They seem to be pounding out subs as fast as McDonald’s rolling out Big Macs. This should mean another plus one on the Song sub list soon.

Oh yeah baby. The latest in evil Chinese plans (tweaking me long whiskers with very long nails).

Guess these missiles are hanging on whose mockup of what plane in whose corporate office. (Might be your first serious clue as to the next generation of PLA AAM and PGM).

I would like to find better, but all I have is this marketing propaganda.

http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.html

“In addition to these overall combat performance results a number of individual comparisons have been made available. Of enormous importance for BVR combat is acceleration at medium altitudes and here the Eurofighter’s acceleration at Mach 0.9 and 22,000ft equals that of the F-22. At supersonic velocities (Mach 1.6 and 36,000ft) the sustained turn rate of the Eurofighter betters all but the F-22, while its instantaneous turn rate is superior to the F-22. At low altitudes, Eurofighter can accelerate from 200kts to Mach 1.0 in under 30 seconds. In a similar vain to its supersonic performance, the sustained and instantaneous subsonic turn rates of the Eurofighter are bettered only by the F-22. Only the Rafale comes close to the matching the Eurofighter’s capabilities in these comparisons.”

Also, even if the destroyer carries one Helix, it is still two Helixes per ship, since one is used as a backup (kept in an onshore base) for the other.

Crobato, we are everything except sure on those MLRS. For now, it looks like it’s just a chaff and decoy launcher, given the lack of any of these on all ships carrying the MLRS. Also, it is of no use to have four such MLRS in the ASW mortar role on a ship. Also, there are some pictures of the Shenzhen with it’s decoy launchers. It looks quite similar to the MLRS, except for the fact that the tubes are shifted to different directions. So, untill we have proof of any assumption (the MLRS also looks a bit like Ogon and could be used to launch rockets with different purposes) it would be safe to assume it is just the decoy launchers. And even if it is an ASW mortar, like used on some older Chinese designs, this does not really give your ship a true ASW capability. There has been and still is a very hard debate on whether these mortars are still effective or not…

122mm for just decoys? The MLRS is overkill for just decoys.

The 100mm single-barrel main gun on the front deck seems to be a copy of the French Creusot-Loire 100 mm gun. Four 4-cell YJ-83 (C-803) anti-ship missile launchers are fitted at midship behind the funnel. In addition, four unique multiple rocket launchers (MRLs) are fitted on the front deck to launch decoys, antisubmarine rockets, and land-attack ammunitions.

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/052b.asp

Crobato

OK I’m obviously not getting this through. A blockade is only ever set to enforce a maritime trade embargo or a naval exclusion zone right – I cant think of another reason to initiate a blockade. In this instance we, obviously, are using the trade embargo enforcement as the reason for our blockade. This being the case no neutral merchants should be steaming to Chinese ports for any reason whatsoever or, if they are, then they are blockade running and fair game whoever they are. Simply put Crobato if there are no friendly merchants in the blockade area, or any that are present are escorted by friendly warships, then its very difficult to see how one could get hit accidentally.

Very difficult for how to get one hit accidentally?

That’s rubbish.

You have not shown how this can be prevented.

Merchantmen from all nations do not drill for blockades or to be convoyed, yes even from Taiwan.

‘Dream world’?. Do you know how busy UK waters are with trawlers and fishing vessels?. Yes every now and again there is a tragic accident here with a trawler getting dragged down, but, there is a procedure to deal with a trawl net snag. Simply engines get stopped, quickly, and the ships diver is sent out to cut the nets. Result?. A slight delay for the sub and some unhappy fishermen with ruined nets. Whats your point?. Is a Japanese fisherman likely to, immediately, get on the HF to PLAN fleet headquarters and report he’s caught a really big fish and give its position???.

And you have any idea that fish represents a major Japanese food supply?

A patrolling sub on war footing would be a major interference with Japanese fishing waters on a public not keen of having foreign powers in their waters.

My agenda is proving that a limited number of SSNs can blockade the coast of a major power on the other side of the world. If you like substitute an equivalent number of Russian subs for RN ones I just chose the RN ones because the thread questioned the relative lack of merit the RN applies to SSM’s and I wanted to highlight the extreme deployment capabilities an SSN provides.

That you have not proven convincingly.

Yes, they show the standard navigational routes to chinese ports. Would Chinese merchant traffic scatter in all directions or would they stick to the routes they know through a blockade line?. I’d imagine they’d stay with the routes they knew rather than have to worry about smacking into a rock or a another merchie going the other way as well as worrying about the subs.

I doubt that. In a blockade, people will use their wits. Your assumption is always based on predictable and ordered behavior of merchantmen which is not very realistic.

So in your mind the whole thing could come unglued if some hapless Indonesian passenger ferry decides to take a detour through the middle of a live fire zone…because that sort of thing happens all the time??. UN engagement rules I admit I’m a bit vague on (and I think the UN are a bit as well), but, international maritime law certainly allows for the creation of exclusion zones.

The whole thing can get unglued if you sink a Philippine, Korean, Japanese or Russian freighters.

What do you mean didnt work?. The Germans work saw strict rationing in the UK that lasted well into the 1950’s!. The USN’s work against Japan made a significant impact on their proseution of the second world war. The blockade of Cuba successfully defused possibly the most tense geopolitical crisis the world has ever seen. Lastly the total exclusion zone we threw around the Falklands seemed fairly effective as did the stationing of SSN’s off Puerto Belgrano.

Those are island nations. Not continental powers. A blockade against the US will not work, for example.

We’re talking about the southern coast at least. During a war time, China would not be using its northern ports at all. By concentrating on the south, it can also concentrate its ASW assets there. Pretty useless exercise anyway since Chinese ships are not going to be traveling far north. They will pretty much concentrated on the south, and it is likely they might even offload in Vietnamese, Malaysian or Thai ports.

How do you define a northern port?. Shanghai is one of China’s biggest ports isnt it? Also Ningbo has recetly been set up as an oil port very impressively:

So is Hongkong, Xiamen and Shenzhen.

Apart from round the south of Taiwan and up through the Ryukyu’s into the ECS.

No need for that. Just break the southern blockade. It is narrow enough, and all you need to do is concentrate your assets against that.

Well you had better inform the Centre for Energy, Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy at the University of Dundee about that. They would appear to hold a slightly differing view. These are some of the pertinent excepts of their report on China’s oil import Strategy. The full text of this report being found at

Yes, they should be informed. We have seen a lot of foreign studies and estimates about the Chinese economy that often go DEAD WRONG.

Let Dundee join the LONG LIST of this.

It’s true that China’s economy is increasing demand for oil, but that is due to the rise of its automotive culture. (The US uses 1 billion tons every year). In a war time, luxuries can be sacrificed. The industries themselves can still be run by natural gas, coal, nuclear power and hydroelectricity.

Also China still has a lot of reserves on its own.

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=565&fSetId=304&fArticleId=2138501

China’s proven oil reserves at 6.5 billion tons
July 5, 2004

Beijing – Energy-hungry China had proven oil reserves – crude oil classified as practical to extract – totalling 6.5 billion tons at the end of 2003, the Ministry of Land and Resources said Monday.

This amounts to 43 percent of China’s estimated total recoverable reserves.

The ministry published the figures on its website citing statistics provided by China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation (Sinopec), and said the level of reserves could provide for steady output growth over the next 20 years.

The estimate is double the level estimated by British oil giant BP, which put China’s end-2003 proven reserves at 3.2 billion tons – sustainable for exploitation for 19.1 years.

No one at Sinopec was available for comment on the differences with BP’s estimate but such figures are known to vary widely due to differing methods and assumptions.

YUP 19 years.

How you get a tanker through the Taiwan Strait from Malacca without going through the southern blockade zone? Also how do you get through the Ryukyus without crossing into the eastern patrol zone?. What does Taiwans status have to do with this?

My point—DEFEAT the southern blockade zone by concentrating your assets on it. Unfortunately for you, the southern blockade zone you drew out happens to be quite narrow. Its got too many rocks and reefs for a nuclear sub to maneuver properly, too much neutral shipping including the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia. Classic shallow and littoral water scenario.

You have not given me a good reason why neutral shipping can easily be forced into the strict and confusing routes you mentioned, why you can’t accidentally shoot neutral shipping, provided me any reason how you can distinguish tankers from freighters, and this from country to country.

As for the Mings,

Can you go ahead and explain to me if the Herkules is the same as the Chinese Pike Jaw, because really, one of the differences between Type 035 and 033 (Romeo) is the sonar.

And even then, Type 033 has improved sonar over the Russian Romeo.

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/033.asp

The Type 033 is not a simple clone of the Romeo class. Considerable improvements were made even at its design stage. The Type 033 has eight torpedo tubes, in contrast to the six tubes on Romeo class. Also the Type 033 has a slightly increased displacement while remains same underwater speed. By increasing the fuel capacity, the maximum range and self-retaining capability of the Type 033 is twice as much as those of Romeo class. Other improvements include an improved sonar, and a water-cooling system for the battery array.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/ming-specs.htm

Sonars Pike Jaw hull mounted active/passive search and attack
DUUX 5 passive ranging and intercept

Oh yeah, DUUX is an intercept sonar too.

If a Type 035 can hide out from the JSMDF and the USN right off the Japanese coast (Nov. 2003), that does not sound like it’s fitted with fifties equipment.

HQ-7 intercepts a missile.

30 deg/sec turn rate! is not 30 deg AoA? that figure is claiming that the J-10 is superior to the Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen i do not believe that figure

More like instantaneous turn rate. Rafale, Gripen and M2000 has claims of 30 deg/sec on this department.