Article Archive: Current 1999 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Surface Forces: Chinese Catamaran Gunboats Proliferate
   Next Article → PROCUREMENT: A Nasty Situation

December 5, 2007: China is apparently mass producing its new Type 022 (sometimes called 2208) patrol boat. The design is similar to the U.S. LCS (Littoral Combat Ship), but much smaller (220 tons and 140 feet long) and more of a patrol boat than a flexible ship (as the U.S. LCS is). The 2208 is a stealthy, wave-piercing catamaran. It is highly automated, requiring a crew of only twelve. It carries a 30mm multi-barrel auto cannon (a Russian anti-missile system) and anti-ship missiles. At first it was thought that this class was an experiment, as China had been buying, and taking apart, Australian catamarans for several years. But now it appears that several dozen of the Type 022 are in production. This worries Taiwan, for such ships would be able to operate in the open waters between China and Taiwan, and play a part in an invasion of Taiwan.

 

 

Next Article → PROCUREMENT: A Nasty Situation
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
gf0012-aust       12/5/2007 6:56:39 AM
 
The 2208 is based on a design stolen from the Australian shipbuilding company AMD.  They had an interim agreement to work in partnership with a chinese ferry company. (SBI)  SBI also purchased half  a dozen various hull types as "ferries".
 
The PLAN adapted a design of the AMD 350 through their shell, Sea Bus International, located in Guangzhou.
 
Although the design was selected by PLAN, the ships are painted in Chinese Marines camouflage colours.
 
The company (AMD) was incredibly naive on this partnering deal and there is some obvious consternation that their IP has been abused.
 
IIRC they are using french maritime diesels. (which is a change as the preference is nomally for MTU's)
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Procurement question...   12/5/2007 11:26:17 AM
 
I wonder if the Chinese boats cost $500 million each to build and take decades to build?
 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       12/5/2007 11:35:45 AM
Not likely, they would rather use the $500 million to build another dam to generate electricity rather than a surface vessel, which is more likely a slap on commercial hull with the current pick of russian naval armaments mix.

However the PRC might be tempted to wave that $500 mil if it were for another "promising" domestic nuclear sub project with domestic production potential.

 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       12/5/2007 12:55:04 PM
WTF is this?
 
 
http://bbsimages.military.china.com/1011/2007/11/14/941.jpg" width=588 border=0>
Angle reflectors? WTF?
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    $500 million   12/5/2007 12:56:37 PM
That is about where our USN LCS program sits today with development for a platinum gun boat at around $500million with not a damn thing to show for it but a couple of unfinished hulls that look for all the world like a small industrial utility platform. The Chinese stole someone else's design and built the damn thing with slave labor! We can't build a bath tub for less than a billion dollars. We ought to hire that Aussie to do it for US, they could deliver one in a few months for a few Million. Taxpayer frustration.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    that $500 million   12/5/2007 2:52:43 PM
I'd have to dig around, but...
I remember discussions on here from a couple years ago (2004 even?) about the LCS program,
and its proponents trying to pawn off its then-$330 million price tag and its modularity as its saving graces versus more expensive platforms,
something akin to a little more well-rounded frigate/corvette, such as the at-the-time $500 million Spanish F100.
 
 
...would the US have just been further off then if we'd had ordered F100s instead?
Seems we'd actually have a few more hulls in the water by now, maybe even a couple already under initial sea trials.
 
In the end, shame on both LCS groups.
Do we have anything of value to actually show for the money spent, other than empty promises by said contractors of, "Look at all the new tech know-how we've achieved in developing the LCS!" ?
 
And has even a single modular mission module been delivered to the USN for testing and eval on a surrogate platform yet, or even from a shore-based test rig?
 
Question is, will we ever see said tech get to sea in a worthwhile platform within the next, say, decade? Quarter century?
 
(...and to think people still have faith that the DDG-1000 will succeed and reach production?)
Would buying into the F100 program back then have capsized the USN's plans any worse off than we are now with a mostly-stalled LCS program?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    You are forgetting our options at the time.   12/5/2007 3:08:17 PM
Under US law, we have to build our warships in the US.
 
We can design a frigate as good as anything that is on Earth, better in fact since many foreign designs use OUR technology.
 
The question is why did we allow this LCS and DDX disaster to begin in the first place?
 
Mission drives design. We KNOW our mission, so how did we screw up our design requirements?
 
The imbeciles who drew up the mission LCS requirements need to answer those questions. There was enough incompetence shown here to make me suspect criminal intent? Remember that the original requirements popped up about ten years ago? 
 
Lots of questions, not to many satisfactory answers we have. Somebody needs to be Bynged over this.
 
Herald  
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    We are dumb.   12/5/2007 6:26:00 PM

Under US law, we have to build our warships in the US.
 We can design a frigate as good as anything that is on Earth, better in fact since many foreign designs use OUR technology.
The question is why did we allow this LCS and DDX disaster to begin in the first place?Mission drives design. We KNOW our mission, so how did we screw up our design requirements?

The imbeciles who drew up the mission LCS requirements need to answer those questions. There was enough incompetence shown here to make me suspect criminal intent? Remember that the original requirements popped up about ten years ago? 
 
Lots of questions, not to many satisfactory answers we have. Somebody needs to be Bynged over this.
Herald  
 

For a proud nautical nation we can't seem to figure out how to build a Navy since the Cold War! I did not forget our laws on the matter I was just being sarcastic but I have no doubt we could pick up a phone and have a ship delivered from somewhere else in the time it would take our domestic builders to shuffle their congressman to help them in the bid process!
We are dumb.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       12/5/2007 7:04:57 PM

WTF is this?
 
Angle reflectors? WTF?
 
Needless to say, theses aren't 2208's.  Just goes to show that sometimes you can copy concepts as much as you like, but if you don't understand the mechanics you end up with a lemon.
 
 
http://bbsimages.military.china.com/1011/2007/11/14/940.jpg" width=1024 border=0>
 
http://bbsimages.military.china.com/1011/2007/11/14/941.jpg" width=1024 border=0>
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       12/5/2007 7:16:06 PM

WTF is this?

 

link
 

http://bbsimages.military.china.com/1011/2007/11/14/941.jpg" width=588 border=0>

Angle reflectors? WTF?



You know, YC and GF, this is a crazy thought: but those could be PRC banzai boats. Think about it. Why would you mount radar reflector targets on a badly designed barge like this? Thoughts?
Herald
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT