 |
| China Navy renovated the frigate that was obsolete, fire support ship equipped with Tarenso rockets instead of anti-ship missile will be or have been enrolled |
Friday, November 07, 2014
Chinese Fire Support Frigate (Rocket).
All images and info via PLA Photo Blog.
So they've done the common sense thing and simply taken an old frigate, added MLRS pods to it and re-designated it a fire support ship. The only real issue (because I think its a great idea) is re-arming it at sea. Against a proper target it could expend its "ready to fire" load in a few minutes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
75 rockets flying in seconds before a ship killer missile wave would cause serious problems would it not?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I really see the point otherwise.
A 5" naval gun has a ready magazine of 600 rounds and a rate of fire of 15 rounds a minute.
The advantage of rockets is they dont need a gun, and carrying a gun isnt a big deal for a Frigate.
Stick a MLRS type mass rocket launcher on a CB90 or a Skjold or a LCU and its different story.
I like rockets, 5500 5" rockets were lobbed at Juno alone though
I am not sure either, it seems like an expensive waste of deck-space, and I am fairly sure you would need to get much closer to the targets with these tiny rockets than with 5in cannons firing something like Vulcano ammunition. Seems like they would be better off trying to squeeze in another 5in (which I am skeptical would work), or some form of point-defense, one or two 76mm cannons (which are not that heavy) and perhaps something akin to CAMM with a sensors upgrade would make it a formidable fire-support ship.
DeleteThe otomelara 76mm can fire >80RPM, and the volcano munition should extend the range to 40Km for NFGS, its also good for air-defense. If they could fit two additional 76mm cannons equivelant to the western version we are probably talking about an initial barrage >200rounds in the first minute. Imagine a battery of 3 of these, with carrier wing or a UCAV designating targets.
the idea is that the Chinese are increasing the functional size of their Navy by finding new ways of using ships that ordinarily would be scrapped. you're not going to have a shiny new Navy with the cost of ship building. if we have dreams of ever having a real 300 ship fleet then we're going to have to find new ways of extending the lives of our oldest ships and using them in new way.
DeleteUm... This is big news? I mean, Russian landing ships had Grad packs since the 60s.
ReplyDeletesorry. you guys don't get to decide what is "news" on this blog. don't like it then don't visit. oh and the issue isn't about rockets being used on landing craft.
ReplyDeletethe idea is that the Chinese are increasing the functional size of their Navy by finding new ways of using ships that ordinarily would be scrapped. you're not going to have a shiny new Navy with the cost of ship building. if we have dreams of ever having a real 300 ship fleet then we're going to have to find new ways of extending the lives of our oldest ships and using them in new way.
i thought that it was obvious. i think that it is. but TrT is a fountain of negativity and Plaguetalon i don't know but he also states the obvious and the irrelevant.
I'm a ray of sunshine at least one day a week!
DeleteI think its interesting that they are doing it, just odd.
Some might not think much of using older vessels but Ronald Reagan certainly seemed to think that way. Much of the 600 ship navy of the Reagan era were updated or uparmed.older vessels. He even put harpoon missiles and torpedoes on the Coast Guards High Endurance cutters, effectively turning them into frigates. He de-mothballed the battleships and gave them CIWS and Tomahawks.
ReplyDeleteIn the Chinese case using old frigates for Naval fire support makes sense. You don't need them out at sea constantly like destroyers or frigates hunting for subs or protecting carriers. They will simply pull them out when needed.
Imagine if we did the same with Marine LPD's we are retiring. Given them bare minimum crews and load the helo deck with missiles. They could be used with Navy Reservists and only pulled out them out when needed.
Not just Regan, traditionally speaking this has been common practice since the dawn of professional standing navies in europe, where ships would be kept for a long period of time and modified. For instance cutting the big Ship of the lines down to make frigates, during ww2 modifying civilian ships or cutting the bridge off off cruisers/batleships and making them into carriers.
DeleteThe problem with western procurement is that the west lacks heavy industry now, i.e. no longer has a commercially competitive shipbuilding industry, and much of the equipment that goes into these systems is vastly overpriced (like the engines on the F35 somehow costing over half as much as a whole F/A-18). This is something that should be adressed, rather than trying to recycle outdated hulls.
That and reconsidering procurement doctrine, for instance does the US really need to replace its carriers, especially at such a price, when they will be very similar in capability? What sorts of ships does it need, does it really need glorified patrol boats (LCS) on one end, and then Burkes as the other option? Perhaps there is a better comination of ships...
this is great for the chinese navy.. using rocket artilery on an outdated ship... im curious how fast they can reload the rocket launchers, i assume they reload by changing the whole box magazines and not replacing it tube by tube.. Rockets always create instant destruction zone compared to artilery, they are faster at saturating an area woth deadly effect, but their reload time is their achiles heel..
ReplyDeleteand for those people who scoff on the apparent lowtech rockets used and always brag about cloud9 hitech rocket/gun round, bear in mind that for the victim a guided hi tech rocket/gun round is no different than a low tech unguided rocket.. just ask those Ukrainian soldiers whose convoy get blasted by mass GRAD bombardment...
