09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread

[azesus]

The comparison with the Type 346/A is certainly not apt, since the first shipborne AESA was used in 1988 on the JMSDF Asagiri class on their FCRs. The first AESA MFR was the Thales-Nederland APAR in 2003, with Sampson following soon thereafter. The reason Burkes didn't use AESA was and is because the Flight IIA (with the PESA SPY-1) is still in series production and won't start on the Flight III (with the AESA SPY-6) until this year or next year. If you say that the PLAN is not 10 years ahead of the US in rim drive technology, why didn't the USN apply this tech to its latest block of Virginias, the block 4 builds? Or even the upcoming block 5, which only seems to be different from block 4 by the presence of the Virginia Payload Module? The timeline for the rim drive also does not seem to correlate. If in fact the 095 is slated to begin construction within the next year or two, its development would surely have started in the mid 2000s, which means that rim drive must have been already relatively mature by then, but in fact this technology apparently just finished developing in the last few years, or maybe even this year? How could this technology have made it onto the design sheets of the 095 back in the 2000s? This isn't some small module that can be swapped in or out for a more conventional design if it fails development. The entire sub, including the exterior features, would have to be designed around this propulsion system from the very beginning of the design process.


Already applied on a non-existent nuke sub like the 095? Good one. You're a sideshow at this point, good for a laugh and a kick to the side of the road.

Hey I am just being a messenger just translating what's shown in the subtitle shown in that interview of that article. You keep asking how would I know blah blah blah how would I know the specs how about I reflect that question back at you and see if you can answer your own childish stupid question. Let me take an educated guess I dunno maybe because China's engineering capacity wasn't atrophied because all the smart people wants to work in finance so they can multi parallel track their development who says R&D have to be linearly serial development? Are you the same shallow mind that advises Robert Gates China wouldn't have a stealth fighter until 2030 that's why he canceled the F-22 the only legit 5th gen fighter as opposed to that fat whale F-35? Do know know the average cost effectiveness of a dollar spend on R&D in China equals to about 10 dollars in the US? Stop trying viewing China thru US' lens or that's it's just your own colored goggles for that matter. Maybe its because China's MIC doesn't jerk their government around maybe? Maybe if you wasn't so stubbornly pin-headed maybe you could finally get laid and release all those passive micro aggression and yeah you are right I am laughing at you right at this moment haha lol

 

[azesus]

Already applied could be interpreted as they already known the principle know-how and are building modular component into whole right now in their facility right now. Most modern warships including Ford and Virginia are module build one way or another whats so hard about that? Oh you are still stuck in the mindset uni-body build with the LA-class? Did your girlfriend ever tell you winners finds solutions but losers whines about excuses? Oh wait my bad you don't have a girlfriend you are so annoying even your own hands wouldn't date you because you are so passive micro aggressive

 

[antiterror13]

I can sense some would be suspended or even banned ... stop it guys .....

 

[azesus]

Your mental blind spot is you keep viewing China thru US's lens but remember in the US most if not all the smart people wants to work in finance but in China is the opposite, smart people wants to be engineering. USN didn't applies the AESA to the Burke or Rim Drive to Virginia yet hat's because they have their own funding priorities constraint I dunno maybe because the US is currently engaged in 7 wars something has to do with that maybe? Just because the USN ran into trouble with its R&D doesn't mean China has to because its not engaged in 7 wars currently. You keep mentioning the word correlate you do know that's the dumbest weasel word only a pointy haired boss in Dilbert or someone who completely doesn't the how will use. It's pretty self apparent by now China is engaging in a modular multi track parallel concurrent R&D scheme

 

[azesus]

I read some article somewhere China begin concept about 095 around 2012 because by then of their nuclear reactor output design so they core around the 095 concept around the new up output reactor so the other equipment was just the added bells and whistle starting research around that time and the timeline on the R&D of rest it's equipment seems to match within the timeline, but hey my memory defiantly could be faulty and it was just an obscure article anyway

