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

[Index]

If what's being claimed (a nuclear sub sunk in Wuhan) was true US Congress' (Anti-)China Committee would be holding a meeting very soon to discuss banning Chinese imports from Yangtze river delta. Again I don't think DoD officials should be seen as a credible sources on this matter unless they're testifying under oath given their history of spreading misinformation on Chinese vaccines. Maybe they'll be given a chance soon.

Also if this is true why is the Weibo account of US Embassy in Beijing silent? I'm sure they would love to replay the Beijing PM2.5 index scenario. Why isn't the State Department issuing warnings to Americans living in Wuhan? Are the US embassy and the State Department working with PRC to cover up an incident involving a nuclear sub in a densely populated city where I'm sure a sizable number of Americans live?

This is obviously not a technical post but at this point the whole thing is basically a big 'trust me bro'.

Id go further and say US DOD officials have now repeatedly proven beyond a doubt that they're non-credible. In their sadness and frustration over weak competitiveness, they have now several times latched onto crackpot theories and rumor mills, forming a clear pattern. Like their counterparts in Pyongyang, they can now be assumed to say anything no matter how disreputable or even non-existent the source, just to make themselves look better relative to their main competitors.

The default from now on should be assuming US DOD statement is non-credible unless backed up with clear primary source evidence. The repeated false statements show that US does not have or only has very limited first hand intel on China.

 

[Blitzo]

Id go further and say US DOD officials have now repeatedly proven beyond a doubt that they're non-credible. In their sadness and frustration over weak competitiveness, they have now several times latched onto crackpot theories and rumor mills, forming a clear pattern. Like their counterparts in Pyongyang, they can now be assumed to say anything no matter how disreputable or even non-existent the source, just to make themselves look better relative to their main competitors.

The default from now on should be assuming US DOD statement is non-credible unless backed up with clear primary source evidence. The repeated false statements show that US does not have or only has very limited first hand intel on China.

I think dismissing those kind of anonymous DoD source statements out of hand on the assumption they are non-credible, is not wise, but I do think they certainly should not be accepted blindly as well and should always be subject to application of critical thinking, having standards for evidence, and some cross examination.

But that's all stuff we've always been doing anyway.


Ultimately some DoD statements do have use or can be beneficial to filling in certain gaps of the picture, even in absence of direct evidence.

 

[A.Man]

Same location, different time and angle:

 

[snake65]

Hmm. Might sport a pump-jet with that kind of TAS arrangement.

 

[tphuang]

I think some sort of small accident with a conventional sub is a way more likely explanation than a large accident with a nuclear sub (or even mini-nuke).

There was no obvious damage to the pier. It made sense for them to send cranes there to do some dredging or cleaning after they moved the sub.

The claimed timeline would suggest the cranes dug out a submarine in a day and moved it out. since crane wasn't there on 10th and was there on morning of 12th (with no submarine near sight). If a major accident happened, I seriously doubt the pier would've been fixed up and the submarine would've been moved out so quickly.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I don't understand this question -- if a submarine (or any other vessel for that instance) sinks, the orientation in which it sinks will depend on which compartments and parts of the hull the water enters through initially, buoyancy, and any other forces acting on it.




Well, the argument would be that if a SSK sized submarine had sunk and rolled onto its side, in theory it could be fully covered by water and not visible externally.

The shadow of course is just the shadow of the crane, and not a submarine.

The point I'm making is that technically speaking, the satellite picture we have can neither prove nor disprove anything and is basically useless.

A submarine can have unbalanced forces on it if you purposely fill 1 side of the ballast tanks and not the other. But otherwise in an accidental sinking, the interior compartments are open. Water entering from the top can freely flow to its lowest energy configuration, which is all water at the bottom. If the hull was compromised, like in a regular sinking, and compartments were closed, yes sure it can list. But that is unlikely since hull compromise on a brand new sub is obvious.

There are also horizontal stabilizers in shallow water that can resist torque.

If you can see the shadow of the submarine hull, why wouldn't you be able to see the conning tower at the same depth?

You know this isn't without historical precedent either. In 1960s USS Guitarro sank at a river shipyard. Here's how it sank:

1. Straight down.
2. With the conning tower visible.

The sinking was fairly obvious.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I think some sort of small accident with a conventional sub is a way more likely explanation than a large accident with a nuclear sub (or even mini-nuke).

There was no obvious damage to the pier. It made sense for them to send cranes there to do some dredging or cleaning after they moved the sub.

The claimed timeline would suggest the cranes dug out a submarine in a day and moved it out. since crane wasn't there on 10th and was there on morning of 12th (with no submarine near sight). If a major accident happened, I seriously doubt the pier would've been fixed up and the submarine would've been moved out so quickly.

Based on historical precedent, a sinking of a sub takes hours and days to refloat. This didn't not only take days, it was overnight.

USS Guitarro took 1 hour to sink after water flooded in from a topside hatch. Refloating took 3 days.

And this assumes there was a problem with a submarine at all.

 

[Maikeru]

"Hey look, a brand new Chinese sub sank! Here's a picture!"

"No, that's a crane shadow."

"Uh, OK, but the sub was still there, it was submerged."

"Well the river is only about 5m deep there so even if it sank it would still be showing."

"No, no, it's dredged in that part."

"But the fin would still be showing."

"It's on its side!"

"Even if all those assumptions were true, why are we only hearing about this now, months after the event?"

"Look, China could easily disprove this by just showing us pictures of their brand new sub..."

 

[tokenanalyst]

I think some sort of small accident with a conventional sub is a way more likely explanation than a large accident with a nuclear sub (or even mini-nuke).

There was no obvious damage to the pier. It made sense for them to send cranes there to do some dredging or cleaning after they moved the sub.

The claimed timeline would suggest the cranes dug out a submarine in a day and moved it out. since crane wasn't there on 10th and was there on morning of 12th (with no submarine near sight). If a major accident happened, I seriously doubt the pier would've been fixed up and the submarine would've been moved out so quickly.

I dont think there was a accident at all, I thing they dredging for something there, working for more space. They move the pier <I guess is a floating pier> to avoid damaging it


They expanded the facilities with new buildings in less than a month

 

[Maikeru]

I dont think there was a accident at all, I thing they dredging for something there, working for more space. They move the pier <I guess is a floating pier> to avoid damaging it

View attachment 136585
They expanded the facilities with new buildings in less than a month
View attachment 136588

What's up with the field which was gray-green in the first picture but is largely blue in the second picture?