PLAN Type 035/039/091/092 Submarine Thread

[SinoSoldier]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

It does seem logical for them to build many more SSNs or SSGNs than SSBNs. I suspect until China has fully caught up with the west in silencing, china would operate at least part of its SSBN force in a south china sea bastion protected by SSNs. Beyond these SSNs they would need more to operate independently or with the surface fleet.

It's probably not in China's intention to carry out intercontinental patrols using the 096; the JL-2A's range should give it coverage of most of potential targets targets from China's backyard. It is very unlikely a submarine force like that would work in tandem with the surface fleet since it needs to stay hidden.

 

[chuck731]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

A driving force that might prompt the Chinese to eventually sent their ballistic missile submarines on very long patrols far outside of west pacific would be the desire to increase the difficulties and costs of American ballistic missile defence. Currently any America's ballistic missile defences directed against China needs to only cover one single trajectory tube over Alaska that is geographically adventageous to the defender. If Chinese SSBNs starts to deploy far outside of Westerm Pacific, then US BDM would have to multiply the trajectory tubes it can engage, and most of the other threat tubes BDM needs to cover would not favor the defender.

 

[tphuang]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

If this is the case then then we know that here are 093, then 093A (improved 093), and then 093B (further improved 093). There is the 094 with 12 ICBM, and the new 094G with possibley 16 ICBM, 096 should be at least as good as the Russian Borie class SSBN.

We know that 093 is as good as Victor III, and 093A is as good as early LA class, that means 093B is almost as good as the improved LA class. WOW. 094G should be compareable to the British Vangard class SSBN.

This means the 095 should be at least as good as the SeaWolf, most likely superior to the Virginia class !!

China has caught up with the USA in terms of the world's most advanced SSN, and catching up fast in terms of SSBN as well !

This has to be a joke right?

Assuming that China wants to build four Type 096 beginning next year, when the first one is rumored to launch, then by 2020 they should have nine SSBN, and assuming a production quota of eight Type 095, they would have 14 SSN. However it is more probable that they would have twice the number of SSNs as they do SSBNs in case of defections.

I don't think they really need that many type 096. Too much speculation here. Let's wait and see what actually comes out.

 

[Jeff Head]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

If this is the case then then we know that here are 093, then 093A (improved 093), and then 093B (further improved 093). There is the 094 with 12 ICBM, and the new 094G with possibley 16 ICBM, 096 should be at least as good as the Russian Borie class SSBN.

We know that 093 is as good as Victor III, and 093A is as good as early LA class, that means 093B is almost as good as the improved LA class. WOW. 094G should be compareable to the British Vangard class SSBN.

This means the 095 should be at least as good as the SeaWolf, most likely superior to the Virginia class !!

China has caught up with the USA in terms of the world's most advanced SSN, and catching up fast in terms of SSBN as well !

Aero, you are making huge leaps here where they are not warranted. Your reasoing has a huge disconnect.

First, the Type 093 was supposed to reach LA Class Flight I quiet levels. It did not. The PLAN was unhappy with it. Some speculate it was Victor III capable, but we really do not know except it did not meet Chinese PLAN expectations.

So, they are building four improved 093s. Is that "A"? Is that "B"? I believe people have gotten all of that confused. As far as I know, anaylsts have indicated only one group of improved 093 is being built...call it what you will.

So, four improved 093s with the first supposedly coming online soon. Will they reach the original goal of LA Flight I? We do not kow. Will they be LA Flight III...I seriously, seriously doubt it. The 093 was never meant to get that far along, and the first try did not even reach Flight I.

Perhaps the 095 will ge to the LA Flight III level. I am almost 100% sure that the Type 095 will not be anywhere near the Sea Wolf or the Virginia level of quieting. You are asking and expectuing them to make 2-3 generations of improvement in a single generation. Not going to happen. There is a reason it took countries like the US and Russia, who have tremendous experience in these areas, and the manufacturing and materials to match, 2-3 generations themselves to make those gains. Expecting China to do so in one is just completely unrealistic IMHO.

It will probably be two generations after the Type 095 before they come close to the Virginia, and by then the US will have further improved the Virginia class and be another generation or two ahead.

The same principles apply to expecting the SSBNs with Type 094 iterations to be anywhere close to the Borei or the Vanguard. Nothing like this comes quickly or easily.

But, time will tell and we will have to wait and see.

 

[Broccoli]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Aero, you are making huge leaps here where they are not warranted. Your reasoing has a huge disconnect.

First, the Type 093 was supposed to reach LA Class Flight I quiet levels. It did not. The PLAN was unhappy with it. Some speculate it was Victor III capable, but we really do not know except it did not meet Chinese PLAN expectations.

So, they are building four improved 093s. Is that "A"? Is that "B"? I believe people have gotten all of that confused. As far as I know, anaylsts have indicated only one group of improved 093 is being built...call it what you will.

Perhaps the 095 will ge to the LA Flight III level. I am almost 100% sure that the Type 095 will not be anywhere near the Sea Wolf or the Virginia level of quieting.

But, time will tell and we will have to wait and see.

1997 ONI projection put's in same level with RN Trafalgar-class what is propelled by pumpjet, and I think that PLAN would be probably happy if improved Type-093 noise levels are similar to Trafalgar-class.

 

[Jeff Head]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

1997 ONI projection put's in same level with RN Trafalgar-class what is propelled by pumpjet, and I think that PLAN would be probably happy if improved Type-093 noise levels are similar to Trafalgar-class.

Uh, no. In that chart you link to, the quietness is gauged on the vertical axis, the more quiet, the lower on the scale. That pic shows the 093 between the initial Victor III and the later Victor III, and the Trafalgar beween the initial LA and the Improved LA (which is the flight III).

The Virginia and the Sea Wolf are shown lowest in quitness on the scale by a good margin.

Now, I hae read where other ONI charts supposedly show the Trafalgar as the same quietness as the Victor III, which I simply do not buy and believe it is a result of people reading the chart wrong.

​

 

[clone7803]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

You are speaking with a lot of absolutes. As far as your source goes that you posted here, it's not the greatest. When it comes to something strategic like nuclear subs, the information provided by even the most trust worthy "big shrimps" are going to be less reliable than usual. Also in terms of TV interviews with insiders or experts from PLAAF and PLAN, there are plenty of cases they have shown to be nonsense. So as with all else, we have to rely on GE photos or other photos when they do come out.

We do know from all of the recent activities that they probably stopped 093 production at 2, because the stealth level wasn't good enough. The new improved 093 design should be better, but they won't know the performance until it goes on sea trials. As for all of these 093A and 094A reaches minimum requirement of PLAN, that's all hearsay, since PLAN itself hasn't tested out the noise level of them yet and we don't know what their minimum requirement is.

I would say at this point the stuff we get from these American reports as as good as anything we get. But as all else in PLAN, wait and see is the best approach.


where is your source other than that link you provided? Your personal reflection for your "type 093A) is clearly wrong based on all the GE photos we've seen.

I did say it's not 100% accurate in my earlier post since I am here to find the truth.Here I offered a kind of possibility.As the source ,I provided a link,and you should know the different quality between a PLA officer who is on the TV show everyday and a higher ranked officer whom you hear him maybe only once in your entire life.
I am pretty sure most pepole don't know the differecet between a 093 and a 093A.As for the GE photo,OMG,they should release them every one week with higher resolution.You can not tell if it's a 093 or a 093A since each 093A is different,and you can not tell if it's a newly built or the former one.
Finally I agree that let's stop here and wait for two or three years .Maybe it's true that type 095 reaches the Viginial level as the so called insider claimed,maybe it's just another type 093 who disappointed me too much.

 

[Broccoli]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Now, I hae read where other ONI charts supposedly show the Trafalgar as the same quietness as the Victor III, which I simply do not buy and believe it is a result of people reading the chart wrong.

I was talking about the improved Type-093 not the original what is compared in this chart, certainly it should be more quieter than late model Victor III, and if it's not then it would be probably smarter for PLAN to wait Type-95.

 

[Jeff Head]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

I was talking about the improved Type-093 not the original what is compared in this chart, certainly it should be more quieter than late model Victor III, and if it's not then it would be probably smarter for PLAN to wait Type-95.

Apparently their original goal was Los Angeles Flight I, so perhaps they will achieve that with the improved vessels.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

I was talking about the improved Type-093 not the original what is compared in this chart, certainly it should be more quieter than late model Victor III, and if it's not then it would be probably smarter for PLAN to wait Type-95.

You can throw those chart to garbage can because it has no basis whatsoever. People should not underestimate China it has been almost 10 years since type 93 was launched. The Chinese industry in mid 2000 is way more advances than in 1990 when type 93 was designed. A lot has happened in between. Submarine is consider as strategic weapon so there is almost no official data available for the public consumption.

The biggest and most difficult to solve in screw cavitation. With the advance of jet pump or shrouded propeller this has been solved instead of cavitation on trailing end of the screw the implosion of bubble occurred inside the shroud. The other source of noise is circulating pump. but with the advances of bearingless pump and other advanced isolation technology, pump has come a long way Noise reduction is tedious and required a good management to identify source of noise and deal with . But it is not impossible task.The Chinese have plenty of time since type 93 So I am not going to dismiss quieter Chinese submarine as fiction or phantasy

All those speculation is useless since we don't have the real picture of the type 95

Here is interesting article about the design of shroud propeller or propulsor

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

General Description of a Propulsor

Because of security it is impossible to describe the propulsor that drives the Seawolf and Virginia class submarines, however, an examination of propulsor design can give us a fair idea of what the system involves.

Water is, as a working hypothesis, incompressible. This means that we cannot compare a multi-stage, jet engine compressor (within a compressible medium such as air) with a marine propulsor even though certain similarities are striking. In its simplest form, a marine propulsor has an intake, an impeller (propeller, screw) and a nozzle all of which are inside the body of the submarine.

The intake of a ducted marine propulsor acts as a ram. The faster the propulsor moves through the water the greater the ramming effect to the impeller. A wide mouth intake funneled to the impeller maximizes the ram effect. A screen, grate and/or shredder guard against fowling the impeller blades.

The impeller has axial blades, each one of which is shaped into a curve not unlike an airplane's wing. The impeller can have three to as many as twenty four blades each with a pitch that drives water from the intake side to the discharge side of an enclosure called the pressure chamber. As the impeller turns, suction on the intake side reduces water pressure while water pressure on the discharge side is increased. The water in the pressure chamber is discharged through a nozzle at the rear of the propulsor driving the submarine forward.

The nozzle effects the discharge stream by being either constricted which accelerates a narrow channeled discharge or dilated which decelerates the discharge, but correspondingly increases the volume of discharge. Manipulation of nozzle orifice size in conjunction with impeller speed, controls the water pressure in the chamber. Since cavitation is a function of water pressure, impeller speed and orifice size manipulation can ride a cavitation threshold curve that is responsive to ambient water pressure. Since cavitation occurs at the blade tips the bubbles spin in a helical extremity along the walls of the pressure chamber. They are trapped by anti-torque vanes and imploded within the chamber. The shape and length of the chamber in combination with controlled water pressure determine the purity (lack of cavitating bubbles) at the nozzle.

Lower relative pressure on the intake side of the impeller reduces the effectiveness of the impeller. The pressure difference on each side of the impeller can only be minimized by increasing the pressure on the intake side since to reduce the pressure on the discharge side means a commensurate reduction in thrust. When the ram effect is insufficient a first stage impeller can be added to increase water pressure going into the main thrust impeller.