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

[Aquila]

New here, just spent quite some time following this topic. I agree with Jeff. The 094 does give China a somewhat credible nuclear deterrent, as the most widely believed 12000 km range covers at least some of the major US cities when it's in the Sanya base. However, the efficiency of this system (094+JL-2) still needs improving, by reducing the noise level, and/or increasing the missile range.

The 054A FFG example, and in addition, the 056 corvette, is actually a good way to estimate the level of satisfaction of China with a weapon system. If it does meet the requirement, then it's much more economic to build and maintain just one type of weapon in the class, than to have many types of similar functions. The still relatively small number of 094 commissioned indicates that it still has some way to go to completely meet the requirement of a not only effective, but also efficient nuclear deterrent that China is pursuing. So, China has made some progress with its navy, and in fact, it's quite impressive in some area, such as the DDG and FFG, and the first CV, but the SSN and SSBN are still on the way to a situation that satisfies its navy.

 

[antiterror13]

when the SSBN in Sanya base, doesn't really matter about the noise level as it will be protected heavily by others.

So perhaps PLAN decided to spend money heavily somewhere else (instead of spending heavily in acoustic level). Perhaps this is the best strategy for PLAN as the gap in acoustic level compared to the US SSBN is too big, not really worth it to try to match it .... and doesn't need to

 

[Aquila]

when the SSBN in Sanya base, doesn't really matter about the noise level as it will be protected heavily by others.

So perhaps PLAN decided to spend money heavily somewhere else (instead of spending heavily in acoustic level). Perhaps this is the best strategy for PLAN as the gap in acoustic level compared to the US SSBN is too big, not really worth it to try to match it .... and doesn't need to

That's mostly correct, but there is still the concern that, when it comes to the extremely unlikely matter of a Sino-American nuclear war, the boomer bases will almost certainly be one of the "must destroy" targets. Therefore, it would be best if the SSBNs could be both silent and long (and hard) hitting. The nuclear deterrent will be more reliable to have some of the SSBNs under the heavy protection of the base, and some under the cover of the sheer vastness of open waters.

An example will again be the US Ohio, and the British Vanguard. The Trident II on board has long enough range, but both the US and Britain spent, and I'm sure that they are still spending loads of money on keeping them more silent. Another point is that, the "full" ranges of ballistic missiles can be achieved only with a reduced load. This is true even with the Trident II, by far the most advanced one in its class, which has a range of around 12000 km with reduced load, and a range of just under 8000 km fully loaded. Hence, if the SSBNs are silent enough, they could go into the open waters carrying the same amount of missiles, but with more warheads.

 

[antiterror13]

Totally agree. But if you have limited resources (like everybody does), you would choose the best value for the resources and still very effective... like Deng once said ... "It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or White as long as it catches mice"

I think China's strategy is just to build more SSBN while at the same time improving the noise level slowly ... remember quantity is a quality itself

 

[schenkus]

I think China's strategy is just to build more SSBN while at the same time improving the noise level slowly ... remember quantity is a quality itself

What number of SSBN do you think China is targeting "in the long run" ?

Considering they only have ~20 liquid fueled ICBMs in silos and another ~20 solid fueled ICBMs on mobile TELs and these ICBMs are normally not paired with warheads, I guess that China thinks a relatively low level of deterrence and readyness is enough.

I could image that having just 4 to 5 SSBN with only one "on station" at any time but the possibility to send out an additional 2 or 3 SSBN in a crisis would "fit" this kind of attitude.

If that guess is correct, I would assume that China will be more interested in building a decent number of ever better SSNs in the next years and will only build more SSBNs once they can make them really silent.

If China were to consider SSBNs as a kind of insurance against a worst case that should never happen, they might rather spend the money on SSNs they can use in a lot of different ways.

 

[Aquila]

Totally agree. But if you have limited resources (like everybody does), you would choose the best value for the resources and still very effective... like Deng once said ... "It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or White as long as it catches mice"

I think China's strategy is just to build more SSBN while at the same time improving the noise level slowly ... remember quantity is a quality itself

Yes China still has a long way to go, and a "small step running" strategy is plausible with SSBNs, just as the one with the FFGs and DDGs. I'm sure in the foreseeable future China will have a more efficient and reliable SSBN and ballistic missile combination. We'll see.

 

[tphuang]

Totally agree. But if you have limited resources (like everybody does), you would choose the best value for the resources and still very effective... like Deng once said ... "It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or White as long as it catches mice"

I think China's strategy is just to build more SSBN while at the same time improving the noise level slowly ... remember quantity is a quality itself

it costs a lot of money to build SSBN and deploy them. Right now, SSBN are sitting at Sanya most of the time. That's not a lot of deterrence. You need to keep improving the boat themselves and also crew training. Building more and leaving them parked at Sanya is clearly not the way to go.

 

[antiterror13]

Did I say to park SSBN at Sanya most of the time ? honestly I wouldn't do that .. and I don't think I said that. What I said just to maximise what you got as at the moment Chinese noise level is too far away compared to USN

 

[Pmichael]

About what kind of noise level gap are we talking about between Chinese and American submarines. One can read stuff like "louder" or "generations apart" etc. - ignoring that diesel submarines from the 80s didn't create any noise when moving at 4kn and less.

The true limits of submarines are

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Brumby]

What I said just to maximise what you got as at the moment Chinese noise level is too far away compared to USN

TP's point is rather obvious. Deterrence comes from deployment and not from quantity. So what exactly are you proposing "to maximise"?