Number of Ships PLAN must have to be supreme

I'll only say this. Isn't it a wonder why the Soviet Union felt the need to develop a number of heavy SSGN's, and a number of SSN's? And they still did not have sea control assured in these critical areas. Gee I wonder why they invested all those rubles into SSGN's and other things which were totally unecessary. To think, all they needed was 60 antiquated diesel subs, and a few modern ones, with vulnerable logistics and a pretty vulnerable basing situation.

I only wonder if PLAN leadership really is this foolish.

The reason why they built all those submarines is so they can pop up next to Delaware and say "hello" to the Americans!

I doubt the US had an edge on the Soviets during the Cold War as far as submarines go. Both sides could penetrate each other's defenses. I wonder what sort of stories a Russian submariner could tell.

According to globalsecurity.org, during the late Cold War, the Soviet Union had 8 SSNs and 29 SSKs (counting only those of recent vintage, after 1970). Today, China has about 26 SSK's (counting only Song and better). This is a much higher density of defensive submarines because the Soviet Union had a bunch of different bases to patrol (Pacific, Black Sea, North Sea, etc.).

If all those 26 SSKs were hanging around the Taiwan straits area. They could be just as dangerous to American SSNs as the SSNs are to them (like KYLi says).

The reason why they built all those submarines is so they can pop up next to Delaware and say "hello" to the Americans!

I doubt the US had an edge on the Soviets during the Cold War as far as submarines go. Both sides could penetrate each other's defenses. I wonder what sort of stories a Russian submariner could tell.

Click to expand...

(pop up next to Deleware)..Uhhh They didn't did they? Not to my knowledge. Most of those poor Russian nuke sub sailors can't tell any tales because they are dead. But I'm sure they could tell some stories. The average life span of a Russian nuke sub sailor was 7 years after he left his sub. That was common knowledge in some circles of the USN from training we recieved about the Soivet Navy. Those Soivet nuke boats leaked radiation very severly.

The main advantage the US had during the Cold war was training. The Soivets did not spend half the time at sea as the USN.

Last time I checked the Russian Navy is a mere shell of itself. And the USN?..Well they... enough said.

I'm glad there never was ever a war between the USA and USSR. Because war sucks!

bd popeye said:

(pop up next to Deleware)..Uhhh They didn't did they? Not to my knowledge. Most of those poor Russian nuke sub sailors can't tell any tales because they are dead. But I'm sure they could tell some stories. The average life span of a Russian nuke sub sailor was 7 years after he left his sub. That was common knowledge in some circles of the USN from training we recieved about the Soivet Navy. Those Soivet nuke boats leaked radiation very severly.

The main advantage the US had during the Cold war was training. The Soivets did not spend half the time at sea as the USN.

Last time I checked the Russian Navy is a mere shell of itself. And the USN?..Well they... enough said.

Click to expand...

Popeye, you are so right sir. The USN always maintained a training and experience edge over the Soviets. And it paid off. The Soviets never achieved parity in submarine quality despite their best efforts and the Walker espionage event.

Actually the Soviets had a better basing strategy than China currently has. And the Soviets knew they could not compete for any type of sea control strategy without the heavy SSGN's. And that was based on much older Aegis mods and surveillance capabilities. The point is, the USN is probably 10 times better than the Cold War USN. China hasn't even achieved what the Soviets had back then.

I'm not sure how the USN had an "advantage" over the Soviet submarines in the Cold War.... they never fought!

On paper, quality and quantity wise, the Soviet sub force were no worse than the USN. In the end, it was the mighty American economy that brought down the Soviets. As for the submarines, we may never know.

Yes, it's too bad the Soviets had such a harsh doctrine toward submarines. They were expected to die for the Motherland. But doesn't that mean they were even more determined, even more gutsy than their American counterparts?

And I'd really like to know if USN had ever had to deal with as many attack subs in one area as China can field in the Taiwan straits. The numbers from globalsecurity.org shows that the late Cold War Soviet Union had 37 attack subs, combining all their different fleets. But China has 26 attack subs, and a much smaller area to defend.

Finally, I don't see how an SSGN helps to maintain sea control. They don't carry torpedos. One thing that the Soviets didn't have during the Cold War was those super-cavitating rocket torpedos. China bought some in the mid-90's. I'm not sure if they're deployed on the Chinese subs now or not.

Roger604 said:

I'm not sure how the USN had an "advantage" over the Soviet submarines in the Cold War.... they never fought!

On paper, quality and quantity wise, the Soviet sub force were no worse than the USN. In the end, it was the mighty American economy that brought down the Soviets. As for the submarines, we may never know.

Yes, it's too bad the Soviets had such a harsh doctrine toward submarines. They were expected to die for the Motherland. But doesn't that mean they were even more determined, even more gutsy than their American counterparts?

And I'd really like to know if USN had ever had to deal with as many attack subs in one area as China can field in the Taiwan straits. The numbers from globalsecurity.org shows that the late Cold War Soviet Union had 37 attack subs, combining all their different fleets. But China has 26 attack subs, and a much smaller area to defend.

Finally, I don't see how an SSGN helps to maintain sea control. They don't carry torpedos. One thing that the Soviets didn't have during the Cold War was those super-cavitating rocket torpedos. China bought some in the mid-90's. I'm not sure if they're deployed on the Chinese subs now or not.

Click to expand...

1.) On technical terms, Soviet subs were alot noisier than their U.S. counter parts. Part of this reason was that the Soviets did not believe that quieting technology was essential. They focused on higher speed and depth. It was only after an American spy told them the US has consistently track each of their submarines did they start focusing on quieting technologies on their subs. The Victor III was the product of this. Unfortunately for them, the US lead was insurmountable. The most advanced Akula II subs are not even on par with the LA class subs in terms quieting technology and sonar suite.

2.) US has dealth with Nazi wolf packs in the Battle of the Atlantic. The Nazi submarine force had the highest casualty rate in any branch of service in WWII, for a good reason.

3.) The problem with concentrating that many subs in a small area is friendly fire. If a Kilo has detected another sub in the straights, their is a very good chance that it might be friendly. That is why Subs almost always work alone. USN subs attached to carrier groups operate hundreds of miles from the carrier.

4.) The Ohio SSGN's carry torpedoes. Its main job is a very high survivable strike platform. Now for sea control, the best SSGN is the OSCAR II. Those things carry 24 SS-n-19 Shipwreck missiles, each witha 500 mile range. The Soviets used it in conjunction with Backfire strikes on US carrier battle groups.

Roger604 said:

I'm not sure how the USN had an "advantage" over the Soviet submarines in the Cold War.... they never fought!

On paper, quality and quantity wise, the Soviet sub force were no worse than the USN. In the end, it was the mighty American economy that brought down the Soviets. As for the submarines, we may never know.

Click to expand...

It's widely known that USN submarines had clear acoustical advantages during the cold war. Soviet boats were being tracked by USN boats undetected for at least a decade and a half. That's why the Walker info shocked the Soviets so badly. Right now, their best design acoustically is the Akula-II. And their noise levels are only as quiet as Flight-II LA Class boats at low speeds only. So yes, we do know that the USN had a clear advantage then, and has a decisive advantage now when it comes to submarines.

Roger604 said:

Yes, it's too bad the Soviets had such a harsh doctrine toward submarines. They were expected to die for the Motherland. But doesn't that mean they were even more determined, even more gutsy than their American counterparts?

Click to expand...

Well American submariners are expected to survive and win one for America. American submariners intend to see to it that enemy submariners die for their "motherlands". I prefer that strategy myself. I don't find it gutsy to walk into a known death trap. Suicidal maybe. But even then, I don't think those Soviet submariners expected to die. All these Soviet submariners who died should be properly honored for their bravery. But this point you make...... kind of proves my point about submarine quality differences.

Roger604 said:

And I'd really like to know if USN had ever had to deal with as many attack subs in one area as China can field in the Taiwan straits. The numbers from globalsecurity.org shows that the late Cold War Soviet Union had 37 attack subs, combining all their different fleets. But China has 26 attack subs, and a much smaller area to defend.

Click to expand...

Does China have any experience in exercising modern naval warfare doctrine? Are you so sure they know how to operate their boats effectively to take advantage of their acoustical abilities? How much time do they spend at sea training? You do know that the USN operated Flight-I LA SSN's into Soviet naval bases to gather intelligence with Kilo's, Foxtrots protecting these areas and such. The USN has maintained a noise signature database with Kilo's signature in it. They've had the Kilo's signature now for over 20 years. I'm giving you clues here.

Roger604 said:

Finally, I don't see how an SSGN helps to maintain sea control. They don't carry torpedos. One thing that the Soviets didn't have during the Cold War was those super-cavitating rocket torpedos. China bought some in the mid-90's. I'm not sure if they're deployed on the Chinese subs now or not.

