Does ST marine secretly helps PLAN design and build 071??

last SG · 2007-09-19T10:47:54+00:00

US Navy subs, while very good in terms of technologies and training were not invincible..try read about the USS Scorpion which was sunk by an older russian s...

zenden9 SG

From many angle,it looks so similiar.
PLAN just looks like a enlarge version of RSN endurance class LSD

calvin2224 SG

Hmm.. the exterior form may have some similarities, but then again, hull forms are easily available designs. This amphibious ship does not appear to have a bow ramp as well.

equlus84 SG

I thought a few yrs ago, there was a thread here that claims ST Marines sold/collaborate with PRC regarding Endurance design

zenden9 SG

If i did remember correctly. PRC Minister of defense did visit endurnce class LSD few years ago and was feature in Pioneer Magazine....

oOprinceOo SG

so the design [ exterior ] is the same but not the interior

LazerLordz SG

The design hardly looks similar to the Endurance.

I would think it looks like a Chinese-modified variation of the Galicia-class LPD built by Navantia in the late 90s. With a lower bridge superstructure, streamlined bow and side profile.

zenden9 SG

Every countries did have their requirement. It is not surprising they did modify some parts different from Endurance class.. But the core is there...

The last pic showing the flight deck and the crank looks damm alike of Endurance.

Arapahoe SG

looks different perharps functionally its design have taken shap. is there any restriction from us designing military equipment for PLA?

LazerLordz SG

I'm more concerned about them copying our design.

coolant SG

Type 071 LPD currently is attending the North neighbors LPD bid, so I dont think SG contributed anything substantial to the PLANs new LPD project. Otherwise, Singapore would have stopped such a tender at the 1st place.

wonderamazement SG

China is well know for copying… Both military wise and commercially wise…

tek_koh SG

You think too much la Rolling Eyes

21Alpha SG

Well, I think China is fully capable of designing a ship without anyone's help.

Plus the only design for a LPD is to have the weapon systems forward, the superstructure in the middle and flight deck aft so all of the world's LPDs look similar.

archon1234 SG

Pls note that China ship building capability is among the top 3 in the world; Top 1 is Jap, Second place goes to Korea. The commerical ship building technological capability is fully capable to assist Chinese Navy to get its hand on most ship types & designs it wants - except a full Aircraft carrier.

In addition, Chinese naval yard is fully capable to constructing double hull submarine with full automated welding technology - that our ST shipyard is still looking. So it is very very very very unlikely that they want our LST design. Wink unless our LST can transform itself just like the navy advertisement few years ago.

Atobe SG

It is surprising that the Chinese Navy plan to build at least ten 'modern' tank-landing ship had preferred to follow a 6,000 ton LST design that is entirely unique to RSN, while other navies operate similar types of vessel classed as LSD and are of heavier design.

The following is an extract from a report that detailed 'The evolution of China's military policy and military doctrine', which provide additional material for discussion:

''In early 2007, the PRC Navy could accept into service a new type of a lead tank-landing ship (the entire series of approximately 10 ships). With an estimated displacement of 5,000 to 6,000 tonnes, it will have capacity to carry up to one tank company and up to an amphibious landing battalion. Right now the Chinese Navy has more than 50 amphibious warfare ships with capacity to land up to a marine corps brigade in the first assault wave. Putting into service a new series of amphibious warfare ships with improved specifications will almost double the Chinese Navy's capacity for amphibious landing of personnel and equipment--up to a marine corps division, which is already an operational-tactical level. ''

Note one part of the report - [officially denied] - had also included the following:

''According to reports in the media, China's Navy modernization program includes the building of three aircraft carriers with a displacement of up to 40,000 tonnes with Su-27 class aircraft aboard (up to 40). (19) The keel of the first warship has already been laid

Judging by the existing experience, the aircraft carrier group could be comprised of up to six to eight surface warships, two to three attack nuclear submarines, and one or two auxiliary vessels.''

Although the report provide plausible reason for China's naval modernisation and expansion as a force projection to protect its growing global economic interests, it growth path seems to be more aggressive then defensive by design.

China is surely building up a Navy that will allow it to invade Taiwan - in the event that a Taiwanese maverick President declare independence - and with a navy strong enough to fend off any American naval intervention.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

They are going to need more than just 3 40K tonne Aircraft carriers, as the US Navy can bring to bare 4-5 90K tonne Aircraft carriers with their accompanying carrier battle groups. Of course, they can make the operation costly for the US Navy to persecute, but the question is how much are the Chinese willing to risk their fleet in a massive duel not seen since WWII.

That aside, I vaguely recall the French deploying a new class of LSTs which are significantly larger than ours and many navies are employing helicopter carriers which also serve to deploy troops. I guess we should expect the Chinese to move in that direction as well.

Atobe SG

The advantage is with the Chinese Carrier Battle Group operating closer to home than the USN.

The three Carrier Battle Group will be reinforced by the massive land based air assets.

The Chinese will make it very costly for the US Government to deploy the USN as an intervention force to prevent China from using its military to stop Taiwan from any unilateral declaration of independence.

