Rumoured "mini-nuke/diesel" Submarine SSK-N(?) thread

[TK3600]

Dampening is certainly not a factor here. Having an engine of comparable radiation and noise to SSK means no SSN level dampening required. This is far stealthier than SSN. Given the lack of battery limit and mechanical noise, it should also be stealthier than conventional SSK. It will also likely be much faster than SSK. Simply calling it a SSK with longer range is underselling it.

While I am skeptical of the endurance reaching SSN level, the new engine is more space efficient, less crew intensive. This means more food carried, less consumed. For the sake of argument if SSN can loiter in west coast for a month, this thing should be able to loiter in Hawaii for a week. Compared to SSK that can only loiter a week around Guam. The strategic ramification would be massive regardless.

 

[plawolf]

"This then means that the PLAN can just redeploy its existing SSK crews to man the new SSKNs with minimal re-training needed while it’s naval academies focus on pumping out the next gen nuclear submarine crews."

Based on my limited understanding, moving a diesel-electric submarine crew to a nuclear-powered boat will require quite a bit more than "minimal" re-training, at least with regard to operating the reactor.

You are going to need specialist number engineers to look after the reactor. But for the rest of the crew, not a whole lot changes in terms of operations and tactics if it’s just a mod of existing designs. You get a lot more extra capabilities and time on station, but the fundamentals of how you work and fight in an SSKN won’t be drastically different from SSKs.

 

[Blitzo]

Why are you guys arguing like you think this rumoured SSKN will be a direct competitor to traditional SSNs when it makes so much more sense for this to be a complimentary partnership?

Because this post started it, and he and others have continued to dance around the possibility of the SSKN being a direct competitor or even replacement for proper SSNs, rather than coming out and disavowing that SSKNs will not fill the same role as a proper SSN.

See my subsequent replies with various people in subsequent pages.

Rumoured "mini-nuke/diesel" Submarine SSK-N(?) thread

OK so basically the reactor replaces the diesel engine, but why still the need for Sterling engines in that case? Why not just replace the lot? With a Sterling engine you still need to lug around the O2 for it. You can still have a battery for high-speed dashes. Also, where are these being...

www.sinodefenceforum.com

 

[Jason_]

This is the post which started my entry into the discussion, and I'm not sure why people have continued entering the discussion if they don't actually hold the position written:

I have no inherent problem with the idea of the SSKN if it works and if it is at a reasonable cost and within their acceptability for complexity -- in fact it may well be an excellent replacement for SSKs and if so then the PLAN would absolutely be idiotic to not buy SSKNs.

However I also am adamant that the SSKNs with the characteristics that have been described in rumours, cannot and will not perform the role of a proper SSN that is known and in operation among leading navies today.

If you are saying that the SSKN will not be able to perform the same mission as a 09IIIB or 09V, and that the SSKN can do the job of a SSK better due

I have no problem with a 09V being on a one to one basis far more capable than an SSKN. However, the SSKN offers capabilities far superior to an SSK. While it may not be able to perform “all the mission” of SSNs, the same is true of any class of SSN (e.g. Seawolf cannot perform all the roles of Virginia and vice versa).

SSKN is really a shorthand for what should be properly called nuclear-Stirling-battery-electric submarines, in contrast to the tradition nuclear-turbine-gearbox submarines. The fundamental trade off is for quietness over sustained top speed, while retaining the capability of high speed burst in tactical situations.

This is an immensely worthwhile tradeoff for the PLAN because of its maritime geography and the variety of missions for its submarine fleet that does not require sustained top speed.

Once this class is produced, I am confident that it will be described and treated as an SSN by the USN and allies.

 

[Blitzo]

I have no problem with a 09V being on a one to one basis far more capable than an SSKN. However, the SSKN offers capabilities far superior to an SSK. While it may not be able to perform “all the mission” of SSNs, the same is true of any class of SSN (e.g. Seawolf cannot perform all the roles of Virginia and vice versa).

SSKN is really a shorthand for what should be properly called nuclear-Stirling-battery-electric submarines, in contrast to the tradition nuclear-turbine-gearbox submarines. The fundamental trade off is for quietness over sustained top speed, while retaining the capability of high speed burst in tactical situations.

This is an immensely worthwhile tradeoff for the PLAN because of its maritime geography and the variety of missions for its submarine fleet that does not require sustained top speed.

Once this class is produced, I am confident that it will be described and treated as an SSN by the USN and allies.

I'm not asking you to accept that 09V will be more capable than SSKN, I am saying that the difference between SSKN and your average contemporary SSN means that the SSKN (as described in rumours) cannot be compared with a SSN in role and is much much more appropriately compared with SSKs instead.

If we look at the inherent changes that the SSKN offers as an improvement, it is basically offering just much improved submerged endurance on part with a proper SSN.

However the SSKN still suffers from a massive deficit in speed compared to a proper SSN that is not hugely dissimilar from what a typical SSK holds compared to a proper SSN.

When the SSKN's "high speed tactical burst" is still much lower than that of the sustained transit speed that a proper nuclear submarine and when the SSKN's tactical speed is also much lower than a proper SSN's tactical speed, then yes that is a massive omission which cripples the idea of a SSKN doing the roles currently done by SSNs in any meaningful capacity except for suboptimal scenarios.


I have nothing against the idea of the SSKN -- if it is real and ends up developed and works and is not too complex or costly I think the PLAN would absolutely have a demand for them and it would be a significant capability lift.
However the SSKN will take on the orbat role held by SSKs, and will not impede on the roles that are held by SSNs.

Heck, even as this discussion around the SSKN continues into the coming years, the mere idea of comparing the SSKN with proper SSNs (rather than calling them as longer endurance and more capable SSKs) reeks of trying to upsell the SSKN as something more capable than it really is and would be an unforced error in the discourse around it by trying to defend an indefensible position.

 

[tphuang]

where is the proof Stirling will be used here?

Dampening is certainly not a factor here. Having an engine of comparable radiation and noise to SSK means no SSN level dampening required. This is far stealthier than SSN.

There is literally no proof of this.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

This is an immensely worthwhile tradeoff for the PLAN because of its maritime geography and the variety of missions for its submarine fleet that does not require sustained top speed.

The fact that massive investments have been made in Bohai for SSN production clearly long after this new SSKN was in development should clearly illustrate how the PLAN feels about the SSKNs ability to take over SSN roles.

 

[lcloo]

I am not aiming at any previous posts above but just a thought. IMO, the SSKN was developed not as a replacement of SSN, nor a direct replacement of SSK, it is more like an addition to PLAN's underwater capablity with advantage over both SSN and SSK in shallow waters around the shores of China.

The shallow seas does not favour the large SSN due to higher chances of them getting detected in shallow depths, while the SSK's short duration underwater means it is more exposed to enemy attacks since they need to surface more frequently.

SSKN would be a good area denial weapon guarding sea areas from near shores to may be 500km to 1,000km out towards open sea and its ability to stay under water longer than SSK is a plus point. And it can free the SSN for them to be deployed further out in open ocean, forming an underwater defense layers with SSK at layer 1, SSKN at layer 2 and SSN at layer 3.

SSK will be mostly defensive, SSKN will be both defensive as well as hunter while SSN will be mostly taking up hunter roles.

As for the technicalities of SSKN design, I have no insight, so I'll just give it a pass.

 

[TK3600]

where is the proof Stirling will be used here?

There is literally no proof of this.

If you meant no SSN level dampening need, it is page 1. "Comparable radiation and noise level as conventional". Therefore SSN thick isulation is a drawback, not advantage. SSKN solved noise issue at root, so never needed thick insulations. Like a sick man dont brag to healthy man of his high quality medicine. SSKN should be as stealthy as SSK, if not more. SSK of same size is generally regarded as harder to detect than SSN at equal condition.

 

[para80]

Modern SSN use natural circulation to reduce noise levels. Seawolf is an obvious example. Furthermore engineering solutions such as raft mounted equipment and anechoic coating (to protect against active sonar emitters) are standards across SSK and SSN design. Personally I see this alleged SSKN design as frankly highly speculative, as the benefits compared to trade-offs are not at all evident to me. This is of course not a new field of study and development either, and there are good reasons no other submarine operator so far has fielded something like this.