broadsword
Brigadier
Re: PLAN deep sea submarine rescue sub
In naval parlance, it is called deep sea rescue vehicle (DSRV) as opposed to submarine.
In naval parlance, it is called deep sea rescue vehicle (DSRV) as opposed to submarine.
PLAN Type 035/039/091/092 Submarine Thread
- Thread starter crobato
- Start date
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Re: PLAN deep sea submarine rescue sub
Actually the correct terminology is Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle
but aside from my pedanticness you are correct sir.
Actually the correct terminology is Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle
but aside from my pedanticness you are correct sir.Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
With regard to that mode, I have seen a documentary mentioned that type 092 class was based on a toy mode from USA, they used it to study the hydrodynamics of the submarine at the early stage of development.
More importantly I had a thought the other day, China could develop a 'new' class of submarine! I am thinking a bland of attack and ballistic sub. Instead of carrying the long range strategic missiles such as the JL2 why not build a smaller sub carrying intermediate ranged missile such as the DF-25. Currently China possess the technology and know how to build such class of sub, and what is more is its strategic significance once the system of ASBM becomes mature and fully functional i.e. the detection and tracking etc. And the US has already demonstrated that you can convert a SSBM into a cruise missile carrier thus the sub can vary its operational requirements as seen fit. There are many other advantages however what I would like to know what disadvantages are there.
With regard to that mode, I have seen a documentary mentioned that type 092 class was based on a toy mode from USA, they used it to study the hydrodynamics of the submarine at the early stage of development.
More importantly I had a thought the other day, China could develop a 'new' class of submarine! I am thinking a bland of attack and ballistic sub. Instead of carrying the long range strategic missiles such as the JL2 why not build a smaller sub carrying intermediate ranged missile such as the DF-25. Currently China possess the technology and know how to build such class of sub, and what is more is its strategic significance once the system of ASBM becomes mature and fully functional i.e. the detection and tracking etc. And the US has already demonstrated that you can convert a SSBM into a cruise missile carrier thus the sub can vary its operational requirements as seen fit. There are many other advantages however what I would like to know what disadvantages are there.
Equation
Lieutenant General
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
Perhaps, but the smaller power of a sonar on a small sub would be futile against a lager submarine who will eventually discover it before the smaller submarine had a chance to react.
Perhaps, but the smaller power of a sonar on a small sub would be futile against a lager submarine who will eventually discover it before the smaller submarine had a chance to react.
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
Size are relative it is not, I am thinking a full blown SS(B)N that is capable of carrying 12-16 missiles, hopefully that will be big enough to carry any equipments it requires. However because the missile in my mind is not your JL 2 but the smaller IRBM thus I said 'small' I think a batter phase would be less displacement compare to a SSBN
Size are relative it is not, I am thinking a full blown SS(B)N that is capable of carrying 12-16 missiles, hopefully that will be big enough to carry any equipments it requires. However because the missile in my mind is not your JL 2 but the smaller IRBM thus I said 'small' I think a batter phase would be less displacement compare to a SSBN
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
Sounds more like a SSGN then a SSBN. Early missile boats used shorter range missiles due to jack of technology. When slbms became available they offered the critical advantage of alowing boomers to engage there target from virtually any locations. a SSBN could launch at targets from gone ports if it has the range. Using shorter range missiles you loose that. You have to move closer to your target making you more open to ASW detection and attack. A real worry for chinese boats as they are still in comparison very loud.
You do however gain the advantage of conventional warloads and those can be just as effective a strike with out the nuclear retaliation worry. That is why the USN converted those Ohio class boomers and why the Russian navy built there Oscar class. To allow expanded non nuclear options in time of war.
Sounds more like a SSGN then a SSBN. Early missile boats used shorter range missiles due to jack of technology. When slbms became available they offered the critical advantage of alowing boomers to engage there target from virtually any locations. a SSBN could launch at targets from gone ports if it has the range. Using shorter range missiles you loose that. You have to move closer to your target making you more open to ASW detection and attack. A real worry for chinese boats as they are still in comparison very loud.
You do however gain the advantage of conventional warloads and those can be just as effective a strike with out the nuclear retaliation worry. That is why the USN converted those Ohio class boomers and why the Russian navy built there Oscar class. To allow expanded non nuclear options in time of war.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
Well Terrain Empire has already mentioned the biggest issue with IRBM armed SSBNs, which is that the reduced missile range would force the sub to have to get closer to their targets to attack. However, considering that your main use for those IRBMs would be anti-shipping rather that strategic nuclear strike, the reduced range may not necessarily mean the subs have to venture further from home waters if their targets are marauding close by anyways.
The other major issues with such a sub would be things like:
1) Cost. An LA class attack sub is estimated to cost around $1bn, while the same generation Ohio Class SSBN are reported to cost as much as $2bn apiece. I would not expect your hybrid sub to cost much less than a full blooded SSBN (will explain later), so the question comes down to whether you want 1 hybrid or two SSNs for the same price.
2) Unclear why such a special class is needed at all. The DF25 is estimated to be around 14m in length, which is the same, if not slightly longer than the JL2 ICBM. The DF25 would have a much smaller diameter (~1.4m v 2+m for the JL2), so the same sized sub can carry more DF25 missiles than JL2s, but not by much.
