PLAN Type 035/039/091/092 Submarine Thread
- Thread starter crobato
- Start date
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
You are lacking knowledge of what really took place.
Sonar technology is not that easy. Not at all.
The Kitty Hawk along with her CSG was operating in an area longed used by USN and JMSDF for the ANNULX that takes place nearly every year in the same location.
No PLAN subs especially an SSK is tracking any USN CSG. An SSK is to slow while operating on batteries to keep up with an CSG. China does not play the old Russia Cold War games. Their nuke subs are far too noisy not to be tracked by an USN Virginia, Seawolf or Los Angeles SSN. I have first hand knowledge of this. Until China can improve their sound dampening on nuke boats the USN will track them.
I guarantee you that a Virgina/Seawolf/Los Angeles class SSN is tracking the PLAN CV-16 with impunity at this very moment..
I personally know a former USN Sonar Tech who tracked an PLAN nuke sub from an Spruance class DD for eight consecutive hours. He also received a special citation for being able to track an LA class for an unspecified amount of time. That sonar tech became a master instructor of ASW technology at the ASW base in San Diego because of his superior ability to operate USN sonar and ASW equipment.
ChinaGuy you may believe what ever you choose to. That's fine with me. I'll let my actual experience coupled with my naval knowledge guide me to discern these naval matters.
You are lacking knowledge of what really took place.
Sonar technology is not that easy. Not at all.
The Kitty Hawk along with her CSG was operating in an area longed used by USN and JMSDF for the ANNULX that takes place nearly every year in the same location.
No PLAN subs especially an SSK is tracking any USN CSG. An SSK is to slow while operating on batteries to keep up with an CSG. China does not play the old Russia Cold War games. Their nuke subs are far too noisy not to be tracked by an USN Virginia, Seawolf or Los Angeles SSN. I have first hand knowledge of this. Until China can improve their sound dampening on nuke boats the USN will track them.
I guarantee you that a Virgina/Seawolf/Los Angeles class SSN is tracking the PLAN CV-16 with impunity at this very moment..
I personally know a former USN Sonar Tech who tracked an PLAN nuke sub from an Spruance class DD for eight consecutive hours. He also received a special citation for being able to track an LA class for an unspecified amount of time. That sonar tech became a master instructor of ASW technology at the ASW base in San Diego because of his superior ability to operate USN sonar and ASW equipment.
ChinaGuy you may believe what ever you choose to. That's fine with me. I'll let my actual experience coupled with my naval knowledge guide me to discern these naval matters.
Last edited:
Hyperwarp
Captain
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
Do you understand that the noise level of nuclear plant is not the only thing that affects the noise level of a submarine. It's also about the propellers, the hull design and the material used to build the boat.
Look at some of the pictures of Astute class, now this is a beautifully design submarine
As I said, also take a look at the submarine replacing No. 200. It's definitely the quietest Chinese submarine ever produced.
There is no question that China has a lot of things going for it. That's how it's been able to improve military technology so far recently, but it takes time and America still invests a lot in the military. I don't see how that changes the current situation.
again, I don't see why being an engineer would make you more knowledgeable in this area unless you actually worked on that particular area of engineering. For what it's worth, I do have an engineering degree and wouldn't call myself a young guy anymore (unfortunately).
I also use my eyes to look at other submarines. Numerous submariners have privately and publicly talked about how easy it is to track some of the Chinese submarines. For China's sake, let's hope they are referring to 091/093 and Song submarines rather than 039Bs.
It's not nuclear power you should worry about here, it is years of learning about sig management that China needs to catch up in. Do you understand what this means?
I think they built far more than 2 type 094, but that's only a reflection that they think it's mature enough to be nuclear deterrent. That doesn't mean it's not a noisy submarine.
Do you understand that the noise level of nuclear plant is not the only thing that affects the noise level of a submarine. It's also about the propellers, the hull design and the material used to build the boat.
Look at some of the pictures of Astute class, now this is a beautifully design submarine
As I said, also take a look at the submarine replacing No. 200. It's definitely the quietest Chinese submarine ever produced.
