PLAN Type 035/039/091/092 Submarine Thread
- Thread starter crobato
- Start date
Mysterre
Banned Idiot
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
I am also curious as to how you think a bag of C4 is going to get “buried” “a few feet” from the cable without causing enough noise for the hydrophone to pick up. Hydrophones are designed to pick up noise even dozens to hundreds of km away but somehow a bag of C4 being buried right next to it is going to be missed? No, I think not.
It’s obvious you completely missed the point of my reply to bltizo or are inaccurately coopting it to try and make a point which I was not making. Bltizo had said some internet source had provided “proof” of something, to which I responded that IMO no internet source can provide that level of confidence. And now we have you here using that response to discredit multiple internet sources which anyone can find with a click of a button, simply because they are internet sources. Well it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize the difference between saying that internet sources aren’t proof and saying that any internet source is essentially junk. I have made no statement to you now or at any other time claiming that any internet source I have ever provided constitutes “proof” of anything, so what does this current subject have anything to do with my reply to bltizo? The answer is nothing. I have stated that there are reports of China having deployed SOSUS-type arrays without claiming to provide ironclad proof. Your demand for “credible” and “authoritative” sources is meaningless not only because these terms are subjective and vary from person to person, but also because the very nature of the subject (Chinese underwater hydrophone deployments) in and of itself will not lend to any significant kind of authoritative confirmation. It is also comical in light of the fact that you yourself claim to possess knowledge of Chinese developments that would blow SOSUS-type technology out of the water, only you refuse to provide the source. In the world of internet forums, claiming this kind of ‘black’ source is equivalent to saying “Santa Claus told me so”.
What makes you think communications cables have anything to do with hydrophone arrays except that they are both long underwater cables? Communications cables are data transmission devices with no ability to detect intrusion, at least not the ones being used back in the day. Hydrophone arrays are data collection devices that are designed to pick up ambient noises, and would be capable of detecting intrusion attempts. If you had told me the Americans were able to sneak right up to Soviet hydrophone arrays and plant explosive devices next to them, I would be impressed and would indeed conclude that the Soviets were “naïve” and/or “incompetent”. Otherwise the comparison is totally irrelevant.
Who said anything about the USN regularly sending guys to inspect every last meter of the route? Please go ahead and provide a quote where I mentioned any of this. Just a little too much hyperbole there. What I did say is that the PLAN would easily be able to provide maintenance and surveillance on its own hydrophone arrays given their limited extent as well as their proximity to the Chinese coastline. Putting explosive devices there during peacetime are therefore a waste of time and risks escalation. Putting devices there during wartime, are nothing more than part of the ebb and flow of war, like destroying radar stations only to have more deployed, only to be destroyed again, only to be redeployed again, etc.
I am also curious as to how you think a bag of C4 is going to get “buried” “a few feet” from the cable without causing enough noise for the hydrophone to pick up. Hydrophones are designed to pick up noise even dozens to hundreds of km away but somehow a bag of C4 being buried right next to it is going to be missed? No, I think not.
This isn’t the American power grid, sorry. This “network” would not be connected via underwater cables. Individual hydrophone arrays, if linked to other hydrophone arrays, would be done at the shore facilities via satellite. There needs to be no physical connection between them. If you take out one array, just that array goes down. If you want to attack this network, it would be like hacking into any other network. Either you can do it or you can’t. The detection elements of such a network being underwater have absolutely nothing to do with their vulnerability to any kind of network intrusion attempt.
Uhh, no. Even along the continental shelf the bottom goes down to 400m or so. You aren’t going to get to these depths with a diver jumping out of a fishing boat, sorry, bell or no bell. You would need atmospheric diving suits being deployed from special purpose ships. This could be accomplished in theory, but in war these ships would be vulnerable to attack, and I find it difficult to believe even now that the USN would have the ability to send ships to sit right at the mouth of the Bohai Sea and survive long enough to have their divers sink down to the bottom and deploy some bombs beside some hydrophones. It would be somewhat comical, readily obvious, and massively suicidal, all at the same time. In the years to come, it will become even more comical and more suicidal. No, it would be done via submarines, if it could be done at all. The USN’s SSGN’s and the USS Jimmy Carter could in theory provide the appropriate platform for such sabotage attempts.
