New (not totally) sailless SSN (09X?) thread

[sunnymaxi]

I'm picking the outsider because he has access to firsthand imagery, how does that not make sense?

i m absolutely not denying the expertise of Hi Sutton. but my point was, trio definitely would know better. anyways hoping for some clear photos. but if you see the first ever image of 09X it clearly does have sail but the small one. i can be wrong though.

Virginia class submarine does have proper sail. again we don't have clear images of 09X so cannot compare it.

 

[tphuang]

For several days now, we have assumed that this sub was not sail less but rather has a small sail. I don’t see how this changes that. Is the concern here that the small sail in his photo not hydrodynamic looking enough?

my issue with him is the assumption of 10-11m diameter and our estimation here is that it is 12m+ in some segment based on other photo. Which is where I came out with my dreadnought and hybrid hull theory.

now if it turns out that we are in fact closer to 10m in the outer hull, then we need to revise assumptions. But the original theory of stretched 093B for VLS seemed less likely given just the 5 large cells spotted. So it seems like the new theory is more likely.

if you think about things from his perspective, he analyzes it to be more conservative due to his disbelief that China can do two advanced design at the same time (not unreasonable btw, any of us would find that hard to believe without what we read from Weibo) and that it is being built in two yards at the same time. I don’t think his arguments are unreasonable but I also don’t want to underestimate the process that China has made studying small sail and nuclear electric tech. So it makes more sense to me what the big shrimp said.

 

[Blitzo]

HI Sutton is more credible when it comes to actually giving us a description of the submarine, small sail wasn't really visible from the initial image and it did really look like it just had a bump instead of a fully fledged but thin sail. Are you also seriously suggesting the trios have genuine useful insider information on PLAN SSN projects, for some other topics I would say maybe but for this definitely no. They are however very good for their analysis based on the images but unfortunately if you read their posts/analysis (Which I have read quite a few of them in the past few days) you'd find all of them are built extensively upon a single point which is the submarine is sailless and that is now false.

To be fair we've always known it's had a small sail, the question is more how big the small sail is.

In this case the depicted length of the sail seems consistent with what we've seen of it from released imagery, but the depicted height is more debatable and dependent on Sutton's interpretation of whatever higher resolution imagery he has available.


I would also add that a small sail submarine also doesn't really change the prior noise from the grapevine regarding the intended relative capability of this submarine.

 

[Tomboy]

I would also add that a small sail submarine also doesn't really change the prior noise from the grapevine regarding the intended relative capability of this submarine.

I don't really agree with this, if you were to listen to the original CHH podcast and read Xiyazhou's post you'd find their entire assessment for role, performance and future predictions are all built upon the fact that the submarine looks like HI Sutton's original depiction (aka like the original JN sailless submarine with a very low profile hydrodynamic bump, both CHH and Xiyazhou's discussion were heavily based and talked around this point). My argument is not about whether the submarine is truly sailless or not but instead that the Chinese side has been misled into believing that the submarine's apparent "sailless-ness" is alot more exaggerated than it actually is hence giving out overly optimistic analysis and performance predictions.

If HI Sutton's new illustration is accurate than many of the benefits mentioned and analysis by the trios and Xiyazhou in particular would be moot as the submarine clearly does have a traditional sail if not somewhat smaller in size, in fact I would argue this sail design would be more of an iterational improvement on USN's thin foil sail design mentioned by Xiyazhou in one of his posts:

The Americans improved this even further with the 774 class, where they used the so called "Thin airfoil" design to reduce the width of the sail by turning the sail into a glorified equipment rack and removing the sail access point.

Anyhow I do agree with @sunnymaxi that we need better pictures to make concrete conclusions, hopefully HI Sutton or someone else will post the images after a day or two as usual.

