PLAN SCS Bases/Islands/Vessels (Not a Strategy Page)

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

On the issue of a PLAN SSGN, I personally believe that is in the PLAN's future. However they will need to put VLS on the sub that houses it and as Crobato said (I basically defer to him on the technical stuff ) a VLS version of the YJ-62 would IMHO be necessary because firing 100 or more cruise missles two or four at a time from torpedo tubes is not an option. It would take too long, leaving the sub near the surface and stationary for much longer than with VLS, which makes it easier to retaliate. Moreover there will be a longer time in between the launch of each missle or groups of missles, which makes it more difficult to saturate air defence.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

Its not hard to design a VLS cruise missile. Its really a matter of wanting to. You would be trying to compensate for the vertical position in the fuel storage of the missile, as most air breathing missiles are designed to be rested either horizontally or in a canted angle.

For this reason, the Russian SSGNs like the Charlies, Yankee Notches and Oscars uses angled launchers that open up from the back. Later the Russians did mod the Granits or Bazalts into VLS, so they could fit them on the Kirov. Ditto the Klubs are also VLSed.

In this case, the sub was designed to fit the missile, not the other way around.

If this was the option, the PLAN SSGN would go for angled launchers like in the Oscars. Problem is, it won't support that many missiles.

If we go with option 2, which is to mod the missile for the sub, then we can VLS the missiles on the back of the sub.

Do note it is not necessary to do an Ohio SSGN style conversion. The reason why some Ohios were turned into SSGNs was because of the SALT treaties that limit the number of SSBNs. There were 18 subs, but after the treaty, only 12 is allowed. The remaining 6 had to be converted to something to make them useful. Some other SSBNs were not as lucky, like some of the British ones, which were turned into SSNs with their silos partly cement ballasted.

Since China does not have this situation, it can built an SSGN from scratch without converting an SSBN. But unlike the Soviets, which threw a lot of money into so many different classes of nuclear subs, you want to save costs by sticking to one design as much as possible. Hence you want to start with the 093/094 base.

So its not necessary to start by converting round JL-2 silos, when you can build the VLS holes outright. They can even assume the squared configuration. By this means you can get to pack more missiles into the sub than you would by converting SLBM silos.

Like the 688I class, you can another route which is to convert an existing SSN design by slightly lengthening it, and put the VLS tubes at the nose behind the bow. You may have to redesign the torpedo tubes to be offset and to the side though. Or put the launchers behind the sail, much like the Indian ATV or the Amur 950.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

crobato said:

Do note it is not necessary to do an Ohio SSGN style conversion. The reason why some Ohios were turned into SSGNs was because of the SALT treaties that limit the number of SSBNs. There were 18 subs, but after the treaty, only 12 is allowed. The remaining 6 had to be converted to something to make them useful.

Click to expand...

Actually, under the requirements of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, START II, which was agreed in June 1992, the number of strategic missile submarines was limited to 14.

So, only four Ohio class SSBNs have been converted to the SSGN configuration, USS Ohio (SSGN-726), USS Michigan (SSGN-727), USS Florida (SSGN-728), and USS Georgia (SSGN-729). No other conversions are contemplated at this time. Fourteen others remain in the SSBN configuration.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

For Western navies, SSN's cost around $2 billion, versus European SSBN cost ~$8 billion. My cost estimates are based on the following:

* USN Virginia: $2 - $2.3 billion USD each
* French Barracuda SSN: $1.95 billion USD each
* RN Astute class SSN: $1.75 - $2.2 billion USD each

* French Le Triophant SSBN: $5.5 billion Euros ($8.45 billion USD) each
* Vanguard class SSBN: $6 billion USD each in 1997 dollars

The SSBN's highly price tag cannot be solely attributed to the SLBM pricing. i.e. French M51 SLBM total program cost was $4 billion Euros, that's less than the price of a single French SSBN.

*IF* the same price multiplier applies to PLAN, then a 094 would costs 4x as much as a 093. A lengthened 093 could possibly carry 12 VLS like USN subs, but a converted, or purpose built SSGN based on 094 hull could carry 84 or more VLS cels. IMO the SSBN/SSGN option will carry a bigger punch per dollar than the SSN option.


On the torpedo-tube launched option, I think only Sea Wolf class in USN has 8x 660mm torpedo tubes to launch Tomahawks? The Los Angeles and Virginia class only has 4 x 533mm tubes and cannot launch Tomahawks from them (I think). Torpedo tube launch would be slower than VLS, which is probably why Sea Wolf class had 8 tubes instead of 4. I'm not big on this particular design and would prefer VLS cels for rapid fire and get away.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

One of the biggest bobos in sub history is the fact that the Seawolf is incapable of VLS launches, a massive oversight that led to this being corrected with the Virginia class. The 688I or Improved Los Angeles class is capable of VLS launches, as opposed to the original 688 which does not. The Tomahawks are fired through VLS tubes just behind the nose holding the sonar. Having the VLS tubes frees the torpedo tubes for real torpedoes which is an advantage if the sub has to suddenly face an opponent.

Going back to the Xia, at least we know in 2005 that the sub went into a refit based on the GE image in Qingdao. Its clear from the picture that a new propeller is fitted (shrouded), the power plant section is opened and so is the section at the torpedo room.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

Interesting how the drama queens are playing up the secret "The Spy Who Loved Me," submarine base. And if I recall correctly that base is in the belly of a super oil tanker so unless the island of Hainan can move, that should alarm the world more and not the submarine base. I know the elitist media and general public of these "alarmed" countries maybe naive about what's going on in the world but now government officials are trying to win an Oscar with their B-movie performance acting alarmed? When the news came out about North Korea's mountain hangar, the West was bragging about how they can turn that hangar into a tomb with one bomb at the entrance. Doesn't that apply here? A direct attack would render this base useless. So the only significance of this base would be to hide what is or not being loaded onto 094s and to hide when submarines leave or enter port. But then the US probably had submarines watching before they and Hillary Clinton got the call 3 o'clock in the morning and were alarmed by the news.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

AssassinsMace said:

Interesting how the drama queens are playing up the secret "The Spy Who Loved Me," submarine base. And if I recall correctly that base is in the belly of a super oil tanker so unless the island of Hainan can move, that should alarm the world more and not the submarine base. I know the elitist media and general public of these "alarmed" countries maybe naive about what's going on in the world but now government officials are trying to win an Oscar with their B-movie performance acting alarmed? When the news came out about North Korea's mountain hangar, the West was bragging about how they can turn that hangar into a tomb with one bomb at the entrance. Doesn't that apply here? A direct attack would render this base useless. So the only significance of this base would be to hide what is or not being loaded onto 094s and to hide when submarines leave or enter port. But then the US probably had submarines watching before they and Hillary Clinton got the call 3 o'clock in the morning and were alarmed by the news.

Click to expand...

It is called hyping up the China Threat to justify anti-China activities. This is a good example of a fundamental part of psychological warfare.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

crobato said:

One of the biggest bobos in sub history is the fact that the Seawolf is incapable of VLS launches, a massive oversight that led to this being corrected with the Virginia class. The 688I or Improved Los Angeles class is capable of VLS launches, as opposed to the original 688 which does not. The Tomahawks are fired through VLS tubes just behind the nose holding the sonar. Having the VLS tubes frees the torpedo tubes for real torpedoes which is an advantage if the sub has to suddenly face an opponent.

Going back to the Xia, at least we know in 2005 that the sub went into a refit based on the GE image in Qingdao. Its clear from the picture that a new propeller is fitted (shrouded), the power plant section is opened and so is the section at the torpedo room.

Click to expand...

Seawolf has eight tubes compared to four on a Virginia or previous bow sonar USN submarines. Seawolf carries over fifty weapons compared to thirty for an LA or Virginia. The use of eight tubes with a fifty weapon load out gives this class greater flexibility in the combination of missiles and torpedos it carries, and Seawolf's tubes are 650mm, allowing larger weapons of the future to be fired. Keep in mind Seawolf is the premier under ice sub, not the place to vertically launch a Tomahawk, but someplace you might need a bigger torp than the Mk-48 Adcap ( and lots of them ) if you anticipate encountering a large number of big double hulled subs looking to put you in the hurt locker. Seawolf gives up nothing to either a Virginia or LA class.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

Crobato, young man, you have much to learn

"Its not hard to design a VLS cruise missile. Its really a matter of wanting to. You would be trying to compensate for the vertical position in the fuel storage of the missile, as most air breathing missiles are designed to be rested either horizontally or in a canted angle.

For this reason, the Russian SSGNs like the Charlies, Yankee Notches and Oscars uses angled launchers that open up from the back. Later the Russians did mod the Granits or Bazalts into VLS, so they could fit them on the Kirov. Ditto the Klubs are also VLSed. "

For the record, the USN stores all of it's cruise missile in vertical launchers today. The old box launchers went away a very long time ago. Fuel storage in these missiles is a non issue. There is a tank mid body.
It is, however, a difficult problem to design a reliable system that can break the surface of a rough ocean without causing the missile to fail on launch. This is not trivial engineering my friend, and it requires a lot of test shots to work out all of the details. Polaris nearly didn't fly we had so many problems figuring out how to make the missile break the surface and remain in control. We even had a lot of problems with the membrane that covers the missile tearing irregularly and putting the missile off course while still under water. For a good discussion read "The Silent War" by John Pena Craven, the former chief scientist of the USN for underwater programs.
Russian surface ships used different angled launchers depending on the ship. The old style tube or box launchers typical of a Kresta or Sovremmeny are necessary for the huge size of things like Shaddock, Sandbox, Shipwreck and Sunburn. These are huge missiles with big wings not amenable to most VLS tubes ( example there is no VLS fitment for Harpoon, the fixed wings are too large for the Mk-41 VLS ). Having a big above deck launcher allowed for the escape of the rocket exhaust of those big missiles. Cold launch had not been developed yet. On ships like Kirov with cold launch, there is a piston under the missile that is as long as the missile. Coal gas expands in the cylinder and drives the piston forward expelling the missile from the VLS tube ( explaining why the Russians use rotary launchers for their AA missiles ). The length of the launch tube and piston assembly is so great the whole assembly must be placed at an angle. Klub is a far smaller missile than Shipwreck! Kirov also had enough size to place such big missiles below decks. Look at the huge size of the square VLS lids!
Hot launch as the USN uses eliminates the need for the coal gas generating equipment and the launch piston under the deck. It is more space efficient. The next generation is an electromagnetic VLS. This is under development. Fun stuff!

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

Wasnt the reason that the launchers are angled so to prevent the missile falling on the deck in case it failed to ignite?

What do you think its best the hot VLS launch or the cold VLS? I think both have its strong and weak points. Complexity of the hot VLS systems lies in the complex exhaust gas extraction plumbing while the cold VLS is in the missile ejector system.

Doesnt the chinese VLS system provide each vls cell its own ejector?

Manoverboard can you tell me what kind of measures are in place when a missile explodes on ignition while it still is in the cell?

My question was inspired by this misfire of the seadart