Only the first of class (Severodvinsk) has a OK650-series reactor, subsequent boats have a KTP-6 monoblock, life-of-the-boat reactor and a new conformal sonar (think Virgina-class LAB).
09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread
- Thread starter SinoSoldier
- Start date
Only the first of class (Severodvinsk) has a OK650-series reactor, subsequent boats have a KTP-6 monoblock, life-of-the-boat reactor and a new conformal sonar (think Virgina-class LAB).
When I look at PLA ship construction of Submarines compared to its surface fleet, it seems submarines have received much less focus from the PLA planners when compared to the Surface Fleet. PLA Navy has vastly improved its ability to conduct Area Air Defense, Anti-Ship and Carrier Killing Capability using both land based air force and ship based missiles. They have also improved their Anti-Submarine warfare capability by having a huge number of corvettes and frigates with anti-submarine sonars and helicopters.
But compared to this level advancement, PLA submarine fleet has seen a slow development and also much less ship production.
Could it be because PLA thinks submarines are not that useful compared to surface fleets? I know SSBN is very useful for Nuclear second Strike. But what about Attack Submarines? How useful are they really compared to a surface fleet?
Attack Submarines are slower than surface ships and surface ship flotilla with a large number helicopter's can screen for subs from a large distance, so submarine's only option seems to be sneak attack and if they are detected by a surface flotilla then its game over for them.
Attack Submarines must use passive sensors to avoid detection and such sensors are weaker than active sensors used by ships and helicopters. With such weaker detection capability and speed, they cannot really detect other submarines and thus are less useful in a sub-hunter role.
So, overall, how useful are a good submarine fleet that US has? I keep reading in western articles how Virginia class is the ace in the hole for US against China since China doesn't have good submarines. But based on the limitation that submarines have compared to a carrier and destroyers, their usefulness seems to be limited.
But compared to this level advancement, PLA submarine fleet has seen a slow development and also much less ship production.
Could it be because PLA thinks submarines are not that useful compared to surface fleets? I know SSBN is very useful for Nuclear second Strike. But what about Attack Submarines? How useful are they really compared to a surface fleet?
Attack Submarines are slower than surface ships and surface ship flotilla with a large number helicopter's can screen for subs from a large distance, so submarine's only option seems to be sneak attack and if they are detected by a surface flotilla then its game over for them.
Attack Submarines must use passive sensors to avoid detection and such sensors are weaker than active sensors used by ships and helicopters. With such weaker detection capability and speed, they cannot really detect other submarines and thus are less useful in a sub-hunter role.
So, overall, how useful are a good submarine fleet that US has? I keep reading in western articles how Virginia class is the ace in the hole for US against China since China doesn't have good submarines. But based on the limitation that submarines have compared to a carrier and destroyers, their usefulness seems to be limited.
You are wrong. Submerged nuclear attack submarines are faster than surface ships.
For example a Yasen-M can travel at a max speed of 35kn and a Type 055 cruiser at 30kn.
As for any issues with sensor range, a submarine can deploy a communications buoy and get information on the disposition on enemy ships via satellite reconnaissance, and fire a salvo of cruise missiles at the surface ships.
For example a Yasen-M can travel at a max speed of 35kn and a Type 055 cruiser at 30kn.
As for any issues with sensor range, a submarine can deploy a communications buoy and get information on the disposition on enemy ships via satellite reconnaissance, and fire a salvo of cruise missiles at the surface ships.
Last edited:
Virtually all of your premises need further reflection.
The first of which is, why do you think the PLAN's nuclear submarine procurement thus far has been more limited than its surface combatant procurement, and is this likely to change in the future.
That is my argument, that Attack submarines are less useful in actual combat. They are limited in terms of flexibility compared to surface destroyers and carriers and also easily defeated by surface fleets. In WW2 Surface fleets and aircrafts easily destroyed german U-boats. Even during the cold war, US and western countries, who had bigger budgets and more tech capability than USSR, focused a lot more on their carrier and surface fleets. If Submarines were such a powerful weapon that can easily kill surface ships and carriers, then Carriers would have been less emphasized, there would have been less construction of such ships and naval warfare would have been mostly underwater affairs.
Submarines are a niche weapon that every navy should have, like special forces that every army has, but they are not the primary weapon that determines a naval war. So, that's why PLA has some submarines and they are slowly improving them but not so desperate compared to the surface fleet or stealth aircraft or missiles where they are putting huge budgets and research focus.
I don't mean any offense. From the comments you've made in multiple flagship threads, you may want to look back in the discussion and gain a minimal understanding of the topics at hand before posting to your heart's content.
Your attribution for why China has procured (nuclear) submarines in a relatively smaller scale than surface combatants is incorrect.
Think about Chinese submarine capability and competitiveness in the past up to now and consider how that may impact their procurement strategy.
Or better yet, look at the way in which Chinese surface combatant procurement scale has shifted over the years as new capabilities and competitive products emerged with time.
No, as long as you avoid major sensor networks, submarines have their own strong niche.
Historically, the primary mission of the PLA has been defending against a potential US invasion, which may come most likely either in Taiwan or the SCS. For these roles, you don't need SSNs to defend. It's a luxury to have, but SSNs in shallow sea will be disadvantaged vs SSKs and historically, China had to fight closer to the shores rather than risk trying to break out behind US lines with SSNs.
And in the field of submarines, China has defintely not stood still in development, given that there's 30+ SSK that were various levels of world class when they were commissioned.
Top of the line SSKs are quieter than nuclear subs in many conditions associated with shallow water. Their main drawback is slow speed, but since historically, China knew that US forces would go to the eastern direction, the SSKs would be able to lie in wait for US SSNs and ambush them.
Nowadays, the priority is starting to change because China has more missions than just defending. Or rather, the spines of its porcupine strategy is extended from the sea of Japan all the way into the west pacific and towards Tindal. As such, a program that will quickly procure rough parity with Virginia class is needed, but it should be said that without past advancements in quieting allowing China to build the powerful SSK fleet they have, the 095 would not be a realistic project.
US submarine fleet is never underestimated by the PLA and is considered one of the major threats. However, in a defensive war, SSKs are considered able to stalemate them, while China's SSNs that have traditionally more been about keeping the tech alive would have a supporting role only.
I have a different theory.
When a nation rises to power it must climb the technological ladder and master each level first before climbing to the next:
step 1 - low tech
step 2 - medium tech
step 3 - high tech
For example a student who wishes to graduate from college must first graduate from high school.
A martial artist who wishes to get a black belt must first get a brown belt.
A nation that aspires to build nuclear submarines and nuclear aircraft carriers should first master the construction of surface combatants, amphibious ships, and logistics ships.
Ten years ago China didn't even have the Type 052D, Type 055, Type 075, and Type 901. It would have been premature to emphasize nuclear subs back then. Today is different. China has technologically mastered surface combatants, the focus will now shift to nuclear subs.
Just wait. The next 10 years is going to be the decade of the Type 095 and 096.
A lesser focus on nuclear subs some 20-30 years ago was also simply because China wasn't rich enough/didn't have enough military budget to allocate a lot towards it.
It focused more on SSKs back then.
Nowadays? It's been pretty clear that they have a lot more focus and also put alot more resources (money, research time etc.) into them, and we're currently at the stage of quick and constant iterations of nuclear subs (various different 093s), which really was kind of how it was before we eventually got to 052D and 055s.
Basically, in a few years we will probably see China pumping out nuclear subs a bit like dumplings (how it ramped up and produced a lot of destroyers like 052D), since we have already seen the expansions at the Bohai factory.
And these subs are gonna be a lot more competitive and basically be 'on pair'/'sameish generation' as current most modern nuclear subs that the US has (they will be worse in some specs, but likely also better in some, all in all, 'same generation').