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

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I just see SSKs as being too vulnerable once they are being tracked by airborne ASW assets, because they don't have the speed/endurance to disengage.

So ideally, SSKs should operate to the 1st Island Chain, and possibly somewhat further if the Chinese Navy or Air Force can keep the airspace clear. Beyond this, SSNs are better.

But that still means a significant SSK fleet is useful. So call it a steady-state fleet of 30 SSKs being replaced at 1 per year.

That's true. Although I do envision that Chinese warships and warplanes would be operating east of Taiwan after AR, so the region between the FIC and SIC would have become comparably safer for a couple of newer Chinese SSKs to operate in.

Personally, I think that SSKs in the PLAN should have similar number or slightly larger number than with the SSNs, so perhaps around 50/60-70/80 units.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Ran through the podcast again to fetch some timestamps.


22:33 Toaster talks about the Russian vs China comparison. They differ even in philosophy of their weapons system. PLA weaponry has a lot more in common with US/NATO than Russia.

40:04 Patch talks about Tomahawks
Center for Naval Analysis + Defence Intelligence Agency (1993 study) after 2nd salvo, ~50% of all Tomahawks sent was shot down by Iraq - more didn't hit the target due to bad terrain map, etc. Tomahawks also fail 10-15% of the time in their initial pre-cruise flight phase. So Burke salvo size is about 16 due to this and VLS power constraints, etc. This is before considering jamming and shootdowns.

45:20 Toaster mentions US submarines communicate to satellites on a 3 Mbit pipe, so they have to circle at periscope depth for hours to get data to do Tomahawk strikes

1:10:00 Patch says J20 availability rates are 85-95% partially because they don't run their individual airframes as hard and partially because they have robust logistics. Segways into USA having an habit of overusing their airframes and submarines. Toaster mentions early VA boats are sent out for 6-9 months instead of the 4-6 during the Cold War resulting in the boat needing to be put in maintenance for 2-3 years after the deployment. Patch mentions PLA doesn't defer maintenance as much as the USA does and the PLA spreads hours between frames more evenly than the US. Toaster mentions USS Boise as an example; came back 2015 and has been in maintenance for 7+ years now.

1:39:00 Toaster mentions original 093 were close to Sturgeon class boats. New 093 are decent, about LA class. (Patch mentions 688i) Expects them to eventually reach early-mid VA noise by 2030. Early VA noise level is already disminishing returns where further quieting doesn't make that much difference.

1:57:25 SSK topic starts here. Modern Radars can detect submarines at periscope depth. Doing Target Motion Analysis with passive requires a few hours of zig-zagging to get ranging solution. SSKs are slow and bad at it and so they need to go to periscope depth which exposes them tremendously. SSK don't have great evasive characteristics because their underwater endurance is sub-hour and is basically a suicide mission. Toaster mentions torpedoes like Mk 48 have functional ranges of 3-5 nm max because anything further than that gives too much time for evasion and detection of your submarine.

2:13:20 Patch denies insitutional knowledge exists

2:41:45 Toaster mentions Li-ion, AIP, etc. help but don't solve SSK's fundamental problems of extremely limited underwater endurance.

2:51:34 Patch "the J20 is significantly superior to just about every single United States aircraft in production right now"

2:59:18 India slander

3:05:00 Patch asserts PLA can invade Okinawa even if US, Japan, Taiwan, (maybe even) SK as well get involved.

one thing I disagree about is Chinese weapons being closer to NATO than Russian. Chinese weapons are their own thing and combines the best of both: mass producable and maintainable on one hand like Russian, but electronics integrated and networked like NATO.

From the war in Ukraine, it is obvious that almost all NATO weapons like M777, M113, Javelin, PzH 2000, Krab, etc. are fragile garage queens that get damaged easily, are difficult to maintain in the field and cost far too much for limited capability. Meanwhile Russian weapons are proving their capability in maintenance and reliability, but are limited by poor electronics. China has no problem with electronics, and has historical experience with Russian style reliability engineering.

Specific to naval matters, this is where the divergence is greatest since Russian navy has always been a sub and aircraft centric force designed for defense, while PLAN has more need to project power with surface vessels. But even here, the idea of high availability, mass produced networked assets applies.

 

[AndrewS]

That's true. Although I do envision that Chinese warships and warplanes would be operating east of Taiwan after AR, so the region between the FIC and SIC would have become comparably safer for a couple of newer Chinese SSKs to operate in.

Personally, I think that SSKs in the PLAN should have similar number or slightly larger number than with the SSNs, so perhaps around 50/60-70/80 units.

And what would those Chinese SSKs be doing in the region between the 1st Island Chain and 2nd Island Chain?

They couldn't keep up with surface fleets and that area is mostly vast and empty. The maritime chokepoints are the 1st Island Chain and Guam is too close to enemy air to operate.

Hence my view that SSKs are fine within/at the 1st Island Chain, but SSNs are better beyond this

 

[TK3600]

How about the craziest one of all: during the podcast Patchwork states that the J-20 is *significantly* superior to all US aircraft. Of course that includes not only the F-22 but the F-35.

Pretty shocking statement, he makes it very authoritatively and in a laughing and dismissive manner at anyone who thinks otherwise.

I wonder if anyone has any comment on this? I watched all 3 hours 14 min and that was easily the biggest thing that stood out to me.

Bonus: According to Patchwork China could not only take Taiwan but easily take Okinawa even if US, Japan, Taiwan, and possibly Korea get involved.

@manqiangrexue wins.

Edit: On second thoughts, he said "US aircraft in production" and that naturally excludes F-22.

 

[TK3600]

What are the prospect of submarines acting as anti-aircraft roles? One major problem of ship born anti-air is that ships will always be outranged by the same missile delivered from air. Ships are also relatively more expensive and slower to build than aircraft. Meanwhile a submarine is stealthy, and do not have to rely on range and CIWS to fight aircrafts. Any plane that unknowingly enter a sub carrying HQ-16 equivalent can be shot down. It is like a gigantic MANPADS under the ocean that plane cannot detect.

I can see this idea having several problems, but those problems are not unsolvable.

1. Missile size are limited and thus range is also limited. Unlikely any sub carrying a bunch of HQ-9. Something size of a HQ-16/Buk is more likely.
2. Subs cannot rely on radar for detection, because using it expose the sub. There needs to be aerial asset to detect aircraft and a way to signal the subs to surface when target appears.
3. There still needs to be aircraft escort. Unlike ships who can be shot by missile with very long range, anti-sub weapons tend to be lower range. Probably easier for J-20 to protect subs vs P-8 Poseidon shooting it than bunch of F-35 each firing a couple LRASM far far away.
4. Subs are still more pricier than aircraft. It might not be worth it to risk it to shoot aircraft.

 

[Michaelsinodef]

@manqiangrexue wins.

Edit: On second thoughts, he said "US aircraft in production" and that naturally excludes F-22.

Tempest clarified that Patch meant "in service", so that includes the F-22 (although I think he said F-22 was better in WVR, but in this day and age? Lol, or did he mean a pure 1 v 1 even with BWR?).

China's Defense/Military Breaking News Thread

Regarding Patch's comment about the J-20, he asked me to clarify that he meant to say "in service" as opposed to "in production"

www.sinodefenceforum.com

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

What are the prospect of submarines acting as anti-aircraft roles? One major problem of ship born anti-air is that ships will always be outranged by the same missile delivered from air. Ships are also relatively more expensive and slower to build than aircraft. Meanwhile a submarine is stealthy, and do not have to rely on range and CIWS to fight aircrafts. Any plane that unknowingly enter a sub carrying HQ-16 equivalent can be shot down. It is like a gigantic MANPADS under the ocean that plane cannot detect.

I can see this idea having several problems, but those problems are not unsolvable.

1. Missile size are limited and thus range is also limited. Unlikely any sub carrying a bunch of HQ-9. Something size of a HQ-16/Buk is more likely.
2. Subs cannot rely on radar for detection, because using it expose the sub. There needs to be aerial asset to detect aircraft and a way to signal the subs to surface when target appears.
3. There still needs to be aircraft escort. Unlike ships who can be shot by missile with very long range, anti-sub weapons tend to be lower range. Probably easier for J-20 to protect subs vs P-8 Poseidon shooting it than bunch of F-35 each firing a couple LRASM far far away.
4. Subs are still more pricier than aircraft. It might not be worth it to risk it to shoot aircraft.

It is very difficult to communicate with submarines at all, even harder to do so from range and across a medium interface, and harder still to do so with high bandwidth.

This is why Russian Navy submarine force isn't so bad off for having poor networking and electronics - they can't talk to anyone anyhow.

 

[BoraTas]

What are the prospect of submarines acting as anti-aircraft roles? One major problem of ship born anti-air is that ships will always be outranged by the same missile delivered from air. Ships are also relatively more expensive and slower to build than aircraft. Meanwhile a submarine is stealthy, and do not have to rely on range and CIWS to fight aircrafts. Any plane that unknowingly enter a sub carrying HQ-16 equivalent can be shot down. It is like a gigantic MANPADS under the ocean that plane cannot detect.

I can see this idea having several problems, but those problems are not unsolvable.

1. Missile size are limited and thus range is also limited. Unlikely any sub carrying a bunch of HQ-9. Something size of a HQ-16/Buk is more likely.
2. Subs cannot rely on radar for detection, because using it expose the sub. There needs to be aerial asset to detect aircraft and a way to signal the subs to surface when target appears.
3. There still needs to be aircraft escort. Unlike ships who can be shot by missile with very long range, anti-sub weapons tend to be lower range. Probably easier for J-20 to protect subs vs P-8 Poseidon shooting it than bunch of F-35 each firing a couple LRASM far far away.
4. Subs are still more pricier than aircraft. It might not be worth it to risk it to shoot aircraft.

I think that is an unlikely prospect. Exposes the sub for no almost gains at all. Subs will get SAMs but such missiles will be for self-defense against helos that are about to find them. Helos are a huge problem for subs. Their dipping sonars are scary. And I think the capability is more common than we civilians know. It is exactly the type of capability you'd keep secret. Revising tactics and retraining ASW helicopter teams during a conflict after losing a few of such helos would be very frustrating.

 

[TK3600]

What if sub get sufficiently long range aa out range anti submarine weapons? They can be above water, and if enemy use anti ship missile it can submerge to dodge it.

 

[banjex]

SSKs have already have manpads derived systems for a while.