09V/09VI (095/096) Nuclear Submarine Thread

[Biscuits]

in your opinion, how silent Yuan is compare to other best SSK types in the world ?

Less optimistically speaking, they seem roughly analogous to the Soryu class operated by Japan (although the Yuan arrived before the Soryu, so it’s more accurate to say the reverse), since they are similar size and carry similar quieting systems.

It being larger than most SSK helps reduce noise through vibrations.

I’d say it’s where the Lada class could have been if Russia had better dockyards and unlimited funding.

 

[antiterror13]

Less optimistically speaking, they seem roughly analogous to the Soryu class operated by Japan (although the Yuan arrived before the Soryu, so it’s more accurate to say the reverse), since they are similar size and carry similar quieting systems.

It being larger than most SSK helps reduce noise through vibrations.

I’d say it’s where the Lada class could have been if Russia had better dockyards and unlimited funding.

well, you are the more optimistic one. If Yuan as quiet as Soryu ... I'd say very very good

 

[Deleted member 13312]

Less optimistically speaking, they seem roughly analogous to the Soryu class operated by Japan (although the Yuan arrived before the Soryu, so it’s more accurate to say the reverse), since they are similar size and carry similar quieting systems.

It being larger than most SSK helps reduce noise through vibrations.

I’d say it’s where the Lada class could have been if Russia had better dockyards and unlimited funding.

I can tell you for certain that that is not how noise reduction works, in fact. Depending on circumstances a larger surface area might even contribute to even louder noise due to the vibration having more surface area to work with.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

Just like US diesel electrics have horrendous performance but their nuclear submarines are good.

A bit of an error here, the while US diesel subs are surely not up to scratch with the latest AIP powered boats. That is because that the last non nuclear sub built by the US was constructed in 1959 !! That is literally half a century ago.
So to say that the US is bad at building non-nuclear subs is to willfully ignore the fact that the US has up till now, not considered one to be necessary.

 

[FactsPlease]

A bit of an error here, the while US diesel subs are surely not up to scratch with the latest AIP powered boats. That is because that the last non nuclear sub built by the US was constructed in 1959 !! That is literally half a century ago.
So to say that the US is bad at building non-nuclear subs is to willfully ignore the fact that the US has up till now, not considered one to be necessary.

I agree w/ your comment on US sub building capability, especially latest time they had provided successful consulting to Spain (S80) and Australians (Collins).
Nevertheless, what @Biscuits said is generally correct: all these vibration cusion only add to tones and space. So, the bigger the boat, you got more buffer to add those functions. An example (I admit it's NOT perfect example) is Ohio class is much quieter than 688/A.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

... what

Same generation SSKs are considered quieter than same generation SSNs due to less moving components. That alone is a major advantage that can’t be duplicated by the SSN.

It wasn’t a PLAN SSN that went undetected inside an USN battlegroup (likely including at least 1 Virginia or Seawolf in addition to other vessels)

It wasn’t an european SSN that managed to simulate strikes on USN ships so many times that US resorted to buy one in order to practice against it.

SSNs can quickly bring firepower to bear to the other side of the world and carry more torpedoes and missiles than SSKs. But in a hunter killer scenario where the sub is already within range of it’s target, quietness is the decisive factor.

Between a submarine which can remain undetected by an entire carrier group and a submarine that can’t find the former submarine despite having the assistance of a whole carrier group, I know which one I’d rather be on board in a war.

While I can't say for the Gotland case, but for the Song sub. The Kitty Hawk carrier in question had not been deployed with an active full ASW screen as it was merely conduction naval aviation exercise and transiting through the area.

More soever, military exercises are almost always conducted with the deck stacked heavily against the participants, with the opponents having almost nearly every advantage. That was how it goes for Red Flag/Blue Flag, that was how it goes for OPFOR training. So I for one will not be surprise if it is the same for the Gotland exercise.

SSK's have the advantage of quiteness that is true, but when the battle field stretches beyond that of the first island chain. The PLAN will quickly find them to be quite short legged. Consider a situation in which the US blockades the Malacca Strait from the Indian Ocean side as well as the Gwadar Port before China can deploy an effective enough force or that China simply could not delegate such forces to guard it's periphery ( yes I know that many would jump on all the other if's ands or buts, but let's just limit the scenario to this particular setup), the PLAN SSK force would find itself in a pretty pickle as it would not have the range or the duration to conduct ASW and ASuW operations against US forces. US SSNs on the other hand can remain the area for months maybe even uptill a year, picking off whatever valuable shipping they can find.
That is why China would still need a fleet of SSN to venture beyond the SSK fleet.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

I agree w/ your comment on US sub building capability, especially latest time they had provided successful consulting to Spain (S80) and Australians (Collins).
Nevertheless, what @Biscuits said is generally correct: all these vibration cusion only add to tones and space. So, the bigger the boat, you got more buffer to add those functions. An example (I admit it's NOT perfect example) is Ohio class is much quieter than 688/A.

Again that is not necessarily the case, a SSN need not be the size of a Ohio (which I would point out is a SSBN). Smaller SSNs like the Rubis class do exist, and if we go by your definition of space=vibration, perfectly fulfills all the requirements for stealth and quiteness.

In fact, I would also like to add that it was a Rubis class that the French claim to have "sink" a US carrier, more than once. So it is faulty as Biscuits would claim, to say that a SSK would have the sole capability to be able to approach a CGB.

All of this does not disparage the Virginia and Seawolf class submarine's capabilities, in fact I would rate them the foremost SSNs in service. But it goes to show how complex submarine warfare can be.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

... what

Same generation SSKs are considered quieter than same generation SSNs due to less moving components. That alone is a major advantage that can’t be duplicated by the SSN.

It wasn’t a PLAN SSN that went undetected inside an USN battlegroup (likely including at least 1 Virginia or Seawolf in addition to other vessels)

It wasn’t an european SSN that managed to simulate strikes on USN ships so many times that US resorted to buy one in order to practice against it.

SSNs can quickly bring firepower to bear to the other side of the world and carry more torpedoes and missiles than SSKs. But in a hunter killer scenario where the sub is already within range of it’s target, quietness is the decisive factor.

Between a submarine which can remain undetected by an entire carrier group and a submarine that can’t find the former submarine despite having the assistance of a whole carrier group, I know which one I’d rather be on board in a war.

Also, during that year 2006. There was only 2 Virginia SSN in service, the first was station in the Atlantic/ME. Whereas the second was commissioned barely a month before the incident with the Kitty Hawk took place (it was still based in Pearl Harbour). And as far as any sources can tell us, there is no indication whatsoever that the USN has used any of the 3 Seawolf SSNs as CBG escorts. So that leaves the only candidate for the Kitty Hawk sub escort to be the 688i flight of Los Angeles SSN, while they are still relatively advanced. They are still based on a design that is as of that time, more than 20 years old.

 

[antiterror13]

While I can't say for the Gotland case, but for the Song sub. The Kitty Hawk carrier in question had not been deployed with an active full ASW screen as it was merely conduction naval aviation exercise and transiting through the area.

More soever, military exercises are almost always conducted with the deck stacked heavily against the participants, with the opponents having almost nearly every advantage. That was how it goes for Red Flag/Blue Flag, that was how it goes for OPFOR training. So I for one will not be surprise if it is the same for the Gotland exercise.

SSK's have the advantage of quiteness that is true, but when the battle field stretches beyond that of the first island chain. The PLAN will quickly find them to be quite short legged. Consider a situation in which the US blockades the Malacca Strait from the Indian Ocean side as well as the Gwadar Port before China can deploy an effective enough force or that China simply could not delegate such forces to guard it's periphery ( yes I know that many would jump on all the other if's ands or buts, but let's just limit the scenario to this particular setup), the PLAN SSK force would find itself in a pretty pickle as it would not have the range or the duration to conduct ASW and ASuW operations against US forces. US SSNs on the other hand can remain the area for months maybe even uptill a year, picking off whatever valuable shipping they can find.
That is why China would still need a fleet of SSN to venture beyond the SSK fleet.

I don't think China has any desire to use their SSKs for naval fight or engagement of their SSKs beyond 1st island chain against USN ... but against other navies, I'd bet the Chinese very comfortable doing that outside 1st island chain

 

[Anlsvrthng]

I don't think China has any desire to use their SSKs for naval fight or engagement of their SSKs beyond 1st island chain against USN ... but against other navies, I'd bet the Chinese very comfortable doing that outside 1st island chain

There is wisdom in your words.
10-20 SSK cost as much as one SSN ( based on the cost of export kilos vs Virginia-Seawolf ))
Maintenance cost ratios should be the same.

So, what is better for China, having 4 SSN in the SC sea, or 40-80 SSK?

What can be the loss ratio in the case of a direct SSN-SSK confrontation?

If the aggressor lost one SSN for 5 killed SSK then it is in a loss position .