PLA Navy news, pics and videos

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Also SSK’s, with Chinas battery, superconductor and super capacitor technology, it seems only logical they will use it for SSKs. If China can figure out a way to re-charge these subs at sea then it makes SSK long ranged and superior to SSNs for most missions.

Of course, China leads in recharging tech also.

Well, future SSKs would be still better for missions to the 1st Island Chain and somewhat beyond.
But with large numbers of SSNs, there will be a lot of new missions past the 2nd Island Chain

---

The specifications on the latest Japanese SSKs are interesting.

The lithium batteries have a capacity of 230,400 KWh.
That's enough for 29days@5knots PLUS 24hours@20knots.
Alternatively, that's 39hours@20knots, which is 1400km in total at nearly silent speed
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Also SSK’s, with Chinas battery, superconductor and super capacitor technology, it seems only logical they will use it for SSKs. If China can figure out a way to re-charge these subs at sea then it makes SSK long ranged and superior to SSNs for most missions.

Of course, China leads in recharging tech also.
Recharge at sea is highly unlikely. There are no easy to access energy sources at sea. Maybe have offshore wind turbines not connected to the grid, but even then it's not as reliable or survivable.

In light of this it is better to build both. Extremely silent and cost effective SSKs for defense up to 2000 km, large SSNs for power projection. For decades to come China will still need green water defense subs, but that's only because China is already at the global center of economic gravity and demographic gravity. Green water around China is already about 500 million other people and 10 trillion USD GDP.

SSNs, mostly as SSGNs, will be necessary to hit back at certain extraregional regimes that want to impose their will on East Asia.
 

lcloo

Captain
Recharge at sea is highly unlikely. There are no easy to access energy sources at sea. Maybe have offshore wind turbines not connected to the grid, but even then it's not as reliable or survivable.

In light of this it is better to build both. Extremely silent and cost effective SSKs for defense up to 2000 km, large SSNs for power projection. For decades to come China will still need green water defense subs, but that's only because China is already at the global center of economic gravity and demographic gravity. Green water around China is already about 500 million other people and 10 trillion USD GDP.

SSNs, mostly as SSGNs, will be necessary to hit back at certain extraregional regimes that want to impose their will on East Asia.
I am confused, or am I missing something or out-dated? Isn't traditionally diesel electric submarines charged their batteries by using diesel generators? Or are current modern SSK only use batteries, with-out diesel generators onboard?
 

BoraTas

Captain
Registered Member
Recharge at sea is highly unlikely. There are no easy to access energy sources at sea. Maybe have offshore wind turbines not connected to the grid, but even then it's not as reliable or survivable.

In light of this it is better to build both. Extremely silent and cost effective SSKs for defense up to 2000 km, large SSNs for power projection. For decades to come China will still need green water defense subs, but that's only because China is already at the global center of economic gravity and demographic gravity. Green water around China is already about 500 million other people and 10 trillion USD GDP.

SSNs, mostly as SSGNs, will be necessary to hit back at certain extraregional regimes that want to impose their will on East Asia.
A 3000-ton modern conventional sub like 039 should have enough endurance for missions up to 4000 km. Most people I read who are knowledgeable about undersea warfare agree on undersea warfare being a numbers game for modern platforms. Like you, I think China will continue building conventional subs for a long time to come.
 

BoraTas

Captain
Registered Member
I am confused, or am I missing something or out-dated? Isn't traditionally diesel electric submarines charged their batteries by using diesel generators? Or are current modern SSK only use batteries, with-out diesel generators onboard?
I think he understood Andy was proposing an underwater charging network. Like SOSUS but featuring charging stations instead of sonars. Actually, a neat idea that I am sure navies have toyed with. Survivability and cost problems are probably insurmountable though.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
I am confused, or am I missing something or out-dated? Isn't traditionally diesel electric submarines charged their batteries by using diesel generators? Or are current modern SSK only use batteries, with-out diesel generators onboard?
They have diesels on board but can only run them while snorkeling unless they have combustion AIP.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
I think people may be trying to read too much into the lull in warship construction and are missing the obvious - competition is exceptionally fierce in China, and in recent years, with commercial shipping orders already fallen off a cliff before the pandemic, naval orders are seen as a massive deal and vital revenue source.

As such, I would be amazed if all the shipyards were not all actively competing against each other to deliver their orders earlier than contractually required while also maintaining quality to put themselves in the best position possible to secure a bigger share of the next batch of naval orders.

That would explain a lot of the anomalies we have seen over the years, like finished ships spending unusually long periods tied up at the shipyards before delivery and commissioning, uneven allocation of warship orders between yards and this current lull in construction.

Once the next batch of orders are confirmed and if we see yet more and maybe even more pronounced uneven allocation of orders, then I think we can have a good guess at which shipyard won the race.

Pandemic and post pandemic we are seeing a huge surge of orders, at times over 200% over pre-pandemic period. Slots after slots are being reserved, and this is going to particularly impact Jiangnan because this is the go to place for top end commercial shipping such as containerships, RO-RO and LNG carriers. While they will still continue to build warships, its likely the proportion of it would be less than other shipyards. For instance we should expect a greater proportion of destroyers, both 052D and 055 to be built now in Dalian than in Jiangnan. Dalian's commercial speciality lies in oil tankers, but they can use the dock that was used for the Liaoning and Shandong for that, while the other dock that we have seen used for destroyer production will be used for the destroyers.

You cannot cut back on those commercial ship building either. These ships, whether they are owned by Chinese liners or not, serve the arteries of China's import and export economy.

Hudong Zhonghua also has their share of commercial ship orders, mainly LNG carriers, but they are built in the Changxing Island facility, not on the Huangpu River facility. The Huangpu River facility, which was supposed to be sold to real estate developers, now looks less and less likely that this may go through given the Chinese gov's deliberate bursting of the real estate companies bubbles. I would expect this to continue to build frigates, LPDs and LHDs in the coming years.

One thing I don't expect a cutback is Jiangnan building submarines. There appears to be a separate shed for this so it does not occupy the main building slots. I am expecting mass production of "039C" from both Wenchong and Jiangnan.

What we have previously seen as finished ships lying in dock for months in Dalian, is more an issue of the PLAN's side, with them not ready to adopt these ships. Most of Dalian's 052D output were going to the 10th Destroyer Division, which was doing a huge transition from Ludas to 052D, so that's a leap in training. But once the 10th settled, the 052Ds started pouring in for them.

With Dalian made 052D and 055 now being tested and quality affirmed by different destroyer divisions in the PLAN, I would expect full confidence on Dalian to go through a full batch production as the PLAN loosens the spigot.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Recharge at sea is highly unlikely. There are no easy to access energy sources at sea. Maybe have offshore wind turbines not connected to the grid, but even then it's not as reliable or survivable.

If you have lithium electric batteries charged by the diesel generator, you can recharge conventional submarines at sea. That is what Japan is doing with the Taigei class. But they might not need to, because they can run for 29 days at 5knots and still have 24hours@20 knots in battery reserve.

In light of this it is better to build both. Extremely silent and cost effective SSKs for defense up to 2000 km, large SSNs for power projection. For decades to come China will still need green water defense subs, but that's only because China is already at the global center of economic gravity and demographic gravity. Green water around China is already about 500 million other people and 10 trillion USD GDP.

SSNs, mostly as SSGNs, will be necessary to hit back at certain extraregional regimes that want to impose their will on East Asia.

Yes, if China were to build an equivalent to the Taigei-class, I'd say they are definitely better than SSNs for green water operations in the adjacent deep ocean waters past the 1st Island Chain. Call it up to 4?days transit from base.

They've got the hull for a conformal bow sonar almost the same size as a Virginia and also a towed array. Endurance and speed were always the biggest issue for SSKs, but the Taigei's have enough battery power to operate like an SSN in an engagement.

Plus the total cost of ownership for 3 Taigei is likely less than for a single Virginia.
So that makes up for the lower capability and endurance, if you're not operating that far from base.
 
Last edited:

W20

Junior Member
Registered Member
19_NoticiaAmpliada (1).jpg

(Three powerful machines on the S-80 Submarine)

In the future I imagine that there will be very fast charging systems for future lithium or sodium batteries

Conventional Submarine will undergo a dramatic change in the coming years
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
Alternatively, that's 39hours@20knots, which is 1400km in total at nearly silent speed
To have such speeds as silent speeds you have to go waterjets - and this is simply inefficient/counterproductive for SSK.
The only SSK which even tried was the unlucky Attack design - and, frankly speaking, it was a non-proliferation weirdo sub design.
They've got the hull for a conformal bow sonar almost the same size as a Virginia and also a towed array. Endurance and speed were always the biggest issue for SSKs, but the Taigei's have enough battery power to operate like an SSN in an engagement.
The biggest issue for SSKs was that everything that requires energy is the enemy. It's the same even on Li-ion subs with their impressive energy density, energy maneuvering capability, and, among other, impressive speeds of recharging. It's also the same for AIP submarines, which can't even go full "lights on" on their AIP alone.
The biggest difference with SSNs there is that their designers for the large part don't even need to concern themselves with it - energy onboard is limitless* - be it for propulsion/sensors/processing/whatever. Psychological pressure (of limited battery) is just as crucial, perhaps - and while severely relaxed - it is by no means gone.

*it's more complicated for combat maneuvering, but mentioning it is enough for simplicity's sake.
 
Top