I do see the merits of all the points presented. And I believe that arriving at a suitable middle ground for both sides of the debate is possible.
Firstly, we have seen the viability of SSKs armed with VLS tubes, thanks to real-life examples of the ROKN's Dosan Ahn Changho SSKs. China's own 032 SSK/B test platform too is another demonstration that conventionaly-powered platform equipped with VLS tubes is very much possible.
On the other hand, unlike the ROKN (and soon the JMSDF) - The PLAN is fully capable of (and expected to) field multiple units of SSNs that are equipped with either individual VLS tubes (for the 093B) or multipack VLS cells (for the 095 onwards), of which them being more advanced and potent subsurface warfare platforms for the true blue IndoPac.
In addition, a recent declaration by the PLAN means that SSKs would still be an integral part of the PLAN's subsurface fleet, albeit with reducing importance compared to their nuclear counterparts for obvious reasons, going forward.
Hence, having VLS tubes on SSKs may not be a much-needed capability uplift for the PLAN. This is compounded by the fact that SSKs are naturally smaller than SSNs, which presents greater degree of restrictions on how the SSKs can be designed to fit vertical-launched missiles of how big of a size, etc.
Combining all of the points and adjusting per necessary consideration - Having VLS tubes on SSKs isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the capability associated with it certainly shouldn't be overhyped.
I do see the potential for the likes of 039C SSKs to be lengthened such that 6-8 VLS tubes can be fitted behind the sail. However, obvious restrictions apply - The missiles armed on these SSKs would not be comparable to those missiles armed onboard newer and future SSNs of the PLAN (for instance, whereas the 093Bs and 095s can be armed with YJ-21s or future YJ-XXs, future SSKs would only be armed with YJ-18s or YJ-15s (should the rumour about supersonic-capable be true) at most.)
Provided the scope and range of operations that the SSKs are expected to operate in (namely, within and around the 1IC) - Long-range strike missiles isn't particularly a must need for them anyway. Therefore, having long-range strike capabilities should only be a complimentary feature for SSKs, instead of a compulsory or decisive feature. They are still largely ambushers, after all.
On the flipside, beyond the idea of adding extra degrees of endurance if not VLS tubes with the lengthening of a new model SSK hull recently seen at Wuchang - Given the inherent characteristics of SSKs (which translates to the ability to actually "hug" the shallow seabed floor terrain found across much of the waters within 1IC, something that SSNs are inferior in), there are actually greater merits for the SSKs to be equipped with either vertical launch tubes that can launch small-sized UUVs, USVs and UAVs (for reconnaisance, picketing and/or launching countermeasures against smaller ASW units), and/or specialized compartments for housing small to mid-sized UUVs that can be launched and retrived underwater for conducting seabed warfare (such as tapping/cutting seabed communication lines and laying seabed smart mines).
And TBH, compared to installing VLS tubes for strike missiles - Such capability (of housing and operating unmanned units) does sound like an idea that is actually better suited for SSKs.
In the meantime, I must note that should the PLAN decides to pivot to an all-SSK-N fleet for the conventional portion of her underwater fleet in the future (which I do hope to be the case) - The above suggestions/proposals for either VLS tubes or compartments/launchers for drones onboard the SSK-Ns will definitely increase in viability and feasibility, given the endurance and sustained/sprint speeds of the SSK-Ns would be leagues ahead of all conventional SSKs.
One way to go would be for the SSK-Ns to have modularizable compartments that can be fitted with a strike module (i.e. VLS tubes), a common module (i.e. launch tubes for drones) or a seabed module (i.e. compartments for UUVs), depending on what roles are the individual SSK-Ns getting assigned for the fleet.
Last but not least, there is one more thing that I'd like to respond to:
TBH, even with SSNs, each armed with 18-24 YJ-21s in its VLS tubes + 6 more YJ-18s from its torpedo tubes - It can still be quite challenging for them to break though the integrated defense system of a USN CSG (or worse, a CBG), especially with multiple units of Flight 2 and 3 Burkes armed with SMs guarding the sole CVN in the group, combined with the E-2C/Ds + carrier-based fighters armed with AAMs.
The point which I'd like to bring forth is this: Unless the sole SSN manage to catch a so-called "target of opportunity" (namely, a lone or two surface warships out in the wide open ocean with little to no friendly cover in the area) - Going against peer opponent CSG/CBG with integrated, networked defensive systems isn't exactly feasible anymore. Technically, you could still peel at the CSG "cabbage" by targetting the outermost enemy surface warships (i.e. DDG or FFG) first before working closer towards the core of the "cabbage" (i.e. CVN) - But going against an entire CSG/CBG today and into the future certainly demands closely-collaborated efforts by multiple parties across different domains.
Therefore, it is with this purview that I do actually envision the return of the wolfpack tactic - But fully-adapted for the 21st-century, and includes way greater participations than just mere lone-wolf SSNs.
