航空航天港

 找回密码
 注册会员

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

楼主: 暗夜流星
收起左侧

[潜艇] 国产新型潜艇完成系列试验全面形成作战能力

[复制链接]
飞鹰 发表于 2009-11-23 17:27 | 显示全部楼层
噪音不光加工制造方面,伏法减镇等方面也需要大量投入和时间吧
天堂风暴 发表于 2009-11-23 17:30 | 显示全部楼层
报告还指出,晋级弹道导弹核潜艇配备的巨浪-2海射弹道导弹射程为4000海里(约7400公里)
--------这句错得离谱,飞鹰网友可以看看K版关于巨浪2的文章。
还有,巨浪2射程让094不需要出渤海湾就能覆盖新英格兰,静音性能其实对我们SSBN倒没那么重要。
飞鹰 发表于 2009-11-23 17:43 | 显示全部楼层
K版在"中国海基核力量建设"中说:
JL-2为三级固体导弹,直径2米,长约14米,重约40~50吨,射程>8000 km,改进型射程可达到12000 km。
即使JL-2具有12000 km的射程,要在南海打击美国还是力不从心的。看来,南海并不是094未来的预设战场。
094未来的巡逻阵地应该是第一岛链以东的西太平洋海域,甚至可能在第二岛链以东的西北太平洋海域。

现在关键的一点是:094上的巨浪是原形还是改进型,现在只能猜测,当然以后肯定会上改进型号,我估计中国更可能采取苏联式的堡垒战略,不把094派到大洋巡逻值班
kktt 发表于 2009-11-23 17:52 | 显示全部楼层
科技四院的论文说我们的新一代潜地洲际导弹要达到D5的水平。
 楼主| 暗夜流星 发表于 2009-11-23 17:52 | 显示全部楼层
China’s Noisy Nuclear Submarines





China’s newest nuclear submarines are noisier than 1970s-era Soviet nuclear submarines.

.


By Hans M. Kristensen
China’s new Jin-class ballistic missile submarine is noisier than the Russian Delta III-class submarines built more than 30 years ago, according to a report produced by the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI).
The report, which was first posted on the FAS Secrecy News Blog and has since been removed from the ONI web site, is to my knowledge the first official description made public of Chinese and Russian modern nuclear submarine noise levels.

Force Level
The report shows that China now has two Jin SSBNs, one of which is based at Hainan Island with the South Sea Fleet, along with two Type 093 Shang-class nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSN). The Jin was first described at Hainan in February 2008 and the two Shangs in September 2008. The second Jin SSBN is based at Jianggezhuang with the North Sea Fleet alongside the old Xia-class SSBN and four Han-class SSNs.
The report confirms the existence of the Type 095, a third-generation SSN intended to follow the Type 093 Shang-class. Five Type 095s are expected from around 2015. The Type-95 is estimated to be noisier than the Russian Akula I SSN built 20 years ago.
Missile Range
The ONI report states that the JL-2 sea-launched ballistic missile on the Jin SSBNs has a range of ~4,000 nautical miles (~7,400 km) “is capable of reaching the continental United States from Chinese littorals.” Not quite, unless Chinese littorals extend well into the Sea of Japan. Since the continental United States does not include Alaska and Hawaii, a warhead from a 7,400-km range JL-2 would fall into the sea about 800 km from Seattle. A JL-2 carrying penetration aids in addition to a warhead would presumably have a shorter range.
Julang-2 SLBM Range According to ONI
Although the ONI report states that the Julang-2 can target the Continental United States, the range estimate it provides is insufficient to reach the lower 48 states or Hawaii.

