Chinese Armed Container Ship

Avimimus said:
Is it really inferior in terms of survivability? Depending on the container ship used, it might have sufficient volume and subdivisions to make hits on large parts of it ineffective.
Click to expand...
An older cargo ship with the hull packed with foam filled containers might take some abuse.

The bridge structure I would leave hollow.

Real radar pops up.

All that exposed tech might just be so much waterproofed foamcore.
 
EmoBirb said:
Quite frankly, it's only natural that the largest shipbuilder in the world will gradually become the main source of naval innovation, research and prototyping.
Click to expand...
If they can avoid fiefdoms…like their own LeMay or Rickover starving other things out.
 
This should definitely be experimental... It's hard to imagine there being so many photos; this frequency of leaks is practically like a livestream :oops: If someone ever manage to capture a video of these things being launched and fly away, I will absolutely explode... it is really insane.
 
I am surprised something like the Texas City Disaster hasn’t been weaponized.

If I wanted to invade Taiwan, I’d do it after my actual Navy ships got home and had half of the cargo ships there start spilling soldiers off the sides.

I have survived Alabama nearly 60 years—I can tough it out in a container for a few weeks with saltines and a port o’ john.

 
Last edited:
lancer21 said:
Closer view. How do you say Hurricat in mandarin?
View attachment 797013
Click to expand...
Imagine how far they can extend their ISR coverage with such a measure. Pushing it out further and further with cheap hulls. While ships like Fujian or Sichuan can focus on the genuine strikes on important targets and airborne early warning stuff.

Now, the launch portion is covered, and an EMCAT certainly has been proven more than feasible for them. But how will they recover the UAVs? Surely, not every drone needs to be recovered. I can imagine an installation of half the length launching Shahed/Geran style drones repeatedly and these wouldn't need to return, obviously. But larger, more complex, more capable and more costly drones probably will have to be recovered.
 
Dilandu said:
Well, this is unexpected:
View attachment 796396

A medium-size container ship, fitted with containerized missile, gun and electronic armament, was spotted in one of Chinese ports. NOT an arsenal ship - this unit have rather sophisticated fire control radars array, and could do area defense on its own.
Equipment identified so far:

  • Fifteen (three tiers of five, the data on picture is incorrect) 4-cell containerized missile launchers, presumably for SAM's, cruise and anti-ship missiles;
  • Type 1130 CIWS on containerized mount;
  • Four 18-tube Type 764-4 chaff launchers;
  • AESA two-antenna rotating radar of unknown type;
  • Two Type 366 over-the-horizon multi-purpose search & tracking radars (on picture incorrectly identified as Type 344 ones) - based on Russian export Mineral-ME ones;
  • Two MR-90 fire control radars (licenzed Russian "Orekh" radar), used for illuminating targets for medium and long range SAM's with semi-active seekers;
In short... it's auxilary missile frigate, made on basic of container ship, and rather impressive one. It have circa 60 missile cell capacity - about 2/3 of Arleigh Burke missile destroyer - and frigate-grade fire control system, capable of handling area air defense.
Click to expand...
This is essentially a full scale mock-up. Folks, this is just marketing. BAE produced brochure illustrations for the same sort of containerized systems in the 1980s. This is the same thing but with a bigger budget.

There is nothing stealthy about a low speed diesel powered container ship. Modern sonars could hear it coming from across the Pacific and individual ships distinguished by sound signature. Moreover, no country can afford to stockpile large numbers of expensive, modern systems to outfit small, slow container ships in the unlikely event of war. Consider the economics of sensor and weapons loadouts that are 50 to 500 times more expensive than the used freighter hulls they are meant to be mounted on?

China certainly has a large merchant marine and plenty of merchant mariners, something that we lack. I don’t think that arming merchant ships is any more of war winning tactic than it was in WWI or WWII, or even the Spanish American War. However, building this full scale mock-up has elicited a great deal of global attention. Which is exactly the purpose of marketing.
 
Tomboy said:
View attachment 797012
The container ship is now a fixed wing aircraft carrier with a EMCAT.
Click to expand...
Creating a mockup of a modern equivalent to a WWII “Catapult Armed Merchant” is marketing for a desperate contingency, such as providing very limited air cover to an extremely slow moving convoy. I’d presume that the aircraft would have to recover at a friendly air base or aboard a conventional naval flat top. Or if it’s a UCAV, it would still be a very expensive sacrifice for a single mission.
 
BAROBA said:
Finally something in my field of expertise :p
Ships only have a vague idea of what they are carrying, for safety. But nobody with bad intentions will give away the nature of their cargo of course. You can "choose" where your container roughly ends up on a ship. It is actually quit easy. You tell the shipping company that you want your container to be unloaded on the first port it reaches ( your target is somewhere along the route) and second you tell them that you want to spend as little as possible on the shipping. Which mean your container will end up on the top levels. Why is it cheaper? The risk of losing your container is much higher is your container is high in the stack on a container ship. Those in the belly of the ship are impossible to loose, those stacked the highest has the greatest risk of going overboard. ( Each layer is secured/linked to the layer below, and each link has a risk of failing.)

The biggest problem with this system, to blindly send weapons on a random ship is that there needs to be a powersource for each container, a method of communication between all parts (That is a lot of space for redundant systems, space that your weapon can't use...) and a whole load of luck to pull it off... With a bit of bad luck your radar is buried underneath under another container and can't pop out to scan its surroundings.. Or systems that are on two different ends of the ship unable to communicate with each other because the signal gets blocked by the tons of steel between them.. Or right behind the bridge or another obstacle, making it unable to orient towards a target..
A dedicated system makes more sense, but it leaves to many traces to its maker...
Click to expand...
Why hide? Procure 400 ships of this specification, all painted with PLAN colors and hull numbers, equip 20 with radar and containerized missiles, while the rest receive identical external camouflage. Then convert them all to unmanned operation and assemble them into a fleet headed toward any target port—isn’t this exactly what the U.S. military envisions as a drone hell?
The advantage of containers here is not hiding within merchant ships, but rather the possibility of rapid refitting using civilian standardized products.
 
TinWing said:
There is nothing stealthy about a low speed diesel powered container ship. Modern sonars could hear it coming from across the Pacific and individual ships distinguished by sound signature. Moreover, no country can afford to stockpile large numbers of expensive, modern systems to outfit small, slow container ships in the unlikely event of war. Consider the economics of sensor and weapons loadouts that are 50 to 500 times more expensive than the used freighter hulls they are meant to be mounted on?
Click to expand...
Erm... why should this ship be stealthy?

You seems to assume that it's some kind of Q-ship, the camouflaged missile platform. It isn't. It's auxilary warship, which operates openly under its nation military flag. Basically it's analogue of Royal Navy's multiple auxilary cruisers, that served in both World Wars with distinction.
 
Tomboy said:
View attachment 797012
The container ship is now a fixed wing aircraft carrier with a EMCAT.
Click to expand...
It's at best a CAM-ship with a couple of one-shot UAVs, and that's assuming they get around to stripping off all those bits of steel at the bow that are currently inconveniently in the way of the launch track. (I seriously doubt it's an EMCAT given the power demands, much simpler to go with JATO or gunpowder).

Think back to the Project Arapaho/Atlantic Conveyor/Contender Bezant/RFA Argus set-ups, and the WWII MAC-ships (and arguably USS Langley). A sustainable improvised aircraft carrier capable of more than a single launch cycle needs aircraft prep-space, workshops and ordnance stores and aviation fuel tankage and so on. Atlantic Conveyor's Arapaho installation was 6 containers long and wider than the five container rows we see here. If you want recoverable aircraft usage then you either your aircraft to have VSTOL or helicopter modes, which come with costs in other capabilities, and you probably end up concluding you need to start hacking the steel around to provide a proper flightdeck. If you want long term usage then you end up converting Contender Bezant into Argus.

If you just want one way attack drones, you're better off with the Shahed/Geran type container launcher - that 5 by 5 stack of containers is good for about 125 of them - more if you can figure out a way to safely ditch the top layer.

The AMC configuration is feasible, the CAM-Ship arrangement runs into much more serious questions of practicality.
 
