Chinese submarines thread

[Pointblank]

Re: Chinese sub thread

Recently, I have read some articles mentioning the US for the first time is sending its "SeaWolf" SSN subs and visit South Korea. I think this is potential threat to PLAN's new SSN like 093 and 094.
I am not too familiar /w submarine warfares. I know the SeaWolf has substantial advantage over 093 and 094 but if those PLAN subs stay close enough in the littoral waters, would that neutralize the advanatge of "SeaWolf"?
Also in the real warfares, if the Seawolf hunt down one of those PLAN SSN and blew it up, would that contaminate the ocean /w radioactive materials residue and fallout?

1. Not really. USN Seawolf and Virgina class subs are extremely capable in littoral waters.
2. Nope. We already had many nuclear subs go boom for some reason in the past from both the US and Soviets. What happens is that the reactor sinks to to the bottom of the ocean.

 

[lilzz]

Re: Chinese sub thread

1. Not really. USN Seawolf and Virgina class subs are extremely capable in littoral waters.

This seems to contradict what I read in an article

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Seawolf's Missions and Capabilities Are Not in Line with the Navy's Current Needs

Seawolf is a weapons platform that will be performing missions and facing threats it was not designed for. Seawolf was conceived and designed during the Cold War for deep water ("blue") confrontations with the Soviet Navy.
The Navy's ...From the Sea White Paper recognizes that the strategic landscape in the post-Cold war era has changed, and that the Navy will be increasingly involved in operations in the littoral or "near land" areas of the world, like the Persian Gulf. The littoral is characterized by a number of unique challenges: shallow, congested waterways, well-known to the adversary; mines; coastal missile and artillery batteries; sea-skimming cruise missiles; and tactical ballistic missiles. As ...From the Sea states, these littoral threats "tax the capabilities of our current systems and force structure. Mastery of the littoral should not be presumed. It does not derive directly from command of the seas."

 

[Infra_Man99]

Re: Chinese sub thread

1. Not really. USN Seawolf and Virgina class subs are extremely capable in littoral waters.
2. Nope. We already had many nuclear subs go boom for some reason in the past from both the US and Soviets. What happens is that the reactor sinks to to the bottom of the ocean.

The Seawolf is not extremely capable in littoral waters. It is capable, but definitely NOT EXTREMELY capable. For littoral waters, modern diesel submarines are clearly superior than the Seawolf (and Los Angeles class subs). The US navy, Russian navy, European navy, and Chinese navy have all stated or demonstrated this. The Seawolf is for deep ocean. The Seawolf class is limited to ~3 subs (I believe), because the US navy wants more littoral capability, but the Seawolf cannot meet these needs. Thus, the Virginia class was created to be a cost-effective version of the Seawolf with much better littoral capabilities. How much better is the Virginia vis-a-vis Seawolf and diesels? I don't know, but hopefully someone else does.

Nuclear-powered ships are always a threat to the environment when they sink or are destroyed. The nuclear reactor's degree of damage determines how big of a threat the sunken nuclear reactor is to the environment. The US military may say the threat is overrated, but in the past they said the same thing about low-tech mines, and look how dangerous low-tech mines are, even after years of neglect. Then look at how the US energy industry, energy department, and military takes lots of expensive precautions when storing radioactive materials and retiring nuclear-powered ships. Nuclear reactors and anything nuclear is always a BIG danger to the environment if their storage is damaged or their storage is poorly designed and constructed.

I think China is best off designing and building diesel subs for littoral warfare and nuclear subs for deep-sea warfare to create an extremely capable sub fleet. China and other major nations should make sure their nuclear ships have safety features to protect the world's environment from sunken/damaged nuclear ships. China and other nations should also work together to temporarily insulate sunken nuclear ships until they can be recovered for proper disposal. Nuclear waste has the potential to damage the environment for many decades, and the damage can be very extensive if the nuclear waste spreads through rivers, seas, and oceans.

 

[crobato]

Re: Chinese sub thread

Recently, I have read some articles mentioning the US for the first time is sending its "SeaWolf" SSN subs and visit South Korea. I think this is potential threat to PLAN's new SSN like 093 and 094.
I am not too familiar /w submarine warfares. I know the SeaWolf has substantial advantage over 093 and 094 but if those PLAN subs stay close enough in the littoral waters, would that neutralize the advanatge of "SeaWolf"?
Also in the real warfares, if the Seawolf hunt down one of those PLAN SSN and blew it up, would that contaminate the ocean /w radioactive materials residue and fallout?

The Seawolf aint best for littorals, but neither are the 093 and 094 too. So the littorals isn't going to be an advantage for the 093 and 094 unless they are shadowed by Songs, Kilos and Yuans. In my opinion, diesel sub program is more important for China now, and dollar to dollar, pound to pound, more effective than nuclear sub program. But then PLAN submarine faction may have their own Rickovers (high priests religiously advocating nuclear sub programs).

Destroying a nuclear sub in war has the potential for contamination yes. Even if the nuclear reactor sinks to the bottom of the ocean, the contamination will work up the ocean food chain---the bottom ocean layers provide the nutrition for life in the upper layers.

 

[tphuang]

Re: Chinese sub thread

The Seawolf is not extremely capable in littoral waters. It is capable, but definitely NOT EXTREMELY capable. For littoral waters, modern diesel submarines are clearly superior than the Seawolf (and Los Angeles class subs). The US navy, Russian navy, European navy, and Chinese navy have all stated or demonstrated this. The Seawolf is for deep ocean. The Seawolf class is limited to ~3 subs (I believe), because the US navy wants more littoral capability, but the Seawolf cannot meet these needs. Thus, the Virginia class was created to be a cost-effective version of the Seawolf with much better littoral capabilities. How much better is the Virginia vis-a-vis Seawolf and diesels? I don't know, but hopefully someone else does.

Nuclear-powered ships are always a threat to the environment when they sink or are destroyed. The nuclear reactor's degree of damage determines how big of a threat the sunken nuclear reactor is to the environment. The US military may say the threat is overrated, but in the past they said the same thing about low-tech mines, and look how dangerous low-tech mines are, even after years of neglect. Then look at how the US energy industry, energy department, and military takes lots of expensive precautions when storing radioactive materials and retiring nuclear-powered ships. Nuclear reactors and anything nuclear is always a BIG danger to the environment if their storage is damaged or their storage is poorly designed and constructed.

I think China is best off designing and building diesel subs for littoral warfare and nuclear subs for deep-sea warfare to create an extremely capable sub fleet. China and other major nations should make sure their nuclear ships have safety features to protect the world's environment from sunken/damaged nuclear ships. China and other nations should also work together to temporarily insulate sunken nuclear ships until they can be recovered for proper disposal. Nuclear waste has the potential to damage the environment for many decades, and the damage can be very extensive if the nuclear waste spreads through rivers, seas, and oceans.

You do realize that Seawolf is quieter traveling at 25 knots than LA class is at standstill, right? A diesel sub can never match the speed, diving depth, electronic, sonar of Seawolf class. Large SSN simply has more space for sonar and electronics that can process sonar returns. Diesel subs can only stay effective by ambushing and such.

 

[Infra_Man99]

Re: Chinese sub thread

TPHuang:

Are you saying that China should go all nuclear for littoral and deep-sea submarines? If so, why shouldn't China use diesel subs for littoral warfare and nuclear subs for deep-sea warfare?

By the way, the US navy has admitted many times that the Seawolf is inadequate for the US navy's littoral combat needs, which is why the US quickly shifted to the Virginia. Even with its Virginia, the US military for the Pacific Coast has been inviting Europe's and Latin America's diesel subs to conduct sub-hunting training with the US navy, even though the US has Virginia subs. Doesn't this imply that diesels can challenge Virginia subs in littoral warfare (at least in quietness)? Also, because the US navy did this training in the Pacific Ocean, this implies the US navy was aiming this training at China's diesel subs. All this POSSIBLY means diesel subs are amongst the best subs for littoral warfare.

I still think China should use diesel for littoral warfare, and nuclear for deep-sea warfare.

 

[tphuang]

Re: Chinese sub thread

TPHuang:

Are you saying that China should go all nuclear for littoral and deep-sea submarines? If so, why shouldn't China use diesel subs for littoral warfare and nuclear subs for deep-sea warfare?

The US military for the Pacific Coast has been inviting Europe's and Latin America's diesel subs to conduct sub-hunting training with the US navy, even though the US has Virginia subs. Doesn't this imply that diesels can challenge Virginia subs in littoral warfare (at least in quietness)? Also, because the US navy did this training in the Pacific Ocean, this implies the US navy was aiming this training at China's diesel subs. All this POSSIBLY means diesel subs are amongst the best subs for littoral warfare.

I still think China should use diesel for littoral warfare, and nuclear for deep-sea warfare.

i'm saying that assertions that diesels subs are better than seawolf in littoral warfare is ridiculous. Having said that, you can get x number of advanced diesel subs for 1 seawolf. Diesel and nuclear subs have different roles. Don't think of it as Yuan vs Virginia or Kilo vs seawolf. You use diesel because it's cheap and can be built quickly. It can do the ambush role better than an equivalent generation nuclear sub like 093 and more cheaply

 

[Infra_Man99]

Re: Chinese sub thread

I don't think its ridiculous to say that diesels can challenge the Seawolf in littoral warfare. This is assuming the obvious, that the diesel is of the modern type, and not outdated.

If the Seawolf and Virginia were more capable than modern diesels in littoral warfare, then the US Pacific fleet would NOT have requested sub-hunting training with diesel subs from Europe and Latin America. The US Pacific fleet would have just conducted sub-hunting training with its own Seawolf and Virginia subs. But that did not happen, instead, the US Pacific fleet has been training with European and Latin American diesel subs during the past few years. That says a lot about diesel subs.

Diesel submarines are highly capable in littoral warfare. Of course, outdated diesel subs are no good, and modern diesel subs are excellent, but that is the obvious. If China develops the best diesel subs for littoral warfare and nuclear subs for deep-sea warfare, I think China will have a superby capable sub fleet (better than an all nuclear sub fleet).

Read the recent post by Lilzz to find an article on how small, quiet subs (like diesels) have clear advantages over larger or louder subs (like the Los Angeles and Seawolf) in littoral warfare, plus better environmental safety. There are lots of articles affirming this conclusion. How good is the Virginia for littoral warfare? The US navy says it is a lot better than the Seawolf.

 

[tphuang]

Re: Chinese sub thread

I don't think its ridiculous to say that diesels can challenge the Seawolf in littoral warfare. This is assuming the obvious, that the diesel is of the modern type, and not outdated.

If the Seawolf and Virginia were more capable than modern diesels in littoral warfare, then the US Pacific fleet would NOT have requested sub-hunting training with diesel subs from Europe and Latin America. The US Pacific fleet would have just conducted sub-hunting training with its own Seawolf and Virginia subs. But that did not happen, instead, the US Pacific fleet has been training with European and Latin American diesel subs during the past few years. That says a lot about diesel subs.

Diesel submarines are highly capable in littoral warfare. Of course, outdated diesel subs are no good, and modern diesel subs are excellent, but that is the obvious. If China develops the best diesel subs for littoral warfare and nuclear subs for deep-sea warfare, I think China will have a superby capable sub fleet (better than an all nuclear sub fleet).

Read the recent post by Lilzz to find an article on how small, quiet subs (like diesels) have clear advantages over larger or louder subs (like the Los Angeles and Seawolf) in littoral warfare, plus better environmental safety. There are lots of articles affirming this conclusion. How good is the Virginia for littoral warfare? The US navy says it is a lot better than the Seawolf.

You are misunderstanding the entire point. The goal of having a diesel sub ambushing is to not take down Seawolf, but rather to hide from Seawolf and be at a striking distance from a more expensive surface ship like a carrier. They have different purpose. Seawolf's role is to hunt down these diesel subs. If the previous figures I read were correct, Seawolf is at least at the same order of quietness as the most advanced diesel subs in littoral environment.
And the other thing is that even seawolf is tracked, you still have to be close enough to it to have a chance of scoring a torpedo hit. Whereas for diesel subs, it simply can't escape from modern torpedoes.

 

[Skywatcher]

Re: Chinese sub thread

One can buy more diesel submarines for the price of one nuclear attack boat, which translates into more flexibility, though that comes at the cost of capability since nuclear subs can do more and better.

Having said that, assuming that money was not a limit, would it be ideal to concentrate on building a mix of SSK and SSN, or going entirely nuclear?