Click to expand...

SSGN's do carry torpedoes. And these Soviet SSGN's presented a significant threat in being able to carry 24 anti-ship cruise missiles rapidly from one part of the ocean to another distant point. And being a nuclear boat, they had the endurance to remain on station for months. If you know anything about naval warfare, the rest is elementary.

Super-cavitating torpedoes are nice. But I wouldn't count on them being too effective. They're noisy, short-ranged, and are straight running designs with no ability to home. The Russians say they have a homing version, but I'll believe it when it's verified.

Why do you think that the USN even has to go into the Taiwan Strait? This isn't WWI. The USN only has to sit withih aircraft, Harpoon and Tomahawk range of the Strait. Even American subs wouldn't have too. They would be much more deadly in an area where the Chinese don't expect them and can't concentrate their subs (or it would be a major hinderance to the operation to concentrate them there.). For example, if a crisis is brewing, the US can dispatch two LA class subs of the home port of the Chinese fleets and destroy ships that are in port as well as land based infrastructure when war begins. The Chinese could put as many subs into and around the Straits as they wanted, but when the US gained air and surface superiority, (as they definately would.) the subs would be done. They would be hunted from the air. Finally, diesel subs have to return to port and be refueled. So when they are slowly making their way back to Shanghai or whereever, they could be ambushed by American subs lying in wait, outside of the "controlled" waters of the Taiwan Strait.

What a horrid waste of resources and time at sea. Either that or they just don't have a good grasp of a maneuvering sea conflict. hmmm.

Click to expand...

The CCP is kind off into propaganda and such, wasting a couple million dollars of missiles, gas, and a few hours are worth it in their opinion. They want to project a facade of strength and power.

2 CVBG's conducting strikes would be very difficult for anybody to deal with. The PLAN simply doesn't have the resources or the logistical capabilities to deal with it. And their basing situation is not very ideal for anything other than ops in the Taiwan Straits region. And you can imagine the amount of weaponry that would be focused on this area.

Click to expand...

This is hard to say for certain, for neither nation would plunge into a war with only those elements of their armed forces. The US will not send only 2 CVBGs to combat the PLAN- they will also utilize their air assets as well as submarines. China will also not watch as the PLAN is destroyed, they will deploy their coastal defence forces, Second Artillery, PLA ground forces equiped with long-range missiles, and the PLAAF. 2 unsupported CVBGs cannot, of course, hope to survive against the military resources and assets of the entire nation of China. In a hypoethetical sense, yes, 2 CVBGs could completely destroy the PLAN. Furthermore, if no third parties and/or other military units involved, I beleive this can be done without the lose of a single US surface combatant in either the Taiwan strait or the open seas. In my humble opinion, I do not beleive PLAN surface forces would even survive long enough to close within range of US surface forces, and that with clever positioning, the CVBGs can mitigate the threat of Chinese submarines. PLANAF airpower is still not mature and unable to pose a credible threat.

Fried sez..

This is hard to say for certain, for neither nation would plunge into a war with only those elements of their armed forces. The US will not send only 2 CVBGs to combat the PLAN- they will also utilize their air assets as well as submarines. China will also not watch as the PLAN is destroyed, they will deploy their coastal defence forces, Second Artillery, PLA ground forces equiped with long-range missiles, and the PLAAF. 2 unsupported CVBGs cannot, of course, hope to survive against the military resources and assets of the entire nation of China. In a hypoethetical sense, yes, 2 CVBGs could completely destroy the PLAN. Furthermore, if no third parties and/or other military units involved, I beleive this can be done without the lose of a single US surface combatant in either the Taiwan strait or the open seas. In my humble opinion, I do not beleive PLAN surface forces would even survive long enough to close within range of US surface forces, and that with clever positioning, the CVBGs can mitigate the threat of Chinese submarines. PLANAF airpower is still not mature and unable to pose a credible threat.

Click to expand...

Whoa! You hit the nail on the head. To think only 2 USN CSG(Carrier Strike Groups) is foolish. I would expect the USN to deploy 4 CSG to the area. In addition the USAF would be heavily involved .with bombers from Guam dropping JDAM and other PGM on target.

I'm am not sure if the US would go totally unscathed from this sort of confrontation. The PLA forces have massive amount of missiles and aircraft to throw at the US.

But I never want to see any conflict between the US and PRC. Because as you know war sucks. And any war would bring ecnomic chaos to both nations. And possibly more on the USN.