Rumoured "mini-nuke/diesel" Submarine SSK-N(?) thread
- Thread starter ACuriousPLAFan
- Start date
Are you sure that the PLA is free of such interservice competition?
Not trying to be unreasonable or argumentive here, but militaries tend to operate on a lot of testosterone, and competition comes with the territory in all sorts of ways. The absence of such interservice competition just sounds incredulous, if not outright unnatural.
The Guancha podcasters aren't always on point, but this anecdote sounds reasonable enough and suggests otherwise:
In another earlier podcast, they said PLAAF successfully intercepted PLARF's newly-equipped type of missile around 2020. The new missile is so challenging, which made PLAAF overjoyed. They tried to transport intercept debris to Beijing via Y-20, and to bring their PLAAF leaders a big surprise. However, this made PLARF feel humiliated and finally stopped them to do so.
Guancha Trios didn't mention "DF-17" or "DF-100" directly in either podcasts, but considering the two are the most challenging hypersonic missile types in PLARF, I strongly suspect PLAAF has intercepted the both two successfully before. The two types are also with different typical envelopes, one for HGV, another for HCM. They're perfect target missiles for HQ-19 & following HQ-2X series.
Btw, Guancha Trios really talked lots of "insider news", as if OPSEC didn't exist.
In all fairness, some degree of interservice competition is just about inevitable in most major militaries, and it isn't even a bad thing if properly managed and channeled.
Then why would Rear Admiral Zhao Dengping claim otherwise during his presentation at Northwestern Polytechnical University in 2017?
It's plausible the admiral was misreading the technology, exaggerating projections for political considerations, and/or just repeating an official-ish position, but it's also reasonable that a new boat incorporating emergent technologies that were previously unavailable would yield a relatively quieter design, or at least on paper.
TELs carrying missiles like the DF-26 are more vulnerable to EO satellites than submarines; it'll be a while before the J-36 equips multiple brigades; and isn't the H-6 out of production or close to it?
I would say more the merrier for the PLA!
Though, considering the PLAN's incremental approach towards developing and refining new platforms, an argument can be made that a VLS equipped derivative of this light SSN won't emerge until the platform's initial kinks are worked out, especially given the emergent, if not arguably "untested" technologies incorporated.
In all fairness, such a line of reasoning feels more compelling and probable than the "VLS is not needed for the boat's mission" position, especially considering what "lesser" adversarial navies are playing with or pursuing with similarly sized submarines.
Though these two scenarios are also not mutually exclusive.
Why we want to use Stirling
Stirling thermoelectric converter reduces all that stuff on the right side. Cuts a lot of noise making part.
If I'm reading you and some of the other members correctly, then it appears this new light SSN design will likely be an "electric" or at least a "more electric" boat (molten salt reactor -> Stirling thermoelectric converter -> batteries -> hotel load & electric motor) with fewer or arguably less prominent mechanical components as compared to "non-electric" SSN designs (pressurized water reactor -> steam generator -> steam turbine -> generators, batteries, hotel load & electric motor).
I was initially under the impression from reading your post as well as that integrating a Stirling thermoelectric converter with a nuclear reactor would be quieter than the more traditional approach of employing a steam generator and steam turbine, until I took a deeper look at the diagram you shared and noticed the Stirling thermoelectric converter's turbine and compressors.
Kind of getting the impression that the Stirling thermoelectric converter can be quieter than "more traditional" or "non-electrical" approaches, at least in theory or according to those building them, but as it still incorporates moving parts, certain advantages in acoustics may prove more theoretical than tangible, at least until the technology further matures?
If the larger 093B and 95 designs are expected to retain steam generators and steam turbines in favor of Stirling thermoelectric converters, then can it be assumed that obstacles remain in further scaling the Stirling thermoelectric conversion technology that China has developed for both space and naval applications?
Last edited:
It's hard to say what he was comparing and in what speed regiments. PLAN SSNs weren't quiet for most of its history, but based on our discussion in 093 thread (which you can read over), we think 093B can get somewhere to be better than even the last LA class at lower speed. And going forward, people here have good reason to believe a 095 will be quieter than your earliest VA boat. So, they will basically be really quiet.
I don't think we can say that at like 8 to 10 knots, mini nuke would be quieter than a PLAN nuclear sub built in the next few years.
DF missiles are the cornerstone of PLA fire power within 2IC. H-6Ks are the next most important deliverer of fire power in PLA.
These are important things to remember.
If you want more deliverer of missiles from PLAN, 052D and 055s can all carry serious amount of missiles.
Countries that don't have what PLAN have may feel the need of putting VLS into smaller subs, but PLAN doesn't have that need.
Now, it's possible that someone within PLAN will feel the marginal extra fire power from putting VLS into mini nukes is worth the extra cost and complexity.
I don't see the need for that. After all, why make this packed with so much stuff when you can just build more regular nuclear subs? What is your goal with this mini nuke? What role do you see it playing in the overall picture?
Claiming PLA has no interservice rivalry is like claiming the Party has no internal bickering. Of course it does, but everything is kept behind closed doors so the public only ever sees unity. You get a trickle of rumours and anecdotes from people who were there, but nothing official.
Not every internal bickering or intra-state rivalry are the same too. It is a problem if the said rivalries escalate to the duplication of functions, or even worse, sabotage of each other. My personal observation is the Chinese state has almost no such rivalry. They did a good job in suppressing such rivalries going as back as Deng's term. PLAAF kept nothing from PLAN while the latter was establishing its fixed-wing naval aviation in the 2010s. So I don't think PLAN would add VLS to their SSK(N)s to just to duplicate a capability of PLAAF.
So the question I ask is would VLS on SSKs be useful? The answer is nominally yes. It could make it harder to plan air defense placements in the FIC for the USA and Japan. But the benefits would be very limited. I don't think you could fit a YJ-21 sized missile in a SSK(N) in good numbers and China's SSKs can launch the YJ-18 from their tubes already. More importantly, SSKs do not have infinite endurance unlike SSNs and any internal structure that isn't an energy storage decrease their endurance in some way. If the goal is to torpedo ships (which are usually lethal with a single hit and cannot be intercepted unlike missiles) endurance is much more valuable to a submarine than a few extra cruise missiles.
I have a feeling that some people here may have been idealizing the SSK-N a little too much.
Firstly, given that the SSK-N is to be based on the hull of the preceding SSKs (likely to be 039C), per the 2017 presentation slides:
This means that the SSK-N isn't going to be large. Taking the swapping/addition of a mini nuclear reactor or a nuclear battery into account, my estimation is no heavier than 5000 tons of submerged displacement at full load.
Besides, there are the following information from the grapevines back in 2020, which discounted the possibility of the SSK-N having VLS cells onboard:
Hence, it seems that the likelihood of VLS cells being present onboard the SSN-K (or at least in its current iteration) is rather low, based on what we've accessed so far.
Personally, while I'm not entirely against the idea of equipping SSK-Ns with VLS cells for AShMs - I prefer to see the presence of AShM-loaded VLS cells as something that is "good to have, but not needed unless absolutely necessary".
It should also be noted that the output power of the mini nuclear reactor or nuclear battery stated in the grapevine source is listed as 10MW. This is actually a far cry to the power output typically seen on nuclear reactors for proper, larger SSNs (150MW to 250 MW). That is, the mini nuclear reactor or nuclear battery only has 4% to 6.67% the output power of the SSN's nuclear reactor, despite the SSK-N expected to be only ~2-3+ times lighter than the SSNs. This should be an obvious enough difference for making further inferences and guess-works regarding the SSK-Ns.
Therefore, for the SSK-N - Regardless of whether it has a mini nuclear reactor or a nuclear battery, I would recommend seeing it as something of a "SSK Pro-Max-Plus". Namely, the SSK-N is expected to have:
1. The ability to stay completely submerged for many days or even weeks at a time;
2. The ability to travel and maneuver at relatively high speeds for extended distances while completely submerged;
3. The ability to sail very close to the seabed, hence able to hug the topographical features of the seabed which would otherwise be very difficult for proper, larger SSNs; and
4. The ability to stay really quiet when travelling at low-to-medium speeds at shallower waters, hence greater degree of stealth.
This means that instead of acting like an ac-hoc SSN, the SSK-N would be better deployed as follows:
1. Picketing/intelligence-gathering;
2. Patrolling (or outright camping) around naval chokepoints and outside of enemy naval bases to attack passing enemy warships;
3. Laying sea(bed) mines (and potentially assist in clearing enemy minefields); and
4. Conduct seabed warfare (tapping on or cutting enemy seabed communication cables, setting up own or destroying enemy SOSUS etc) -
Which can be greatly augmented by USVs and/or UUVs.
Speaking of missiles - Compared to the larger YJ-21 AShBMs, a land-attack/anti-ship cruise missile that is either dual subsonic-supersonic (i.e. YJ-18B) or full-supersonic (possibly the yet-to-be-revealed YJ-15) with 500-800 kilometers of range would be a much more appropriate choice. This is besides the fact that the former option is readily available by using torpedo tubes only.
