09V/09VI (095/096) Nuclear Submarine Thread

[Anlsvrthng]

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

Port of Murmansk, during winter.

And the Kilos used on the Baltic fleet as well, and that freeze frequently during winter.


Kilo: The horizontal fin retractable into to submarine, there is no vertical fin, or protruding element above waterline.

On the Yuan there is horizontal fin on the coning tower, vertical fin and small , breakable elements above waterline.

I think the Kilo designed to be able to navigate on surface in thin ice cover, and push through meter/few meter thick ice the coning tower for recharge.

Visibly if the submarine doesn't supposed to break through ice then they move the horizontal frontal fins onto the coning tower, if supposed to break through then they using retractable front horizontal fins in the upper deck,above the pressurised sections.. Considering the coning tower position cheaper the only explanation is the ice.

Example Yuan/Ohio not ice capable, Kilo/Virginia ice capable.

 

[Tam]

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.

You still have not answered the question what makes you think that a smaller SSK (677 size) could outperform or provide operational and tactical benefits to a larger SSK (Yuan size) even in just littoral waters. How is it more cost effective? Smaller is also relative ---- the 677 Lada isn't as small as the 212/214 or the Gotland.

Even with a Type 095, it would also take many years of production to match USN's SSN numbers, and the reason for doing large SSKs is to fill these numbers. It is for the same reason why, despite the Soviet Union's large numbers of SSNs, they were making Kilos.

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.

We have seen the Soviet Union went with the Kilo as the SSK supplement to its SSN forces. I also think there is something wrong with a littoral only SSK as a cost effective supplement to blue water SSN forces, as these SSKs cannot supplement the SSNs in blue water as that need would still exist, furthermore, travel across blue water to enemy littorals. Rather than see the Lada 677 as the upper limit to a littoral optimized submarine, it might be instead, the bottom limit to a blue water SSK. The Lada 677 class is close to both the displacement and physical size dimensions to the Victoria/Upholder class.

I also think the PLAN has gone through the 2000+ ton SSK route, with the Song, and the resulting outcome of that experience points to the Yuan. The 2000+ ton SSK market is mostly market driven for smaller regional powers. The French makes Scorpenes not for their own use but for export; Lada/Amur is also very much export market driven.

 

[Tirdent]

I also think there is something wrong with a littoral only SSK as a cost effective supplement to blue water SSN forces, as these SSKs cannot supplement the SSNs in blue water as that need would still exist, furthermore, travel across blue water to enemy littorals.

Deploying SSKs over long range is probably their most inefficient use, as even the latest AIP technology (while providing reasonable endurance at patrol speed) gives nowhere near the sustained pace of an SSN. For reference, in 1982 British SSNs raced south to the Falklands upon the outbreak of hostilities at an average of >28kt, covering the 12500km distance from the UK in about 10 days - that's a performance which totally outclasses any SSK ever put into operational service!

Outside a handful of experimental boats, no conventionally powered submarine has ever exceeded 25kt AFAIK, let alone kept going flat out for 1.5 weeks, day in day out. To even make it that far without replenishing underway and still retain some fuel for actual operations in theatre, an SSK would have to travel at 10kt or less (especially if running submerged), turning 10 days into at least one month!

The idea is to unburden the SSKs from such inappropriate tasks as far as possible, so that they are free to be used for what they do best. As soon as the PLAN has enough SSNs to take care of blue water business, using conventional boats for that kind of operation becomes silly, really (until then, Yuan will continue to do a creditable job).

 

[Tam]

Deploying SSKs over long range is probably their most inefficient use, as even the latest AIP technology (while providing reasonable endurance at patrol speed) gives nowhere near the sustained pace of an SSN. For reference, in 1982 British SSNs raced south to the Falklands upon the outbreak of hostilities at an average of >28kt, covering the 12500km distance from the UK in about 10 days - that's a performance which totally outclasses any SSK ever put into operational service!

That's not the point. The point is that if that is what you have, that is what you have to do. These subs still have to bear the inefficiencies because you don't have a choice. For Chinese subs, they don't have to travel across the ocean either, at the most extended to the second island chain but I would expect all subs to operate still within land air cover.

Outside a handful of experimental boats, no conventionally powered submarine has ever exceeded 25kt AFAIK, let alone kept going flat out for 1.5 weeks, day in day out. To even make it that far without replenishing underway and still retain some fuel for actual operations in theatre, an SSK would have to travel at 10kt or less (especially if running submerged), turning 10 days into at least one month!

The idea is to unburden the SSKs from such inappropriate tasks as far as possible, so that they are free to be used for what they do best. As soon as the PLAN has enough SSNs to take care of blue water business, using conventional boats for that kind of operation becomes silly, really (until then, Yuan will continue to do a creditable job).

I don't see the PLAN having enough SSNs yet to cover the blue water business, and not for a while. Even then in the Western Pacific region, with more advanced designs (possible Yuan successor based on CSIC's sub designs they have shown previously) ---

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I still don't see how an under 2500 ton submerged sub be better than a 3500 to 4000 ton one. In fact, most large SSKs are heavily clustered in the Western Pacific. Even South Korea is developing a 3,000 ton submarine.

 

[Tirdent]

I don't see the PLAN having enough SSNs yet to cover the blue water business, and not for a while.

Obviously. I mentioned that caveat in my posts right from the beginning, did I not?

In fact, most large SSKs are heavily clustered in the Western Pacific. Even South Korea is developing a 3,000 ton submarine.

Because navies with blue water ambitions but no access to nuclear subs cluster in the Western Pacific - it's a political cause that arguably won't apply to China for very much longer.

 

[Tam]

Obviously. I mentioned that caveat in my posts right from the beginning, did I not?



Because navies with blue water ambitions but no access to nuclear subs cluster in the Western Pacific - it's a political cause that arguably won't apply to China for very much longer.

Even with Type 095, the cost of an SSN is so high that supplementation with SSK is likely if not imperative. The US is geographically unique because it does not have any close neighbor and littoral competition, and it still has a much larger naval budget than China.

These oceanic nations with blue water ambitions also operate in regions that are also brown water. You have to see the Western Pacific and Eastern Indian Ocean as a combination of blue and brown water. Comparing to Baltic and Black Seas doesn't make sense with the East and South China Seas, the two China Seas are not closed of that its littoral from one end to another, but heads out into deep water.

I still have not seen any reason why an 1800 ton or a 2500 ton SSK could outperform an 3500 ton SSK in any of these regions. You need to be operating at very shallow waters for the smaller sub to have any kind of advantage, and the purpose for doing this is likely for special forces. The larger SSK can have more sensors, more servers to process data from those servers, generally more comfortable, store more fuel and munitions, and a larger sub is also generally more quieter with more space to put in sound absorbance.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

Even with Type 095, the cost of an SSN is so high that supplementation with SSK is likely if not imperative. The US is geographically unique because it does not have any close neighbor and littoral competition, and it still has a much larger naval budget than China.

These oceanic nations with blue water ambitions also operate in regions that are also brown water. You have to see the Western Pacific and Eastern Indian Ocean as a combination of blue and brown water. Comparing to Baltic and Black Seas doesn't make sense with the East and South China Seas, the two China Seas are not closed of that its littoral from one end to another, but heads out into deep water.

I still have not seen any reason why an 1800 ton or a 2500 ton SSK could outperform an 3500 ton SSK in any of these regions. You need to be operating at very shallow waters for the smaller sub to have any kind of advantage, and the purpose for doing this is likely for special forces. The larger SSK can have more sensors, more servers to process data from those servers, generally more comfortable, store more fuel and munitions, and a larger sub is also generally more quieter with more space to put in sound absorbance.

I think it is safe to say in ten years time the US will start to make SSKs, to counter the Russian/Chinese subs operating around the US littoral waters.

 

[Iron Man]

I think it is safe to say in ten years time the US will start to make SSKs, to counter the Russian/Chinese subs operating around the US littoral waters.

The USN has been talking about building SSKs for years. I think Russian/Chinese SSN encroachment into US littorals would definitely provide a strong impetus for talk to become reality.

 

[Tirdent]

Even with Type 095, the cost of an SSN is so high that supplementation with SSK is likely if not imperative.

What I've been saying all along - just not with 4000t boats though.

I still have not seen any reason why an 1800 ton or a 2500 ton SSK could outperform an 3500 ton SSK in any of these regions. You need to be operating at very shallow waters for the smaller sub to have any kind of advantage, and the purpose for doing this is likely for special forces.

Feel free to go right down to 1600t, if that seems more compelling to you. It's not necessarily all about superiority either, but simply strict sufficiency - why pay more than you absolutely have to in order to get the job done? Use the savings for more SSNs, that probably gets you more blue water capability in the final reckoning than continuing to rely on 4000t SSKs.

 

[Iron Man]

What I've been saying all along - just not with 4000t boats though.



Feel free to go right down to 1600t, if that seems more compelling to you. It's not necessarily all about superiority either, but simply strict sufficiency - why pay more than you absolutely have to in order to get the job done? Use the savings for more SSNs, that probably gets you more blue water capability in the final reckoning than continuing to rely on 4000t SSKs.

A 1600t SSK may not have the endurance, weaponry, speed, and stealth that the PLAN requires of its SSKs, as even up to now you have not made a compelling case for the PLAN to switch to such a small SSK.

Also, while the 636 Kilos may displace close to 4,000t, they are a one-off order, and the currently produced SSKs are the Yuans which displace 3,500t, so let's not be too loose with the tonnage numbers here.

Another point is that if the PLAN decides to add small nuclear plants to their SSKs to create hybrid designs, I seriously doubt a sub much smaller than the Yuan class is going to be in the works.