Considering you would need to develop a new sub launched variant of the DF25 and a specialist new sub class, it just seems like a lot of extra effort when you would just adapt the guidance and terminal maneuvering technology from the ASBM programme for the JL2 missile (which would have been a sensible thing to do anyways as a means to counter missile defense interceptors and generally improve the accuracy of the missiles) to give you a new sub launched ASBM with far greater range and payload than the DF25 based ASBM. You can then just use your existing SSBN fleet to take a mixed load of ASBMs and ICBMs and give them an added long range anti-ship capability to supplement their existing nuclear deterrence role.
If the PLAN wants to expand their SSBN fleet to maintain the same number of nuclear armed missiles available for launch, the additional ships would benefit from economies of scale in production cost reductions as well as shared logistics and training to help reduce operational costs.
3) Increased risk of miscalculation/understanding. The only way someone is going to know if a missile is carrying a nuclear or conventional warhead is when it hits. Countries are generally willing to give things like cruise missiles the benefit of the doubt and assume they are conventionally armed unless they have evidence to the contrary. But when you start popping off ballistic missiles, people start to get a whole lot more jumpy, especially if those missiles came out of boomers.
Say China does develop a sub launched ASBM and fires off a large wave of such missiles at an incoming enemy fleet, the missiles' flight paths can easily look like they are heading for the home country of the enemy fleet, and it will take critical minutes for the missiles' course to be accurately plotted. But in the meantime, what happens if the enemy gets too nervous and launches a full nuclear armed ballistic missile wave of their own 'in retaliation'?
China now has minutes to decide if they need to launch their nukes.
Best case, the Chinese ASBMs hit in the middle of the ocean and it becomes obvious China did not launch a nuclear first strike and the enemy self destructs their nukes. But what happens if there is a break down in communications or trust? How long does China give the enemy to self-destruct their nukes before China thinks the enemy actually wants to take advantage of the confusion and launch a nuclear first strike?
Say China sets a deadline or draws a line is space warning that if the enemy ICBMs are not self-destructed by then, China would launch a full nuclear strike. A canny enemy with a much bigger nuclear arsenal could deliberately choose to ignore the deadline and goad China into launching. Then self-destruct their nukes, and demand China do the same or they launch another wave of nukes. What does China do then? Self-destruct their nukes and leave their nuclear arsenal severely depleted or go full M.A.D? What happens if China self destructs their nukes, and the enemy launches a second full wave of nuclear ICBMs?
With the small nuclear arsenal that China has, it really does not want to get sucked into such an extreme game of brinkmanship, and it would be so much easier to accidentally set off a chain of events that might lead to the kinds of extreme measures as set out above by using SLBMs for anti-shipping, and if it came down to playing games with nuclear armed ICBMs China is at a massive disadvantage because of its small arsenal size. That is not even taking into account the very real possibility that no one self destructs their nukes and we blow up half the world with the rest freeing in a new ice age.
Well Terrain Empire has already mentioned the biggest issue with IRBM armed SSBNs, which is that the reduced missile range would force the sub to have to get closer to their targets to attack. However, considering that your main use for those IRBMs would be anti-shipping rather that strategic nuclear strike, the reduced range may not necessarily mean the subs have to venture further from home waters if their targets are marauding close by anyways.
The other major issues with such a sub would be things like:
1) Cost. An LA class attack sub is estimated to cost around $1bn, while the same generation Ohio Class SSBN are reported to cost as much as $2bn apiece. I would not expect your hybrid sub to cost much less than a full blooded SSBN (will explain later), so the question comes down to whether you want 1 hybrid or two SSNs for the same price.
2) Unclear why such a special class is needed at all. The DF25 is estimated to be around 14m in length, which is the same, if not slightly longer than the JL2 ICBM. The DF25 would have a much smaller diameter (~1.4m v 2+m for the JL2), so the same sized sub can carry more DF25 missiles than JL2s, but not by much.
Considering you would need to develop a new sub launched variant of the DF25 and a specialist new sub class, it just seems like a lot of extra effort when you would just adapt the guidance and terminal maneuvering technology from the ASBM programme for the JL2 missile (which would have been a sensible thing to do anyways as a means to counter missile defense interceptors and generally improve the accuracy of the missiles) to give you a new sub launched ASBM with far greater range and payload than the DF25 based ASBM. You can then just use your existing SSBN fleet to take a mixed load of ASBMs and ICBMs and give them an added long range anti-ship capability to supplement their existing nuclear deterrence role.
If the PLAN wants to expand their SSBN fleet to maintain the same number of nuclear armed missiles available for launch, the additional ships would benefit from economies of scale in production cost reductions as well as shared logistics and training to help reduce operational costs.
3) Increased risk of miscalculation/understanding. The only way someone is going to know if a missile is carrying a nuclear or conventional warhead is when it hits. Countries are generally willing to give things like cruise missiles the benefit of the doubt and assume they are conventionally armed unless they have evidence to the contrary. But when you start popping off ballistic missiles, people start to get a whole lot more jumpy, especially if those missiles came out of boomers.
Say China does develop a sub launched ASBM and fires off a large wave of such missiles at an incoming enemy fleet, the missiles' flight paths can easily look like they are heading for the home country of the enemy fleet, and it will take critical minutes for the missiles' course to be accurately plotted. But in the meantime, what happens if the enemy gets too nervous and launches a full nuclear armed ballistic missile wave of their own 'in retaliation'?
China now has minutes to decide if they need to launch their nukes.
Best case, the Chinese ASBMs hit in the middle of the ocean and it becomes obvious China did not launch a nuclear first strike and the enemy self destructs their nukes. But what happens if there is a break down in communications or trust? How long does China give the enemy to self-destruct their nukes before China thinks the enemy actually wants to take advantage of the confusion and launch a nuclear first strike?
Say China sets a deadline or draws a line is space warning that if the enemy ICBMs are not self-destructed by then, China would launch a full nuclear strike. A canny enemy with a much bigger nuclear arsenal could deliberately choose to ignore the deadline and goad China into launching. Then self-destruct their nukes, and demand China do the same or they launch another wave of nukes. What does China do then? Self-destruct their nukes and leave their nuclear arsenal severely depleted or go full M.A.D? What happens if China self destructs their nukes, and the enemy launches a second full wave of nuclear ICBMs?
With the small nuclear arsenal that China has, it really does not want to get sucked into such an extreme game of brinkmanship, and it would be so much easier to accidentally set off a chain of events that might lead to the kinds of extreme measures as set out above by using SLBMs for anti-shipping, and if it came down to playing games with nuclear armed ICBMs China is at a massive disadvantage because of its small arsenal size. That is not even taking into account the very real possibility that no one self destructs their nukes and we blow up half the world with the rest freeing in a new ice age.
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
Thanks a lot for the input. After some reconsideration I think a better way to approach this will be design/construction of a new class of sub with the a strap on module which will incorporate a VLS that is capable of launch not just your cruise missiles but ballistic missiles (of varying types) as while.
As plawolf mentioned already my aim is the deployment of the ASBM further out form the main land mass of China.
In terms of cost I feel you have to balance the cost and benefits which you can gain with such a system. It goes without saying the military importance if such a system can be deployed but at the same time the cost of design and construction of such a system will be high (initially), however if such a system can be developed you effectively reduced the need to have multiple classes of submarine thus reduce the logistic cost in the long run.
In terms of the missile, I absolutely agree with what you said plawolf, it will be a better idea to just implement the advances made in ASBM into the JL series, but again like you argued if this be the case how could we reduce the likelihood of miss calculation (after all you are launching a modified ICBM).
I am hoping we can leave out the part about potential miss calculation. Because in the event that China is required to use its ASBM we are looking at the worst case scenario anyway, thus China will be prepared for nuclear exchange. And even now just from a land launch the adversary will have no idea as to whether it is an ICBM or ASBM, hence miss calculation will be high. Thus I hope we can just look at my idea from a technical view whether it is possible and if yes what disadvantage there will be.
The disadvantages I can think of right now is produce a class of sub that is jake of all treat but good at nothing. Feel free to add more.
Thanks a lot for the input. After some reconsideration I think a better way to approach this will be design/construction of a new class of sub with the a strap on module which will incorporate a VLS that is capable of launch not just your cruise missiles but ballistic missiles (of varying types) as while.
As plawolf mentioned already my aim is the deployment of the ASBM further out form the main land mass of China.
In terms of cost I feel you have to balance the cost and benefits which you can gain with such a system. It goes without saying the military importance if such a system can be deployed but at the same time the cost of design and construction of such a system will be high (initially), however if such a system can be developed you effectively reduced the need to have multiple classes of submarine thus reduce the logistic cost in the long run.
In terms of the missile, I absolutely agree with what you said plawolf, it will be a better idea to just implement the advances made in ASBM into the JL series, but again like you argued if this be the case how could we reduce the likelihood of miss calculation (after all you are launching a modified ICBM).
I am hoping we can leave out the part about potential miss calculation. Because in the event that China is required to use its ASBM we are looking at the worst case scenario anyway, thus China will be prepared for nuclear exchange. And even now just from a land launch the adversary will have no idea as to whether it is an ICBM or ASBM, hence miss calculation will be high. Thus I hope we can just look at my idea from a technical view whether it is possible and if yes what disadvantage there will be.
The disadvantages I can think of right now is produce a class of sub that is jake of all treat but good at nothing. Feel free to add more.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
Not sure how you will take this but more and more the concept reminds of of the Russian Oscar class. They were intended to shadow American carrier formations and in time of war launch there SS-N-19 anti ship missiles to take out the American capital fleet before it could act.
Not sure how you will take this but more and more the concept reminds of of the Russian Oscar class. They were intended to shadow American carrier formations and in time of war launch there SS-N-19 anti ship missiles to take out the American capital fleet before it could act.
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
similar concept expect doing it will ASBM, the advantages over ss-n-9 are longer range and harder to intercept
similar concept expect doing it will ASBM, the advantages over ss-n-9 are longer range and harder to intercept