My 3.5m assumes a height of 175cm, as the missile housing is right at 2x the height of the sailor standing next to it.
Height of sail at the front may be 5m, but the height of the sail at the missile housing is not that tall. The missile housing top steps down from the height of the sail. Look at the officers that are sanding in the bridge at the front of the sail, the top of the missile housing is at roughly their foot level, ie, the missile housing deck is the same height as the deck of the bridge, then the sail goes up another meter ish for cover.
Not sure how, but that is number I get with 1.65 meter average height as standard and I do not include hats nor soles of shoes.
If it's that big, probably it will push 3000 tons then? And as to engines i'm speculating they replaced the originals with two Gorae type engines or derivatives of, what you think? Imo this would go in hand what seems the economical approach taken with this SSB, leveraging on existing hulls and technology pioneered on Gorae. I don't know how Sutton can think the sub retained the original engines which is what, 65 years old tech, and when DPRK already built the Gorae. Not to mention DPRKs amazing advances in many other fields.
Replacing engines gets into some pretty significant knock-on effects, though. Different weights, volume, vibration modes, mounting systems...
Which will likely result in the loss of that boat as soon as it approaches launch depth/preparations.Just an idea... nuclear ballistic missiles are first political devices. Generally they serve deterrence, so stealth and endurance are priorities for the subs and nuclear reactors allow this. Throughout the Cold War and after, their purpose has been for their existence to be known but not their location. Actually firing them would represent a failure of the political strategy (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/operations/global/continuous-at-sea-deterrent - dramatised in the recent BBC thriller, Vigil).
I don't think that AIP or a compact nuclear power plant is NKs highest priority (at least not yet). Here's why:
I suggest that its role is for brinksmanship. NKs strategy has long been highly visible and performative - and substantially intended for domestic effect also. The boat here is as stealthy as a Scottish pipe band attacking a heavy metal concert and has the endurance of a mayfly. It would be useless in the role of an Ohio or Vanguard, but sending one to sea would serve to send a signal or even trigger a crisis which can be exploited.
Madman theory - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Kim Jong Un must know that but doesn't care, nor would it even need to get that far. As I said, brinksmanship, not actual launch. Boutique deterrence if you will.
It's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.
How many subs has Three Fats managed to lose?
This cavalier attitude is precisely the reason DPRK missile subs appear. Moreover, it begs a question, who's really the threat of nuclear war here.
Periscope depth isn't launch depth.
Regardless of what changes it may have had, it is still basically a 1950s - I might even say 1940s given its German Type-XXI U-boat heritage - design. Sure, it might have had some noise reduction improvements - though the extended fin/box for the missiles won't help in that regard - but it will still be a relatively easy find for any competing ASW forces (subs, ships and/or aircraft). In time of any possible war it will be a race to see whether these or the KPAAF's aircraft get eliminated first and in how many hours.
Chinese managed to reduce noise of Romeo class submarine from 160 to 140 with upgrade package in 1980's for Egypt..
They'd need to stretch the engineroom to raft the engines (or at least the electric motors and especially the reduction gears), and probably reshape all the limber holes to prevent flow noise like blowing over the top of a beer bottle.
They might have learned something, but without a set of CNC machines large enough to cut a 7ft propeller you just cannot make the screws that shape.
Except components can be made smaller with comparable performance or same volume of space with more power and or complexity.
There is no evidence that nothing has changed inside and again, Chinese have made improvements in 1980s including automation.
Neither of us don't know that, except you are confident that nothing has changed besides the obvious added section and changed nose.
Again you make bold assertion and assumption about their build quality while also showing that you don't know about NK subs because 1 submarine was lost in 2016 and 1 in 1998 when it stumbled upon fishing net thus disabling it while another ran aground in 1996 and in 1985 Romeo sank due to accident. 4 submarines lost in 38 years out of nearly 80 they have is not even 10% of its sub fleet.
They don't need to make a 7ft propeller to begin with as it is Romeo with single one at each side that has 7ft propeller.
The rafting takes up significant space to add in. The original Yasen class is 10m shorter than the Yasen IIs because of added rafting.
The USN hasn't lost a boat at sea since 1968, and Scorpion had not gotten her SUBSAFE refit yet. Two subs out of some 300 made since Nautilus, over 60 years ago.
? Huh? You're saying that they don't need to make a 7ft propeller because it's a Romeo that has two 7ft propellers?
Yasen-M is 10 meters shorter than original.
You clearly have not understand my argument. Please read again what I wrote.
Read my argument again. Submarine screws have gotten larger and larger diameter (I don't even know how big the screw on an Ohio is, but it's a lot bigger than 7ft on each side like on the Nautilus). This allows them to be spun slower for the same thrust.
You don't understand just how critical quieting is to a submarine.
DPRK can already drop so much conventional HE on Seoul that it's measured in kilotons per second.
A submarine that everyone knows the location of is not a deterrent.
Read what I wrote again as your reply doesn't make sense to what I wrote.
You said, and I quote:
Now.
