Indian Akula II attack submarine

Originally posted by Daedalus3

you mean that picture was taken in Russia and not India.

Daedalus3,

Your actually suggesting that India is under possesion of the Submarine in question?

I have not seen anything which backs up this claim that India has made arrangements to lease/buy any nuclear submarines from Russia. There were reports of 300 Indian sailors heading to Sosnovy Bor and was then re-reported to be "heading to recieve nuclear training" simply because Russian nuclear facilities are located there aswell. It has been denied that the facility they will be trained at houses any nuclear reactor

Originally posted by Schaden
Their last SSN, the Han class, was a POS. You think the Chinese Navy could make a leap from building 1950s/1960s technology subs to

The first Han was launched in 1970 the last in 1990. You might class it as a class within a class. The lastest Han submarine is probably a direct comparison to the Victor III in its own right. The first Han submarines might have experienced a lot of teething problems but logic suggests you dont continue building the same submarines for 20 more years if they continued to have the same problem. One of the major revolutions the Victor III incorporated was Acoustic tiling which significantly reduced the subs signiture, this has been incorprated into most modern submarines including the Han as well


Click image to see the full picture

something as advanced as an Akula II with nothing in between ?

So, whats makes it so advanced?

Originally posted by Schaden
Global security estimates the new Chinese SSN is comparable to a Victor III.

Actually they initially said its design was based on the Victor III and the statement has not been changed since. Copy = Comparable.

Anyway,

Here is a good article about Chinas submarine fleet for anyone who is seriously interested.

Daedalus3 . Not a lot about India but its quite interesting to read Chinese views on submarine warfare

China's future nuclear submarine force: insights from Chinese writings

Nor will Chinese nuclear submarines necessarily be used in the same roles for which U.S. and Soviet submarines were optimized (e.g., antisubmarine warfare). (73)

Another critical question concerns the 093 and 094 submarines' acoustic properties. Chinese sources universally recognize that noise reduction is one of the greatest challenges in building an effective nuclear submarine. (76) PRC scientists have long been conducting research concerning the fundamental sources of propeller noise. For instance, experts at China Ship Scientific Research Center developed a relatively advanced guide-vane propeller by the late 1990s. (77) This, and the fact that China already has advanced seven-blade propellers with cruciform vortex dissipaters on its indigenous Song-class and imported Kilo-class diesel submarines, suggests that the 093 and 094 will have significantly improved propellers. A researcher in Qingdao's 4808 Factory also demonstrates Chinese attention to the need to use sound-isolation couplings to prevent transmission of vibrations to the ocean from major fresh-water circulating pumps in the steam cycle. (78) Advanced composite materials are credited with capability to absorb vibrations and sound. (79)

One Chinese researcher states that the 093 is not as quiet as the U.S. Seawolf class or Virginia class but is on a par with the improved Los Angeles class. (80) Another analyst estimates that the 093's noise level has been reduced to that of the Russian Akula-class submarine at 110 decibels [[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]]. (81) He states that the 094's acoustic signature has been reduced to 120 decibels. According to this report, this is definitely not equal to that of the Ohio class, but is on a par with the Los Angeles. (82) There is no additional information given to evaluate concerning the origins or comparability of these "data."

The bolded area is what really interest me




[edit on 3-8-2008 by chinawhite]

Originally posted by chinawhite

Daedalus3,

Your actually suggesting that India is under possesion of the Submarine in question?

I have not seen anything which backs up this claim that India has made arrangements to lease/buy any nuclear submarines from Russia. There were reports of 300 Indian sailors heading to Sosnovy Bor and was then re-reported to be "heading to recieve nuclear training" simply because Russian nuclear facilities are located there aswell. It has been denied that the facility they will be trained at houses any nuclear reactor

But of course! Why would I possibly want to suggest that India is/can/shortly will be under the possession of a SSN?
The Indian Navy is quite happy with its Kilos and Scorpenes.. What would we do with a SSN in the Indian Ocean? Tail CSGs?

'IMHO the Indian Navy does not plan to acquire any immediate SSN ability.'
There.. all settled now


EDIT: So read your link.. nothing ground-breakingly revealing to me at least.. the document seemed to mostly concentrate on the approach that Chinese nuke boat strategists/designers/operators have taken over the last 50 years..

However there were three interesting bits in that article of yours:

1)

As for the number of missile tubes in the 094, two sources predict sixteen tubes, compared with the Xia's twelve. (100) A third source forecasts between twelve and sixteen tubes. (101)

This I presume was published in late 2007, months after the first Google Earth (leaked or intentionally released) pics of the 094. I would imagine that the authors of this article would be aware of that.

2)

Apparently as part of these expanded activities, the current PLAN chief of staff, Sun Jianguo, reportedly commanded Han 403 during a mid-1980s mission of ninety days that broke the eighty-four-day undersea endurance record previously set by USS Nautilus.

Any more info on that? Not very knowledge-able on this area but does this mean that no boat in the cumulative operation spans of 5 SSN navies ever broke this record until then?
And did the Han actually do this, because the general public spread on Chinese 1st gen SSN/SSBNs was:
"the inability to stay submerged for opertionally viable periods due to 'various problems'."

