What are the advantages of the Sailess Sub?: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/06/new-mystery-submarine-signals-chinas-rapid-undersea-expansion/
>>65212630They're very implessive.
>>65212630Speed and stealth probably ? Would need longer periscopes tho but I guess it's doable?
>>65212630The crew gets a nice spinny ride
>>65212630They have a harder time getting out of nets.
>>65212630theyre sacrificing passive stability and mission flexibility for sheer speed or range I legit dont know why they want it tho, speed is a trade off with detectability and the extra complexity definitely means less weapon capacity, hit and run tactics are only good if you can outrun enemy optics. not only would the high speed subs be obvious theyre coming, but it'd be trivial to keep tracking them from the air with dropped hydrophone buoys
>>65212672I'm assuming stealth would also be improved if you remove the sail
Why are you so butthurt, chinky?
>>65212630So they've built a modern day Project 673?
>>65212672Wouldn't a sailess sub also be quieter since It's more "hydrodynamic"?
>>65212672speed can still be an useful asset if they can figure out very high subsonic underwater transit, like 200-300+ knots. Though i seriously doubt they can manage that with nuclear power. You'll need something with way higher power density than that.Another alfa class 1:1 replication is useless and a total waste of money. IIRC the original alfa liquid reactor also had a rather short lifespan, too
>>65212714>>65212672I don't think they're going after high speed since It has a pumpjet. They're most likely going "sailess" for stealth reasons
>>65212630Don’t the Chinese have a thing about just building stuff to get a better understanding of the principles? They might just build a sail less sub to compare with subs with sails, then pick out the qualities they like and build in future ones
>>65212630Ur mum can use it as a dildo.
>>65212630Implossive
Vely Implessive!
>>65212729>Don’t the Chinese have a thing about just building stuff to get a better understanding of the principles?Thats not a chinese thing, everyone does it, it is called "building an experimental vehicle". NASA does it all the time. The chinks have a different developement philosophy, they first make a passable copy, then they make an improved copy, then they develop their improved copy into something that is quite different etc etc. Look at what they did with their copies of the Romeo class submarine and Mig-21. The latest versions were very unlike the original. Now they are not copying any more, now they are making original reserach.
>>65212672>theyre sacrificing passive stability and mission flexibility for sheer speed or rangeOld submarine sails used to contain the commanding bridge which was housed in a small pressure hull, modern sails are just housings for masts and have no buyouancy. So I dont see how they contribute to passive stability. IIRC the last US sub to have a bridge inside a small pressure hull in the sail was the USS Triton which was designed as a high speed nuclear powered surface radar picket (!).
>>65212672The soviet Project 673 was sailess and had a retractable tower that acted as a "bridge" when surfacing: >>65212707I wonder if the chinks did something similar
>>65212740I see what you did there.
>>65212630>>65212722I don't think this is intentional
>>65212722thats even stupider though, that would mean china doesn't understand sonarmaybe they invented acoustic paneling that has an infinite frequency response range so all pings can be negated, otherwise...
>>65213034If they didn't know they wouldn't have switched from screw to pumpjets
>>65212861Old things are new again.
>>65213034>pingsWhen you'fe getting pinged, you already fucked up and/opr were too loud.
>>65212861>>65213194>>65212707Except that the Project 673 was never built
>>65212630>Big son of a bitch!
Implessive!
>>65212714Based and Vernepilled.
>>65212729China already did build a sail-less sub test vehicle. It was launched 7 years ago. Apparently, they liked the result.
>>65212630Less drag and less noise at high speed.Presumably, this submarine is meant to be some kind of interceptor for which high speed is extremely important
>>65212630IMPLEASSIVE
>>65212722Aren't pumpjets better for high speed, since a properly designed duct raises cavitation speed, and stators improve uniform flow?
>>65213508(This is LCS derived knowledge, I know a bit about subs but take what I say with due salt.)Yes, pumpjets are good for speed, and yes they produce a fair amount of cavitation (though its different in some aspects than the type produced by screws which can be important distinction in some contexts).What often gets lost though is that the "soud profile curve" for pumpjets is a lot flatter than for open screws. That is to say, that while they are louder when going slow, they actually end up quieter at higher speeds. This would be the "stealth" they provide.Which can be quite useful on attack submarines where you may be wanting to often take "tactical sprints" to get into position and the screws being louder at those times would give up your game.Let me be clear, this is absolutely a tradeoff. In a situtation where say enemy ASW elements know your general area and are trying to pinpoint location, you would 100% want the screws so you could try to quietly creep away.
>>65212630>>65212707The US also had a similar design with the Conform sub design before choosing the Los Angeles class
>>65214140
>>65214142Damn that's ugly.
Polar operations and seakeeping may be a problem.
>>65212854Why do Chinese women love white man tourist penis so much?
>>65213772Retractable auxilliary screws for creeping. Solved.
>>65214346On the other end though they might be able to operate in shallower water as there's no big sail to stick out of the sea.
>>65212630Who they tryna flex on? That shit looks like a dildo. >>65212734It look all slick black like....nice.
>>65214743>RetractableCongratulation on the depth charges
>>65212630Less drag, less water flow noise.Less active sonar crossection.
>>65215368>Less active sonar crossectiona diamond alone is sufficient, unsure about the rest though
>>65212672https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/1/106besides this one it also fixes one of the biggest problems the flow towards the pump now the pump can push with clean water on all of its range without having to create additional bubbles hence more sound
>>65213772There's still going to be a big difference in sound between running normal pumpjets slowly and running an LCS's supercavitating pumpjets at maximum speed.
>>65212714>very high subsonic underwater transit, like 200-300+ knotsThe speed of sound in saltwater is 4.5x faster than air.>subsonicI see what you did there.
>>65215755I never suggested otherwise.
>>65212672You could build a sub faster than most torpedos thanks to volume increasing faster than surface area. Think WW2 jet tactics, being so much faster than the enemy you just make attack passes while remaining too fast for them to hit you.
>>65216248The seas are not as empty as the skies...
>>65212630Dildo bote.
This is actually a huge problem for T2 navies, middle powers.Part of the issue is that if China attacks us with autonomous naval drones it will be hard to prove it was China, and if we can't prove it's china, we can't prove it wasn't china, so some third power (CIA, Mossad, montenegro) might attack us just to trigger a war they don't have to fight themselves. Other issue is that the cost of these autonimous craft is very low even compared to merchant marine, even trawlers. China isn't making these because they plan to make one or two, they're going to make 200 and launch them from their civilian flotilla. This is a threat which scales. EW is evolving far faster then material science which means that since the sinking of the bismarch, ships have been getting easier to target and harder to defend. our capacity to detect these drones is very limited, given that they can just float around like naval mines, including on the surface, or act as torpedo mines by sinking themselves then simply floating to the surface and detonating when triggered by engine signatures. Our surface vessels were rebuilt over and over on the same ancient hulls, new ships are barely worth making so the ones we have are all end-of-life so we can't invest more in upgrading them.underlying issue is that the USN has refused to support us. That's a reality we can't ignore. We may not be in a position to fight China at all if the US isn't materially committed to the war effort. We cant go to war with China based on paper and rubber bands.
>>65212630After over 100 years, they finally figured out that there is no wind underwater.
>>65219150Implessive.
