Page 68 of 139 FirstFirst ... 1828385863646566676869707172737898108118 ... LastLast
Results 1,006 to 1,020 of 2084
Like Tree814Likes

PLAN submarines Thread II

This is a discussion on PLAN submarines Thread II within the Navy forums, part of the China Defense & Military category; So that means the Qing class would be much larger than kilo class as well? An ocean going quite diesel ...

  1. #1006
    no_name is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    1,801

    Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

    So that means the Qing class would be much larger than kilo class as well? An ocean going quite diesel sub?

  2. #1007
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    127

    Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

    Quote Originally Posted by no_name View Post
    So that means the Qing class would be much larger than kilo class as well? An ocean going quite diesel sub?
    At least 1.5 to 2 times larger depending on the kilos loadout.

  3. #1008
    antiterror13 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wellington - NZ
    Posts
    787

    Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

    Quote Originally Posted by tanlixiang28776 View Post
    As far as I know it is a SSK. And I think it would be around 6000 tons. Its dimensions certainly reflect that more. And Chinese nuclear subs get bigger every time not smaller.
    6,000 ton for SSK ... that's huge, even 093 is less than that

  4. #1009
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    127

    Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

    Quote Originally Posted by antiterror13 View Post
    6,000 ton for SSK ... that's huge, even 093 is less than that
    No the 093 is bigger. It is 6000-7000 tons.

  5. #1010
    A.Man is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,904

    Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

    The Fit & Finish of Chinese New Sub's Have Being Improved Very Much Over the Years


  6. #1011
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    127

    Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

    Yeah and thats not even the newest one.

  7. #1012
    antiterror13 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wellington - NZ
    Posts
    787

    Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

    [QUOTE=A.Man;142328]The Fit & Finish of Chinese New Sub's Have Being Improved Very Much Over the Years

    yeahhh, but it's only the look, no differences in capabilities
    Last edited by antiterror13; 03-20-2011 at 02:27 AM. Reason: typo

  8. #1013
    delft is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,317

    Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

    Quote Originally Posted by tanlixiang28776 View Post
    As far as I know it is a SSK. And I think it would be around 6000 tons. Its dimensions certainly reflect that more. And Chinese nuclear subs get bigger every time not smaller.
    That Chinese nuclear sub get bigger every time is a rule, not a law.

  9. #1014
    kroko's Avatar
    kroko is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,056

    Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

    Quote Originally Posted by tanlixiang28776 View Post


    Big isn't it? The Qing class on the left is enormous for an SSK
    cant see image

  10. #1015
    kroko's Avatar
    kroko is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,056

    Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

    uh...can anyone post that image?

  11. #1016
    franco-russe is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    875

    Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

    Try GE, coordinates 30 32 06 N 114 17 03 E, and you will get the full picture for yourself.

  12. #1017
    kroko's Avatar
    kroko is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,056

    Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

    Quote Originally Posted by tanlixiang28776 View Post
    As far as I know it is a SSK. And I think it would be around 6000 tons. Its dimensions certainly reflect that more. And Chinese nuclear subs get bigger every time not smaller.
    I now see it. It seems too small for a SSN. But i doubt that it has 6000 tons. the new Soryu class of japan is almost as big (84*9.1meters vs quing? 90*9.8) and it has 4200 tons submerged.

  13. #1018
    delft is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,317

    Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

    So, as the shape will be about the same, a Qing would be about 5200 tons.

  14. #1019
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    127

    Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

    Quote Originally Posted by kroko View Post
    I now see it. It seems too small for a SSN. But i doubt that it has 6000 tons. the new Soryu class of japan is almost as big (84*9.1meters vs quing? 90*9.8) and it has 4200 tons submerged.
    The Soryu you are talking about has known dimensions. I assume your measurement for the Qing is for the part that is not submerged only. So adjust that a little more.

    Lets assume 92-95 meters by 9.8 to 10.5 meters for the fully exposed Qing. Increase in height is presumed as well.

    Changes in dimensions like that would make the Qing have far larger displacement hence my 6000 figure. perhaps I should have said 5500 to 6500 tons submerged instead.

    Qing should have similar pattern to Yuan besides the tower which is at least twice as large



    Here is a 7000 ton 110 meter by 10 meter Los Angelos class for comparison as well.

    Last edited by tanlixiang28776; 03-23-2011 at 06:38 PM.

  15. #1020
    Skywatcher is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    612

    Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

    At 6500 tons, the Qing should be bigger than the IJN's I-400 submersible aircraft carrier.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13