PLAN Type 035/039/091/092 Submarine Thread

[asif iqbal]

Re: ¦^��: Re: ¦^��: PLAN submarines Thread II

well, the "improved" 094 that was seen in kanwa's photo still only had 12 SLBMs. So, I'm not sure when this 16 SLBM SSBN will come out.

Well I think 16 tubes is the likely next step for the Type 096 SSBN, Ohio Class 24 tubes are being reduced to 16 in the replacement programme but will carry same number of warheads due to the more advanced and smaller warheads and missiles

As time goes on SSBN tubes are getting smaller with no compromise in the nuclear arsenal as technology makes up for it

Question is will China blow out a 24 tubes system, probably not, do they have the capability to use 12 tubes to give them large warhead count like 24 again maybe not, so they will probably stop mid way and go for 16 tubes for the Type 096 which will be quite advanced and give them ability to carry large number of nuclear warheads

Say they move in JL-3 system which is smaller than JL-2 then certainly 16 tubes are more than enough

 

[Broccoli]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Here is ONI estimation of Chinese nuclear sub noise levels from 2009, but it would be very strange if PLAN accept subs with this sort of noise levels since detection of such noisy subs is easy.

 

[drunkmunky]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

doesn't really help when all of the sailors yell out their orders as per cctv video.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Here is ONI estimation of Chinese nuclear sub noise levels from 2009, but it would be very strange if PLAN accept subs with this sort of noise levels since detection of such noisy subs is easy.
View attachment 8200

That the famous BS chart because it was published even before they launch Type 93 and type 95 Unless ONI has clairvoyant vision. It is nothing but rough guesstimate

 

[kroko]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

That the famous BS chart because it was published even before they launch Type 93 and type 95 Unless ONI has clairvoyant vision. It is nothing but rough guesstimate

By 2009, type 093 had already been launched several years before. Type 095 is obvious an estimative, based on what they see as the near future capabilities of china´s sub technology.

Dont be quick to discard this chart. It was made by ONI after all, who have acess to more intel than any of us.

 

[SinoSoldier]

¦^��: Re: ¦^��: Re: ¦^��: PLAN submarines Thread II

well, the "improved" 094 that was seen in kanwa's photo still only had 12 SLBMs. So, I'm not sure when this 16 SLBM SSBN will come out.

The photo is a bit blurry, but it seems that there is a lot of room between the SLBM and the conning tower for further additions. Maybe it's another one-off sub.

 

[tphuang]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

If the size of the submarine itself doesn't increase, which would be a dramatic change, you would not be able to get more SLBMs. 094 design simply wasn't provisioned for 16 ballistic missile. the pressure hull of SSBN only has so much space for reactor, the engine, turbine, reduction gears, missile complex, living space, torpedo tubes and noise insulation technology. Once you start adding more to missile complex, that's a major re-design of the inside which will have less space for everything else now in addition to the changes you get in terms of balance and stability from already moving the missile complex forward (in this case for 094).

Well I think 16 tubes is the likely next step for the Type 096 SSBN, Ohio Class 24 tubes are being reduced to 16 in the replacement programme but will carry same number of warheads due to the more advanced and smaller warheads and missiles

As time goes on SSBN tubes are getting smaller with no compromise in the nuclear arsenal as technology makes up for it

Question is will China blow out a 24 tubes system, probably not, do they have the capability to use 12 tubes to give them large warhead count like 24 again maybe not, so they will probably stop mid way and go for 16 tubes for the Type 096 which will be quite advanced and give them ability to carry large number of nuclear warheads

Say they move in JL-3 system which is smaller than JL-2 then certainly 16 tubes are more than enough

well, let's see how their propulsion technology change from submarine to submarine. You need more powerful nuclear reactor and efficient propulsion unit in order to drive a much larger submarine that would be required to host 24 tubes. That's a huge change from 12. 16 is a pretty logical place to stop in my opinion. There is no reason JL-2 and JL-3 cannot have more warhead installed in the future as the technology improves.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

By 2009, type 093 had already been launched several years before. Type 095 is obvious an estimative, based on what they see as the near future capabilities of china´s sub technology.

Dont be quick to discard this chart. It was made by ONI after all, who have acess to more intel than any of us.

Nope someone from CDF complain and question Hans Kristensen about ONI chart back in 2000's.
When the chart was published at that time they don't have the type 95 in the list but it has type 93 noise level. Even though Type 93 was launched after the chart was published. It is the same chart regurgitating over and over again. So it is nothing but guesstimate.

They cannot even made a hydrodynamic model study because the Chinese never reveal the model nor the dimension of the submarine. Noise study is based on Hydrodynamic flexing of the hull and Engine noise and vibration. Plus screw cavitation noise. How can they make an estimate, if they don't have clue what kind of propulsion is type 95 going to be, shroud or simple propeller As I say vodoo estimate

 

[clone7803]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

This guy Kristensen was also the pepole who said the PRC only has 20 ICBMs if I am not wrong.But in 2012 the PLA had already tested 5 ICBMs including a DF-5,two DF-31As,a JL-2A and a DF-41.It makes no sense a country wasted 1/4 of its nuclear capability in one year only for testing.

 

[rhino123]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

This guy Kristensen was also the pepole who said the PRC only has 20 ICBMs if I am not wrong.But in 2012 the PLA had already tested 5 ICBMs including a DF-5,two DF-31As,a JL-2A and a DF-41.It makes no sense a country wasted 1/4 of its nuclear capability in one year only for testing.

Er... Assuming that China only had 20 ICBM, I believe that what Kristensen also meant that China had 20 warheads to fit those ICBM. In 2012, China tested 5 ICBM, but none of the test involved nuclear warhead being fitted on the body. I believe China could easily rebuilt those delivery system quickly, so really there is no problem here.

On a side note though, I do not believe China had less than 20 ICBM... but who knows since China kept all nuclear problem very very secretive.