Naval and Defense News

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: CrazyIvan101

This honestly sounds like a hit piece as the technology has greatly matured to make many if not all the author's points moot.

I think its worst. Likely a 20 something year old pay per article writer at yahoo who had to meet a deadline and found something to reword[:)]

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

You're like a little kid who's jealous about all the neat toys his friends have.

Mike

I'd feel more jealous if they said this project is completed, and mounted right on Burkes and Zumwalts, but not that soon in reality.

Some military discussion sites even believe this news is a deception, to make competitors believe electric weaponries cannot be done without more breakthroughs.

[thewood1]

Funny, looking at the pictures of models and animations you rave about in other posts, I would never have guessed that was your criteria.

[Dysta]

I didn't said I am not jealous at all. In fact, I already is consider there are numerous DIY footages how people homemade rail/coil guns at their backyard, and have particular improvement for a decade. Especially this:

https://youtu.be/TWeJsaCiGQ0

One thing I must point out is, electric propelling round can adjust the velocity easier than changing primers from conventional gun, hell, even making it less-lethal is possible with lower output (and max it out to kill someone, but I haven't see any yet) if necessary. That is definitely possible and favorable for smaller weapons.

But for the higher caliber of guns, like to be used on tanks or warships, if they are only believe the maximum velocity is the ultimate goal for developing rail gun, then they still need more time.

[mikmykWS]

Yeah underlying thing with all this stuff is power generation is now hugely important. Ships get bigger again[:)]

[HalfLifeExpert]

Yes, I think any Rail-Gun armed warship would have to be nuclear powered, with one of the reactors dedicated to that weapon system. But I think the Rail-Gun could ultimately lead to a sort of return of the battleship, as this weapon system could ultimately replace anti-ship missiles, as a missile can be shot down, but a projectile from this thing cannot.

But of course increasing rate of fire is going to be a challenge, and a critical one to overcome. For a realistic battle situation I would hope a large rail-gun would be capable of at least 4-5 shots per minute, and that may be some ways off.

[Dysta]

Tell that to carrier operators and pilots, there will be thousands of unemployment if BBN rolls out. [8D]

[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.

[CrazyIvan101]

ORIGINAL: HalfLifeExpert

Yes, I think any Rail-Gun armed warship would have to be nuclear powered, with one of the reactors dedicated to that weapon system. But I think the Rail-Gun could ultimately lead to a sort of return of the battleship, as this weapon system could ultimately replace anti-ship missiles, as a missile can be shot down, but a projectile from this thing cannot.

But of course increasing rate of fire is going to be a challenge, and a critical one to overcome. For a realistic battle situation I would hope a large rail-gun would be capable of at least 4-5 shots per minute, and that may be some ways off.

Actually Current gas turbines are absolutely fine and are perfectly able to supply the required power for railguns or directed energy weapons. There is an amazing write up on Railguns and lasers by a reddit user. Also I heard of new mechanics for lasers in CMANO? Is this happening?! [:D]

[Dysta]

Like F-35's future cockpit concept, but using drones and aircrafts to capture footages around the tank, instead of mounting sensors:

http://www.gizmag.com/ironvision-tanks- ... ugh/43853/

Tank crews get 360-degree X-ray vision



Battle tanks are about the least invisible thing ever invented, but Elbit Systems has come up with a way to make them as see through as glass – at least from the inside. The company's new IronVision Helmet-Mounted System (HMS) doesn't use magic to achieve this. Instead, it employs sensor and display technology originally developed for fighter and helicopter pilots to provide a virtual 360º panoramic view of the battlefield to tank commanders and crews.

One of the great military paradoxes of the last century has been that battle tanks provide an incredible amount of protection for their crews while leaving them insanely vulnerable. This is because tanks and other armored fighting vehicles rely on thick, all-encompassing shells of heavy armor to keep the crew safe from harm. It also means that the driver has to navigate by looking at the outside world through a letterbox with a foot-thick slab of laminated glass jammed into it.

It's even worse for the tank commander, who has to turn the vehicle from a rolling pillbox into a fighting machine. But in order to do this, the commander needs to see what's going on outside. He does this by doing the daftest thing imaginable – opening the top hatch and sticking his head out. Needless to say, this makes tank commanders a poor insurance risk and provides an unhealthy gap in the armor for unwanted munitions to drop through.

Many tank designs try to minimize this problem through the use of periscopes, but the results tend to be less than optimal due to the narrow field of vision. According to Elbit, IronVision gets around this limitation by means of See-Through Armor (STA) technology. It uses sensors and software combined with a user-friendly interface originally developed for fixed and rotary wing aircraft to transmit video images from inside and outside the tank to the commander and driver's visors, to create a realistic view of the outside world. The result is a "see-through" tank.

Elbit says that Ironvision provides images in real time with zero latency, high resolution, and in full color with a seamless 360° line of sight. The visors are lightweight and compact, and the software uses an advanced distortion-correction algorithm to eliminate visual distortions and motion sickness. In addition, the system has night vision capability and can display relevant information directly in front of the commander. It also has head-tracker technology that locks on potential threats and targets, and follows them with just a glance from the commander.

IronVision is demonstrated in a video posted online.

Source:
Elbit Systems

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTTU2lw_Zh8

[Hongjian]

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.



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/chin ... t-aircraft
http://www.janes.com/article/58397/chin ... ce-in-2016

[Dysta]

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/111 ... 493_1.html

[Hongjian]

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]

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.




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.




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]

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]

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]

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):



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

[Hongjian]

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):

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]

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]

Holy bumbling bull cookies !