PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

Hendrik_2000 · Jan 10, 2018

(cont)
The new boy, where is he?
Finally, where was this photo taken? The answer will allow us to know to which submarine base this new SNA is affected, and therefore what is its geographical and operational priority.

China currently has 3 nuclear submarine bases, one located near Lüshunkou in the north, one northwest of Qingdao facing the yellow sea, and the last near Sanya on Hainan Island. It is not very difficult to locate the exact location of the photo.

A quick scan shows that the photo is taken at the East dock of the base near Qingdao, right next to a maintenance dry dock. It is in this base where the first Type 09III was admitted to active duty in the Chinese Navy on December 23, 2006, in the presence of former Chinese President HU and the Commander-in-Chief of the Chinese Navy.

A quick scan shows that the photo is taken at the east dock of the base near Qingdao.

An article published in February this year on the official website of the Chinese army also teaches us that a certain nuclear submarine crew # 35 is in training to receive new equipment since last year, all suggests that it is the same submarine.

Although the average depth of the yellow sea is only 44m, an inconvenient situation for the discretion of nuclear submarines that generally need more than 70m deep, but the base near Qingdao is ideally located what it allows it to have entrances and exits under the mountain, and also a quick access to the first chain of islands facing Japan, which is reinforced by deploying several facilities on the ground to lock the access to the Pacific Ocean. West by the Chinese.

The base is also less than 70km from the first Chinese aircraft carrier base, which is a little further south, facilitating the deployment of ANS to escort Chinese aircraft carriers, including the 16 Liaoning.

The following to follow.

Henri K.

Deleted member 13312 · Jan 10, 2018

Hendrik_2000 said:
In light of the certification of YJ18 I looked back to old article by Henri which I did posted in submarine thread
Now it make sense that SNA(submarine nuclear attack) has a hump. the revelation add credibility to Henri K speculation

A new Chinese SNA of Type 09IIIB?
BY

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A SNA Type 09III not like the others ...
On June 21, 2016, the photo of a Chinese submarine appeared in the Chinese Navy newspaper (人民海军报) and quickly made the buzz among fans.

Its length of about 100m and its slightly different shape compared to a Type 09III SNA indicates that it would probably be a new variant of this class. We can notably notice 5 points:

A: the front join between the solid and the outer shell is slightly rounded, as well as the top of the solid, as on the new SSK of Type 039B Batch 2

B: the "hump" or "platform" behind the massif whose height is about 0.6m

C: the presence of what they could be flanking antennas above the waterline

D: the disappearance of the navigation bridge, or at least the observation windows

E: The purge lines are positioned differently

The first 5 differences compared to a Type 09III SNA

The hunchback, that's why?
The question today is to know what is the role of this "hump" behind the massif. We unfortunately have very little information to date, but we will try to gather some elements that we have access as an amateur.

A commemorative gold medal showing a nuclear attack submarine with a platform raised behind the massif.

We know that the Chinese are working to make their ANS "versatile". Sources close to the Chinese navy had already mentioned for the past two years the development of a certain Type 09IIIB , which has vertical launch silos, not for ballistic missiles as on the SNLE, but to host both anti-missiles. and cruise missiles, all controlled by the same combat system.

So what's on this picture is Type 09IIIB? I tend to say no but not sure. The construction cycle of a SNA is relatively long, the works of the first Type 09III are started in December 1998 and he was admitted to active duty 8 years later in 2006. It is a little closer to this period that the Chinese navy Obtain unanimous advice on the need for projection capabilities against ground targets, and that associated research has begun. Although logically it is possible that the Type 09IIIB appear now, I still prefer to remain cautious while waiting for new more tangible elements.

Anyway, whether this submarine is the Type 09IIB or not, it's only a matter of time. Satellite images tell us that at least 3 nuclear attack submarines with the same "hump" were launched in 2015 at the BSHIC shipyard near Huludao, which is the only shipyard in China who has been building nuclear submarines since 1970.

the image of July 13, 2015 at the Bohai Shipyard shows 3 SNA in layout.

At the level of armament, I am already learning that it is the family YJ-18 which is chosen: YJ-18B for the anti-ship missile, and YJ-18 for the attack on the ground. There are at least 2 other variants of YJ-18, namely the YJ-18A that equips the new Chinese destroyers like Type 052D and Type 055 , as well as the YJ-18C which is a Sol-Mer version for coastal defense. .

