PLAN Type 035/039/091/092 Submarine Thread

[Skywatcher]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

For the amount of activity that appears to happen there it seem odd that they went to so much effort to construct the harbour. I wonder whether this was planned as a major new naval base, perhaps in the late 80s/early 90s but that it became redundant as a result of the end of the Cold War???

I doubt the base expansion was a Cold War relic, simply because the CMC had no true naval expansion plans during the Cold War due to budget problems and the menace of sixty Soviet divisions surrounding Manchuria.

 

[sealordlawrence]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Getting simultaneous time images of the different locations should clear things up then...

Yes it would, I think the sinodefence forum needs its own satellite!

 

[tphuang]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

In fact, following some measuring and closer inspection I am going to scale down the number of SSN's I see to 7, with 2 at Sanya and 5 at Jianggezhuang. That would give 5 Han class boats and the two Shangs.

And I maintain 3 Han and 4 Shangs at Sanya/JGZ + 1 more Shang at Xiaopingdao. This is pointless, we are going to have different views on this, let's move on.

 

[Roger604]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

what we have here?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It looks like the crew from two Type 093 and a Type 094 visiting a beach resort. It is likely that not only the South Sea Fleet has this 2:1 combination but the North Sea Fleet and East Sea Fleet also. Perhaps the photos signal that around-the-clock SSBN patrols have become operational. After all, there was the recent rumor that JL-2 passed final tests this year.

 

[sealordlawrence]

»Ø¸´: Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

And I maintain 3 Han and 4 Shangs at Sanya/JGZ + 1 more Shang at Xiaopingdao. This is pointless, we are going to have different views on this, let's move on.

Probably for the best, I would just like to see some actual evidence rather than conjecture because at the moment there is just not enough to be certain about the numbers.

 

[Pointblank]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

In regards to earlier discussion, seagoing SSKs have been around forever. Remember your basic military history gentlemen. Battle of the Atlantic ring a bell? The U-boats ranged freely throughout the Atlantic Ocean. Both German and Japanese subs were able to make the journey between the two countries. And this was with 1940s technology. So of course SSKs are viable blue-water assets.

Unless you realize that speed and endurance is an issue. SSK's can't maintain high speed for extended periods, and the diesel engines are often very noisy. Not to mention the snorkel which is a radar target. SSN's can run pretty much indefinitely at high speeds, and the only radar signature they can produce is from the periscope.

 

[Roger604]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

New photo of the 093.

 

[Ambivalent]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

thats true. German subs were able to go to the US east coast (i remember seeing on TV, they filming new york at night with the periscope). And with refuelling, they could go to south atlantic.

That's the Atlantic. A Kilo has barely sufficient range to sail from China to Hawaii one way. Old Golfs could only patrol off Hawaii. They lacked the range to patrol off of the US proper in the Pacific. Few (maybe no) modern SS's have sufficient fuel to cross the Pacific from mainland Asia or Japan to the US. Even in WWII USN subs had to deploy from Hawaii to patrol the waters around Japan. I think only the Japanese had boats that could cross the Pacific and back without refueling.
Btw, the refueling of German subs proved impractical. We were always aware of the location of the Milk Cows, allowing us to attack and sink them with great regularity, disrupting the German's ability to mount long range patrols of any duration. Don't forget, the boat not only has to make it there and back, but has to have enough fuel and other supplies to stay on station for a useful amount of time.

 

[Ambivalent]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Unless you realize that speed and endurance is an issue. SSK's can't maintain high speed for extended periods, and the diesel engines are often very noisy. Not to mention the snorkel which is a radar target. SSN's can run pretty much indefinitely at high speeds, and the only radar signature they can produce is from the periscope.

Diesel boats only make sense for barrier operations where mobility is not required. They make a great deal of noise in transit on diesels. Even back in the 1960's the USN could track Soviet diesel powered missile subs like their Golfs from the time they left port to the time they returned.
A diesel sub operating in confined waters or a choke point, assuming it was not located earlier while dieseling to it's patrol station, operating on batteries or AIP at 3-4 knots is hard to find, and represents the only viable use of a diesel sub.
Even today, no diesel sub can run down modern surface combatants. They have to come to the diesel sub for it to have a chance of attacking successfully. A carrier and her escorts are at least ten knots faster than any diesel sub, and a diesel sub cannot sustain top speed for more than an hour, if that, and aren't necessarily quieter than a nuclear sub at those speeds either. The most powerful diesel subs, the Japanese Oyashio class boats, have 7750 shp moving 4000 tons, the most installed power on any operational diesel boat. A similar sized Skipjack had 15,000 shp. Guess which one is faster?
Only the best, and quietest, SSN's can stalk fast moving carriers in deep water, and the wise CSG commander isn't going to go inshore and risk the carrier.

 

[plawolf]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Diesel boats only make sense for barrier operations where mobility is not required. They make a great deal of noise in transit on diesels. Even back in the 1960's the USN could track Soviet diesel powered missile subs like their Golfs from the time they left port to the time they returned.
A diesel sub operating in confined waters or a choke point, assuming it was not located earlier while dieseling to it's patrol station, operating on batteries or AIP at 3-4 knots is hard to find, and represents the only viable use of a diesel sub.
Even today, no diesel sub can run down modern surface combatants. They have to come to the diesel sub for it to have a chance of attacking successfully. A carrier and her escorts are at least ten knots faster than any diesel sub, and a diesel sub cannot sustain top speed for more than an hour, if that, and aren't necessarily quieter than a nuclear sub at those speeds either. The most powerful diesel subs, the Japanese Oyashio class boats, have 7750 shp moving 4000 tons, the most installed power on any operational diesel boat. A similar sized Skipjack had 15,000 shp. Guess which one is faster?
Only the best, and quietest, SSN's can stalk fast moving carriers in deep water, and the wise CSG commander isn't going to go inshore and risk the carrier.

Gotland ring any bells?

SSKs are hardly as one-dimensional and as easily countered you some would like people to think.

They don't have the speed and endurance to chase down surface ships and sink them with 'fish', but with sub launched AShMs, you don't have to.

SSKs can also be very dangerous to SSNs traversing to their station by hiding in chock points or good navigation routes.

Also, remember that there are more than one way to kill an enemy. You do not have to hunt the CSG down. An SSK can quietly trudge its way behind hostile 'lines' and attack support ships; set up mine fields near enemy ports, or even attack those ports and munitions stores with cruise missiles etc.

SSKs definitely have their uses.