09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread

[gelgoog]

Yes fully agree that SSBNs are a big priority now. SSGNs are nice to have, but it's a luxury that China can wait for in the future.

12 Type 096 is a good number for China's nuclear security. I thought at first that 6 boats would have been enough, because PLAN nuclear submarine building is the slowest of all its vessel types. It's likely to take many years to reach that 12 Type 096 boats.

The biggest issue for China's SSBN fleet is their perceived limited access to the Pacific unlike the USN and Russian Navy. The SCS is too crowded for SSBN patrols. So that is why I thought the PLAN planners put a lower priority on their SSBN program.

China now has new submarine construction facilities which should enable them to build at least 2-3 nuclear submarines a year.

Depending on the submarine design and the miniaturization of the missiles it uses they might be able to do with less submarines.
Current Type 094 submarines carry 12x JL-2 SLBMs. Compare that with Russian, French, or British submarines which can carry 16x SLBMs.
That's like 33% more missiles per submarine so to carry the same amount of missiles you would need 8 submarines instead of 12.
Current US SSBNs built in the late Cold War are even larger but that does not seem cost effective to me.

It is possible to share the same nuclear reactor design between the SSBNs and the Attack submarines and use some common sections. The SSBNs would be basically an extended and slightly enlarged attack submarine hull. The main issue with the JL-2 is lack of range compared with other SLBMs. That could be solved by using composite materials for the rocket casing instead of the metal which it likely uses now.

 

[Sardaukar20]

China now has new submarine construction facilities which should enable them to build at least 2-3 nuclear submarines a year.

Depending on the submarine design and the miniaturization of the missiles it uses they might be able to do with less submarines.
Current Type 094 submarines carry 12x JL-2 SLBMs. Compare that with Russian, French, or British submarines which can carry 16x SLBMs.
That's like 33% more missiles per submarine so to carry the same amount of missiles you would need 8 submarines instead of 12.
Current US SSBNs built in the late Cold War are even larger but that does not seem cost effective to me.

It is possible to share the same nuclear reactor design between the SSBNs and the Attack submarines and use some common sections. The SSBNs would be basically an extended and slightly enlarged attack submarine hull. The main issue with the JL-2 is lack of range compared with other SLBMs. That could be solved by using composite materials for the rocket casing instead of the metal which it likely uses now.

Yes, there is a new facility to produce 2-3 nuclear subs per year. I think it has been like 2 years or more since that news, and no new submarines announced yet. It looks like the type 095 and 096 are going to take their time to develop and complete.

While in the meantime the PLAN are going nuts with DDG and CVN production. I don't know, maybe the PLAN is perusing the Soviet "Bastion" doctrine of SSBN deployments? To have ready CBGs provide protective escorts for their SSBNs.

There was news of a JL-3 tested from a Type 094 boat. So I think the JL-3 can solve the range issue for the existing Type 094s.

I too think that 12 missiles per boat is kinda small for a modern SSBN. Would need to deploy larger numbers of boats in nuclear emergencies. More costly, slower to deploy, and can be quite obvious for the enemy.

Hopefully the new Type 096s will have at least 16 missile tubes. Though I would personally hope that they would have 24 missile tubes instead as per the old rumours. There are pros and cons for that. But it'll at least put China in the elite SSBN club.

 

[Lethe]

Depending on the submarine design and the miniaturization of the missiles it uses they might be able to do with less submarines.
Current Type 094 submarines carry 12x JL-2 SLBMs. Compare that with Russian, French, or British submarines which can carry 16x SLBMs.
That's like 33% more missiles per submarine so to carry the same amount of missiles you would need 8 submarines instead of 12.
Current US SSBNs built in the late Cold War are even larger but that does not seem cost effective to me.

Putting more missiles/warheads on fewer boats is undoubtedly more efficient than fewer missiles/warheads on more boats, but such efficiency is a relatively low priority in creating an effective Continuous At-Sea Deterrent. The greater priority is ensuring that the SSBN force is survivable in the first place. Missile capabilities contribute to that, and the technical characteristics of the boats are obviously of great significance. But numbers are almost as important. More boats translates to more at sea at any given point, and greater surge capacity, and this matters because USN, JMSDF, etc. have considerable but nonetheless finite resources that they can devote to tracking those SSBNs. If USN is confident that it can track and neutralise China's small SSBN force, the nuclear deterrent is compromised and this would allow the United States to take actions against China that it might otherwise be deterred from.

