Are Chinese Naval Ships Poorly Designed?

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
9,624
Likes
21,097
Country flag
JULY 17, 2023
The pace at which the Chinese Navy is building new surface combatants and commissioning them is mind blowing. They are commissioning multiple massive surface combatants and a few submarines every year and have sustained this pace since the early 2010s. They recently overtook the US Navy as the world’s largest navy in terms of fleet size. While the US Navy retains a qualitative edge, the Chinese navy’s numbers are a big worry for everyone in their vicinity.
Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD
Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD
The question generally asked though is, while on paper, the Type 052D and Type 055 are extremely capable vessels, are they actually as good in practice? One interesting thing I learnt recently is that the crews at getting to command positions fairly quickly. While commanders in western navies spend years if not decades rising through different officer ranks towards their first command, it seems to be far shorter in the Chinese Navy. The Commanding Officer of a Type 055 only had 7 years of service. The CO was commanding one of the most potent destroyers in service today but had spent just a third of a time it takes a US Navy officer to become a CO. What does it say about officers and crew in lower ranking positions? You can guess. But then, just how good are the ships?
The earliest notions of poor designs I had heard off came from Chinese forums mentioning that ships deployed to the Indian ocean for “Anti-Piracy” ops had issues. These issues ranged from lack of a maintenance first designs, where machinery spaces were not designed for easy maintenance and / or disassembly. Posters on the forum claimed that these had been rectified in the following iterations of the Type 054A and Type 052C, D. The second issue I read about was that doors facing to the sea opened inwards, as in if the lock fails, a big wave could open the door and flood the compartment. This is major oversight in ship design as China’s own waters see storms several times a year.
Type 052D Destroyer of the Chinese Navy Nanning.
Trusted naval analyst Xavier Vavasseur [@xaviervav] had the opportunity to visit a Type 052DL destroyer named Nanning. Now remember, 052DLs are the latest variant of the 052D and feature an elongated flight deck, thus a longer overall length. We can assume that these are the latest specimen of the Chinese naval design culture. He was happy to see the ship in excellent condition and goes on to compare it to ships about to delivered to navies for commissioning. The analyst was surprised to see just a couple of water tight doors / compartments between the area he was allowed to tour. He also noticed a severe lack of damage control and fire fighting equipment. What was worse was that fuel for the RHIB and torpedoes had no blast doors between them. He goes on to compare the Chinese destroyer to the other naval vessels he has visited, stating that other ships were littered with fire fighting gear and water tight doors. Below is the area he is talking about.


Here is a link to the original podcast with the Defense and Aerospace Report. Times of interest are 28:40 to 37:15, please do listen.

This shows a severe lack of damage control culture. The podcast rightfully mentions that the damage control procedures are not developed but written in blood.
Ask that to Royal Navy’s Admiral David Beatty, who lost multiple battlecruisers at the Battle of Jutland in WW1 due to poor ammuition handling practises. Ask this to US Navy’s tin can sailors of the Taffey 3 at the Battle off Samar that were forced to patch holes faster than the Japanese were poking into their ships. These tin can sailors due to their valor, tactics and battle damage practises turned away a faaar larger, faaar more capable Imperial Japanese flotilla. Here Yamato, the world’s largest battleship, alone out displaced the entire American force.

Battle damage control is cruicial to saving ships during combat. If a ship combusts itself at first contact with enemy, your fleet will dwindle down fast. You need ships to live and fight another day. What is far more important than a simple hull is the crew. Every ship needs 100s of trained personnel to operate them. The crew is far more important than a ship. A new ship with a poor crew is worse than an older ship with a well trained crew. Looks like, while the Chinese navy ships are great on paper, they miss out on the finer details cruicial at making good ships.


 
  • Like
Reactions: SKC

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
9,624
Likes
21,097
Country flag
JULY 17, 2023
The pace at which the Chinese Navy is building new surface combatants and commissioning them is mind blowing. They are commissioning multiple massive surface combatants and a few submarines every year and have sustained this pace since the early 2010s. They recently overtook the US Navy as the world’s largest navy in terms of fleet size. While the US Navy retains a qualitative edge, the Chinese navy’s numbers are a big worry for everyone in their vicinity.
Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD
Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD
The question generally asked though is, while on paper, the Type 052D and Type 055 are extremely capable vessels, are they actually as good in practice? One interesting thing I learnt recently is that the crews at getting to command positions fairly quickly. While commanders in western navies spend years if not decades rising through different officer ranks towards their first command, it seems to be far shorter in the Chinese Navy. The Commanding Officer of a Type 055 only had 7 years of service. The CO was commanding one of the most potent destroyers in service today but had spent just a third of a time it takes a US Navy officer to become a CO. What does it say about officers and crew in lower ranking positions? You can guess. But then, just how good are the ships?
The earliest notions of poor designs I had heard off came from Chinese forums mentioning that ships deployed to the Indian ocean for “Anti-Piracy” ops had issues. These issues ranged from lack of a maintenance first designs, where machinery spaces were not designed for easy maintenance and / or disassembly. Posters on the forum claimed that these had been rectified in the following iterations of the Type 054A and Type 052C, D. The second issue I read about was that doors facing to the sea opened inwards, as in if the lock fails, a big wave could open the door and flood the compartment. This is major oversight in ship design as China’s own waters see storms several times a year.
Type 052D Destroyer of the Chinese Navy Nanning.
Trusted naval analyst Xavier Vavasseur [@xaviervav] had the opportunity to visit a Type 052DL destroyer named Nanning. Now remember, 052DLs are the latest variant of the 052D and feature an elongated flight deck, thus a longer overall length. We can assume that these are the latest specimen of the Chinese naval design culture. He was happy to see the ship in excellent condition and goes on to compare it to ships about to delivered to navies for commissioning. The analyst was surprised to see just a couple of water tight doors / compartments between the area he was allowed to tour. He also noticed a severe lack of damage control and fire fighting equipment. What was worse was that fuel for the RHIB and torpedoes had no blast doors between them. He goes on to compare the Chinese destroyer to the other naval vessels he has visited, stating that other ships were littered with fire fighting gear and water tight doors. Below is the area he is talking about.


Here is a link to the original podcast with the Defense and Aerospace Report. Times of interest are 28:40 to 37:15, please do listen.

This shows a severe lack of damage control culture. The podcast rightfully mentions that the damage control procedures are not developed but written in blood.
Ask that to Royal Navy’s Admiral David Beatty, who lost multiple battlecruisers at the Battle of Jutland in WW1 due to poor ammuition handling practises. Ask this to US Navy’s tin can sailors of the Taffey 3 at the Battle off Samar that were forced to patch holes faster than the Japanese were poking into their ships. These tin can sailors due to their valor, tactics and battle damage practises turned away a faaar larger, faaar more capable Imperial Japanese flotilla. Here Yamato, the world’s largest battleship, alone out displaced the entire American force.

Battle damage control is cruicial to saving ships during combat. If a ship combusts itself at first contact with enemy, your fleet will dwindle down fast. You need ships to live and fight another day. What is far more important than a simple hull is the crew. Every ship needs 100s of trained personnel to operate them. The crew is far more important than a ship. A new ship with a poor crew is worse than an older ship with a well trained crew. Looks like, while the Chinese navy ships are great on paper, they miss out on the finer details cruicial at making good ships.


India destroyers have superior capabilities in terms of attack as well as defence. While Indian Destroyer carries far superior MF star radar couple with MRSAM missile capable of intersepting Supersonic cruis missile target as near as 1 km or less. Indian destroyers has unparallel attack capabilities of Brahmos which is almost impossible to Intercept. In addition to those defensive capabilities, Indian Destroyer carries torpedo decoy and other defensive system not available with chinese destroyer. India's destroyers scores higher number in terms of Radar, attack missile and defence. Chinese Navy enjoys numerical superiority in terms of weapons numbers. Chinese Navy may take another decade and half to match Indian destroyers.
 

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
9,624
Likes
21,097
Country flag
Underwater Nuclear Disaster: Why Alleged Sinking Of China’s Nuke Sub Is Bad New For Indo-Pacific Waters
By
Ritu Sharma
-
October 5, 2023


Share

Facebook


Twitter


WhatsApp


ReddIt


The plot surrounding the alleged sinking of a Chinese nuclear submarine is thickening, with the latest United Kingdom publication contending that the platform went down after getting stuck in the trap laid out for the US submarines. The purported incident, denied vehemently by China, underscores nuclear submarines’ risks.
A report by UK intelligence quoted by the Daily Mail said the Chinese submarine hit a “chain and anchor” trap intended to snare Western vessels lurking off China’s Shandong province.
The Sun reported that the crew reportedly suffocated after a “catastrophic failure” of the 107m sub’s oxygen system. It is unclear whether the trap mangled the oxygen system or if the crew had suffocated before the sub sank and became stuck.
Earlier in 2021, a US nuclear attack submarine collided with an object in the South China Sea. Nuclear submarines, one of the deadliest weapon platforms in the world, are vulnerable in the event of an underwater accident causing a nuclear leak, regardless of whether they are nuclear-powered submarines (SSN) or nuclear-powered ballistic submarines (SSBN).
In the 200 years (from 1774-1985) of submarine operations, there have been over 1,750 accidents. While 1,448 submarines were lost due to enemy action, 302 were lost due to some mishap. A number of these accidents have involved nuclear submarines. The reasons behind the accidents involving nuclear-powered submarines vary, but nearly half were related to nuclear reactors.

Of the total of 41 accidents recorded in 36 nuclear submarines, 12 were related to nuclear reactors, resulting in the release of radioactivity within the vessel as well as in the sea, radiation poisoning, and the death of the crew in some cases.
Other accidents involved non-nuclear explosions, fires, flooding, and running aground. Over 650 crew members have died in these accidents. In many cases, the entire crew sank with the submarines.
“If the incident (sinking of Chinese SSN) has occurred, the global silence is perplexing. A nuclear submarine sinking should lead to global attention because a nuclear reactor leak due to damage can have serious consequences, including water contamination,” an Indian submarine expert told the EurAsian Times.
Structural failure with the submarine reactors could cause “a release of highly radioactive fission products” and lead to “a significant risk to life to those nearby and a public safety hazard to people in the big radius.”


“Besides the damage to the submarine and loss of life on board, the possibility of damage to the reactor is the most alarming. It could lead to the leak of radioactive material, which could contaminate the waters and the undersea environment,” an Indian Navy Commodore who wished to stay anonymous told the EurAsian Times.
“Also, if it carries nuclear weapons (as in SSBNs), that is an added hazard. Salvaging a sunken nuclear submarine can also be hazardous for the same reasons,” he added.
Wherever there is nuclear fission, there is a potential for harm to people and the environment. A core meltdown is the most severe accident in a nuclear submarine. A meltdown poses numerous dangers to people and the environment.
This includes exposure to direct gamma radiation from the vessel or a drifting cloud or plume of radioactivity and material deposited on the ground. Fission products can also escape to seawater, poisoning marine life and seawater.

There is both empirical and theoretical cause to be concerned about nuclear submarine accidents. Nuclear submarines are complex technical platforms operating under challenging conditions. Nuclear weapons-related systems, because of their structural characteristics, can pose unavoidable risks of accidents.
Nuclear-Powered Disasters
In one of the worst submarine disasters, K-19 was the nuclear submarine of the Soviet Union armed with ballistic missiles. It was hastily put in to keep up with the US military developments. On its first voyage on July 4, 1961, it suffered a complete loss of coolant to its reactor.

Several crew members worked in the radioactive steam to keep the reactor from melting. Twenty-two men who served on the submarine nicknamed “Hiroshima” and “The Widow Maker” died in the next two years. The disaster-inspired movie K-19: The Widowmaker (2002) starring Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson.

Two US nuclear submarines – USS Thresher and USS Scorpion are presently sitting at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, at depths of more than two kilometers, after sinking during the 1960s. USS Thresher (SSN-593) was the first nuclear submarine to sink. On April 10, 1963, it went down during deep-diving tests about 350 km (220 mi) east of Cape Cod, Massachusetts; its 129 crew and shipyard personnel aboard went down with it.
USS Thresher was designed to be the fastest and quietest submarine of its day to hunt the Soviet submarines.
USS Scorpion (SSN-589) was a Skipjack class nuclear-powered submarine of the US Navy that went down in May 1968 with all the crew onboard. The nuclear reactors of either of the submarines have not been recovered. The nuclear weapons on board the USS Scorpion have not been salvaged.
In 2019, a nuclear-powered mini-submarine of Russia sank in the Barents Sea in circumstances not fully revealed by Moscow.
In January 2018, a report in the Indian media revealed the country’s first nuclear-propelled submarine, INS Arihant, met with an accident while in port.
According to the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), many of these accidents have released radioactive materials into the biosphere, usually underwater but sometimes into the air.

The most significant number of nuclear-powered submarine accidents occurred with the Soviet/Russian submarines. In total, 14 nuclear reactor-related accidents on submarines and 13 occurred with Soviet/Russian vessels. Six suffered loss of coolant accidents, five had uncontrolled start-ups due to operator errors, and the reactor core was damaged in nine accidents.
Type 094A strategic nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine
File Image: Type 094A strategic nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarineCurious Case Of Chinese Nuclear Submarine
An undisclosed UK defense report confirms a devastating incident involving a Chinese submarine, the ‘093-417’, in the Yellow Sea. The report suggests that 55 Chinese sailors, including the captain and 21 officers, may have died due to a “catastrophic failure” in the vessel’s oxygen systems, the Daily Mail reported. There has been no confirmation from China yet.
The alleged accident led to system failures that took approximately six hours to resolve. During this window, the onboard oxygen system malfunctioned, poisoning the crew.

China’s official stance has been a blanket denial, even as they reportedly abstained from seeking international assistance.
  • Ritu Sharma has been a journalist for over a decade, writing on defense, foreign affairs, and nuclear technology.
 

Latest Replies

New threads

Articles

Top