China’s Subs Getting Quieter

The Chinese nuclear sub force is getting quieter, but a recent report says that the new Jin-class missile boats are about as stealthy as old Soviet Delta IIIs.

Or, in other words, not terribly stealthy at all.

Comments

  1. They’ll still get a lot of hype, though, because they’re the perfect Red Herring to misdirect the public eye away from the US Navy’s frustrations over Chinese Diesel Submarines;

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

    More importantly, this Red Herring also helps conceal the US Navy’s dozens of OTHER Diesel Sub Embarrassments, lest the US public begin to agitate for a cheaper, better-balanced, BETTER sub fleet that includes Diesel boats;

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/18023250/Is-the-USN-Obsolete

    A “Diesel Sub Embarrassment” in a shooting war will cost us a couple of SSNs and SSBNs, and a Carrier Battlegroup or two. If the range of the Song class SSKsis indication, SSKs with Cruise Missiles could nuke a couple of US cites with total impunity…

    …and we would never hear them over the boiler noise of out own SSNs.

  2. I happen to agree that countering diesel subs is a potential glaring weakness for the USN. If we aren’t going to operate our own, we should at least have a couple for anti-sub training. I’ve mentioned this a number of times previously.

  3. Murdoc,
    Touche.

    I’ve heard the same idea from others as well, but these ideas always seem to fall on deaf ears. A Sub Captain will tell you that reforming the Catholic Church would be easier; an Admiral would fly into a tirade about why the system is “perfect”.

    A Congressman… well, forget them — the only thing THEY’RE good at is keeping a job that pays them well to do nothing.

  4. Diesel subs are not sexy, therefore we will never get any. Even if we could build four of them for the price of one nuke (number pulled out of my ass).

    Now if the diesel used some sort of multi-phasic propulsion framus, then there’d be interest.

  5. Nadnerbus,
    Well you might be on to something. NASA’s selling people on the idea that what you really need to go back to the Moon is a huge rocket, right, with like a…a…capsule on top…yeah we did that 40 years ago but today, WHAT a capsule!

    Saavy contractors could sell diesel boats to the USN, they just need to let the marketroids work up the language. Like instead of “diesel”, you say “multi-phasic propulsion”.

  6. GeekLethal,

    Hey, it’s worked before.Case in point;

    You know that “new” M908 HE-OR (High-Explosive Obstacle-Reduction) round that the US Army is using? Look-up information on the World War 2-era APHE (Armor-Piercing High-Explosive) round — HE-OR is APHE.

    Even MORE pathetic, look-up cutaway drawings of the M830A1 HEAT (also called “MPAT”), and compare them to the “new” M908 HE-OR. HE-or is just re-packaged HEAT with a steel penetrator instead of a copper charge liner!

    Unfortunately, this was a total waste of time and (other people’s) money, because of the reason APHE went out of style as an anti-tank round.
    Against Heavy Armor, APHE can penetrate RHA steel equivalent to twice the projectile’s diameter (i.e., 120mm HE-OR can probably penetrate 240mm of steel). That’s pretty impressive, but M829A1 APFSDS penetrates more than 600mm of steel, and M830 HEAT — also 120mm — penetrates 800mm of steel. In short, HEAT and Sabot rounds have made APHE (as an anti-tank munition) a pointless endeavor.
    As an anti-material round (more to the point of HE-OR), APHE has never been as effective as HE, and can’t even touch the massive destructive potential of HESH.
    As an anti-personnel round, APHE is greatly inferior to Canister, HE, HE-FRAG, and APERS (basically, EVERYTHING normally thrown at enemy personnel).

    Bottom line; there’s no justification for the very EXISTENCE of APHE rounds,`and therefore, no justification for HE-OR.

    I know, I REALLY went off on a limb there, but old ideas are CONSTANTLY being re-run, and disguised as new ideas —and not always for the better.

  7. >Like instead of “diesel”, you say “multi-phasic propulsion”.

    Just call it “biodiesel” and all of the lefties in Congress will line up to support it.

Comments are closed