Chinese submarines thread

[BLUEJACKET]

Re: Chinese sub thread

Even if SSKs can successfuly escort & defend SSBNs, once they reach their deterrance patrol areas they'll have to detach from that task, in order to minimize chance of both of them being detected, plus their endurance isn't adequate for long submerged patrols. They could rotate SSKs in and out, but it will be defeating their purpose as well, IMHO. The best bet is to arm bigger AIP equiped SSKs (that aren't even in PLAN's inventry), or SSNs/SSGNs with a few IR SLBMs/SLCMs and deploy them in range of their potential targets for the 2nd strike capability- but the PRC doesn't have enough of those yet to cover CONUS and do other missions closer to home. Apparently they don't feel the need for it- their main concern is Taiwan, Japan and India.

 

[Riverman]

Re: Chinese sub thread

Ok, does anyone know how many Songs that has been built?

I`m finding numbers from 8-12.

 

[IDonT]

Re: new Richard Fisher article

Just some thoughts, the article talks abt USSR adopting the bastions solution because of fear of US SSNs, but there's no mention of how USSR used SSKs.
As we know, PLAN puts a lot of emphasis on SSKs.
I assume SSKs are in general quieter than SSNs. How true is this with respect to US SSNs like Seawolf ? Do US SSNs normally hunt alone without protection from surface or aerial ASW assets ?
Plenty has been talked abt SSKs against carriers, and the conclusion, for me at least, is that SSKs are not meant to find or chase carriers in the open seas.
But what if SSKs are used to escort PLAN SSBNs thru shallow waters on their way to deep sea ?
The US SSNs, surface & aerial ASW assets will have to COME to the PLAN SSBNs right ? running into the SSKs pack.
The US surface ASWs, with or without air support from carriers, will face PLAN & land based PLAF.
I think too little has been talked abt a pack of SSKs vs US SSNs.

SSN's are inherently much more capable than the best SSKs.

1) A state of the art SSK has a maximum endurance of about 400km at about 4 knots on its batteries. You don't get anywhere at 4 knots and you certainly are not going to be very successful chasing your quarry at that speed. You also do not typically run your batteries 95% flat before a recharge. Rather you tend to do it at conventient times when you don't think there is anyone around to find and kill you. When you surface to run your diesels you have very little stealthy on your side. You are noisy and at periscope depth. In fact, every other thing aside, running fast and near the surface is doubly bad acoustically because your screw cavitate like hell near the surface whereas at depth the water pressures migates the formation of vaccum pockets on the trailing edged of your screw reducing or eliminating cavitation. Radars can find your snorkel, SSNs and ASW ships can hear your from a long way off and aircrafts can literally see you at that depth. You are basically exposing yourself!

(2) There is always the option of AIPs. The problem is that firstly AIPs, probably with exception of the Fuel Cell, is not as silent as motors on batteries. The sterling is a reciprocating piston engine running of separately heated working gas. The Close cycle diesel is exactly that a diesel engine running on diesel fuel, oxygen and part of its recycled exhaust. The MESMA is a steam turbine running on the products of alcohol-oxygen combustion. They all make more noise than a battery does and they all have exhausts to get rid of. The worst thing howeveris that power density is in usually horrible enough that cruise speed on AIP is no better than 5-6 knots and there is every little power left over to recharge the batteries in a timely manner. The Fuel Cell which is the quietest AIP setup also happens to have the worst energy density by a long shot... large PEM stacks, large LOX tanks and huge LH2 tanks, all for less energy yield than the combustion type AIPs. In the end what it means is that AIP boats usually transit or maneuver tactically by running their diesels and running on the surface or at snorkel depth to get close to their quary. In a real war with a massive navy like the USN, a lot of them will be picked off while doing this by ASW aircraft and a forward screen of SSNs.

(3) The other fallacy is that batteries and electric motor equals total silence. This is nonsense. In fact, it is frequently not flow noise and propeller noise which shows up most prominently on a sonar system when an SSK is picked up. It is frequently the inverter buzz from the switching inverters which the SSK uses to convert its DC battery power to AC current to run its motors with. Just about all high power motors are AC induction motors.

(4) The last thing when cosidering using diesels against a major surface action group is that all the silencing advantage is useless against active sonar which is routinely employed on ASW helos and once they catch a glimpse of you, an SSK has neither the speed on the endurance to slip away. Once found you are usually dead meat.

 

[Gollevainen]

Re: new Richard Fisher article

Just some thoughts, the article talks abt USSR adopting the bastions solution because of fear of US SSNs, but there's no mention of how USSR used SSKs.
.

Soviets used SSKs simply becouse they were always considered as back ups for highly unrealible (first generations) nuclear boats, and in the first generation, there were rough analongs to all nuclear models (Ballistic, cruise missile, ASW) in diesels as well. After the nuclear boats got more relible, and the missiles grew larger and demanded more volume, the missile diesels were dropped, but the SSK remained, mostly to statisfy the needs of the smaller seas, Baltic and Black Sea as well as export customers needs.
Tango class was surfaced as the SS-N-15 small size enabled it to be exploided in vessels that wouldn't normally be sizeble enough for it predecessors.
Kilo in other hand was desinged outset by export orders in mind as well as retain sizeble diesel 'reserve' for the VMF itself.

 

[speculator]

Re: new Richard Fisher article

Just some thoughts, the article talks abt USSR adopting the bastions solution because of fear of US SSNs, but there's no mention of how USSR used SSKs.
As we know, PLAN puts a lot of emphasis on SSKs.
I assume SSKs are in general quieter than SSNs. How true is this with respect to US SSNs like Seawolf ? Do US SSNs normally hunt alone without protection from surface or aerial ASW assets ?
Plenty has been talked abt SSKs against carriers, and the conclusion, for me at least, is that SSKs are not meant to find or chase carriers in the open seas.
But what if SSKs are used to escort PLAN SSBNs thru shallow waters on their way to deep sea ?
The US SSNs, surface & aerial ASW assets will have to COME to the PLAN SSBNs right ? running into the SSKs pack.
The US surface ASWs, with or without air support from carriers, will face PLAN & land based PLAF.
I think too little has been talked abt a pack of SSKs vs US SSNs.

1. IMHO, the main reason that china fields mostly ssk's is because SSN's are very costly to run and maintain, and the technology to build ssk's are far simpler than the technology for nuclear subs.
2. US subs (atleast attack subs) do operate mostly alone, so chance of detection is minimalised and also there is usually not much need for a second sub.
3. i'm not so sure about this but, aren't ssk's used to loiter around a selected area/route but not to chase other vessels?
4. SSNs could just be as/if not more quite as SSK's running on batteries, but SSN's are far more capable than SSK's underwater (speed, endurance). SSK's without AIP have to recharge their batteries once in a while, which when a SSK is most vunerable.

 

[Pointblank]

Re: Chinese sub thread

SSK's have the advantage where the Chinese are mainly operating their subs, namely coastal waters. The small size makes detection difficult by MAD, and against active sonar, because a submarine can now hide along the bottom posing as a rock formation. Nuclear subs have the disadvantage in these waters due to their size. However, on open ocean, nuclear subs have the advantage due to their speed and endurance.

 

[speculator]

Re: Chinese sub thread

does anyone remember when the USSR sent 2 foxtrots w/nuclear tipped torpedoes to cuba during the cuban crisis? These subs where quickly discovered by the USN and where forced to surface by granades dropped into the water.
Why did the USSR send the subs in the first place? and if ssk's can't project power, are pretty much useless against naval ships in the open ocean, have little endurance, then what are the advantages/uses of ssks?

 

[hongkongpride]

Re: Chinese sub thread

Speculator,

While compared to SSNs SSKs are clearly inferior in most aspects, the primary advantages of SSKs over SSNs are cost, maintenance ease and training and for the PRC, expendability. In the PLAN's case you have a serious problem when attacking Taiwan because of the technological and warfighting prowess of the USN. The plan is to hit Taiwan hard and fast using everything in your arsenal-I'm talking LACMS, ALCMS, SLCMS (DH10, Alfa 34E1) the Alfa from SSKs such as Yuan, Song and Kilo Class. Next step is to establish a naval blockade of our 'compatriots' on the 'renegade island' using SSKs in key regional sea lanes around Taiwan-as SSKs are nearly silent when not running, forcing approaching USN CVBGs-the Ronald Reagan, JFK and others to engage in lengthy ASuW warfare to take out the subs-in effect buying time for the PLA and PLAAF to establish air superiority and land on Taiwan proper. Another uses/advantages for PLAN SSKs would be to lay in wait along approaches to Taiwan and human/submarine wave attack the CVBG battle group (10 Ming, 6 Song, 6 Yuan and 2 Kilo) would launch a wave of attacks on the CVBG alongside H-6 Badgers with ALCMS and surface support from the whole of East Sea Fleet-sadly a CVBG only has 2-3 LA class SSN for fleet defense maybe along with another 2-3 independent operating LA/Virginia class-thats 6 SSN vs 20+ SSK with a lot of the East Sea Fleet. China can cheaply build, maintain and train an SSK and crew for about 1/5 the cost of an expensive US SSN such as Virginia. In the long run, China can build more SSK than the USN can becasue USN does not build any more SSKs=(

 

[hongkongpride]

Re: Chinese sub thread

Sorry, just to add some food for thought, SSKs with AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) can extend their underwater staying periods from around 30 days to around 60-a massive increase. So an SSK creeping about coastal tropical waters at 6knts is just about undetectable by conventional sonar means-and thats what makes it so attractive to the PLAN whom I bet are now fitting their new YUAn class SSks with AIP.



*************************************************************************************************************

Country bashing and political remarks are not permitted. Please read the forum rules.

bd popeye super moderator

 

[Schumacher]

Re: new Richard Fisher article

SSN's are inherently much more capable than the best SSKs.

1) A state of the art SSK has a maximum endurance of about 400km at about 4 knots on its batteries. You don't get anywhere at 4 knots and you certainly are not going to be very successful chasing your quarry at that speed. You also do not typically run your batteries 95% flat before a recharge. Rather you tend to do it at conventient times when you don't think there is anyone around to find and kill you. When you surface to run your diesels you have very little stealthy on your side. You are noisy and at periscope depth. In fact, every other thing aside, running fast and near the surface is doubly bad acoustically because your screw cavitate like hell near the surface whereas at depth the water pressures migates the formation of vaccum pockets on the trailing edged of your screw reducing or eliminating cavitation. Radars can find your snorkel, SSNs and ASW ships can hear your from a long way off and aircrafts can literally see you at that depth. You are basically exposing yourself!.............

Agree SSNs are faster & have more endurance than SSKs. Using SSKs to hunt or chase SSNs or carriers in open sea is a bad idea,
But I was thinking abt the viability of using SSKs to escort PLAN SSBNs thru shallow waters to where they can launch their BMs, in order to avoid being restricted to the bastions solution, as mentioned in the Fischer article, due to fear of US SSNs.
In such a scenario, US SSNs will have to come to the PLAN SSBN & her SSKs escorts, instead of the SSKs chasing after the SSNs, which as I agree is bad idea.
I'm real interested in a SSKs pack vs one or two SSNs in such a scenario. Would SSNs' superior speed & endurance be decisive in such an encounter ? Another thing is, assuming US SSNs have less surface & aerial ASWs support compared to carriers, the SSKs may not be on as much a kamikaze mission as they would be attacking carriers.
Of course, as Bluejacket mentioned, the ideal escorts for SSBNs are other SSNs which have the speed & endurance to keep up. So would be nice to get more info abt the progress of PLAN's SSNs. However, if PLAN SSBNs don't have to go too far to be able to launch BMs, SSKs may be able to provide adequate escort.