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

[tphuang]

Well if it tipped over where the sail faces the river rather than the pier, it wouldn't have necessarily caused significant damage.

We can see that in the picture with the various cranes gathered around the pier, the pier has also been repositioned so we cannot rule out if there may have been some form of damage that we cannot visualize.


It's also not like we have continuous day to day good quality imagery of the events there anyway (if there was such imagery then none of this would be a problem because we'd all know what had happened).



IMO, the people who are using the satellite images we have at hand, to declare that there was a major accident or sinking are being silly. However I think people cannot use the satellite images to argue the other point definitively either -- the images cannot prove that there was no accident or sinking.
The pictures are entirely indecisive.

the earlier satellite photos show there was pier on one side and some floating structure on the other side.

I don't see how a major accident where something blowing up or serious damage in the hull would leave the pier unscathed even if it tipped over on the other side.

It is far more likely that something small happened and it didn't mess up the areas around where the submarine was and they moved it elsewhere. And they need to fix up that are with cranes afterward. And this report blew up the situation entirely.

 

[Blitzo]

the earlier satellite photos show there was pier on one side and some floating structure on the other side.

I don't see how a major accident where something blowing up or serious damage in the hull would leave the pier unscathed even if it tipped over on the other side.

I'm not sure what you mean by the pier being unscathed, however we can see in the picture with the various cranes that the pier is in a different position (moved/floated closer to the shore) compared to earlier pictures.

See the relevant pier in line with the other two piers here:


See the pier moved closer to shore in the June picture with the cranes here

It is far more likely that something small happened and it didn't mess up the areas around where the submarine was and they moved it elsewhere. And they need to fix up that are with cranes afterward. And this report blew up the situation entirely.

I agree that something like that is more plausible, however objectively the pictures we have so far are unable to give us any direction -- based on the pictures, there is no way to honestly state whether there was a major accident like a sinking, or something kind of minor accident with the submarine moved elsewhere, or no accident at all.

Seriously, the entire discussion would be easier for everyone if there was consensus agreement that the pictures don't show anything and that nothing can be concluded or ruled out.

 

[hkvaryag]

I'm not sure what you mean by the pier being unscathed, however we can see in the picture with the various cranes that the pier is in a different position (moved/floated closer to the shore) compared to earlier pictures.

See the relevant pier in line with the other two piers here:
View attachment 136625

See the pier moved closer to shore in the June picture with the cranes here
View attachment 136624




I agree that something like that is more plausible, however objectively the pictures we have so far are unable to give us any direction -- based on the pictures, there is no way to honestly state whether there was a major accident like a sinking, or something kind of minor accident with the submarine moved elsewhere, or no accident at all.

Seriously, the entire discussion would be easier for everyone if there was consensus agreement that the pictures don't show anything and that nothing can be concluded or ruled out.

Notice this floating dock. Usually the shipyard transfer their new submarine downstream through floating dock

 

[Blitzo]

Notice this floating dock. Usually the shipyard transfer their new submarine downstream through floating dock

I am aware. I don't see how that has any relevance to the specific discussion I was engaged in.

 

[TaskDakota]

Personally I believe something may have sunk though what it is could be anything, I lean on equipment part of the facility. The salvage operations being conducted here seem inconsistent with submarine salvage operations which require specialized ships and a different technique instead of just lifting it with cranes.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Just as the satellite images of the crane equipment may indeed show a nothingburger, it is entirely possible that the DoD may have additional satellite photography - which the public is not privy to - that may indicate an actual accident. Recall that the below image had not been posted until the recent reporting of the alleged accident. We just don't know what information this "anonymous DoD source" has access to.


On the other hand, perhaps the biggest reason why folks are so fixated on the crane shadow photo is that Mr. Shugart's entire sub accident hypothesis is premised on that one photo, to be later "corroborated" by an unnamed source who might or might not be reaching their conclusion on the basis of Mr. Shugart's claims themselves. Defense observers might be more open to the possibility of a PLAN sub accident if the crane photos had followed and backed up an initial report from a DoD source, but the chain of reporting is flowing backwards here.

So, while the crane shadow photo (or sub silhouette photo, depending on who you ask) may not entirely rule out the possibility of an actual accident, the fact that the initial presumption of a sunken sub is constructed on a clearly-misinterpreted photograph places the credibility of both Mr. Shugart's and the DOD source's claims in significant jeopardy.

 

[Blitzo]

Just as the satellite images of the crane equipment may indeed show a nothingburger, it is entirely possible that the DoD may have additional satellite photography - which the public is not privy to - that may indicate an actual accident. Recall that the below image had not been posted until the recent reporting of the alleged accident. We just don't know what information this "anonymous DoD source" has access to.
View attachment 136645

On the other hand, perhaps the biggest reason why folks are so fixated on the crane shadow photo is that Mr. Shugart's entire sub accident hypothesis is premised on that one photo, to be later "corroborated" by an unnamed source who might or might not be reaching their conclusion on the basis of Mr. Shugart's claims themselves. Defense observers might be more open to the possibility of a PLAN sub accident if the crane photos had followed and backed up an initial report from a DoD source, but the chain of reporting is flowing backwards here.

So, while the crane shadow photo (or sub silhouette photo, depending on who you ask) may not entirely rule out the possibility of an actual accident, the fact that the initial presumption of a sunken sub is constructed on a clearly-misinterpreted photograph places the credibility of both Mr. Shugart's and the DOD source's claims in significant jeopardy.

The credibility of lack of credibility of the anonymous DoD official isn't skepticism that someone in their position may have access to information, intelligence or imagery that has not been made public.

The skepticism (at least for me) is instead due to the overall choice of quotes and the framing of the article as written.
If a clearer direct affirmation of the key points of the article's claims were made, that would go a long way to pump up the story's credibility to me, the shadow nonsense and lack of providing us with clear imagery notwithstanding.

 

[hkvaryag]

I am aware. I don't see how that has any relevance to the specific discussion I was engaged in.

When you look carefully on the 15/6 photo, not only the submarine, the floating dock has also gone!

 

[Index]

View attachment 136648

When you look carefully on the 15/6 photo, not only the submarine, the floating dock has also gone!
View attachment 136649

Dock expansions? Or just for opsec?

Imo SSKs (or even the small SSN) have a prominent role to play, especially in Asia.

 

[hkvaryag]

Dock expansions? Or just for opsec?

Imo SSKs (or even the small SSN) have a prominent role to play, especially in Asia.

That floating dock always help to transfer the submarine of 武船 to Jiangnan shipyard in Shanghai for further install of equipment, or directly to naval base in Shanghai for sea trial.