AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Re: Chinese sub thread
Like claiming China was the actual mastermind behind 9-11.
Like claiming China was the actual mastermind behind 9-11.
Chinese submarines thread
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
- Status
Re: Chinese sub thread
I was talking about this particular article...Perhaps I read it hastly but it covered mostly about chinese latest military equipments and talked nothing about 9-11 or other nonsense.
Now I may sound as your teachers but always when analyzing and most importantly when dishmissing articles, its best to focus on the actual contest, not to any outside and irrelevant issues. If you feel that some articly is inaccurate or gives disinformation, point out where it does that and explain how you have come to that conclusion. Othervice you are just being prejudice...
As the issue in hand is the chinese submarines, I ask you (all), is the stuff presented as facts in that article concerning chinese submarines valid??
I was talking about this particular article...Perhaps I read it hastly but it covered mostly about chinese latest military equipments and talked nothing about 9-11 or other nonsense.
Now I may sound as your teachers but always when analyzing and most importantly when dishmissing articles, its best to focus on the actual contest, not to any outside and irrelevant issues. If you feel that some articly is inaccurate or gives disinformation, point out where it does that and explain how you have come to that conclusion. Othervice you are just being prejudice...
As the issue in hand is the chinese submarines, I ask you (all), is the stuff presented as facts in that article concerning chinese submarines valid??
Re: Chinese sub thread
The article is so prejudiced as typical of Newsmax and is totally screwed on many points. Why don't you check out their website?
1. The Z-10 is a civilian helicopter. The WZ-10 is the attack helicopter. Big difference. The difference between an E-767 and something an airline maybe flying.
2. There has been many test firings of JL-2 over the years, starting with tests in 2001. So far most have been successful, including a full system test in 2005.
3. The JL-2 can carry up to six MIRV warheads.
4. The JL-2 cannot reach much of the United States unless it reaches the Kuril Islands.
5. A lot of Chinese naval and air bases are easily viewed by the public. Urban development has crept up until they are right next door to them.
6. Saying that the 094 will not be in operational service by 2010 is not consistent with DOD assesment.
7. The WS-10A is successful and it is not a copy of the AL-31F engine. It is currently being supplied for the J-11B, which has entered serial production. The J-10 will have to wait a little longer due to the J-11B consuming the limited quotas, but the J-10/WS-10A combination has already entered testing phase.
8. Russia has already assured the supply of RD-93 to the JF-17 program, an assurance made by Putin himself.
9. What problems did they uncover in the 094 trials? The first sub hit the water in 2004, had been fully fitted out and has underwent trials. It is currently stationed in a major PLAN base in Dalian, which is the HQ of the North Sea sub fleet. Apparently the PLAN is happy enough to green light two more. Given how the article has been so fundamentally flawed in other details presented, it has no credible authority to make this assumption. As a matter of fact, the author is just guessing. Is he assuming that one of the subs in the pier is the first 094 being repaired? The pier was made for refitting purposes. The two subs in that pier is high in the water line because they are only partially fitted out and not fully weighted in the water compared to the first sub seen in GE. If the first sub is returned to Huludao for repairs, it won't be in that pier and neither would it be high in the water line, since even a sub that is going into repairs would still be fully fitted. I wonder if you have checked SOC's blog on this , and this guy actually works for the USAF.
There is absolutely no credibility with Newsmax at all. And yes, mentioning that 911 thing is correct, because it reflects an organization that does not have a policy of checking the facts, or acting in a way that you can say is sincere in finding the truth. No one really references it. Organization with no credibility means articles with no credibility.
And don't talk about "prejudice" especially in the same context with a rag like Newsmax, a rag that is essentially full of that.
The article is so prejudiced as typical of Newsmax and is totally screwed on many points. Why don't you check out their website?
1. The Z-10 is a civilian helicopter. The WZ-10 is the attack helicopter. Big difference. The difference between an E-767 and something an airline maybe flying.
2. There has been many test firings of JL-2 over the years, starting with tests in 2001. So far most have been successful, including a full system test in 2005.
3. The JL-2 can carry up to six MIRV warheads.
4. The JL-2 cannot reach much of the United States unless it reaches the Kuril Islands.
5. A lot of Chinese naval and air bases are easily viewed by the public. Urban development has crept up until they are right next door to them.
6. Saying that the 094 will not be in operational service by 2010 is not consistent with DOD assesment.
7. The WS-10A is successful and it is not a copy of the AL-31F engine. It is currently being supplied for the J-11B, which has entered serial production. The J-10 will have to wait a little longer due to the J-11B consuming the limited quotas, but the J-10/WS-10A combination has already entered testing phase.
