PLAN SCS Bases/Islands/Vessels (Not a Strategy Page)

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

Take a look at this coal gas fired launcher and tell me if its angled or does it take up a lot of space. Actually from what I see its quite space efficient from a horizontal view because the launchers do not require spaces and slots between launchers to vent out exhaust gas.

The Chinese have been able to launch AshMs underwater, and in fact, this is the standard equipment for their subs today. So to say something like this

"It is, however, a difficult problem to design a reliable system that can break the surface of a rough ocean without causing the missile to fail on launch."

Except that the homework has already been done. The Chinese also has a few successful test fires of their own SLBMs as well. The text I mentioned was in viewpoint of what they had already achieved.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

kiki666 said:

Wasnt the reason that the launchers are angled so to prevent the missile falling on the deck in case it failed to ignite?

Click to expand...

That was said to be the reason for the revolver launchers on the RIF-M, but the VLS launchers for the Klinok, Shtil, Granit and Klub all don't show any angle at all.

What do you think its best the hot VLS launch or the cold VLS? I think both have its strong and weak points. Complexity of the hot VLS systems lies in the complex exhaust gas extraction plumbing while the cold VLS is in the missile ejector system.

Click to expand...

The bigger the missile is, the safer it is for cold launch. The launching cannister goes deeper into the ship, which means it gets closer to the storage and machine rooms. The blast is also correspondingly more powerful and it all happens within the bowels of the ship. As you can expect, cold launched systems also have longer usable life.

No matter what, a cold launch will kick out a defective missile out of the port.

Doesnt the chinese VLS system provide each vls cell its own ejector?

Click to expand...

The one on the 054A is a hot launched system yes, and you can see the ejector port hatches between the cel rows.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

Have a look at this article on the subject. Keep in mind I served in the USN during the Cold War and am very familiar with Soviet/Russian systems. I was an operator once and still work in the defense industry.



The Russian display isn't showing the entire system below decks. My only criticism of the article is that the author is unfamiliar with fuzing of missiles. A dud on launch might fall back on deck ( hasn't happened yet but anything is possible ) but it would not explode. Certain things have to occur before the fuze is enabled, these thing will never happen close to the launch platform, be it a ship or aircraft. Can't say more than that. Mahalo.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

does china need to tell the world what she's doing at sanya?

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

le thi kieuoanh said:

does china need to tell the world what she's doing at sanya?

Click to expand...

Western governments operate in the open. National executives and their cabinets have to generate papers that define national strategy for debate in their parliaments or Congress, as the case may be. Weapons purchases have to be justified by the strategic aims in these papers, and lawmakers can and do challenge the military authorities to justify the need for expensive systems. It is a largely open process and everyone in the entire world is able to watch the debate. Aside from certain technologies and actual war plans, very little is done in secret. I could crash this site with the volumes of procurement documents, aircraft and missile manuals, military training manuals, every instruction under the sun, that is considered to be public knowledge. You can buy an F/A-18E/F Natops manual on CD for under ten bucks on line! Every enthsiast should have one When we sell systems to Israel or Saudi Arabia there is passionate public debate in Congress whether to authorize these sales and what equipment we should allow out of our borders. Editorial writers write critical, sometimes harshly critical, op-ed pieces on policy for their readers to consider. It is a very public process.
With China by comparison nobody knows what the debate is. Nobody knows who China considers a threat and why and how their arms purchases fit into their national strategy. Of course China has no obligation to relay this information to the world, but then it has to consider that absent some good information, her neighbors may assume the worst intentions from her, which under some unforeseen set of circumstances could lead to a preventable tragedy at worst, or a lot of wasted resources at the very least. When you have to second guess a potential opponent one tends to want to err on the side of safety, costing you money and potentially angering your adversary.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

man overbored said:

Western governments operate in the open. National executives and their cabinets have to generate papers that define national strategy for debate in their parliaments or Congress, as the case may be. Weapons purchases have to be justified by the strategic aims in these papers, and lawmakers can and do challenge the military authorities to justify the need for expensive systems. It is a largely open process and everyone in the entire world is able to watch the debate. Aside from certain technologies and actual war plans, very little is done in secret. I could crash this site with the volumes of procurement documents, aircraft and missile manuals, military training manuals, every instruction under the sun, that is considered to be public knowledge. You can buy an F/A-18E/F Natops manual on CD for under ten bucks on line! Every enthsiast should have one When we sell systems to Israel or Saudi Arabia there is passionate public debate in Congress whether to authorize these sales and what equipment we should allow out of our borders. Editorial writers write critical, sometimes harshly critical, op-ed pieces on policy for their readers to consider. It is a very public process.
With China by comparison nobody knows what the debate is. Nobody knows who China considers a threat and why and how their arms purchases fit into their national strategy. Of course China has no obligation to relay this information to the world, but then it has to consider that absent some good information, her neighbors may assume the worst intentions from her, which under some unforeseen set of circumstances could lead to a preventable tragedy at worst, or a lot of wasted resources at the very least. When you have to second guess a potential opponent one tends to want to err on the side of safety, costing you money and potentially angering your adversary.

Click to expand...

I have to say that for someone as intelligent and knowledgeable as yourself, it's very disappointing to me that you would simply accept that typical DoD explanation of China not explanation intentions and not being transparent.

It's clear who their threats are. It's clear that they need to upgrade a military that is still using a lot of hardware from the 50s. The quantity of their fighter jets, submarines and tanks have been going down, but the quality has been going up. That's a typical modernization by any standard. Everyone knows this. But we keep hearing this China is not transparent talk just so DoD can justify a large defense bill. And what do you think will happen if China announces that it's largest threats long term are Japan and USA? Do you think the Indians will believe them? They will still treat China as their strongest long term threat. It's so absolutely obvious what their intents are, it always bugs me why people bother to ask.

As for this stuff about not enough material being available in public. Yes, they don't have as much stuff out their on their military hardware, but it's not where hidden as some people have made it out to be. It's always amaze to me that I can find enough open sources in Chinese/English to make good conclusions and these China threat people with all of their resources cannot. What does that say? They are lazy or incapable or incompetent. None of that is a great thought when you look at the tax deductions on your paycheck.

does china need to tell the world what she's doing at sanya?

Click to expand...

What do they need to tell? That they built a 4th base for the SSF and putting their most modern assets there? They can't create new naval bases and station new hardwares now?

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

man overbored said:

Western governments operate in the open. National executives and their cabinets have to generate papers that define national strategy for debate in their parliaments or Congress, as the case may be. Weapons purchases have to be justified by the strategic aims in these papers, and lawmakers can and do challenge the military authorities to justify the need for expensive systems. It is a largely open process and everyone in the entire world is able to watch the debate. Aside from certain technologies and actual war plans, very little is done in secret. I could crash this site with the volumes of procurement documents, aircraft and missile manuals, military training manuals, every instruction under the sun, that is considered to be public knowledge. You can buy an F/A-18E/F Natops manual on CD for under ten bucks on line! Every enthsiast should have one When we sell systems to Israel or Saudi Arabia there is passionate public debate in Congress whether to authorize these sales and what equipment we should allow out of our borders. Editorial writers write critical, sometimes harshly critical, op-ed pieces on policy for their readers to consider. It is a very public process.
With China by comparison nobody knows what the debate is. Nobody knows who China considers a threat and why and how their arms purchases fit into their national strategy. Of course China has no obligation to relay this information to the world, but then it has to consider that absent some good information, her neighbors may assume the worst intentions from her, which under some unforeseen set of circumstances could lead to a preventable tragedy at worst, or a lot of wasted resources at the very least. When you have to second guess a potential opponent one tends to want to err on the side of safety, costing you money and potentially angering your adversary.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much bull. Japan, a democracy, who looked at the the US as its best friend in the entire world, and totally dependent on the US for its entire military defense suffered through a vilification in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s where it found itself portrayed as more evil than the Sovet Union. Books were written, fiction and non-fiction, on the future Japanese attempt to aggressively take-over the world economically and militarily. So all your points criticizing China... Japan complied without question or challenge yet still the paranoid vilification of a staunch ally and friend of the US.