Even if the Chinese air assets may not be technically comparable to the air assets of the five US Carrier Battle Group, it will be almost impossible for the combined numbers of USN air assets to cope with such Chinese numbers.

The massive number of China's land based air assets will form a massive wave of hardware - that can be similar to iits aggressive human wave frontal assault.

Even if each USN carrier based aircraft can target 15 separate targets, it will hardly have sufficient on-board air-to-air missiles to neutralise the entire Chinese land and sea based air assets.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

Whereas that is true, and the Chinese are known to employ old Soviet swarm tactics, there is also the Aegis defence system which can track up to 100 targets, though the Koreans are using a newer and more capable version, and the US Navy has a total of 50 or so Arleigh Burke destroyers, and in addition, the Ticonderonga class cruisers. This is by no means saying that this is going to be an easy fight of course.

Plus, we shouldn't forget that the US Airforce could base assets in Japan and Taiwan. Congress might finally get down to upping the no. of F-22s if tensions rise sufficiently high enough to merit more advanced fighters.

coolant SG

1st, Aegis can track 100 targets doesnt mean it can intercept the similar amount targets. SM-2 only can be launched subject to fire channel available, therere only 2 APG-62 FCR on board Aegis DDGs. As such, if a combo attack from joint air & naval operation, the engagement by CVGs will become very complicate. Because CVBGs not only need handle sea skimming subsonic AshM like C802/803, but also supersonic missiles like Sunburn and Club-S or Club-N, as well as supersonic Anti-radiation missiles like KH-31P. In a real war, I doubt a complicate system will function perfectly as theoretically predicted. The Israeli SAAR V is a vivid example, the capable 3D volume search radar even cant detect a single C802 in time. Imagining, in real war, any miss handled missile means a punch and probably the breakthrough point to destruct the coordinated air defens.

2nd, its always true, Air power determines sea power. So the most reliable air defense of CVBGs is their shipborne fighter jets. Not Aegis, however, if its too close to the Chinese coast, it may face superior numbered land based fighter jets, plus PLA shipborne fighters in future. Unfortunately, Taiwan is too close to the mainland, and too far from God.

3rd, F-22 is a asymmetrical weapon towards PLA, but F-22 currently has very limited A2G ability and no anti-ship ability. PLA also has its own asymmetrical means to handle CVGs, its reported China developed & is deploying Anti-ship Ballistic Missile:

http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=174893

its reported China can blind Yanks satellite & even shoot down them by Ballistic missile as well.
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=232513
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=212526

PLA is featuring dozens of quiet SSKs and several NG SSNs. Those all pose credible threat to CVBGs operating around Taiwan.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

Originally posted by coolant:
1st, Aegis can track 100 targets doesnt mean it can intercept the similar amount targets. SM-2 only can be launched subject to fire channel available, therere only 2 APG-62 FCR on board Aegis DDGs. As such, if a combo attack from joint air & naval operation, the engagement by CVGs will become very complicate. Because CVBGs not only need handle sea skimming subsonic AshM like C802/803, but also supersonic missiles like Sunburn and Club-S or Club-N, as well as supersonic Anti-radiation missiles like KH-31P. In a real war, I doubt a complicate system will function perfectly as theoretically predicted. The Israeli SAAR V is a vivid example, the capable 3D volume search radar even cant detect a single C802 in time. Imagining, in real war, any miss handled missile means a punch and probably the breakthrough point to destruct the coordinated air defens.

That's because they were caught with their pants down. The radar was switched off because of potential misfires.

2nd, its always true, Air power determines sea power. So the most reliable air defense of CVBGs is their shipborne fighter jets. Not Aegis, however, if its too close to the Chinese coast, it may face superior numbered land based fighter jets, plus PLA shipborne fighters in future. Unfortunately, Taiwan is too close to the mainland, and too far from God.

Aegis, if you would like to know, is considered for theatre anti-Ballistic missile defence for the reason that their radar and missiles, the SM-3s, have the range to do so. True that fighter jets are the real power projection tool, but by no means are the only tools around.

3rd, F-22 is a asymmetrical weapon towards PLA, but F-22 currently has very limited A2G ability and no anti-ship ability. PLA also has its own asymmetrical means to handle CVGs, its reported China developed & is deploying Anti-ship Ballistic Missile:

http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=174893

its reported China can blind Yanks satellite & even shoot down them by Ballistic missile as well.

And the US cannot sink Chinese satellites? So what if the F-22 can't do ground ops? They are specialised fighter killers designed to negate the fighter spam of the PLA.

As for that Anti-Ship Ballistic missile, don't count on the Yanks having no countermeasures for that. The Yanks are not sitting on their laurels and it will be a mistake to assume so. Eventually, the Yanks will have their anti-Ballistic missiles working. Why do you think Russia is so pissed about the US placing a radar on their backyard? Because they know it might potentially work!

http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=232513
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=212526

PLA is featuring dozens of quiet SSKs and several NG SSNs. Those all pose credible threat to CVBGs operating around Taiwan.

And the USN has more advanced submarines than the PLA at the moment and are building the Virginia class which were designed for littoral ops etc. with more advanced sonar than what the Chinese have.