I think some of the photos in question may have been previously posted in a thread a few months back, but haven't being able to find the one in question so far.
China’s ambitious nuclear-powered submarine program suffered a major setback earlier this year when a new Zhou-class submarine sank near a shipyard in Wuhan.
and typical draft for SSN is something like 7-8 meters. While Wuchang shipyard which located in Yangtze river only able to support submarine with 5-6 meter draft.
The navigable part of the Yangtze River can be divided into three main sections: The Lower Yangtze from Shanghai to Nanjing that allow deepsea ships with a draft of around 11 meters. The Middle Yangtze from Nanjing to Yichang (the nearest container port to the Three Gorges Dam). The Upper...
porteconomicsmanagement.org
Chinese Type-039 diesel-electric sub which also made there have draft of something like 5.4 meter, If it sunk pierside you would expect at least the conning tower would still be on surface.
Glass half full:
Could be they wanted to develop a new capability at that yard.
Could be they wanted to tinker with a prototype without disrupting the current nuke production line.
Glass half empty:
Could be political, could be corruption.
Glass half full:
Could be they wanted to develop a new capability at that yard.
Could be they wanted to tinker with a prototype without disrupting the current nuke production line.
Glass half empty:
Could be political, could be corruption.
A strange incident caught in satellite imagery was indeed a major mishap involving a Chinese submarine, according to a new report. The mysterious incident in China’s Wuchang Shipyard in the spring of this year led to the sinking of the new Zhou class SSN.
If they were dredging a path for submarine transit operations, I'd believe the crane barges might have been observed doing recent work along the channel/river the dock is on. 4 crane barges doing a kumbayah circle right where a brand new SSN was sitting... well... :/
Accidents happen but the most important takeaway from this is yet another indication that china is indeed fielding ssk/ssn hybrids. More precisely, slower, smaller subs with small nuke reactors in place of their usual conventional AIP sections. Reactor is plausibly there to power an electrical generator which then powers the prop/ pumpjet.
Those nuke hybrids have been rumored for years now. Idea being, it may not be fast, but it can keep the sub submerged and quiet during its entire deployment, not just for a couple of weeks, like previous AIP could.
and typical draft for SSN is something like 7-8 meters. While Wuchang shipyard which located in Yangtze river only able to support submarine with 5-6 meter draft.
The navigable part of the Yangtze River can be divided into three main sections: The Lower Yangtze from Shanghai to Nanjing that allow deepsea ships with a draft of around 11 meters. The Middle Yangtze from Nanjing to Yichang (the nearest container port to the Three Gorges Dam). The Upper...
porteconomicsmanagement.org
Chinese Type-039 diesel-electric sub which also made there have draft of something like 5.4 meter, If it sunk pierside you would expect at least the conning tower would still be on surface.
Accidents happen but the most important takeaway from this is yet another indication that china is indeed fielding ssk/ssn hybrids. More precisely, slower, smaller subs with small nuke reactors in place of their usual conventional AIP sections. Reactor is plausibly there to power an electrical generator which then powers the prop/ pumpjet.
Those nuke hybrids have been rumored for years now. Idea being, it may not be fast, but it can keep the sub submerged and quiet during its entire deployment, not just for a couple of weeks, like previous AIP could.
Seriously now, there's actually little way of confirming anything of substance happened. When the usual low quality echo chamber media hoopla is subtracted, all that's left is... not much really, and not anything conclusive.
So A) either a submarine sunk and it was carrying some sort of nuclear reactor, which would point to a new class of ssk/ssn hybrids.
B) a submarine sunk but it wasn't nuclear in any sense.
or C) nothing sunk there. And we're looking at a bunch of dredging cranes, dredging the river bed near the piers as the shipyard needs such operations.
I didn't say they can dive longer than subs driven by steam turbines (assuming here nuclear-steam propulsion).
I was referring to AIP like fuel cells, stirling engine etc. Those they can beat.
Comparing a nuclear-steam-electric system to a pure nuclear-steam one - the first should be better due to no need for a gearbox.
Next gen of large SSNs are expected to use nuclear-steam-electric anyway, only scaled up in size and power to fit their needs.
This small form so called hybrid sub would basically use the same principle, only scaled down. Enough to provide maybe several knots of speed, but for years.
Thanks, what does AIP mean? Something with air in the beginning?
I guess, the hybrid system could make a sub quiter, but I'm not sure about that, because electric motors and FU can produce quite a lot of noises too. Manouverability mide also increase.
A strange incident caught in satellite imagery was indeed a major mishap involving a Chinese submarine, according to a new report. The mysterious incident in China’s Wuchang Shipyard in the spring of this year led to the sinking of the new Zhou class SSN.
A strange incident caught in satellite imagery was indeed a major mishap involving a Chinese submarine, according to a new report. The mysterious incident in China’s Wuchang Shipyard in the spring of this year led to the sinking of the new Zhou class SSN.
The submarine sank earlier this year, in a major setback for the Chinese military, say US defence officials.
www.bbc.com
A Chinese nuclear-powered attack submarine sank in its dock earlier this year while under construction, in a major setback for the Chinese military, according to US defence officials.
Speaking on condition of anonymity to the BBC's US partner, CBS, the officials said the loss of the submarine probably happened between May and June.
Satellite images taken in June show what appear to be floating salvage cranes at the berth in Wuhan where, a month previously, the vessel had been seen. Beijing has not confirmed the reports.
The US officials said it was "not surprising" the Chinese military would have covered up the loss of one of its newest assets.
It is unclear whether the submarine was carrying nuclear fuel at the time.
A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said on Friday he was not familiar with the topic and did not provide any information when asked about it at a Beijing news conference.
The incident raises questions about China's defence industry, which is allegedly riddled with corruption.
[...]
Thomas Shugart, a former US Navy submariner and an analyst at the Center for a New American Security, first noticed the incident involving the submarine in July.
He told the BBC the sinking was a "setback" that would cause "pretty significant embarrassment" for the People's Liberation Army (PLA) navy, but the safety risk was probably "pretty low".
However, he added: "If this ship eventually does get repaired, and I'm sure it will, it'll be a far more capable submarine than what they were building before at that shipyard.
Accident/incident probably, but nuclear power is quite impossible, as the Wuhan shipyard is an inland shipyard designed specifically for conventional powered submarine, and the designation 'Type 041' means it's conventionally powered also, as nuclear power should be designated as 'Type 09x'
If they were dredging a path for submarine transit operations, I'd believe the crane barges might have been observed doing recent work along the channel/river the dock is on. 4 crane barges doing a kumbayah circle right where a brand new SSN was sitting... well... :/
Accident/incident probably, but nuclear power is quite impossible, as the Wuhan shipyard is an inland shipyard designed specifically for conventional powered submarine, and the designation 'Type 041' means it's conventionally powered also, as nuclear power should be designated as 'Type 09x'
The reporting that this was a hybrid nuclear (SSKn rather than SSN) would explain this. It seems to be an evolution of the previous Type 039C AIP design, but with a small nuclear reactor rather than a conventional Stirling AIP plant.
I've long wondered why no one has seriously tried this approach, with a small reactor tied to a generator to trickle-charge a large battery. The big challenge must be to come up with a compact reactor that does not require the large crew of a full-sized system. Probably we are looking at something akin to the new commercial small modular reactors.
New details are coming to light about China’s Type 041 Zhou class submarine and its experimental propulsion system. New details are coming to light about China’s Type 041 Zhou class submarine and its experimental propulsion system.
Sort of. Current conventional subs are already hybrids in the sense of automobiles -- propulsion consists of electric motors driven by batteries or a generator driven by an internal combustion engine (usually a diesel). Batteries for sustained low-speed loiter or brief high-speed sprints. The diesel engine provides more sustained high speed or recharges batteries but requires access to outside air.
AIP (usually an external combustion Stirling heat engine) provides a second mechanism for recharging batteries without external air, extending that low-speed battery endurance. There's no direct equivalent in cars, except maybe sticking solar panels on the roof.
Nuclear auxiliary power replaces the AIP engine with a small nuclear plant that provides enough power to extend the low-speed loiter almost indefinitely but still requires big batteries for high-speed sprint. That means your sprint is limited in duration, unlike a standard nuke boat that can run at full speed more or less indefinitely.
It's an open question whether you also want big diesels to rapidly recharge the batteries using external air. You definitely want at least a small diesel for emergency get-home power of the reactor is inoperable.