This family of new generation missiles is close to that of 3M54 Kalifr Russian, we certainly remember the Russian strikes on Syrian soil with cruise missiles launched by an SSK from the Mediterranean and two corvettes from the Caspian Sea in 2015. The YJ-18 and YJ-12 are the two families of new generation Chinese naval missiles, and will eventually replace the YJ-6x and YJ-8x.

On the question of why this form of "hump": The Chinese military standard GJB-5860-2006, which defines the design criteria for the new VLS system of Chinese surface vessels, allows us to deduce that the launch tube vertical YJ-18A has a length of 9m, and it is difficult to envisage that the Soum-Mer or Soum-Sol version is shorter, while the width of the thick hull of a Type 09III is 8.6m. Assuming its section is circular, it is logical to think that you have to raise a part of the hull to install the launch system, if you want to avoid touching the diameter of any submarine, or sacrifice the performance of the missile by reducing its length.

We see this very well in a R & D document published in March this year, which studies the system of fixing launch tubes in a submarine. The vertical launch tubes are lined up in rows of 3 in this R & D document written by three Chinese naval officers based in Zhengzhou, city in which is located Institute 713 of naval group CSIC, specialized in naval systems and equipment.

I think it is highly unlikely we will see any Chinese submarines having such a configuration for missiles, but merely for research purposes. For one thing such a missile configuration is a poor use of a submarine's internal space volume. Secondly, such a configuration with 3 separate superstructures poking out is going to play havoc on the sub's hydrodynamic and acoustic design.
No, what I think is most probably is that we will be seeing a new class of submarine that bears similar resemblance to the Ohio class, if not the latest Virginia and Yasen. With at least a flatten back which is a better improvement than a hump which was due to the fact that adding the VLS to the Type 93 is more of an afterthought than any intention of design.

And if the anti-missile in the article means "Anti missile defence missiles" then that did be even more perplexing, it would require the submarine to have advance radar sensors to detect the incoming missile threat. Which would deviate from a submarine's main doctrine which is to remain stealthy.

Hendrik_2000 · Jan 10, 2018

Viktor Jav said:
I think it is highly unlikely we will see any Chinese submarines having such a configuration for missiles, but merely for research purposes. For one thing such a missile configuration is a poor use of a submarine's internal space volume. Secondly, such a configuration with 3 separate superstructures poking out is going to play havoc on the sub's hydrodynamic and acoustic design.
No, what I think is most probably is that we will be seeing a new class of submarine that bears similar resemblance to the Ohio class, if not the latest Virginia and Yasen. With at least a flatten back which is a better improvement than a hump which was due to the fact that adding the VLS to the Type 93 is more of an afterthought than any intention of design.

And if the anti-missile in the article means "Anti missile defence missiles" then that did be even more perplexing, it would require the submarine to have advance radar sensors to detect the incoming missile threat. Which would deviate from a submarine's main doctrine which is to remain stealthy.

There is no 3 cylinder poking out of the submarine . The cylinder will be cover by a shroud So I don't see what is the big deal. There is no hydrodynamic noise . And It won't weaken the structure if you add reinforcement(pad) around the hole They do that everyday in industry In fact it cover by the code . You can calculate the reinforcement pad

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It is concept illustration. But your other idea of experimentation might be right . Because they use type 93B as proof of concept or spring board for the type 95.

None of the 6 or 7 type 93B are the same they are progressively more sophisticated. So that is why they are confident that type 95 will be successful by building the facility to mass produce type 95 without prototyping

Hendrik_2000 · Jan 10, 2018

Here the calc to get 500 km range
Anyway, we know at least the following things: the solid propellant booster of the YJ-18, to push the missile and its military load beyond the wall of its terminal duvol, was tested in winter 2009 It is also known that more than 300 patents related to the project have been filed so far, and that the Type 039A / Type 039B diesel submarines started to have this missile in 2013, so even for Chinese nuclear attack submarines.

A source close to the Chinese navy also speaks of a speed of attack "lower than Mach 2.7", so that of the YJ-12 , but this remains to be confirmed.

As for other performances of this submarine version of the YJ-18, the text of the newspaper mentioned above simply mentions a 360 ° missile coverage area that is "600 times larger" than that of the old missile. Soum-Mer of the Chinese Navy, namely the YJ-82.

However, a missile launched from a submarine that has a 360 ° coverage can only be a vertical launch missile. The missile referred to in the article is, in fact, a variant known as YJ-18B .

Knowing now the range of YJ-82 which is 40 km, it is then possible to establish the following equation to find, approximately, the range of the YJ-18B, if one voluntarily ignores the minimum range of the two missiles:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The "coverage area" of YJ-18B is "600 times larger" than that of YJ-82 (Image: East Pendulum)

Knowing that in this equation the angle of the circular sector of the attack zone of YJ-82 is unknown, we have created a simulation based on the variation of this one to draw the YJ-18B possible range curve:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The estimated range of the vertical submarine YJ-18B missile (Image: East Pendulum)

The result of the simulation therefore suggests a range of between 400 and 500 km for the YJ-18B, corresponding to a scanning range of between 60 ° (± 30 °) and 90 ° (± 45 °) of the YJ-82. These data seem to be consistent with the speculated figures, namely a range of 500 km for the YJ-18 without specifying however the version.

Note that, according to the article by China Space News , the YJ-18B has broken several records of the Chinese navy, see "global" for an anti-ship missile. The text mentions the greater depth of the launch, a "record" altitude flying on sea, as well as the highest rate of destruction by a single missile in the history of the Chinese navy.

It is also the first Chinese naval missile to light its engine underwater and able to control its trajectory before crossing the surface of the sea.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Chief Engineer YJ-18 Program (Photo: CASIC)

Apart from the two submarine versions, namely the YJ-18 basic launch horizontally from a torpedo tube and the YJ-18B from a vertical launch tube, a third variant intended for surface warships, the YJ-18A , also joined the ranks of the Chinese Navy.

The existence of this version was first revealed in a television report from August 2015, in which we can see the missile, launched from one of the Chinese weapons test ship, hit a landing barge serving as a target.

Deleted member 13312 · Jan 11, 2018

Hendrik_2000 said:
There is no 3 cylinder poking out of the submarine . The cylinder will be cover by a shroud So I don't see what is the big deal. There is no hydrodynamic noise . And It won't weaken the structure if you add reinforcement(pad) around the hole They do that everyday in industry In fact it cover by the code . You can calculate the reinforcement pad

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It is concept illustration. But your other idea of experimentation might be right . Because they use type 93B as proof of concept or spring board for the type 95.

None of the 6 or 7 type 93B are the same they are progressively more sophisticated. So that is why they are confident that type 95 will be successful by building the facility to mass produce type 95 without prototyping

Its not the hull integrity I was talking about, but rather how much space it would be taking. If a submarine can have so much interior space as to place the VLS in such a spacious matter. The designers would have made the hull smaller instead. Real estate space in a submarine is already by design a luxury, as such the general rule is to lump all the same systems in one single space as to simplify and reduce the supporting subsystems. Such as the reinforcement pads.
And I don't think the design in question would even be implemented in a modified Type 93B, if the system is designed to fire YJ-18 missiles which is a fairly large missile already. The hull would have to be significantly stretch to include all 3 row of cylinders. 2 rows might be more plausible.

Iron Man · Jan 11, 2018

Whoever designs a triple VLS complex in that fashion should be shot for treason, end of story. That said, this is almost certainly just a thought experiment. In practice the VLS cylinders would be completely enclosed within the hydrodynamic hull and would probably be spaced closer together. In other words, like any other submarine VLS complex.

FORBIN · Jan 11, 2018

Hendrik_2000 said:
(cont)
The new boy, where is he?
Finally, where was this photo taken? The answer will allow us to know to which submarine base this new SNA is affected, and therefore what is its geographical and operational priority.

China currently has 3 nuclear submarine bases, one located near Lüshunkou in the north, one northwest of Qingdao facing the yellow sea, and the last near Sanya on Hainan Island. It is not very difficult to locate the exact location of the photo.

A quick scan shows that the photo is taken at the East dock of the base near Qingdao, right next to a maintenance dry dock. It is in this base where the first Type 09III was admitted to active duty in the Chinese Navy on December 23, 2006, in the presence of former Chinese President HU and the Commander-in-Chief of the Chinese Navy.

