PLAN submarines Thread II

Originally Posted by sealordlawrence

No it does not, as I explained in my previous post, as Google Earth Imagery is not all captured on the same day, thus it is entirely plausible that we are seeing the same submarine in 2 different places. Secondly, just because the first Han class boat has been decommissioned it does not mean that it will not still be afloat somewhere, indeed what we know about the radiation shielding on those boats it is highly likely that Hull is simply tied up somewhere whilst the PLAN works out how to dispose of it without giving anyone cancer. Alternatively it could be being used as an instructional hull to support crew training. Thus we can not rule out that we are seeing all 5 Han class boats and we have no way of knowing whether we are seeing 8 different SSN's or not.

We also need to be careful about assuming that one photo determines the basing of a particular vessel, submarines, especially nuclear ones, are highly mobile.

Google Earth Imagery can also be time stamped for progressive imaging over time (as in earth animations), so it isn't simply the case that the pictures are merged from different points in time.

I think the DoD is either hiding info or totally dropping the ball when it comes to nuclear submarine. It is quite clear from looking at the photos when you measure the length of the nuclear submarine on GE that they have far more than just 2 093s around. This is also corroborated by the most well informed posters on Chinese forums. The only 091s still in service are 403-405. And we have seen them also in Sanya pictures, so we know they are not all in NSF. Between Huludao, Xiaopingdao and JiangGeZhuang, there are clearly numerous nuclear submarines that are unaccounted for by the open source DoD report (which has not really been updated for years, all I see is old intelligence report). As for the role of Xiaopingdao, it is a test facility, but it clearly has the capability to support multiple nuclear submarines. And it would make complete sense when you have 2 active 094s in NSF to have one stationed at Xiaopingdao sometimes and then have 1 or 2 093s to support it.

Imo, what you are seeing in Sanya is basically 2 093s, 1 094 and 1 091G for a ratio of 3 attack subs to 1 boomer, which I think is a more reasonable ratio than what has been suggested here.

Originally Posted by montyp165

Google Earth Imagery can also be time stamped for progressive imaging over time (as in earth animations), so it isn't simply the case that the pictures are merged from different points in time.

So? The imagery is dated and clearly, in the case of the Chinese SSN's the different facilities were viewed at different times thus making it entirely possible that the same ship has been captured twice.

As to building grossly obsolete submarines, I must confess that I cannot see the profound difference between the RN PORPOISE/OBERON class (21 commissioned between 1958 and 1967) and the Soviet FOXTROT class (58 between 1958 and 1971).

This is not a subject for this forum, however, Foxtrots and Oberons are not equals.

I was actually surprised that the Russians managed to build anything at all in the 90’s, considering the state of near collapse in which Russia found itself. However, they built only one class, the AKULA (Pr. 971), stopping in 1995, unless you count the last SIERRA (Pr. 945A), which was completed in 1993.

Again, not for this forum- though I was only discussing the Soviet period not the 90s.

The Soviets had a firm belief in the virtue of redundancy, so the AKULA was really started as a precaution in case the SIERRA was a failure. However, the titanium-hulled SIERRA turned out to be one of those horribly expensive things you will want to stop building as soon as possible – rather like the USN SEAWOLF class. The AKULA turned out to be a better design, in fact a very fine submarine.

Also not for this forum, whatever the excuse the Soviet union was pointlessly building three SSN classes by the 1980s. Sea Wolf only became unaffordable when the defence budget was slashed after the end of the Cold War (similar thing happened to the B2).

I’m sure you are right that the Soviet Union of 1970-1980 is not a good example of what China will do. The Chinese obviously have not lost their senses.

It is pretty obvious that they are not. Trends in Chinese procurement and spending appear entirely rational and logical, unlike those of the Soviet Union.

Originally Posted by tphuang

I think the DoD is either hiding info or totally dropping the ball when it comes to nuclear submarine. It is quite clear from looking at the photos when you measure the length of the nuclear submarine on GE that they have far more than just 2 093s around. This is also corroborated by the most well informed posters on Chinese forums. The only 091s still in service are 403-405. And we have seen them also in Sanya pictures, so we know they are not all in NSF. Between Huludao, Xiaopingdao and JiangGeZhuang, there are clearly numerous nuclear submarines that are unaccounted for by the open source DoD report (which has not really been updated for years, all I see is old intelligence report). As for the role of Xiaopingdao, it is a test facility, but it clearly has the capability to support multiple nuclear submarines. And it would make complete sense when you have 2 active 094s in NSF to have one stationed at Xiaopingdao sometimes and then have 1 or 2 093s to support it.

Imo, what you are seeing in Sanya is basically 2 093s, 1 094 and 1 091G for a ratio of 3 attack subs to 1 boomer, which I think is a more reasonable ratio than what has been suggested here.

Except we dont have any conclusive evidence for this, I am the first to admit that the DoD report is a waste of paper cobbled together from some rather poor open source research (I believe this is deliberate rather than incompetent) but until I see something conclusive i am going to reserve judgement with regard to the SSN (and SSK for that matter) fleet. We need to be extremely careful about how we interpret things. For instance, just because an SSN is out of service it does not mean that it is not tied up at a naval facility. In fact the UK, as an example, is littered with decommissioned nuclear submarines awaiting disposal. From Google Earth it is impossible to tell whether they are operational or date from the 60s without corroboration from another source. It is entirely plausible that all 5 Han class boats are still in the water and thus still appearing in GE imagery.

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.

Originally Posted by sealordlawrence

So? The imagery is dated and clearly, in the case of the Chinese SSN's the different facilities were viewed at different times thus making it entirely possible that the same ship has been captured twice.

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

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.

Originally Posted by Finn McCool

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.

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.

Originally Posted by sealordlawrence

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.

Originally Posted by montyp165

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!

Originally Posted by sealordlawrence

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.

Originally Posted by A.Man

what we have here?

2¸öСÒâ˼ - º£Ñó½¢Í§¿Æ¼¼·¢ÉÕ°æ - HSHÉϺ£·¢ÉÕÓÑÂÛ̳ - Powered by Discuz!

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.

Originally Posted by tphuang

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.