.
Alaska would be in range if the JL-2 is launched from the very northern parts of Chinese waters, but Hawaii is out of range unless the missile is launched from a position close to South Korea or Japan. The U.S. Defense Department’s 2009 report to Congress on the Military Power of the People’s Republic of China also shows the range of the JL-2 to be insufficient to target the Continental United States or Hawaii from Chinese waters. The JL-2 instead appears to be a regional weapon with potential mission against Russia and India and U.S. bases in Guam and Japan.
Patrol Levels
The report also states that Chinese submarine patrols have “more than tripled” over the past few years, when compared to the historical levels of the last two decades.
That sounds like a lot, but given that the entire Chinese submarine fleet in those two decades in average conducted fewer than three patrols per year combined, a trippling doesn’t amout to a whole lot for a submarine fleet of 63 submarines. According to data obtained from ONI under FOIA, the patrol number in 2008 was 12.
Since only the most capable of the Chinese attack submarines presumably conduct these patrols away from Chinese waters – and since China has yet to send one of its ballistic missile submarines on patrol – that could mean one or two patrols per year per submarine.
Implications
The ONI report concludes that the Jin SSBN with the JL-2 SLBM gives the PLA Navy its first credible second-strike nuclear capability. The authors must mean in principle, because in a war such noisy submarines would presumably be highly vulnerabe to U.S. or Japanese anti-submarine warfare forces. (The noise level of China’s most modern diesel-electric submarines is another matter; ONI says some are comparable to Russian diesel-electric submarines).
That does raise an interesting question about the Chinese SSBN program: if Chinese leaders are so concerned about the vulnerability of their nuclear deterrent, why base a significant portion of it on a few noisy platforms and send them out to sea where they can be sunk by U.S. attack submarines in a war? And if Chinese planners know that the sea-based deterrent is much more vulnerable than its land-based deterrent, why do they waste money on the SSBN program?
The answer is probably a combination of national prestige and scenarios involving India or Russia that have less capable anti-submarine forces.
飞鹰 发表于 2009-11-23 17:58 | 显示全部楼层
回复 14# kktt


    顶HKC,那096就要向前卫和凯旋看齐了
kktt 发表于 2009-11-23 18:10 | 显示全部楼层
我们潜地弹的射程应该不是什么大问题,关键是突防能力
不会游泳 发表于 2009-11-23 20:14 | 显示全部楼层
链接个小马哥的博文吧,也可以做个参考。
http://13958079257.blog.163.com/ ... 505200962213119409/
shaolin1254 发表于 2009-11-23 21:12 | 显示全部楼层
所有的SSBN中只有法国的艇上弹弹筒是分开2部分排列的,好奇怪呀
snowtiger 发表于 2009-11-24 11:11 | 显示全部楼层
JL2是不要进度要性能的典型。。。滚转弹体机动突防轻重诱饵统统给配齐了。。。94就是要扛着JL2才能定型的。八股文很难看懂么?
  PS,9394很可能,很可能啊,是电鱼。
pbs 发表于 2009-11-24 11:50 | 显示全部楼层
"动力装置控制设备多,接口有上千个,参加设计单位众多,各自给出的接口不统一、不匹配。担任主任审图师的军 ...
RenBright 发表于 2009-11-19 20:09


标准的热离子反应堆的口气。
lih 发表于 2009-11-25 10:47 | 显示全部楼层
回复 5# 飞鹰


    毛子的海射战略导弹也是从陆基白杨下海的,但是问题重重,说明从海上岸容易,由陆下海难.我们的JL-2也是由陆下海型,会不会象毛子一样举步艰难呢?
天堂风暴 发表于 2009-11-25 11:14 | 显示全部楼层
巨浪2不是东风下海,最多是有些技术用的是一样的,比如说推进剂什么的。
lostangel 发表于 2009-11-25 14:00 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 lostangel 于 2010-1-15 19:59 编辑
回复  kktt


    KKTT大师好

偶从外型、工业基础、发展时间等方面猜测的。
1、094龟背大小和排水口 ...
飞鹰 发表于 2009-11-23 16:50


、094龟背大小和排水口决定噪音偏高
2、094研制时中国制造水平等方面还比较低,觉得094能代表中国90年代中期技术水平
3、感觉中国在降低噪音方面投入不足,即使投入够大也要时间,例如苏联至少用了10年时间
4、094技术水平低并没有低到够不成威胁的程度,大海反潜毕竟不能保证没有疏漏


龟背和流水孔开口过多,在高速下对艇体流噪会带来一定影响。战略艇的巡航速度一般在14-16节,国内的或许还要在低一些,况且93.94的静音模式有点特别,龟背和流水孔在流噪上的影响并不大。实际上艇体开口和线型不够流畅对艇体阻力和快速性的影响更大,在噪声上除了开口引起壳体板谐振导致较大的流噪外,影响远没有你想象的那么厉害,充其量也就是对声纳系统的探测性能有干扰。

90年代中期立项的94在降噪手段上还是有突破的,特别是跟一代核潜比,毕竟在80年代中期后,我国在降噪上的成果很多。浮筏、整体式浮阀、大型减震模块、动力系统的管路流噪、空泡效能好的大侧斜7叶桨都有了。复合消声瓦也不错,在高噪声的舱段使用消声尖劈甚至用一些主动的相干抵消式降噪手段也较为普遍了。您说,94的降噪会没有较大进步么???!!

投入足不足,你如果注意搜集资料,且不说没有消息来源,即使看些科普杂志也知道成果很多,问题我看出在你信息量过少上。国内自84年二代常规潜艇开始,在降噪上的研究进步是很大的,2000年后成果更多,随着这个趋势下去,前景是乐观的~

094是土共建国以来具有最重要意义的战略核力量体系,这个重要的意义是国家战略体系上的,不能因为有个鬼背,线型传统一些就以为怎么滴不堪~对于战略艇线型是次要的,现在的线型设计都比较成熟,龟背对于我们来说更有实际意义,比较符合国内的工业建造水平,也比较符合我们不能建造过大吨位核潜艇的现实情况。重要的是94是土共第一个生存力高,打击隐蔽性强,投射远,的海基战略武器平台。更重要的是JL2是第一个能打痛,打惨美帝的海基战略核武器。有了这个土共就有了底气,这不是DF这些路基弹能比拟的~

不要妄自菲薄了,在JL2的性能上信美国那些狗屁砖家,不信KKTT,实在舍本求末了,说难听点真是有点傻~

评分

参与人数 1积分 +5 火箭 +5 收起 理由
暗夜流星 + 5 + 5 我很赞同

查看全部评分

lostangel 发表于 2009-11-25 14:02 | 显示全部楼层
JL2是不要进度要性能的典型。。。滚转弹体机动突防轻重诱饵统统给配齐了。。。94就是要扛着JL2才能定型的。 ...
snowtiger 发表于 2009-11-24 11:11



呵呵,,93.94的低噪推进模式有点另类,纯属无奈之作,远不是法国人那种大功率,高速电推模式。


发个帖可真麻烦啊~
lostangel 发表于 2009-11-25 14:08 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 lostangel 于 2010-10-14 22:50 编辑
标准的热离子反应堆的口气。
pbs 发表于 2009-11-24 11:50



热离子堆呵呵,属于做梦~
lostangel 发表于 2009-11-25 14:11 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 lostangel 于 2009-11-25 14:12 编辑
纪竹盛

1993年任渤海造船厂总工程师,10多年来主要从事第二代核潜艇研制工作,先后出任两个型号负责建造 ...
kktt 发表于 2009-11-19 17:42



980钢是785MPA级的~HY100是应该是690MPA左右。不过,钢材好了不代表潜深有突破呵呵~

三总段的意思就是土共在90年代终于不再用古老的总段建造模式了,开始向分段,总段模块化挺进呵呵。这个任务会不会在四代AIP艇上实现呢?
kktt 发表于 2009-11-25 14:54 | 显示全部楼层
欢迎小马哥光临,潜艇方面还望多多指教!
Lsquirrel 发表于 2009-11-25 15:31 | 显示全部楼层
呵呵,,93.94的低噪推进模式有点另类,纯属无奈之作,远不是法国人那种大功率,高速电推模式。
...
lostangel 发表于 2009-11-25 14:02


欢迎小马哥!看来094和凯旋比还是差距不小啊,下一代的096应该好多了
lostangel 发表于 2009-11-25 17:22 | 显示全部楼层
欢迎小马哥光临,潜艇方面还望多多指教!
kktt 发表于 2009-11-25 14:54



偶是来向KKTT老大学习的~~~~~~~
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册会员

本版积分规则

QQ|申请友链|旗下论坛|小黑屋|手机版|航空航天港 ( 豫ICP备12024513号 )

GMT+8, 2017-11-23 04:06 , Processed in 0.324896 second(s), 18 queries , Gzip On.

Powered by Discuz! X3.2

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表