PLAN Type 035/039/091/092 Submarine Thread

[Jeff Head]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Typhoon's total beam is 75 feet, but she has 2 pressure hulls side by side. Each pressure hull depth and diameter is only around 35 feet.

But because her hydrodyanmic hull is substantially deeper than her pressure hull, you might say she actually has the equivalent of a pretty tall hump across both of her pressure hulls. But the hump is so well integrated into her hydrodynamic shape that it is not noticeable.

The missiles on the Typhoon are all mounted forward of the island. The penetrate into the outer hull between the two inner hulls. The outer hull is designed to cover these and provide their doors without the need for a hump.

​

The only real "hump" is the fairing onto the island which rests atop and between those two covered inner hulls. No hump forward.

The following picture is a good comparison (which does not include the Ohio which has 24 tubes.

​

As you can see, there is a slight hump on the Vanguard, as there also is on the Ohio (which has 24 tubes). But that hump does not house the missiles. The missiles are completely within the pressure hull. That slight hump is a fairing to give space for the missile silo doors, which are not within the pressure hull.

​

 

[Equation]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Jimmy Soul said it best: she might be ugly, but she sure can cook.

For submarines...yes. Can't apply that to women (at least for me).

 

[chuck731]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

The missiles on the Typhoon are all mounted forward of the island. The penetrate into the outer hull between the two inner hulls. The outer hull is designed to cover these and provide their doors without the need for a hump.

​

The only real "hump" is the fairing onto the island which rests atop and between those two covered inner hulls. No hump forward.

Difference in samentics

By hump, I meant a unoccuplied structure outside the pressure hull used to extend the depth of the submarine in order accommodate the full length of the missile tubes of an SSBN. In this sense, the Typhoon's forward hydrodynamic or outer hull is really one big, well faired hump.

The "hump" under the sail is actually a third pressure hull. It looks like a hump, but is unlike SSBN humps because it is occupied.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Typhoon was unique I doubt we will see another sub like them for sometime. I can only think of two sub classes that used a double pressure hull. Typhoon and the Japanese aircraft carrier submarine of WW2.

 

[Blackstone]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

An article by Christian Conroy in the National Interest says the 094 SSBNs are too noisy to avoid US (and Japanese?) detection systems. If so, then can 094s truly provide "creditable" at-sea nuclear deterrence?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China's Ballistic-Missile Submarines: How Dangerous?
Share on email Share on twitter Share on facebook Share on digg | More Sharing ServicesMore
Printer-friendly version
Christian Conroy
|
November 18, 2013

On October 27, China’s state-run Xinhua news agency released a slideshow showing what the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) touted as the country’s first nuclear ballistic-missile submarine (SSBN). Though the “unveiling” of China’s Type 092 Xia-class SSBN comes as no surprise, Beijing’s open display of the submarine, coupled with technical improvements to the Chinese JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), raises the question of whether China is approaching a credible sea-based nuclear deterrent.

Although the Xia-class SSBN received much fanfare in both Chinese and Western sources alike, the PLAN envisions the Type 094 Jin-class submarine as playing the primary role in China’s sea-based nuclear-deterrence strategy. Even Xinhua has admitted that the Xia-class SSBN does not comprise a viable nuclear second-strike force. According to the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence, China maintains three operational Jin-class SSBNs and is currently constructing two more, all five of which will be outfitted with twelve JL-2 SLBMs. According to U.S. defense officials, the Jin-class SSBN is expected to begin sea patrols as early as 2014.

For China to acquire a credible survivable sea-based nuclear deterrent, the country must overcome two technical challenges that the country has been unable to surmount since first launching an SLBM from a submarine in 1988. China must build a submarine stealthy enough to avoid U.S. antisubmarine warfare (ASW) assets and design a JL-2 SLBM capable of penetrating US ballistic missile defense (BMD) with high probability.

Both the Xia-class and Jin-class SSBNs are not quiet enough to avoid detection by U.S. ASW assets. The Jin-class SSBN design if fundamentally flawed in that the large missile compartment at the rear of the vessel and the flood openings below the missile hatches create a detectable sonar signature. A 2009 U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence report comparing the low-frequency noise level for China’s SSBN force to that of Russian 1970s-era SSBNs found that out of the twelve submarines profiled, the Xia-class SSBN was the most detectable and the Jin-class SSBN the fourth-most detectable. China’s JL-2 SLBM has repeatedly failed launch tests and it is still unclear whether the PLAN successfully tested the SLBM on August 16, as it claimed.

Even if China acquires the technical capacity necessary for a survivable sea-based nuclear deterrent, the highly centralized PLA has no operational experience in maintaining deterrence patrols on the open seas. China has traditionally relied exclusively on its land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) for deterrence and thus has never confronted the existential question of whether to predelegate SLBM launch authority to submarine commanders in case of crisis.

 

[chuck731]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

An article by Christian Conroy in the National Interest says the 094 SSBNs are too noisy to avoid US (and Japanese?) detection systems. If so, then can 094s truly provide "creditable" at-sea nuclear deterrence?[\QUOTE]

094 does need to be at sea to be credible deterrence. It can be tied up along its pier and cover all of Japan and part of west coast of the US with its missiles.

I also think the Chinese can use an embayment west of Dalian off of the yellow sea as a secure area for its SSBNs to operate. This embayment is shallow, and its mouth is dotted with a string of islands. I believe a causeway and bridge is proposed to close off the opening. This would turn this embayment into effectively an salt water lake connected to the Yellow sea only by a few easily controlled and patrolled channels. It would become something like a Chesapeak Bay, except much larger. There is no way any SSN can tail a Chinese SSBN into this bay. The bay is large enough so the SSBN has quite some area in operate in.

 

[Schumacher]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

No. it's not. The Chinese know it themselves.

No, it's simply the truth. The US is advancing its submarine capabilities constantly and steadily.

Saying something is true doesn't make it so. You need to give evidence/logic, otherwise it's cheap talks.
China clearly doesn't know it, otherwise they wouldn't invest billions in multiple 094s.
Never said USN is not advancing.

That's a very convienent excuse when you are behind in tech...but it does not change the truth of the matter.

And here is the truth of the matter.

The US commissioned the first Ohio class SSBN in 1981. They have been recognized as the best in class ever since...for 30+ years. 18 were built. 4 were converted to SSGN.

The PLAN built a single vessel, then more recently built a few Type 094 and are now building the Type 096, ergo the PLAN did not serial build the Type 094s and since they are building the Type 096 so soon...clearly they are improving on it.

This lends credence to the Admiral's claim...otherwise there would be no need to build the newer SSBN so soon.

................

Showing US has Ohio since 81, or Elvis is gone etc, is different from showing that they can neutralize 094. To do that, you need to, well, show that they can neutralize 094.
China investing in J20 doesn't mean J10/J11 don't do their job. Simple logic, not hard to understand.
How soon exactly are they building 096 ? I'm really interested in the progress.

Not saying the USN admiral doesn't know his stuffs but does that mean he tells the truth, publicly ?
Current USN assets are sunk costs. If 094s pose a new challenge to USN which cannot be easily met without new investments which are not readily available. The admiral is just being smart to downplay it publicly as a mind game or to comfort the folks back home.
That's what I mean, PLAN put their money where their mouth is to the tune of billions with multiple 094s while the other side are just mouthing off. So far, all I see is more talks.

 

[tphuang]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Saying something is true doesn't make it so. You need to give evidence/logic, otherwise it's cheap talks.
China clearly doesn't know it, otherwise they wouldn't invest billions in multiple 094s.
Never said USN is not advancing.



Showing US has Ohio since 81, or Elvis is gone etc, is different from showing that they can neutralize 094. To do that, you need to, well, show that they can neutralize 094.
China investing in J20 doesn't mean J10/J11 don't do their job. Simple logic, not hard to understand.
How soon exactly are they building 096 ? I'm really interested in the progress.

Not saying the USN admiral doesn't know his stuffs but does that mean he tells the truth, publicly ?
Current USN assets are sunk costs. If 094s pose a new challenge to USN which cannot be easily met without new investments which are not readily available. The admiral is just being smart to downplay it publicly as a mind game or to comfort the folks back home.
That's what I mean, PLAN put their money where their mouth is to the tune of billions with multiple 094s while the other side are just mouthing off. So far, all I see is more talks.

093 and 094 are extremely noisy subs. Whether or not we want to believe it, that's why the US intelligence community, the world's submariner community have been saying for years now.

I think what Jeff is saying is that while 094 is noisy, it's still a credible nuclear deterrence as long as it operates from an sea water protected by PLAN and can strike American soil. I agree with that. It's not the optimal solution like US with Ohio class, but it's legitimate nuclear threat from an operational boomer with operational ICBM, whereas 092 was certainly not this way.

 

[TyroneG]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Noisy subs can be hiding underneath commercial ships. Pacific ocean is very big. If the subs going thru very obscure route chances are they can be undetected especially under bad weather.

Send the subs out during typhoon or rainy bad weather season then the work is cut out for hunting down the subs.

Mother Nature is a much bigger factor than human factors. All the fine points of technical advantages suddenly evaporated,

 

[Blackstone]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

I obviously agree 094 is a credible nuke deterrence that can strike US soil, which is what PLA needs it to be. That's all my point.

As to how noisy it is & which part of the ocean it operates, I'll leave it to others to discuss which I believe will quickly degenerate into a case of the blind leading the blind.

High noise level information of 092 and 094 SSBNs are from US intelligence community, what creditable data do you have to suggest they're wrong?