I don't see why catching up in telecom is the same as catching up in nuclear submarine. Nuclear submarine requires the highest account of RnD. It's an industry that takes a lot of capital to build up and maintain. The British couldn't build the Astute class without American help because of the time between the Trafalgar class and Astute class. China can catch up, but it takes more time here.
There is no question that China has a lot of things going for it. That's how it's been able to improve military technology so far recently, but it takes time and America still invests a lot in the military. I don't see how that changes the current situation.
That's why the US office of naval intelligence is able to give annual report about how many patrols Chinese submarines have taken right? If the Americans can't detect Chinese subs, I wonder how they can report on the number of times Chinese subs have went on "patrols".
why do you keep on posting about topics you have no clue about?
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
The biggest silencing issue affecting Chinese nuclear subs is the reactor plant far more than anything else, particularly since the refinements in Chinese diesel-electric sub tech in terms of materials, hull and propeller design, can carry over significantly. The US as a matter of development did this with the Albacore to develop the Skipjack class, so this isn't out of the blue by any means. The reactor plant is the biggest issue as there hasn't been as much comparable development there as the rest of the systems for the nuke subs.
Yuans are at least on the same level of quietness as the 636 Kilos, if not more so by better manufacturing techniques, so that's not an issue to begin with. Insinuating even new Chinese subs=crap isn't a valid argument when design and engineering has consistently changed and improved with each passing design incorporating know-how from previous domestic and foreign designs. If the USN was oh so confident to be able hunt any Chinese subs anywhere, their force deployment setup would be quite different that what it is right now.
The biggest silencing issue affecting Chinese nuclear subs is the reactor plant far more than anything else, particularly since the refinements in Chinese diesel-electric sub tech in terms of materials, hull and propeller design, can carry over significantly. The US as a matter of development did this with the Albacore to develop the Skipjack class, so this isn't out of the blue by any means. The reactor plant is the biggest issue as there hasn't been as much comparable development there as the rest of the systems for the nuke subs.
Last edited:
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
For you information I spend many years in design of nuclear power plant and semi submersible with thruster I serve in HES committee(Health, environment, safety) meaning I identify the source of noise and calculate the level of noise among other thing so I do know thing or two about noise abatement
Making blanket assessment that all Chinese sub noisy is nothing but bias and ignorant. The largest source of noise is plant noise from inside the sub transmitted thru the hull to the surrounding area period
Did you read my post? I know for sure I already explained it but you apparently didn't read it . The propeller design is a well known fact the devil is in manufacturing . For a long time China doesn't have the CNC milling machine because of embargo , But in recent year China is the largest CNC producer in the world As my photo show she now can built 7 axis CNC machinery
You cannot judge submarine by the look it is a lot more involve than that
I only try to contradict the idiot statement that you can never catch up because the other guy also progress . It not only in telecommunication but in other area China is catching up too. Steel production , shipbuilding, machinery and electrical , car production. Using the same resources, talent and methodology they certainly can catch up. Yes even in the realm of military.
People often forget that China defense budget is only 100 billion compare to 500 billion of the US Money talk But in 10 to 20 years the picture will change dramatically assuming China defense budget keep increasing at the rate of 12%/years. It mean China defense budget double every 7 years. Assuming PPP rate of 2:1 I say within 10 years China will catch up
I don't know how US can keep spending on the military to the detrimental of education, Health care, infrastructure and competitiveness. At some point it got to give.
They were wrong on so many of their facts I won't take it as a bible
And you are expert in submarine because you own a blog?
Why do people keep bad mouthing Chinese submarine when they don't even know what is modal analysis?
For you information I spend many years in design of nuclear power plant and semi submersible with thruster I serve in HES committee(Health, environment, safety) meaning I identify the source of noise and calculate the level of noise among other thing so I do know thing or two about noise abatement
Making blanket assessment that all Chinese sub noisy is nothing but bias and ignorant. The largest source of noise is plant noise from inside the sub transmitted thru the hull to the surrounding area period
Did you read my post? I know for sure I already explained it but you apparently didn't read it . The propeller design is a well known fact the devil is in manufacturing . For a long time China doesn't have the CNC milling machine because of embargo , But in recent year China is the largest CNC producer in the world As my photo show she now can built 7 axis CNC machinery
You cannot judge submarine by the look it is a lot more involve than that
I only try to contradict the idiot statement that you can never catch up because the other guy also progress . It not only in telecommunication but in other area China is catching up too. Steel production , shipbuilding, machinery and electrical , car production. Using the same resources, talent and methodology they certainly can catch up. Yes even in the realm of military.
People often forget that China defense budget is only 100 billion compare to 500 billion of the US Money talk But in 10 to 20 years the picture will change dramatically assuming China defense budget keep increasing at the rate of 12%/years. It mean China defense budget double every 7 years. Assuming PPP rate of 2:1 I say within 10 years China will catch up
I don't know how US can keep spending on the military to the detrimental of education, Health care, infrastructure and competitiveness. At some point it got to give.
They were wrong on so many of their facts I won't take it as a bible
And you are expert in submarine because you own a blog?
Why do people keep bad mouthing Chinese submarine when they don't even know what is modal analysis?
Last edited:
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
it's primarily how Western experts come to the conclusion on how good or bad Chinese subs are, comparing them to the Soviet/Russian analogues China had/was operating during the same time line
the metrics of performance and operational standards of Russian weaponries, submarines in this case are widely available through sales pitches and arms trade fairs, or personal contacts and informations.
the actual and perceived USN superiority on this matter though does not help, for some it will not just be in the same class of performance, the truth is of course somewhere in between the low end of their prediction, and the high end
-------------
Hendrik, you are clearly biased, no matter what your profession is, unless you are involved directly in the said project, you can not provide any fact to the claims in the issue we discuss here, without the knowing the specifics of details. You are an engineer, you should know that.
it's primarily how Western experts come to the conclusion on how good or bad Chinese subs are, comparing them to the Soviet/Russian analogues China had/was operating during the same time line
the metrics of performance and operational standards of Russian weaponries, submarines in this case are widely available through sales pitches and arms trade fairs, or personal contacts and informations.
the actual and perceived USN superiority on this matter though does not help, for some it will not just be in the same class of performance, the truth is of course somewhere in between the low end of their prediction, and the high end
-------------
Hendrik, you are clearly biased, no matter what your profession is, unless you are involved directly in the said project, you can not provide any fact to the claims in the issue we discuss here, without the knowing the specifics of details. You are an engineer, you should know that.
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
Kilo was a quiet submarine when it first came out, but that was a while ago. It's at least a generation behind the latest diesel submarines and probably more. And really can't compare to the most advanced nuclear submarines.
The biggest problem with all Chinese submarines is that they are behind in sig management. They are definitely behind in propeller designs. This
Just on your assessment of China's nuclear plant themselves, they are still behind in civilian nuclear technology too. Just think about all the new Chinese nuclear plants that need to import foreign technologies right now. Even in the domestically designed plants, they also still import foreign parts. Now, assuming that you do work in this industry, you should know this.
It's not just you, but most American military fans want to spend more money on military. When that happens, that will be great. But you are bringing it up here to try to satisfy this part of you that wants China to catch up and it really has no effect over China's current situation.
Kilo was a quiet submarine when it first came out, but that was a while ago. It's at least a generation behind the latest diesel submarines and probably more. And really can't compare to the most advanced nuclear submarines.
The biggest problem with all Chinese submarines is that they are behind in sig management. They are definitely behind in propeller designs. This
so basically, nothing on the design of submarine itself. It's a very specialized industry. Also, it seems like your judgement gets clouded by nationalistic pride.
Where do you get that from? The latest diesel and nuclear submarines are all a magnitude quieter than previous generation at. Specially at lower speed, they are very hard to track. How much factor do you think the plant plays? The biggest factor in these area are the hull design and the propellers.
Just on your assessment of China's nuclear plant themselves, they are still behind in civilian nuclear technology too. Just think about all the new Chinese nuclear plants that need to import foreign technologies right now. Even in the domestically designed plants, they also still import foreign parts. Now, assuming that you do work in this industry, you should know this.
Right, having CNC machines means you can automatically produce the latest propellers. Because clearly, having tools means you can automatically build the best propellers.
Actually, you can tell a lot. You are telling me you can't tell that Yuan is a lot more stealthy than 035s and 033s? How did the Russian nuclear submarines designers looked over the design of Astute class and said that it's something in the line of its the most stealthy submarine in the world, quieter than Akula class? How does submarine designers tell by just looking?
