PLA Navy news, pics and videos
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Does it really make sense that 4 dredging barges would congregate and remove sediment together from a single location? I'm guessing it doesn't. It's probably reasonable to assume those are indeed crane barges, not dredging barges.
Maybe they're there to haul a sunken submarine out of the water. Or maybe they're just there to fix the pier that had been partially dislodged. Even if there was a mishap at the construction site, there's no evidence that the submarine actually sunk. An accident could've simply damaged the pier, and so the sub was hauled away so the pier can be repaired.
There's many different ways to interpret the photos. Tom Shugart, the Heritage Foundation, and WSJ are all pushing the "sunken nuclear submarine" theory as if it was an established fact. But so far they have presented no new evidence that makes their theory any more plausible than half a dozen other theories.
by78
General
Perhaps not all four are dredging barges. If they were repairing/reinforcing/building an structure, a dredger or two would likely be needed along with crane barges.
No matter how I look at it.
At least that picture, the black parts are clearly only shadows of cranes or the dredge crane / whatever it is.
Last edited:
A research paper on the analysis of low frequency acoustic radiation characteristics of underwater submarine structure.
An SSK model likely based on the Soryu of the JMSDF is used in the study.
Posted by @Captain小潇 on Weibo.
An SSK model likely based on the Soryu of the JMSDF is used in the study.
Posted by @Captain小潇 on Weibo.
While pretty much everyone that aren't getting Xi-Bucks on Twitter and Reddit are fixating on the "cHiCoM nUcLeAr sUb sAnK pIeRsIdE aT wUhAn":
on Twitter (who really isn't a PLA watcher) actually noted something that is actually worthy of more attention - Namely, the absolute rate of Wuchang's expansion and buildup within a span of less than one month:
To put it simply - All those circled and shaded in red in the July 5th photo are merely flat dirt ground less than one month ago. Plus, further expansions of facilities at Wuchang are very likely to be still ongoing at that time (July 5), given the construction sites to the right of the photo.
And if anything, it does look like whatever's happening at that pier to the bottom has very little if no effect at all on the overall work of the shipyard itself.
Huludao isn't the only one gearing up for pumping underwater black sausages...
on Twitter (who really isn't a PLA watcher) actually noted something that is actually worthy of more attention - Namely, the absolute rate of Wuchang's expansion and buildup within a span of less than one month:
To put it simply - All those circled and shaded in red in the July 5th photo are merely flat dirt ground less than one month ago. Plus, further expansions of facilities at Wuchang are very likely to be still ongoing at that time (July 5), given the construction sites to the right of the photo.
And if anything, it does look like whatever's happening at that pier to the bottom has very little if no effect at all on the overall work of the shipyard itself.
Huludao isn't the only one gearing up for pumping underwater black sausages...
Last edited:
One WSJ article is more disruptive than sleepybot34. Not sure why people are still falling for fake news disruption tactics. If the WSJ showed a photo of a water pipe beside China's ICBMs, would we be discussing whether China's missiles are filled with water? If this article was then "confirmed" by an anonymous DOD source, would we start believing that maybe China's missiles are partly filled with water?
Last edited:
I think that it could be because the Submarine was already sunk under the ocean, that's why we didn't see it.
Maybe that could be the case since the amount of cranes gathering at that spot are pretty abnormal since there's nothing in-between on the surface.