09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread
- Thread starter SinoSoldier
- Start date
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
4 piers 2 x nuclear submarine on each side thats 8 x submarines right there
just up the road there is 2 massive 3,000ft piers which usually hold the satellite tracking ships and Type 901 tankers
just up the road there is 2 massive 3,000ft piers which usually hold the satellite tracking ships and Type 901 tankers
escobar
Brigadier
STRATCOM say JIN-Class ballistic submarines are capable of firing JL-3 missiles...
"Was JL-2 a failure?"
I don't think a missile doing its role for two decades is a failure.
If there is a PLAN SLBM that can be called a "failure" it would be JL-1. Even that one worked perfectly. The only "failure" part is that it wasn't as good as Trident and didn't have extreme long ranges like JL-2 does.
Even the JL-1 was perfectly serviceable and created no problems. None of them are failures in any sense except to say JL-1 didn't compare with JL-2 or Trident missiles from US and UK or the Russian SLBMs. Even in this field, it was lesser in range and that was it.
Indians up to now only have K-15 as a "SLBM" even though it is barely MRBM ranged. It isn't a failure either since it works and it is in service.
JL-2 was not a failure lol. That's like saying DF-31 is a failure because China got a better missile ready - DF-41. Is every American ICBM and SLBM that have since become obsolete and replaced in service by a newer model also failures?
Extreme naivety and faulty logic from Kristensen. His other stuff are often troll material as well.
Even the JL-1 was perfectly serviceable and created no problems. None of them are failures in any sense except to say JL-1 didn't compare with JL-2 or Trident missiles from US and UK or the Russian SLBMs. Even in this field, it was lesser in range and that was it.
Indians up to now only have K-15 as a "SLBM" even though it is barely MRBM ranged. It isn't a failure either since it works and it is in service.
JL-2 was not a failure lol. That's like saying DF-31 is a failure because China got a better missile ready - DF-41. Is every American ICBM and SLBM that have since become obsolete and replaced in service by a newer model also failures?
Extreme naivety and faulty logic from Kristensen. His other stuff are often troll material as well.
It's likely that the JL-3 comment was made in error - what they're calling "JL-3" might be what we call JL-2A. It's ultimately a matter of missile dimensions; just from eyeballing the JL-2 during the 2019 parade, it's a small missile that matches the DF-31 dimensionally. It's highly unlikely that an SLBM derived from the DF-41 would be that small. Unless the 09-IV has launch tubes that can accommodate a much larger missile than the JL-2 (in which case, why waste the space by loading a small missile to begin with?), or at least newer submarines do, this just doesn't pass the smell test.
escobar
Brigadier
What source say JL-3 derived from DF-41? and what is JL-2A?
Wasn't the most recent test of JL-3 alleged to be from a stationary undersea platform?
Was the newer 094 designed with the extra space for a bigger missile? Very inconceivable. It is better to conclude that this person is not credible than to believe that JL-3 has found space within Type 094.
OR JL-2D and JL-3 has very little change in dimensions. And the SLBM for the next 096 would be an enlarged JL-3X.
( And I'm not even well versed in this subject).
Was the newer 094 designed with the extra space for a bigger missile? Very inconceivable. It is better to conclude that this person is not credible than to believe that JL-3 has found space within Type 094.
OR JL-2D and JL-3 has very little change in dimensions. And the SLBM for the next 096 would be an enlarged JL-3X.
( And I'm not even well versed in this subject).