PLAN Type 035/039/091/092 Submarine Thread

[mzyw]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

I don't think there is any conflict in terms of mission requirement, SSBN needs to be quieter and have longer endurance compare to SSN but aren't these qualities what SSN also looking for?
In terms of speed and weapons' load, a faster and more manoeuvrable SSBN will be quite suitable, because it is clear that all navies are converting/looking to convert single mission SSBN to multi missioned platforms i.e. deterrence and conventional strike, therefore a faster and more manoeuvrable SSBN will allow it to get into troubled waters faster and operate there more efficiently. And with the vertical tubes on SSNs, it means they can load more missiles and in China's case ASBM as well.
And lastly, in terms of cost a single platform will be easier to mass produce and maintain, and by mass production you can bring down the cost of the subs.

I have discussed this concept before but felt no body have given me a good reason why this concept is not good or adducted by the navy.

 

[mzyw]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Do they have specialised toilet and washing machine on subs that cones not produce any noise when flushing and washing? if there is any pls post a link thanks.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Okay now Then to your SSN/SSBN
First a correction reading your Idea, it would not be a SSN it would in the USN system be a SSGN. This is because via replacing the SLBM's with multi shot SLCM the end product would have a huge cruise missile load. I mean if you figure a load of six missiles per tube, with the PLA boomers 16 missile tubes then you have 96 Cruise missiles compare that to there 52D with 64 VLS tubes capible of Such but mix loaded with other missile types reducing the Cruise missile strike load.
So then why build separate SSN and SSBN? the Money.
SSBN's are more expensive as they need those large missile tubes, this makes them rarer, They are build in significantly smaller numbers because they can run double or better the price of a SSN because of those missile launch systems. SSN's Are needed in numbers to counter those SSBN's as they have to move in and shadow them keep track of them and hunt down enemy SSN's who are hunting Allied SSBN's as well as escort fleet formations and sneek around enemy ports. You need At least double the Number of SSN's to do all of this so building a fleet of one class of very very expansive subs and then retro fitting them to pull triple duty means a very pricey fleet.

 

[plawolf]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Do they have specialised toilet and washing machine on subs that cones not produce any noise when flushing and washing? if there is any pls post a link thanks.

I imagine they will have to wash their clothes by hand, and probably wash themselves with a basen of water rather than using washing machines or showers. Saves water (less of an issue for SSNs) but more importantly, cuts down noise.

That or they could do what the Russians do and stick a suna and swimming pool on their SSBNs.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

I imagine they will have to wash their clothes by hand, and probably wash themselves with a basen of water rather than using washing machines or showers. Saves water (less of an issue for SSNs) but more importantly, cuts down noise.

That or they could do what the Russians do and stick a suna and swimming pool on their SSBNs.

American SSN's have Washing Machines, Most modern Subs do, as you said Wolf Nuclear subs don't have the issues of Water. The machines are likely mounted on sound absorbent mounts and Insulated to keep from making excess noise. Same I would guess for all the Plumbing aboard ship.
As to the Sauna on Russian Boats I think that is likely unique to Typhoon class Due to it's huge size thanks to it's dual mounted pressure hulls

 

[plawolf]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

American SSN's have Washing Machines, Most modern Subs do, as you said Wolf Nuclear subs don't have the issues of Water. The machines are likely mounted on sound absorbent mounts and Insulated to keep from making excess noise. Same I would guess for all the Plumbing aboard ship.
As to the Sauna on Russian Boats I think that is likely unique to Typhoon class Due to it's huge size thanks to it's dual mounted pressure hulls

Would really suck if an enemy found your SSBN because someone spill source on their pants.

 

[latenlazy]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

I don't think there is any conflict in terms of mission requirement, SSBN needs to be quieter and have longer endurance compare to SSN but aren't these qualities what SSN also looking for?
In terms of speed and weapons' load, a faster and more manoeuvrable SSBN will be quite suitable, because it is clear that all navies are converting/looking to convert single mission SSBN to multi missioned platforms i.e. deterrence and conventional strike, therefore a faster and more manoeuvrable SSBN will allow it to get into troubled waters faster and operate there more efficiently. And with the vertical tubes on SSNs, it means they can load more missiles and in China's case ASBM as well.
And lastly, in terms of cost a single platform will be easier to mass produce and maintain, and by mass production you can bring down the cost of the subs.

I have discussed this concept before but felt no body have given me a good reason why this concept is not good or adducted by the navy.

Large ballistic missile tubes have a large impact on the hydrodynamics of the SSBN, and while endurance and noise are always a priority for both, their other requirements force them to make different sacrifices. Specifically the SSN cannot make the same sacrifices in speed and maneuverability for the larger tubes, while having to make different compromises to achieve noise and endurance requirements. When it comes to surface attack a larger loadout is better, but the primary differentiator between the requirements for an SSN with a VLS and an SSBN is not surface attack but all the other mission roles. While not a prefect analogy I liken it to the difference between a fighter and a bomber. This is all in addition to the other arguments presented.

 

[mzyw]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Thanks for all the replies.

BTW I like the washing machine. Is there any other devices that could shed some light on live aboard a sub? I really want to know the daily living on a conventional sub which will be more challenging than nuclear sub.

With regard to the cost and mission requirements of SSN vs SSBN I accept that SSBN clear will cost more and they may have different requirements, or rather they use to but does that still apply now? I think a comparable example will be B2 bomber, which had the same role as SSBN before but it is clear now that USAF have to convert it to have conventional strike capability other wise it will not be very cost effective, same goes for the SSBN conversion to SSGN. As the result in shift in think in world navy would it not require the next gen SSBN to be more like SSN i.e. have the speed to keep up with carrier groups, the ability to defend itself in enemy waters?

If we look at the PLAN, they are sort of doing it already but mind you very badly done i.e. 093 conversion to 094. If they can do the conversion why not spent a bit more money to design a sub that could full fill both requirements. The cost on sub construction will even out i.e. take a middle ground between SSN and SSBN and the maintain cost will be lower as well and in addition I suggested two variants one with 8 tubes as the SSN and "SSBN" with your normal 16 tubs your could full fill both requirements I think with compromise in the tube number.

 

[latenlazy]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Thanks for all the replies.

BTW I like the washing machine. Is there any other devices that could shed some light on live aboard a sub? I really want to know the daily living on a conventional sub which will be more challenging than nuclear sub.

With regard to the cost and mission requirements of SSN vs SSBN I accept that SSBN clear will cost more and they may have different requirements, or rather they use to but does that still apply now? I think a comparable example will be B2 bomber, which had the same role as SSBN before but it is clear now that USAF have to convert it to have conventional strike capability other wise it will not be very cost effective, same goes for the SSBN conversion to SSGN. As the result in shift in think in world navy would it not require the next gen SSBN to be more like SSN i.e. have the speed to keep up with carrier groups, the ability to defend itself in enemy waters?

If we look at the PLAN, they are sort of doing it already but mind you very badly done i.e. 093 conversion to 094. If they can do the conversion why not spent a bit more money to design a sub that could full fill both requirements. The cost on sub construction will even out i.e. take a middle ground between SSN and SSBN and the maintain cost will be lower as well and in addition I suggested two variants one with 8 tubes as the SSN and "SSBN" with your normal 16 tubs your could full fill both requirements I think with compromise in the tube number.

One of the key roles of the SSN is sub hunting. You can't make sacrifices there. The B-2 analogy is not particularly apt because strike and bombing roles have more in common than sub warfare and surface attack. You're thinking of an SSBN's similarity with an SSGN, as well as an SSN with VLS's similarity with an SSGN, where the convergence argument is more applicable. That means either could take up the roles of the SSGN , which renders the SSGN obsolete, but that does not make either the SSN our SSBN obsolete relative to each other.

 

[A.Man]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

I hope someone can make something of it!