PLAN Type 035/039/091/092 Submarine Thread

[delft]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

I hope someone can make something of it!

I can make nothing of this, but it looks extremely old fashioned. Who still uses analog photography?

 

[Skywatcher]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Don't recall seeing too many houses looking like that in China (or Russia for the matter).

 

[delft]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

On second thoughts: It looks like a number has been blocked out. Chinese boats don't show their number.

 

[Jeff Head]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

... 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.

I do not think this will ever happen.

You may be confusing the trend to merge SSN and SSGN...but it will not happen with the SSBN.

The SSBN is purely a strategic asset. it's ro;e is clear, principally to deliver retaliatory nuclear strikes against an aggressor that the aggressor cannot stop. It could also be used as a first strike platform, but most nations relegate it to a second strike weapon to ensure deterrence. As such, they will remain either out in very deep, very remote areas, or in close "bastions" where they can be protected and will not ever travel in company with carriers or other task forces.

They are too valuable an asset in strategic terms, and any use of them in launching conventional missiles would invite a opposing force to hunt them all down as a tactical weapon and sink them. That becomes a very dangerous and destabilizing issue because hunting down the strategic weapons could lead to a nuclear launch...figuring that the opposing force is trying to take out your second strike capability.

SSGNs are different. They are tactical weapons and meant to provide significant precision strike capability against distant target, or against ships depending on the type of missiles they carry. The trend has been to begin combining the capabilities of the SSGN into the SSN. MAny SSNs have already been carrying long range, precision strike cruise missiles for many years. But increasing the number is the trend so the Rssians do not have to build separate Oscar class vessels, and so the US can retire the Ohio SSGN conversions without having a new class replace them.

So the Russian YAsen class SSN will fill that role ion the future carrying either 32 or 40 VLS for long range cruise missiles (and weighing in at 12,800 tons submerged) but still able to perform the SSN role, and the enlarged Virginia Class which will carry 40 VLS cruise missiles and still perform the SSN roles just about as capably. The newer Virgnina Class SSNs or going to end up displacing close to 10,000 tons themselves.

 

[delft]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Wouldn't a smaller sub be more difficult to find and especially better able to work in shallower water. I would imagine that a future thorium reactor powered sub might be not much larger than a current large SSK but have the speed and range of a current SSN. For the USN with its vast number of nuclear submarines it might be attractive to add land attack missiles, but I think it is a mistake when others with smaller numbers of boats follow suite.

 

[mzyw]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Jeff if you are referring to SSN and SSBN merging let me explain my logic:

It is clear that a dedicated SSBN is not cost effective and an increase in versatility is required, thus the introduction of SSBN to SSGN conversion program, (I mean you can't just construct a 2 billion vessels and never "use" it follow on by retirement, right?). Therefore IMO it is safe to assume that the next gen SSBN will have to have conventional strike ability, and in order to have this capability the new SSBN will have change their requirements to a similar standard as SSN. Thus there is a clear overlap of mission requirements.

And IMO in order to over come the above "problem" and be more cost effective a universal hull should introduced, by this I mean a SSBN hull with a modular turtle back design that will allow you to adopt the sub to your needs e.g. 16 tubs for your standard deterrence, or 8 tubes with SLCM and dry docks etc. for conventional strike. The increased number of these universal design will also have added benefit of safety in numbers, the enemy will have to dramatically increase the number of ASW assets in order to counter all the treats. Therefor I don't see why there could not be a convergence of SSN and SSBN.

 

[mzyw]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Wouldn't a smaller sub be more difficult to find and especially better able to work in shallower water. I would imagine that a future thorium reactor powered sub might be not much larger than a current large SSK but have the speed and range of a current SSN. For the USN with its vast number of nuclear submarines it might be attractive to add land attack missiles, but I think it is a mistake when others with smaller numbers of boats follow suite.

My opinion on this is small subs have small weapons load thus limit their capability, and limit space also means reduced number of food and water they can carry hence limit they mission duration.
And thorium reactor are still experimental thus for the foreseeable further it will not be introduced on subs.

 

[plawolf]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Wouldn't a smaller sub be more difficult to find and especially better able to work in shallower water. I would imagine that a future thorium reactor powered sub might be not much larger than a current large SSK but have the speed and range of a current SSN. For the USN with its vast number of nuclear submarines it might be attractive to add land attack missiles, but I think it is a mistake when others with smaller numbers of boats follow suite.

With subs, bigger is better.

With a big sub, you can hide noisy machinery deeper inside the hull and put more layers of insulation between the noise source and the outside ocean.

As others pointed out, bigger subs also carry more provisions, so can stay on patrol longer. They also allow you the luxury of putting in better hotel facilities for the crew to improve moral and thus combat effectiveness, the Russia Typhoons and their saunas is a good example.

 

[asif iqbal]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Wouldn't a smaller sub be more difficult to find and especially better able to work in shallower water. I would imagine that a future thorium reactor powered sub might be not much larger than a current large SSK but have the speed and range of a current SSN. For the USN with its vast number of nuclear submarines it might be attractive to add land attack missiles, but I think it is a mistake when others with smaller numbers of boats follow suite.

You raise a good point and actually you answered your own question too maybe not realising it

Your right smaller is better but it's all comes down to the warfare enviroment, in vast depths of the Atlantic Ocean SSBN are good but they are not so good in shallow waters

For Littoral conditions like the mouth of Persian Gulf which is between 50-100m deep then smaller midget submarines are better

Like for example when the small North Korean submarine sunk the ROKS Cheonan

In open water nothing beats a SSN a hunter killer but for shallow waters a SSK is more desirable so it's all about the specifics of the mission

First what is the mission second is what naval too do you use which is best suited for that particular mission

And moving on SSB are becoming more designed to come close to shores later blocks of the Virgina Class will have the ability to get close to shores as USN does not operate SSK, this is where under water UAV and inserting special forces through missile tubes etc comes onto play

 

[delft]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

My opinion on this is small subs have small weapons load thus limit their capability, and limit space also means reduced number of food and water they can carry hence limit they mission duration.
And thorium reactor are still experimental thus for the foreseeable further it will not be introduced on subs.

Even you are too optimistic: the Chinese thorium reactor is in development but I haven't yet heard that there is an experimental reactor.