PLA Navy news, pics and videos
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Obviously, nobody can say for sure, because PLAN is very secretive about its submarine schedule. But, looking from the outside in, there are good reasons to maintain both conventional attack submarine and nuclear submarine development. The Wuchang shipyard on the Yangtze (where most of PLAN's conventional subs were built) has recently been expanded, suggesting to wetsern observers of an increase in diesel AIP sub production.
To see why the conventional diesel sub still has its uses, let's take a look at how diesel subs with AIP (because AIP is a basic modern standard) compare versus nuclear subs. I am making a general set of observations that are intended to be true most of the time, and I am not comparing between two specific classes of subs.
Diesel subs with AIP
Pros:
- Very affordable on a per unit basis (e.g. German Type 214 $380 million, Type 39A Yuan class ~$300 million estimated, Soryu class $540 million)
- More stealthy on a short-term or tactical basis. A diesel sub running on its batteries is very silent, and can probably maintain this for the duration of a combat situation. Small hull size also reduces the detection range of enemy active sonars.
Cons:
- Not very stealthy on a sustained basis, because it needs to snorkel every 2-4 weeks, depending on the type of AIP.
- Limited range (constrained by fuel and food supplies, and small storage space)
- Less weapons (due to small hull)
- Less dive depth
- Very slow speed when running on AIP
Nuclear sub:
Pros:
- More stealthy on a long-term sustained basis, because it does not need to surface or snorkel.
- Unlimited range (limited only by food)
- Faster speed (25-30 knots vs. 20 knots for diesel subs)
- More weapons (especially more SLCMs)
Cons:
- Very expensive. A Vriginia class costs approximately $3 billion. Barracuda class costs $2 billion. For the price of one nuclear attack sub, you can produce 5 to 8 competitive diesel AIP subs.
- Maintenance cost if much higher.
- Can't switch off nuclear reactor, which means the reactor cooling pumps will have to keep running. This means a nuclear submarine will always produce a certain level of noise, and usually more than an AIP sub running on its batteries. Technological improvements have reduced the noise level of reactor cooling systems, but nothing beat a diesel sub running slowly on battery power yet.
The diesel AIP sub will still have a role to play in coastal waters or the near seas, where it can return to base or snorkel in relative safety. The diesel sub is also very suited to defensive operations, because it can be prepositioned in the path of advancing enemy fleets and intercept them, which would mitigate the speed disadvantage of the diesel sub. You can also mass produce them, and one nuclear attack sub is not going to defeat 8 AIP subs, in a hypothetical encounter where you don't account for the strategic advantage of the nuclear sub (e.g. in operational range).
The nuclear sub is better suited for distant waters away from home base, for offensive purposes in hostile waters, and for nuclear deterrence.
There's also the matter of the sail-less demonstrator sub commissioned in 2018. Possibly pure LiIon powered but obviously this is by no means confirmed.
Like other people said, I think China will continue building diesel-electric subs for coastal defense. They will keep a mixed submarine force much like the Russians do. The Chinese Navy needs to defend close to its own coastline against not only the US but other neighboring countries like Japan and South Korea. Doing it all with nuclear submarines would neither be cost effective not effective overall. Nuclear submarines aren't made to operate in shallow coastal waters like that. They are huge and not quiet enough.
I do not think there is a point in developing the fuel cell technology and China already is a leader in producing lithium ion batteries. This makes it the obvious future direction to pursue in conventional submarines I think.
China does need to build a huge amount of modern nuclear attack submarines if it is to counter the US Navy. It is presently the major technological deficit the Chinese Navy has. In case of conflict the US can use its attack submarine fleet to conduct raids on surface ships and that is something China needs to counter somehow.
I do not think there is a point in developing the fuel cell technology and China already is a leader in producing lithium ion batteries. This makes it the obvious future direction to pursue in conventional submarines I think.
China does need to build a huge amount of modern nuclear attack submarines if it is to counter the US Navy. It is presently the major technological deficit the Chinese Navy has. In case of conflict the US can use its attack submarine fleet to conduct raids on surface ships and that is something China needs to counter somehow.
One proposal is small submarines with small modular reactors (SMR) replacing diesels. The SMR allows a sustained underwater speed of about 10 knots.
antiterror13
Brigadier
how small? ... any link?
@blindsight
I know there is a lot of investment into these kinds of naval reactors. For example Russia with the Poseidon. But I doubt they will be used to replace diesels. They are much more expensive. Other countries which used to have small nuclear attack submarines like France with the Rubis class are switching to larger submarines. I do not think they are that viable to be honest. Too small to be effective for the cost they have.
@antiterror13
French Rubis class had 2400t displacement. Compare this with Type 039A which is 3600t. Or Soryu which is 2900t.
Poseidon autonomous vessel (Status-6) is probably 100t which would make a submarine based on that reactor a midget submarine.
I know there is a lot of investment into these kinds of naval reactors. For example Russia with the Poseidon. But I doubt they will be used to replace diesels. They are much more expensive. Other countries which used to have small nuclear attack submarines like France with the Rubis class are switching to larger submarines. I do not think they are that viable to be honest. Too small to be effective for the cost they have.
@antiterror13
French Rubis class had 2400t displacement. Compare this with Type 039A which is 3600t. Or Soryu which is 2900t.
Poseidon autonomous vessel (Status-6) is probably 100t which would make a submarine based on that reactor a midget submarine.
search 小堆AIP
Small subs with SMRs will still be more expensive than conventional subs, however, their tactical value is comparable and they're still a lot cheaper than traditional SSNs, right?