# PRC Developing A Surface/Sub Warship



## tomahawk6 (3 Jun 2017)

I don't know if this concept is practical. Can you make a submarine into a surface ship ? Perhaps. I suspect it may end up being more submarine than anything else.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-apos-massive-warship-future-132043454.html

https://twitter.com/peterwsinger/status/870708850273300480/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs.yimg.com%2Fos%2Fyc%2Fhtml%2Fembed-iframe-min.7f33a83d.html


----------



## GR66 (3 Jun 2017)

I'd imagine there might be a big advantage of just being able to "porpoise" just under the surface of the water.  No need to have a full pressure hull like a true submarine to travel at depth, but you could reduce your radar cross-section in order to delay detection and when attacked by anti-surface missiles you could dip just below the surface to avoid being hit.  Dealing with something like that would require a whole new class of weapons I'd imagine.


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Jun 2017)

GR66 said:
			
		

> I'd imagine there might be a big advantage of just being able to "porpoise" just under the surface of the water.  No need to have a full pressure hull like a true submarine to travel at depth, but you could reduce your radar cross-section in order to delay detection and when attacked by anti-surface missiles you could dip just below the surface to avoid being hit.  Dealing with something like that would require a whole new class of weapons I'd imagine.



Great point !!


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jun 2017)

This is exactly how submarines worked up until WWII, essentially small torpedo boats which could slip below the surface prior to creeping up in their targets and attacking. Even WWII era U boats spent most of their time on the surface, although advances in technology greatly improved their underwater performance. Only the development of compact nuclear reactors made submarines truly "submersible". and capable of operating underwater most of the time.

I see this as mostly a way of getting low cost "submarines" by reverting to 1930 era tactics. As a chaser, the USN could bring back blimps as a cost effective means of detecting and fighting this type of ship....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jun 2017)

The French beat them to it


----------



## GAP (5 Jun 2017)

Thank god that was before sonar....that boat had to be noisy as hell going through the water.....


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jun 2017)

GR66 said:
			
		

> I'd imagine there might be a big advantage of just being able to "porpoise" just under the surface of the water.  No need to have a full pressure hull like a true submarine to travel at depth, but you could reduce your radar cross-section in order to delay detection and when attacked by anti-surface missiles you could dip just below the surface to avoid being hit.  Dealing with something like that would require a whole new class of weapons I'd imagine.



Got to thinking - the counter is out there already.

A thin hull close to the surface means a torpedo and probably a light weight torpedo like the Mk46.

Delivery mechanisms to include LRPAs, any Maritime Helo, and the RUM-139 VL-ASROC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RUM-139_VL-ASROC


----------



## MilEME09 (9 Jun 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The French beat them to it



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Surcouf


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jun 2017)

RN 1918






https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_M1


----------