 

[Lethe]

The comparison with the Type 346/A is certainly not apt, since the first shipborne AESA was used in 1988 on the JMSDF Asagiri class on their FCRs. The first AESA MFR was the Thales-Nederland APAR in 2003, with Sampson following soon thereafter. The reason Burkes didn't use AESA was and is because the Flight IIA (with the PESA SPY-1) is still in series production and won't start on the Flight III (with the AESA SPY-6) until this year or next year. If you say that the PLAN is not 10 years ahead of the US in rim drive technology, why didn't the USN apply this tech to its latest block of Virginias, the block 4 builds? Or even the upcoming block 5, which only seems to be different from block 4 by the presence of the Virginia Payload Module? The timeline for the rim drive also does not seem to correlate. If in fact the 095 is slated to begin construction within the next year or two, its development would surely have started in the mid 2000s, which means that rim drive must have been already relatively mature by then, but in fact this technology apparently just finished developing in the last few years, or maybe even this year? How could this technology have made it onto the design sheets of the 095 back in the 2000s? This isn't some small module that can be swapped in or out for a more conventional design if it fails development. The entire sub, including the exterior features, would have to be designed around this propulsion system from the very beginning of the design process.

First, I compared Type 346 in relation to US developments, not anyone else's. You can use the other APARs you identified to make the same point (i.e. in relation to US developments) instead if you like, it makes no difference to me. The basic point is that what a nation is fielding does not necessarily reflect its grasp of underlying technology, the timelines are often out-of-synch and any number of examples abound. Other nations fielded naval AESAs before America did, this does not mean that America's grasp of AESA technology was lagging behind; America fielded VLO aircraft before other nations did, this does not mean that other nations were ignorant of VLO principles and technologies. Projects have their own logic, constraints, etc. independent of the underlying technology.

Secondly, in the course of your post you answered your own question. New Virginia-class boats are not being fitted with shaftless drive systems for the same reason that AB IIAs did not get AESAs, which in fact would've been a much more simple substitution. That you apparently believe it is more plausible that "Block IV" Virginias could be with shaftless drive systems than a clean-sheet Type 095 is rather bizarre.

 

[taxiya]

Source: Recent interview with Prof. MA Weiming shown on CCTV's <Focus Report>.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(starting at 8:00)

It was reported in the interview that (as claimed by Prof. MA and the narrator):

• China was the first in the world to have successfully developed Medium Voltage DC Integrated Electric Systems.
• Their progress in this field is 10+ years ahead of everyone else, including the US.
  
• They already won multiple awards with key IEP technologies (did not specify), now they're applying for another national award with the IEP project. One of MA's students is the project lead.
  
• The key purpose of their Naval Integrated Electric System is to allow the use of high energy weapons on ships, not just to improve noise, maneuverability, or efficiency. Those side benefits do exist, but the key purpose is to use high energy weapons on ships.
• During the interview MA pointed to a device explaining that it was their first project that has been ahead of the world. He did not explain what the device is, but from the looks of it, it is fairly clear that the device is a shaftless electric pump propulsion system for submarines.
• MA did not mention anything specific about the 095, he did not claim that whatever model will or will not be quieter than whatever else. What he did say was that they're ahead of the world in regards to this technology, and he did say it is something that will be used on their next generation nuclear submarine. He also said the tech is already being applied, implying that construction for said submarine has begun (if not completed).

Good summary. I have two corrections though.

1. The device Ma pointed at is the 3rd generation IEPS (2nd gen being the Medium Voltage DC) according to a post in cjdby

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, it is NOT the shaftless pump propulsion system which is right next to it with the billboard in between the IEPS. The cjdby post provided some other pictures to back its claim.