You clearly get overly emotional. Your desire for China to catch up makes you annoyed when others question China's military progress. I'm not saying that China is not catching up, but there is still quite a bit it needs to catch up. It has caught up in many areas, but there are a lot of areas it still is behind on. If you say, China can catch up, I won't disagree with you there. But there is the present case scenario and the future. I'm not here to judge the future right now.
Again, why is it so important for you that China catches up with American military budget? It will expand in its own pace for the good of its own population. As I've talked about in my blog, it has already caught up or almost caught up in the economic areas. Which in my opinion, are more important for national influence during the current economic crisis. I've also talked extensively about how efficient with its development PLAN has been.
It's not just you, but most American military fans want to spend more money on military. When that happens, that will be great. But you are bringing it up here to try to satisfy this part of you that wants China to catch up and it really has no effect over China's current situation.
When I don't know, I learn from people who do and I have learnt quite a bit. And I have been fortunate to be able to talk to some people much more knowledgeable than myself. I want PLAN submarines to be the quietest in the world, but if they are not, I can't say that they are. If you talk to submariners, they will tell you how Western submarines have been snooping Chinese submarines whenever they go on extensive patrols. And I think it's good that they are going on so many more long patrols now, because that means they are really training the submarine crew to survive and battle far away from home base.
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
It's not that I disagree with what you're saying per se, but if we're attributing a submarine's acoustics as significantly factored by the hull shape...
Well virginia doesn't look "that" different from 688i -- even though virginia is supposedly quieter underway than 688 is sitting at the pier(!)
And 093 doesn't look "that" different from vanilla 688, yet some people are saying it's an entire generation behind.
Sure, astute looks very different to virginia or seawolf, but we dont' really know which is really quieter.
So I think the external hull shape is a less significant indicator than the internal signature management, powerplant/reactor, and the propeller.
Sure there are a few commonalities that the world's supposedly most quiet submarines have; pump jet propulsion, retractable diving planes etc, but the hull shapes vary quite significantly for vessels in the supposed same ballpark (virginia vs astute), yet submarines of completely different generations can look nearly indistinguishable (virginia vs 688i. hell even 091 vs 093 or 092 vs 094!). So the other, more significant factors which we cannot use eyeballs to judge we unfortunately have to rely on anecdote, rumour and our own logic even if sometimes they are at odds with each other.
I mean if 095 came out tomorrow and looked like virginia or seawolf I don't think many people would assume it was in that ballpark... even though 095 would have been designed some twenty years later than seawolf using the relevant, current shipbuilding techniques compared to the US of two decades ago and we can make some guesstimates as to how much the chinese have come along with signature management since the mid 90s when 093 would've been designed.
This entire SSN debacle reminds me of when everyone in the western community, including experts, believed it would take the chinese years and years to develop a fighter with the stealth shaping to compete with top end F-22/35, arguing they didn't have the experience, etc.
Now I'm not saying 095 will prove this prediction wrong the same way J-20 did, but keep an open mind aye.
Also, considering how the large SSK that came out a few years ago supposedly has the most impressive sig management features we've seen aboard a chinese SSK -- all evidence points that it's an SSB testbed to replace the golf. So would it be logical for them to use supposed top end sig reduction principles on something meant to be a test boat?
It's not that I disagree with what you're saying per se, but if we're attributing a submarine's acoustics as significantly factored by the hull shape...
Well virginia doesn't look "that" different from 688i -- even though virginia is supposedly quieter underway than 688 is sitting at the pier(!)
And 093 doesn't look "that" different from vanilla 688, yet some people are saying it's an entire generation behind.
Sure, astute looks very different to virginia or seawolf, but we dont' really know which is really quieter.
So I think the external hull shape is a less significant indicator than the internal signature management, powerplant/reactor, and the propeller.
Sure there are a few commonalities that the world's supposedly most quiet submarines have; pump jet propulsion, retractable diving planes etc, but the hull shapes vary quite significantly for vessels in the supposed same ballpark (virginia vs astute), yet submarines of completely different generations can look nearly indistinguishable (virginia vs 688i. hell even 091 vs 093 or 092 vs 094!). So the other, more significant factors which we cannot use eyeballs to judge we unfortunately have to rely on anecdote, rumour and our own logic even if sometimes they are at odds with each other.