8. Russia has already assured the supply of RD-93 to the JF-17 program, an assurance made by Putin himself.
9. What problems did they uncover in the 094 trials? The first sub hit the water in 2004, had been fully fitted out and has underwent trials. It is currently stationed in a major PLAN base in Dalian, which is the HQ of the North Sea sub fleet. Apparently the PLAN is happy enough to green light two more. Given how the article has been so fundamentally flawed in other details presented, it has no credible authority to make this assumption. As a matter of fact, the author is just guessing. Is he assuming that one of the subs in the pier is the first 094 being repaired? The pier was made for refitting purposes. The two subs in that pier is high in the water line because they are only partially fitted out and not fully weighted in the water compared to the first sub seen in GE. If the first sub is returned to Huludao for repairs, it won't be in that pier and neither would it be high in the water line, since even a sub that is going into repairs would still be fully fitted. I wonder if you have checked SOC's blog on this , and this guy actually works for the USAF.
There is absolutely no credibility with Newsmax at all. And yes, mentioning that 911 thing is correct, because it reflects an organization that does not have a policy of checking the facts, or acting in a way that you can say is sincere in finding the truth. No one really references it. Organization with no credibility means articles with no credibility.
And don't talk about "prejudice" especially in the same context with a rag like Newsmax, a rag that is essentially full of that.
Last edited:
Re: Chinese sub thread
WS-10 is not a copy of AL-31, the development of WS-10 started before China gained access to AL-31, when China imported a batch of CFM-56 engines along with Boeing passenger jets in the early eighties, the CFM-56 had the same core design as the GE F-101 and F-110, in fact it is rumoured that one of the CFM-56's was a testing version that retained a lot of the features from the F101. The Chinese incorporated a lot of the know-hows gained from the CFM-56 into the WS-10.
WS-10 is not a copy of AL-31, the development of WS-10 started before China gained access to AL-31, when China imported a batch of CFM-56 engines along with Boeing passenger jets in the early eighties, the CFM-56 had the same core design as the GE F-101 and F-110, in fact it is rumoured that one of the CFM-56's was a testing version that retained a lot of the features from the F101. The Chinese incorporated a lot of the know-hows gained from the CFM-56 into the WS-10.
Roger604
Senior Member
Re: Chinese sub thread
PLA commentator Ma Jingshen said that you don't put two of your SSBN's together out in the open until you have at least 3 more patrolling/training/being outfitted.
This makes a lot of sense. It seems quite clear that PLAN now has 5 SSBN's. I'm guessing 4 of them with the hump, since PLAN builds things by 4's a lot of the time, and one new SSBN without the hump undergoing trial/testing. For the same reason, probably about 4 SSN's with the diving planes on the sail.
Thinking about the hints given by the big shrimps, the suggestion is that there was a turning point in 2005. I think the new SSN (diving plane-less) was launched in 2005. If it needs to be tested for 3 years or so, then serial production will start in 2008. That means PLAN can have about 3 more new SSN by end of 2010 -- for a total of 8.
The other hint is that the new SSBN is also launched very recently. Again, if it is tested for 3 years or so, serial production will start in 2010.
PLA commentator Ma Jingshen said that you don't put two of your SSBN's together out in the open until you have at least 3 more patrolling/training/being outfitted.
This makes a lot of sense. It seems quite clear that PLAN now has 5 SSBN's. I'm guessing 4 of them with the hump, since PLAN builds things by 4's a lot of the time, and one new SSBN without the hump undergoing trial/testing. For the same reason, probably about 4 SSN's with the diving planes on the sail.
Thinking about the hints given by the big shrimps, the suggestion is that there was a turning point in 2005. I think the new SSN (diving plane-less) was launched in 2005. If it needs to be tested for 3 years or so, then serial production will start in 2008. That means PLAN can have about 3 more new SSN by end of 2010 -- for a total of 8.
The other hint is that the new SSBN is also launched very recently. Again, if it is tested for 3 years or so, serial production will start in 2010.
Last edited:
Re: Chinese sub thread
Why would China build so many SSBN's? I've seen numerous Chinese articles that commenting on how the US nuclear arsenal and nuclear powered ships are unsustainable because it's extremely expensive to decommission them and dispose of the nuclear waste, and it has already became a serious budgetary problem in the US. So why would China build so many nuclear powered ships all of a sudden?
Why would China build so many SSBN's? I've seen numerous Chinese articles that commenting on how the US nuclear arsenal and nuclear powered ships are unsustainable because it's extremely expensive to decommission them and dispose of the nuclear waste, and it has already became a serious budgetary problem in the US. So why would China build so many nuclear powered ships all of a sudden?
Roger604
Senior Member
Re: Chinese sub thread
The vast majority of the US warhead stock pile is aircraft borne bombs of relatively small yield.
The US has 14 SSBN's, each with 24 Tridents. These are a very efficient use of resources.
China is smart not to build 10,000 aircraft borne bombs, and focus on SLBM or ICBM. Having 12 or so SSBN's would be excellent.
The vast majority of the US warhead stock pile is aircraft borne bombs of relatively small yield.
The US has 14 SSBN's, each with 24 Tridents. These are a very efficient use of resources.
China is smart not to build 10,000 aircraft borne bombs, and focus on SLBM or ICBM. Having 12 or so SSBN's would be excellent.