Ma clearly said in the interview "it has been used on our next generation nuclear submarine" when he pointed at the 3rd gen IEPS. So it is pretty certain that 09V and 09VI are the ones using it as at this point of time the next gen submarine can not be 09III and IV.

see this picture from the cjdby post. The red underlined device is 3rd gen. The one on its left is 2nd gen which is also shown in the interview.

and the device Ma pointed at


2. The suspected shaftless pump propulsion device and the billboard. However, this device was not mentioned in the interview, so whether it is used or related to anything is unknown contrary to the speculation by the popsci article.

 

[taxiya]

Why does China's weapon development have to follow US's tech tree ladder? Back when China just lack money doesn't mean it lack smart people, Silicon Valley practically a Chinatown you can get around town just speaking Mandarin. Just like the 052C skip right to AESA while all the Burkes are still using PESA and before J-20 came out people thought it would just be a improved J-10. And here we have people still stuck in the "good old times" and talking about the same grandpa 688I that can't get their repair maintenance done on time because of public shipyard backlog that averages a 4 year wait so now they will have to go to a private shipyard and get ripped off and the repair still not done properly due to the inexperience of private company due to the sensitive nature of military asset, that its dive certification has expired and serve as a barge, 688i so old every time it dives it's like taking a risk it won't resurface and it's just being noisy by been a aged metal fatigued creaky shell.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Attack Sub USS Boise Set for Private Yard Maintenance in 2019 After Public Yard Backlog Defers Job

Exactly a point that everyone must ask oneself today.

In the recent interview with Admiral Ma, he made it clear regarding IEPS which IMO is an excellent example to reject this kind of line of thinking. I summarize the interview:

1. US and UK were the first to put IEPS on their latest warship ten years ago. Back then China has not started research into IEPS. More than 10 years behind.
2. The US and UKs' operational (with lots of troubles) IEPS are 1st generation, AC generator + AC power grid + AC/DC converters everywhere.
3. US, UK and China are/were all working on 2nd gen (in China's implementation AC/DC combined generator + DC power grid).
4. Ma from the very beginning decided that it is better for China to go straight to utilize 2nd generation. Although he did study and made 1st gen, but that is not broadly used by PLA.
5. China is the first to put 2nd gen in production. 10 years ahead of US (no need to take number 10 as strict scientific figure).
6. China is the first to put 3rd gen in its next gen nuclear sub.

The end result is leapfrogging from 10 years behind to 10 years ahead realized in 10 years. Ma and his team is ONE of the MANY perfect examples of NOT to follow ANYONE's footsteps.

 

[antiterror13]

Exactly a point that everyone must ask oneself today.

In the recent interview with Admiral Ma, he made it clear regarding IEPS which IMO is an excellent example to reject this kind of line of thinking. I summarize the interview:

1. US and UK were the first to put IEPS on their latest warship ten years ago. Back then China has not started research into IEPS. More than 10 years behind.
2. The US and UKs' operational (with lots of troubles) IEPS are 1st generation, AC generator + AC power grid + AC/DC converters everywhere.
3. US, UK and China are/were all working on 2nd gen (in China's implementation AC/DC combined generator + DC power grid).
4. Ma from the very beginning decided that it is better for China to go straight to utilize 2nd generation. Although he did study and made 1st gen, but that is not broadly used by PLA.
5. China is the first to put 2nd gen in production. 10 years ahead of US (no need to take number 10 as strict scientific figure).
6. China is the first to put 3rd gen in its next gen nuclear sub.

The end result is leapfrogging from 10 years behind to 10 years ahead realized in 10 years. Ma and his team is ONE of the MANY perfect examples of NOT to follow ANYONE's footsteps.

so the main points are
* 1st generation of IEPS is AC power grid
* 2nd generation is DC power grid (woww, this is just wowww)
* 3rd generation is Medium Voltage DC Integrated Electric Systems ??? ...

Does it mean that 2nd generation is high voltage DC power grid and the 3rd gen is medium voltage?

 

[taxiya]

so the main points are

isn't it clear in last sentence "NOT to follow ANYONE's footsteps" in #1199 and in azesus' original post that I highlighted in bold "Why does China's weapon development have to follow US's tech tree ladder?"?