PRC Peoples Liberation Army Navy

koxinga

Well-Known Member
He did right to remove it, but it did not change why he posted it in the first place, despite putting caveats.

What he did was trying to be "first". This is the part that is damaging. There are always a ton of unsourced RUMINT out there. I followed him for many years, when he started with Narco subs. Usually, he is well researched, hence credible. When someone like this post unsourced RUMINT, it gets picked up because this name alone offers a veneer that meant it was fact-checked or at least, passed his smell test.
 

koxinga

Well-Known Member
Looks like the new Type 054B is being readied for launch.

The general layout appears similar to Navalnews' illustrations with the identifying features being the large, two planar phase array on the main mast and a smaller aft mast.


 

telpher

Member
Looks like the new Type 054B is being readied for launch.

The general layout appears similar to Navalnews' illustrations with the identifying features being the large, two planar phase array on the main mast and a smaller aft mast.


How reliable is this CG? In other words, are there really two funnels present on 054B?
 

Delta204

Active Member
In August this Twitter account (held to be credible by many) posted information about a Chinese nuclear submarine accident. No further corroborating information was found and author eventually pulled it down. Now, British media (not a usual source I'll add) is reporting a rather unusual and somewhat perplexing accident involving a Chinese nuclear submarine in the Yellow Sea, presumably based on Royal Navy intelligence (link at bottom of post).



55 Chinese sailors feared dead after submarine 'caught in trap'
 

koxinga

Well-Known Member
In August this Twitter account (held to be credible by many)
I mentioned this previously. Sutton is taking a risk by posting this simply because he has some degree of "credibility". It will allow the news to spread without proper vetting.

The said secret UK report is claimed by the Daily Mail, and god knows where they got it from.

If a major incident did happen with one of China's few nuclear submarines, i would expect:

1) PLAN scrambling rescue assets in the region
2) Declaration of restrictions, notice to mariners not to access the area
3) USN, ROKN (since it is reportedly at the Yellow Sea) having multiples surveillance flights, naval assets in the area to see what's going on.

I don't see any of these three during that period.

Going back to the Daily Mail article, I see some areas which looks off:

Our understanding is death caused by hypoxia due to a system fault on the submarine. The submarine hit a chain and anchor obstacle used by the Chinese Navy to trap US and allied submarines. 'This resulted in systems failures that took six hours to repair and surface the vessel. The onboard oxygen system poisoned the crew after a catastrophic failure.'

If they were trapped on the net system and the submarine's batteries were running flat (plausible) then eventually the air purifiers and air treatment systems could have failed.


The report says it is a nuclear submarine. Short of a reactor failure, why would they be running on batteries?

The chain and anchor obstacle point looks weird. At best, such an obstacle will entangle the props. That shouldn't be enough to remotely affect the power plant. Two, I am not sure how such an obstacle could possible work without being directly anchored to the sea floor, which means if it did happen, they should be in fairly shallow waters. It's hard to imagine how a rescue cannot be attempted and there are no CO2/carbon monoxide detectors onboard.

I'm not completely discounting that something might have happened, but it is an extraordinary claim that needs a lot of explaining.

 

telpher

Member
The Times also reports.
I was skeptical about the Daily Mail's scoop too, but it seems certain that something happened, or at least that the British think so.

 

swerve

Super Moderator
In August this Twitter account (held to be credible by many) posted information about a Chinese nuclear submarine accident. No further corroborating information was found and author eventually pulled it down. Now, British media (not a usual source I'll add) is reporting a rather unusual and somewhat perplexing accident involving a Chinese nuclear submarine in the Yellow Sea, presumably based on Royal Navy intelligence (link at bottom of post).



55 Chinese sailors feared dead after submarine 'caught in trap'
The Daily Mail (AKA Daily Wail or Daily Fail) isn't much more trustworthy than Trump, so I'm not going to believe it without more evidence, but the Fail does sometimes get things right. It's certainly interesting.
 

koxinga

Well-Known Member
This article discusses the PLAN’s utilization of commercial ferries for amphibious support. Does expand their capabilities somewhat but I would think they will be vulnerable and require significant escort.
Ships Taken Up From Trade or STUFT is not a PLAN exclusive and it is well established concept.

The difference for PLAN is that a number of these "ferries" were designed specifically to be dual use, so in a sense, I would consider them as naval auxilaries wearing a civilian coat during peacetime.

 
Last edited:

Ananda

The Bunker Group

20231109_065213.jpg

Deino twitter (X) shown picture from weibo on Fujian progress. Thos Photo is quite interesting if we see how the Container ship across is dwarves Fujian. While Fujian is not small CV. That Container ship is bigger than USN Super Carrier.

Wondering if that Container Ship converted to Carrier. Just like IJN done in WW2 on converting freighters or commercial ships to Carrier.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group

Sutton article on Chinese new Type 039C SSK. Sutton believe eventough the sail 'stealth' config also presences in Sweden Type 26, but China manage to put it first in operational. Some in chinese forums and weibo even claim this as prove that Sweden that copy China, not other way around as Western Enthusiasts claim.

Either way, it is also shown the speed of Chinese yards productivity.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro

Sutton article on Chinese new Type 039C SSK. Sutton believe eventough the sail 'stealth' config also presences in Sweden Type 26, but China manage to put it first in operational. Some in chinese forums and weibo even claim this as prove that Sweden that copy China, not other way around as Western Enthusiasts claim.

Either way, it is also shown the speed of Chinese yards productivity.
Sweden copying China??????:D

The CCP propaganda is delusional. The Swedes are actually well in advance of the French and Germans, the Spanish do poor knock offs of French designs. Everyone else is basically licencing French and German designs these days.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Well so far they have prove one thing, the speed of their copies are becoming faster. Now they can shown that the copies can come to operational faster then originals ;). That's at least something tough. Not easy to churn off copies faster then originals design.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group

Ananda

The Bunker Group
They do have 2 carriers already to build human resources for carrier operation. Thus what they need from this carrier onward are building higher tempo operation on CATOBAR compare to STOBAR. Still there are more similarities I believe between STOBAR operation with CATOBAR relative to STVOL carrier.

It will take decades for PLAN to come close toward USN proficiency on carriers operation. However seems they are already closing on operation tempo of other Navies like RN and Marine Nationale that have more experience in carriers operation. This is more base on sorties carrier operations. PLAN do increasing their two carriers operation tempo to play catch up.
 

Redshift

Active Member
They do have 2 carriers already to build human resources for carrier operation. Thus what they need from this carrier onward are building higher tempo operation on CATOBAR compare to STOBAR. Still there are more similarities I believe between STOBAR operation with CATOBAR relative to STVOL carrier.

It will take decades for PLAN to come close toward USN proficiency on carriers operation. However seems they are already closing on operation tempo of other Navies like RN and Marine Nationale that have more experience in carriers operation. This is more base on sorties carrier operations. PLAN do increasing their two carriers operation tempo to play catch up.
They desperately need to get new (much better) carrier capable planes before they can come close to the MN or even the RN, which is also in dire need of more F35Bs as well as better weapons integration via the much delayed block 4 hardware and software upgrades.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
They desperately need to get new (much better) carrier capable planes before they can come close to the MN or even the RN, which is also in dire need of more F35Bs as well as better weapons integration via the much delayed block 4 hardware and software upgrades.
If the PLAN gets the J-35 right then it will be a formidable jet that will offer competitive kinematic performance and some stealth. Nuclear carriers, F-35Cs, an eventual naval NGAD, and experience
will still keep the USN in the lead for 2 decades or more.
 
Top