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

[BoraTas]

-----

As BoraTas argued a few pages back, the practice of putting a lot of cruise missile (and even more egregiously special forces) on US subs originate from the submarine service's plea for continued relevance post Cold War, when its original missions disappeared. It is the undersea equivalent of the Zumwalt's main guns (i.e. overpriced capability that can be better performed via aircrafts).

I should also note the original Tomahawk and the P-700/800 in the Cold War era were nuclear tipped and had a very different cost calculus to conventional weapons. Nuclear tipped SSG could make a lot of sense for North Korea, Pakistan or Israel.

Sub-based land attacks are too expensive and as you said achieving large salvos is impossible. But I think China will need sub-based cruise missile capability because of active sonar performance. If they are really getting that good, an only-torpedo submarine may become an escort ship hunter rather than a carrier hunter. If you have that capability land-attack capability is just a modification. It may have some uses like bombing the US bases in CONUS. Other than that pretty useless indeed. Cruise missiles in general are very good for surprise attacks that can cripple a small military in a short time. Combining them with subs improves that. And I think that's why the US liked it.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If those submarine launched missiles were launched in isolation, yes.
However, they would be part of a comprehensive first strike alongside long range land based strike systems (IRBMs, HGVs, bombers with stand off missiles), naval surface strike systems (carrier based strike and surface combatants with LACMs/AShBMs/HGVs).
Not to mention they would have EW/ECM support.


I disagree, I believe that the major reason why submarine launched weapons can be complementary to land based and naval surface strike systems, is because submarine launched weapons can be deployed much closer to the target in a manner that the enemy cannot easily detect, and in turn enable multi-axis and multi-distance first wave strikes in conjunction with land and naval surface strike systems.

The inability to be immediately replenished is fine, because their land attack or anti-surface warload would be intended for contributing to a first wave strike before retreating and conducting undersea warfare missions. They would not be expected to carry out an entire strike campaign by themselves, heck they wouldn't even be expected to carry out an entire first wave strike by themselves, perhaps only 25% of the first wave at most, if not less. However, by being able to be launched closer to the enemy and in other directions outside of the major axis of attack, it can augment the effectiveness of the overall first wave strike mission.


I disagree with BoraTas argument, and I think the utility of a large warload of submarine launched long range land attack/anti ship weapons deployed from acoustically stealthy and technologically competitive nuclear submarines cannot be understated, when viewed in context of an overall air-naval-missile campaign.

(In terms of using SSNs as special forces insertion, I do agree that it is a much more niche capability and relatively unimportant)

Very debatable. China will not have an opportunity to make such a first strike unless it becomes the aggressor against Japan or the USA. If they decide to intervene they will prepare for Chinese missile strikes. Pre-positioned subs cannot achieve anything extra after that point. Cruise missiles do not get detected until they are very close to their target because of their flight altitude. And modern air defense systems provide 360 degree coverage as standard. I don't see any advantage here again.
Combining sub operations with other assets is hard too. Another trend that was working against subs in the last 30 years was networking. Subs couldn't benefit much from it because they can hardly communicate. Subs are still lone wolves in 2022.
Where the sub based land attack capability shines is strikes in distant regions where your airpower can not reach.
For China, these would be 50 US states and the Panama canal.

As I said, I think the 09V needs a lot of VLS but for anti-ship missions foremost.

 

[Blitzo]

Very debatable. China will not have an opportunity to make such a first strike unless it becomes the aggressor against Japan or the USA. If they decide to intervene they will prepare for Chinese missile strikes. Pre-positioned subs cannot achieve anything extra after that point. Cruise missiles do not get detected until they are very close to their target because of their flight altitude. And modern air defense systems provide 360 degree coverage as standard. I don't see any advantage here again.
Combining sub operations with other assets is hard too. Another trend that was working against subs in the last 30 years was networking. Subs couldn't benefit much from it because they can hardly communicate. Subs are still lone wolves in 2022.