No need for luck. Dolphins like the bottlenose variety used by various militaries around the world are shallow divers in their natural habitats, a few dozen meters at most. The only dolphins that willingly dive to a few hundred meters are the ones trained to do so by humans. If you are a hydrophone operator and you hear acoustic squeeks from a dolphin navigating its way in the dark next to your cable, you push the big red button. It’s as easy as that.
I don’t know what your point here is. You had said that deploying advanced technology causes “skills” to atrophy, as if advanced tech should somehow be limited so that operators can become more skilled. I said that advanced tech and skills are not mutually exclusive. What do these new statements have anything to do with that?
What does it matter whether the silent service is turning on or off datalinks or passive sensors for the purpose of training for wartime contingencies? I’m sure they are. So what is the point? Don’t even deploy datalinks and passive sensors? Again, pretty much any asset can be destroyed in war. Why should this lead one to conclude a given asset should not even be deployed in the first place?
Last edited:
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
Certainly a good fleet of submarines is required to escort the Liaoning, Either advanced SSK like improved Yuan or a new Type 095 SSN
A carrier fleet will at minimum take a single SSN or maximum 2 SSN along with a single replenishment tanker Type 903A
Addition to that 4-6 DDG and FFG, including 2 x Type 052C\D and 3-4 Type 054A/B
Total ships in a Chinese carrier strike force would max at 10 vessels and min at 8, together they would carry in excess of 50 aircraft, totalling more than 3,500 personal, that is a serious force
Certainly a good fleet of submarines is required to escort the Liaoning, Either advanced SSK like improved Yuan or a new Type 095 SSN
A carrier fleet will at minimum take a single SSN or maximum 2 SSN along with a single replenishment tanker Type 903A
Addition to that 4-6 DDG and FFG, including 2 x Type 052C\D and 3-4 Type 054A/B
Total ships in a Chinese carrier strike force would max at 10 vessels and min at 8, together they would carry in excess of 50 aircraft, totalling more than 3,500 personal, that is a serious force
Last edited:
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
Certainly the Type 093 or Type 095 SSNs will be. I am not sure how many of either of those classes there actually are. I know we saw two Type 093s a few years ago and I am presuming that at least a couple of more were built. But I do not know.
And I do not recall ever seeing an actual pic of a Type 095.
Anyone have any better information on numbers of these more advanced SSNs for the PLAN?
I do not think a Yuan or any other SSK will ever be considered as an escort for the Liaoning. They are simply not fast enough.
Certainly the Type 093 or Type 095 SSNs will be. I am not sure how many of either of those classes there actually are. I know we saw two Type 093s a few years ago and I am presuming that at least a couple of more were built. But I do not know.
And I do not recall ever seeing an actual pic of a Type 095.
Anyone have any better information on numbers of these more advanced SSNs for the PLAN?
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
In other words, as Kroko says...rumours.
I have no doubt about the Type 093s, we have seen at least two of those, and I personally believe four. But though I have heard of the Type 095 development, to date I have not seen any physical indication that any have been launched. I would love to see pics of them, and have been watching this thread in anticipation...but to date, here, and on the internet, it simply has not happened yet.
At the Wiki site (not a reliable site for breaking technology announcements or status), the latest citation used is from2009, which is two years before the vessels were supposedly in trials. And there is NO citiation at all for the statement that two were launched in 2010 and were in trials in 2011.
In other words, as Kroko says...rumours.
I have no doubt about the Type 093s, we have seen at least two of those, and I personally believe four. But though I have heard of the Type 095 development, to date I have not seen any physical indication that any have been launched. I would love to see pics of them, and have been watching this thread in anticipation...but to date, here, and on the internet, it simply has not happened yet.
Last edited: