Ideal PLAN submarine

For this mental, creative and writing exercise, your mission is project what kind of sub the PLAN should have. You can write about it, you can also draw it. There are three categories should you choose to accept the mission. First, nuclear attack sub, second boomer, and third, diesel attack sub. Another reason for the exercise, is for you to also anticipate what you think the next PLAN subs might be. For the most part, I'm only an amateur and this will be an amateur projection thread. Still I will try to research the topics possible and try to avoid science fiction.

1. Nuclear Attack Sub.

A.) Following current state of the art Western trends, we will see the propulsion method to be pump jet, replacing the asymmetrical propellers you see now. Pump jets allow for even more blades to the propellers than skewed screws, 10 or 12 is possible, compared to the 7 blades. The more blades you have, the more propulsion you get for a slower rate of turn. And the slower the prop turns, the less noise it makes and the greater of margin you have before you get super cavitation. The enclosure duct increases the water velocity further. However, due to drag issues, pump jets don't seem to work well on diesel subs for now; Russians tested pump jets on a Kilo and the results did not prove satisfactory in the long run.

The current state of the art in PLAN subs is asymmetrical screws, which are not only applied to the 093, 094, 039 Song and Yuan class, but also on the 091 Han upgrade. Its a question whether we might see this upgrade on the 092 Xia.

B.) Big is better for a nuclear ocean going sub for many reasons. Greater crew comfort, more munitions and supplies carried for greater endurance. A bigger sub also carries bigger generators and more reserve batteries that can power more sophisticated command centers and active sonars. Active sonars are increasingly important now because quieting measures on subs have advanced to the point, passive measures may not be reliable in the long run. A larger sub also allows for larger passive low frequency flank sonars, and the larger the receptive array is, the longer the range and the lower the frequency you can hear. For the most part we have seen PLAN submarines grow in size; the 093 Shangs are bigger than the 091 Hans.

A larger sub is also a better sound transducer. The larger the hull the more it absorbs and distributes internal sound..

C.) A variety of hull and hole mounted quieting measures. In the years, we have seen the PLAN learn some lessons one by one. They abandoned the long single continuous limber hole line like in the Hans and half of the early Songs, to a disrupted limber hole line like seen in the Shangs and in the definitive Songs. Water passing through a hole has a way of creating a sound and cavitation effects. The longer the line, the greater the sound it creates and the lower the frequency it is made, and the lower the frequency, the longer the sound travels.

But what better way to deal with limber hole noise but to close it entirely like in the Akula class. In addition to this, I suspect---based on some pictures---that the PLAN is also using covers on the limber holes on the upgraded Han and the definitive Songs. Likewise, I may expect that on the 093, 094 and probably the 092 if that is ever upgraded once more.

Other measures are obvious, such as the use of rubber anecholic tiles.

D.) Turbine Electric directly coupled drive single shaft. I would rather have one large turbine rather than two, driving one large generator, rather two smaller ones. The RPM from the electric motors or turbines are reduced with a set of reduction gears to the right speed for the propeller. However this reduction gears (the Xia for example has such a set) make their own noise. The solution is directly couple the turbine to the propeller shaft. One submarine already tried this, the USS Narwhal, with successful results.

But as the steam turbines of nuclear subs still turn the drive shaft mechanically, the alternative is the turbine electric drive, like modern diesel electric submarines. Instead of the turbine driving the shaft, it goes to the generator which drives an electric motor which turns the shaft. The turbine is totally decoupled from the reactor and steam turbine. This means later, you can apply changes to the reactor and turbines, allowing for a modular layout in the sub. Turbine electric systems are seen in French nuclear subs like the Rubis, and it is suggested that the 093 Shang and the 091 upgraded Han may also have this.

The electric motor can be directly shafted to the propeller, like the German Type 209, to reduce further noise.

Historically it is quite interesting that the Hans and the Xia started with a single shaft design right from the beginning, when many Soviet subs use double shaft designs. The less screws and shaft you have, the less sound you make. The Hans and the Xia are noisy in other departments, but not because they chose a single shaft/propeller approach.

E. Hydrodynamic design. This is something the engineers have to work with simulations and water tanks. Suffice to say I would leave it at that. I like to see a sub that makes a better blend between the sail and the hull, which is usually one of the more sore points in hydrodynamic design, and current PLAN designs, including the 041 Yuan, the 093 and 094, don't seem very impressive with it.

F. Diving Planes on the Bow or on the Sail? Some people think that having the planes on the bow seem more advanced, but really there are pros and cons to this issue. Having one arrangement vs. the other arrangement does not make one better.

The Advantage of having the planes on the Bow

- Mainly for ice breaking with the sail. The Russians went to this design for Artic missions, and the US had to respond, changing the diving plane position in the 688 class from the sail to the bow. However, this has little relevance to the PLAN unless China wants to make some claims on the Artic.

- Retractable planes means that the sub have less drag and can reach higher speed.

- Double hulled submarines are slower to submerge, since you have more buoyancy to fill. Thus bow planes can help push the sub under faster.

The Advantage of having the planes on the Sail

- Saves space. Space is premium on the sub, and adding retractable mechanisms for bow planes uses some up.

- Greater maneuverbility. The diving planes is less effected by the wave or water flow from by the bow of the sub.

- Better for flank arrays. The water flow around the planes create a noise by itself and it can interfere with flank mounted arrays. Flank arrays is the main reason why diving planes mounted low on the bow and hull disappeared, relocated to an upper part of the hull or the sail. The farther the planes are from the flank sonar, the better still, so sail mounted planes still have an advantage on this over upper hull mounted planes, unless the latter is made retractable.

I'm 50-50 on these issues, though I don't really see the PLAN need large long Russian style sails with bow mounted planes. Hence they designed the way they do.

G. Double hull vs. Single hull.

This is not really an issue of one that is superior over the other. Both have advantages over the other, which makes this choice another 50-50 also. This aspect of hull design has been one of the trademark distinctions between Soviet and Western sub designs. Though, PLAN subs often adopt Western design traits, they choose the double hull design for their nuclear subs, a design decision that many suspect is Soviet inspired. Interestingly, the diesel electric class went for a single hull design in the successful Song class, but then went to a double hull for the Yuan.

The advantage of Single Hull construction

- The vast majority of Western submarines, including nuclear, use this design for good reason. It is easier to construct especially if you use sectional or a modular process of assembly. It is also easier to maintain, especially for refitting. To be able to sustain greater depths, Western submarines tend to use higher grades of steel over their Soviet counterparts.

- The single hull is faster to dive, and that is life and death for a submarine in war.

- The single hull is easier to quiet. In a double hull, the second hull brings another set of limber or sink holes, which once again, is a noise creation point.

The advantage of Double Hull construction.

- Greater sink buoyancy means that this sub can go deeper underwater. That is sheer survival for a sub.

- Double hull construction gives greater strength, without resorting to more expensive higher grade steels.

- Greater robustness for the sub that is under attack by depth charges or mortars. This is especially good for the morale of the crew.

- Because of all this, some Western sub designs are going with the double hull, like the Seawolf and the Virginia class.

By habit, the next PLAN nuke and the ideal PLAN nuke sub may still be double hulled, given their experience and practice in this area despite the higher manufacturing cost and greater difficulty of assembly. Given the tendency for the PLAN to seek concept validation on other navies, the double hull shift on the Seawolf and Virginia class would give that validation.

The next issue is the reactor itself, and that is the trickiest part.

(to be continued)

What the hell is that Planeman? Looks like an Akula mutant.
Anyway, continuing my essay.

H. The reactor.

Not all reactors are built equal, and some are certainly noisier than others. For the most part, in the sixties, nuclear subs are built with what is now considered Generation I and II pressurized water reactor. A breakthrough happened with the USS Narwhal, which not only has a directly coupled shaft, but also a natural circulation PWR (S5G), that eliminates as many noise making pumps as possible. The use of these technologies make the Narwhal one of the most quietest nuclear subs of its time. Another submarine that uses natural circulation is the Ohio class with the S8G. While S5G and S8G (the designation meaning GE 5th and 8th Generation core) reactors use natural circulation, the S6G used on the 688 still uses pumps, but does use natural circulation when shut down to cool. Its been said that the Ohio class is even quieter than the Los Angeles class, though there are many factors that contribute to acoustic signature, perhaps the natural circulation may have been part of it.

