PLAN Type 035/039/091/092 Submarine Thread

[Pmichael]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Smaller submarines do have adventages in coastal/shallower waters but it wouldn't make sense to try to build the smallest possible nuclear submarine, you would basicaly destroy all pros of nuclear submarines (endurance, speed, weapon payload).

 

[delft]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Smaller submarines do have adventages in coastal/shallower waters but it wouldn't make sense to try to build the smallest possible nuclear submarine, you would basicaly destroy all pros of nuclear submarines (endurance, speed, weapon payload).

Every technical system is a mass of compromises and it certainly depends on the defensive systems your boat will have to contend with.

 

[Pmichael]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Every technical system is a mass of compromises and it certainly depends on the defensive systems your boat will have to contend with.

Well, of course.

But conventional and nuclear propulsion systems do have a specific set of adventages and drawbacks. France does have a bunch of pretty small nuclear submarines but nuclear reactors are heavier than modern conventional systems which leads to a worse weapon payload and amount of sensor systems on a submarine.

 

[delft]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Well, of course.

But conventional and nuclear propulsion systems do have a specific set of adventages and drawbacks. France does have a bunch of pretty small nuclear submarines but nuclear reactors are heavier than modern conventional systems which leads to a worse weapon payload and amount of sensor systems on a submarine.

That's why I mentioned thorium reactors. They are smaller and also more efficient so for a given electrical and mechanical power there is much less waste heat.

 

[Jeff Head]

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.

Says who?

IMHO, it is not clear at all...in fact, to the contrary, it is very clear that they are extremely cost effective in their role as nuclear deterrents.

By introducing talk of making a "versatile" SSBN, you are indicating that you do not understand the very basic nature of their role.

SSBNs were never designed to be versatile. They are designed to be (as I said earlier) strategic assets. Making it versatile means turning it also into a tactical asset and opens up a huge can of worms from a nuclear deterrent standpoint, which is what it is designed to accomplish.

It simply is not going to happen. No SSBN will turn into an SSN. It's payload is simply too critical to risk in that manner. And no SSBN is going to play SSGN either.

As I said earlier, any nation that did this would be inviting tactical responses (meaning sinking) to all of their "tactical" capable SSBNs in any conventional conflict. But those SSBNs are also their strategic nuclear deterrent. Such a course of action would be terribly and very dangerously destabilizing to the entire concept of nuclear balance and deterance that exists...and it is a delicate balance that no one wants to disturb.

Such nations will therefore ensure that its potential adversaries know that thre are two distinctly different and dissepperate class of vessels between the strategic SSBN and the tactical SSGN roles for these reasons. They will not mix and match the two.

As a nuclear deterrent...SSBNs are EXTREMELY cost effective. If they deter nuclear war, they do their job, and the tradeoffs in the costs are simply incalcuably advantagous for the SSBN fleet.

They are not meant to be, were never designed to be, and as a strategic asset, should never considered to be versatile.

Now, all that you have said does apply to SSGNs and SSNs. That convergence of roles is happening and will continue in that trend line (IMHO) as we are seeing in the Yasen and the Virginia class of vessels.

 

[Pmichael]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

That's why I mentioned thorium reactors. They are smaller and also more efficient so for a given electrical and mechanical power there is much less waste heat.

Well, it's hard to say if possible thorium reactors would lead to smaller propulsion systems. I think (or what I read) it's even the opposite but I'm not a nuclear engineer, so I don't know it.

 

[kwaigonegin]

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.

NO! Señor Jeffe has already stated correctly why you don't want to have a ssbn doing tactical operations like launching cruise missiles, insert SEAL teams, hunt down other assets etc and what have you. SSBNs serve one purpose and one only.. And that is nuclear detterance as part of the host country's nuclear triad. Unlike ICBMs and strategic bombers, ssbns will also have the best chance of survival for retaliatory missile strikes. The torpedoes it carries is strictly for self defense purposes only.

It is certainly not a waste nor non cost effective if prevents nuclear escalation or worse Armageddon.... that is it's primary role. It goes on what is call a strategic deterrent patrol and wait for the president's call to launch if need be. It doesn't do anything else because her primary role is of such great importance as part of nuclear triad that she cannot take any unnecessary chances whereby she could be hunted down or location revealed. Only in peace time and in some extreme cases where she may be call to do other duties where other assets are unavailable.

 

[mzyw]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Thank you Jeff and kwaigonegin.
Then may I ask how do you explain the introduction of Ohio conversion program? According to wikipedia (level of evidence is up to debate) US have already done what I have suggested that is conversion of Ohio to SSGN with dry docks, you could argue that because Ohios are old and the USN want to squeeze ever single penny from it before retirement but then why the extensive conversion programme? Would it not be better to refurbish the older Ohio and save the money for the Virginia SSN since they have the same capability in terms of launch LACM?

It is certainly not a waste nor non cost effective if prevents nuclear escalation or worse Armageddon.... that is it's primary role. It goes on what is call a strategic deterrent patrol and wait for the president's call to launch if need be. It doesn't do anything else because her primary role is of such great importance as part of nuclear triad that she cannot take any unnecessary chances whereby she could be hunted down or location revealed. Only in peace time and in some extreme cases where she may be call to do other duties where other assets are unavailable.

I would argue the differ, in terms of cost effectiveness and deterrent your argument stands during the time of cold war, but missions change and now a short duration direct action by major powers is the way forward, therefore IMO a dedicated single mission platform will not be as cost effective, however I am not saying deterrence is not important and indeed I don't see it in any way my suggestion will hinder deterrence in fact it will improve the nation's deterrence, I think it as building more "SSBN", during peace time you need minimum deterrence thus you can have the rest of your subs fitted with LACM as tension escalate your just take out the LACM and replace it with SLBM.

 

[kent]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

I hope someone can make something of it!

the page post said it just a joke and happy fools day

and he gave the answer to this riddle in the end : it is a large model to training and simulating.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

First only four of the Ohio's were and will be converted those four were unique in that they used the Trident C4 missile system the later uses The D5 Trident Missile. The older boats were not compatible and in 2005 those C4's were retired. The Structural mods needed to get these old Ohio's to fit the D5's would have been cost prohibitive and The US is under SALT so that means reducing to bare minimum our Nuclear weapons loads.
The NAvy also wants to keep all Ohio boats operational for a 42 year life span.First to be Retired the USS OHIO sometime in 2028-2029 so what to do with these old boats After all the Admiralty just Ruled out early retirement. The Virginia's were just starting out and there was a gap before the Navy was sure they could be used for the Job. So the Navy set to these four as the first of the SSGN's but only these four. Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia. That's a limited number further limited as the USN divides them between the Atlantic and Pacific theaters.
So mzyw They are the exception, The Navy really was looking to milk them for every penny. The Navy Found a nice notch for them though but that notch is rapidly being filled now by Virginia's Who will make up the bulk of the force.