We scoff because this rocket systems offers vastly inferior performance to competing 5' & 3' gun systems, which you can carry far more ammunition for, reload far quicker, and fire out to a much greater range. Sure these sub-calliber rounds may not have the area-of-effect that these rockets have, but you have far more of them and they are much more accurate.
DeleteWhereas these unguided rockets need to be fired in great salvos just to get one target, you will get much more for your milage with the gun system. If you want to have lots of missiles the way to do it, is to modify whatever LCU you plan to use on a D-DAY like landing operation to accomodate something comparable to the missiles used in the HARMS (DCIM submunition weapons).
Here is an example of an LCU, they can carry alot of stuff.
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/5119403/AMPD003_0214_Caimen200.pdf
This seems weird i dont see an easy reload system the czech 122mm rm70 truck mounted mlrs had a speed loading system that couöd possibly be fitted to a ship.
ReplyDeleteIts just with that mass a ship consists of naval guns hold the advantage that ship could easilly have a dual 12,7cm automatic in place of ech of these rocket packs
I like this kind of a ship. While the A-Team of the chinese navy consisting of those new destroyers and firgates and submarines hold off the "Enemy A-Team" at bay, these ships can and I think will provide a massive amout of fire support to chinese Amphib units fighting on Islands. And the Chinese need all the ships they can muster with the best weapons that they can afford under practical circumstances if they were to carry our their Taiwan Invasion Threat or atleast make the threat look credible. Using older ships like these when you know that providing ground support fires will involve the ship getting damaged by counter fire looks like a decent decision. And these ships are not expected to lead from the front or be the cutting edge of any Chinese Task Force, they are going to come after the Task Force clears the sea and air opposition to the Island.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the employment supporting infantry assaults, but I disagree with the assumption that they won't be "in the lead" at some point. The utility of having a massive first strike that is both effective on target AND draws counterfire, allowing the Chinese Second Strike to target using counterbattery fires might be too tempting an option for an Admiral to resist. Toss up some chaff rockets, steam away at full speed, and you might convince the crew they aren't on a suicide mission. Heck, even an "abandon ship" order with Sailors dropping into lifeboats after firing would do it.
DeleteGetting the enemy to waste anti-ship missiles on a fire support frigate that has expended its missile batteries giving the location of the launchers? It seems like a good tradeoff to me.
I think its a good idea. It lets them increase firepower quicker and probably cheaper than waiting on more cannon to be built. It's not "instead of" but rather "in addition to" the ship cannons. Also why couldn't they do something with thier rockets like APKWS or Copperhead and make them laser guided. then they could laser designate with marines or paratroopers or drones or helos. If we can do it they can too, and they actually have the will too.
DeleteAbout 30 years ago, this was the kind of project the USN could in it's sleep, nowadays, it would be 2 years late and probably cost a billion dollars....and it wouldn't work.
ReplyDeleteHmmm... maybe I see a use for the LCS after all. Load 'em up with MLRS and get them in close. They aren't going to last long inshore anyway so why not scoot in close, fire a salvo and retreat post haste where they can re-load. Just a thought. But I do see your point about re-purposing USN ships to keep a 300 ship navy. I always thought the Spruance hulls would have been good for another dozen or so years if they had been FRAMed.
ReplyDeleteI think one reason why the Navy Brass never followed up on the idea of the MLRS on ships (talked about since Bush senior was president) are several.
ReplyDeleteFirst , once everyone starts thinking about it seriously, they realize you could just as easily put a full battery or two on the deck of a supply ship like the USNS Bob Hope, and take down a whole beach head in a flurry of sub-munitions. And now the same launchers can fire very long range guided missiles. Moreover those big merchant ships are harder to kill than many Navy ships (in the Tanker war with Iraq in the 80's, we actually found many merchant ships could take a mine hit and just keep trucking). No Admiral want a cargo ship with big blocky lines when they can have an LCS (made to commercial standards) that is smaller, prettier, and their idea.
Second, the Navy is Carrier-centric. They must have those 100million dollar F-35's to drop bombs, and something cheap (100,00o in stock still) and easy cannot be allowed to replace them. I am sure the Surface Navy folks would love it:The tomahawks are too expensive (at 1 mill+ each) for mass launches, and the 5" has to belly up to within shore artillery range. But despite many suggestions of replacing the Harpoons or even a few VLS cells on the Burkes with them, it gets no traction...because the airdales always win.
I am not knocking the 5'' or the Burkes...we should move funds from the LCS to building more maybe at the yards now building the LCS. I only mentioned firing them from an LCS earlier because we already have 10 of the things.
Now a Burke with the 155mm of the Zumwalts AND a MLRS, and now you're talkin"
The USMC could easily put a couple of HIMARS on top of their helicopter flat tops.
ReplyDeleteOr on barges.
Or on LCUs.
The possibilities exist.