If China was transparent, that information would only be spun by the neocons to scare everyone into their camp. We've already seen the schizoid arguments towards China as laughably inferior and incompetent/ China is plotting to take-over the world. Reading your posts, you've pretty much haven't said anything new in regards to a Westerner's evaluation of China's military capabilities. Really if the West knows so much about this subject, then why all the calls for China being transparent? If that's the way Japan was treated, you think China would get a fair shake if there was compliance? All it means is the critics will find something else to complain about.

The base at Hainan has never been a secret except to the naively ignorant of the world. So why would they have to declare it. You're an expert. What's the big deal about an underground base. You would know more than anyone that a base like that can be rendered useless in a direct attack. So why the big fuss? Because it's all political that no amount of transparency is going to ease the mind of the hypocites. China has advertised to the world that a new space facility is being built on Hainan as well. And like clock work... more Western criticism and paranoia. Your points are invalid.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

le thi kieuoanh said:

does china need to tell the world what she's doing at sanya?

Click to expand...

No, you can have your agents, politicians, military personnel take a vacation in any of the five star hotels and resorts right across the bay and see what China is doing on that base with a binoculars. Heck you can even play golf too, or just simply stroll in the beach.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

man overbored said:

Have a look at this article on the subject. Keep in mind I served in the USN during the Cold War and am very familiar with Soviet/Russian systems. I was an operator once and still work in the defense industry.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Russian display isn't showing the entire system below decks. My only criticism of the article is that the author is unfamiliar with fuzing of missiles. A dud on launch might fall back on deck ( hasn't happened yet but anything is possible ) but it would not explode. Certain things have to occur before the fuze is enabled, these thing will never happen close to the launch platform, be it a ship or aircraft. Can't say more than that. Mahalo.

Click to expand...

No it is showing the entire system below the deck. If you look at the bottom of each tube, you will see the cannister for the gases and the mechanism to ignite it right underneath.

The system shown is actually a post Cold War system. The 3S14E is meant to fire Klubs and this system is currently operational with the Talwar class frigates. That means this is a system that is installed on something as small as a Krivak.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

man overbored said:

Western governments operate in the open. National executives and their cabinets have to generate papers that define national strategy for debate in their parliaments or Congress, as the case may be. Weapons purchases have to be justified by the strategic aims in these papers, and lawmakers can and do challenge the military authorities to justify the need for expensive systems. It is a largely open process and everyone in the entire world is able to watch the debate. Aside from certain technologies and actual war plans, very little is done in secret. I could crash this site with the volumes of procurement documents, aircraft and missile manuals, military training manuals, every instruction under the sun, that is considered to be public knowledge. You can buy an F/A-18E/F Natops manual on CD for under ten bucks on line! Every enthsiast should have one When we sell systems to Israel or Saudi Arabia there is passionate public debate in Congress whether to authorize these sales and what equipment we should allow out of our borders. Editorial writers write critical, sometimes harshly critical, op-ed pieces on policy for their readers to consider. It is a very public process.
With China by comparison nobody knows what the debate is. Nobody knows who China considers a threat and why and how their arms purchases fit into their national strategy. Of course China has no obligation to relay this information to the world, but then it has to consider that absent some good information, her neighbors may assume the worst intentions from her, which under some unforeseen set of circumstances could lead to a preventable tragedy at worst, or a lot of wasted resources at the very least. When you have to second guess a potential opponent one tends to want to err on the side of safety, costing you money and potentially angering your adversary.

Click to expand...

I would have thought for someone who has served with the military, still involved with the defence industry and as one of the most informative posters on this forum, you wouldve at least came up with an intelligent response to such an obvious question. But it seems i was wrong...