Ask anything Thread

[Dante80]

There is no type 094 submarine. They are all type 09 with different "version?/generation?/sub-type?" of I, II, II, IV, V, VI etc. Thus you have type 09-I, type 09-II and so on.

I am aware of that and already stated it to be so, I am asking if someone has any insight on why it is happening. For example, you have the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

SSBN but the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

SSK or the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Large Destroyer or the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

LHD or the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

LCAC etc etc. Do we know if there is a specific reason for this nomenclature regarding SSN+SSBN classes? And could this have anything to do with nuclear power?

 

[Brainsuker]

I am aware of that and already stated it to be so, I am asking if someone has any insight on why it is happening. For example, you have the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

SSBN but the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

SSK or the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Large Destroyer or the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

LHD or the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

LCAC etc etc. Do we know if there is a specific reason for this nomenclature regarding SSN+SSBN classes? And could this have anything to do with nuclear power?

That make me curious, too.
Maybe 039 SSK is actually 03-IX SSK? And 039A SSK is actually 03-IX-A SSK?

If that so, then 055 means 05-V destroyer. While 093, 094 means 09-III and 09-IV.

Then let's focus on 09 alone. We know there are 091, 092, 093, 094. And maybe 095 and 096.
It means 09-I, 09-II, 09-III, 09-IV. Then there are also 093A and 093B? Which mean 09-III-A and 09-III-B.
Well, we know that all 09 are nuclear subs. So maybe China categorize all nuclear subs as 09 nomenclature?

But then we have a problem. It's the 05 designation. Because we have 051, 052, 053, 054, 055, and 056. Which mean 05-I, 05-II, 05-III, 05-IV, 05-V, and 05-VI. Then there are 05-II-A, 05-II-B, 05-II-C, 05-II-D. etc.

This is really confusing. Because 05 designation does not point to only specifically to Destroyer, or Frigate, or Corvette. Unlike the nuke subs and conventional subs. All of them use 05. Then, perhaps, China doesn't really care about Frigate, Destroyer, Corvette designation / Classes. For them all of those ships are considered as one type of warship. Maybe 05 means escort or patrol? Or maybe the 03, 05, 09 means of some kind of specific categorization?

 

[Dante80]

That make me curious, too.
Maybe 039 SSK is actually 03-IX SSK? And 039A SSK is actually 03-IX-A SSK?

If that so, then 055 means 05-V destroyer. While 093, 094 means 09-III and 09-IV.

Nope, afaik the official Chinese designations for the rest of them use 3 arabic numerals.

 

[lcloo]

The exclusiveness of type 09-I/II/II/IV/V etc designation is probably because it is nuclear powered. And it is near impossible to know the real reason unless PLA has make it known.

Project 09 for nuclear powered submarines is a highly classified and extremely sensitive project where China keeps almost complete silence, so the best anwer you will get is educated guess.

 

[lcloo]

That make me curious, too.
Maybe 039 SSK is actually 03-IX SSK? And 039A SSK is actually 03-IX-A SSK?

If that so, then 055 means 05-V destroyer. While 093, 094 means 09-III and 09-IV.

Then let's focus on 09 alone. We know there are 091, 092, 093, 094. And maybe 095 and 096.
It means 09-I, 09-II, 09-III, 09-IV. Then there are also 093A and 093B? Which mean 09-III-A and 09-III-B.
Well, we know that all 09 are nuclear subs. So maybe China categorize all nuclear subs as 09 nomenclature?

But then we have a problem. It's the 05 designation. Because we have 051, 052, 053, 054, 055, and 056. Which mean 05-I, 05-II, 05-III, 05-IV, 05-V, and 05-VI. Then there are 05-II-A, 05-II-B, 05-II-C, 05-II-D. etc.

This is really confusing. Because 05 designation does not point to only specifically to Destroyer, or Frigate, or Corvette. Unlike the nuke subs and conventional subs. All of them use 05. Then, perhaps, China doesn't really care about Frigate, Destroyer, Corvette designation / Classes. For them all of those ships are considered as one type of warship. Maybe 05 means escort or patrol? Or maybe the 03, 05, 09 means of some kind of specific categorization?

Type 039 is not type 03-IX. Other than type 09, all ship designations in PLA navy use Arabic numbers.

Type 05? is designation for major surface combat ships like destroyers and frigates (albeit including type 056 corvette which is classified as a light frigate by PLAN).

Type 03? (031, 032, 033, 035 and 039)are for conventional power submarines.

Others like type 7? are for amphibious warfare ships like type 071, 072, 073A, 073-III, 074 and 075. (and the rumoured new type 076)

Type 08? (081, 082-I, 082-II and 082-III) are for sea mine warfare ships.

Auxiliary ships usually have 3 digit primary designation compare to combat ships' 2 primary digits. Example type 903, 904, 904A, 904B and 901 etc.

 

[Dante80]

The exclusiveness of type 09-I/II/II/IV/V etc designation is probably because it is nuclear powered. And it is near impossible to know the real reason unless PLA has make it known.

Project 09 for nuclear powered submarines is a highly classified and extremely sensitive project where China keeps almost complete silence, so the best anwer you will get is educated guess.

Ah many thanks. I put this question on this thread because I did not know if there was any public reason given historically for this.

If the assumption about nuclear is correct (you seem to share this hunch too), it would be interesting to see in the future whether the roman numerals in nomenclature persist for other class types too (like nuclear icebreakers, CVNs etc).

 

[Brainsuker]

Type 039 is not type 03-IX. Other than type 09, all ship designations in PLA navy use Arabic numbers.

Type 05? is designation for major surface combat ships like destroyers and frigates (albeit including type 056 corvette which is classified as a light frigate by PLAN).

Type 03? (031, 032, 033, 035 and 039)are for conventional power submarines.

Others like type 7? are for amphibious warfare ships like type 071, 072, 073A, 073-III, 074 and 075. (and the rumoured new type 076)

Type 08? (081, 082-I, 082-II and 082-III) are for sea mine warfare ships.

Auxiliary ships usually have 3 digit primary designation compare to combat ships' 2 primary digits. Example type 903, 904, 904A, 904B and 901 etc.

So, now I'm thinking that actually PLAN nomenclature work like this :

09 (Nuclear Subs), 031, 032, 033, 035, 039, 050, 051, 052, 053, 054, 055, 056, 071, 072, etc.

And not 03, 05, 07, 08, 09 like I thought before.

Or, am I wrong?

Now, my question is : Is 039, 052, 055, 071, etc work like 03-9, 05-2, 05-5, 07-1, etc or are they 039, 052, 055, 071?

 

[lcloo]

So, now I'm thinking that actually PLAN nomenclature work like this :

09 (Nuclear Subs), 031, 032, 033, 035, 039, 050, 051, 052, 053, 054, 055, 056, 071, 072, etc.

And not 03, 05, 07, 08, 09 like I thought before.

Or, am I wrong?

Now, my question is : Is 039, 052, 055, 071, etc work like 03-9, 05-2, 05-5, 07-1, etc or are they 039, 052, 055, 071?

Yes. Type 09-
Nuclear powered Ballistic Missile submarines (SSBN) - Type 09-II, 09-IV and future type 09-VI
Nuclear powered Attack submarine (SSN) - Type 09-I, 09-III and future type 09-V

Coventional Diesel-Electric powered submarined (SSK) - Type 03 (Wiskey class), Type 033 (Romeo class), type 035 (Ming class), type 039 and type 039G (Song class), type 039B and 039C (Yuan class).

"And not 03, 05, 07, 08, 09 like I thought before."
- Yes.

"Now, my question is : Is 039, 052, 055, 071, etc work like 03-9, 05-2, 05-5, 07-1, etc or are they 039, 052, 055, 071?"
- they are 039, 052, 055, 071.

 

[Brainsuker]

Yes. Type 09-
Nuclear powered Ballistic Missile submarines (SSBN) - Type 09-II, 09-IV and future type 09-VI
Nuclear powered Attack submarine (SSN) - Type 09-I, 09-III and future type 09-V

Coventional Diesel-Electric powered submarined (SSK) - Type 03 (Wiskey class), Type 033 (Romeo class), type 035 (Ming class), type 039 and type 039G (Song class), type 039B and 039C (Yuan class).

"And not 03, 05, 07, 08, 09 like I thought before."
- Yes.

"Now, my question is : Is 039, 052, 055, 071, etc work like 03-9, 05-2, 05-5, 07-1, etc or are they 039, 052, 055, 071?"
- they are 039, 052, 055, 071.

Oh NO, it become more confusing. I understand what each number represent. But I don't know how China regulated their ship design / ship class with their nomenclature. It feel too random.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Do we know if there has been any information on the Chinese naval research institutes developing large-diameter VLS cells (LVLS) for use on major PLAN surface combatants in the future?

Seeing that the US Navy is looking forward towards the option of swapping the present Mark 41 UVLS cells on their Burkes and the upcoming DDGX with LVLS cells that can fit larger-diameter AShMs or LAtMs, plus the capability to multipack larger missiles (Tomahawk and SMs) that have been impossible to do so on the Mark 41 - I doubt that the PLAN wouldn't be interested in similar options for their UVLS either...

~~~

Either way, I did some brainstorm just before I slept yesterday night, and here's what I could think of.

There are two types of UVLS in service with the PLAN, i.e. the 850mm-diameter one (UVLSL, used on the 052D and 055 DDGs), and the 650mm-diameter one (H/AKJ-16, used on the 054A and 054B FFGs). We do know that one UVLS module (same for both the CCL and H/AKJ-16) has 8x cells each, with 2x rows of 4x cells each arranged in parallel.

With that mentioned, let's dissect into each of them.

#1 - Speaking of the 850mm VLS (UVLS), I do wonder if unifying the 8x UVLS cells on one UVLS module into just 2x LVLS cells on the same UVLS module would do? That is, 4x UVLS cells will be unified into 1x LVLS cell on the same UVLS module. Assuming that the separation between each UVLS cell is 150mm, this would result in the LVLS having a maximum possible diameter of 1850mm.

From this, based on some very rough guesstimation of my own, one 1850mm-diameter LVLS could theoretically fit:
- 1x very large-sized missile (~1200-1500mm diameter, maybe a navalized-variant of DF-17?); and/or
- 4x large-sized missile (~800mm diameter, e.g. YJ-21); and/or
- 5x or 9x moderate-sized missile (~500-600mm diameter, e.g. YJ-18 & HHQ-9); and/or
- 16x small-sized missile (~350mm diameter, e.g. 5-5-5).

Therefore, by absolute numbers alone (and disregarding cell depth, intra-cell separation and VLS type), assuming that:
1. All the 64x 850mm VLS cells on one 052D DDG have been swapped with the 1850mm LVLS cells, then the 052D can carry 16x 1850mm LVLS cells in total. This translates to a maximum VLS-based missile loadout of between 80x and 144x YJ-18 and/or HHQ-9 on the 052D.
This is between 16x and 80x missiles more than the original 64x missile-configuration with the 850mm UVLS on the 052D.
2. All the 112x 850mm VLS cells on one 055 DDG have been swapped with the 1850mm LVLS cells, then the 055 can carry 28x 1850mm LVLS cells in total. This translates to a maximum VLS-based missile loadout of between 140x and 252x YJ-18 and/or HHQ-9 on the 055.
This is between 28x and 140x missiles more than the original 112x missile-configuration with the 850mm UVLS on the 055.

On the other hand, if we can split the 1850mm LVLS cell into two equivalent halves, then the dimension of the halved cells would be 850mm x 1850mm. This allows 3x YJ-18 and/or HHQ-9 to be fitted within, meaning a maximum potential loadout of 96x YJ-18 and/or HHQ-9 on the 052D and 168x YJ-18 and/or HHQ-9 on the 055.
This is 32x missiles more than the original 64x missile-configuration with the 850mm UVLS on the 052D, and 56x missiles more than the original 112x missile-configuration with the 850mm UVLS on the 055.

#2 - Speaking of the 650mm VLS (H/AJK-16) - Similarly, I do wonder if unifying the 8x H/AJK-16 cells on one H/AJK-16 module into just 2x LVLS cells on the same H/AJK-16 module would do? That is, 4x H/AJK-16 cells will be unified into 1x LVLS cell on the same H/AJK-16 module. Assuming that the separation between each H/AJK-16 cell is also 150mm, this would result in the LVLS having a maximum possible diameter of 1450mm.

Then, based on some very rough guesstimation of my own, one 1450mm-diameter LVLS could theoretically fit 5x or 9x HHQ-16 with a diameter of ~450mm.

Hence, by absolute numbers alone (and disregarding cell depth, intra-cell separation and VLS type), assuming that one 054A/B FFG has all of its 32x 650mm H/AJK-16 cells swapped with the 1450mm LVLS cells, then the 054/B can carry 8x 1450mm LVLS cells in total. This translates to a maximum VLS-based missile loadout of between 40x and 72x HHQ-16 on the 054A/B.
This is between 8x and 40x cells more than the original 32x cells configuration with the 650mm H/AJK-16 on the 054A/B.

Once again on the other hand, if we can split the 1450mm LVLS cell into two equivalent halves, then the dimension of the halved cells would be 650mm x 1450mm. This allows 3x HHQ-16 to be fitted within, meaning a maximum potential loadout of 48x HHQ-16 on the 054A/B.
This is 16x missiles more than the original 32x missile-configuration with the 650mm H/AJK-16 on the 054A/B.

~~~

So what do you guys think? Feel free to comment and/or rectify.