Chinese submarines thread

[Schumacher]

Re: new Richard Fisher article

........
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?
...........

Totally agree. In the scenario I described, the SSKs pack will loiter around the SSBNs area/route & WAIT for the opposing SSN on her SSBNs hunt to come.
PLAN is obviously putting much emphasis on SSKs, I'm just thinking if this one of thier intended uses.

 

[IDonT]

Re: new Richard Fisher article

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.

Hiding an SSBN in the littorals is typically a bad idea. It is too big to maneuver effectively in the shallows, unlike the smaller SSK's. It needs deeper water. Further, all the USN sub has to do is find the SSBN, fire torpedoes, then travel at flank speed. The escorting SSK's will not be able to retaliate.

Attacking a carrier group with SSK's is very difficult. Your sub has to be on the the path of the carrier itself because it can't keep up. A CSG commander typically has an anti-sub screen on the most likely threat axis composed of at least 2 destroyers with one of them at least 1 LAMPS capable. The moment the SSK is localized, put a 5 mile radius search and saturate the area with active sonar then drop torpedoes from sea hawks.

 

[Pointblank]

Re: new Richard Fisher article

Hiding an SSBN in the littorals is typically a bad idea. It is too big to maneuver effectively in the shallows, unlike the smaller SSK's. It needs deeper water. Further, all the USN sub has to do is find the SSBN, fire torpedoes, then travel at flank speed. The escorting SSK's will not be able to retaliate.

Attacking a carrier group with SSK's is very difficult. Your sub has to be on the the path of the carrier itself because it can't keep up. A CSG commander typically has an anti-sub screen on the most likely threat axis composed of at least 2 destroyers with one of them at least 1 LAMPS capable. The moment the SSK is localized, put a 5 mile radius search and saturate the area with active sonar then drop torpedoes from sea hawks.

Actually, trying to find and locate the SSK in littoral waters when you know one is around can be a challenge. A current sonar operator with HMCS Vancouver told me that when he went against HMCS Victoria off the West Coast of Canada, they had tons of issues trying to find the submarine because they had trouble figuring out if a sonar echo was the submarine or a rock formation, and he had help from the onboard Sea King helo and a CP-140 Aurora ASW patrol plane, and on top of that, his sonar set was top of the line, one of the best sets in Western navies. In contrast, when he went against an American LA boat, he found it with much less difficulty, due to the increased noise and size of SSN's.

 

[Schumacher]

Re: new Richard Fisher article

Hiding an SSBN in the littorals is typically a bad idea. It is too big to maneuver effectively in the shallows, unlike the smaller SSK's. It needs deeper water. Further, all the USN sub has to do is find the SSBN, fire torpedoes, then travel at flank speed. The escorting SSK's will not be able to retaliate. ......

Maybe not limited to littorals, the SSBN may go to deep water with her SSKs escort. Yes, the SSN will still be able to detect the SSBN, with or without escort. But the key is will the escorting SSKs nearby be able to see the attacking SSN first ?
I make the general assumptions that SSKs are quieter than SSNs even in deep water, and that USN SSNs usually hunt alone without surface or aerial ASW support.
That's why I asked early on if these assumptions are valid, especially with the latest USN SSNs.

 

[speculator]

Re: Chinese sub thread

The idea of ssk's escorting ssbn's is flawed. because an ssk has an average underwater speed of about 4 knots, and even if the batterys are everlasting, it will only be able to go @175 km in 1 day, far less than what is needed to strike the US.

 

[BLUEJACKET]

Re: Chinese sub thread

Wrong. An SSBN doesn't need to go faster than SSK when transiting to the launch/patrol area or at actual launching. Going faster produces more noise!

 

[IDonT]

Re: new Richard Fisher article

Maybe not limited to littorals, the SSBN may go to deep water with her SSKs escort. Yes, the SSN will still be able to detect the SSBN, with or without escort. But the key is will the escorting SSKs nearby be able to see the attacking SSN first ?
I make the general assumptions that SSKs are quieter than SSNs even in deep water, and that USN SSNs usually hunt alone without surface or aerial ASW support.
That's why I asked early on if these assumptions are valid, especially with the latest USN SSNs.

You are assuming that the SSK's won't be detected themselves. SSK's still need to recharge their batteries, even the AIP ones. Prudence suggest that an SSK skipper would not used up his AIP fuel unless he has too. So for normal cruising/guarding he would use his batteries then go to periscope depth and recharge. PLAN could use two SSK's as guardians, alternating patrol and charging.

A good SSN commander would know this though. Within a week of stalking the SSBN, he would know the situation. All he has to do is wait for one sub to charge, get a firing solution then travel at flank speed away. Come back the next day to get the other one. The SSBN could try to make a run for it, it does so with out its escort.

In deep water, SSK's are in trouble.

 

[Schumacher]

Re: new Richard Fisher article

You are assuming that the SSK's won't be detected themselves. SSK's still need to recharge their batteries, even the AIP ones. Prudence suggest that an SSK skipper would not used up his AIP fuel unless he has too. So for normal cruising/guarding he would use his batteries then go to periscope depth and recharge. PLAN could use two SSK's as guardians, alternating patrol and charging.

A good SSN commander would know this though. Within a week of stalking the SSBN, he would know the situation. All he has to do is wait for one sub to charge, get a firing solution then travel at flank speed away. Come back the next day to get the other one. The SSBN could try to make a run for it, it does so with out its escort.

In deep water, SSK's are in trouble.

That's why I asked for anyone with any knowledge abt the stealthiness of SSKs vs modern USN SSNs.
What U said are correct, based on what is widely known abt the main weakness of SSKs of needing to recharge. And I base my thinking on what is generally accepted as bigger, nuclear subs being noisier than smaller, battery charged SSKs. Of course, I again ask if this is true with modern USN SSNs.

What U said is reasonable, ie the SSN will likely wait for the most vulnerable time of the SSK, during recharging, to attack. Some ways to overcome this might be having another SSK to rotate in the patrol while another leaves to another less vulnerable position to recharge. I don't think PLAN SSBNs launch areas are that far from coast. Anyway, if the presence of SSKs forces the SSN to have to wait, for a week or two ?, to attack, then I think it would have achieved much of the aim to ensure the survivability of the SSBN.

Another thing is I think SSBNs are most vulnerable when on way to their deep water launch areas. Once there, they're less in danger. So the SSKs escort is not needed all the time. I again assume, PLAN SSBN launch areas are not that far, eventhough, as stated in the Fisher article, their ports don't provide direct access to those areas.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Re: Chinese sub thread

Seem that the new 094 SSBN is still alive and doing well :china: contrary to what some people say here as a failure. This come from ONI(naval intelligence)

China ballistic missile submarine force growing: US navy

WASHINGTON, March 2 (AFP) Mar 02, 2007
China is conducting sea trials of the first of five new nuclear-powered submarines armed with longer-range ballistic missiles, according to a US naval intelligence report made public Friday.
The sea trials are part of a broader push by China to check US naval power in the western Pacific with a more modern fleet of nuclear-powered ballistic missile and attack submarines, the Office of Naval Intelligence said.

The first of the new nuclear ballistic missile submarines, designated the Type 094 SSBN, could begin operating as early as 2008, it said.

The submarine "will provide China with a modern and robust sea-based nuclear deterrent force," the ONI reported.

It will be equipped with the JL-2 sea-launched ballistic missile with range of 8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles), a big gain over China's only other ballistic missile submarine.

The XIA SSBN, a 24-year-old nuclear powered vessel, is armed with the JL-1 missile, which has a range of only 1,7770 kilometers (1,000 miles).

The ONI said China probably will build five of the new ballistic missile submarines "in order to provide more redundancy and capacity for a near-continuous at-sea SSBN presence."

"Construction and sea trials of the Type 094 program are ongoing," it said.

The unclassified ONI report, which was obtained by AFP and has a question-and-answer format, was first reported by Sea Power magazine, then picked up by the Washington Times.

It said China also is concluding sea trials of a new Type 093 nuclear powered attack submarine that is expected to be quieter and armed with more advanced weaponry than its predecessor, the HAN SSN class submarines.

It will have anti-ship cruise missiles and more modern torpedoes than the HAN, the report said.

"China has built these features into the Type 093 in an effort to improve the PLA(N)'s (Peoples Liberation Army Navy) to conduct anti-surface warfare at greater ranges from the Chinese coast than its diesel submarine force offers," it said.

The report said the China's navy currently has about 55 attacks submarines, most of them diesel electric.





All rights reserved. © 2005 Agence France-Presse

 

[hongkongpride]

Re: Chinese sub thread

This post has been cut to avoid a potential flame war,

refer to below post.