I mean if 095 came out tomorrow and looked like virginia or seawolf I don't think many people would assume it was in that ballpark... even though 095 would have been designed some twenty years later than seawolf using the relevant, current shipbuilding techniques compared to the US of two decades ago and we can make some guesstimates as to how much the chinese have come along with signature management since the mid 90s when 093 would've been designed.
This entire SSN debacle reminds me of when everyone in the western community, including experts, believed it would take the chinese years and years to develop a fighter with the stealth shaping to compete with top end F-22/35, arguing they didn't have the experience, etc.
Now I'm not saying 095 will prove this prediction wrong the same way J-20 did, but keep an open mind aye.
Also, considering how the large SSK that came out a few years ago supposedly has the most impressive sig management features we've seen aboard a chinese SSK -- all evidence points that it's an SSB testbed to replace the golf. So would it be logical for them to use supposed top end sig reduction principles on something meant to be a test boat?
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
Is American Navy ship & sub too quite or too good or ship equipments too bad or US Navy personnel poorly trained or Chinese Sub too noisy or the best of the best cannot fight each other?
WASHINGTON | Sat Oct 13, 2012 10:22pm EDT
(Reuters) - A U.S. Navy Aegis cruiser collided with a nuclear-powered submarine during exercises off the East Cost on Saturday, collapsing the sonar dome on the cruiser and possibly causing other damage, but no injuries, U.S. Navy officials said.
The collision between the USS San Jacinto and the nuclear-powered submarine USS Montpelier occurred about 3:30 p.m., the Navy said in a statement. The Navy declined to say where off the East Coast the accident occurred.
A Navy official said the watch team aboard the San Jacinto saw a periscope rise from the water about 100 to 200 yards (meters) ahead of the vessel during the exercise. The cruiser ordered "all back," but the San Jacinto still collided with the submarine.
The collision caused the collapse of the cruiser's sonar dome, a bulbous-shaped device on the bow of the ship beneath the water line, the Navy official said on condition of anonymity.
The rubber dome houses some of the vessel's electronic navigation, detection and ranging equipment.
The Navy said no personnel were injured during the incident and there was no damage to the submarine's nuclear-powered propulsion plant. Both vessels were operating under their own power.
The ships were part of a strike group led by the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman. The Truman was in the area and providing support to the vessels.
The incident is being investigated, the Navy said, and overall damage to both ships is still being evaluated.
(Reporting By David Alexander; Editing by Peter Cooney)
Is American Navy ship & sub too quite or too good or ship equipments too bad or US Navy personnel poorly trained or Chinese Sub too noisy or the best of the best cannot fight each other?
WASHINGTON | Sat Oct 13, 2012 10:22pm EDT
(Reuters) - A U.S. Navy Aegis cruiser collided with a nuclear-powered submarine during exercises off the East Cost on Saturday, collapsing the sonar dome on the cruiser and possibly causing other damage, but no injuries, U.S. Navy officials said.
The collision between the USS San Jacinto and the nuclear-powered submarine USS Montpelier occurred about 3:30 p.m., the Navy said in a statement. The Navy declined to say where off the East Coast the accident occurred.
A Navy official said the watch team aboard the San Jacinto saw a periscope rise from the water about 100 to 200 yards (meters) ahead of the vessel during the exercise. The cruiser ordered "all back," but the San Jacinto still collided with the submarine.
The collision caused the collapse of the cruiser's sonar dome, a bulbous-shaped device on the bow of the ship beneath the water line, the Navy official said on condition of anonymity.
The rubber dome houses some of the vessel's electronic navigation, detection and ranging equipment.
The Navy said no personnel were injured during the incident and there was no damage to the submarine's nuclear-powered propulsion plant. Both vessels were operating under their own power.
The ships were part of a strike group led by the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman. The Truman was in the area and providing support to the vessels.
The incident is being investigated, the Navy said, and overall damage to both ships is still being evaluated.
(Reporting By David Alexander; Editing by Peter Cooney)
Last edited: