i
But if you have long-range missiles(e.g. 1000km YJ-xx) you can just patrol the area and wait for commands. That makes SSNs much more survivable and flexible. No ASW airplanes or ships can kill a submarine 1000km away.
(Yes I’m repeating myself)
if you have only torpedos you must follow your targets when they are moving (perhaps at 30knots, a terrible speed for silencing or in an area with poor acoustic environment to hide in) until the first wave of attack.I would say that unlike the US, which has to control the sea lanes in the Pacific to the Far East and Australasia, China will be more interested in controlling the sea lanes on the first and second island chain and the Indian Ocean to get to the Middle East.
So the idea you will be designing nuclear attack submarines for deep oceanic combat seems kind of ludicrous to me. I do agree that it should be less important for China to have VLS on their attack submarines. At best you should be able to make do with cruise missiles launched from torpedo tubes. A technology they already have. Unlike Russia, China will not have a disparity in terms of the surface navy. So the idea you need to have carrier group killer SSGNs as part of doctrine to the same degree, I think, is kind of pointless. And US ships are way more vulnerable to torpedo attacks than cruise missiles.
But if you have long-range missiles(e.g. 1000km YJ-xx) you can just patrol the area and wait for commands. That makes SSNs much more survivable and flexible. No ASW airplanes or ships can kill a submarine 1000km away.
(Yes I’m repeating myself)
Last edited: