09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
From observing China military development, I can say that generally when China publish a technical report they already working on the program for some time
Asking proof for any secret military development is like asking proof of god
It is impossible for secretive and opaque organization like PLAN
We all know that they have "underwater great wall"program for some time I have no doubt that SQUID is part of it. You can believe or not that is up to you
Stop twisting the context and the details of the debate. First, nobody doubts that SQUID is under development. OTOH, everybody (except Chinese fanbois) doubts that SQUID is actually deployed, especially in its current state. Second, SQUID is NOT part of the undersea Great Wall. The undersea Great Wall is comprised of conventional sensors of the kind that everyone is already familiar with. In the future it is very likely that SQUID will be incorporated into this underwater network if it can be made to work. However, this is NOT the same thing as saying that SQUID is CURRENTLY a component of the undersea Great Wall. There is no evidence at all of this being the case. Only fanbois don't need evidence, since what they believe is not contingent on reality. Everybody else does.

As to Ma he is not the chief engineer of China submarine program He is one of the several lead scientist. So to deduce that there is no rim drive based on what he said or not is nonsensical
We know all navies in the world are working on this holy grail of submarine and China is not exception
Again, you need to simply understand basic logic. First, what the rest of us have been saying is that Admiral Ma said nothing about rim drive in his video; the problem is that many fanbois and people who otherwise play loose with the facts have been using his video to claim that rim drive is on the next SSN/SSBN class. If China actually has an operational rim drive already, his video cannot be used as proof of its existence. Not only that, denying that Admiral Ma said anything about rim drive is NOT the same thing as denying that China is working on rim drive. These two statements are not mutually exclusive, and it shouldn't take a genius IQ to understand this point. Second, the two statements "China is working on rim drive" and "China has an operational rim drive ready to be deployed on its upcoming class of SSNs/SSBs" are NOT the same statement and do not express the same truths. They are definitely mutually exclusive; both cannot be true at the same time. You cannot claim that China has an operational rim drive by demonstrating that they are researching rim drive. It also shouldn't take a genius IQ to understand this difference. So let's not get fuzzy with our claims and try to imply things that are not demonstrable here.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Stop twisting the context and the details of the debate. First, nobody doubts that SQUID is under development. OTOH, everybody (except Chinese fanbois) doubts that SQUID is actually deployed, especially in its current state. Second, SQUID is NOT part of the undersea Great Wall. The undersea Great Wall is comprised of conventional sensors of the kind that everyone is already familiar with. In the future it is very likely that SQUID will be incorporated into this underwater network if it can be made to work. However, this is NOT the same thing as saying that SQUID is CURRENTLY a component of the undersea Great Wall. There is no evidence at all of this being the case. Only fanbois don't need evidence, since what they believe is not contingent on reality. Everybody else does.


Again, you need to simply understand basic logic. First, what the rest of us have been saying is that Admiral Ma said nothing about rim drive in his video; the problem is that many fanbois and people who otherwise play loose with the facts have been using his video to claim that rim drive is on the next SSN/SSBN class. If China actually has an operational rim drive already, his video cannot be used as proof of its existence. Not only that, denying that Admiral Ma said anything about rim drive is NOT the same thing as denying that China is working on rim drive. These two statements are not mutually exclusive, and it shouldn't take a genius IQ to understand this point. Second, the two statements "China is working on rim drive" and "China has an operational rim drive ready to be deployed on its upcoming class of SSNs/SSBs" are NOT the same statement and do not express the same truths. They are definitely mutually exclusive; both cannot be true at the same time. You cannot claim that China has an operational rim drive by demonstrating that they are researching rim drive. It also shouldn't take a genius IQ to understand this difference. So let's not get fuzzy with our claims and try to imply things that are not demonstrable here.

Now who is fanboi here you take ONI chart without reservation when we all know it is nothing but guesstimate . NOW who is stupid enough to believe that somebody can predict noise for something that has not been built yet. Now who is GENIUS here
It show the level of your intelligence

NO need to split the hair as I said Ma statement has no bearing as to whether China has rim driven propeller or not .And don't put word into my mouth I never said China is researching and has the rim driven propeller at the same time.
What I am saying is that every navy in the world is researching this rimless propeller China is no exception
BTW this duct propeller is not out of this world many company already has this product in their offering.Except no one has tried using rim driven propeller to propel the submarine

So it is not leap of faith to believe that China has solved this problem.So why is researching and having good result must be mutually exclusive? . This argument is to counter your argument that China definitely does not have rim driven propeller as if you have privy to the secret of Chinese navy
Now who is the Vodoo doctor that you consult to ?
That is the problem with you fanboi is that everything that US said must be true even if it dubious!

Evidence that every navy is working on this concept
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“If China can put a well-built rim-driven pump jet on a submarine, the next question is how much thrust it provides,” Clark said.

“With submarine propulsion, one of the tradeoffs is quietness versus speed. Most changes to the propulsion architecture that reduce noise also reduce sprint speed. One of the concerns I have heard from engineers is whether a rim-driven pump jet can deliver the horsepower needed to reach high sprint speeds for torpedo evasion or repositioning.”

Callender noted that a single rim-driven pumpjet would probably be insufficient. The U.S. Navy’s forthcoming Columbia-class SSBN design will incorporate a permanent magnet electric drive propulsion—eschewing the traditional steam-driven propulsion turbine. The new propulsion system will be much quieter, Callender said, but it will come at the price of being enormous.

“The electric drive motor with sufficient power to drive Columbia SSBN will be extremely large, partially contributing to its 43-foot hull diameter,” Callender said.
 
Last edited:

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
AS to the SQUID your guess as good as mine YOU DON'T HAVE PRIVY TO CHINESE NAVY period
And you don't have clue what component is going to be on the platform So stop talking as if you have authority. Knowing you don't even know what top view and elevation view is. I wouldn't bet on your engineering know how
 
Last edited:

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Now who is fanboi here you take ONI chart without reservation when we all know it is nothing but guesstimate . NOW who is stupid enough to believe that somebody can predict noise for something that has not been built yet. Now who is GENIUS here
It show the level of your intelligence
How pathetic, yet another straw man argument. Go ahead and link and quote where I took the ONI chart "without reservation". Go ahead: LINK and QUOTE. You making these lying accusations about what I have said shows that you don't have any real arguments to make.

NO need to split the hair as I said Ma statement has no bearing as to whether China has rim driven propeller or not .And don't put word into my mouth I never said China is researching and has the rim driven propeller at the same time.
LOL I don't even need to put any words in your mouth that weren't already there:
So why is researching and having good result must be mutually exclusive?
You never said it? LOL you said it right in the same post! Either China is researching it, OR China has already mastered it, i.e. it is mature enough to put onto a submarine. You can't have both be true; it is most definitely mutually exclusive. While everyone can agree that China is researching rim drive, NOT everyone can agree that China has it and is fielding it. YOU are trying to conflate them into the same thing. China is researching it, China has it, it's all the same, bla bla bla, so that if we agree that China is researching it, we somehow have to agree that China already has it. Nonsense. While no substantive evidence is needed for everyone to agree that China is researching rim drive, substantive evidence is DEFINITELY needed for everyone to agree that China has finished researching rim drive. So which government or military official has made this kind of statement? Which video footage has shown that rim drive is in operation or will imminently be in operation on Chinese subs? I'm talking about actual video footage of rim drive, not some amateurish hack CCTV footage of a Ming sub with rim drive captions.

What I am saying is that every navy in the world is researching this rimless propeller China is no exception
BTW this duct propeller is not out of this world many company already has this product in their offering.Except no one has tried using rim driven propeller to propel the submarine

So it is not leap of faith to believe that China has solved this problem.So why is researching and having good result must be mutually exclusive? . This argument is to counter your argument that China definitely does not have rim driven propeller as if you have privy to the secret of Chinese navy
Now who is the Vodoo doctor that you consult to ?
That is the problem with you fanboi is that everything that US said must be true even if it dubious!
The biggest fanboi on SDF accusing me of being a fanboi means less than nothing. In any case, not "every" navy in the world is researching rim drive. US, China, maybe one or two other countries. Who knows. You certainly don't. Regardless, you trying to conflate the research of rim drive with the possession of mature rim drive technology is both unwarranted and completely baseless.

AS to the SQUID your guess as good as mine YOU DON'T HAVE PRIVY TO CHINESE NAVY period
And you don't have clue what component is going to be on the platform So stop talking as if you have authority. Knowing you don't even know what top view and elevation view is. I wouldn't bet on your engineering know how
I don't "have privy" to Chinese navy (LOL), but neither do you or azesus. I didn't make any positive claims about SQUID (like: "SQUID is being fielded in the SCS"), but azesus did, and it sounds like you are too. Therefore the burden of proof is on YOU to prove yourself. So do it already.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
This is one deadly missile and with range of 500km it can launched and egress into safer deep sea
before the opfor find itFrom Henri blog

The hypersonic drone (or simply high supersonic) designed by the 611 Chengdu Institute that I had mentioned in a few of my articles could have passed the major milestone of design certification. To confirm.
It has been confirmed that the Chinese ANS Type 09IIIB is carrying anti-ship and ground-strike missiles at the vertical launch of the YJ-18 family. The anti-ship version in question might be called YJ-18B.
DTHT7_2VMAAaWgD.jpg

1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Article about YJ 18 From Lyle Goldstein . I did posted it year ago Just refresh
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China's YJ-18 Supersonic Anti-Ship Cruise Missile: America's Nightmare?
Chinese_Kilo_in_service_1.jpg

A new challenge emerges for the U.S. Navy. TNI presents one of the first in-depth looks at this deadly weapon.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

June 1, 2015

Entering the Second World War, the United States dramatically underestimated the effectiveness of certain Japanese naval systems and operations. The tendency to look askance at Japanese naval prowess during the interwar period obviously impacted the failure to anticipate the Pearl Harbor attack. But it is less widely understood that U.S. intelligence similarly underestimated the strength of Japan’s primary naval fighter aircraft (the Zero), the dramatic effectiveness of its long-range torpedoes, as well as its dedication to mastering difficult, but essential operations such as night combat. Remarkably,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

There are many reasons, of course, that contemporary China’s maritime ascendancy is starkly different from that of Imperial Japan almost a century ago. In particular, there is hardly a shred of evidence (reef reclamation included) to suggest that Beijing is inclined to undertake a rampage of conquest similar to Japan’s effort to bring the whole of the Asia-Pacific to heel from 1931 to 1942. Still, the complex maritime disputes in the Western Pacific require that American strategists keep a close eye on the evolving military balance. In that spirit, this installment of the Dragon Eye series turns once again to focus a bright light on one of the newest elements of China’s missile arsenal: the YJ-18 anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, about one minute into this segment introducing China’s new nuclear submarine design. Even though we know that YJ-18 is part of a whole new generation of new and lethal Chinese ASCMs, it is curious that Chinese ASCMs generally go unmentioned in a recent TNI analysis of the “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.” Clearly, Chinese naval analysts, who have labeled the YJ-18 in an early 2015 analysis “最完美的反舰导弹” [the most perfect ASCM] would not agree with that rendering.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is the main basis of this Dragon Eye discussion.

However, before turning to the insights from this recent Chinese analysis, let us return briefly to what has been revealed about this new missile from both
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, as well as
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The ONI report is generally well done, but curiously the new YJ-18 only rates a mention in two spare sentences. This report notes that the YJ-18 can be vertically-launched (generally from a surface combatant) or alternatively submarine-launched, but there is no discussion of its supersonic sprint vehicle. Since the U.S. Navy (USN) lacks a supersonic ASCM and will not have one in the foreseeable future, this omission is troubling. Similarly puzzling is the decision not to discuss the recent appearance of another supersonic ASCM, YJ-12, in China’s arsenal. True, such capabilities did exist earlier in other forms, namely as imported Russian systems, but the indigenization (and likely upgrade) of these capabilities is hardly insignificant and will mean they are much more widespread and employed with greater confidence and proficiency.

The 2015 Department of Defense report does offer a bit more detail and thus draws the proper attention to the YJ-18 threat, but again does not mention its supersonic sprint vehicle. The YJ-18 ASCM is described as a “significant step” and subsequently as a “dramatic improvement” over current missiles in China’s inventory. Perhaps most significantly, however, the DoD report puts the range of YJ-18 at 290 nautical miles – more than double that of its likely progenitor, the Russian SS-N-27 Klub ASCM (export version). If correct, moreover, this new range will, in the near term, more or less quadruple the range of the standard ASCM fired from most PLA Navy submarines.

The February 2015 Chinese analysis of YJ-18 is somewhat cautious in tone and hardly purports to be a comprehensive analysis. Perhaps fitting for an initial piece on a cutting edge system, the article’s introduction sports the rare caveat “…并不代表本刊观点” [does not represent the viewpoint of this magazine]. However, the title “‘鹰击’18 -- ‘俱乐部’导弹中国版?” [Is the Yingji-18 Simply a Chinese Version of the Klub?] asks the precise question that will be on the minds of many defense analysts examining the YJ-18. A decent amount of the article just reviews the development of the Russian Klub system and its different variants. It is noted, moreover, that China has had ready access to the Klub missile system since it imported the Type 636 Kilo-class conventional subs about a decade ago. Indeed, some had remarked that Beijing imported the submarine for the sole purpose of actually acquiring its superior missile system. Interestingly, the article does not report the much extended range outlined in the new Pentagon report.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
(cont)
This Chinese description relates that the missile’s great strength is its “亚超结合的独特动力” [subsonic and supersonic combined unique propulsion]. Another term applied to this design is “双速制反舰导弹” [dual speed control ASCM]. As explained in the article, it is projected that YJ-18 would have an initial subsonic phase estimated at .8 Mach similar to the Klub of about 180km, but 20km from the target would unleash the supersonic sprint vehicle at speed of Mach 2.5 to 3. The “dual speed” function allows the system to realize certain advantages of subsonic cruise missiles, such as their “relatively long range, light weight and universality …” but also takes the chief advantage of supersonic ASCMs as well, namely the ability to “大幅压缩敌方的反应时间” [radically compress the enemy’s reaction time].

The Chinese article relates another advantage of the “dual speed” approach. Just as the missile comes into contact with the ship’s defenses, it “sheds the medium stage …,” thus simultaneously and dramatically altering both its speed and also its radar reflection, “which would impact the fire control calculation.” The likelihood that YJ-18 improves upon the Klub missile’s “digitization, automation, as well as providing more intelligent flight control and navigation technology” is attributed in the Chinese article to a recent Jane’s report. A final interesting issue raised in the Chinese article concerns the “hot launch” technique suggested in the test video clip mentioned at the outset of this article (and illustrated in photos accompanying the Chinese article). Indeed, a new vertical launch system for the new 052D destroyer is confirmed as a “共架混装” [common rack for mixed arms] system with a citation in the article to PLA Admiral Qiu Zhiming, director of the Naval Armaments Research Academy. But it is not clear from the article that YJ-18 will rely on the hot launch versus the cold launch method--the latter being much more common for submarine launched missiles.

The article interestingly discusses recent Russian placement of additional Kilo-class submarines equipped with the Klub-missile systems into the Black Sea. These new submarines “based on the Crimean Peninsula, operating in harmony with air and land-based missile forces [can] … limit the deployment of NATO fleets into the Black Sea …” I have noted before in this column
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. This Chinese author concludes the piece, explaining that, “The YJ-18 will gradually replace the YJ-82 across the PLA Navy submarine fleet. That development combined with surface ship and air-launched missiles will create a comprehensive attack system of even greater combat power.” The implication seems to be that for China, in its various maritime disputes, the YJ-18 can play a role similar to the one that nearly identical Russian weapons have played in creating decisive local military superiority in the Black Sea area.

On the other hand, Beijing has been making noteworthy strides in military transparency of late, for example with the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
or
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Nevertheless, the gap in transparency continues to be quite wide when it comes to some of the most lethal weapons in China’s arsenal, such as the new YJ-18. Allowing the rumor mill to churn, spreading anxieties regarding Chinese capabilities hither and thither is really not in China’s interest and greater transparency, of course, is necessary.

For Washington, some additional attention seems warranted in future intelligence community studies with respect to Chinese ASCM development. The 2015 ONI study gave some attention to YJ-18, but omitted discussion of the supersonic YJ-12,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
or
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, according to Chinese sources. Renewed attention will help muster the necessary focus for the U.S. going forward to prepare its forces adequately. For all the ink spilled and Washington seminars convened to discuss China’s expanding coast guard fleet, it is obviously the ever-growing sophistication of the Chinese ASCM arsenal that poses the “clear and present danger” to American sailors.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is Associate Professor in the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(CMSI) at the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in Newport, RI. The opinions expressed in this analysis are his own and do not represent the official assessments of the U.S. Navy or any other agency of the U.S. Government.
 
Top