China's Submarine thread

[ety]

 

[Awwad]

Very smart move by China. The submarine force is always the sharp edge. Surface fleets everywhere are so vulnerable now.

No doubt submarine force is one of the most deadliest arm of the navy.

However, from some of your posts I think you really underestimate the power of surface fleet. The surface fleet is essential component of the navy. You cannot allow the enemy air superiority & full control of atmosphere above the seas. The Warships are a huge deterrence against it. You know SAM sites even on ground are nightmare of enemy air power, they first take those out before establishing air superiority. You can consider warships as highly mobile & moving SAM sites plus plethora of other capabilities these offer. Kind of fire power & SAMs the warships provide makes them very valuable. These are heavily defended and very fast moving platforms. They are not vulnerable as much as you think. They got SAMs, they got close in weapon systems, they got countermeasures, EW jammings and much more. You cannot take out warships easily. Chinese and Americans are not fools that they are churning out the destroyers at so high rate spending billions of dollars.

 

[Awwad]

China's nuclear sub fleet will surpass the US within 10 years.

Nope.

China will for sure surpass the US in surface combatants but the US most likely will remain ahead in nuclear submarine fleet for foreseeable future. Atleast in technology, tonnage and firepower of those submarines. US has invested a lot in its submarine fleet for so many decades. US & USSR had to spend a lot at their subs for nuclear strike / second strike purposes. These both nations have had 1000s of nukes and it was essential for them to have a lot of advance nuclear subs, so these can carry lot of missiles. The cold war ignited that race. That's the reason US & even Russia's nuclear submarine fleet is so deadly.

China may get ahead in nuclear submarine fleet but it may take several decades not just one.

 

[Lulldapull]

No doubt submarine force is one of the most deadliest arm of the navy.

However, from some of your posts I think you really underestimate the power of surface fleet. The surface fleet is essential component of the navy. You cannot allow the enemy air superiority & full control of atmosphere above the seas. The Warships are a huge deterrence against it. You know SAM sites even on ground are nightmare of enemy air power, they first take those out before establishing air superiority. You can consider warships as highly mobile & moving SAM sites plus plethora of other capabilities these offer. Kind of fire power & SAMs the warships provide makes them very valuable. These are heavily defended and very fast moving platforms. They are not vulnerable as much as you think. They got SAMs, they got close in weapon systems, they got countermeasures, EW jammings and much more. You cannot take out warships easily. Chinese and Americans are not fools that they are churning out the destroyers at so high rate spending billions of dollars.

My contention has always been the gradual phasing away of legacy platforms. I never suggested the immediate replacement/ obsolescence of legacy platforms. You can see this increasingly with large capital ships concept having been put to rest. I believe a good three Russian vessels including a few landing craft have been sunk in the Black sea. The destruction of the Moskva despite its two Tunguska/ Kashtan retrofit E/O defensive package failed against a couple of subsonic Neptunes. Russians long realized that large capital ships like cruisers/ battleships/ carriers are actually more expensive to maintain/ induct than what assets they are tasked at defending. Russian surface fleet is just a shadow now of its former might.

I also believe the Iranis have thus far been holding their hand at overwhelming western warships and isolating/ bracketing them with overwhelming/ decisive weaponry. I believe the Iranis are fully capable of doing this via the Hoosi Baghi or Hezb, no problem, but it would start a real shooting war with unintended/ unpredictable consequences.

My fear is that either the IDF navy or the RN or one of the Nato toady naval vessels will soon become the first victim, with a low risk of retaliation on the Iranians. It'll bea watershed moment, just like the Moskva debacle.

 

[Awwad]

My contention has always been the gradual phasing away of legacy platforms. I never suggested the immediate replacement/ obsolescence of legacy platforms. You can see this increasingly with large capital ships concept having been put to rest. I believe a good three Russian vessels including a few landing craft have been sunk in the Black sea. The destruction of the Moskva despite its two Tunguska/ Kashtan retrofit E/O defensive package failed against a couple of subsonic Neptunes. Russians long realized that large capital ships like cruisers/ battleships/ carriers are actually more expensive to maintain/ induct than what assets they are tasked at defending. Russian surface fleet is just a shadow now of its former might.

I also believe the Iranis have thus far been holding their hand at overwhelming western warships and isolating/ bracketing them with overwhelming/ decisive weaponry. I believe the Iranis are fully capable of doing this via the Hoosi Baghi or Hezb, no problem, but it would start a real shooting war with unintended/ unpredictable consequences.

My fear is that either the IDF navy or the RN or one of the Nato toady naval vessels will soon become the first victim, with a low risk of retaliation on the Iranians. It'll bea watershed moment, just like the Moskva debacle.

I agree legacy systems should be phased out. However, modern large warships are here to stay. They would become more Stealth, faster and with more advance weaponry with time. Soon the main gun on naval ships will be replaced by high energy weapon, like laser system. You need a large ship like destroyers to install such weapons. As larger the ship, more power & energy you have available to it. More range it will have, and more powerful EW equipment it can hold. So, I see destroyers will stay for foreseeable future and will continue playing vital role.

The Moskva was fairly outdated ship despite some upgrades. I don' t think it had any decent SAMs onboard. Even if a modern ship now and then sinks, you have to see the ratio of it with other weapons on battlefield. Warships are fairly safer then most other weapon systems with the exception of submarines. Secondly, we also have to see the benefits to risk calculation. Even if the warship sinks in 1 out of 100s of events the benefits these provide are immense.

 

[Lulldapull]

I agree legacy systems should be phased out. However, modern large warships are here to stay. They would become more Stealth, faster and with more advance weaponry with time. Soon the main gun on naval ships will be replaced by high energy weapon, like laser system. You need a large ship like destroyers to install such weapons. As larger the ship, more power & energy you have available to it. More range it will have, and more powerful EW equipment it can hold. So, I see destroyers will stay for foreseeable future and will continue playing vital role.

The Moskva was fairly outdated ship despite some upgrades. I don' t think it had any decent SAMs onboard. Even if a modern ship now and then sinks, you have to see the ratio of it with other weapons on battlefield. Warships are fairly safer then most other weapon systems with the exception of submarines. Secondly, we also have to see the benefits to risk calculation. Even if the warship sinks in 1 out of 100s of events the benefits these provide are immense.

yaar Moskva per S-300FM navalized version installed thaa. And full standard modern A/D S/T complement radar package with their AK-630 combi. Do Kashtan CIWS modules retrofit bhee karay thay, to bring it up to date.......Moskva was the most heavily defended capital ship of the Black Sea Fleet. $1 million dollar Neptune mayziles nay $100 million dollar Moskva nu tabah keeta.

Main punjabi ich iss waastay comment keeta kyun k itthay saadday roosi/ chinese dost saara kuch parrhtay ne, aur un nu burra na lugg jaey mera comment, just how vulnerable their warships truly are. Saari chinese tech roosi say copy keeti hae gee.

Jiss din Moskva nu target kiya, there was very heavy fog on the black sea, aur Kashtan fail ho gya!

 

[sutton9999]

Where is rumored mini-reactor type 041, told 4 of which are under construction.

 

[Lulldapull]

Increasingly these very stealthy fiber glass radio transparent USV’s are coming into play. A $1000 outboard installed on a dinghy and a shaped charge to direct the blast just below the waterline upon impact, it is a nightmare to even detect, let alone stop at night. The warhead blows a 10 x 10 meter hole under the water line! wth are you goin do then?

Do Mintt main a big capital warship can be sunk, no problem, specially in rough sea state where detection is hard with tall waves.

It’s a fools game folks…….$2000 dollar USV taking out a $100 million dollar capital warship….……4 huge bulk carriers have been sunk in just the last fortnight alone with a dozen hit and damaged, with the best western surveillance money can buy no? Who are we kidding here?

 

[ety]

No one doubts huludao can build subs, but the questions remain:

1. Can China build at least 5 nuclear submarines (both SSN and SSBN) a year?
2. Does China want to build that many a year, with a goal of catching up with the size of the USN’ SSN and SSBN fleet size?

List of possible Chinese attack nuke subs currently under construction, sailing test and planning.

09III型核潜艇 - 维基百科，自由的百科全书

zh-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog

09V型核潜艇 - 维基百科，自由的百科全书

zh-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Numbers alone are nothing. What China needs to ensure is that their TECHNOLOGY is NOT compromised. Weed out the sell outs! The zionists are masters in spying - as long as Chinese (or any other country for that matters) critical infrastructure is secure then it's game over for thr West...otherwise no quantity edge is going to win you wars.

The US has been already doing this since years ago.

Identity of NSA hacker behind cyberattack on China's leading aviation university identified; to be disclosed in due course: source - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Nope.

China will for sure surpass the US in surface combatants but the US most likely will remain ahead in nuclear submarine fleet for foreseeable future. Atleast in technology, tonnage and firepower of those submarines. US has invested a lot in its submarine fleet for so many decades. US & USSR had to spend a lot at their subs for nuclear strike / second strike purposes. These both nations have had 1000s of nukes and it was essential for them to have a lot of advance nuclear subs, so these can carry lot of missiles. The cold war ignited that race. That's the reason US & even Russia's nuclear submarine fleet is so deadly.

China may get ahead in nuclear submarine fleet but it may take several decades not just one.

The US will have a hard time to have 50% of its sub fleet being more than 30 years old.

Their sub fleet has been deteriorating fast since the last of skilled workers & fading shipbuilding capability.

 

[DF-41]

The US will have a hard time to have 50% of its sub fleet being more than 30 years old.

Their sub fleet has been deteriorating fast since the last of skilled workers & fading shipbuilding capability.

Even harder time to do that, if not impossible to do that when USA spiral down into total bankruptcy and need to crawl on elbows and knees 3 times sincerely around Tiananmeng square begging and begging Xi Dada for alms

With the spiralling and impending bankruptcy of USA, can USA even project power within USA borders?

Washington has been adding to the national debt at an alarming pace. Not so long ago—beginning in the late 1990s—the federal government’s budget was actually in surplus, at least for a time. This year, it will be some $1.9 trillion in the red, the Congressional Budget Office forecast just this week.

Only a dozen years ago, the aggregate government debt amounted to about 70% of the nation’s gross domestic product. This year, it will be about equal to the entire gross domestic product (and by some measures higher when additional government accounts are included). By 2028, it is forecast to reach a record 106% of GDP, matching the record hit during the heavy spending to finance World War II. By 2034, barring changes in tax and spending policy, it is projected to hit 122% of GDP, the highest level ever recorded.

This red ink can have painful, if hidden, consequences. The CBO projects that the weight of the debt will reduce income growth by 12% over the next three decades, as debt payment crowds out other investments.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


“Any great power that spends more on debt service than on defense will not stay great for very long. True of Habsburg Spain, true of ancien régime France, true of the Ottoman Empire, true of the British Empire, this law is about to be put to the test by the U.S. beginning this very year.”

 

[FuturePAF]

The official propaganda program of the People's Navy of China officially released a promotional video for the 039c submarine on Weibo yesterday. As usual, perhaps the next generation (041?) submarine is not far away?
View attachment 49482View attachment 49483

Any indication the Type 041 will have a pump jet? The kilo SSK had one variant with a pump jet, so perhaps with the extra power, the type 041 could be able to support a pump jet and keep noise levels lower when traveling at higher speeds.

Russia’s Only Pump-Jet Kilo Class Submarine Is Back To Attack Ukraine

After an eventful career, the sole pump-jet-driven Kilo class submarine is likely about to embark on combat operations against Ukraine.

www.twz.com

Pump-jet Kilo (from H.I. Sutton)




One of the KILOs, Alrosa (B-871) is fitted with a pumpjet propulsor. This is unusual for a non-nuclear submarine since pump jets are generally optimal for higher underwater speeds. Possibly it was for testing since similar pumpjets are fitted to some Russian ballistic missile submarines. Although its use aboard Alrosa is questionable, it remains fitted after the submarine's recent (and protracted) refit. It remains the only diesel-electric submarine with a pump jet.

H I Sutton - Covert Shores

 

[MH.Yang]

Any indication the Type 041 will have a pump jet? The kilo SSK had one variant with a pump jet, so perhaps with the extra power, the type 041 could be able to support a pump jet and keep noise levels lower when traveling at higher speeds.

Russia’s Only Pump-Jet Kilo Class Submarine Is Back To Attack Ukraine

After an eventful career, the sole pump-jet-driven Kilo class submarine is likely about to embark on combat operations against Ukraine.

www.twz.com

Pump-jet Kilo (from H.I. Sutton)
View attachment 51438



One of the KILOs, Alrosa (B-871) is fitted with a pumpjet propulsor. This is unusual for a non-nuclear submarine since pump jets are generally optimal for higher underwater speeds. Possibly it was for testing since similar pumpjets are fitted to some Russian ballistic missile submarines. Although its use aboard Alrosa is questionable, it remains fitted after the submarine's recent (and protracted) refit. It remains the only diesel-electric submarine with a pump jet.

H I Sutton - Covert Shores

Shaftless pumps push

China’s submarines can be quieter, more powerful with new pump-jet: scientists

Shanghai research team says its new propulsion system can deliver higher thrust while reducing noisy vibrations by more than 90 per cent.

www.google.com

 

[FuturePAF]

Shaftless pumps push

China’s submarines can be quieter, more powerful with new pump-jet: scientists

Shanghai research team says its new propulsion system can deliver higher thrust while reducing noisy vibrations by more than 90 per cent.

www.google.com

On the Type 041?

That article seems to look like it’s just the pure nuclear submarines only.