3)

It is conceivable, if unlikely, that the PRC has achieved a major scientific feat concerning the propulsion system for nuclear submarines. A wide variety of Chinese sources claim that China has succeeded in developing a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) [[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]] suitable for use in its new-generation nuclear submarines. This development is described as a "revolutionary breakthrough" [[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]]. (83) Another source elaborates: "HTGR is the most advanced in the world, [its] volume is small, [its] power is great, [its] noise is low--it is the most ideal propulsion system for a new generation of nuclear submarines. The United States and Russia have both not achieved a breakthrough in this regard. According to Western reports, in the first half of 2000, China successfully installed an HTGR on a nuclear submarine. If this information is true, the 093 uses this advanced propulsion technology." (84)
....
....
As implied above, some Chinese analysts believe that the HTGR promises to give PLAN submarines unprecedented maximum speed.

Whats this HTGR all about? How do miniaturized 10MW reactor(s?) increase max speed?
Orangetom and N-boat veterans alike, please share all share-able info on this question

Finally,
As for the statement that you emboldened, well IMO that's quite obvious as PLAN force capabilities and doctrines (submerged, surface and aerial) are quite different than that of the USN or the Soviet/Russian Navy. Hence they will tend to use SSNs to that end, which is precisely the beauty of the operational flexibility a SSN offers. This of course presuming that it can carry
out its operational longevity, ASW, anti-shipping and land attack roles flawlessly.
SSBN usage is more or less globally quite transparent so no change there.


[edit on 3-8-2008 by Daedalus3]

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by Schaden
Global security estimates the new Chinese SSN is comparable to a Victor III.

Actually they initially said its design was based on the Victor III and the statement has not been changed since. Copy = Comparable.

The best estimate is the Shang is comparable, meaning similar performance to a Victor III. But it's a new design. It's not a copy of a Victor III. Copy is not synonymous with comparable.

Originally posted by chinawhite

The first Han was launched in 1970 the last in 1990. You might class it as a class within a class. The lastest Han submarine is probably a direct comparison to the Victor III in its own right. The first Han submarines might have experienced a lot of teething problems but logic suggests you dont continue building the same submarines for 20 more years if they continued to have the same problem. One of the major revolutions the Victor III incorporated was Acoustic tiling which significantly reduced the subs signiture, this has been incorprated into most modern submarines including the Han as well

No doubt the quality improved as production went along. But everything I've read indicates the Han is comparable to 50s/60s sub tech. Acoustic tiling will help but without a complete redesign, you can't fix fundamental issues with the radiation shielding and hydrodynamics. Experts say the new Shang is comparable to a Victor III. Maybe the last of the Hans were comparable to a Victor I ?

something as advanced as an Akula II with nothing in between ?

Originally posted by chinawhiteSo, whats makes it so advanced?

Advanced relative to the Han. But don't roll your eyes. An Akula II in my estimate is without question better than a type 093. I realize English probably isn't your first language.

[edit on 3-8-2008 by Schaden]

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Any more info on that? Not very knowledge-able on this area but does this mean that no boat in the cumulative operation spans of 5 SSN navies ever broke this record until then?

No it doesn't mean that. They seem to be bragging their mid 80s submarine broke the OLD record set by the Nautilus in the 1950s. I don't know specifically, but I'd wager the Nautilus record has been eclipsed many times before the Han "record" was set. The endurance of a nuclear submarine is only limited by food for the crew. I've spent 80+ days submerged, it's de rigeur operating procedure.

Originally posted by Daedalus3And did the Han actually do this, because the general public spread on Chinese 1st gen SSN/SSBNs was:
"the inability to stay submerged for opertionally viable periods due to 'various problems'."

Did it really do it ? Who knows ? Any govt will not be fully truthful about its military capabilities. But I would take any comment from the PRC with an especially large grain of salt. To this day, the Tienanmen Square Massacre is a forbidden topic. I'd wager the vast majority of young Chinese Nationals don't even know that it happened. With anything as secretive as submarine operations, the public is not getting the full picture.

Originally posted by Daedalus3Whats this HTGR all about? How do miniaturized 10MW reactor(s?) increase max speed?
Orangetom and N-boat veterans alike, please share all share-able info on this question

HTGR has been around for decades. But they seem to be claiming to have perfected the concept. 10MW is diminutive for a nuclear submarine. In theory, the more powerful the reactor, the more heat you can create, thus leading to more steam power, and a faster sub. But there are several other factors in top speed besides reactor power such as weight. Also it gets progressively harder to make additional knots the faster you're going. Like on cars for example. You only need something like 15hp to reach 100mph, but to reach 200mph, you need like twenty times as much hp although it's only twice as fast. Same concept with subs.

reply to post by Daedalus3


Daedalus,

You asked,

How do miniaturized 10MW reactor(s?) increase max speed?
Orangetom and N-boat veterans alike, please share all share-able info on this question

The US Navy prefers pressurized water reactors. They have tried other reactor types in submarines in the early days and found them lacking for their purposes. The USS Triton comes to mind...this submarine having utilized two reactors. This boat did not seem to work out and new designs quickly eclipsed this boat both in both hull shape and reactor types.
The High Temperature Gas cooled reactors, from what I can tell by the articles on it, are not yet suited to shipboard use and are still under testing and design phases. Some prototypes have been built, run, and also shut down to date.
I do not believe this design will be ready for shipboard use any time in the near future although I know that the US Navy carefully monitors and catalogs any results, incidents, and improvements/changes in the nuclear industry and anywhere in the world.

As to your question about how a reactor is run to change to max speed...I will not comment on how this is done nor go into this arena in the intrest of security. Hope you can understand this position.

Thank you for your post,
Orangetom



[edit on 3-8-2008 by orangetom1999]