PLAN Type 035/039/091/092 Submarine Thread

[pla101prc]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

I don't know whether its idle boasting by individuals or there is a degree of truth in the claim, from opposing forums that Chinese subs being very noisy, are extremely vulnerable to being sunk with ease as they leave port, therefore the 094's may not get anywhere near their intended destination.

the idea is deterrence...there is no way this is gonna play out in the real scenario. in a perfect world the US can destroy all of China's missile silos before 094 and DF-31A came along...but that doesnt mean China didnt have effective deterrence becase what if you miss just one? and one is more than enough.

 

[Lion]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

I don't know whether its idle boasting by individuals or there is a degree of truth in the claim, from opposing forums that Chinese subs being very noisy, are extremely vulnerable to being sunk with ease as they leave port, therefore the 094's may not get anywhere near their intended destination.

Most of your so called Chinese sub noisy news was outdated 10-20yrs ago. They were talking about the original 091 Han.

Extremely vulnerable to being sunk with ease near the port? Then what is the point of having yr own coastline and your own water??

You think PLAN is stupid to never plant surveilance ,setup it own defense on its own coastline and let enemy sub enter easily??

Precisely why they want JL-2 to be on 094 is because of its long range of 8000km which means it can loiter near its own water and carry out strike while being protect by its own warship...

 

[AssassinsMace]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Anybody brings up noisy Chinese subs and all you have to do is bring up the Kitty Hawk incident. Noisy Chinese subs is another way to perpetuate stereotypes and not about really comparing technological capabilities. That's why bringing up the Kitty Hawk incident sometimes gets an angry reaction because it ruins their moment.

 

[bladerunner]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Extremely vulnerable to being sunk with ease near the port? Then what is the point of having yr own coastline and your own water??

.

I acknowledge that that view could be an exaggeration, but as far as I can tell, the view in this forum is, China's anti submarine capability isn't as good as it should be.

 

[bladerunner]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Anybody brings up noisy Chinese subs and all you have to do is bring up the Kitty Hawk incident. Noisy Chinese subs is another way to perpetuate stereotypes and not about really comparing technological capabilities. That's why bringing up the Kitty Hawk incident sometimes gets an angry reaction because it ruins their moment.

Hmmmm a interesting way of looking at it, but I'm sure you are well aware of some very well argued counter views to the Kitty Hawk Incident.

 

[HKSDU]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Its not that its ASW isnt good their just isn't enough of them to effectively to deter large amounts of hostile submarine threats. I'd take the Kilo to be more quieter then the LA SSN any day. Steam engines vs battery. Just think about the moving parts of the steam engine compared to the battery.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Hmmmm a interesting way of looking at it, but I'm sure you are well aware of the counters to the Kitty Hawk Incident.

This is where the belief in 100% professionalism among the Western militaries goes in conflict with the notion that Western military hardware works without flaws. At least compared to China's capablities. Can't have it both ways in regard to the Kitty Hawk incident. Something failed in the process. Which one is it? Was the Kitty Hawk alone without her escorts? None of them were listening for subs especially being near China? Some can't admit one or the other. Bring up the Kitty Hawk incident and the only place left to go without admitting some kind of failure took place is denial. And that's why noisy Chinese subs are continually being reminded. Or it's as simple as admitting China doesn't have noisy subs anymore.

 

[Ambivalent]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

This is where the belief in 100% professionalism among the Western militaries goes in conflict with the notion that Western military hardware works without flaws. At least compared to China's capablities. Can't have it both ways in regard to the Kitty Hawk incident. Something failed in the process. Which one is it? Was the Kitty Hawk alone without her escorts? None of them were listening for subs especially being near China? Some can't admit one or the other. Bring up the Kitty Hawk incident and the only place left to go without admitting some kind of failure took place is denial. And that's why noisy Chinese subs are continually being reminded. Or it's as simple as admitting China doesn't have noisy subs anymore.

Short of starting a war, what can an American carrier do when a Chinese sub shows up? Not a darn thing. You can track it and harass it with sonar, both of which were done often enough to Soviet subs, back in the day. For all we know it came up after a prolonged game under water. There were certainly enough occasions where Soviet subs showed up inside US carrier strike groups. One even struck the underside of the Kitty Hawk as it surfaced. None of that was ever taken to imply that in a hot war Soviet subs were going to have a free run at the carrier. No one aside from a limited number of people who were there knows the true story of the Chinese sub, and they aren't talking.

 

[pla101prc]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Short of starting a war, what can an American carrier do when a Chinese sub shows up? Not a darn thing. You can track it and harass it with sonar, both of which were done often enough to Soviet subs, back in the day. For all we know it came up after a prolonged game under water. There were certainly enough occasions where Soviet subs showed up inside US carrier strike groups. One even struck the underside of the Kitty Hawk as it surfaced. None of that was ever taken to imply that in a hot war Soviet subs were going to have a free run at the carrier. No one aside from a limited number of people who were there knows the true story of the Chinese sub, and they aren't talking.

short of starting a war, what can a Chinese sub do when an American carrier shows up? Not a darn thing. you can track it (not even harrass it).
god knows how long that Song sub or the Soviet sub that you were talkin about have been stalkin the US carrier before they were discovered.

 

[kroko]

Re: PLAN submarines Thread II

Thats not the point. China wants to have the nuclear "triad"-land, sea, air launched nuclear platforms. The 094, and SSBNs in general, are the most important part of the triad, because they provide unprecedented first and second strike capability.

The 094 is the ultimate insurance, because if someone nukes China, even if only one 094 survives (which is likely because it is quiet and can simply find a "hole in the ocean" and hide) that single sub still holds enough firepower to kill the majority of the enemy's population.

An 094 is also an excellent first strike asset, because it has the ability to pop up of the enemy's coast, drastically cutting the flight times of its missles to their targets, giving the enemy less time to react and retaliate.

A DF-31A can serve as a good second strike asset because it is road mobile, but an SSBN can hide like nothing else on the planet. Furthermore a DF-31A isn't very useful in first strikes role.

the 094 has never made a deterrent patrol.
the recent incidents near china coast really implies that the USN are mapping the seabed so that their subs may operate and watch continously PLAN sub bases. What makes you believe that even one (one generation-tech behind) 094 can escape modern USN submarines ??
leaving port is already hard, imagine passing the USN ASW pacific network to get close to the US coast...

Besides china doesnt have the capacity for a nuclear first-strike capability against the USA. Not even by a long shot. USA has hundreds of ICBM and many SLBM. How many missiles China have that can reach the continental USA?? about 20 DF-5 silo-based icbm, 20 DF-31 mobile ICBM, 3 SSBN 094 submarines...

Sorry, but china can only hope for a 2nd-strike nuclear deterrent. For that it needs mobile ICBM, at least 200 of them. China really should look more into its nuclear forces. Just like in Russia, they are in reality the only weapon that can keep the USA military at bay, not their conventional forces which in terms of quantitiy and quality, cant go up against USA armed forces. Maybe 200 are unfeasible but it should create at least an 100 mobile ICBM force (replacing DF-4 and DF-5 etc)

the idea is deterrence...there is no way this is gonna play out in the real scenario. in a perfect world the US can destroy all of China's missile silos before 094 and DF-31A came along...but that doesnt mean China didnt have effective deterrence becase what if you miss just one? and one is more than enough.

094 and DF-31A are mobile, not missile silos
what can you do with only one missile???? you can destroy one enemy city, and the enemy can obliterate your civilization. You wont even consider using that missile, instead you will surrender unconditionaly...