Kilo subs

[Sczepan]

according to german "Marineforum" http://www.marineforum.info/AKTUELLES/aktuelles.htm
the Nr. 368 Yuanzheng 68 is at her way to China.
Quote:
>CHINA

Ein weiteres für die Volksbefreiungsmarine bestimmtes U-Boot der KILO-Klasse hat die Überführung nach China begonnen.

Anfang August verließ das auf der Admiralitätswerft in St. Petersburg gebaute Boot vom Typ KILO-II (Projekt 636) an Deck des Spezialtransportschiffes TAIANKOU die Ostsee. Ein zweites, ebenfalls in St. Petersburg gebautes U-Boot des gleichen Typs soll "vermutlich noch in diesem Jahr" ebenfalls auf den Weg nach Asien geschickt werden.

Mindestens noch drei (möglicherweise fünf) weitere U-Boote dieses Typs, von denen einige auch in Severodwinsk und in Nizhnij Nowgorod gebaut werden, sollen danach noch folgen. Die neuen U-Boote können neben Torpedos sehr wahrscheinlich auch Seeziel-FK Club-S (SS-N-27, Reichweite bis zu 300km) aus ihren jeweils sechs Torpedorohren verschießen. Sie ergänzen die Ende der 90-er Jahre für die PLAN gebauten jeweils zwei Einheiten der KILO-I-Klasse (Projekt 877 EKM) und der KILO-II-Klasse.

In St. Petersburg werden neben den U-Booten bei der Nordwerft auch zwei weitere Zerstörer der SOVREMENNIY-Klasse gebaut. Während eines der Schiffe im April bei einem Brand beschädigt wurde und der Fortgang seiner Fertigstellung seitdem weitgehend unklar bleibt, hat der andere Zerstörer nun in der Östlichen Ostsee mit ersten Probefahrten begonnen. Er soll angeblich im März 2006 abgeliefert werden.

Die beiden in 2002 bestellten Neubauten gehören zu einer für China modifizierten Variante 659-EM dieser Zerstörerklasse. 1999 bzw. 2001 hatte die PLAN bereits zwei SOVREMENNIY der Variante 659-E aus Russland erhalten. Bei diesen handelte es noch nicht um speziell nach den Wünschen der PLAN gebaute Schiffe, sondern um "Fertigbauten" von ursprünglich für die russische Marine vorgesehenen Zerstörern.<

summary translastion:

A new Kilo II sub left "Admiralitätswerft in St. Petersburg" in August 2005, a secound is suspect to follow also this year. Min. 3 - may be 5 subs of these type - should follow after that. The new subs could launch torpedoes and the FK Club-S (SS-N-27).

In St.Petersburg also two SOVREMENNIY destroyers Variante 659-EM where build for China. One of them was damaged by fire, the other one startet sea trials in eastern part of "Ostsee" and should be deliver in March 2006.

[Dongfeng]

Well, I don't speak German but I do have a secret weapon--Google translation :cool:

So here is the rough translation of this article:


A further submarine of the Kilo class intended for the people release navy began the transfer to China.

At the beginning of of August left on admiralty the boat of the type Kilo ii (project 636), built in pc. Petersburg, at deck of the special cargo boat TAIANKOU the Baltic Sea. A second, likewise submarine of the same type built in pc. Petersburg is to be likewise sent "probably still in this year" on the way to Asia.

At least still three (possibly five) further submarines of this type, by which some also in Severodwinsk and in Nizhnij Nowgorod are built, are to still follow thereafter. The new submarines can fire surface target fiber plastic club (Ss-n-27, range up to 300km) from their beside torpedoes very probably also in each case six torpedo pipes. They supplement those end of the 90's for the PLAN built in each case two units of the Kilo i class (project 877 EKM) and the Kilo ii-class.

In pc. Petersburg beside the submarines with norththrown also two the further destroyers the SOVREMENNIY class are built. While one of the ships was damaged in April with a fire and the continuation of its completion since then remains to a large extent unclear, the other destroyer began now in the eastern Baltic Sea with first test runs. It is to be delivered allegedly in March 2006.

The two in 2002 ordered new buildings belong to one for China modified variant 659-em of this destroyer class. 1999 and/or 2001 had already received those to PLAN two SOVREMENNIY the variant 659-E from Russia. With these it concerned not yet around particularly ships built according to the desires the PLAN, but "finished's buildings" from originally destroyers planned for the Russian navy.

[tphuang]

one got burnt? man, the russians need to stop letting these things happen.

[MIGleader]

that ship should be in the plans hand no later than 07. as for the kilos, the chinse ordered eight, so that should be inference to how many still need to be built.

[Chairman Hu]

China needs more than that, I say like maybe 60-80 or so, Kilos are pretty good

[Neko]

The PLAN isn't skilled enough to keep that many Kilos in working order.

No to mention the number of skilled captain they do not have.

And the price of importing double digit numbers would be immense. It'd be far more cost-efficient to purchase rights to build them themselves, and just buy the weaponry from Russia.

[Dongfeng]

The PLA Navy will have its obsolete Romeo and Ming subs replaced, but not entirely by Kilo. The indigenous front should also be considered. Song, and possibily Yuan, are likely to be built in double-digit numbers in the coming decade. I will not be surprised to see at least 20~30 Song and 10~20 Yuan or its following class in the PLAN by 2020.

[Neko]

The PLA Navy will have its obsolete Romeo and Ming subs replaced, but not entirely by Kilo. The indigenous front should also be considered. Song, and possibily Yuan, are likely to be built in double-digit numbers in the coming decade. I will not be surprised to see at least 20~30 Song and 10~20 Yuan or its following class in the PLAN by 2020.


Based on the most recent 10 year plan and whatnot, the dominant sub will be the Song.

[MIGleader]

the chinense will have very soon: 12 kilo, 10 song, 2 yuan, 3 han, 1 xia, 2 93, and maybe a 94.

i doubt even the Us would be able to susutain 60-80 kilos.

[Neko]

We wouldn't want to.

Our subs, not the 688/688i, are far more effective.

And with fuel prices as high as they are... nuclear is the only way to go.

[IDonT]

the chinense will have very soon: 12 kilo, 10 song, 2 yuan, 3 han, 1 xia, 2 93, and maybe a 94.

i doubt even the Us would be able to susutain 60-80 kilos.

The USN actually operates that many subs.

Los Angeles Class (688i)
USS Los Angeles (SSN 688), Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
USS Philadelphia (SSN 690), Groton, Conn.
USS Memphis (SSN 691), Groton, Conn.
USS Bremerton (SSN 698), San Diego, Calif.
USS Jacksonville (SSN 699), Norfolk, Va.
USS Dallas (SSN 700), Groton, Conn.
USS La Jolla (SSN 701), Pearl Harbor, Hi.
USS City of Corpus Christi (SSN 705), Guam.
USS Albuquerque (SSN 706), Portsmouth, NH
USS Portsmouth (SSN 707), San Diego, Calif.
USS Minneapolis-St. Paul (SSN 708), Norfolk, Va.
USS Hyman G. Rickover (SSN 709), Norfolk, Va.
USS Augusta (SSN 710), Groton, Conn.
USS San Francisco (SSN 711), Guam.
USS Houston (SSN 713), Bremerton, Wa.
USS Norfolk (SSN 714), Norfolk, Va.
USS Buffalo (SSN 715), Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
USS Salt Lake City (SSN 716), San Diego, Calif.
USS Olympia (SSN 717), Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
USS Honolulu (SSN 718), Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
USS Providence (SSN 719), Groton, Conn.
USS Pittsburgh (SSN 720), Groton, Conn.
USS Chicago (SSN 721), Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
USS Key West (SSN 722), Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
USS Oklahoma City (SSN 723), Norfolk, Va.
USS Louisville (SSN 724), Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
USS Helena (SSN 725), San Diego, Calif.
USS Newport News (SSN 750), Norfolk, Va.
USS San Juan (SSN 751), Groton, Conn.
USS Pasadena (SSN 752), Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
USS Albany (SSN 753), Norfolk, Va.
USS Topeka (SSN 754), San Diego, Calif.
USS Miami (SSN 755), Groton, Conn.
USS Scranton (SSN 756), Norfolk, Va.
USS Alexandria (SSN 757), Groton, Conn.
USS Asheville (SSN 758), San Diego, Calif.
USS Jefferson City (SSN 759), San Diego, Calif.
USS Annapolis (SSN 760), Groton, Conn.
USS Springfield (SSN 761), Groton, Conn.
USS Columbus (SSN 762), Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
USS Santa Fe (SSN 763), Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
USS Boise (SSN 764), Norfolk, Va.
USS Montpelier (SSN 765), Norfolk, Va.
USS Charlotte (SSN 766), Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
USS Hampton (SSN 767), Norfolk, Va.
USS Hartford (SSN 768), Groton, Conn.
USS Toledo (SSN 769), Groton, Conn.
USS Tucson (SSN 770), Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
USS Columbia (SSN 771), Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
USS Greeneville (SSN 772), Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
USS Cheyenne (SSN 773), Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

Seawolf Class
USS Seawolf (SSN 21), Groton, Conn.
USS Connecticut (SSN 22), Groton, Conn.
USS Jimmy Carter (SSN 23), Groton, Conn.

Virginia Class
USS Virginia (SSN 774), Groton, Conn.
Texas (SSN 775), under construction; delivery in 2005
Hawaii (SSN 776), under construction; delivery in 2006
North Carolina (SSN 777), named 11 December 2000; delivery in 2007
New Hampshire (SSN 778), named 6 August 2004
New Mexico (SSN 779), named 7 December 2004; construction began in January 2004

Ohio SSGN
USS Ohio (SSBN 726) — Out of service 29 Oct. 2002 for conversion to SSGN, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
USS Florida (SSBN 728) — conversion to SSGN scheduled for October 2003, Norfolk, Va.
USS Michigan (SSBN 727) — conversion to SSGN scheduled for October 2003
USS Georgia (SSBN 729) — conversion to SSGN scheduled for 2004

Ohio SSBN
USS Henry M. Jackson (SSBN 730)
USS Alabama (SSBN 731)
USS Alaska (SSBN 732)
USS Nevada (SSBN 733)
USS Pennsylvania (SSBN 735)
USS Kentucky (SSBN 737)
USS Tennessee (SSBN 734)
USS West Virginia (SSBN 736)
USS Maryland (SSBN 738)
USS Nebraska (SSBN 739)
USS Rhode Island (SSBN 740)
USS Maine (SSBN 741)
USS Wyoming (SSBN 742)
USS Louisiana (SSBN 743)

[MIGleader]

60-80 kilos equal the maintenence needs of 1000 subs. look at their unreliable engines.

[Neko]

[QUOTE=IDonT]
Los Angeles Class (688i)


The 688 and 688i are two different versions of the LA Class. Consequentally, the LA is not a 688i, but a 688. The first 688i is the USS Providence, which makes all subs of the same type the Providence class, or 719 class. As it were, however, the Providence is only a variation to the original design, so it is not the lead of a new class, it is the lead of the 688i variation. All previous subs of 688 class up to this point are only 688, not 688i.


And MIG, how do you know how unreliable the engines are? Do you own one? Can't be half as bad as my '95 Monte Carlo for reliability.

[IDonT]

[QUOTE=IDonT]
Los Angeles Class (688i)


The 688 and 688i are two different versions of the LA Class. Consequentally, the LA is not a 688i, but a 688. The first 688i is the USS Providence, which makes all subs of the same type the Providence class, or 719 class. As it were, however, the Providence is only a variation to the original design, so it is not the lead of a new class, it is the lead of the 688i variation. All previous subs of 688 class up to this point are only 688, not 688i.


And MIG, how do you know how unreliable the engines are? Do you own one? Can't be half as bad as my '95 Monte Carlo for reliability.

You misunderstand, the ones that are Italicized are the 688I, it starts with USS San Juan.

[IDonT]

60-80 kilos equal the maintenence needs of 1000 subs. look at their unreliable engines.

A nuclear reactor is more maintenance extensive than a diesel engine and battery pack.

[Neko]

[QUOTE=Neko]

You misunderstand, the ones that are Italicized are the 688I, it starts with USS San Juan.

I swear by the statement that it starts with the Providence.

And yes, I am a subsurface squid.

[IDonT]

[QUOTE=IDonT]

I swear by the statement that it starts with the Providence.

And yes, I am a subsurface squid.


You know you might be right. But the San Juan was the first 688i to be armed with the VLS launchers.

[Neko]

[QUOTE=Neko]


You know you might be right. The VLS armed 688i started with the San Juan.


Yes indeed. And I'll tell you, it changes the interior layout quite a bit. Confused me the first couple times I switched boats, going from a T-boat to an I-boat (these are used to denote specific compartment layouts, although the I does indicate 688i).

[sumdud]

If the Kilo's engines are unreliable, why in the world would there be so many customers?

Russian nuclear engines are bad, but no one ever said their diesel/battery ones suck. Why did the Russians use the Golfs and other SSBs more than SSBNs? At least at start.

[MIGleader]

look at what happened to china's first two kilo's. nuclear generaters aren't nesscisarily as hard to maintain as batteries. especialy for the U.s, who hasnt used batteries for 50 years.

[Neko]

look at what happened to china's first two kilo's. nuclear generaters aren't nesscisarily as hard to maintain as batteries. especialy for the U.s, who hasnt used batteries for 50 years.


We use Nukes because of longevity, not upkeep.

[bd popeye]

We use Nukes because of longevity, not upkeep.

Neko..you are a bubblehead? ;) :D My son is a surface STG2.

Your above statement is 100% correct. As an example the expected life of a CV nuke reactor is 50 years. That's a long time.

Please read my post on "Weakness of the PLAN".

Thank you.

[MIGleader]

my point was the Us wouldn't have too much experience on modern batteries since it hasn't used them in so long.

[sumdud]

So? We are talking about the Chinese here. As for the Russians, it is their nuclear subs, not diesel subs, that are unreliable.

[Lavi]

Actually, I've never heard that the Kilo would be unreliable, has anyone any sources on that one?

[bd popeye]

Actually, I've never heard that the Kilo would be unreliable, has anyone any sources on that one?

Well I found this three year old article on that "neocon" site freerepublic..The article is from the Taipei Times:confused:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/709813/posts

Posted on 07/02/2002 12:53:22 PM PDT by Stand Watch Listen

China is having big problems maintaining its Russian-built and supplied Kilo-class submarines, although it is planning to buy even more, defense sources said yesterday.
The Chinese navy has four Kilo-class submarines, which are the most advanced submarines in its fleet and the only ones it has obtained from abroad.

The sources said two of the submarines had been taken out of service over two years ago, after developing serious battery problems. They speculated that they had been taken to Russia for repair.

The four submarines are of an older type of Kilo, the first of which was delivered in 1995. The Chinese navy is reportedly planning to buy more of the vessels, perhaps as many as eight, according to Jane's Defence Weekly.

The Canada-based Kanwa Information Center, a defense-oriented news Web site, was the first to reveal in late 2000 that China planned to send the two Kilos back to Russia for repair.

Over the past 18 months, Taiwan's intelligence authorities have been closely monitoring the movements of the two Kilos.

Although intelligence authorities could uncover no direct evidence, they do know that the submarines had left their base in China.

The fate of the Kilos indicates that the Chinese military has yet to develop the ability to operate advanced weapons systems purchased from abroad, the sources said.

However, a Taiwanese defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Taiwan was also having difficulties.

"We have similar problems here in Taiwan. Just think of the many problems we have experienced while bringing into service new weapons systems bought from abroad over recent years," the official said.

"New problems will arise in the future, as the eight diesel-powered submarines that the US has promised to sell to Taiwan are delivered. It will be the first time that the navy has owned so many submarines at the same time," he said.

"If the navy can't make itself ready for the operation of so many submarines before delivery, it will be Taiwan's turn to become a laughing stock [in the eyes of] China," he said.

[Sczepan]

Well I found this three year old article on that "neocon" site freerepublic..The article is from the Taipei Times:confused:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/709813/posts

Posted on 07/02/2002 12:53:22 PM PDT by Stand Watch Listen

.....
The sources said two of the submarines had been taken out of service over two years ago, after developing serious battery problems. ....
well, thats what I also had heard about the indian kilos: serious battery problems in tropical field of application;
but infact: india and china, both expand there kilo fleet step by step.
India could also purchase western subs - german or french production,
China have chinese subs, there should be a reason for that,
and - indeed - the Kilos as I know ar called "black hole" - because there ar so silent,

[tphuang]

hmm, considering the problem PLAAF had with su-27, it's not surprising plan is having problems with kilos.

[crazyinsane105]

The interiors of India's Kilos aren't very impressive either when compared to Pakistan's Agosta 90B:

Kilo class:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kilo877/images/kilo877_5.jpg

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kilo877/images/kilo877_4.jpg

Agosta 90B (Khalid):

http://www.netgate.nildram.co.uk/agosta90b-khalid-internal.jpg


No wonder India is buying those Scorpenes.

[Lavi]

The Russians have actually now declared that the Kilo's in the Baltic will be replaced, the new sub will be the 677 Lada-class SSK, or 1650 Amur when exported.

The Kilos' are still silent though, which actually is the single most important thing when talking about subs. I guess the Kilo could have quite a long career still left, especially in non-Russian navies.

[tphuang]

I'm guessing the Chinese Kilos should be slightly more advanced because they are built later.

[MIGleader]

the indians subs are the standard varient, the chinese ones are the improved 636 varient.

[tphuang]

not sure about that part
http://kuku.sawf.org/Articles/1481.aspx

[MIGleader]

yes, it even stated indian kilos were the standard 877 varient.

[tphuang]

Of the 10 Kilos already in the Indian Navy, seven have been equipped with the 3M-54E1 Alfa cruise missile. The remaining three boats will be refitted with this missile over the next two years. (The upgraded version of Project 877EKM subs are referred to as Project 636.)

[Sea Dog]

Yes, the Kilos are highly capable submarines. The PLAN made a good decision to go with the 636. From what I understand the remaining Kilo's sold to China will all be Klub capable.

[MIGleader]

hmm, considering the problem PLAAF had with su-27, it's not surprising plan is having problems with kilos.

china had huge engine problems wit its fisrst two kilos aswell.

[sumdud]

Well, China will need its Kilos. It is the only sub in PLAN now that can launch long range ASMs.

[tphuang]

Well, China will need its Kilos. It is the only sub in PLAN now that can launch long range ASMs.
I'm sure the Song subs will eventually be equipped with YJ-83s and Yuan will probably be equipped with YJ-62s

[sumdud]

YJ-62s? Aren't those the improved air-Silkworms/Drakens?
If you mean the YJ-12, I doubt those are going under water.

[tphuang]

YJ-62s? Aren't those the improved air-Silkworms/Drakens?
If you mean the YJ-12, I doubt those are going under water.
YJ-62 is the most advanced Ashm China has, the question is obviously whether or not it can be launched by the sub. We will see, either way, the YJ-8x series should all have no problems.

[Sczepan]

sorry, I didn't see it before
http://www.armypress.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=636&Itemid=46

The crews of the submarines built for the China's Navy arrived in Severodvinsk
Written by Interfax

"Sevmachplant" is almost ready to pass two diesel-electric submarines (DES) of project 636 to the Navy of China.
Tuesday, 15 November 2005

[crobato]

Of the 10 Kilos already in the Indian Navy, seven have been equipped with the 3M-54E1 Alfa cruise missile. The remaining three boats will be refitted with this missile over the next two years. (The upgraded version of Project 877EKM subs are referred to as Project 636.)

Must be some mistake. Even if the 877s are upgraded, they would still be 877s. The 636s differ from the 877s because they have a slightly longer hull, more room and more tonnage. You can retrofit an 877 with some of the features of the 636 like the skewed propeller, but there is no way you can rebuild the ship to make it larger.

[tphuang]

Must be some mistake. Even if the 877s are upgraded, they would still be 877s. The 636s differ from the 877s because they have a slightly longer hull, more room and more tonnage. You can retrofit an 877 with some of the features of the 636 like the skewed propeller, but there is no way you can rebuild the ship to make it larger.
yeah, I made this statement a while back. I was mistaken. 877EKM is just an upgraded version of 877 and not the same as 636. I think 636 is supposed to be a few DBs quieter than 877.