I said "first wave strike" not "first strike". I don't expect China to be firing the first shot in a surprise attack.

Prepositioned SSNs can absolutely still be effective as part of a multi-domain/joint strike mission even after US preparation. The effectiveness of defensive preparation depends on the offensive power that is employed against it.

Modern air defenses can provide 360 degree coverage, but that is either at greater procurement cost and planning, or by reducing their ability to handle targets from a single direction, or both. In essence, it forces the enemy to plan for multi-axis attacks and expend resources to defend against it.
When a large saturation attack is combined with a multi-axis attack, where incoming weapons are of a variety of speeds, flight profiles, and payloads, that will greatly increase the likelihood of success.

Where the sub based land attack capability shines is strikes in distant regions where your airpower can not reach.
For China, these would be 50 US states and the Panama canal.

Submarine based land attack capability can be useful in those roles yes, but I believe they can also be useful in large scale conventional land attack missions in conjunction with extensive land based and surface naval based strike systems.

As I said, I think the 09V needs a lot of VLS but for anti-ship missions foremost.

I have nothing against 09Vs using VLS for anti ship missions, but that would actually place more demands on the ability to network with your SSNs, compared to conducting land attack.

 

[Jason_]

The inability to be replenished is more than made up for by the fact that they can be prepositioned much closer to their targets for long durations and enable multi-axis attacks, and that they would be intended to be part of a first wave strike.

If those submarine launched missiles were launched in isolation, yes.
However, they would be part of a comprehensive first strike alongside long range land based strike systems (IRBMs, HGVs, bombers with stand off missiles), naval surface strike systems (carrier based strike and surface combatants with LACMs/AShBMs/HGVs).
Not to mention they would have EW/ECM support.

I disagree, I believe that the major reason why submarine launched weapons can be complementary to land based and naval surface strike systems, is because submarine launched weapons can be deployed much closer to the target in a manner that the enemy cannot easily detect, and in turn enable multi-axis and multi-distance first wave strikes in conjunction with land and naval surface strike systems.

Can't the same capabilities (closeness to target, multi-axis attack, EW/ECM support) be more adequately achieved by stealth VLO bombers and air launched ballistic missiles?

The inability to be immediately replenished is fine, because their land attack or anti-surface warload would be intended for contributing to a first wave strike before retreating and conducting undersea warfare missions. They would not be expected to carry out an entire strike campaign by themselves, heck they wouldn't even be expected to carry out an entire first wave strike by themselves, perhaps only 25% of the first wave at most, if not less. However, by being able to be launched closer to the enemy and in other directions outside of the major axis of attack, it can augment the effectiveness of the overall first wave strike mission.

I disagree with BoraTas argument, and I think the utility of a large warload of submarine launched long range land attack/anti ship weapons deployed from acoustically stealthy and technologically competitive nuclear submarines cannot be understated, when viewed in context of an overall air-naval-missile campaign.

I think we have very different assumptions about the cost of putting VLS tubes on submarines. From I am able to find,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. That is $18M per Tomahawk (ignoring the acoustics and hydrodynamic drag implications for the SSN itself). I can't imagine how this is preferable to additional bombers which would be just as survivable and easily forward positioned when launching standoff missiles as submarines.

Sub-based land attacks are too expensive and as you said achieving large salvos is impossible. But I think China will need sub-based cruise missile capability because of active sonar performance. If they are really getting that good, an only-torpedo submarine may become an escort ship hunter rather than a carrier hunter.

The solution to this would be bigger and longer ranged torpedos. The Soviets got the 650mm tubes and Seawolf got 660mm tubes before the end of the Cold War put an end to that. The next step after this would be to put torpedos on UUVs or have kamikaze long endurance UUV. And Russians claim their Poseidon nuclear powered super torpedo has an anti-carrier role as well.

This is a CG for the A26, Sweden's replacement for the Gotland.

 

[SEAD]

Can't the same capabilities (closeness to target, multi-axis attack, EW/ECM support) be more adequately achieved by stealth VLO bombers and air launched ballistic missiles?

Perhaps because they cannot reach San Diego and Norfolk. A dozen of silent enough SSNs with good enough HGV/HCM can put the whole USN surface fleet in danger no matter how far they step back(which is USN’s main tactic to protect CVNs from being attacked by AShBM at the beginning of war).

 

[SEAD]

Perhaps because they cannot reach San Diego and Norfolk. A dozen of silent enough SSNs with good enough HGV/HCM can put the whole USN surface fleet in danger no matter how far they step back(which is USN’s main tactic to protect CVNs from being attacked by AShBM at the beginning of war).

Following this analysis, 095 must have high enough silent running speed and mainly deployed far away from China coast. So more like Seawolf than Virginia IMO.

 

[PapaOsama]

Perhaps because they cannot reach San Diego and Norfolk. A dozen of silent enough SSNs with good enough HGV/HCM can put the whole USN surface fleet in danger no matter how far they step back(which is USN’s main tactic to protect CVNs from being attacked by AShBM at the beginning of war).

It feels like you're trying to recreate Pearl Harbor with SSGNs.

 

[SEAD]

It feels like you're trying to recreate Pearl Harbor with SSGNs.

Any ‘first wave of strike’ from PLA after 2025 may cause much larger damage than Pearl Harbor, even without any SSN.

I don’t know if it’s a common accepted assumption(but at least many think tanks and officers agree with the following idea), when I was simulating Taiwan scenario, it seems the best time for US intervention is when the amphibious fleet running in the middle of strait. In this case, US surface fleet should be deployed far away from China coast to prevent AShBM while SSNs and bombers attacking amphibious ships. CVNs would appear in the battle zone only after degrading Chinese supporting systems of AShBM.

If PLAN has Seawolf-like SSNs, US surface fleet may become a kind of hostage. It’s a good way to deter US strike to protect their amphibious fleet.

 

[externallisting]

It feels like you're trying to recreate Pearl Harbor with SSGNs.

Outside the deterrence aspect, I've always thought it stupid to add lacm type capabilities to subs via vls. Doesn't it defeat the idea of a stealthy platform when you start launching things off it? Iirc they added that capability to US subs because they needed something to do, much like the USMC was trying to find itself a role in iraqistan post invasion.

Any ‘first wave of strike’ from PLA after 2025 may cause much larger damage than Pearl Harbor, even without any SSN.

I don’t know if it’s a common accepted assumption(but at least many think tanks and officers agree with the following idea), when I was simulating Taiwan scenario, it seems the best time for US intervention is when the amphibious fleet running in the middle of strait. In this case, US surface fleet should be deployed far away from China coast to prevent AShBM while SSNs and bombers attacking amphibious ships. CVNs would appear in the battle zone only after degrading Chinese supporting systems of AShBM.

If PLAN has Seawolf-like SSNs, US surface fleet may become a kind of hostage. It’s a good way to deter US strike to protect their amphibious fleet.

Think you better go to the tw thread or better yet not post about such scenarios and focus on the topic at hand

 

[SEAD]

Think you better go to the tw thread or better yet not post about such scenarios and focus on the topic at hand

Discussion about a weapon without background scenarios is nothing but spherical chickens in a vacuum. Every single weapon is designed to work in some given scenarios.

 

[Andy1974]

I think the 095 will be built in many different versions, call it 095A, B, C, D for example,

First version may be torpedo tubes only, a reduced complexity version that validates hull, propulsion, sensors.
Next version may add VLS, hopefully a submarine version of the surface fleets UVLS system.
Next version may add advanced submarine technology missing from earlier versions.
Other versions might experiment with different hulk forms and tail configurations, even propulsion systems.

With this planned and expected from the very beginning we may see a much more varied fleet than many expect.

I also hope they have less lines in the new facilities dedicated for mass submarine production and more for experimenting and unique builds.