish targets becuase most deadly soviet antiships missiles were like MiG-21 fuselage or even bigger (massive Kh-22)

But with Oniks and especially LO/VLO missiles, old tech antenna with 10kW average power doesn't sound good at all.

You'll notice that all the latest versions of ESSM, SM2 and SM6 have active RF seekers, reducing their reliance on ship based FCRs. I've heard it claimed that the combination of SPY-6 and ARH SAMs eliminates the need for AN/SPG-62 entirely, with the old FCR simply being retained to service the older SARH SAMs in the inventory.

I think this is also where NIFC-CA comes into play, allowing missiles to be guided using data from E2D. Don't get me wrong, it would obviously be better if every Aegis vessel had AN/SPQ-9B, but the USN is in a uniquely good position to work around the issue with its unmatched access to organic air power... at least until the old FCRs are replaced or made redundant.

I'd add that you want to use networked sensor data to reduce the ISR burden on an individual ship anyway - I imagine relying exclusively on on-board FCRs limits the number of simultaneous targets that can be engaged, and bottlenecks the ship's defensive output in the precious seconds between threat detection and impact. Given the speed and lethality of modern sea skimming AShMs, you really want to be hitting them early and at extended range (radar horizon prevents this with onboard sensors) to ensure you nullify them. Waiting until they crest the radar horizon strikes me as extremely dangerous going forward.

In other news, behold the AN/APS-154 Advanced Airborne Sensor - seems to be equal parts high powered air to surface AESA and standoff jammer. Ought to come in handy when going after those nasty new PLAN surface ships we talked about.

Specific details about the pod itself and the capabilities of the radar inside, all of which Raytheon developed almost entirely in secret, are limited. The radar is known to be an active electronically-scanned array (AESA) type with moving target indicator (MTI) and synthetic aperture functionality. What this means is that the system is capable of tracking moving targets below at sea and on land, as well as taking high-quality radar imagery of objects of interest for further analysis, even at night or in poor weather.

The AAS is also specifically designed to work in littoral regions where it might have to scan both water and land areas simultaneously. Traditional surface search radars are typically optimized for one environment or the other, or have dedicate modes for each, and generally have difficulty covering both at the same time.

All of this makes it a powerful information-gathering tool for the P-8A, which is set to not only replace the Navy's P-3C Orion patrol planes, but also partially assume the missions of its specialized intelligence variants of that aircraft, such as the EP-3E Aeries II. The AN/APS-154 is itself a direct follow-on to the equally secretive AN/APS-149 Littoral Surveillance Radar System, another podded Raytheon AESA radar that some P-3Cs carry. The AAS is also just one bolt-on sensor suite that is in development for the Poseidon, as well.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... -radar-pod

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/exclu ... 1562912667

I think the point not stated is it won't be just a US navy driven effort. It will more likely be a USAF driven counter strategy (at least against the surface fleet). Rather than in-place assets, its more how fast the USAF can redeploy in-theatre. But not discounting potential allied air & naval power. There's quite a fair bit of that in place. Even against PLA subs, simple use of captors on known routes, whilst takng out ill defended minesweepers can bottle up a fleet.

Unlike US and allied inter-operability, China despite its size suffers from a perceived lack of "jointness". There is a split between the various commands (military regions operate within their own zone) whereas the US operates on a schwerpunkt basis where every sqn can be merged into any command facilitated by network improvements and inter-operability training. Whilst China in theory can adopt the same, in practice command is divided into zones. A simple example is how often do you see air brigades being deployed and operate outside their allocated airbase. Each airbase is tied to a specific unit. What that means is the US can apply pressure points to achieve local superiority and overwhelm each region in turn. I think China recognizes that and is taking steps to address this but it could take way longer than a decade to achieve this (e.g. esp for airbase development).

How bout those French swordship designs? They seem like they embrace sort of a hybrid between ship, stealth, and surfaced submarine; coupled to expansion of situational awareness kind of like what the F-35 is to aircraft. They kind of hit me as what LCS promised only without the ridiculous podded strap-on kits.