I’m going to summarize the following article in the Sept. 7th edition of Jane’s Intelligence Review, rather than post it in full here, for copyright reasons. The article is by Dr. Lyle Goldstein and USN Lt-Cmdr William Murrary of the Center for Naval Warfare Studies at the US Naval War College.
It’s an interesting insight into the naval buildup, but it reads like a paper that is summarizing Internet sources. Sounds as if they just hung out on all the different military forums to garner their pictures, then wrote the report up.
China’s emergence as a naval power, they write, really only begain in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. But thanks to China’s vast economic base, ‘they’re building ships like nobody’s business’, as one naval attache puts it.
The main focus of the naval buildup lies in the submarine force. While some may point to the Ming 361 disaster as evidence of incompetence, how the naval officers were held accountable and replaced, safety issues addressed, indicate how much effort the Chinese are putting into developing their sub force.
– Goes into mentioning 3 types of Song submarines (what’s the 3rd?), analysis of the Song-class instruments and controls. Some form of digital sonar system, digital FCS, can fire ASCMs, and periscope capabilities may include cameras, night vision, thermal imaging, laser range-finding, ESM, etc..
– Mentions Kilo purchases, with the 8 additional Project 636s predicted to be delivered by 2005 to 2007. Suggests that China has overcome any maintenance problems with the Kilo series and will be able to quickly incorporate them into the force.
– Yuan class, nothing new.
– 093; lead boat launched Dec. 2002, second reportedly launched late 2003.
– Increase in amphibious ships, by as much as 50% in new builds.
– Relative openness in Chinese military academies. Institution of their equivalent of a US Reserve Officer Training Corps programme, salaries increased. Fewer PR/scripted exercises to promote joint training.
WEAKNESSES:
PLANAF is poor and limited, ISR capabilities are lacking, ASW is severely lacking, not to mention mine-sweeping/laying. To those ends, the Chinese appear to be building many types of AWACS type planes, and has several OTH surveillance radars. Also, they may be launching a new class of minesweepers, and are building up their naval air forces with the purchases of MK2s (and perhaps JH-7As in the future).
Projected building for 2006-2010: They seem a bit low.
Song/Yuan: 10
Kilo: 6
093: 3
094: 4
By: google - 19th November 2004 at 04:46
Please start a new thread.
By: crobato - 19th November 2004 at 04:38
Yes, the Chinese developed the Yuan class ahead of the Amur. It may even be years before the Amur can see a prototype, maybe not at all, since it is depending on export sales to India and ironically, to China.
I don’t think thye Russians would sell the Amur blueprints before hand, which would be detrimental to their business policy, since it would be much more profitable to sell the finished product as a package.
Only the bow of the Yuan has any similarity to the Kilo and Amur. The pattern of diving holes on the Yuan seem much more indicative of Chinese practices in the Song. Basically, the sub is still Song technology. I believe it may be possible that due to the hump, which is far more prominent than in the Kilo, that the Yuan sub may be planning to carry a VLS system of some sort, perhaps a cruise missile.
By: mr.bean - 19th November 2004 at 03:58
The box does not look like everything I’ve seen, and further more, it has the depth markings. The Chinese typically put their depth markings on the bow. Not many countries do that, especially with a Kilo like bow. These elements simiply don’t merge from different pictures. Yes, I know the Amur has diving planes in the conning tower, but there isn’t any Amur yet running around beyond a blue print.
so that means china developed this yuan class ssk even before the russians had developed their amur. do you think the russians had sold the amur blueprints or tech to china beforehand? the exterior of the yuan has similiarities to the kilo & amur :dev2:
By: crobato - 19th November 2004 at 01:37
The box does not look like everything I’ve seen, and further more, it has the depth markings. The Chinese typically put their depth markings on the bow. Not many countries do that, especially with a Kilo like bow. These elements simiply don’t merge from different pictures. Yes, I know the Amur has diving planes in the conning tower, but there isn’t any Amur yet running around beyond a blue print.
By: Severodvinsk - 18th November 2004 at 20:41
Hmm, Crobato, no I don’t keep busy with fake stuff…
But, that bow indeed, doesn’t come from anything else, I wanted to note that on my last post too. I didn’t have a clue where it came from. Now could it be the Bow from Yuan, but taken from a different picture? I don’t see the sense in doing so, but even then, I don’t see any use in PSing in general. I did know you need two pictures, one to pull parts off and one to put these parts on 🙄
The hole, I don’t see any 3D in that, it’s just a larger black dot, hence can be turned around without us noticing… (I think it’s a hole for measuring temperature, salinity etc, hence determining the sonarconditions for the bow/hullmounted sonar)
On the other hand, that bow does look like a Swedish bow, Gotland or Vastergotland…
That tarpaulin theory seems ok too, the rest of the submarine is covered with tarpaulins, maybe the bow too? Although it’s unlikely, I wouldn’t be surprised.
The Lada indeed has diving planes on the conning tower–> see the SSK thread, I posted some pictures of it in there.
By: Pete_sj - 18th November 2004 at 20:35
As I said, they too look a bit funny. Besides, the Lada/Amur class does have diving planes on the coning tower.
You know, you’re right. I was checking out the old FAS drawing of it. The Lada does in deed have it, but it’s much smaller then the Yuan.
By: Wanshan - 18th November 2004 at 20:25
“Holes”, “Triangles”. What about the Conning Tower Fins? The Lada, the Kilos none of them have the fins on the tower.
As I said, they too look a bit funny. Besides, the Lada/Amur class does have diving planes on the coning tower.
By: Pete_sj - 18th November 2004 at 20:03
“Holes”, “Triangles”. What about the Conning Tower Fins? The Lada, the Kilos none of them have the fins on the tower.
By: Arabella-Cox - 18th November 2004 at 14:37
The submarine picture does look very odd and the angles seem strange. Lets assume it is not PS’ed. Could it be some sort of painted tarpaulin fastened to the bow to hide something?
By: Wanshan - 18th November 2004 at 13:06
hallo84, please take notes:
Nimitz class multirole aircraft carriers have a crew of approx 3000 (including flag) + approx 2900 air wing = 5900 personnel
John F. Kennedy multirole aircraft carrier: 2,500 + 2300 air wing + 70 flag = 4870 personnel
Enterprise multirole aircraft carrier : approx 3300 + approx 2400 air wing + 70 flag = 5770 personnel
Kitty Hawk class multirole aircraft carriers: 2,900 + 2000 air wing + 70 flag = 4970 personnel
By comparison:
Charles de Gaulle light aircraft carrier (nuclear powered): 1,950 crew + 800 troops
Kuznetsov multirole aircraft carrier : 1960 + 626 air group + 40 flag
Kiev class VTOL cruisers: 1600
Sao Paulo (Clemenceau class) light aircraft carrier : approx. 1800-1900
Viraat VSTOL aircraft carrier: 1550 + up to 750 troops
Invincible class VSTOL carriers: 1089 + 960 troops (for short duration)
Principe de Asturias VSTOL aircraft carrier: 764
Andrea Doria VSTOL Aircraft Carrier: 450 + 250 air wing + 450 troops + 140 flag
Giuseppe Garibaldi VSTOL aircraft carrier: 550 + 230 air group + 45 flag
Chakri Nareubet small VSTOL carrier: 601 + 675 troops
By: hallo84 - 18th November 2004 at 00:21
Hmm, that V shape gets annoying people. I see that V-shape, but did it ever occur to you that it stops in a dot, things can turn around a dot without being completely visible…
Crobato, what use would I have to deny this sub has that bow? Does it matter to me? NO, did I ever say this bow is worse than another bow? NO. I just noticed that picture is odd and could probably be PSed. Nothing more, nothing less. That doesn’t mean I’m biassed. It wouldn’t make me scared, even if it had 20 torpedo tubes in that bow 😉
WOlf, you’re post makes sense, every sub is hard to find. But don’t forget that you’ll face the best ASW force in the world. And if you launch that attack, they can scramble some carriers in front of your door, I’m not sure you’d want that. And the worst thing is, THEY KNOW THAT TOO. They won’t be deterred by that. And for TW, I already said it would be a high cost for just that target. An SSK doesn’t have that long legs either. And it’s slow.
It would be ok, if it carried some long-range (or shorter-range) Anti-ship missiles, in a VLS like the proposed Brahmos-Amur sub.
For TW it would indeed be good, although, if you’re making such advanced Cruisemissiles, with course alterations etc. you might as well be able to fire these things from land bases…
Little question for you guys. Does China already have a cruisemissile? If so, what ‘s the range/speed/specs of it?
Nah the States wouldent risk a Carrier for TW… it’s just too mush to pay for nothing…
if a carrier is indeed in the straights which it has in the past… well we’re not in the past anymore are we??? it’s just too much of a gamble…remember that there is close to 20k personel on board a carrier and thats 20K lives to account for!!!
By: crobato - 18th November 2004 at 00:11
Hmm, that V shape gets annoying people. I see that V-shape, but did it ever occur to you that it stops in a dot, things can turn around a dot without being completely visible…
The dot has been seen in all the pictures, even at various angles. Once you have a three dimensionality on the object, it’s not a cut and paste, since cut and paste lacks three dimensionality.
Crobato, what use would I have to deny this sub has that bow? Does it matter to me? NO, did I ever say this bow is worse than another bow? NO. I just noticed that picture is odd and could probably be PSed. Nothing more, nothing less. That doesn’t mean I’m biassed. It wouldn’t make me scared, even if it had 20 torpedo tubes in that bow 😉
Go ahead and try to make sense. You obviously have not worked with digital imaging, not even the basics. Cut and paste requires an existing template. Which means existing subs from which you can cut out the parts and cobble them together in a collage. Unfortunately the bow of the Yuan does not match that of the Kilo’s either. The Kilo does not have the white markings bordering the bow to indicate the depth markings—such markings on the Kilo are much further back, and set on a straight line down. The tube holes in the Kilo are also bigger, and farthest left and right holes tend to be egg shaped, not circular as in these pictures. At the same time, there is no existing template that matches the rest of the body, which means you can’t cut and paste from an existing sub picture.
Cut and paste would also mean that the lighting from each part you cut from a template, would be inconsistent with the rest. You cannot have consistent one source lighting and shadowing. The picture granularity would also be different. You cannot have things like wires and birds in front of the image collage. Simply said, you cannot have consistent three dimensionality as these pictures show.
All these the pics have passed with strong and definite flying colors.
Little question for you guys. Does China already have a cruisemissile? If so, what ‘s the range/speed/specs of it?
Oh yes, like 3000km for the Dong Hai 10 which is the latest generation; the previous one was 1500km. They probably have deployed a variety in secret.
By: Hyperwarp - 17th November 2004 at 21:49
From Bomberman –
likely 167 interior….
By: Severodvinsk - 17th November 2004 at 19:54
Hmm, that V shape gets annoying people. I see that V-shape, but did it ever occur to you that it stops in a dot, things can turn around a dot without being completely visible…
Crobato, what use would I have to deny this sub has that bow? Does it matter to me? NO, did I ever say this bow is worse than another bow? NO. I just noticed that picture is odd and could probably be PSed. Nothing more, nothing less. That doesn’t mean I’m biassed. It wouldn’t make me scared, even if it had 20 torpedo tubes in that bow 😉
WOlf, you’re post makes sense, every sub is hard to find. But don’t forget that you’ll face the best ASW force in the world. And if you launch that attack, they can scramble some carriers in front of your door, I’m not sure you’d want that. And the worst thing is, THEY KNOW THAT TOO. They won’t be deterred by that. And for TW, I already said it would be a high cost for just that target. An SSK doesn’t have that long legs either. And it’s slow.
It would be ok, if it carried some long-range (or shorter-range) Anti-ship missiles, in a VLS like the proposed Brahmos-Amur sub.
For TW it would indeed be good, although, if you’re making such advanced Cruisemissiles, with course alterations etc. you might as well be able to fire these things from land bases…
Little question for you guys. Does China already have a cruisemissile? If so, what ‘s the range/speed/specs of it?
By: plawolf - 17th November 2004 at 19:36
this pic from china.com should put the discussion of whether the pic is a PS out of dispute.
the ‘V’ shaped front is clearly visable.
By: plawolf - 17th November 2004 at 19:11
….
Wolf, I’m not sure about that, what’s the use of a cruisemissile carrying SSK? It has to close up to the land of the other guy. Let’s assume that’s India, how are you going to get that SSK that far without being noticed? And even if you succeed in that, they have their own ASW units and submarines there… If you want to take Taiwan, that’s another thing, then it could be quite handy, although I suppose it would be a too large investment for just that one target…
Or is it Type093 😉
The Russian Lada/Amur also has that hump, it’s not really an indication of cruisemissiles… Don’t know why they do it, but I suppose it’s for arranging the ballast tanks and buoys.
well, for one thing, its alot cheaper and quicker to build then a full blown SSBN.
when u look at the current situation with the PLAN it makes even more sense.
right now the PLAN is desperately in need of decent SSNs and SSBNs in good numbers. that’ll pretty much tie up the yards at huludao for years to come. and u can be sure that no boat will be used solely as a cruise missile carrier until well into the production run (if china can afford that many that is).
this means that a nuclear power cruise missile carrying sub is most like a decade away at the earilest.
u are even denied the option of refitting old hans and xias as they will most likely still be kept in service even after newer SSNs and SSBNs become operational.
as for the usefullness of a SSK cruise missile carrier. well, it offers u plenty of advantages. the addition of such a ship or fleet of ships would force taiwan to redeploy its whole SAM network as it is currently focused almost completely on the east coast.
this will give cruise missiles coming from both directions, and attack ac and helos coming from the east, a far greater chance of getting to their targets safely (and also returning to base safely in the case of ac and helos).
these subs can also act as a major deterrance against US intervention by putting up a credible threat against US bases as far west as pearl, and also a powerful weapon against those said bases should the US decide to enter the fight.
with quoted ranges of between 3,000~4,000km, it will be alwfully hard for anyone to find the launch ship (nuclear powered or not) after missiles are detected (note missiles, as cruise missile launches are unlikely to be pinpointed at such ranges). the difficulty will also increase if a few automated course changes are programmed into the flightpath of the cruise missiles.
this means that such SSKs can be used to hit targets anywhere from india to hawii and probably further if needs be.
a very good investment in my view, as in the current world of limited wars, there is going to be a hell of alot of instances where a cruise missile is going to be alot more useful (not to meantion less risky) then a ballistic missile (convetionally tipped as we are only talking about limited wars here).
By: Wanshan - 17th November 2004 at 17:35
Mmmm, it does look like a frontal shot of a sub-bow was pasted on top of an oblique shot of the sub. Also, there is something off with the diving planes: the starboard plane (left in the pic) is farthest from the lens yet appears bigger than the port plane (right in pic).
By: crobato - 17th November 2004 at 16:24
Don’t think it is PS. All three pictures have slightly different angles. PS cannot recreate such perspectives. The oddness of the cam appearance is optical illusion caused by the low light contrast, and you failed to notice the triangular shape of the bow. One thing about PS is that it is betrayed by inconsistencies of lighting, which these pictures do not have, and it is impossible to recreate consistently across a series of pictures. As a matter of fact, there are no evident cut and paste lines in these pictures as well that are around the sub. Some people are just trying to hard looking for faults so they see faults that are not there, which is more a reflection of their bias than objective observation.
By: Severodvinsk - 17th November 2004 at 16:13
hmm, Yeah I still think it’s PSed too. Your lines don’t seem to fit, the sub is really not looking straight at the camera, still a slight angle, while that bow is really looking towards the cam. Odd… I suppose we’ll be seeing the real picture soon enough.
Wolf, I’m not sure about that, what’s the use of a cruisemissile carrying SSK? It has to close up to the land of the other guy. Let’s assume that’s India, how are you going to get that SSK that far without being noticed? And even if you succeed in that, they have their own ASW units and submarines there… If you want to take Taiwan, that’s another thing, then it could be quite handy, although I suppose it would be a too large investment for just that one target…
Or is it Type093 😉
The Russian Lada/Amur also has that hump, it’s not really an indication of cruisemissiles… Don’t know why they do it, but I suppose it’s for arranging the ballast tanks and buoys.
By: edisonone - 17th November 2004 at 16:07
That’s not a conclusive evidence of photoshopping. The changes you describe can be attributed to the slight waves bobbing in the harbor. I’ve been to China quite a few times and I’m familiar with both the lighting and the water conditions in their harbors.
Photoshopping don’t cover a range of pictures each taken with a slightly different angle, with consistent lighting angles in every one of them to begin with.
The pics are too intricately busy for PS, too many wires around, birds flying around and so on.
I would not rule out the possibility, Crobe. Here’s an example:
http://bbs.china.com/military/html/board_57_post/716416/3006210.html
Cultripts: Islanders ****ed with mainlader progress; anti-Beijing factions
(democracy people’s) within the Chinese community who can’t stand this achievement; even Japanese
due that does not believe the chinese are slowly but surely taking over as Asia’s next giant…
Photoshops like that are, IMHO, a joke played on the Chinese…
.
Sign In
September 9, 2004 at 1:36 am