Yes, apparently a new Yuan being constructed.
This is a discussion on Chinese submarines thread within the Navy forums, part of the China Defense & Military category; I really hate having to show pictures this way, but the original poster had them like this since the Yuans ...
I really hate having to show pictures this way, but the original poster had them like this since the Yuans are so hard to spot around everything else. Anyhow, this one looks like it's at the same location as the one we saw late September, so I'm assuming this is the same Yuan (even though I don't see much and more works seem to be done on this than the last picture). What's interesting is that in the preview, I can see rest of the photo, but when I open, it's mostly blocked, lol.
Yes, apparently a new Yuan being constructed.
I look back at this design (the one based on the model on the 092's designer's desk) and it seemed to me know this is more of a pre-092 concept design rather than a post 094 concept design. The missiles I believe are too small to be JL-2 and more of the JL-1 size and generation. One of the reasons why SSBNs of the second generation (e.g. Trident vs. Polaris) are much bigger than the previous types is because the missiles they are carrying is much bigger and heavier.
The sub looks to me that its not very big, and the screw on the tail is an old four bladed one, compared to the 7 to 8 bladed ones used in modern Chinese sub models.
^ Yeah after we've seen the satellite pics of the two new SSBN, it's clear that the Jin-class looks similar to the Xia-class, but bigger and longer.
I'm surprised no one had mentioned this already. Look closely at the two Huludao subs. Notice the discolorations (round colored dark spots) on the hump of the subs. Those must indicate the missile tubes. Count them up... there are 12 on each sub.
About the ratio of SSBN to SSN. If the information given by the big shrimps is correct: in 2005, China had 3 Jin and 5 Shang. This suggests to me that prior to any Jin being built, 2 Shangs had been build and trialled.
So first two Shangs were built (possibly around 1999/2000), but they probably performed dismally, so major changed had to be made. Then a pair of modified Shangs and a pair of Jins were built (early 2000's), and tested.
Then by about 2004/2005, they finally settled on the design of Jin / Shang and started building the serial production version. So by 2005, we have 2 prototype Jin and one serial production Jin, 2 old prototype Shang, 2 new prototype Shang, and one serial production Shang.
If the information given by the big shrimps is correct, and China is only building 5 Jin's / 7 Shang's in total, that means two more of each was expected to be built following 2005. At a pace of one per year, this means one more of each in 2006 and one more of each in 2007.
So by the end of this year, the Type 093 / 094 classes would have been completed (5 / 7 ratio). Perhaps the 2 old prototype Shangs would be upgraded to the serial production standard.
This leaves one more sub unaccounted for. The 8th SSN is the Type 095. That means the Type 095 is expected to be launched by 2010. So there would be a two year gap in nuclear sub shipbuilding (2008, 2009). Maybe the shipyards are going to concentrate on diesel subs again during this time -- ramp up production on Yuan / Song and build two of the new SSK with the super-quiet propulsion system.
Last edited by Roger604; 10-09-2007 at 02:55 AM.
I think the ratio is 2:1 or 2 SSNs to 1 SSBN. The 3 Jins and 5 Shangs can only mean that one Shang is still being built, or a 091G may be taking its place. Its hard to conclude from existing numbers if these numbers do not represent final numbers.
Here's one hypothesis:
5 Jin : 7 Shang + 4 Modified Han
About 2:1 with one extra Han left over. The two Xia's can also get turned into SSGN's.
If there were only 3 Jin's, that means they are all on Google Earth, which is somewhat unlikely. Most likely the figures given by the big shrimps are right.
The dynamic expansion of PLAN's subfleet will have a significant impact on ROCN's conflict planning since China's superiority is meanwhile outrightly overwhelming. (32 SSK + 5 SSN vs. 2 SSK, referring only modern types)
Perhaps the continuous delays in the procurement of Taiwan's 8 new SSK's are partly explicable by the slowly sinking in comprehension of ROCN's staff that those 8 subs will be simply too few, too late. (...of course political infighting between the factions in Taipeh is also responsible.)
Assumed that ROCN would get the first pair of her new SSK's in 2012 (rather optimistic timeframe, may be never) the daunting superiority of PLAN would have built up to ~50 SSK + 10-12 SSN vs. 4 SSK.
Correspondingly PLAN would have the capability to destroy the entire ROCN fleet without taking any significant risks. (...ROCN ASuW capacities are indeed significant but would be either destroyed or suppressed by PLAAF or overwhelmed since even the sinking of a couple of PLAN subs would cetainly not save the day for ROCN.)
The rapid built up of PLAN's subfleet is probably intended to meet three main objectives:
1. Deterring the US from intervention in a potential conflict with Taiwan.
2. Establishing an overwhelming position of strength versus taiwanese naval forces denying separatists any hope to fend off PLA on their own.
3.Creating a credible seabased nuclear deterrent (SSBN) complementing Second Artillery's forces (ICBM).
(...sequence does not imply ranking by strategic importance!)
Last edited by Violet Oboe; 10-09-2007 at 05:08 PM.
pictures of 093 and 094, I guess the previous SSBN picture that we saw is 092G.
^ Nice pics!
Comparing the earlier photograph of the docked SSBN, it looks like this is the same model. But you imply they are different (92G versus 94). Where's the difference?
Notice those slots on the side of the hump. There are six of them. Are they some sort of vents for the JL-2 launch cannisters? If so, that means each 94 carries 12 missiles.
I wonder if the newly declassified status of 093 and 094 means they have finished building the last of them and have transferred assets to 095 and 096. It seems that way from the info given by the big shrimps on Chinese BBS.
Last edited by Roger604; 10-09-2007 at 08:03 PM.
correct me if I'm wrong but from your analysis it seems that there are:
number of sub / type / dates (launched / commisioned)
406 / 092 [Xia] SSBN / 30.04.1981 / 15.09.1988
A / 092G [Xia mod] SSBN / 2001? / 2005?
B / 093 [Jin] SSBN / 2004 / 26.12.2006
C / 093 [Jin] SSBN / 2005? / unknown
D / 093 [Jin] SSBN / 2006? / not yet
401 / 091 [Han] / 12.1970 / 08.1974 / decommisioned in 2005?
402 / 091 [Han] / 12.1977 / 12.1980 / decommisioned in 2005?
403 / 091G [Han upgraded] / 10.1983 / 09.1984
404 / 091G [Han upgraded] / 12.1985 / 12.1987
405 / 091G [Han upgraded] / 04.1990 / 12.1990
E / 093 [Shang] / 1999? / unknown
F / 093 [Shang] / 2000? / unknown
G / 093 G [Shang upgraded] / 2002? / unknown
H / 093 G [Shang upgraded] / 2003? / unknown
I / 093 G [Shang mod] / 2007? / not yet
So am I wrong in numbers and especially dates or close to the truth (in your opinion of course, since nobody knows anything for sure...)?! Any comments are greatly welcomed!
The one that we compared to the original 406 and noticed they were different.
If you look at that picture, the length of the sail is about half the length from the end of the hump to the tail. Whereas for this new picture, the the sail is about 1/4 of the length from end of the hump to the tail. Either way, this new 094 looks larger than the previous boomers and also more stealthy (imo).
nobody knows, really.
Last edited by tphuang; 10-09-2007 at 10:48 PM.
You're right, in the photograph that came out late last year, the tail part is shorter than in this new photograph we have.
But I think it is because old photograph was PS'd. For some reason, the tail section was altered.
Look at the tail rudder / fin. It is almost straight in the new photograph, but significantly more slanted in the old one.
I think both photographs show the same variant of Type 094, but the older photograph was altered.
I think the photo last year is 094, at least the sub that was first sighted in Xiapingdao. The angles of the two pictures make a length comparison impossible because a proper length comparison means that the sub must be perfectly perpendicular to the photographer's camera which both pictures are not.
Also the sub in Dalian is actually slightly shorter than the new sub here. The new sub has the appendage on top of the rear fin, which makes it likely to be the second sub in the current GE Huludao picture. The Huludao 094s appear to be slightly longer than the one in Dalian suggesting continuous changes.
I changed my position that last years pic is not an 092G but an 094. In any case, Xia 406 is in the Qingdao dock getting a major refit, and with that it becomes 092G (SSGN, new nuclear powerplant, new screw, new sensors).
While retired, there is no evidence that 401 and 402 were actually scrapped. They may be stored or be later converted to 091G later on.
The 093 here in the last picture appears to be taken at the same time and place as the 094. There should be one or two 093s in Hainan, so I don't know if there are other 093s left in Qingdao which I think this picture is. If the 094 with the appendage is the one in Huludao in the May 3, 2007 Google Earth pic, then the sub has already moved to Qingdao where this photo was taken. Its deeper in the water line now indicating that the sub is fully fitted out and operational.
I am still looking for an independent confirmation or picture of the plane less 093 sub that was seen in the PLA 80th Anniversary exhibit. The picture isn't just a picture, it was a rolling video of the sub. So far all the 093s we have seen got the diving planes in the sail. But still pictures of that video is very hazy. I like to see the original video go into youtube or have an independent picture to confirm this as an 093G.
Editing adding another 093 pic.
Last edited by crobato; 10-09-2007 at 11:02 PM.
About the lengths of the subs. Comparing the Dalian and Huludao subs, it appears that the total length including both the "body" and the "fins" that are visible are the same length. But comparing just the body alone, the Dalian sub is shorter.
My conclusion is that we can't conclude anything about the relative lengths of the Dalian and Huludao subs. It may just be that the Dalian sub is lower in the water so some of the body is hidden underneath. But if the Dalian sub is shorter, that means it has a longer fin, since the total length of the two are equal.
I'm inclined to think that the Dalian and Huludao subs are the same length.
And about this new picture, it also appears that any discrepancy in length is an artifact of the angle of the photograph. They are probably identical.
Crobato, what do you think about the 6 slits on the sides of the hump? Are they related to the missile cannisters? Do they imply there are 12 missiles per Type 094?
Its not really unusual for follow up subs of the same class to be slightly longer than the first ship or earlier ship batches. You can see that with various Russian and US subs and you can see that with the Han class and the Kilo class. One of the reasons for this is a design adjustment to allow for more sound insulation of the engine section. There is certainly plenty of precedent why a short change in length can happen.
I tend to think that the slight difference in length may also be due to one sub higher and lower in the water, the Dalian sub is fully fitted, operational and thus sinks deeper in the water line than the Huludao sub. Also, it appears that one of the subs have an appendage on the tail which makes the sub look longer.
The six slits on the side of the hump are related to the missile cannisters, and so yes, there are 12 missiles on the Type 094. As a note the Julang 2 is considerably bigger than the Julang 1 and size means more range. SSBNs carrying the second generation of SLBMs have to be much bigger and heavier because the SLBMs have grown a lot in size.
Jin class is actually quite small for an SSBN if its diving displacement is about 9 to 10,000mt. British, US and Russian boomers are going as high as 16,000 to 20,000mt. If you need a sub that will carry 16 or even 24 JL-2, China needs to build a much bigger sub than this.