What's the point? If you just want powerful nuclear subs everywhere, why are you still building this? Just go to a fully regular sized nuclear fleet like USN.
Maybe it's cheaper and therefore easier to field in larger numbers?
Maybe it's easier to build and therefore faster to field in larger numbers?
Maybe it's quieter and therefore preferred for environments under the persistent coverage of relatively sophisticated adversarial sensor arrays?
Maybe it's considered more nimble and therefore easier to operate and conceal in shallow waters?
Maybe it offers a hedge against developmental risks associated with the 093B and 095 programs?
This is obviously a far from exhaustive list, but it's probably a combination of the aforementioned considerations and some others. What do you think?
none of this hypothetical scenarios explain why you need VLS.
I can tell you that such a VLS may be used to deploy AShBMs, cruise and ballistic missiles for land attack, ASROC type systems, and so on and so forth. However, you're probably going to tell me that torpedo tubes will suffice, or that the weapon in question is a bad fit for an auxillary nuclear powered SSK for one reason or another.
I don't think there's necessarily a need to go back and forth here. We can agree to disagree, and in a few years, or even a few months, we'll know for sure once photos become available.
However, considering the typical service life of a naval vessel, maybe it's more helpful to recognize the VLS as a mechanism for "
future proofing" a submarine so that it will be compatible with more weapons that are under development or have yet to be adapted for submarine use, in particular weapons that do not conform to the 533mm diameter of the standard (PLAN) torpedo tube.
Deploying sensors or tapping fibre optic cables is more of a peacetime activity.
And during peacetime, there are more than enough spare submarines to do this.
One of the principle challenges for conventional submarines, including those equipped with existing AIP systems, is range.
Just because there are plenty of boats available during peace time doesn't mean most or even any of them can necessarily get from point A to point B without being detected, identified and tracked.
A SSKN just doesn't have the speed to keep up with a carrier group or even a surface action group.
I agree with you that a auxillary nuclear powered SSK will not keep up with a carrier battle group or surface action group
as well as a "more traditional" SSN. However, that doesn't mean it can't contribute to such a mission whatsoever.
That was also one of the reasons why I stated:
In all fairness, a ~3,500 ton auxillary nuclear or AIP powered boat is never going to have the same capabilities as a "more traditional" nuclear boat that's two to three times its displacement and of the same generation. Not to say such a boat will equal a 093B or 095, but it might be "good enough" to mass produce if and when the kinks are worked out.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
One of the principle differences between a SSN and a SSK is endurance, which auxillary nuclear power could potentially significantly increase, even if improvements in speed, especially in terms of sustainable "top speed," are less impressive.
When submarines screen for flotillas, they aren't traveling in formation, but rather operating up to hundreds of miles in advance of or on the periphery of the surface vessels.
Slower boats aren't going to cover as much distance when conducting screening operations, but if you have "enough of them" and they're "fast enough" (and perhaps if augmented by UUVs [think "teapot and teacups"]), then you might have something useful to play with for securing a perimeter around capital vessels, depending on the adversarial threats facing you.
I actually see SSNs with VLS cells being deployed primarily for the 2IC and beyond.
Anything in the 1IC is better targeted by missiles launched from aircraft and trucks.
So where do you deploy auxillary nuclear powered SSKs that can operate within the 1IC like their stirling brethren, but also possess the range to reach the 2IC and beyond?
one thing is VLS on a SSK is that it gives away the position, but the SSK can't run very fast. The first warning of a cruise missile from VLS is breaking the surface and the launcher position can be back calculated easily if it is from a VLS.
The same is not true for a tube launched cruise missile since the float and release can be delayed. And of course, usually the first warning of a torpedo is something sinking.
I find that navies with SSNs (Russia, China) and navies that don't have a substantial land attack mission (Japan) don't put VLS on their SSKs, even if they can. Taigei, 039A and Lada are all torpedo only.
Not sure if the risk of discovery upon a VLS missile launch is necessarily a "total deal breaker," though it obviously very much depends on adversarial capabilities.
The Russian Navy actually operated a number of Juliett class SSGs with angled missile tubes until the 1990s. If funding wasn't an issue, there would probably already be a version of the Lada SSK equipped with a VLS.
In fact,
indicates that its proposed Amur 950 design will integrate a 10 cell VLS despite a surfaced displacement in the ~1,100 tons ballpark.
Rather doubtful the Amur program will get anywhere considering the state of the Lada program and the Russian MoD's budgetary priorities.
However, with the Rubin Design Bureau -- which we can (probably) safely assume to know what they're doing -- responsible for this design, then odds are it's technically feasible and perhaps even appealing to some prospective operators to integrate VLS onto even relatively small SSKs.
As for Japan, not too sure why their submarines lack VLS, but from what I've been told, it's largely a result of political considerations. So not sure how long that's going to last as Japanese hypersonic missile programs further mature while their pacifist tendencies continue to erode.
To be fair, while not every submarine needs or should be equipped with a VLS, prevailing trends might make VLS a de facto "standard feature" for
virtually all newly constructed, current generation submarines
above a certain displacement at some point in the 2030s.