While the reactor of the 093 remains classified, I speculate it to use natural circulation PWR type. Chinese sources seem to note that the reactor is an advance over that of the Han/Xia, which we can classify as belonging to the previous generation. Regardless whether we can prove it or not that the 093 reactor is natural circulation, our ideal PLAN sub should have this option.

This leads us to the next issue, whether our dream sub should use a non PWR type, or what the nuclear power industry would call Generation IV. This includes HTGR or thermal gas circulation types. The main crux of these designs is that they offer higher thermal efficiencies than PWRs. Without steam, HTGRs also promise to be both quieter and safer, the latter due to the inert gases.

In the world, there are only two HTGR reactors in operation, one in Japan, and the other, no surprise, in China. What makes the Chinese reactor more interesting is that HTR-10 is also a pebble bed type, making it the only functional one in the world. Compared to traditional PWR designs, HTGR pebble bed reactors have the following advantages.

-Higher thermal efficiency.

-No fission criticality. If the reactor gets hotter, the pebbles expand. As spheres, the pebbles expand consistently with its radius, and as they expand, the spacing between the uranium atoms increases. This decreases fission. Thus, a pebbled bed reactor has no criticality limit.

-Refueling. Pebbles can be drained out from a reactor, tested, then put back to the reactor through the top of it if good, or replaced with a new pebble if the tests proved that the pebble is spent. A nuclear submarine based on this would no longer need to be refitted just to have it refueled. The reactor can be refueled constantly.

-No steam. The reactor is cooled using helium, an inert gas. It is therefore fireproof and don't result in things like explosions. Other inert gas options include Carbon Dioxide. Without steam and pumps, that again is its own quieting factor.

-No matter phase change. Unlike steam, which has to change from liquid to gas and to liquid again, gas is always gas.

At Tsinghua University, researchers often pull stunts like removing the moderating control rods, a dangerous act which in any other reactor would have resulted in criticality. Yet HTR-10 only does is cool and shut down by itself. While Chinese authorities are not usually gung ho over technical issues, HTR-10 appeared to be such a success that the entire country of China is about to gamble its energy future on what now appears to be the most promising Generation IV reactor technology. With backing from a major power company, Huaneng, a 200 megawatt pebble bed power plant reactor (HTR-200?) will be built before the end of the decade and placed into operation. The HTR-10 currently drives about 10 megawatts in comparison.

There has been rumors that a pebble bed HTGR is on an experimental basis on a 093 prototype. I personally doubt this is true. A nuclear sub generally requires around 90 to 100 megawatts, which is 10 times over that of HTR-10, and there are issues which so far have prevented the use of HTGR with nuclear subs in other countries that have more national experience on this field than China.

If pebble bed reactors are so wonderful, why have not the world adopted them? The original German project was shut down due to untimely political and social issues, and the Chernobyl accident at that time didn't help. A similar project is being developed in South Africa to produce a 165MW plant, but this too is being stalled by political and social issues. While other countries is struggling with politics and green lobbies, in China, the working principle has been the Nike strategy---Just Do It.

So far, previous studies have not encouraged the use of HTGR and pebble bed designs in submarines. But in a country that is about to put its energy future on this technology, a national policy that does not take no for an answer, and that the only way to do things is to actually Do It, not talk about it, we sooner or later will inevitably see China attempt to experiment pebble bed HTGR on submarines. Its not a question of why, but when.

Though, this may seem a bit far fetched for the current sub development cycle. Experience has shown in the past, that navies go back to using PWRs after experimenting with non water reactors. The US experimented with the original USS Sea Wolf using a liquid Sodium cooled reactor. This was later changed back to a PWR one. The Soviet Union used liquid Lead cooled reactors on the revolutionary Alfa class submarines, yet every submarine that succeeded that type is back to using PWR again. Despite all the disadvantages of steam and water, it is a very known quality, and it is this familiarity that breeds comfort.

Our ideal PLAN nuclear sub would probably start with a natural circulation PWR. However, using a turbine electric drive that decouples propulsion from the turbines, subsequent versions of the sub can shift to pebble bed HTGR as that technology matures, allowing the sub to be 'modular' with the case of future power plant decisions.

Next stop on sensors and armament.

A few small errors in your post:

1. double hull design has no effect on dive depth. That is determined by the pressure hull strength only.

2. double hull design are not structurally stronger than a single hull design using same material. The outer hull is not subjected to the water pressure, and consequently contribute little if any to the structural strength under pressure.

3. double hull design does not mean a second set of holes. The ballast tanks on a double hull design sit between the pressure hull and the outer hull. Only one set of holes are needed on both single hull and double hull design.

Other than that, a pretty good post.

Also, I doubt HTGR reactor will ever make it on a nuclear submarine. A submarine's top requirement is energy density, which HTGR is not known for. So some type of PWR will be used for the conceivable future.

I. Sensors

Nothing but the expected stuff. Spherical bow active/passive sonar, passive LF flank arrays set in six locations in the hull, and a TAS on the tail. How to put the TAS is the tricky part. I tend to lean on attaching it on the end of the upper tail fin, Russian style as opposed to having retractable doors open in the hull to let the TAS loose.

For the surface, a phase array navigational radar and search radar with arrays on both sides of the sail. Passive radar warning receivers will also be placed.

J. Armament.

At the upper part of the bow hemisphere, six torpedo tubes. Two tubes on the upper layer, four on the lower. The two tubes on the upper, and the two outer tubes on the lower are big enough to launch heavyweight torpedoes like the YU-6 as well as AshMs like the YJ-82. The two inner tubes in the second row are for YU-7 lightweight torpedoes. The larger tubes can also be used to drop sonar buoys, decoys and mines or launch a new version of the CY-1 (note my speculation only and don't take it for real) called CY-1A that uses the YU-7 as the carrying torpedo not the YU-3. This extends the range of the ASROC.

Behind the sail, are sixteen VLS tubes that can be used to launch DH-10 cruise missiles or YJ-62 longer ranged AshMs. They can also be used to drop off special forces. The sub will be designed in such a way that a boomer version can be made by substituting this cross section for that with a section that holds 16 JL-2 SLBMs.

The sail will have a port opening for launching QW series SAMs against low flying aircraft and helicopters.


K. Communication and Command Centers

Underwater communications with different phases, long range LF sonars and a higher data rate but shorter range MF/HF sonar that will enable it to communicate with other PLAN subs for tactical coordination and targeting information. Radio communications include VHF and HF for long range, as well as satlinks, GPS, GLOSNASS and Beidou. And not the least HN-900 datalinks that will enable the sub to obtain targeting data from surface PLAN vessels, PLANAF maritime aircraft and helicopters.

The sub will have enough electrical power to maintain a digital command center, although we will try to implement as many space, heat, and power saving electronics. That means for example, power saving and lower heat emitting computer processors. Computer screens will be using LCDs rather than CRTs.

Engine, sensor and weapons systems all have computer diagnostics and sensors with displays on the command center.

There will be an automated sensor control, where a computer will continuously track and obtain data from all sensors, then identify all signals received against a database, and will alert the crew if needed.

L Overall ship design.

We will go with low magnetic high strength steel, the closest China has in equivalent with HY-100.

The overall shape is like a torpedo with a semi tear drop configuration, nothing really special, with a hemisphere shaped bow and a long wide cylindrical body with a flat ridge behind the sail for the VLS tubes. Rather than keep the sail small and rectangular US style, I like the sail long and hydrodynamic, like the way the Russians do it. I like to have the sail big enough for periscopes, datalinks, SAM ejection tubes, radars and RWRs. The long base also gives it additional structural rigidity and stress transfer that can be needed if the sub is required to break ice in the Artic (should China seek to explore the Artic in the future), or at least break the ice that sometimes happens on the Bohai sea city ports, including the Huludao docks.

In hindsight, I would choose a bow mounted retractable diving planes, for faster diving from the surface, low noise and drag when the planes are retracted, plus the ice breaking option.

I envisioned the submarine to be rather heavy, around 10,000 to 12,000mt.


Summary.

Torpedo-teardrop shape, with a hemispherical bow and a cylindrical body.

Double hull with low magnetic high strength steel.

Retractable bow planes located at the upper hull before the sail.

Long, hydrodynamic sail with MANPADS provision.

Cross shaped tail with TAS attachment.

10,000mt est. surface displacement.

Anecholic tile covering, limber hole covers.

Pump Jet propulsion.

Natural circulating pressurized water reactor with a directly coupled turbine-electric arrangement to the pump jet.

Six torpedo tubes, for YU-6, YU-7 and Shkval equivalents, YJ-82 AshMs, CY-1A ASROC, Mines, decoys and sonobuoys.

12 VLS tubes for DH-10 and YJ-62.

Spherical active HF/MF bow sonar, passive LF sonars, TAS/VDS.

Phase array navigation and search radars. RWRs.

Sensor and systems diagnostics automation.

Low energy consumption and heat emission electronics.

A wide variety of communications options, to enable the sub to always have an option should one channel be jammed or inaccessible due to range.

Network based targeting.

Name: PLA designation Type 097. USN designation "Tang Class". The code name for it is based on the title of a popular movie.

Hidden Dragon

I'll take the diesel SSK one.

As far as I know the Russians are making the Amur 1650 for export, while the Amur 950 are still under development. I think this is an opportunity for the PRC to engage in joint production project for the Amur 950 SSK.

There's been a lot of debate on if PRC will continue to import weapons from Russia, or when Russian imports are no longer necessary. I think it's better if China would progress from importer to joint R&D with Russia, like what India is trying to do. Modern weapon systems are getting more and more expensive, it's probably worthwhile to share costs and obtain tech transfers as a bonus.

Now let's look at specs for the Amur 950:


Being a convention sub, and with limited endurance of ~30 days, its operational range will be restricted to East Asia Pacific. But I think that's good enough for PLAN SSK fleet.

In terms of technology, this sub is smaller and supposed to be more quiet than the Kilo, with fuel cel and AIP. It caries a limited load of 6 torpedoes, but has 10 Klub VLS cels. These VLS cels are designed to take several different types of Klub missiles.

Rather than speculate on CY-1/CY-1A, I'd point out that the Russians already have the sub-launched 91RE1 ASW missile:


If China is willing to import Russian solution, or perhaps engage in joint R&D for the missiles, you'd have a choice of sub-launched AShM, ASW, and LACM missiles avail. A pair of these subs armed with 3M-54E1 can unleash up to 20 AShM's at enemy ships, from distance up to 300 km away. It's highly doubtful that even an air-defence destroyer could survive such an assault without being mission-killed.

I think Russia would be more willing to sell and share naval technologies with China, than aviation. Russia's primary territorial concern with China is land and not sea, so there may be some resistance in exporting the best aviation technologies for fighters and bombers. But China and Russia has no maritime disputes and it's highly unlikely that the two country's navies would ever engage each other. So I think for both sides, it's worthwhile to engage in joint naval R&D projects to mutual benefit.

The Amur 950 is also smaller and cheaper than larger subs. You could buy more for less and operate them in pairs or wolfpacks. These would make a good replacement for the Ming class SSK's, and its technologies could be applied to future, improved Song-class SSK's.

I'm not exactly finished yet, because I also plan to write about the ideal PLAN diesel sub. The nuclear one is just part one.

But anyway, I have conceptual disagreements about using the Amur. The problem of it is because it is small. The trend for the PLAN is to go blue, rather than brown, and it is better served---at least in my opinion---by bigger subs, even diesel ones. Rather than going even tinier with the Amur or even Type 212 route, the PLAN should progress towards the sizes you have like with the Oyashio or Collins.

Big is better, for many reasons.

1. Better sound transducer and distributor. Harder for passive detection and better if you have passive sonars. On the other hand, I will agree, that the bigger the sub, the faster it will be picked up through active sonar.

2. More fuel cells for AIP, more batteries for longer endurance.

3. And the more power you have in reserve, the more you can use that power, like in active sonars and digitized command centers.

4. The larger you are, the more munitions you can carry in reserve.

5. The bigger you are, the more places you can put sensors, especially flank sonars, which are a problem with small subs. Passive LF flank sonars is what you need for long range detection. Ironically, for small Kilos its already a tight fit and I don't think the Kilo has flank sonar. The last Ming versions actually have passive flank sonars (DUUX-5) but these subs are longer and bigger than the Kilos. The Songs and the Yuans appear to have flank sonars and their surfaced displacement may be bigger than a Kilo. One of the reasons of the Oyashio's size increase to past 2700mt over the 2300mt of the Harushio (fairly equivalent to the Song/Yuans and slightly more of thee Kilo), is for the installation of flank sonars.

In any case I don't believe the PLAN should have, or even entertain the notion of a sub below 2000 mt surfaced displacement.

6. I also have grave doubts about the Sizzlers. The development of these have been troubled. It had problems with Talwar frigates and with the Kilos. No surprise, the RuN itself is not using them. But it's not just the Sizzler's I question but the entire Russian AshM philosophy.

The real problem is because Russian AshMs, in the quest for "supersonicness" and brute force, is that they're big. Immensely big. Talk about a Harpoon and multiple it several fold in weight.

And when you're big, its not easy to fit in a sub. When you got stuff like Basalts and Granits, they have to be used on special---and especially huge---SSGNs like the Oscar class whose size and berth will even dwarf some SSBNs. In fact, it will make the 094 Jin look compact. You don't have this kind of AshM like the Harpoon, the Exocet and the Ying Jing series that can be fired off from a torpedo tube. Well at least back then during the Cold War. This is why the Soviets went out to develop things like the Shvkal. The Russians did have things like the Starfish and the Stallions, but these are not true antiship missiles but rocket staged propelled torpedoes or ASROC.

So the Klub/Sizzler, which can be fired from a torpedo tube, is actually a major step back to the correct path at least in the ability to be launched from a 533mm tube. Because of the size and diameter, Russian torpedo fired AshMs have to be fired from over sized 650mm tubes, though the Starfishes were from standard 533mm tubes. The practice of using 650mm tubes began with the Stallion whose diameter increased necessitated it.

But the problem of the Sizzler is that even in its smallest form, its twice as big as Ying Jing 83. The sub launched sibling of the YJ-83, the YJ-82 is even smaller than the YJ-83 because it deletes the section with the datalink guidance. The lightest form of the Sizzlers are actually the ASROC antisub versions, which can be directly fired from the torpedo tubes. But the VLS on the Amur 950 is not designed for that, but for the much heavier anti-ship and cruise missile variants. So in other words, the sub is being designed around an inconvenient and flawed AshM doctrine. You really should not complicate yourself and use up space if the same things can be used through the torpedo tubes of a larger sub like the Kilo.

And nice as having an ASROC with the range of the 91 series Sizzlers, 40-50 km ranges are also being matched by heavy weight torpedoes like the Yu-6, if its range approximates that of the Mk 48.

A combination of small sub, and above average sizes of missiles, would mean that the whole system can only carry a very limited number of missiles.

The concept of a wolf pack of Amurs, loaded with Klubs, unleasing all their missiles to an opposing fleet is just a variation of similar strategies already with the PLAN, like the Houbei surge. Its basically a one shot, all at once strategy so myopically concentrated against a carrier battle group with nothing to back fall upon. I do think that the PLAN sub mission should be much more flexible and multirole than that, and this includes, the engagement of enemy subs that are going to TLAM at the Chinese mainland.

There is reason why soviet SSMs are different than of those in the west. To show them in the light of them being oversized and crumplesom is bit misleading if you ignore some important factors about them. Most importantly its that SSMs have been the main instruments of soviet naval strike ability and thus have enjoyed from great effort and resources invested on them. If you compare to western naval SSMs its easy to notice this by simply looking the levels of different missile generations. Soviets had 5 generations of anti-ship missiles were as most western countries have developted only one or two generation if missiles and usually seddled for using one type of missile per navy. This is ofcourse due the very different nature of western naval philosofies which wasen't the sort of "looking up to the elders and trying to figure out how to get them" type of thinking which mainly dictated soviet naval ideas.
The investements to SSMs have given soviets (and now to russians) weapons that have no match anywhere else in the world. Its not just that many of the missiles have superior performances but many of the concepts does not exist in west. For example long range heavy anti ship missiles like P-5, P-500 and P-700 are sole examples (alongside with few lesser know soviet missiles) of their kind.
Its bit weird to dishmish missilesystems like the Club simply becouse it has some childilness and say its not impressive. Its overall concept is generations ahead of anything else in the world exept perhaps its fellow russian Onix. And it is BTW being introduced to russian service under the name Kalibr.

Now I do however agree that the ideal chinese submarine, diesel or nuclear shoudln't use Club as their main missile system. But thats not becouse it wouldn't be good weapon system but becouse its...well...russian. Byt this I don't mean it in any dishmissing way but as like I already mentioned the different naval philosofies of the soviet/russians a too tailored concept to be adopted by foreing navies exspecially those with own concepts and weaponsystems adopted to it. Many soviet weaponsystem not just SSMs are so closely tied to the operational ideas that often are very different in others countries. If some nation which haven't usually being the customer of soviet/russian weapons buy one or few systems, it often have huge difficoulties to adopt the weapons to its own doctrines and philosfies. This may lead to the systems full potential being lost in the trascription and normally highly potential instrument is truned to white elephant.
Altough china has familiarized itself alot to soviet weapons and based most of its own philosofies around soviet ideas, it's still showing alot of sighns of completely different thinking. This is most evident in areas which have only in very recently started to raise from the dust for example the PLAN. With the new rise its somewhat selfdeciving to just buy "off-the-shell" russian systems becouse they often may be intended to quite different roles in which chinese are planning to use them. Capacity&capability realities however often dictates what you can do and therefore the soviet/russian weapons and ideas are still being hammered to the PLANs todays doctrines.
China has its own SSM industry and many promising designs and IMO it should concerate on them despite at the moment there might be existing systems that are simple better. But in a long term to use only your own material will pay the fruit as it forces you to focus on improving and developing the ideas by yourself and creating the base for the knowhow and traditions to manufacture the system. If you simply go where the wall is lowest and buy systems that others have developted you disable the need for own industrybase.

Until now, our brethrends even do not know how many nuclear submarines PLAN have? the most of informations came from overseas, regrettable situation.

The investements to SSMs have given soviets (and now to russians) weapons that have no match anywhere else in the world. Its not just that many of the missiles have superior performances but many of the concepts does not exist in west. For example long range heavy anti ship missiles like P-5, P-500 and P-700 are sole examples (alongside with few lesser know soviet missiles) of their kind.
Its bit weird to dishmish missilesystems like the Club simply becouse it has some childilness and say its not impressive. Its overall concept is generations ahead of anything else in the world exept perhaps its fellow russian Onix. And it is BTW being introduced to russian service under the name Kalibr.

Click to expand...

Supersonic missile concepts have in fact been studied in the West many times and is still being done like the JSSM.

Ultimately hard decisions are made, and sheer rationalization is imposed.

One of the reasons why in the West, you have rationalization is because for example, if you have one dollar for development, is it better to put all that into one missile or force to divide it into 10 missile types? When you have all that money poured into a single missile design, you would have covered practically every corner plus some, and that includes all things from jam proof datalinks to resistance from decoys. The result is a very mature and finely tempered weapon.

On the other hand, if you have many designs competing against the same limited developmental resources, these designs will end up being "development starved", making them immature, questionable, quality and capability wise, especially against the finer points of testing like ECM and decoy resistance. The quickest way to get a missile in service and with the least time and money possible, is to often short cut on EW and decoy resistance by lightening the specifications and the test parameters required to pass.

Another factor for rationalization is logistics. Every vessel in the US Navy can use the same missiles with each other and can easily be supplied by the same forward bases or replenishment ships. Furthermore, all its allies (except for the French and those using French ships) share the same blanket standardization whether its Japan, Singapore or NATO.

But the Soviet ships? Sorry, but the Slavas don't use the same missiles as the Sovremannies which don't use the same missiles as the Neutrashimmys. Incompatibilities even in one navy alone. No matter how neat you are in paper, you can't fight if you can't load.

I can understand why every country has uniquely national doctrines. On the other hand and I believed you have argued the same, these doctrines are still have to be measured against the one purely objective standards of warfare, experience, economy, and practicality. Whether its going to work or suck, its will be black and white in the end, win or lose.