PLAN Type 035/039/091/092 Submarine Thread

[Jeff Head]

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?.

Mzmw, as I read it, your arguement was not to just convert a SSBN to an SSGN, it was to use the vessels for both roles.

As to the four Ohio class, I have a son-in-law who was stationed on the USS Ohio during the refit and afterwards...for several years. He is career US Navy. I have been on the USS Ohio with him twice, once to mee the XO and another time to meet the CO. Believe me when I tell you, the new converted SSGN Ohios are no longer SSBNs and have no possibility of ever operating as a SSBN again.

The four US Ohio class are in fact complete conversions. Their entire role of the vessel was changed. There are incapable of launching any ICBMs anymore. They are not "versatile," in any dual role SSBN/SSGN/etc.. They are a new, four ship class of SSGNs. Every nation in the world knows it. No nation would ever mistake one of those four for potentially also being a SSBN, and the US has made it clear to them. So they cannot be considered as a dual use boats in the least.

They had to be converted because of two reasons (which TE explained to you).

1) They were built to an older ICBM missile standard, the Trident C4. The new Trident D5s, which the newer boats can handle, would not fit into the first four Ohios and to change them was viewed as cost prohibitive, and for a singluar reason.

2) That reason was that the US had to get down to 14 SSN vessels in any case, with their 24 launch tubes and MIRVS in order to meet the treaty obligations that the US had entered into with Russia. Plain and simple. This was the primary reason. The US did convert a couple of the other boats to handle the D5s and they were expensive, but doable.

So, they found another use for those four boats, each of which still had a lot of years of sevice life remaining in them. And it has proven a good use as they have been utlized in combat on numerous launching many SLCMs as SSGNs. They were also given a very capable SpeOps role, capable of caryring up to two full SEAL teams and using two of the old SSBN tubes as chambers to allow them to get out of the boat...either into the sea, onto wet SEAL delivery vehicles, or into dry SEAL delivery vehicles.

So, the exact arguement and reasoning I gave earlier holds.

The US will not dual task an SSBN as an SSGN. I doubt that Russia or the PLAN will either...or England or France. Their SSBNs are strategic assets and are for one very specific and critical purpose, the ability to pose a credible and absolutly devastating 2nd nuclear strike capability to any nation that would attack their countries with nuclear weapons first.

 

[kwaigonegin]

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?



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.

Not so easy. You cannot just 'take out the LACM and replace it with SLBM' in a couple hours time!
The entire deterence doctrine is based on the ability for retalitory or 2nd strike at a moments noticed if things go really south. There are only a handful of SSBN's available and when they are on strategic missile patrols like I mentioned in the earlier posts they are hiding deep in the world's ocean.. maybe even near the polar ice cap!

You don't expect them to sail all the way back to home base if something really serious breaks... and then be docked for several days so they can replace their Tomahawks and replaced with Tridents!! what kind of a crazy deterrent plan is that?

 

[asif iqbal]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

I think mzyw has failed to grasp the mission of a SSBN

SSBN main deterrence is that there's one sub out there somewhere 24/7 365 anywhere anytime anyone

That's why you need four , one in refit one on exercise one ready to go and one on patrol they rotate around this

There is no other way that's the only way to have second strike SSBN the mission is to stay hidden that's the deterrence

SSN can't do it Air Force can't do it only SSBN can which is why it's going to be the ace up every sleeve of any modern navy

 

[antiterror13]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Nice pic.

It was believed that a total of six Type 094s would be built before they moved on to the next version.

I guess we will see if that holds.

Six good SSBNs, which can take up regular deterence patrols is a very credible force.

Five vessels (which this one will represent) eclipses the four Vanguards the UK has, and the four Triomphant class SSBNs the Ferench have. So, now, behind the US and Russia, China now will have ther 3rd largest SSBN force in the world..

Also don't forget that China still have 1 or possibly 2 092 Xia SSBNs ... good enough deterrence for most countries in Asia

 

[kroko]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Also don't forget that China still have 1 or possibly 2 092 Xia SSBNs ... good enough deterrence for most countries in Asia

heh, which does china need to counter other asian countries with SSBN? china really only needs SSBN to counter the US, and for that, the xia class is pretty much good for nothing.

 

[Jeff Head]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Also don't forget that China still have 1 or possibly 2 092 Xia SSBNs ... good enough deterrence for most countries in Asia

Well, I do not believe that it has ever been verified that there were two Xias. I know of only one.

And, it is fairly common knowledge that the Xia was never truly and completely operational. The first we have ever heard of actual deterrence patrols by the PRC and PLAN has to do with the Type 094s, and they have missile and submarine range and capability to be much more credible and effective a deterrent against much longer ranged targets..

So, at least from my perspective, I do not believe the Xia ever represented a full deterrence threat, though it probably could have launched its shorter ranged missiles if it had to, but probably would have been no threat to any intercontinental targets.

 

[Preux]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Well, I do not believe that it has ever been verified that there were two Xias. I know of only one.

And, it is fairly common knowledge that the Xia was never truly and completely operational. The first we have ever heard of actual deterrence patrols by the PRC and PLAN has to do with the Type 094s, and they have missile and submarine range and capability to be much more credible and effective a deterrent against much longer ranged targets..

So, at least from my perspective, I do not believe the Xia ever represented a full deterrence threat, though it probably could have launched its shorter ranged missiles if it had to, but probably would have been no threat to any intercontinental targets.

antiterror13 has a point. Clearly, the XIA does not represent a deterrence against the USA, but if kept within the bastion of environs of Sanya it can reach most of the targets in Eastern India including Kolkata; or in the Bohai gulf it can hit anything of value east of Chita.

Now, I don't rate the XIA class' survival very highly against any navy with a decent ASW arm capable of force projection... but India's ASW capability close to China's shores is so close to nil as not to matter, the XIA class only has to have 1) missiles that can launch and 2) able to sit tight at dock and sortie a few dozen kms to achieve strategic deterrence against India. In that sense therefore antiterror13 is correct.

 

[tphuang]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

i'm not sure if it's still worth it at this point, but they could convert Xia to SSGN platform if they still think it has enough service life left.

 

[antiterror13]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

i'm not sure if it's still worth it at this point, but they could convert Xia to SSGN platform if they still think it has enough service life left.

My point is China doesn't need expensive 094 or 096 to deter Japan, SK or India or maybe NK. Xia should do the job for those countries and PLAN can concentrate their expensive 094 and 096 for the USA, EU and Russia.

I am fully aware that none of those countries in Asia (maybe India in some extent) have a credible threat to China strategically .... imagine if there was a war between China and the USA (I do hope it will never happen), one obsolete Xia would do its job to keep those countries from attacking China

 

[Jeff Head]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

antiterror13 has a point. Clearly, the XIA does not represent a deterrence against the USA, but if kept within the bastion of environs of Sanya it can reach most of the targets in Eastern India including Kolkata.

Now, I don't rate the XIA class' survival very highly against any navy with a decent ASW arm capable of force projection... but India's ASW capability close to China's shores is so close to nil as not to matter, the XIA class only has to be able to sit tight at dock and sortie a few dozen kms to achieve strategic deterrence against India.

Well, if its missiles have the range to hit India and act as a deterrent to India...that would work for them.

Otherwise, the other potential adversarial nations in the region are not nuclear powers.

It is an intriguing thought that Tphuang made about converting it to an SSGN like the Ohios and then clearly making its new role that function.