 

[Blitzo]

I don't really agree with this, if you were to listen to the original CHH podcast and read Xiyazhou's post you'd find their entire assessment for role, performance and future predictions are all built upon the fact that the submarine looks like HI Sutton's original depiction (aka like the original JN sailless submarine with a very low profile hydrodynamic bump, both CHH and Xiyazhou's discussion were heavily based and talked around this point). My argument is not about whether the submarine is truly sailless or not but instead that the Chinese side has been misled into believing that the submarine's apparent "sailless-ness" is alot more exaggerated than it actually is hence giving out overly optimistic analysis and performance predictions.

If HI Sutton's new illustration is accurate than many of the benefits mentioned and analysis by the trios and Xiyazhou in particular would be moot as the submarine clearly does have a traditional sail if not somewhat smaller in size, in fact I would argue this sail design would be more of an iterational improvement on USN's thin foil sail design mentioned by Xiyazhou in one of his posts:

That's partly their mistake for taking a drawing by HI Sutton too seriously to begin with --- the most important thing is the actual satellite image itself.

But if they really wanted to derive their conclusions from Sutton's drawings/interpretations, the relative and absolute size of said sails really should be the focus. E.g.: the height of the sail depicted now is higher than the previous hump, but also shorter for example.

Anyhow I do agree with @sunnymaxi that we need better pictures to make concrete conclusions, hopefully HI Sutton or someone else will post the images after a day or two as usual.

I wouldn't bet on this.

HI Sutton is more credible when it comes to actually giving us a description of the submarine, small sail wasn't really visible from the initial image and it did really look like it just had a bump instead of a fully fledged but thin sail.

Sutton is credible when letting us know that he has seen some imagery and on occasion releasing said imagery he has access to.

In terms of interpreting them, he is about the same as the rest of the peanut gallery (including us). In fact I would say one of the characteristics of satellite imagery analysis is that it is one of the rare instances when having multiple sets of eyes and brains on it is helpful.

Are you also seriously suggesting the trios have genuine useful insider information on PLAN SSN projects, for some other topics I would say maybe but for this definitely no. They are however very good for their analysis based on the images but unfortunately if you read their posts/analysis (Which I have read quite a few of them in the past few days) you'd find all of them are built extensively upon a single point which is the submarine is sailless and that is now false.

Compared to the rest of us in the public space, I would say yes.

 

[Tomboy]

That's partly their mistake for taking a drawing by HI Sutton too seriously to begin with --- the most important thing is the actual satellite image itself.

But if they really wanted to derive their conclusions from Sutton's drawings/interpretations, the relative and absolute size of said sails really should be the focus. E.g.: the height of the sail depicted now is higher than the previous hump, but also shorter for example.

I'm not trying to assign blames, I'm just simply trying to say that all of the analysis made before today from the Chinese side is now somewhat unreliable and should be taken with caution from now on because they based all of that on a faulty assumption. Xiyazhou's claims in particular on advanced next generation SSN (As most members took this to be the likely case, myself included) should also now be taken with a large spoon of salt now given that his entire reasoning was pretty obviously based on the original HI Sutton drawing.

To my understanding the entire point of all their discussion was the very low profile of the "sail" not the length so if newer imagery show the sail now being much taller than what was expected and closer to a traditional full sized sail, being slightly shorter in length wouldn't really matter anymore to the central point of their discussion.

 

[latenlazy]

I don't really agree with this, if you were to listen to the original CHH podcast and read Xiyazhou's post you'd find their entire assessment for role, performance and future predictions are all built upon the fact that the submarine looks like HI Sutton's original depiction (aka like the original JN sailless submarine with a very low profile hydrodynamic bump, both CHH and Xiyazhou's discussion were heavily based and talked around this point). My argument is not about whether the submarine is truly sailless or not but instead that the Chinese side has been misled into believing that the submarine's apparent "sailless-ness" is alot more exaggerated than it actually is hence giving out overly optimistic analysis and performance predictions.

If HI Sutton's new illustration is accurate than many of the benefits mentioned and analysis by the trios and Xiyazhou in particular would be moot as the submarine clearly does have a traditional sail if not somewhat smaller in size, in fact I would argue this sail design would be more of an iterational improvement on USN's thin foil sail design mentioned by Xiyazhou in one of his posts:


Anyhow I do agree with @sunnymaxi that we need better pictures to make concrete conclusions, hopefully HI Sutton or someone else will post the images after a day or two as usual.

I'm not trying to assign blames, I'm just simply trying to say that all of the analysis made before today from the Chinese side is now somewhat unreliable and should be taken with caution from now on because they based all of that on a faulty assumption. Xiyazhou's claims in particular on advanced next generation SSN (As most members took this to be the likely case, myself included) should also now be taken with a large spoon of salt now given that his entire reasoning was pretty obviously based on the original HI Sutton drawing.

To my understanding the entire point of all their discussion was the very low profile of the "sail" not the length so if newer imagery show the sail now being much taller than what was expected and closer to a traditional full sized sail, being slightly shorter in length wouldn't really matter anymore to the central point of their discussion.

I'm not trying to assign blames, I'm just simply trying to say that all of the analysis made before today from the Chinese side is now somewhat unreliable and should be taken with caution from now on because they based all of that on a faulty assumption. Xiyazhou's claims in particular on advanced next generation SSN (As most members took this to be the likely case, myself included) should also now be taken with a large spoon of salt now given that his entire reasoning was pretty obviously based on the original HI Sutton drawing.

To my understanding the entire point of all their discussion was the very low profile of the "sail" not the length so if newer imagery show the sail now being much taller than what was expected and closer to a traditional full sized sail, being slightly shorter in length wouldn't really matter anymore to the central point of their discussion.

It’s possible that the Chaguan group know the general intentions of the design without a good grasp of the specific sail shape, since their opinions are formed from a network of insiders which they belong to. It’s also possible that Sutton simply got the physical interpretation of the side profile wrong despite having better satellite pictures since getting a side profile still requires some squishy visual interpretation. Without knowing what Sutton did to draw the conclusions about the sail shape and sizing he arrived at it’s hard to really say how reliable his conclusions are. After all he submits an opinion without really showing his work. Either way I’d caution against making dramatic assertions given the available details we have on hand.

 

[para80]

If HI Sutton's new illustration is accurate

The new illustration captures the real proportions very well IMO. Its a pretty conventional sail, and its size mostly a function of the boat being reasonably large. Also, sails on previous Chinese submarines (SSN/SSBN) were disproportionally large, further overstating the difference.

If I had to name a vague reference example, it would be British Trafalgar or US Ohio (minus the dive planes) for general proportions.

Diameter also remains tbc. I think the boat is quite wide, and there's a good chance its single hull. But thats strictly speculative.

What the intended purpose of the design is remains to be seen. But I'd kindly suggest far more people, incl notional "insiders" are speculating, a lot.

 

[mister unknown]

Sorry, I'm a bit behind in keeping up with the discourse. Can anyone post a picture (if available) of this higher resolution pic that we're debating about so we can see this "bigger than expected sail" for ourselves?

 

[Blitzo]

I'm not trying to assign blames, I'm just simply trying to say that all of the analysis made before today from the Chinese side is now somewhat unreliable and should be taken with caution from now on because they based all of that on a faulty assumption. Xiyazhou's claims in particular on advanced next generation SSN (As most members took this to be the likely case, myself included) should also now be taken with a large spoon of salt now given that his entire reasoning was pretty obviously based on the original HI Sutton drawing.

To my understanding the entire point of all their discussion was the very low profile of the "sail" not the length so if newer imagery show the sail now being much taller than what was expected and closer to a traditional full sized sail, being slightly shorter in length wouldn't really matter anymore to the central point of their discussion.

I'm talking less about blame and more about the way these hypotheses emerge.

My understanding is not that the emergence of this submarine being a sailless one causing the grapevine saying it's new generation etc etc... but rather that the grapevine had known for a while that a new generation submarine of some sort was on the cards (possibly with details known or not known), and when the impression was one of it being sailless they went with that as being a major characteristic of its "new generation-ness".

With whatever revision of its sail actually is, the underlying impression of it still being a new generation submarine would presumably remain the same.