Skywatcher
Captain
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
Never throw away something if you can still get a use for it.
Never throw away something if you can still get a use for it.
PLAN Type 035/039/091/092 Submarine Thread
- Thread starter crobato
- Start date
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
I understand that UK and FR's strategic planning decided that a fleet of 4 SSBN's would serve effective deterrent. I believe this is because having 4 boats would guarantee at least 1-2 at sea, while others are in refit or dock.
But I'm curious as to why people think PLAN would operate 5 x Jin Class SSBN's? I mean just because PLAN operated 5 x 091 SSN's, doesn't mean they'd build the exact number of Jin class to match? Why not 4 boats? Or 6-8 boats (eventual estimate for 093)?
Or, does western analysts think the PLAN requires 5 SSBN's to serve the same deterrence role that 4 "western" subs do, because PLAN subs spend longer time in dock or maintenance?
I understand that UK and FR's strategic planning decided that a fleet of 4 SSBN's would serve effective deterrent. I believe this is because having 4 boats would guarantee at least 1-2 at sea, while others are in refit or dock.
But I'm curious as to why people think PLAN would operate 5 x Jin Class SSBN's? I mean just because PLAN operated 5 x 091 SSN's, doesn't mean they'd build the exact number of Jin class to match? Why not 4 boats? Or 6-8 boats (eventual estimate for 093)?
Or, does western analysts think the PLAN requires 5 SSBN's to serve the same deterrence role that 4 "western" subs do, because PLAN subs spend longer time in dock or maintenance?
Last edited:
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
I think the US and the USSR bases theirs on having a minimum of five. Also I suspect that since an 094 carries less missiles than its counterparts, more will be put into the water to compensate. On the other hand, I also think that the 094 is a transition design, and so will only probably build only 4 to 5 at best before moving on to a newer more capable design.
I think the US and the USSR bases theirs on having a minimum of five. Also I suspect that since an 094 carries less missiles than its counterparts, more will be put into the water to compensate. On the other hand, I also think that the 094 is a transition design, and so will only probably build only 4 to 5 at best before moving on to a newer more capable design.
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
picture of the 4th Yuan. I'm doing a conservative count including the original + the one we saw in Shanghai in the beginning of the year + the one we saw moved to Shanghai in May. This one is taken from Wuhan.
picture of the 4th Yuan. I'm doing a conservative count including the original + the one we saw in Shanghai in the beginning of the year + the one we saw moved to Shanghai in May. This one is taken from Wuhan.
Attachments
-
Yuan-04-Aug28.jpg -
Yuan-04-Aug28-2.jpg -
Yuan-04-Aug28-3.jpg -
Yuan-04-Aug28-4.jpg
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
transit to and from area of operation.
With that in mind, to maintain a constant patrol on deterrence will probably require 5 subs for china.
transit to and from area of operation.
With that in mind, to maintain a constant patrol on deterrence will probably require 5 subs for china.
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
The ones here seems to shows shadows where the planes are. At first I thought about the possibility of being improved Han, but both fins are too squared for that type. One sub appears longer than the other as you can see from the relative position of the white marks to the sail. The white marks are warning labels over the passive flank sonars so tug boats don't bump into them. The last picture in Sanya seems to be one of the slightly longer ones too.
Why hull mounted planes? You can retract these and when they do, has less resistance in the water for more speed and less flow noise. Actually subs have been using hull mounted planes for a long while (note the Romeos, the Mings and the Kilos). But the reason for moving the planes to the sail is to save space, better controllability since the flow around the body won't interfere with the planes, and---especially for smaller submarines---the farther you mount the planes from the body, the less the flow noise will interfere with the flank sonars. But for nuclear subs the trend is reversing back to the hull mounted planes for the other mentioned reasons. Nuclear subs are big enough so you can put planes in the hull and still not interfere with the flank sonars. For diesel submarines, putting planes on the sail now is a must if you want to have flank sonars. As a note, it parallels what happened with the LA class submarines, where the earlier ones had sail mounted planes, and the later ones has hull mounted planes.
Another reason for moving the planes back to the hull is for ice breaking necessary for arctic exploration. Previously the issue was handled by angling the planes vertically so they point up, but ultimately better to eliminate them altogether from the sail. This is more an issue for US, British, and Russian subs especially with SSBMs planning to operate under the arctic ice cap. But who knows what the PLAN's future long term intentions are.
My speculation is that although the 094 still has sail mounted planes, the future trend with the PLAN nuclear subs is to move the planes to the hull, and the 093 with the hull mounted plane is a logical way to test or experiment with the idea. This may lead to future 093 variants to come and to the 093's own successors.
The ones here seems to shows shadows where the planes are. At first I thought about the possibility of being improved Han, but both fins are too squared for that type. One sub appears longer than the other as you can see from the relative position of the white marks to the sail. The white marks are warning labels over the passive flank sonars so tug boats don't bump into them. The last picture in Sanya seems to be one of the slightly longer ones too.
Why hull mounted planes? You can retract these and when they do, has less resistance in the water for more speed and less flow noise. Actually subs have been using hull mounted planes for a long while (note the Romeos, the Mings and the Kilos). But the reason for moving the planes to the sail is to save space, better controllability since the flow around the body won't interfere with the planes, and---especially for smaller submarines---the farther you mount the planes from the body, the less the flow noise will interfere with the flank sonars. But for nuclear subs the trend is reversing back to the hull mounted planes for the other mentioned reasons. Nuclear subs are big enough so you can put planes in the hull and still not interfere with the flank sonars. For diesel submarines, putting planes on the sail now is a must if you want to have flank sonars. As a note, it parallels what happened with the LA class submarines, where the earlier ones had sail mounted planes, and the later ones has hull mounted planes.
Another reason for moving the planes back to the hull is for ice breaking necessary for arctic exploration. Previously the issue was handled by angling the planes vertically so they point up, but ultimately better to eliminate them altogether from the sail. This is more an issue for US, British, and Russian subs especially with SSBMs planning to operate under the arctic ice cap. But who knows what the PLAN's future long term intentions are.
My speculation is that although the 094 still has sail mounted planes, the future trend with the PLAN nuclear subs is to move the planes to the hull, and the 093 with the hull mounted plane is a logical way to test or experiment with the idea. This may lead to future 093 variants to come and to the 093's own successors.