The Mainstream Media (MSM) particularly the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) (which is paywalled) appears to be delving into US worries about China to boost sales. The WSJ has triggered rumours amongst the uninformed about an allegedly new nuclear attack submarine (SSN) that sunk at Wuhan.
Here is a public access MSN link carrying the otherwise paywalled WSJ story https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/china-s-newest-nuclear-submarine-sank-setting-back-its-military-modernization/ar-AA1rg9JK
Perhaps the WSJ's most accurate observation is: "American officials haven’t detected any indication that Chinese officials have sampled the water or nearby environment for radiation."
US intelligence could easily test for radiation. Lack of radiation suggest we are talking about a non-nuclear conventional submarine.
You'll note WSJ doesn't mention a Type 041. Like "Chinese whispers" uninformed chatter that the Type 041 is new appears to be imaginative headlining by other journalists and X-men.
Even an expert from Australia’s prestigious Lowy Institute appears to accept the Type 041 is new - talking of "a previously unheard of new design called the Type 041" see https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/chinese-subs-american-spies-both-get-sinking-feeling
See the Type 039A aka the Type 041 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_039A_submarine
A conventional Type 041 with an X-form rudder may well have sunk (or taken in excess water) at China's conventional submarine shipyard near the far inland river city of Wuhan. But speculation the allegedly sunk submarine is nuclear powered seems a wilful invention based on vague sources.
The designation Type 041 (a conventional diesel-electric submarine) just happens to be 20 years old. The Type 041 was mentioned in 2007 as existing since December 2004.
See the Chinese report dated July 18, 2007 - https://web.archive.org/web/20120218093325/http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/p/2007-07-18/0727455216.html
"Analysis of the Chinese Navy's new Type 041 Yuan-class diesel-electric attack submarine (Photos)
Compiled by Du Dongdong
This is the first diesel-electric attack submarine built by the mainland [China] after the 039 "Song" class diesel-electric submarine. Like the "Song" class, it was built by the Wuhan Shipyard. The first submarine was launched on May 31, 2004, and the second one was launched in December of the same year, [2004] code-named Type 041."
My friend Shawn C. also rightly observed:
"I do find it particularly strange that the PRC would dock a super secret new SSN at the Wuhan [conventional submarine aka] SSK facilities, as it's right smack in the middle of the busy Yangtze River.
A new PRC SSN is not mentioned in the 'China Naval Modernization' Congressional Research Service report [that's at https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/RL33153.pdf ] I shared with [Pete] (note that it's not classified and uses Open Sources)"
It is also curious the uninformed have missed the fact that China only builds conventional submarines at Wuhan to date (see the Type 039A aka the Type 041 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_039A_submarine
While China builds nuclear submarines hundreds of kms away on the coast at Bohai Shipyard at Huludao. See China's latest SSN, the Type 093 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_093_submarine
Before the MSM accepts there is any nuclear powered variant of the established Type 041 submarine I suggest confirmation is required from US intelligence fronted by a named Pentagon spokesperson, preferably with a US Navy background.
Wuhan is 840km upriver from Shanghai, so I was just thinking about how a potential radiation leak there would spread down the Yangtze.
ReplyDeleteHi Shawn C. at 9/28/2024 2:09 PM
ReplyDeleteYes any major radiation leak (if such existed) from Wuchang Shipyard at Wuhan down the Yangtze River would be a national disaster for China that the world press would be focussing on - if it existed. Even the risk of it would prompt comments from MAJOR media organisations. Washington Post? New York Times? BBC? Janes? and especially Pentagon Press Briefings?
Regards Pete
Sutton recalled on X regarding a report in 2017 that retired Admiral Zhao gave a PowerPoint presentation in which he said China was developing a conventional-sized submarine with an auxiliary nuclear powerplants like the Soviet hermitically-sealed VAU-6 installed on submarine K-68 (see link below). If such a system can be made in a self-contained format, that theoretically might obviate the need for elaborate nuclear propulsion infrastructure. An auxiliary system would enhance endurance and sustainable cruising speed compared to Stirling, but not produce the raw power/performance of a typical SSN. Perhaps such a sealed reactor might be seen as safer to install inland than a traditional one? https://cimsec.org/pla-navys-plan-dominance-subs-shipborne-asbms-carrier-aviation/
ReplyDeleteHi Sebastien
ReplyDeleteA "7,000 ton" nuclear submarine Admiral Zhao described in 2017 would be the Type 095 which is evolving from the 6,700 ton Type 093. Navies have toyed with idea of a weak reactor for decades but weak reactors don't permit all important sprinting out of danger ability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_095_submarine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_093_submarine
The real advantage of the typical powerful reactor is the ability to sprint at around 30 knots for weeks, like in the US navy. Meanwhile AIP permits a 25 knot sprint out of danger for around 2 hours.
All nuclear navies almost always build their nuclear subs at coastal shipyards. One reason being if their is a ruptured reactor the nuclear sub can be towed out into deeper seawater where the leaking radiation will do less damage. Countries rarely (one exception being Russia's underpopulated Komsomolsk-on-Amur region) don't build nuclear subs far inland on rivers because any major radiation leakage would impact fresh drinking and irrigation water.
This is particularly around the conventional submarine shipyard (in question) which is in highly populated Chinese city of greater Wuhan (with 14 million people). From Wuhan following the Yangtze River flowing east would be more than 100 million Chinese who would not like to be irradiated from a nuclear sub accident.
Cheers Pete
Hi Pete,
DeleteA more balanced piece from DefenseOne -https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2024/10/chinas-sunken-nuclear-sub-was-likely-nothing-sort/400001/)
I found this link from the new 'Type-041' wiki page... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhou-class_submarine
Yes, there are now follow up articles claiming the Type-041 Zhou is a 4,000 ton 'hybrid nuclear' submarine with an 'auxiliary nuclear power plant'. Yet everything still stems from the WSJ piece that has zero credited attributions, "senior Pentagon official"
The Yangtze River is between 4-6 metres deep around Wuhan, so a Song, which has a beam of 7.5m and a draft of 5.7m sinking dockside would barely submerge its conning tower, unless they dredged the area for submergence during harbour acceptance test.
https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/yangtze-river-system/
UKDJ reports the 6th Astute boat, HMS Agamemnon, was launched today, which leaves HMS Agincourt as the last of the class - scheduled to launch in 2026. This means that the Barrow-in-Furness facility will focus on the Dreadnought class SSBNs, three out of the four are now in production. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-launches-new-nuclear-attack-submarine/
With Australia's investments in RR, hopefully this will accelerate the timetable for SSN-AUKUS.
Thanks Shawn (your 10/04/2024 12:48 AM)
ReplyDeleteYou rightly provide more arguments that put a hybrid nuclear Type-041 Zhou sub in doubt. Yes as the Yangtze River is only between 4-6 metres deep around Wuhan a hybrid nuclear sub, larger than a Song or Yuan, would have very little clearance for a submerged a harbour acceptance test.
Thanks for locating https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2024/10/chinas-sunken-nuclear-sub-was-likely-nothing-sort/400001/ the best thing I've read on the subject - apart from our comments :)
Cheers Pete
Hi again Shawn (your 10/04/2024 12:48 AM)
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reminder of the launch of the 6th Astute SSN on October 3, 2024, HMS Agamemnon (very difficult for a cockney submariner to pronounce!) with just Agincourt to launch in late 2026.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute-class_submarine#Boats_in_the_class
As BAE suffered major delays with the Astute program I expect similar delays for the 4 x Dreadnought class SSBNs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought-class_submarine#Boats_of_the_class
I reckon only after all the Dreadnoughts are launched can the UK's limited nuclear manpower (in BAE and Rolls-Royce) can shift focus to the SSN_AUKUSs - probably in 2040.
Cheers Pete
Hi Pete,
DeleteAustralia's A$4.6 billion 10 year investment in Rolls Royce is seen as a way to "help clear bottlenecks" at RR, and I'm sure there's ROI clauses in the agreement, such as the development of the SSN-AUKUS design.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/21/australia-moves-to-prop-up-aukus-with-46bn-pledge-to-help-clear-rolls-royce-nuclear-reactor-bottlenecks-in-uk
You are right that the primary concern for Australia is at the BAE Barrow facilities, with any Australian boats in a queue behind the four Dreadnought SSBNs, then the UK's own SSN-AUKUS boats.
I reckon that ASC could start contributing to the program early, perhaps by building hull modules for all boats in Osborne as a 'sub-contractor' while Barrow focuses on building the rear half. Shipping by semi-submersible heavy lift ships should be no issue, though an AUKUS escort task force will be necessary.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Shawn at 10/07/2024 9:04 PM
ReplyDeleteThere are several reasons why Australia couldn't build hull modules early - which I'll discuss in an article next week.
Cheers Pete