All else being equal, an SSBN force of 8 boats with 12 missiles each is a more survivable and therefore more credible deterrent than a force of 4 boats with 24 missiles each.

I think the land attack or anti-surface role will likely be related to attack submarines with smaller displacement. China has enough surface ships that large missile boats aren't as necessary and they just lack nuclear submarine hulls to use for such niche applications.

Surface ships (or land-based rockets/missiles) cannot substitute for the SSGN in the anti-carrier role because their locations are likely to be known to the carrier battle group well in advance. This knowledge, coupled with the high speed of the carrier group, means that it is the carrier group that dictates the engagement, i.e. if, when and how it is to occur. If a surface action group engages a carrier group, it is because the carrier group allowed it to happen, which bodes ill for its chances of success. The SSGN changes all this. It can approach within launch range with a good prospect of not being detected. It can approach and attack from unexpected directions. In short, within limits an SSGN can dictate the engagement.

Yes, China lacks nuclear submarine hulls. A modest expansion will not suffice. Massive investment is required in SSNs, SSGNs, and SSBNs. Nuclear submarines are ultimately far more important to China's security than aircraft carriers.

 

[gelgoog]

Nuclear submarines are a poor fit for China at this time.

While China remains constrained to the First Island Chain their submarines will be confined to shallow waters.
This favors the construction of smaller conventional submarines powered with modern batteries.

AFAIK China uses a bastion strategy for its strategic submarines but it doesn't use it exclusively.
The Type 003 carrier makes no sense for a strategy strictly like that.

Until China breaks out of the First Island Chain, for example by annexing Taiwan, this situation won't change.

The fact is the Chinese have more strategic depth in their own terrain than in the confines of the coastal area behind the First Island Chain.
This favors the construction of land-based mobile ICBM brigades rather than strategic submarines.

I think they need a minimum amount of SSBNs and to focus more on Attack submarines to escort the task forces of the carrier groups once those become available.

 

[Sardaukar20]

All else being equal, an SSBN force of 8 boats with 12 missiles each is a more survivable and therefore more credible deterrent than a force of 4 boats with 24 missiles each.

I get your argument. Personally I would prefer a force of 4 boats with 24 missiles each. SSBNs are expensive luxuries to have with the hope for not using them ever. So having less boats at sea is cheaper on the operational budget. Plus each boat is now a true nation killer. Just like each one Ohio class submarine. Imagine having 12 boats with 24 missiles each. The US and friends will not ever think of trying their luck with pushing that button.

Surface ships (or land-based rockets/missiles) cannot substitute for the SSGN in the anti-carrier role because their locations are likely to be known to the carrier battle group well in advance. This knowledge, coupled with the high speed of the carrier group, means that it is the carrier group that dictates the engagement, i.e. if, when and how it is to occur. If a surface action group engages a carrier group, it is because the carrier group allowed it to happen, which bodes ill for its chances of success. The SSGN changes all this. It can approach within launch range with a good prospect of not being detected. It can approach and attack from unexpected directions. In short, within limits an SSGN can dictate the engagement.

Yes, China lacks nuclear submarine hulls. A modest expansion will not suffice. Massive investment is required in SSNs, SSGNs, and SSBNs. Nuclear submarines are ultimately far more important to China's security than aircraft carriers.

Which comes back to my earlier point. SSGNs are now a missing component in China's arsenal. They have their value against USN CBGs.

But with the Type 096 construction program taking at least a decade to complete. Having some converted Type 94s (after a sufficient no. of Type 096s have been commissioned) can be a decent stopgap. That would by China enough time to build more modern SSGNs.

 

[AndrewS]

Nuclear submarines are a poor fit for China at this time.

While China remains constrained to the First Island Chain their submarines will be confined to shallow waters.
This favors the construction of smaller conventional submarines powered with modern batteries.

AFAIK China uses a bastion strategy for its strategic submarines but it doesn't use it exclusively.
The Type 003 carrier makes no sense for a strategy strictly like that.

Until China breaks out of the First Island Chain, for example by annexing Taiwan, this situation won't change.

The fact is the Chinese have more strategic depth in their own terrain than in the confines of the coastal area behind the First Island Chain.
This favors the construction of land-based mobile ICBM brigades rather than strategic submarines.

I think they need a minimum amount of SSBNs and to focus more on Attack submarines to escort the task forces of the carrier groups once those become available.

That isn't accurate.

At any time, the US has 3 nuclear submarine on patrol from Pacific Fleet and another 3 from Atlantic Fleet.

But if China commissions a fleet of 30 nuclear submarines, then China could have 3 on patrol at any time AND be able to surge 20 submarines within a few days. The majority of these submarines would be past the 1st Island Chain before opposing nuclear submarines could reach the Western Pacific. Nothing else is able to follow those Chinese nuclear submarines into the Deep Pacific.

So you would end up with a situation where many Chinese nuclear submarines have disappeared and could be anywhere in the world.
Then there are lots of soft targets and maritime chokepoints, in addition to naval ships.

 

[Tam]

Not sure where to put this, on the 093/094 thread, or 095/096 thread, or this.

China increasing nuclear submarine building capacity by USNI.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1315689078571102214

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Some discussion on Chinese nuclear submarine click CC to get translation
This is the official channel of "Global Zero Distance". "Global Zero Distance" is a brand new international column jointly planned by Guangdong Radio and Television Station and the International Department of Xinhua News Agency. It is a weekly in-depth report on international news. The program breaks through the routine, by sorting out the context of major international news of the week, conducting live online interviews through reporters from Xinhua News

 

[Lethe]

I get your argument. Personally I would prefer a force of 4 boats with 24 missiles each. SSBNs are expensive luxuries to have with the hope for not using them ever. So having less boats at sea is cheaper on the operational budget. Plus each boat is now a true nation killer. Just like each one Ohio class submarine. Imagine having 12 boats with 24 missiles each. The US and friends will not ever think of trying their luck with pushing that button.

I think that China's "minimal deterrence" posture is both ethically praiseworthy and strategically sensible and I would certainly not endorse building nuclear capabilities to excessive levels. For as you say, SSBNs and other nuclear armaments are expensive tools that one hopes will never be used. But they are not luxuries. They have a very limited purpose, but that purpose is of the utmost importance: to prevent nuclear blackmail by another nuclear-armed state. Reducing the cost of the nuclear weapons capability, making it efficient, is a laudable goal but one that should be pursued only after a credible deterrent has been established, and the credibility of the SSBN force is in part about numbers. Having more boats both increases the CCP's confidence in the efficacy of its nuclear deterrent, and reduces an adversary's confidence that they could effectively neutralise that deterrent.

To be clear, in terms of enhancing the credibility of China's nuclear deterrent I think that the number of SSBN hulls is a distinctly lower priority than increasing the survivability of each of those hulls and the performance of their missiles. But if we assume that 096 and JL-3 are more or less complete from a design perspective and will get China most of the way towards addressing those high priority areas, the next area to be addressed is the size of the SSBN force. The number of SSBNs that are required depends on the deployment, maintenance and crewing patterns that are envisaged, which are informed by strategic doctrine in the context of geography, etc. But in any case I think 12 is a reasonable medium-term upper bound, for that is roughly the number that USA and Russia will be operating in the 2030s, and China should not be escalatory in the nuclear domain.

 

[ougoah]

China's SSBN force is woefully inadequate compared to the US and Russia. I don't think the CCP had/has any intention of stifling an SSBN build up. If not for an assumed qualitative dissatisfaction with 094 and JL-2, the idea of going down some restrained, efficient deployment path of nuclear arms, would not be the preferred reason for explaining China's missile policy which heavily favours ICBMs.

Submarines are much more expensive to build and maintain sure but relying on just two? Yeah that won't stay the case for long. They're complex, take a long time to build, and probably cost a lot more than 12/24 DF-41 TEL launchers but they offer a much better second strike capability. China has just been waiting for better submarine technology and a longer ranged and more survivable SLBM capable of carrying more MIRVs or MARVs.

The naval buildup has been following the same model - build one or two test platforms for evaluation. In the case of 094 and JL-2, I suspect it wasn't because they were underwhelming. Well they are underwhelming compared to the latest and greatest Russian, American, French, and British equivalents. Perhaps even compared to their second tiers. I think the PLAN just understood that better technology was just around the corner so it really wasn't worth gearing up for "mass" production like the 055 is for example. The 096 is probably moving into production soon if it hasn't already been and the JL-3 has been test fired multiple times now. A JL-3 armed 096 is no doubt preferable to the DF-31 based JL-2.