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

[BoraTas]

This is a gargantuan oversimplification. Not all procurement matters are a simple function of how much a system costs.

An SSN provides a myriad of completely unmatched capabilities and intrinsic benefits that a TEL-based system can never provide for any dollar amount. These are a large part of what makes SSNs more cost effective than one might initially think, and worth every last cent that they do ultimately cost. The amount of impact a single SSN can have on the course of a conflict - especially in a Pacific naval war - is orders of magnitude greater than what an equivalent salvo of TEL-based munitions could achieve.

Wars are eye-wateringly expensive to be in for any length of time, so spending $10 Billion on platforms that end the conflict in 10 days is colossally preferable to spending even a tenth of that amount on a roughly related platform without the key capabilities the other provided, and then getting dragged into an extended, economy-melting, attritional air/naval war.

If the two CONEMPs scaled capability uplift with investment in remotely the same way, it might be less misguided, but that's not the case at all. To outfit a DF-17 Brigade, large amounts of trained personnel, buildings, support infrastructure, vehicles, POL, electricity, land, and much much more is required. This is a sizable military formation with very large overhead and operational costs involved. It requires trained servicemen to fill its ranks. It requires all of the networking and connectivity overhead that standing up a new unit demand. It requires officers and senior enlisted leaders, it eats a chunk of the PLA's total sustainment capacity, and so on and so forth.

What you get for the price, logistics footprint, and opportunity cost of procuring an SSN - which has the ability to prosecute war-winning targets in a way only possible due to the lack of precursor warning signs, the prompt engagement tempo, the unanticipated salvo geometry, and... yknow... the rest of a Nuclear Attack Submarine's capability set - is (once the real world is factored in) far more desirable than an equal investment into DF-17 procurement.

I'm quite worn out currently, so I do apologize if I come across as demeaning, but I think you may have a shallower grasp than you're aware of on the complexities and nuance of effects based military procurement and force structure growth.

I have an objection.

Orders of magnitude difference can only be possible if China uses those missile equipped SSNs for Pearl Harbor V2.0. Otherwise the said DF-17 brigades would be on patrol and ready, and so is the US IAMD. Yes, a normal training deployment becoming hundreds of missiles on key US bases without any warnings is something only SSNs can achieve. Hundreds of TELs getting loaded and leaving their bases would attract attention. Also, maintenance and basing wise, it is quite obvious an SSN would be much harder to look after compared to a few dozen trucks.

This is not to say a DF-17 brigade is an alternative to the SSN, it isn't. Especially for China which doesn't have bases around the world which it can utilize air power from... China will need those subs to threaten distant ships and bases. But a submarine isn't a winner when it comes to land attack if the adversary isn't poor in air defenses or can not be reached by air power.

Note: If the US analysis is focused on another Pearl Harbor then I am concerned for the world. Such an attitude is usually a projection and may lead to an argument for a pre-emptive war. If that is true then it is just another argument for the expansion of the Chinese nuclear arsenal.

 

[BoraTas]

But a submarine isn't a winner when it comes to land attack if the adversary isn't poor in air defenses or can not be reached by air power.

I meant if can be reached by air power. I had a typo. To explain further air power can deliver a lot more missiles in a given time period. A few bombers carry as many missiles as a submarine and can be reloaded fast. An air force preparing a large bomber raid would be spotted but that only matters if you are after a Pearl Harbor 2.

 

[schrage musik]

I see two unique advantages:

A SSN that can strike a warship or a naval base in the pacific with a BM at 1500nm would be much more survivable than a submarine that has to close in within ~300km to launch a cruise missile or within 100 km to launch a torpedo.

A SSN that can strike a target on the atlantic coast or deep inland introduces a very unique precision strike capability. Ships and subs in harbor on the east coast of the USA, continental airbases, production facilities, etc all over the world can be hit without expending ICBM class missiles.

 

[SEAD]

I see two unique advantages:

A SSN that can strike a warship or a naval base in the pacific with a BM at 1500nm would be much more survivable than a submarine that has to close in within ~300km to launch a cruise missile or within 100 km to launch a torpedo.

A SSN that can strike a target on the atlantic coast or deep inland introduces a very unique precision strike capability. Ships and subs in harbor on the east coast of the USA, continental airbases, production facilities, etc all over the world can be hit without expending ICBM class missiles.

If CONUS attacking is the only target, H-20 is a much more effective alter. You can reload bombers in 24hours but for SSNs several months.
Conventional land attacking will NEVER be the main goal for developing SSNs.

 

[Andy1974]

If CONUS attacking is the only target, H-20 is a much more effective alter. You can reload bombers in 24hours but for SSNs several months.
Conventional land attacking will NEVER be the main goal for developing SSNs.

Conventional land attacking <> destruction of enemies navy in their ports, or in other oceans. I think this was mentioned, if you can get that effect in war, it’s probably winning the war.

 

[SEAD]

Conventional land attacking <> destruction of enemies navy in their ports, or in other oceans. I think this was mentioned, if you can get that effect in war, it’s probably winning the war.

ASuW and land(or ports) attacking are very different missions.

 

[schrage musik]

If CONUS attacking is the only target, H-20 is a much more effective alter. You can reload bombers in 24hours but for SSNs several months.
Conventional land attacking will NEVER be the main goal for developing SSNs.

If you were the PLAN and your mission was, let's say, to take out all USN carriers on day 1, would you prefer:
1. a cruise missile strike launched from H-20s?
2. a cruise missile strike launched from H-20s + A ballistic missile strike launched from 093Bs?
3. or an ICBM strike with conventional warheads which could be mistaken for a preemptive nuclear strike?

It is like saying, why would the PLAN develop an ASBM when they could already strike those targets with the long range CJ-10 cruise missile.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

If you were the PLAN and your mission was, let's say, to take out all USN carriers on day 1, would you prefer:
1. a cruise missile strike launched from H-20s?
2. a cruise missile strike launched from H-20s + A ballistic missile strike launched from 093Bs?
3. or an ICBM strike with conventional warheads which could be mistaken for a preemptive nuclear strike?

It is like saying, why would the PLAN develop an ASBM when they could already strike those targets with the long range CJ-10 cruise missile.

There is no need for the PLA to take out USN carriers that are stationed in the Atlantic (unless they are making their way to join the war in the Indopac), plus any other carriers that are undergoing maintainence and/or mid-life RCOH in Newport News.

That means there is no need to utilize ICBMs in this scenario.

Besides, there is no "sole preferable" way of dealing with USN carriers.

 

[Kalec]

Huludao launched a new 093B today, though I find it hard to tell from low-res satellite photo.


Source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Maikeru]

Can't see it on Sentinel Playground - covered by cloud.