There is just no way you could reliably operate nuclear subs in the Taiwan strait for example. There are too many shallow bodies of water close to the Chinese coast where the large SSNs are kind of useless. So a small conventional submarine force still makes sense. Then there is the cost differential. You can build several SSKs for the price of a single SSN.
Yuan Class AIP & Kilo Submarine Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
I'd say the east of Taiwan is a good location for China to deploy diesel-electric subs during AR. Deep, can be covered easily by China's aviation, relatively small so you can easily make the area very dangerous for non-PLA assets with a few good subs.
So... if this official presentation slide regarding the "mini-nuke" submarine does exist, then why do people still referring the presence of the "mini-nuke" submarine program as rumors only?
Last edited:
My question is how many more Yuan submarine they need. If they want to replace song Song class, that may be better replaced with those small experimental single hull subs we saw. Eventually, I think PLAN should go to a model of just SSNs for most operations + many large AUVs for patrols. Since SSK's main issue with stay submerged is the need to ventilate, then the best way to deal with that is getting rid of the crews and crew area. Until then, how many more SSKs do you need to keep around for an operational littoral fleet?
This is quite sensitive. But you'll see it in two or three years.
It hasn't been forgotten, but the question is asking about current SSK (039C) production rates and looking at the rationale of it.
Some people are saying that 039C production rate is exactly what we've seen of it in the last few years from pictures (i.e.: relatively low) -- if it is indeed relatively low, then people are naturally asking what it entails and whether there's some sort of other capability replacement.
We all remember the mini nuke (nuclear augmented SSK), but we haven't had updates of it for a long time without any credible rumours as to when it will emerge, so we do not know if that project is actually related to 039C's relatively low photo presence.
The alternative explanation of course is that 039C production is higher than we've seen but they just have hidden it.
I am not necessarily against the idea of having elements of the SSK fleet replaced by other either UUVs/AUVs or new SSK designs. But we have no indication that those systems are of sufficient maturity or even in development for PLAN use (in the case of a new SSK design) yet.
And every year, all of the SSKs that are older than 039A/B/C (i.e.: inclusive of the 035s, 039s, Kilos), keep ageing, so I would actually argue that I think there is a reasonable impetus for replacing old SSK types, and right now the only true replacement type that exists in production is 039C, even if it is to replace some of the most oldest of the pre-039A/B/C SSKs.
Then, once UUVs and AUVs or a new SSK is mature enough in both technology and conops, then they can start to replace some of the older SSKs of the time.
One of the most prevalent ideas that have floated of course is the nuclear augmented SSK, but we are awaiting it and doesn't seem like it'll emerge in the imminent future. Until then, I think continued production of SSKs should be expected at a moderate pace.
As for going to a SSN + UUV/AUV fleet only, I'm not necessarily against that, but I think we wouldn't be seeing a drawdown of their SSK fleet so early at this stage without a like for like replacement, given how small their SSN fleet is and also given that their SSN production rate is only beginning to ramp up.... as well as the relative technological and conops immaturity of capable UUV/AUVs.
lcloo
Captain
I don't think "041" is a correct designation. All SSK have designation of type"03X" while the nuclear power propulsion submarines have designation of type "09X".
So what are they going to use after 39? 310?