Introduction
Potential modernization plans or ambitions of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) were revealed in unprecedented detail by a former PLAN Rear Admiral in a university lecture, perhaps within the last 2-3 years. The Admiral, retired Rear Admiral Zhao Dengping, revealed key programs such as: a new medium-size nuclear attack submarine; a small nuclear auxiliary engine for conventional submarines; ship-based use of anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs); next-generation destroyer capabilities; and goals for PLAN Air Force modernization. (etc) Collections of PowerPoint slides from Zhao’s lecture appeared on multiple Chinese military issue webpages on 21 and 22 August 2017, apparently from a Northwestern Polytechnical University lecture. Notably, Zhao is a former Director of the Equipment Department of the PLAN. (…)
A New SSN
Admiral Zhao described a new unidentified 7,000-ton nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN) that will feature a “new type of powerplant…new weapon system [and] electronic information system.” An image shows this SSN featuring a sound isolation raft and propulsor which should reduce its acoustic signature, 12 cruise missile tubes in front of the sail, and a bow and sail similar to the current Type 093 SSN. This design appears to have a single hull, which would be a departure from current PLAN submarine design practice, but the 7,000 ton weigh suggests it may reflect the lower-cost weight and capability balance seen in current U.S. and British SSNs.
It is not known if this represents the next generation Type 095 SSN expected to enter production in the next decade. However, in 2015 the Asian Military Review journal reported the PLAN would build up to 14 Type 095s.
Of some interest, Admiral Zhao describes a new 7,000 ton nuclear powered attack submarine (SSN), showing acoustic capability enhancements, internal storage for 12 large missiles, but design similarities with the older Type 093 SSN. (CJDBY)
Small Nuclear Powerplant
Zhao also revealed the PLAN may be working on a novel low power/low pressure auxiliary nuclear powerplant for electricity generation for fitting into conventional submarine designs, possibly succeeding the PLAN’s current Stirling engine-based air independent propulsion (AIP) systems. One slide seems to suggest that the PLAN will continue to build smaller submarines around the size of current conventional powered designs, but that they will be modified to carry the new nuclear auxiliary powerplant to give them endurance advantages of nuclear power.
Admiral Zhao suggests that the PLAN is developing a new nuclear reactor-powered auxiliary power unit to charge the batteries of smaller and less expensive conventional submarines, allowing the PLAN to more rapidly increase its numbers of “nuclear” powered submarines. (CJDBY)
Zhao’s diagram of this powerplant shows similarities to the Soviet/Russian VAU-6 auxiliary nuclear powerplant tested in the late 1980s on a Project 651 Juliet conventional cruise missile submarine (SSG).[1] Reports indicate Russia continued to develop this technology but there are no reports of its sale to China. Russia’s Project 20120 submarine Sarov may have a version of the VAU-6 [2] giving it an underwater endurance of 20 days. While the PLA would likely seek longer endurance, it may be attracted by the potential cost savings of a nuclear auxiliary powered submarine compared to a SSN.
A slide of Admiral Zhao’s showing a diagram of a nuclear reactor powered auxiliary power unit for small submarines, appears to be similar to the Soviet/Russian VAU-6 design. (CJDBY)
(..)
[then he talks about naval ASBMs and directed energy weapons, future destroyers, naval aviation (EW, AEW, ASW, etc.), then the author returns to submarines.]: (…)
Submarine Dominance
Should the Type 095 SSN emerge as an “efficient” design similar to the U.S. Virginia class, and should the PLA successfully develop a nuclear auxiliary power system for SSK-sized submarines, this points to a possible PLA strategy to transition affordably to an “all-nuclear” powered submarine fleet. While nuclear auxiliary powered submarines may not have the endurance of SSNs, their performance could exceed that of most AIP powered submarines for an acquisition price far lower than that of an SSN.
Assuming the Asian Military Review report [DL404] proves correct and that the PLAN has success in developing its auxiliary nuclear power plant, then by sometime in the 2030s the PLAN attack submarine fleet could consist of about 20 Type 093 and successor “large” SSNs, plus 20+ new smaller nuclear-auxiliary powered submarines, and 30+ advanced Type 039 and Kilo class conventional submarines.
Such nuclear submarine numbers would not only help the PLAN challenge the current dominance of U.S. Navy SSNs, it could also could help the PLAN begin to transition to an “offensive” strategy against U.S. and Russian nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). But in Asia it would give the PLAN numerical and technical advantages over the non-nuclear submarines of Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, Russia, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand. This combined with rapid PLAN development of new anti-submarine capabilities, to include its “Underwater Great Wall” of seabed sensors and underwater unmanned combat vessels, point to an ambition to achieve undersea dominance in Asia.
Such nuclear auxiliary engine technology also gives the PLAN the option to develop a number of longer-endurance but low-cost ballistic missile submarines, perhaps based on the Type 032 conventional ballistic missile submarine (SSG). Such submarines might deploy nuclear-armed, submarine-launched intercontinental missiles, long-range cruise missiles, or ASBMs. Auxiliary nuclear-powered submarines may be easier to station at the PLA’s developing system of naval bases, like Djibouti, Gwadar, Pakistan, and perhaps Hambantota, Sri Lanka. China can also be expected to export such submarines. /end
——-
endnotes:
(1) Project 20120would be used for testing a new nuclear power plant, the KTP-7I FENIKS, intended for the project of a new SSN, the KALITKA.
On December 14, 2007, the SEVMASH shipyard announced that the experimental submarine B-90 SAROV of the 20120 class had left the assembly hall. It specified that this was a project developed by the RUBIN engineering bureau in 1989, and that its construction had begun at the Krasnoe Sormovo shipyard in Nizhniy Novgorod. It also indicated that this was a test platform for torpedoes and missiles, as well as for manned and unmanned underwater vehicles, both civil and military. Finally, it is stated that this submarine is expected to have a long operational life, and that modernizations/modifications will take place in the future, and the subsequent installation of a nuclear reactor is not excluded.
The installation of an auxiliary nuclear reactor has already been tested on a submarine built by the Krasnoe Sormovo shipyard, the K-68 of the 651 class. In 1985, it was modified to the 651E class, and equipped with a VAU-6 auxiliary nuclear reactor. However, this experiment did not initially give satisfaction, since no other submarine with diesel-electric main propulsion has been subsequently modified.
(2) The 651E NERKA projectconsisted of equipping a submarine, the B-68, with a VAU-6 auxiliary nuclear reactor, with a power of around 600 kW to improve autonomy when submerged. The idea is based on the work of a 651K project of the Rubin bureau from 1970 with the VAU-6. The project was adopted on August 30, 1979. Open data on this project is almost non-existent. But the abandonment of this assembly on other projects of diesel-electric propulsion submarines seems to show that the expected efficiency was not there.
One would expect not, otherwise why pursue such a solution?
Stirling engine is still an engine with some moving parts which produce some sound.
It's not as quiet as hydrogen fuel cells system, for example.
One might wonder if this nuke arrangement is noisier than a fuel cell one, and rightly so.
Stirling was touted as less noisy than some (old?) nuke subs but that may have been due to cooling issues and pumps, as stirling is inherently less needy of cooling. But nuke subs changed and while older subs did need constant cooling, that gradually ceased to be the case. Today's most modern nuke subs can allegedly maintain high speeds while not requiring cooling.
They still have a steam turbine a (for now) gearing, so they may not be quieter than Stirling, but if gearbox is omitted, due to electrical drive, then who knows.
impossible to say. It would certain a different type/frequency of noise - a presumably 50 hz power generation vs what ever the lower frequency reciprocating Stirling engine puts out. I assume there would be some modest noise from a steam generator and possibly the coolant loops, though these might easily be free circulating without pump noise.
One would expect not, otherwise why pursue such a solution?
Stirling engine is still an engine with some moving parts which produce some sound.
It's not as quiet as hydrogen fuel cells system, for example.
One might wonder if this nuke arrangement is noisier than a fuel cell one, and rightly so.
Stirling was touted as less noisy than some (old?) nuke subs but that may have been due to cooling issues and pumps, as stirling is inherently less needy of cooling. But nuke subs changed and while older subs did need constant cooling, that gradually ceased to be the case. Today's most modern nuke subs can allegedly maintain high speeds while not requiring cooling.
They still have a steam turbine a (for now) gearing, so they may not be quieter than Stirling, but if gearbox is omitted, due to electrical drive, then who knows.
It is possible the nuke generates more noise but this is acceptable for extended slow speed operations. It is also possible it is quieter or can be made more quiet than the stirling with isolation and cancellation technologies; steady frequency noise is far easier to cancel than transients for instance.
All nukes need cooling; what can change is whether the coolant loops need pumps to move the coolant. The secondary loop can use the subs motion to move salt water through and out, but the primary loop traditionally used pumps. Some more modern boats have loops set up where the heat of the water post cooling causes it to rise and the cooling action of the steam generators cause it to sink such that coolant does not need pumping at lower power settings.
The new uncrewed underwater vehicle concept, which is as big as some crewed types, could be tied to a still-mysterious submarine that previously emerged in China.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.twz.com
www.telegraph.co.uk
www.businessinsider.com
nationalinterest.org
porteconomicsmanagement.org
www.twz.com
www.bbc.com
