Yuan Class AIP & Kilo Submarine Thread

[tphuang]

I am not directly referring to type 039 as it is diesel electric and may need to transit at P-depth because of that reason. I am talking about the new ones with x-rudder that is being referred in previous posts which I hope have something other propulsion means to obviate from traveling at P-depth. And if that is the case, I am saying there is merit in having VLS in that sub even if it is not nuclear.

If it is not nuclear, then it would have to be diesel electric.

 

[Wrought]

Recently we have seen the launch of the x rudder submarine.

I think 095 submarine will looked like the x-rudder conventional submarine except it will be nuclear powered and able to launch hypersonic missiles? Those are the only differences.. Who thinks there will be more major upgrades to the radar or sonar system?

X-rudder is a reasonable expectation. Hypersonic missiles are nowhere close to reasonable. Attack submarines are not boomers; they are not optimized to carry SLBMs. Also not clear why you would need hypersonic instead of regular old MARV for ICBMs.

 

[bebops]

X-rudder is a reasonable expectation. Hypersonic missiles are nowhere close to reasonable. Attack submarines are not boomers; they are not optimized to carry SLBMs. Also not clear why you would need hypersonic instead of regular old MARV for ICBMs.

I read that U.S is developing a submarine that can launch hypersonic missiles. So it is reasonable that China would follow that trend. I don't think 095/096 will use the same current missiles that they have on 094/093. I expect an upgrade of weapons.

 

[LuzinskiJ]

If it is not nuclear, then it would have to be diesel electric.

Not quite diesel-electric, Sterling electric. Sterling engines burns (not internal-combusts) diesel + O2 as heat source.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Attack submarines are not boomers; they are not optimized to carry SLBMs.

Depends on what the "SLBM" is referring to.

If the SLBM refers to the likes of Trident and JL-3, then that's a definite no.

But if the SLBM refers to the likes of YJ-21 and CPS - Then, provided that the submarine platform is large enough and with the necessary hull-strengthening measures, such SLB(/H)Ms should be no problem for the SSNs (and perhaps even SSKs, see KSS-3) to become their underwater launch platforms.

Perhaps a better designation for all sorts of submarine-launched missiles that are either ballistic or hypersonic for tactical use (i.e. different from the strategic, intercontinental-range SLBMs, or SL-ICBMs) would be tactical-SLB/HM, or T-SLB/HM. Though, this is just my personal suggestion on the matter.

 

[tphuang]

Not quite diesel-electric, Sterling electric. Sterling engines burns (not internal-combusts) diesel + O2 as heat source.

Those are still diesel electric sub. Now, they may run on Stirling engine for some time, but they'd still need to come up for ventilation. And you can barely move running on 320kW power. What are you going to do with that?

Yuan subs already have Stirling AIP.

 

[BoraTas]

I think I do. Having VLS on submarines increases its effective deterrence radius in that ships or a subs need to worry about a underwater hunter further afield than the max heavy torpedo range of, say 40 nm. Which would mean a larger dispersal of detection and defense perimeter potentially leaving unsecured gaps. For example an SSK (not sure if this term applies here) with VLS and AIP can have a range of about1500 nm and endurance of around 14-20 days. Which means it can sail to into the western part of the Philippine sea and threaten ashm and cruise missiles launch platforms with its own ashm and asroc. And if you have multiple of those on station at the time of conflict, then the job for hunting and defeating them will necessary either divert or add assets for said purpose thereby complicating the C5ISR picture. So with sub VLS on a SSK that is also ubiquitous (i.e. cheap to run and produce), you can disrupt an enemy's overall offensive posture to a discernable degree.

That is a good consideration. Subs that are capable of a big ASCM volley may extend the daily ASW demand on USN task groups. The only problem I see here is the transit time. A conventional sub would take 9-12 days to transit to the Philippine Sea. That transit would involve about an hour of snorkeling everyday. After reaching the patrol box, they would switch to the AIP system. Such systems tend to have an endurance of 14-18 days at 4 knots. They could switch to AIP before reaching the patrol box but that would decrease their safe patrol time. After the AIP fuel runs out, they would have to snorkel regularly.

It is all suboptimal for China. Beyond the first island chain, they would currently face a lot of American and Japanese subs and ASW aircraft. Something that snorkels every 12-24 hours (note for other readers: SSK commanders never let the battery go low in case they need to maneuver) is just unsurvivable. If the enemy wasn't USA, I would say go for it, but it is.

 

[johncliu88]

 

[tphuang]

That is a good consideration. Subs that are capable of a big ASCM volley may extend the daily ASW demand on USN task groups. The only problem I see here is the transit time. A conventional sub would take 9-12 days to transit to the Philippine Sea. That transit would involve about an hour of snorkeling everyday. After reaching the patrol box, they would switch to the AIP system. Such systems tend to have an endurance of 14-18 days at 4 knots. They could switch to AIP before reaching the patrol box but that would decrease their safe patrol time. After the AIP fuel runs out, they would have to snorkel regularly.

It is all suboptimal for China. Beyond the first island chain, they would currently face a lot of American and Japanese subs and ASW aircraft. Something that snorkels every 12-24 hours (note for other readers: SSK commanders never let the battery go low in case they need to maneuver) is just unsurvivable. If the enemy wasn't USA, I would say go for it, but it is.

right, I think it's important to consider who you are up against and the role of SSK in that scenario.

They are pretty ideal for ambushes and for usage to provide additional underwater sensors and extending range of communication network.

For adversaries that don't have US military's ASW cape, do you really even need to be launching ASCM from SSKs? Against those opponents, you are basically assured complete air dominance, which means air launched missiles would be a far better option.

Now, if we were to add 10 m to 039C, what kind of capes should China be adding to there? I'd prioritize endurance over pretty much everything else. But that's me.

 

[BoraTas]

right, I think it's important to consider who you are up against and the role of SSK in that scenario.

They are pretty ideal for ambushes and for usage to provide additional underwater sensors and extending range of communication network.

For adversaries that don't have US military's ASW cape, do you really even need to be launching ASCM from SSKs? Against those opponents, you are basically assured complete air dominance, which means air launched missiles would be a far better option.

Now, if we were to add 10 m to 039C, what kind of capes should China be adding to there? I'd prioritize endurance over pretty much everything else. But that's me.

There is also the question of impact itself. What 11-15 missiles (10 from the VLS farm and 5 from the tubes) would achieve against a CSG? Probably nothing. I am assuming that these would be YJ-18s. So I think they would prioritize endurance too. The capability to launch ASCMs already exist.