PLAN Type 035/039/091/092 Submarine Thread

[Equation]

Or could be testing this concept

There is no question that submarines are no longer hunters of other subs of warships they launch land attack missiles and going forward will be used by special operations forces and launching under water unmanned vehicles

Could be, but I don't see a hatch or access opening to that underwater unmanned vehicles for special ops forces, but rather a underwater surveillance equipment perhaps?

 

[snake65]

Interesting.

I believe that the largest diesel electrics have been:

- I-400 Class (Japan) about 6,700 tons (3 Built)
- India Class (USSR) about 6,900 tons (2 built)
- Type 032 Class PRC about 6,700 tons (1 built, so far)

Very large diesel subs and all had different roles.

Project 940 Lenok (NATO - India) was a bit smaller, 5095 tons submerged. It was a dedicated carrier for two project 1837 DSRVs. Arguably, it was possible to use it also for deployment of special forces, although I doubt it very much that there is actual evidence of that

 

[asif iqbal]

Type 039B SSK

 

[Ultra]

Not sure if this was posted before.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please pardon my ignorance as I am not really familiar with the subject on submarines - but can anyone tell me what this sub is? What's its designation?

Also, why the bulge in the middle? What purpose does it serve? Does it cause problem hydrodynamically? Would it create extra noise due to increased surface friction? Why not a smooth hull line?

Lastly, what advantages and disadvantages between X-shaped stern control surfaces (hydroplanes) vs vertical cross stern control surfaces?

To me, it seems X-shaped stern control surfaces is more compact, allows better maneuverability in very tight spaces, it also allows the sub to go lower....literally "sit" at the bottom of the sea floor while the vertical cross stern control surfaces may get in the way and scrap the sea floor instead.

 

[Blitzo]

That sub is meant to be the 032 test sub. The bulge is there to help store SLBMs.
The drawing depicts the bulge as smaller than it actually is.

And yes, X tails seem to have some advantages in regards to compactness. I've also seen it said that the angled fins makes reduces radar returns... But I'm not too sure about that one.

 

[Ultra]

Thanks Bltizo!

It seems like a quite novel idea to use diesel-electric sub for SLBM. Also using the conning tower to help store the SLBM is quite novel too.

I am now wondering if its far safer and more economical to build more low cost diesel-electric subs for SLBMs than to build large expensive SLBM subs for SLBMs. I mean, look at it this way, if a Type 032 can store 3 SLBMs - it would take 8 Type 032 subs to store 24 SLBMs compare to a single Type 096.

But the thing is, putting almost ALL your eggs in one basket doesn't seem like a very smart strategy - especially when the OpFor (Japanese, American, and even Indian) have large number of SSNs and advanced anti-submarine warfare capabilities. Spreading the risk across number of subs decrease the chance of interception and sinking and increased the chance of survival.
For example, for a single Type 096 USN need to assign dedicated SSNs and anti-submarine taskforce to hunt for them, now with 8 of them the resource require is potentially 8 fold increase -
it greatly increased the resources required to hunt for them economically.

Smaller subs (diesel-electric subs seems to be smaller than SLBM subs) also means smaller footprint, and potentially smaller acoustic signature. This should also increase the stealthiness and survivability.

So the question is - just how much is a single Type 032 compare to Type 96?

 

[Blitzo]

032 is only a test submarine, I doubt they will look to use it as a viable operational SSB.

The point of ballistic missile submarines is to stay underwater, deployed as long as possible. Smaller diesel submarines have less submerged endurance and are also limited by material stores compared to larger SSBNs.
Also, it is worth remembering that distributing your missiles are only practical to an extent. There should be an optimal balance between distributing your missile inventory, and optimal submarine endurance, submarine cost, crewing demands, maintenance demands, and the technology available. Most navies have converged to SSBN design to a relatively similar type of submarine, so I think that says a lot about the kind of cost effectiveness of alternatives.

However I do think the 032 hull could be developed into a viable ocean going long endurance SSK like the SMX Ocean.

 

[antiterror13]

would be much better to use commercial container ships to launch JL-2A/JL-3 (than SSB)

 

[Brumby]

The point of ballistic missile submarines is to stay underwater, deployed as long as possible. Smaller diesel submarines have less submerged endurance and are also limited by material stores compared to larger SSBNs.
Also, it is worth remembering that distributing your missiles are only practical to an extent. There should be an optimal balance between distributing your missile inventory, and optimal submarine endurance, submarine cost, crewing demands, maintenance demands, and the technology available. Most navies have converged to SSBN design to a relatively similar type of submarine, so I think that says a lot about the kind of cost effectiveness of alternatives.

Not to forget the command and control factor. It is probably a very stringent process to get to become the captain of a SSBN. When you have a distributed model, you run into the problem of greater risk with command, control and communications. You don't want any of your captain to sail away with three of your nukes.

 

[asif iqbal]

Some good news coming from Samaa news channel stating that Pak government has approved purchase of 8 x SSK from China

Let's wait and see what happens

2015 is already a big year might just get bigger the financial issues might have been resolved