The kind of use case I imagine would be supporting a CAP anchor a few hundred miles off the coast. If the fighters in the air need help, a ship like this could launch CCAs and have them in the fight in a fraction of the time that it would take reinforcements to fly out from shore. Once the CCAs have launched their missiles or are at bingo fuel, they can fly home and land at an airbase on shore. You get advantages in terms of response and loiter time, but I think using a ship like this as a platform for long-range SAMs engaging targets from the fighters is a better system. Alternatively, this could be used to support quick-response CAS over landing beaches. Similarly, though, I think directly attacking targets with ship-launched PGMs would be a better option.
 
Not James Stockdale said:
The kind of use case I imagine would be supporting a CAP anchor a few hundred miles off the coast. If the fighters in the air need help, a ship like this could launch CCAs and have them in the fight in a fraction of the time that it would take reinforcements to fly out from shore. Once the CCAs have launched their missiles or are at bingo fuel, they can fly home and land at an airbase on shore. You get advantages in terms of response and loiter time, but I think using a ship like this as a platform for long-range SAMs engaging targets from the fighters is a better system. Alternatively, this could be used to support quick-response CAS over landing beaches. Similarly, though, I think directly attacking targets with ship-launched PGMs would be a better option.
Click to expand...
A ship like that does ~15 knots.

A drone does 300+.

Your math isn't mathing.
 
Sferrin said:
And the first time they use one it's open season on Chinese cargo, fishing, etc. ships.
Click to expand...
Both the Chinese and Americans know their civilian ships are built for secondary military transport purpose. they're always been targets. I wouldn't doubt they eventually have hollow unmanned ships to saturate the water to taiwan and draw out valuable US missiles. What this does is the same reason US is putting containerized missiles on every ship - stressing out enemy war planners. a cargo ship isn't just a troop transport anymore. we have to worry about a potentially half a dozen or so stealthy drones might already be up in the air in that airspace. You can't just launch an antiship missile watch it explode and move onto the next target, you have to go in and clear the airspace.
 
Honestly, we are maybe five if not ten years away before the idea of being able to militarily conventionally deter China completely disappears. The idea that the US is some sort of peer competitor with China will vanish and the world will have to accept that China is far and away the dominant economic and military power.
 
SlothmanAllen said:
Honestly, we are maybe five if not ten years away before the idea of being able to militarily conventionally deter China completely disappears. The idea that the US is some sort of peer competitor with China will vanish and the world will have to accept that China is far and away the dominant economic and military power.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it'll be quite that soon.

China's GDP is still not even equal to the US. I'm positive that their goal is to equal the US GDP per capita, which means an eventual total GDP about 4x that of the US (at current population, though that will be dropping as their demographics collapse).

China's current GDP is a little under 2/3 that of the US and has been increasing about 5% per year for the last 5 (and trending down, BTW). That gives a doubling time of about 14.25 years, and a 50% increase time of about 8.31 years. Holy crap!

Having done the math, now I agree with you.
 
Okay, this EMALS thing is fairly ridiculous, even for an armed merchant cruiser or Atlantic Conveyor, Made In China 2025 edition. My guess is that this is some sort of psyop to confuse and frighten the peer competitor with spooky stories of mass mobilization of the Chinese merchant marine with People's War at Sea.

Is there even enough clear deck space to handle or recover the drones? What would be the point?

Yes, yes, continue to fixate on the 200:1 civilian shipbuilding advantage so breathlessly reported in CSIS Ship Wars documents instead of the many, many bottlenecks in military equipment production that are likely to arise under wartime conditions and the underlying political goals that are probably not served by protracted total conventional industrial war...

1767348497420.png
 
Last edited:
chimeric oncogene said:
Okay, this EMALS thing is fairly ridiculous, even for an armed merchant cruiser or Atlantic Conveyor, Made In China 2025 edition. My guess is that this is some sort of psyop to confuse and frighten the peer competitor with spooky stories of mass mobilization of the Chinese merchant marine with People's War at Sea.

Is there even enough clear deck space to handle or recover the drones? What would be the point?

Yes, yes, continue to fixate on the 200:1 civilian shipbuilding advantage so breathlessly reported in CSIS Ship Wars documents instead of the many, many bottlenecks in military equipment production that are likely to arise under wartime conditions and the underlying political goals that are probably not served by protracted total conventional industrial war...

View attachment 797139
Click to expand...
I don’t think there is any element of psychological warfare involved in the R&D of the PLA’s armaments; such a view smacks of Cold War mentality.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm not sure it'll be quite that soon.

China's GDP is still not even equal to the US. I'm positive that their goal is to equal the US GDP per capita, which means an eventual total GDP about 4x that of the US (at current population, though that will be dropping as their demographics collapse).

China's current GDP is a little under 2/3 that of the US and has been increasing about 5% per year for the last 5 (and trending down, BTW). That gives a doubling time of about 14.25 years, and a 50% increase time of about 8.31 years. Holy crap!

Having done the math, now I agree with you.
Click to expand...
While America's GDP in nominal terms is larger, in terms of PPP China overtook America in 2016, the first country to do so in around hundred years. Also worth pointing out China leads the world in manufacturing output, making up 18% to America's 9.5%. In the 20th century the US had the luxury of assuming that any conflict it entered into, it would be the nation with the larger economy and manufacturing base. China represents the first country where that may no longer be true.
 
chimeric oncogene said:
Okay, this EMALS thing is fairly ridiculous, even for an armed merchant cruiser or Atlantic Conveyor, Made In China 2025 edition. My guess is that this is some sort of psyop to confuse and frighten the peer competitor with spooky stories of mass mobilization of the Chinese merchant marine with People's War at Sea.

Is there even enough clear deck space to handle or recover the drones? What would be the point?

Yes, yes, continue to fixate on the 200:1 civilian shipbuilding advantage so breathlessly reported in CSIS Ship Wars documents instead of the many, many bottlenecks in military equipment production that are likely to arise under wartime conditions and the underlying political goals that are probably not served by protracted total conventional industrial war...

View attachment 797139
Click to expand...
The great thing about drones it that they are much more disposable than piloted craft. Recovery is probably not a necessary requirement.
 
AverageAmmonite said:
While America's GDP in nominal terms is larger, in terms of PPP China overtook America in 2016, the first country to do so in around hundred years. Also worth pointing out China leads the world in manufacturing output, making up 18% to America's 9.5%. In the 20th century the US had the luxury of assuming that any conflict it entered into, it would be the nation with the larger economy and manufacturing base. China represents the first country where that may no longer be true.
Click to expand...
I.e. manufacturing GDP is 4.7 to ~2.9 in China's favor(2024).
PPP will turn it into ~10 to 2.9. EU combined is just a bit less/more than US (2.7 nominal/3.2 ppp). Up to debate how PPP matters here though, when big chunk is bought in USD anyway, so lower number is perhaps more relevant.

As such, your last sentence may represent an understatement. It isn't may, it's 50% more over US+EU put together. Or 3 times the US, which are actually willing to commit to the Westpac.
This discrepancy is the reason why modern world lives in such abundance, as nominal economic activity in US/EU turns wheels of PPP manufacturing in China. It's also its potential doom.
 
Last edited:
pagliacci said:
I don’t think there is any element of psychological warfare involved in the R&D of the PLA’s armaments; such a view smacks of Cold War mentality.
Click to expand...
not to say this particular instance is but there's a psychological warfare element in any arm race, utilized by all nation states unless you think the chinese are too incompetent to exploit it.

There's always benefit in making your enemy waste billions to counter something that does not exist or just simply making them guessing whats real and whats not
 
Given a sufficiently scaled industrial base like China’s it would be well within the realm of possibility to design a modular container-based system of two or three power modules, a controller module, two or three AESA MFAs containing modules (side note, TRMs could be integrated into the container structure itself), and however many effector modules you’d like (CIWS, RAM, medium range, long range interceptors). These modular systems could all be on one container ship or distributed across a few ships in a convoy.

An interesting self protect concept to mitigate against stand-off non exquisite missile threats from most platforms, especially when linked to an exquisite hemisphere wide air and space based integrated sea, land and air MTI net, so you know when to turn those things on.

K8s air defense, LEGO container style.
 
Btw as another option - there's enough shoals in strait; such ship can be intentially grounded outright.
Not even that much of a waste - after use, just remove the containers; if you're lucky, even lightened Zhongda may not necessarily be unrecoverable.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom