crobatoWell the fact that Gordon got the plane’s serial number is something and that is something I cannot discount.
So if anyone has that book, please compare it to this picture to check it if it is the same or not.
crobatoSOC, I need your opinion.
In the current Huludao GE image, there is a stub now sticking out of the Huludao sub assembly hall that wasn’t in the previous picture.
I suspect something new is coming out.
crobatogot this pic from china.com, looks quite interesting.
the PLAAF ensignia is clearly visible on the tail. while that can be reletively easy to fake, the two oriental techs working on it looks very much like the real thing.
so could this be the first evidence that china also operates the mig29?
personally, i would think that if the PLAAF has fulcrums, they will only have a reletively small number used mainly for adverary training as opposed to actaul front line service.
the chinese writing on the bottom of the pic says:’ china has obtained several mig29 fighter through special channels and used them for reasearch and as ‘blue flag’ (china’s equivilent of the USAF’s ‘red flag’ adverasary unit).
so what do u guys think? is it a clever fake or is this for real? if so, what implications do this bring?
Very very old thread and why am I resurrecting this? I thought it was a PS too and now it seems new information has come up.
Posted by Tony Leung in the CDF.
Page 462 of Yefim Gordon’s Mikoyan MiG-29 (Famous Russian Aircraft series) has a photo of a Fulcrum on the apron with PLAAF markings. The author states that China purchased a Fulcrum from Romania for evaluation purposes. Gordon gives c/n# 2960535404, f/n 4712 for this aircraft. How credible is this?
I have never seen this mentioned before on CDF.
I like to know if anyone with that book has the photo to match it with this one if it is correct.
crobatoI guess that’s the one for the new subs then. The size of the gears suggest a very low reduction gear ratio, more torque and less RPM. This is an indication of a slow turning propeller with a high torque requirement, which fits the description of a skewed propeller.
crobatoUnfortunately that picture was also followed by a sequence of pictures, all showing the sub in various stages of diassembly. It does not look like a maintenance job. It looks like a scrapping.
It is a safe conclusion to say that the Russians are not happy with the project at least. Given that there are no future plans anywhere in the world, in whatever country, to have a future conventional with a pump jet, it is also safe to say that designers have their reasons and that a pump jet has issues with conventional subs. A pump jet requires much greater power and torque to turn, and it is quite draggy, and a conventional powertrain may not have the grunt for it. But a nuclear sub does. For now, lets assume that conventionals and pumpjets don’t mix well.
To say that you don’t out try out radical ideas on SSBNs is not true. The Typhoon with its multi-hull design is quite radical. Even though the USN only tested natural circulation PWRs in just one sub (USS Narwhal), the Ohio class featured this type of reactor as standard; the LA class has a more conventional reactor that uses natural circulation only as a final backup, mainly relying on coolant pumps for much of its operating range.
I’m not sure if pumpjets were tested on a late 688I class. Probably with one of the last subs to come out, and it is believably logical. Nonetheless, pumpjets are standard on the Seawolf and Virginia class.
Not until the shroud on the Borei’s prop is lifted can we be sure of the absolute nature of the propeller.
crobatoActually Chinese SSNs still use reduction gear. There were public ceremony held after the completion of development and pictures of the complex gears systems are avaliable. These are not considered secrets anymore.
You are talking about the Han and Xia. Not sure what the 093 and 094 are using.
crobatoUnfortunately I cant find pics of Oscar/Sierra prop (not sure how available that is). Whetever they are skewed or not i must admit I cant say for sure either.
I guess you have seen this picture of Dimitri Donskoy?
Can you pls explain and show pics on different types of propeller used? Skewed, shrouded etc? Just to make sure i fully understand the design differences.
What you see is shrouded or ducted.
It is a step towards a pump jet, which takes the ducted design further with a longer shroud and more propellers within the duct.
Here is an example of a pump jet that was experimented on a Kilo.
http://tuku.military.china.com/military/html/2007-10-16/3190797_513856384.htm
A skewed propeller is one with blades of a complex geometric design that sort of really curves around. See this example on a Song class sub.
http://cnair.top81.cn/sub/039.jpg
This sort of propeller reduces cavitation. When it was first developed, it was considered a top classified secret because it played a major role in noise reduction for the 688 and later Ohio classes. But the design did not stay a secret so long, and generally its standard fare on any recent sub design now around the world.
Typhoon still uses ducted propellers which also reduces cavitation issues. The Kilos that specifically use this sort of skewed propellers are designated 636. It is not clear what the Oscar II and the Sierras are using. The Akula is definitely using this. The Lada/Amur is also using it. The Borei was designed with such a propeller at first, but in the final implementation, may have switched to a pump jet, which is another way to deal with cavitation issues. The Seawolf, Virginia, Trafalgar, Astute, Le Truimphant and Barracuda classes all use pump jets.
crobatoIts not the number of blades. Its the design of it. The Soviets could not make such a propeller until Toshiba handed them the milling machine that could do it. I am not sure, and that the Sierra or the Oscar have them unless you can show me the propellers themselves. I am only certain that the Akula and the Kilo 636 (not the 877) have them.
I know how the props look on the Typhoon. They are built around ducts. They’re not however, asymmetrical or skewed types. On the Dorskoy, the propeller is shrouded, so you cannot see it directly. The plan called for a skewed propeller, but the actual implementation may be different. The shape of the shroud suggests that of a pumpjet.
I dislike what are unfounded observations as it distracts from the truth and adds nothing to it. Even Rubin has disclaimed any participation with any Chinese sub project.
crobatoYes, but the russian SSBN’s are not so streamlined as western SSBN’s. Very distinct humpback. Even the new Borey. And look at the sail, almost a copy of russian designs.
Again, Let met tell you this. Squared sail designs are not Russian. Distinct humpback? All SSBNs whose designs originated from adapting SSNs tend to have a distinct humpback. Unless you designed the sub so large from the start to be an SSBN, like the Ohio and the Typhoon class.
I am talking about SSBN’s, not SSN’s. Btw Yankee, Kilo, Lada/Amur (since you are talking about other classes) also has dive planes on the sail.
And how many US, French and British subs have squared sails and sails with diving planes, huh? Lots more.
Kilo does not have dive planes on the sail.
You forgot the reason why planes are moved from the sail to the bow in certain subs. That’s because the sail is configured for ice breaking.
And you forgot the reason why small conventional subs are moving their diving planes from the bow to the sail. That’s because some designs are now using passive flank sonars, and on a smaller sub, the water flow from the bow plane can be disruptive to a flank sonar. So the plane have to be separated as far from the flank sonar as much as possible. It’s not a problem on nuclear subs with bow planes for artic ice breaking because of the sheer size of the sub.
The bow planed Kilo does not have flank sonars btw. The Songs and the Yuans do, that’s why their planes are on the sail. The Amur/Lada moved its planes to the sail for the same reason; it now has flank sonars.
Again, SSBN’s….What about Yankee class (when they were in service), Kilo class, Lada/Amur. Borey. The sail on Oscar and Sierra arent exactly streamlined either…
And what makes you think the 093 and 094 get their sail designs from the Russians? The squared proportions of their sails are so close to the 688 and Ohio class that the first time the 093 pictures appeared, people were thinking they were PS’ed off 688 sub images.
Count how many Russians have squared sails vs. Western sub clases, which the vast unambiguous majority have squared sails.
Correct, not a common design on russian subs, but on SSBN’s.. Delta IV, Borey. (not on the old Delta III, you are correct there) So the new trend is to use slit design. Even the new Lada/Amur class uses slit design.
So its only new to Russian subs, how does the slit design make it Russian when slit limber holes have been with Western designs much longer and far more widespread among many classes. Even the Han had slit limber hole designs.
Ok, i give up on that one, you obviously know more about this than me..
But still, the Akula and Kilo are not the only russian subs with a 7 bladed prop
..
Oh and tell me which ones. The Borei is out of it, it might have shifted to a pumpjet instead.
crobatoAlso the Song, 093, and 094, all have their limber hole lines split and staggered so they never form a continuous line. Actually the Songs kept modifying their lines, making the most disruptions in the last and definitive version. In contrast the Han and Soviet subs all have long continuous limber hole lines. That has tendency to create a loud low frequency sound as the water passes through the slit. But if you divide the slits so they form into smaller, disrupted lines, they produce lower volume, higher frequency sounds which don’t travel far into the water. The slits on the 093 and 094 appear they might have covers, as slits make it convenient to use covers. This removes the ability for the lines to make a noise. This idea finally managed to caught on with the Russians on the Akula II.
crobatoAll the Chinese subs are single shafted. Yes, models of them have been publicly shown, many of them have the same 7 bladed skewed prop. This includes upgraded versions of the Han, the Xia (both after refit); the 093, the Song, and the 094.
Most SSBNs share the basic configuration like the Delta shown, unless you have to develop a hull so wide and deep. Humpback is seen in most SSBNs. It is caused by the function of the sub.
The Delta class is not your typical Russian sub in the first place. Compare the Delta to the Sierra, the Alfa, the Akula, and the Victor classes. Dive planes on sail are not typical Russian designs to start with.
The sail in the Delta class is also not typical. Just how many Russian nuclear sub designs have a squared sail, the vast majority of designs uses a streamlined sail.
You point to the slit limber hole design? Again, even though the Delta features it, its not a common design with other Russian subs. Check with other designs like the Typhoon, and tell me if it uses slits. Older Delta also uses holes.
As for Victor III technologies in the 093 and 094, where? The Victor III uses twin tandem 4 bladed props; the 093 and 094 uses the 7 bladed skewed prop; props of that design only came with the Akula and the Kilo 636 for the Russians, but introduced earlier for the 688 and Ohio classes.
KANWA has reported that Rubin has disclosed that the Chinese never approached them for anything including advisement.
crobatoYou can find the GE KMZ at post #111. The third sub would be at Xiaopingdao, Dalian. Check Hans Kristensen’s blog at FAS.org. Also check with SOC’s blog, address at his signature.
crobatoSince its the FCS computer accepts input from the pilot and is actually flying the plane, what role does the pilot actually perform in recovering from episodes of uncontrolled flight? Can he just release the controls and trust the FCS to recover the aircraft automatically? Let’s assume we’re talking about the latest jets like a Typhoon or Raptor.
Dead on.
crobatoNot difficult to see the similarities with russian SSBN’s
I don’t see much resemblance at all. The 094 is basically a converted 093 with a humpback. The 093 does not have the faintest similarity to the Victor IIIs but looks so close to the early 688, the first time people saw the pictures, they were claiming its a 688 PS.
There is a faint resemblance to the Delta class, but the Delta class in fact deviated from the standard Soviet subs in the way the sail and the bow planes. Standard Soviet designs have streamlined sails with bow planes, while Western designs favored squared sails with the occasional sail planes. But in basic concept the 094 and the Delta class are worlds apart. The Delta class are two shafted subs with 4 bladed props; the 094 is a single shaft design with a slow turning 7 bladed asymmetrical prop, which is something that you would see, like let’s say, in the Ohio class. Most Soviet SSBNs use a two shafted design, the Borei returns to the single shaft.
The 093 and 094 are strongly rumored to be nuclear-turbine-electric. Now whose nuclear subs in the world have a similar propulsion layout? Yup, but the French through their Rubis/Amethyst class. We have known the French have a deep impact on the PLAN with various radars, the Croatale SAM, the data links and tactical computer centers, the Exocet being the basis for the first Ying Jing series. The look of the 054 Jiangkai series are suggestive of the La Fayette, and the Song class to the Agosta. Now if you look at the basic shape of the Rubis class sail, compare that to the Han’s sail.
Now look closer to the limber holes on the 093s and 094s. They use a slit design that is typical of Western subs, instead of separated fixed holes like in Russian subs. The design of these slit holes are meant so they can be mechanically covered, and closing them would reduce the noise.
crobatoI may have a point there…A look from the plan view could reveal if there really is house. Thanks for correction
So there really is two 094?
This picture is totally verifiable from Google Earth. There is a small structure that is blocking part of the second sub’s sail from the top. This structure can be verified from Google Earth.
They are both 094 because both subs, being seen from Google Earth, can be directly measured to 130+ meters long. The Xia is only 120 meters long and it can be measured in the dry dock at Qingdao.
The two subs as they appeared in Google Earth, are higher above the water line as they are being fitted out. And it looks like the same way on this new picture, where one of the sub had its covers open. The sub however, that was taken last year both in a photo and in Google Earth is located at Xiaopingdao, Dalian, which is now away from its site of manufacture. It is lower in the water, which means it had been fully fitted out. Chances are very good we have indeed three 094s.
We also had a spate of pics last week where a 094 is spotted in Xiaopingdao, and this one, unlike the first, had a tail appendage much like this new picture and the second sub in Google Earth (the other sub did not have the appendage and neither was the sub spotted in Xiaopingdao, Dalian both by photo and by GE). It is probably a TAS, and we can assume that these pics are of more recent vintage, where the appendaged sub has now been fully fitted out and has moved to the Xiaopingdao base, along with an 093 SSN.
Sign In
