MastanKhan
VIP Member
Hi,
Is this the Hangor---????
Is this the Hangor---????
Hangor Class Submarine | Updates & Discussion
- Thread starter ghazi52
- Start date
Bilal
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
No, this is the new Type 039C.
New Improved Yuan Class Submarine In China, May Have VLS
A new type of submarine has been observed at the Wuchang shipyard in Wuhan, China. The vessel was spotted by Defense analyst Tom Shugart.Initial analysis suggests that it is noticibly longer than the existing Type-039A/B/C Yuan Class, and also features an X-form rudder…Read More >….
www.hisutton.com
MastanKhan
VIP Member
Bilal
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
No Hangor is based on (is) type 039b.
The Unsavoury History of India’s Long-Delayed Submarine Augmentation Programme
While India's fifth Scorpene-class submarine was commissioned nearly 18 years after the deal was inked, China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy had built 12 nuclear-powered general purpose attack submarines and ballistic missile submarines in the past 15 years.
thewire.in
WatchtowerWarrior4Ever
Registered Member
WatchtowerWarrior4Ever
Registered Member
FuturePAF
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Any chance the last two hangers can be modified to house at least 8-12 VLS each, to carry the YJ-21? Even two subs, one based out of Karachi and one in Ormara could keep the adversary guessing.
Last edited:
Tank131
Registered Member
Not likely. To give such a modification would be a huge undertaking. And would not likely yield very good results. The Qing tech demonstrator for example didnt likely have more than 4 VLS.
What PN needs for the future would be something more akin to the Dosan Ahn Changho (KSS-III) Class of South Korea. These are diesel subs with capabilities of launching SLBM and are 3000-3800T (depending on batch), with AIP. Each has 6 K-VLS cells capable of launching Hyunmoo-4-4 with a 500km range. Now for PN, 500km range could be had with Babur, but the Hyunmoo has a speed of >Mach 4 and on a ballistic tragectory would be harder to intercept. It is a derivative of Hyunmoo 2c which itself it suspected to be derivative of Iskander (Russian) SRBM. With a length of ~7-8m its closest physical counterpart would be Ghaznavi (with only a 290km range). Likely best option would be to derive any future SLBM from Fatah II. In short, IF PN ever goes for a ballistic missile sub, it needs to be built from scratch, not a modification of an existing design which will be tremendously costly and overall likely ineffective.
FuturePAF
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
If it should to be a clean sheet design, then as a follow on, the PN ought to build a true SSBN, but small enough to keep acquisition and operational costs down, while achieving the majority of the goal: able to use a single of the 75 mw reactors off the Type 093B subs to power a 3500-4000 ton design, 3 as SSN and 3 as SSBN probably enough to do the job. The SSBN would only be for 8-12 x 1500 km YJ-21 missiles, but that might be enough for Pakistan’s need, if it’s an SSBN and can patrol anywhere in the Indian Ocean, keeping the Indians guessing, and giving a chance for the 1500 km missiles to hold most of India in check as a second strike force.
Last edited:
blueboy7862
Registered Member
Sir, 3-SSNs will cost more than $3Billions while 3-SSBNs will cost more than$4Billions if not more with full weapons package including SLCMs & HWTs. So don't think about such ambitious procurements. SSKs with VL SLCMs & SMASH SLBMs will do the job for us promptly & cost-effectively.
FuturePAF
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
The Hangors cost $650 million each (probably more if you consider inflation), and with the added VLS section probably at least another 100 million more. AIP-SSK travel at a few knots and could easily be spotted with modern ASW equipment, especially if they venture far from our Submarine bastion of the coastal areas. But if they stay near the coast they will be more predictable and less likely to operate as a robust second strike capability.
If I go by your numbers and each SSBN costs $1.33 Billion, but can stay at sea, submerged for months and moving at a solid 20+ knots cruising or 10 knots in silent patrol, all over the Indian Ocean, it seems more survivable as well as more capable.
If we are to have modern capabilities we need to be able to spend adequate amounts. This is why everything comes back to the economy (and by extension politics).
more than 100 million. I wouldnt be shocked to see the price double.
FuturePAF
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
So, even more reason to go for SSNs and SSBNs, 3 each, to build up a qualitative capability that will divide adversary assets.
If the Indians know the coasts and EEZ are defended by Hangors and the oceans are patrolled by SSNs, their Carriers much less their capital ships are not safe. A classic pincher.
At the same time a Pakistani SSBN, out patrolling for months, for example, under SLOCS between Sri Lanka and the Red Sea could fire upon major Indian naval bases from an unexpected direction.
China has expanded the nuclear submarine construction facility at Huludao, and is about to transition away from the Type 093B to the Type 095. In a few years, the Type 093B tech will be outdated for them, but will still be as good anything the Indians could build, if not better. Building a modest 4000 ton design, if Pakistan can’t get the 6000 ton 093B, which would be better with its 18 VLS, will probably not cost more than a billion dollars, considering china’s economies of scale. Building most of them in Pakistan, could be cover enough to say it’s indigenous tech, if it’s the 4000 ton design.
cant agree more, i would say 4 SSN and minimum 3 SSBN. it could take 10 year to build the fleet so be it. spreading 7-8 billion usd over 10 years is 800 million usd per annum
