PLAN Type 035/039/091/092 Submarine Thread

[hkbc]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Well we've had the "I know more than you about XYZ" and "Submarine X is quieter than submarine Y" and "Why Nation ABC's capability is below par" portion of the program

My rhetorical question is simply how quiet does a Chinese sub need to be to take out the logistics fleet train of an opposing Navy? Those lovely aircraft carriers, nuclear as they are, aren't going to do much without jet fuel, and you can tie up a lot of escorts protecting AORs!

In WW2 the Japanese built nice subs only to waste them as ferrys and in fleet actions that never occurred whereas the Yanks built pretty average subs with dodgy torpedoes but sent them to sink soft targets.

Right tool for the right job, it doesn't matter how sharp the knife, it just needs to be sharp enough to slice up that steak.......

 

[paintgun]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Well we've had the "I know more than you about XYZ" and "Submarine X is quieter than submarine Y" and "Why Nation ABC's capability is below par" portion of the program

My rhetorical question is simply how quiet does a Chinese sub need to be to take out the logistics fleet train of an opposing Navy? Those lovely aircraft carriers, nuclear as they are, aren't going to do much without jet fuel, and you can tie up a lot of escorts protecting AORs!

In WW2 the Japanese built nice subs only to waste them as ferrys and in fleet actions that never occurred whereas the Yanks built pretty average subs with dodgy torpedoes but sent them to sink soft targets.

Right tool for the right job, it doesn't matter how sharp the knife, it just needs to be sharp enough to slice up that steak.......

Carriers especially CVNs can carry alot of jet fuel because they don't have to use fossil fuels to power its own engines.

Tying up escorts, and other assets, providing area of operation denial is what submarines do best, or in the case, SSKs

Depending on the scenarios and events, how quiet a submarine is only one of many critical capability factors.
Which is even more marginal when faced with broad based surveillance, either in the form of sophisticated signal collection and intelligence systems, or aerial reconnaissance with ASW platforms.

The Songs are probably the lower limit of acceptable quietness of which PLAN will rely to operate on.

On the issue of logistics route attack, its Japan/JSDF that China has to deal with

 

[tphuang]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

I am well aware that the Yuan is more of a Song development than a Kilo derivative, but Kilo design did influence hull shaping and torpedo tube place visibly, and in terms of silencing techniques internally, as the Soviets did develop quite a number of innovative methods for silencing (the USN did give healthy respect to the Kilo's capabilities during the latter days of the Cold War for good reason). Norman Polmar's book gives quite good details on this.

They got the hump from kilo class, the rest of the hull still look like a song submarine, although a little wider. It's not a generational improvement in stealth.

It's been 20 years since the end of the cold war, I think you need to move on a little bit, unless you want Chinese technology to be stuck in the era of late 80s/early 90s. And kilo submarine only got really silent after the entire Toshiba incident.

And I for one have never ever questioned the importance of propulsion systems in subs, that's just your presumption. Every single post I've made on this has been to reiterate the criticality of propulsion development and refinement for the purposes of improving both reliability, reducing acoustic projection and hydrodynamic performance, whether it be nuclear or diesel electric.

All you kept on stating is China refined their process of producing submarines because they have more modern tools now and have better build quality, so that means the submarines must be a lot quieter. That's nonsense. It's not just about reliability, it's about the design. They have been using those German diesel (and then domestic builds of them) batteries since Song submarine. How much gains do you think they can have on them? You need to improve the design. Your argument is basically "we can't see this on the sub, but I believe they have been produced better, so that much mean a huge leap in stealth". Have you looked at many 039B pictures? Please tell me where the improvements are between each of the launched units.

Anyways, it's pointless for me to continue going on with this against you.

 

[montyp165]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

They got the hump from kilo class, the rest of the hull still look like a song submarine, although a little wider. It's not a generational improvement in stealth.

It's been 20 years since the end of the cold war, I think you need to move on a little bit, unless you want Chinese technology to be stuck in the era of late 80s/early 90s. And kilo submarine only got really silent after the entire Toshiba incident.

As Polmar et al have mentioned, innovative silencing techniques can be implemented even in relatively noisy designs, and of which can be vastly improved upon with better manufacturing capability. Just because an idea was implemented in the 80's doesn't automatically make it obsolete or bad, especially if it isn't widely known or implemented. Also, the Toshiba-Kongsberg scandal wasn't just milling machines (of which China now exports far more advanced equivalents) but also the lesser known elements of fire-control systems.

All you kept on stating is China refined their process of producing submarines because they have more modern tools now and have better build quality, so that means the submarines must be a lot quieter. That's nonsense. It's not just about reliability, it's about the design. They have been using those German diesel (and then domestic builds of them) batteries since Song submarine. How much gains do you think they can have on them? You need to improve the design. Your argument is basically "we can't see this on the sub, but I believe they have been produced better, so that much mean a huge leap in stealth". Have you looked at many 039B pictures? Please tell me where the improvements are between each of the launched units.

Anyways, it's pointless for me to continue going on with this against you.

Reduced parts friction for one thing would reduce acoustic propagation and improve reliability for example, but it wouldn't be visible as a matter of course, neither would installation of rubber mountings on diesel engines for acoustic dampening either. Internal improvements can't be seen but are very clearly mentioned on both US and Russian subs of the same design, Chinese doing the same would be a no brainer. Anyways I don't care if you agree with me or not insomuch as the point needs to be made that many changes can and have been made underneath the skin rather than just looking at the hull design and component compartmentalization alone as the keypoints for acoustic quieting.

Chinese need to think outside of the box long-term and incorporate non-acoustic tracking and deep diving to increase asymmetrical performance advantages against Opfor units.

 

[Yorkie]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

They got the hump from kilo class, the rest of the hull still look like a song submarine, although a little wider. It's not a generational improvement in stealth.
.

Quite the contrary. The Yuan's bow is hemi-spherical like the Kilo, while the Song has a curved-pointed bow of the old Romeo shape. This is a significant change and a huge improvement in not only stealth, but sensor placement in the bow section (much bigger space for a bigger bow array, in the free flood space between the round shaped bow and the pressure hull). I would certainly not called the Yuan just a Song derivatve, but more like a marriage of the kilo and Song: Kilo bow and shape, Song ship control and tail.

The flow holes that you pointd out earlier though also got me scratching my head. Why did the designer put the hump there to begin with? Its not like there are vertical launchers (none reported so far) that they needed to stretch the hull to accomodate the height, like an SSBN typically does.

 

[tphuang]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Quite the contrary. The Yuan's bow is hemi-spherical like the Kilo, while the Song has a curved-pointed bow of the old Romeo shape. This is a significant change and a huge improvement in not only stealth, but sensor placement in the bow section (much bigger space for a bigger bow array, in the free flood space between the round shaped bow and the pressure hull). I would certainly not called the Yuan just a Song derivatve, but more like a marriage of the kilo and Song: Kilo bow and shape, Song ship control and tail.

The flow holes that you pointd out earlier though also got me scratching my head. Why did the designer put the hump there to begin with? Its not like there are vertical launchers (none reported so far) that they needed to stretch the hull to accomodate the height, like an SSBN typically does.

Did you read what I wrote? There has been enough time spent arguing back and forth on this. I'm in no mind to flood the rest of this thread with argument. montyp165 has posted his last response. Time to move on.

 

[Yorkie]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Did you read what I wrote? There has been enough time spent arguing back and forth on this. I'm in no mind to flood the rest of this thread with argument. montyp165 has posted his last response. Time to move on.

Easy, dude. Notice i made no claim which one is stealthier so I was not joining your argument with Monty. I was however pointing out my observations on design features of the Yuan from published photos, and in doing so disagreed with your assessment that it is just an incrementally modified Song.

Moving on to other Yuan topics, i also noticed the new "one-off" Yuan has relocated the fore planes to her bow. That's a good design change for periscope depth and missile launching ops, because lowering the location of fore planes will reduce risk of unintentional surfacing a sub in rough seas. Another change is the addition of a curve transition between the sail and the hull, like the Viginia Class. That should reduce the flow noise around the sail somewhat.

 

[tphuang]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Easy, dude. Notice i made no claim which one is stealthier so I was not joining your argument with Monty. I was however pointing out my observations on design features of the Yuan from published photos, and in doing so disagreed with your assessment that it is just an incrementally modified Song.

Moving on to other Yuan topics, i also noticed the new "one-off" Yuan has relocated the fore planes to her bow. That's a good design change for periscope depth and missile launching ops, because lowering the location of fore planes will reduce risk of unintentional surfacing a sub in rough seas. Another change is the addition of a curve transition between the sail and the hull, like the Viginia Class. That should reduce the flow noise around the sail somewhat.

Yorkie, for future references, if any moderator says to move on, that means no more posts on this issue. Typically, when the debate has been going for a while with no seemingly close conclusion and other members are complaining about it like hkbc did in this case, we try to respect that. We are not looking for explanation on why you posted it, just move on. By you commenting more on this like you have done so in the past 2 posts, you are extending the debate. If you have problem with that, pleas message me personally.

 

[Hyperwarp]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Just saw this at CDF. 094? And what is that sticking out just after the last missile tube?

 

[kwaigonegin]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Just saw this at CDF. 094? And what is that sticking out just after the last missile tube?

nothing! actually that is the last missile tube and that's the hatch opening.