Naval and Defense News

[Hongjian]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Quick question...is there any skepticism of the models and videos that keep coming out about Chinese or Russian weapon systems. The US defense industry pumps out videos and models left and right and I see skepticism left and right...look at the F-35 as an extreme example. Yet it seems every announcement about a Chinese cruise missile is met with an attitude that whatever is being announced is a done deal. Is this just rampant nationalism, fear-mongering, political posturing...or what?

This is just a defense news thread.

When we post models of Chinese stuff here, it is just for the news value. Until I cant find any confirmation either by picture or official/semi-official announcement of their service status with the Chinese military, I wouldnt request an entry in the DB3000.

[Broncepulido]

Chinese Wikipedia (with on-line translator) is a good general source for old (and no old, and all with external sources) Chinese warships, but the articles in Chinese Wikipedia about Chinese missiles and planes are, ejem, "short", and are more extensive in English Wikipedia.

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: Broncepulido

Chinese Wikipedia (with on-line translator) is a good general source for old (and no old, and all with external sources) Chinese warships, but the articles in Chinese Wikipedia about Chinese missiles and planes are, ejem, "short", and are more extensive in English Wikipedia.

I hardly try to refer them from Baidu Baike (Baidu-pedia) or other websites that imitated Chinese encyclopedia. Indeed there are some decent articles of Chinese arsenals that comes with history, development, and even the involved people with names on it. But they are still the same as fan-sites, and some overly optimistic, or real but pictureless weapons will only make more doubts than believing it.

Mostly when foreign media/analysis start to 'see things' (from satellite images to US radar detecting anomalies at China), they will usually try to 'phish out' Chinese weapon developments by giving name on them (like WU-14 the Chinese Hypersonic Vehicle, the name was given by US, and then changed to DF-ZF when they say they're possibly in service). We all know that China never officially announce this kind of weapon, and there are numerous rumors saying China is definitely capable to it. Yet, China denied to follow the western of military transparency, by admitting that development.

But I think I must stop here. As developers said they MUST see pictures and speculations before adding units, there's NOTHING we could do.

[xavierv]

More pics of the Chinese USV
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=3859

Our coverage of DSA:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... -2016.html

Next month we'll be at Sea Air Space in Wash. DC, big event for us.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Dysta

ORIGINAL: Broncepulido

Chinese Wikipedia (with on-line translator) is a good general source for old (and no old, and all with external sources) Chinese warships, but the articles in Chinese Wikipedia about Chinese missiles and planes are, ejem, "short", and are more extensive in English Wikipedia.

I hardly try to refer them from Baidu Baike (Baidu-pedia) or other websites that imitated Chinese encyclopedia. Indeed there are some decent articles of Chinese arsenals that comes with history, development, and even the involved people with names on it. But they are still the same as fan-sites, and some overly optimistic, or real but pictureless weapons will only make more doubts than believing it.

Mostly when foreign media/analysis start to 'see things' (from satellite images to US radar detecting anomalies at China), they will usually try to 'phish out' Chinese weapon developments by giving name on them (like WU-14 the Chinese Hypersonic Vehicle, the name was given by US, and then changed to DF-ZF when they say they're possibly in service). We all know that China never officially announce this kind of weapon, and there are numerous rumors saying China is definitely capable to it. Yet, China denied to follow the western of military transparency, by admitting that development.

But I think I must stop here. As developers said they MUST see pictures and speculations before adding units, there's NOTHING we could do.

Sure there is but it requires patience. Generally thing do appear in enough time to implement.

Our issue is simple. If we add a bunch of stuff that ends up not existing then user scenarios get broken which is a larger problem to solve. Many things can't be handled by just marking it hypothetical. We also start building a bit of a credibility problem in terms of what's real and what isn't. Given that we're taking on all the risk with the game we get to make that decision. I hope you understand.

Oh lot of east vs. west stuff going on too. Warfaresims is from all over the place and probably more importantly we have friends from everywhere. So if you're hanging your hat on claiming there is some kind of bias I would point it out as evidence you really don't know us very well at all. We're pretty even handed because we have to be to get along with each other, never mind you[:)]

Thanks!

Mike

[Broncepulido]

"Covert Shores" website. Not exactly news, but a very interesting site improved recently, with ideas and references on "obscure" submarines and subsurface "objets":

http://www.hisutton.com/Analysis%20-%20 ... arine.html

And of course I'm with Mike in no use or implement in the Database "stuff that ends up not existing".

About the Chinese Wikipedia and his useful or not references. As example of useful entry I used this one as the older Chinese frigate, and from she studied entry by entry the evolution of Chinese frigates, and fully tracked on it the development and platform instalation of "old" systems as SY-1, SY-2, HY-1 and HY-2, between other topics, and each point is apparently referenced with sources:
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/6601%E5%9 ... B%E8%88%B0
(and was a real pain simply to find this entry in the Chinese Wikipedia)

[Wiz33]

ORIGINAL: Broncepulido

Chinese Wikipedia (with on-line translator) is a good general source for old (and no old, and all with external sources) Chinese warships, but the articles in Chinese Wikipedia about Chinese missiles and planes are, ejem, "short", and are more extensive in English Wikipedia.

But I would take everything in the Chinese section with a large amount of salt. I would not believe any performance spec until it was shown or observed by a reliable news source.

[Hongjian]

Some more news from the front:

The four PLAN Sovremenny-class DDGs and the single Type 051B Luhai-class DDG have gone into refit some month ago for MLU. Now, we have the first glimpse of their new equipment:

Pr.956E: Universal GJB 5860-2006 VLS modules, at least six of them visible.



We can see that it is indeed the GJB 5860-2006 VLS (for the Type 052D DDG) and not the H/AJK-16 (the official designation for the VLS onboard the 054A, for launching the HHQ-16 and CY-3/Yu-8), because there is no seperate exhaust lid to be seen between the cells. Since we can see the hinges directing towards bow and aft, the H/AJK-16's exhaust would be in the middle between the first four visible cells. But there isnt any, it seems.

While the total number of VLS cells isnt visible due to that tarp, we could already assume that the Sovremennys would get some serious firepower upgrade by these universal VLS alone. LACM, YJ-18 and HHQ-9 SAMs all would be compatible with these VLS. Hopefully there will be good photos available when the MLU is finished and the Pr.956Es are returning to service. What happens with the two Pr.956EMs that are also undergoing MLU, and whether they will have the same upgrades (since their Kashtan CIWS are top notch weapons and shouldnt have been scheduled for replacement), remains to be seen.


Anyway; the second thing would be the final confirmation of the VLS upgrade for the single Type 051B Luhai-class DDG, "Shenzhen".



Again, we cant see the exact number and type of VLS, but we can at least make out that they are indeed VLS lids and that they are mounted on a completely new platform, replacing the previous one for the HHQ-7 short-range SAM.
The VLS should be the H/AJK-16 due to the 2x2 Front-Dome illuminators (in green tarp) now mounted ontop of the superstructure and hangar, usually associated with the HHQ-16 MR-SAM.

[xavierv]

Yesssss!!! Haha What an upset... (remember just one year ago all these Reuters articles who said it was a done deal for Japan, most of them didn't even mention DCNS)

France's DCNS Clinches SEA1000 Future Submarine Program Contract for Royal Australian Navy

Australia's Prime Minister today announced that the next generation of submarines for Australia will be constructed at the Adelaide shipyard, securing thousands of jobs and ensuring the project will play a key part in the transition of our economy. DCNS of France has been selected as the preferred international partner for the design of the 12 Future Submarines, subject to further discussions on commercial matters.

The Future Submarine project is the largest and most complex defence acquisition Australia has ever undertaken. It will be a vital part of our Defence capability well into the middle of this century.

This $50 billion investment will directly sustain around 1,100 Australian jobs and a further 1,700 Australian jobs through the supply chain.

Today’s announcement follows the comprehensive Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP) involving DCNS, TKMS of Germany and the Government of Japan. Each bidder submitted very high quality proposals and the Australian Government takes this opportunity to thank both TKMS and the Government of Japan for their ongoing commitment to Australia and their participation in the process.

The process was overseen by an independent Expert Advisory Panel, chaired by former Secretary of the United States Navy, Professor Donald Winter. It was peer reviewed by Vice Admiral Paul Sullivan USN (retired) and Rear Admiral Thomas Eccles USN (retired).

This decision was driven by DCNS’s ability to best meet all of Australia's unique capability requirements. These included superior sensor performance and stealth characteristics, as well as range and endurance similar to the Collins Class submarine. The Government’s considerations also included cost, schedule, program execution, through-life support and Australian industry involvement.

Subject to discussions on commercial matters, the design of the Future Submarine with DCNS will begin this year.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=3879

[Dysta]

A good decision, consider the ultimate plan for trans-regional submarine should be nuclear powered, and France have technology for it. Conventional power might be short legged, but Australian navy does have a naval base close enough to prepare troubles from Indonesia and SCS region.

If their cooperation can go further as planned and budget allowed, then one or two nuclear subs will definitely shining the Oceanic naval power as much as US navy at Hawaii.

[Anathema]

ORIGINAL: Dysta

A good decision, consider the ultimate plan for trans-regional submarine should be nuclear powered, and France have technology for it. Conventional power might be short legged, but Australian navy does have a naval base close enough to prepare troubles from Indonesia and SCS region.

If their cooperation can go further as planned and budget allowed, then one or two nuclear subs will definitely shining the Oceanic naval power as much as US navy at Hawaii.

Nuclear isn't ever going to be an option and it has been ruled out so many times for many reasons. For example the RAN doesn't have any nuclear engineers or specialists and has enough trouble finding crews already for the subs without the added requirement of a degree in nuclear engineering, which wouldn't be of much use on other vessels considering the rest of the fleet is conventionally powered and apparently isn't even taught here since we don't use nuclear power. Australia also lacks the facilities and capability to refuel, overhaul or build nuclear subs which would mean they would have to be sent to France or US and out of service on the other side of the world for sometime. While air independent propulsion now means conventionally powered subs can remain submerged much longer and negates most of the advantage of nuclear power, with the added advantage of being quieter. Even the politics or public are totally against it and the subs definitely have to be built in Adelaide because of promises from both sides of politics and the need to sustain naval shipbuilding in the country and the ASC.

[michaelm75au]

It is going to be interesting to see what becomes of this, and what the performance differences would be.
DCNS proposed (to the RAN) a diesel-electric version of its 5,000-tonne Barracuda nuclear-powered submarine.

Actually reading on the DCNS site suggests we are accepting a sub that doesn't yet exist???[&:]
Subject to discussions on commercial matters, the design of the Future Submarine with DCNS will begin this year.

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: Anathema
...

Like I said, IF they have planned everything out, and able to afford to operate them at the same time.

Maybe not the first contract as 5000 ton of mini-nuclear subs, but conventional powered. Australian navy is a big player of long-distance submarine operations for decades, but not too desperate to acquire something strategic and expensive yet.

The guppy conventional sub is a pure nope, as far as many navies in the world concerned. Except it's the only option to have it without lots of training programs, supreme-grade dock and navigation friendly (some regions are regulated to disallow nuclear powered ship/submarine to go, as part of the UNODA memberships).

[Anathema]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Actually reading on the DCNS site suggests we are accepting a sub that doesn't yet exist???[&:]
Subject to discussions on commercial matters, the design of the Future Submarine with DCNS will begin this year.

Yeah, although the bids from TKMS for a Type 216 and the Japanese 'improved' Soryu class are also subs that technically don't exist yet either. The DCNS design is basically a conventionally powered version of the nuclear powered Barracuda being a metre or two shorter and a little lighter without the reactor, but most other details haven't been revealed and are probably highly classified, so is hard to say how different it is from the nuclear version.

The unique requirements of the RAN to match or improve on the performance of the Collins class especially the 11,500 nautical mile range, additional berthing for special forces and to be armed with the new MK 48 Mod 7 torpedo meant that no existing designs were suitable and a new unique design was required. If they could meet those requirements and avoid a repeat of the Collins class by buying an existing off the shelf design then I imagine they would have done so without hesitation.

The ABC is reporting that apparently the fact the French are set to commision the nuclear powered version of the Barracuda in the near future was seen as an advantage because they would solve and iron out any teething problems before we get around to building the conventionally powered version, although it does sound a little like wishful thinking and marketing spin to me.

Although to be fair the committee who selected the modified Barracuda as the preferred option was made up of independent experts on subs and chaired by a US expert, so presumably made the best choice based on their merits of each design, or at least that is what I am hoping.

[Glenn Beasley]

This Decision didnt seemingly (Imo) follow the mainstream thinking of the Defence industry Punditry.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... hina-15934

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: Glenn Beasley

This Decision didnt seemingly (Imo) follow the mainstream thinking of the Defence industry Punditry.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... hina-15934

Mainstream or not, dragging China into this deal's consideration is a very immature motive. Besides, neither Germany or Japan can propose the nuclear powered subs that French have, which is Australia actually needed for future long range sub operations.

[Anathema]

ORIGINAL: Glenn Beasley

This Decision didnt seemingly (Imo) follow the mainstream thinking of the Defence industry Punditry.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... hina-15934

Agree, although once it was put in the hands of the selection committee then it was probably impossible to predict the outcome without knowing all the classified details of each bid. As it turns out the Soryu was apparently the first to be eliminated.

This article is probably the most detailed explanation I have seen as to why the Japanese bid failed: http://thediplomat.com/2016/04/why-japan-lost-the-bid-to-build-australias-new-subs/

[Hongjian]

7th successful flight test of the DF-ZF/WU-14 conducted

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... c-missile/

China Successfully Tests Hypersonic Missile

Seventh test of new DF-ZF glider tracked over northern China


BY: Bill Gertz
April 27, 2016 5:00 am

China successfully flight tested its new high-speed maneuvering warhead last week, days after Russia carried out its own hypersonic glider test, according to Pentagon officials.

The test of the developmental DF-ZF hypersonic glide vehicle was monitored after launch Friday atop a ballistic missile fired from the Wuzhai missile launch center in central China, said officials familiar with reports of the test.

The maneuvering glider, traveling at several thousand miles per hour, was tracked by satellites as it flew west along the edge of the atmosphere to an impact area in the western part of the country.

It was the seventh successful flight test of the revolutionary glider, which travels at speeds between 4,000 and 7,000 miles per hour.

Depending on the source, it seems like there are six successes and one failure so far.

Interesting to see that this flight test was conducted so soon after the recent Russian one. Not that I claim that there was some political signal to Moscow or something; quite on the contrary. If anything, it was a signal to the US... But yet again, missile flight tests cant be arbitrarily ordered, as they have a schedule that's related with their R&D process.

[DeSade]

New teeth for China subs:

http://www.janes.com/article/59687/dsa- ... nd-old-lcu

as this is export version, it is quite possible that 290km range is extended for domestic version. Trade-off for range is payload, with only 155 kg warhead.

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: DeSade

New teeth for China subs:

http://www.janes.com/article/59687/dsa- ... nd-old-lcu

as this is export version, it is quite possible that 290km range is extended for domestic version. Trade-off for range is payload, with only 155 kg warhead.

Ma 0.08 ~ Ma 0.09

It isn't the first time Janes have numerical typos when reporting the description of Chinese arsenals.

Speaking of the usability of maximum range, how submarine can vector the target that far in underwater?