A quick scan shows that the photo is taken at the east dock of the base near Qingdao.

Henri K.

Dry dock to Shakizou/Jiangezhuang 1st Submarine base 36° 6'36.78"N 120°34'25.33"E in one older view appear a sub inside

Viktor Jav said:
I think it is highly unlikely we will see any Chinese submarines having such a configuration for missiles, but merely for research purposes. For one thing such a missile configuration is a poor use of a submarine's internal space volume. Secondly, such a configuration with 3 separate superstructures poking out is going to play havoc on the sub's hydrodynamic and acoustic design.
No, what I think is most probably is that we will be seeing a new class of submarine that bears similar resemblance to the Ohio class, if not the latest Virginia and Yasen. With at least a flatten back which is a better improvement than a hump which was due to the fact that adding the VLS to the Type 93 is more of an afterthought than any intention of design.

And if the anti-missile in the article means "Anti missile defence missiles" then that did be even more perplexing, it would require the submarine to have advance radar sensors to detect the incoming missile threat. Which would deviate from a submarine's main doctrine which is to remain stealthy.

Unique VLS and HUMp all others also for SSBNs are different mainly more wide this one seems adapted for a narrow hump presuambly 4 row of 3 cellules

New graphic sail and VLS very good hull maybe but few pics... first 091 to 98 m ( last extended about 108 ) first 093/A to 103 m ( i have insert ) and 093B about 110 m long

Hendrik_2000 · Jan 11, 2018

Viktor Jav said:
Its not the hull integrity I was talking about, but rather how much space it would be taking. If a submarine can have so much interior space as to place the VLS in such a spacious matter. The designers would have made the hull smaller instead. Real estate space in a submarine is already by design a luxury, as such the general rule is to lump all the same systems in one single space as to simplify and reduce the supporting subsystems. Such as the reinforcement pads.
And I don't think the design in question would even be implemented in a modified Type 93B, if the system is designed to fire YJ-18 missiles which is a fairly large missile already. The hull would have to be significantly stretch to include all 3 row of cylinders. 2 rows might be more plausible.

Stretched submarine as stretched limo is so common. So what is the big deal. Forbin answered your question already. Infact because of length limitation they need to put it 3 in a row

Deleted member 13312 · Jan 11, 2018

Hendrik_2000 said:
Stretched submarine as stretched limo is so common. So what is the big deal. Forbin answered your question already. Infact because of length limitation they need to put it 3 in a row

If the length of the submarine was a problem to begin with, the PLAN would be better off if they just reduce the number of vls on board. Looking a the picture of the Type 93B in question, can one honestly claim that such a cramped hull could have the width to have 3 vls without having a pot belly look in the middle ? Especially with that kind of theoretical configuration that gives each individual cylinder space between them ?
Forbin never really answer my question, but he merely put forth that the Type 93B could have a custom VLS. That may be plausible, but just because it is custom in nature does not mean that it can disregard the laws of physics.
It may not be a big deal if somehow the PLAN had mastered Doraemon's 4D pocket technology whereby they can stuff a house and then some on board the sub. What Forbin did raise as being plausible is if all 3 tubes were packed tightly together. Now that might work, but we will have to see it to be sure.

FORBIN · Jan 12, 2018

Viktor Jav said:
If the length of the submarine was a problem to begin with, the PLAN would be better off if they just reduce the number of vls on board. Looking a the picture of the Type 93B in question, can one honestly claim that such a cramped hull could have the width to have 3 vls without having a pot belly look in the middle ? Especially with that kind of theoretical configuration that gives each individual cylinder space between them ?
Forbin never really answer my question, but he merely put forth that the Type 93B could have a custom VLS. That may be plausible, but just because it is custom in nature does not mean that it can disregard the laws of physics.
It may not be a big deal if somehow the PLAN had mastered Doraemon's 4D pocket technology whereby they can stuff a house and then some on board the sub. What Forbin did raise as being plausible is if all 3 tubes were packed tightly together. Now that might work, but we will have to see it to be sure.

I don't have see ask me again

PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

Deleted member 13312

Guest

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

Deleted member 13312

Guest

Iron Man

Major

FORBIN

Lieutenant General

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

Deleted member 13312

Guest

FORBIN

Lieutenant General