Submarine first, Carrier second

Despite the excitement over the possibility of a Chinese carrier, it seems that PLA navy is still obssessed with submarines as can be seen by their close observation of the newly launched Russian Borei class submarine. This leads me to conclude that in the future, submarines will play primary role in PLAN, while carriers will be used for combat support roles, which contrasts with the US navy of giving first priority to carriers. What do you think?

Also, I don't understand why submarines must be stealthy and high tech with such high crew number but limited survivability in emergency situations. Can't they make submarines that have small crew number, but with high survivability options such as equipping with escape pods (similar to ejection seats in airplanes except they float to water surface when released), even if they won't be as stealthy as their bigger cousins?

Ryz05 said:

Despite the excitement over the possibility of a Chinese carrier, it seems that PLA navy is still obssessed with submarines as can be seen by their close observation of the newly launched Russian Borei class submarine. This leads me to conclude that in the future, submarines will play primary role in PLAN, while carriers will be used for combat support roles, which contrasts with the US navy of giving first priority to carriers. What do you think?

Click to expand...

If the primary role of PLAN is going to continue to be sea denial I think that priority being given to the construction of submarines has merit. Armed with ballistic or cruise missiles submarines can also be used for power projection. The carrier can also fill both roles but I think the size and visibility of a carrier makes it a more impressive vessel than a submarine in the power projection role. A carrier is also extremely flexible. By varying the air group it can operate in a strike, an amphibious assault, an ASW or an air defence role.

If China builds carriers in any sort of numbers I think it will be an indication that it is seeking to be able to project power well away from home waters. It would be a clear signal that it really does want to become a powerful blue water navy, that is not only able to protect its growing trade but which would also be able to take the battle to an enemy by attacking its assets at sea and (through the use of strike aircraft and land attack cruise missiles) on land.

Ryz05 said:

Also, I don't understand why submarines must be stealthy and high tech with such high crew number but limited survivability in emergency situations. Can't they make submarines that have small crew number, but with high survivability options such as equipping with escape pods (similar to ejection seats in airplanes except they float to water surface when released), even if they won't be as stealthy as their bigger cousins?

Click to expand...

I would have thought that the whole point of incorporating high tech and stealth features into submarines is to enhance their survivability and increase their chance of carrying out their missions successfully. Crew numbers in modern submarines can be made comparatively small, even on quite large boats. The Australian Collins class for example has a submerged displacement of approx 3,500 tons but has a crew of only 42. The PLAN Type 093 class of SSNs have a crew of approx 100 but these vessels displace 6000 tons and carry SLCMs and SSMs. This is a much smaller crew than that of a comparable sized and armed surface warship.

I'm not an expert in this area but I imagine that providing escape pods for a submarine crew would be technically difficult. As each pod would have to be able to withstand the crushing effects of water pressure they would have to be built to similar standards as the submarine itself. To accommodate the pods I expect that the size of the submarine would have to be increased, its performance would drop off and, as a consequence, it would be less likely to win or even survive a battle.

Cheers

In the last couple of months, china's state media have started some reporting programs about aircraft carrier, mainly educational ones. Last night, the China Central Television held an interview with a PLAN Lt Gen (not sure it's the right rank) specifically about aircraft carrier and china threat. I guess tphuang will post the details about the interview later.

Main points are, as far as I understand, (besides the standard peace loving comments)

1. Recent western reports about China's AC program are biased and exagerated for other purpose, mainly china threat propaganda, plus making more sales (especially Kanwa). He talked about quite a few recent sensational news reports.

2. Real naval power needs submarine and AC both. Many countries already operate aircraft carriers. US Nimitz were heavily introduced, all other countries are listed, especially Japan.

3. When asked what has China achieved in building aircraft carrier, he did not directly answer it. Instead he said that 3 conditions must be met for such project: 1. China's overall capability, especially ecnomic power. 2. technical capability, for example building catapult system 3. national defence requirement.

4. When asked what to do about the china threat opinions if in the future China does equip aircraft carrier, he replied China needs to do more public relationship works to make others understand it's only for peaceful purpose (well, that's a tough job), and at the end of the day, he said, not just aircraft carriers, there are more new weapon systems coming up and the china threat voices probably will be around for a long time, so be it.

Tasman said:

If the primary role of PLAN is going to continue to be sea denial I think that priority being given to the construction of submarines has merit. Armed with ballistic or cruise missiles submarines can also be used for power projection. The carrier can also fill both roles but I think the size and visibility of a carrier makes it a more impressive vessel than a submarine in the power projection role. A carrier is also extremely flexible. By varying the air group it can operate in a strike, an amphibious assault, an ASW or an air defence role.

If China builds carriers in any sort of numbers I think it will be an indication that it is seeking to be able to project power well away from home waters. It would be a clear signal that it really does want to become a powerful blue water navy, that is not only able to protect its growing trade but which would also be able to take the battle to an enemy by attacking its assets at sea and (through the use of strike aircraft and land attack cruise missiles) on land.

Click to expand...

Carriers are more impressive than submarines, and that's why they should be used as figureheads. Carriers are also flexible, but their roles as you mentioned, such as air defence and ASW, can be used to protect submarines. I imagine a PLAN fleet will have surface combatants act mainly as air-defense (carriers, destroyers) with some anti-ship capability (frigates), while the real muscle lies underneath, invisible to the eye (ballistic/cruise missile submarines and attack submarines).

Tasman said:

I would have thought that the whole point of incorporating high tech and stealth features into submarines is to enhance their survivability and increase their chance of carrying out their missions successfully. Crew numbers in modern submarines can be made comparatively small, even on quite large boats. The Australian Collins class for example has a submerged displacement of approx 3,500 tons but has a crew of only 42. The PLAN Type 093 class of SSNs have a crew of approx 100 but these vessels displace 6000 tons and carry SLCMs and SSMs. This is a much smaller crew than that of a comparable sized and armed surface warship.
I'm not an expert in this area but I imagine that providing escape pods for a submarine crew would be technically difficult. As each pod would have to be able to withstand the crushing effects of water pressure they would have to be built to similar standards as the submarine itself. To accommodate the pods I expect that the size of the submarine would have to be increased, its performance would drop off and, as a consequence, it would be less likely to win or even survive a battle.

Click to expand...

I was thinking along the lines of an aircraft-size submarine crew (two to five as in a bomber), that won't dive as deep or be as stealthy, but have survivability in being equipped with escape pods. These submarines can mainly be used as anti-ship/sea-denial, with some capabilities for land-attack with cruise missiles.

zyun8288 said:

In the last couple of months, china's state media have started some reporting programs about aircraft carrier, mainly educational ones. Last night, the China Central Television held an interview with a PLAN Lt Gen (not sure it's the right rank) specifically about aircraft carrier and china threat. I guess tphuang will post the details about the interview later.

Main points are, as far as I understand, (besides the standard peace loving comments)

1. Recent western reports about China's AC program are biased and exagerated for other purpose, mainly china threat propaganda, plus making more sales (especially Kanwa). He talked about quite a few recent sensational news reports.

2. Real naval power needs submarine and AC both. Many countries already operate aircraft carriers. US Nimitz were heavily introduced, all other countries are listed, especially Japan.

3. When asked what has China achieved in building aircraft carrier, he did not directly answer it. Instead he said that 3 conditions must be met for such project: 1. China's overall capability, especially ecnomic power. 2. technical capability, for example building catapult system 3. national defence requirement.

4. When asked what to do about the china threat opinions if in the future China does equip aircraft carrier, he replied China needs to do more public relationship works to make others understand it's only for peaceful purpose (well, that's a tough job), and at the end of the day, he said, not just aircraft carriers, there are more new weapon systems coming up and the china threat voices probably will be around for a long time, so be it.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the news. China should built carriers for air-defense, disaster relief, and as figureheads, but submarines should be employed for their low visibility. It seems when he say carriers will be used for peaceful purposes, he meant as in disaster relief and air-defense, and the new weapon systems coming up will likely be new classes of submarines.

Some of the older Russian SSN and SSBN's have one, some models have two escape pods ( basicly is one compartment that can seal off and detach from the SUB in case of need to escape for the crew. There are at least 4 issues with this design. one is that it may not be big enough to carry most of the crew ( weight is a issue as well, it has to float to the top of the surface), two is that, if the sub is lost at deeper depth, the pod is useless. Third is that there may not be enogh time for some the crews to get to that compartment ( that is why some have two pods). 4th problem is that the pod design increase dead weight of the Sub. Forgot the 5th problem: crew de-compression problems when there is a need for fast and sudden surfacing.

beijingcar said:

Some of the older Russian SSN and SSBN's have one, some models have two escape pods ( basicly is one compartment that can seal off and detach from the SUB in case of need to escape for the crew. There are at least 4 issues with this design. one is that it may not be big enough to carry most of the crew ( weight is a issue as well, it has to float to the top of the surface), two is that, if the sub is lost at deeper depth, the pod is useless. Third is that there may not be enogh time for some the crews to get to that compartment ( that is why some have two pods). 4th problem is that the pod design increase dead weight of the Sub.

Click to expand...

There are many issues with pods, but having a smaller-crew submarine (2 to five as in a bomber) that won't dive as deep or be as stealthy can still be effective at sea-denial missions. These can be readily equipped with escape pods without the issue of weight and depth, and with the crew already inside them (or have the whole crew inside one escape pod) as in a jet airplane so they won't waste time getting into them during an emergency.

That CV for AAD missions to guard subs is basicly the old sovjet way of thinking that brought the Kuznetsov.
If you now use subs in the power projection role, the idea of a CBG following it for protection is somewhat moot. One key aspect of subs is to move quietly and undetected. A CBG is a thing that can be spotted rather easily. (In comparisson to subs and when coming to a shore - what is an essential need if they want to project power) So, IMO, that idea is flawed.
If you want to project power with subs, leave them operate rather alone - not directly linked to CBGs. Or even better, send an entire sub-fleet capable of defending itself against all kinds of threats.

I really don't think big SSNs/SSGNs with a crew of only five will be seen for decades. You just need too many hands to operate such a big and complcated thing. If you want something cheap and effective in the sea-denial role that just loiters around in the waters and reacts to incoming vessels, I would place future UUVs in that area.
Real subs are very expensive anyway, so, IMO, it doesn't make sense to build less capable ones wich could be expended to safe the crew.
Build the quietest possible and make sure that the crew won't have to eject at all.

I could imagine subs to be able to project power in a potent way in the future. But on the current tech-level, CVs are the better option IMO - if you want it on the big scale.

Scratch said:

That CV for AAD missions to guard subs is basicly the old sovjet way of thinking that brought the Kuznetsov.
If you now use subs in the power projection role, the idea of a CBG following it for protection is somewhat moot. One key aspect of subs is to move quietly and undetected. A CBG is a thing that can be spotted rather easily. (In comparisson to subs and when coming to a shore - what is an essential need if they want to project power) So, IMO, that idea is flawed.
If you want to project power with subs, leave them operate rather alone - not directly linked to CBGs. Or even better, send an entire sub-fleet capable of defending itself against all kinds of threats.

Click to expand...

Good points, but even if the carriers were detected, detecting submarines would still be very difficult. CVs protecting submarines improves their survival rate, allowing them to fire their missiles. The problem with sending subs out alone is that once they fire missiles, they are detected, which lowers their survival rate. It's not possible to sent an entire sub-fleet out to defend against all threats, because in order to defend against aerial threats, a sub would have to surface and fire its missiles, which is impractical - carriers and destroyers are better for air defence.

Scratch said:

I really don't think big SSNs/SSGNs with a crew of only five will be seen for decades. You just need too many hands to operate such a big and complcated thing. If you want something cheap and effective in the sea-denial role that just loiters around in the waters and reacts to incoming vessels, I would place future UUVs in that area.
Real subs are very expensive anyway, so, IMO, it doesn't make sense to build less capable ones wich could be expended to safe the crew.
Build the quietest possible and make sure that the crew won't have to eject at all.

I could imagine subs to be able to project power in a potent way in the future. But on the current tech-level, CVs are the better option IMO - if you want it on the big scale.

Click to expand...

The current model favors two submarines protecting a single carrier, instead of a single carrier and destroyers providing air-defense for a pack of submarines that have the better punch and better protection under water. However, the small crewed submarines should operate well with carriers. They are not only hard to detect and target because they are submerged, but also are able to deliver precision strikes with torpedoes and cruise missiles. The Soviet thinking of CVs protecting submarines is feasible, just that they need newer classes of submarines better suited for the role, and smaller, less expensive subs with high fire power offer a solution.

I think it would be nice to have carrier subs. I find that to be a very intriguing idea. It would be possible to hide much better.

Vlad Plasmius said:

I think it would be nice to have carrier subs. I find that to be a very intriguing idea. It would be possible to hide much better.

Click to expand...

The Germans in WWII had tried this idea with very limited operability( modify U boat with aircraft for spotting and recon). As late as 1990s, the USN had also studied this idea, nothing came out of it. Too many problems have to overcome, and the # of aircraft ( and the size) is so limited on a carrier sub that even if it can be done from Tech stand point, the cost and effectiveness of such a carrier are in ?
In the future. I am sure UAV will be on Subs ( that can be tub launched), but that is another story.