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

GreenestGDP

Junior Member
It seems the security clamped--down has been removed.

Source: SINA.com


The old 093--SSN spec has been revealed. ( not... .... 093-B or 093-G )
For those non--believers, you are free to ignore these data.

1) 1st 093 sub entered water on Dec 2003. ~~ 2nd 093 sub entered water on 2004. ~~ Commissioned Dec 2006.

2) Size ( L x W x H ) = ( 106m x 11m x 10m ) ~~ Tonnage = 8000 tons ~~ Propulsion = 3rd Generation Pressurized Water nuclear reactor.

3) Max Speed = 39+ knots ~~ Max Depth = 400m ~~ Noise @ 39 knots = 110 dB ~~ Self--sustained max Stay Submerged Days = 80+ days ~~ Torpedoes = 6 x 533mm ~~ SLM = YJ-84 AShM



093--Shang--2a--Dec 2003 下水.jpg


093--diagram--1.jpeg
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Seriously ! :rolleyes: only 3 submarines classes are able to these speeds, Seawolf 40 in trials have reach 44, Alfa 41 in practice 39 and Papa 44 trials but Soviet reactors less good, reliable in more.

110 dB is the noise of a LA ( not 688i ) i don' t see a 093 also quiet and at silencious/tactical speed about 15/20 kn, at 30 Kn you add minimum 10 dB.
 
Last edited:

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Seriously ! :rolleyes: only 3 submarines classes are able to these speeds, Seawolf 40 in trials have reach 44, Alfa 41 in practice 39 and Papa 44 trials but Soviet reactors less good, reliable in more.

110 dB is the noise of a LA ( not 688i ) i don' t see a 093 also quiet and at silencious/tactical speed about 15/20 kn, at 30 Kn you add minimum 10 dB.

I am not going to debate about the reliability of the 39+ knots figure. But you do realize that it is the max speed, not the operational speed. Why is it "not serious" when all your mentioned other subs can do higher max than 39?

As of noise leve, I don't know how you reached your assessment, but as no official data (forget about those diagrams that float around) indicate the noise leve of 093, let's not go into another round of arguing about ghost datas.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
sina is just where fanboy posts stuff, not a legitimate source. These speed and noise level data have been posted and reposted on similar sites. It's all made up.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
I am not going to debate about the reliability of the 39+ knots figure. But you do realize that it is the max speed, not the operational speed. Why is it "not serious" when all your mentioned other subs can do higher max than 39?.
I have evoke only 3 submarines classes, nuclear are or before able to reach a max speed of 40 + kn on severals dozen, others in general 25/32 sometimes up to 35 the less fast is the 091 to 22 Kn.
Now If ou think all are able to move at ~ 40 kn please do.

As of noise leve, I don't know how you reached your assessment, but as no official data (forget about those diagrams that float around) indicate the noise leve of 093, let's not go into another round of arguing about ghost datas.
Obviously yet with China impossible have and in more classified for all countries so you can't get exact datas as armor for a tank or a nuclear weapons but possible have datas enough precise close, very.

093 is clearly better as 091 the 1st but is very medium for her noise all reports confirm it.
And if only two 093 are build it's that they does not give satisfaction...
 
Last edited:

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
I don't quite understand what you are saying here, but I will try to answer or ask

I have evoke only 3 submarines classes, nuclear are or before able to reach a max speed of 40 + kn on severals dozen, others in general 25/32 sometimes up to 35 the less fast is the 091 to 22 Kn.
Now If ou think all are able to move at ~ 40 kn please do.
I was answering your only 3 submarines classes, they are all faster than 39+ as you said, do I get you right? If I was right understanding you, then my question still remains, why do you think 093 able to reach max speed at 39+ not serious? After all, it is not the speed they are going to be used in daily operations.

Now you bring in others, but they are new arguments, without you naming their type, I can not comment.

Obviously yet with China impossible have and in more classified for all countries so you can't get exact datas as armor for a tank or a nuclear weapons but possible have datas enough precise close, very.

093 is clearly better as 091 the 1st but is very medium for her noise all reports confirm it.
And if only two 093 are build it's that they does not give satisfaction...

In general, we don't have good data about SSN or SSBNs. We may have good or even exact data on tanks, but nobody like us can have even good data on SSN and SSBNs, they are all classified. Even if US navy has a good idea about 093 (if they has get close and recorded the noise), they will not release it to public for various reasons. Non of the reports you mentioned actually claimed to be sourced from US navy department, did they? They only used the words "noisier", not numbers of dB.

To me, I don't buy the "all reports confirm it". These reports are just like the "floating diagrams" that I mentioned earlier. So I will not do any thinking based on them. Of course, it is your choice to believe them.

My basic point (therefor disagreement with you) is that those "reports" can be equally wrong as they are right, so unless you know something classified then bringing in them as a base of argument is meaningless. And of course, if you really know something classified, you will not argue with me because using these infors to argue with me will break law on your part. So let's just rest this.

Regarding "two 093 are built", that does NOT indicate "not give satisfaction" in my opinion.

Remember, China maintains a very small number of SSNs due to her strategic choice of being defensive unlike USN. China will not field any type in large numbers even she is satisfied of them. Type 093 was something developed decades ago, it is necessary to develop a follow on type after this time span to keep up to new technology development, that is why 095 is coming soon. Actually, this is how USN is doing, Los Angeles, Sea wolf and Virginia, how many years were they apart? So imagine, if China as you suggested should have built 10 type 093(number of satisfactory by your standard??), how many 095 should be built then? another 10? That is a whopping 20 SSNs. That is surely not necessary for PLAN today.

BTW, by "two 093" I assume you did not include the B and G variants. In total, how many 093x are there? Remember, you should not count them as different types, but variants or batches of the same type (same generation of tech, same basic design etc.) In that case, it is more than two, does that mean satisfactory?

Also, a very important reminder is that you should not compare PLAN to USN in terms of size, at least not now. You should compare PLAN to French or UK navy. PLAN has a mission profile more resembles UK and France. France has 6 SSNs active, PLAN (according to wiki, please correct if it is wrong) has 5 type 093 built, one is being built, early 091 was decommissioned, that gives 6 SSNs active (I am not counting 095 from rumors), good number, right?
 

ohan_qwe

Junior Member
I read on
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that Chinese nuclear subs uses electric drive while US subs uses the steam turbine directly. What are the pros and cons of electric drive and is the technology transferable to ships with IEP e.g. type 055?
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
I read on
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that Chinese nuclear subs uses electric drive while US subs uses the steam turbine directly. What are the pros and cons of electric drive and is the technology transferable to ships with IEP e.g. type 055?

I could only find two paragraphs that mentioned "Chinese".

Basic operation of naval ship or submarine
...
The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
navies rely on
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
propulsion, while the French and Chinese ships use the turbine to generate electricity for propulsion (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). Most nuclear submarines have a single reactor, but Russian submarines and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
had two. Most American aircraft carriers are powered by two reactors, but
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
had eight. The majority of marine
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
are of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
type, although the US and Soviet navies have designed warships powered with
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

This chapter only talks about French and Chinese ships in general, not submarines in particular.

Many countries use electrical drive for ships, not only China. And we have no idea or even rumors about China using electrical drive for submarines.

This chapter is somehow misleading as it gives the impression that French and Chinese use turbo-electric as the major means for marine propulsion which I have never seen claims from anywhere else.

History
Military
Submarines

...
By 1962 the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
had 26 operational nuclear submarines and another 30 under construction. Nuclear power had revolutionized the Navy. The United States shared its technology with the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, while
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
development proceeded separately.

This whole chapter talks about submarine and nuclear submarine in general, not even mentioning a word of electrical drive, not about anyone.
 

montyp165

Junior Member
I could only find two paragraphs that mentioned "Chinese".



This chapter only talks about French and Chinese ships in general, not submarines in particular.

Many countries use electrical drive for ships, not only China. And we have no idea or even rumors about China using electrical drive for submarines.

This chapter is somehow misleading as it gives the impression that French and Chinese use turbo-electric as the major means for marine propulsion which I have never seen claims from anywhere else.



This whole chapter talks about submarine and nuclear submarine in general, not even mentioning a word of electrical drive, not about anyone.

One secondary source on the French and Chinese submarines using Turboelectric drive is Tom Clancy's book Submarine, which also has a list of primary sources listed too.
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
One secondary source on the French and Chinese submarines using Turboelectric drive is Tom Clancy's book Submarine, which also has a list of primary sources listed too.
Unfortunately I don't have his book, nor do I has any knowledge about Tom Clancy:p
Do you mind quote some texts from him?
Another thing is that I wonder how does he know about Chinese submarine, the internals, did he claim any source from China in his book?
 
Top