Re: Chinese sub thread
One should add that the Russians have 26 SSBNs by the year 2000, for a total of 440 missiles with about 2,272 warheads, more than half of their arsenal.
And yes it is extremely expensive to dispose of nuclear ships and submarines, which is why even the US, Canada and Japan have to financially sponsor the dismantling of old Soviet nuclear subs. That pace is still rather going on slowly because its not even cheap for the sponsors. A lot of Soviet nuclear subs are decommissioned but they are still mostly lying around the docks.
As for disposing of waste, waste is often recycled instead into stuff like depleted uranium. One of the reasons why DU is used in ammunition and tank armor is economy, the US has so much of it and Tungsten is very expensive---because China is the dominant source of Tungsten in the world (over 75%) and wasn't exporting during the hard core Mao times.
Nonetheless, you can see the huge value of nuclear submarines---the US has over 56 LA class alone. The Russians decommissioned at least 130 nuclear subs which gives you some idea what they had during the Cold War. It will take a long long time before China reaches to that point with her pace of production.
Why build nuclear powered ships all of sudden? That's because the PLAN is transitioning from a brown water to a blue water fleet. That means it is not longer myopically shackled to a Taiwan liberation mission. No matter how Japan likes to pretend with its conventionals, they simply cannot keep up with the range, speed and endurance of a blue water fleet. That's what a nuclear sub can do best, keep up and act as a fleet submarine. If you have a Chinese CVBG, and you want some protection underneath, you would want a Shang rather than a Song.
As for SSBNs, beats me. Its a surprise for me to see even three SSBNs because I am not sure how SSBN fits into a Chinese nuclear deterrent strategy. It seems to me that mobile DF-31 and -31A can provide a mobile and hard to catch nuclear deterrent. These located in northern China, have a better chance of ranging over the northern hemisphere than SSBNs in the Bohai sea. It is very difficult for SSBNs to break out into the Pacific because of the natural impediment of the Japanese islands from Tsushima/Dokdo acting like a guard to the Sea of Japan, to the Ryukus acting like a picket fence to the Pacfic from the East China sea. It may also be because China still respects and fears nuclear powers like Russia, as well as rising ones like India.
One should add that the Russians have 26 SSBNs by the year 2000, for a total of 440 missiles with about 2,272 warheads, more than half of their arsenal.
And yes it is extremely expensive to dispose of nuclear ships and submarines, which is why even the US, Canada and Japan have to financially sponsor the dismantling of old Soviet nuclear subs. That pace is still rather going on slowly because its not even cheap for the sponsors. A lot of Soviet nuclear subs are decommissioned but they are still mostly lying around the docks.
As for disposing of waste, waste is often recycled instead into stuff like depleted uranium. One of the reasons why DU is used in ammunition and tank armor is economy, the US has so much of it and Tungsten is very expensive---because China is the dominant source of Tungsten in the world (over 75%) and wasn't exporting during the hard core Mao times.
Nonetheless, you can see the huge value of nuclear submarines---the US has over 56 LA class alone. The Russians decommissioned at least 130 nuclear subs which gives you some idea what they had during the Cold War. It will take a long long time before China reaches to that point with her pace of production.
Why build nuclear powered ships all of sudden? That's because the PLAN is transitioning from a brown water to a blue water fleet. That means it is not longer myopically shackled to a Taiwan liberation mission. No matter how Japan likes to pretend with its conventionals, they simply cannot keep up with the range, speed and endurance of a blue water fleet. That's what a nuclear sub can do best, keep up and act as a fleet submarine. If you have a Chinese CVBG, and you want some protection underneath, you would want a Shang rather than a Song.
As for SSBNs, beats me. Its a surprise for me to see even three SSBNs because I am not sure how SSBN fits into a Chinese nuclear deterrent strategy. It seems to me that mobile DF-31 and -31A can provide a mobile and hard to catch nuclear deterrent. These located in northern China, have a better chance of ranging over the northern hemisphere than SSBNs in the Bohai sea. It is very difficult for SSBNs to break out into the Pacific because of the natural impediment of the Japanese islands from Tsushima/Dokdo acting like a guard to the Sea of Japan, to the Ryukus acting like a picket fence to the Pacfic from the East China sea. It may also be because China still respects and fears nuclear powers like Russia, as well as rising ones like India.
Re: Chinese sub thread
Also in the new GE pic, pippa in the CDF caught this small detail coming out of the assembly hall. It is not in the previous image of Huludao. Given its size, its shape, the fact its coming out of the hall into the road that leads to the dry dock, I say its a new sub.
Also in the new GE pic, pippa in the CDF caught this small detail coming out of the assembly hall. It is not in the previous image of Huludao. Given its size, its shape, the fact its coming out of the hall into the road that leads to the dry dock, I say its a new sub.
Attachments
-
Huludao_stub.jpg
Re: Chinese sub thread
yep, I don't think anyone really has an accurate assessment on the number of SSNs they have unless they have a minute by minute update of the satellite imagery in Huludao. Interesting to see how China will hide its subs in the future.
- Status