Firstly, we have seen the viability of SSKs armed with VLS tubes, thanks to real-life examples of the ROKN's Dosan Ahn Changho SSKs. China's own 032 SSK/B test platform too is another demonstration that conventionaly-powered platform equipped with VLS tubes is very much possible.
On the other hand, unlike the ROKN (and soon the JMSDF) - The PLAN is fully capable of (and expected to) field multiple units of SSNs that are equipped with either individual VLS tubes (for the 093B) or multipack VLS cells (for the 095 onwards), of which them being more advanced and potent subsurface warfare platforms for the true blue IndoPac.
In addition, a recent declaration by the PLAN means that SSKs would still be an integral part of the PLAN's subsurface fleet, albeit with reducing importance compared to their nuclear counterparts for obvious reasons, going forward.
Hence, having VLS tubes on SSKs may not be a much-needed capability uplift for the PLAN. This is compounded by the fact that SSKs are naturally smaller than SSNs, which presents greater degree of restrictions on how the SSKs can be designed to fit vertical-launched missiles of how big of a size, etc.
Combining all of the points and adjusting per necessary consideration - Having VLS tubes on SSKs isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the capability associated with it certainly shouldn't be overhyped.
I do see the potential for the likes of 039C SSKs to be lengthened such that 6-8 VLS tubes can be fitted behind the sail. However, obvious restrictions apply - The missiles armed on these SSKs would not be comparable to those missiles armed onboard newer and future SSNs of the PLAN (for instance, whereas the 093Bs and 095s can be armed with YJ-21s or future YJ-XXs, future SSKs would only be armed with YJ-18s or YJ-15s (should the rumour about supersonic-capable be true) at most.)
Provided the scope and range of operations that the SSKs are expected to operate in (namely, within and around the 1IC) - Long-range strike missiles isn't particularly a must need for them anyway. Therefore, having long-range strike capabilities should only be a complimentary feature for SSKs, instead of a compulsory or decisive feature. They are still largely ambushers, after all.
On the flipside, beyond the idea of adding extra degrees of endurance if not VLS tubes with the lengthening of a new model SSK hull recently seen at Wuchang - Given the inherent characteristics of SSKs (which translates to the ability to actually "hug" the shallow seabed floor terrain found across much of the waters within 1IC, something that SSNs are inferior in), there are actually greater merits for the SSKs to be equipped with either vertical launch tubes that can launch small-sized UUVs, USVs and UAVs (for reconnaisance, picketing and/or launching countermeasures against smaller ASW units), and/or specialized compartments for housing small to mid-sized UUVs that can be launched and retrived underwater for conducting seabed warfare (such as tapping/cutting seabed communication lines and laying seabed smart mines).
And TBH, compared to installing VLS tubes for strike missiles - Such capability (of housing and operating unmanned units) does sound like an idea that is actually better suited for SSKs.
In the meantime, I must note that should the PLAN decides to pivot to an all-SSK-N fleet for the conventional portion of her underwater fleet in the future (which I do hope to be the case) - The above suggestions/proposals for either VLS tubes or compartments/launchers for drones onboard the SSK-Ns will definitely increase in viability and feasibility, given the endurance and sustained/sprint speeds of the SSK-Ns would be leagues ahead of all conventional SSKs.
One way to go would be for the SSK-Ns to have modularizable compartments that can be fitted with a strike module (i.e. VLS tubes), a common module (i.e. launch tubes for drones) or a seabed module (i.e. compartments for UUVs), depending on what roles are the individual SSK-Ns getting assigned for the fleet.
Last but not least, there is one more thing that I'd like to respond to:
TBH, even with SSNs, each armed with 18-24 YJ-21s in its VLS tubes + 6 more YJ-18s from its torpedo tubes - It can still be quite challenging for them to break though the integrated defense system of a USN CSG (or worse, a CBG), especially with multiple units of Flight 2 and 3 Burkes armed with SMs guarding the sole CVN in the group, combined with the E-2C/Ds + carrier-based fighters armed with AAMs.
The point which I'd like to bring forth is this: Unless the sole SSN manage to catch a so-called "target of opportunity" (namely, a lone or two surface warships out in the wide open ocean with little to no friendly cover in the area) - Going against peer opponent CSG/CBG with integrated, networked defensive systems isn't exactly feasible anymore. Technically, you could still peel at the CSG "cabbage" by targetting the outermost enemy surface warships (i.e. DDG or FFG) first before working closer towards the core of the "cabbage" (i.e. CVN) - But going against an entire CSG/CBG today and into the future certainly demands closely-collaborated efforts by multiple parties across different domains.
Therefore, it is with this purview that I do actually envision the return of the wolfpack tactic - But fully-adapted for the 21st-century, and includes way greater participations than just mere lone-wolf SSNs.
Last edited:
