Re: Chinese sub thread
^ Now now that's a 24 tube submarine. I haven't read any specs that indicate Jin-class carries 24 missiles, all say 16.
I don't think the Jin-class looks anything like the gold model, nor the one in the Google Earth images. But the model in front of Mr. Huang seems like a very early conception of Jin-class. Why?
All reports indicate Jin-class has a very advanced reactor and that the sub is very fast. (35+ knots in my opinion.) The hump design shown is not conducive to this kind of speed underwater. But the design shown in front of Mr. Huang is a lot more streamlined. Look also at the Akula class attack submarine for hydrodynamic streamlining.
Also, when the photograph of the mysterious new submarine came out last year, people who thought this was Jin-class (rather than PS or improved Xia) believed the photo to be secretly taken and leaked. After all, it seems obvious China wouldn't want to reveal details about the Jin-class.
But by comparing the background in that photograph with Google Earth, we see that photograph was taken at the same facility, almost at the same location. So we can rule out that it was a secretly taken photograph, since the submarine was simply left in the open in a known submarine base. This implies that.... if it was a Jin-class.... China must have gone public with it last year!
Another possibility is that we have a problem with nomenclature. Some people are simply using the term "Jin-class" for any submarine that follows the Xia-class, regardless of whether it's a serial produced design or just an experimental one. In that sense, this submarine is a Jin-class... since you just defined it as such. But I don't think this submarine (whatever you want to call it) is the one that they're serial producing, it's just a test bed.
The nomenclature problem, I think, is similar to what's happened with the DF-31. I think China had the option of deploying an 8,000 km range DF-31 back in 2002-2003, the same one shown in the 1999 parades. At the time, they had a plan to follow up with an extended range DF-31A, with Topol-M like zig-zagging reentry vehicle -- and up to 12,000 km range.
Then they decided not to serial produce DF-31, and go straight to DF-31A. But the nomenclature problem stuck, and western sources kept looking for the DF-31. So the new mobile land missiles that have entered service are called DF-31 by western sources, when in fact they're really extended range ones -- DF-31A under the original specs.
BUT as fishhead has pointed out correctly: this may be not ´bullet proof evidence´but it is certainly quite convincing. (Probably they cannot go further since they do not want invite some trouble..., :nono: )
