Addendum: for good measure, the Sea of Okhotsk (probably the reason why there are SSKs in the Russian Pacific Fleet) has a 859m average and 3372m maximum depth. I did make one mistake - the SCS and East China Sea are significantly larger in *area* than the Black Sea.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
09V/09VI (095/096) Nuclear Submarine Thread
- Thread starter Hendrik_2000
- Start date
I don't think any of us, including you, have access to the "economics" of 2,000t vs 3,600t (Yuan is not "4,000t") vs 7,000t subs, not to mention there are many other considerations over and above pure economics, as people here have already explained. How much cheaper is a 2,000t boat vs a 3,600t boat, do you know? Does it make up for the completely new R&D, logistics/maintenance, and crew training that would have to be built up to support a new SSK class, and do you know how much that is? Does a 2,000t boat provide the quantity of weaponry, the endurance, the quietness, and the room for growth that the PLAN requires of its SSKs? If you don't have access to this information, and I'm assuming you don't, then how do you really know that the 2,000t is sufficiently cheap enough and can meet PLAN requirements enough to be seriously considered as a new SSK class?What would be uneconomical is to go on building 4000t SSKs in parallel to SSNs when for the vast majority of China's littoral seas ~2000t boats are better suited (and those areas where they could be properly operated could be covered by SSNs, as mentioned).
Pr.677 was conceived and defined in Soviet times, so the post-collapse Russian budget had little to do with its size (just with the delays...).
A Kilo successor may have been "planned" around the late Cold War period, but given all the time before the sub was first laid, the sub as it appears to be now maybe quite different from the original conception and very likely to have been influenced by the post Cold War environment, including the potential export of the sub to different markets. Concepts and proposals can evolve over the years as the mission climate changes.
Sure - because for the vast majority of the Kilo users there simply is no other game in town, thanks to Pr.677 lagging so badly behind schedule. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation! I'd be willing to bet that if Pr.677 had lived up to the original plans there would be no more Kilos in Russian service by now, and a couple of its late export sales would have materialized as Amur-class contracts instead.
If these users had bought PR 677, it would be because there is also no other game in town, likewise, with the Kilo the obsolete and phased out model. You are likely to buy PR 677 because its the latest submarine, has acoustical and other technical advantages over the older submarine, and not because its smaller, or that there are advantages to being smaller. I do doubt that the submarine as it is now, unlike the Kilo, could use the Klub/Kalibr missiles, since that required development of a separate new Lada class version with VLS on a hump that is now part of the catalog offering for the submarine class. So that's a big minus there for current or existing version of the submarine versus the upgraded Kilo 636.
2700t for Pr.677 is widely quoted but probably an inaccurate estimate founded on the erroneous assumption that it follows established Soviet/Russian practice and is a double-hull boat with characteristically high reserve buoyancy - it isn't, though. You sometimes see 2300t, giving a submerged/surfaced ratio comparable to the Type 212 which sounds about right. Something like a S20 with AIP (i.e. much more modern than Song!) could therefore be a good fit for *future* PLAN SSKs, yes.
Again, there are a few versions of the submarine, catered to different customer mission sets, and the variations in displacement can be due to the different versions. The largest one might be the one with the eight tube VLS for Kalibrs.
You are likely to buy PR 677 because its the latest submarine, has acoustical and other technical advantages over the older submarine, and not because its smaller, or that there are advantages to being smaller. I do doubt that the submarine as it is now, unlike the Kilo, could use the Klub/Kalibr missiles, since that required development of a separate new Lada class version with VLS on a hump that is now part of the catalog offering for the submarine class. So that's a big minus there for current or existing version of the submarine versus the upgraded Kilo 636.
If there are no advantages to making it smaller, why was it made smaller? Kalibr on the Kilos is fired from the standard 533mm tubes and it works the same way for Pr.677 - the VLS is for Yakhont/Brahmos which is too large for torpedo tubes at a diameter of 670mm. It does mean you can only launch the short-airframe export Kalibr (same dimensions as a normal 533mm HWT) with a 300km reach, but for a massed deep strike against terrestrial targets there are decidedly more effective tools in the box than a littoral SSK.
Horses for courses, as in other respects of the SSN/SSK trade-off.
Again, there are a few versions of the submarine, catered to different customer mission sets, and the variations in displacement can be due to the different versions. The largest one might be the one with the eight tube VLS for Kalibrs.
Nope, the one with VLS is a mid-size variant (<1000t surfaced), in fact.
How much cheaper is a 2,000t boat vs a 3,600t boat, do you know? Does it make up for the completely new R&D, logistics/maintenance, and crew training that would have to be built up to support a new SSK class, and do you know how much that is? Does it make up for the completely new R&D, logistics/maintenance, and crew training that would have to be built up to support a new SSK class, and do you know how much that is?
Hell, they even got Thailand to pay for most of the R&D - is it ever going to be cheaper! The build-cost advantage is readily apparent and the smaller crew alone is going to make for significantly cheaper operation. Why would they re-invent the wheel on the systems and man-machine interfaces, such that training and logistics would have to be completely bespoke? Draw on the Yuan, as S20 is likely to do.
Does a 2,000t boat provide the quantity of weaponry, the endurance, the quietness, and the room for growth that the PLAN requires of its SSKs? If you don't have access to this information, and I'm assuming you don't, then how do you really know that the 2,000t is sufficiently cheap enough and can meet PLAN requirements enough to be seriously considered as a new SSK class?
What the PLAN required when the Yuan was defined is not what they will require in future though (if they're smart, at any rate). As I said, once you have SSNs of sufficient quantity and quality to take care of blue water interests, the calculus for SSKs changes radically. There'd have to be a pretty powerful reason not to pocket the savings.
If there are no advantages to making it smaller, why was it made smaller?
677 is not that much smaller.
The 677 is already 67-72 meters in length, the Kilo is around 70 to 73m, and the Yuan is around 77 meters. The difference is that 677 has a smaller beam, 7.1m, with a 6.5m draft. Kilo has a 9.9m beam with a 6.2m draft, while Yuan is 8.4m beam and 6.7 m draft.
In what way does the 677 Lada gives it a tactical or operating advantage over the Kilo and the Yuan in any of the bordering seas to China? Is there anything in particular about its design and size that makes it better to operate in shallower seas?
677 is certainly not in the Type 212 class of size, which is 56 meters, or the Gotland class, which is 60 meters. Both Gotland and the 212 have these X shaped fins to let them operate in very shallow waters that can be useful for dropping special forces. The 677 doesn't have this, assuming there is actually some benefit in using X-shaped fins.
677 is "smaller" in the sense that its crew size of 35 is smaller, with the Kilo at 52. The Yuan though, is only at 38, and given its size, and that's going to be generous and more comfortable for the crew than either the Kilo or 677. Crews on the Gotland and the 212 is probably around 22 to 27 if I remember correctly.
Kilo has different design requirement than the Chinese submarines.
The Kilos has to:
-Break through ice
-operate in freezing conditions
First means it can not use spherical sonar, X fins, light upper structure .
Second means it is complicated to install lithium battery (and increase the weight of the pack) , the fuel cells needs defreezing capability , and it require bigger sonars because it can not count on air assets for targeting.
So, it makes more sense and cheaper for China to design its own submarines than to buy an over complicated (compared to China needs) Russian submarine.
The Kilos has to:
-Break through ice
-operate in freezing conditions
First means it can not use spherical sonar, X fins, light upper structure .
Second means it is complicated to install lithium battery (and increase the weight of the pack) , the fuel cells needs defreezing capability , and it require bigger sonars because it can not count on air assets for targeting.
So, it makes more sense and cheaper for China to design its own submarines than to buy an over complicated (compared to China needs) Russian submarine.
Kilo has different design requirement than the Chinese submarines.
The Kilos has to:
-Break through ice
-operate in freezing conditions
First means it can not use spherical sonar, X fins, light upper structure .
Second means it is complicated to install lithium battery (and increase the weight of the pack) , the fuel cells needs defreezing capability , and it require bigger sonars because it can not count on air assets for targeting.
So, it makes more sense and cheaper for China to design its own submarines than to buy an over complicated (compared to China needs) Russian submarine.
Are Kilos actually designed to break through ice?
Because if the ice is too thick (and I'm guessing this will often be the case), then that Kilo is dead from lack of air and battery.
677 is not that much smaller.
The 677 is already 67-72 meters in length, the Kilo is around 70 to 73m, and the Yuan is around 77 meters. The difference is that 677 has a smaller beam, 7.1m, with a 6.5m draft. Kilo has a 9.9m beam with a 6.2m draft, while Yuan is 8.4m beam and 6.7 m draft.
Red herring, like max. water depth. Displacement matters - and there's a ~40% reduction in this respect, a difference comparable to that between a 052B destroyer and 054A frigate.
677 is certainly not in the Type 212 class of size, which is 56 meters, or the Gotland class, which is 60 meters.
Whichever way you cut it, those modern SSKs designed primarily for littoral operations (and therefore appropriate as a cost-effective complement to a blue water SSN force) all cluster around ~2000t submerged displacement, give or take maybe 400t. S20 and Pr.677 sit near the top of that range, but they very much follow the trend.
Are Kilos actually designed to break through ice?
Because if the ice is too thick (and I'm guessing this will often be the case), then that Kilo is dead from lack of air and battery.
More so than other SSKs probably, but there are limits and as you say their under-ice autonomy is nothing like a nuclear-powered submarine of course. Check out the water depths in Russia's arctic shelf seas - ordinarily typical diesel-electric submarine territory, but other than the southern reaches of the Barents sea you must expect to encounter a frozen surface for more than half the year.
More so than other SSKs probably, but there are limits and as you say their under-ice autonomy is nothing like a nuclear-powered submarine of course. Check out the water depths in Russia's arctic shelf seas - ordinarily typical diesel-electric submarine territory, but other than the southern reaches of the Barents sea you must expect to encounter a frozen surface for more than half the year.
I'm looking at a winter ice sheet map for Russia, and I don't see any reason for a Kilo ever to encounter an ice sheet.
Russia simply doesn't have much seaborne trade to protect, so submarines are mostly offensive weapons.
Kilos don't have to cross any ice sheets in order to reach their offensive operating areas.
Northern Fleet: Murmansk is clear all the way to the UK/Atlantic
Baltic Fleet: Kaliningrad is clear all the way to the UK/Atlantic
Black Sea: Clear as well to the Med
Pacific Fleet: Vladivostok and Petropavlovsk are clear to Japan/Pacific
It just seems very silly to me, if the Russians designed the Kilo to operate under ice sheets, when they would actually never encounter any