However, given the expected characteristics and operational doctrines for the SSK-Ns - Having a module for small-size USVs and/or UUVs inserted behind the sail structure would be a better/superior warfighting capability that the SSK-N can bring to the table compared to having more AShM-loaded VLS cells. Of course, you could have the VLS cells configured to stow, deploy and recover USVs and UUVs besides AShMs, which is similar to how torpedo tubes work - But the fundamental point remains the same.
Firstly, given that the SSK-N is to be based on the hull of the preceding SSKs (likely to be 039C), per the 2017 presentation slides:
This means that the SSK-N isn't going to be large. Taking the swapping/addition of a mini nuclear reactor or a nuclear battery into account, my estimation is no heavier than 5000 tons of submerged displacement at full load.
Besides, there are the following information from the grapevines back in 2020, which discounted the possibility of the SSK-N having VLS cells onboard:
Hence, it seems that the likelihood of VLS cells being present onboard the SSN-K (or at least in its current iteration) is rather low, based on what we've accessed so far.
Personally, while I'm not entirely against the idea of equipping SSK-Ns with VLS cells for AShMs - I prefer to see the presence of AShM-loaded VLS cells as something that is "good to have, but not needed unless absolutely necessary".
It should also be noted that the output power of the mini nuclear reactor or nuclear battery stated in the grapevine source is listed as 10MW. This is actually a far cry to the power output typically seen on nuclear reactors for proper, larger SSNs (150MW to 250 MW). That is, the mini nuclear reactor or nuclear battery only has 4% to 6.67% the output power of the SSN's nuclear reactor, despite the SSK-N expected to be only ~2-3+ times lighter than the SSNs. This should be an obvious enough difference for making further inferences and guess-works regarding the SSK-Ns.
Therefore, for the SSK-N - Regardless of whether it has a mini nuclear reactor or a nuclear battery, I would recommend seeing it as something of a "SSK Pro-Max-Plus". Namely, the SSK-N is expected to have:
1. The ability to stay completely submerged for many days or even weeks at a time;
2. The ability to travel and maneuver at relatively high speeds for extended distances while completely submerged;
3. The ability to sail very close to the seabed, hence able to hug the topographical features of the seabed which would otherwise be very difficult for proper, larger SSNs; and
4. The ability to stay really quiet when travelling at low-to-medium speeds at shallower waters, hence greater degree of stealth.
This means that instead of acting like an ac-hoc SSN, the SSK-N would be better deployed as follows:
1. Picketing/intelligence-gathering;
2. Patrolling (or outright camping) around naval chokepoints and outside of enemy naval bases to attack passing enemy warships;
3. Laying sea(bed) mines (and potentially assist in clearing enemy minefields); and
4. Conduct seabed warfare (tapping on or cutting enemy seabed communication cables, setting up own or destroying enemy SOSUS etc) -
Which can be greatly augmented by USVs and/or UUVs.
Speaking of missiles - Compared to the larger YJ-21 AShBMs, a land-attack/anti-ship cruise missile that is either dual subsonic-supersonic (i.e. YJ-18B) or full-supersonic (possibly the yet-to-be-revealed YJ-15) with 500-800 kilometers of range would be a much more appropriate choice. This is besides the fact that the former option is readily available by using torpedo tubes only.
However, given the expected characteristics and operational doctrines for the SSK-Ns - Having a module for small-size USVs and/or UUVs inserted behind the sail structure would be a better/superior warfighting capability that the SSK-N can bring to the table compared to having more AShM-loaded VLS cells. Of course, you could have the VLS cells configured to stow, deploy and recover USVs and UUVs besides AShMs, which is similar to how torpedo tubes work - But the fundamental point remains the same.
Last edited:
I agree with this post #365 very much.
The key thing is who decides the money, pride of a branch or testosterone means nothing if they are not the boss. The US military branches have more influences in the congress because congress is a group of many hundreds individuals who have various interests and connections with various generals and weapon making businessmen. It is this division and distribution of powers (money) that enabled interservice competition that we see in the US. In China, the decision body is much smaller and members are not active service people from the military. They focus on the overall military demand, not which branch got what goodies. Any "bickering" is limited to lower level of decision making compared to US.
In short, in China it is the party (political leadership) commanding the gun, in US (to a great extent) it is the gun (millitary industry complex) commanding the government/congress (political leadership). Opposite couse leads to opposite outcome.