PLAN SCS Bases/Islands/Vessels (Not a Strategy Page)

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

Norfolk said:

Quite agreed with you and tphuang; this is just plain ridiculuous. And who came up this figure for China building carriers over the next five to ten years? I've been dropping MSM sources like hot potatoes over the last few months, and only refer to them casually now. Just so much rubbish.

Click to expand...

Yes I thought that one about the carriers was particularly made-up. We've known about Sanya for a while, and about the fact that Hainan in general is fairly teeming with PLAN/PLA/PLAAF bases and equipment.

Does anybody remember that picture that was on here a while ago that was supposed to be from inside one of the tunnels? I'd like to see that again, IIRC it was a good picture too, not obviously faked.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

Finn McCool said:

Yes I thought that one about the carriers was particularly made-up. We've known about Sanya for a while, and about the fact that Hainan in general is fairly teeming with PLAN/PLA/PLAAF bases and equipment.

Does anybody remember that picture that was on here a while ago that was supposed to be from inside one of the tunnels? I'd like to see that again, IIRC it was a good picture too, not obviously faked.

Click to expand...

I remember it, but haven't found it. If that pic was a fake, then either a very gifted amateur pulled it off (I have difficulty seeing how), or it was a case of official disinformation, and leaked for effect. If none of the above, then either some intelligence gatherer is pretty ticked that his pic was leaked, or somebody's getting a real workin' over right now for pointing his camera in the wrong direction.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

I think the carrier bit sounds like something that was picked up in the forums. This forum in particular. Note how recently we just talked about the SSF being the blue seas projection force in the PLAN and how a carrier might be set up in Hainan with the SSF fleet comprising the battle group. Then suddenly you have this article come up.

As for inside the tunnel, that was from an old magazine at least a decade ago, and it was a Han inside the Qingdao sub cave.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

Jeff Head said:

As to the threat, well the larger threat to nations in the area is the 094 itself.

Click to expand...

No larger a threat than the carriers, fighter jets, subs, and 80,000+ troops the U.S. has stationed in the Pacific... thousands of miles away from the U.S. mainland, curiously.

Jeff Head said:

It is also clear that that buildup is meant to counter potential adversaries, the chief of which must be the US Navy.

Click to expand...

As opposed to the U.S., which has eagerly extended an olive branch toward China and has refrained from having its president openly calling China its "strategic competitor?"

Jeff Head said:

They are also building up a force capable of defending what they view s their national interests, both close to the mainland, and, IMHO, out into the blue water.

Click to expand...

Unlike the U.S., which does not employ its military forces to defend and acquire WHAT IT VIEWS as its national interest, both close to the mainland, and, IMHO, out into Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, Egypt, Israel, the Koreas, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Phillipines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, HK, India, Pakistan.....

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

one not so secret and two what have the capitalist Americans have done about this.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

With road-mobile DF-21 MRBM and DF-31 ICBM's, the PRC doesn't need to field SSBN's to provide nuclear deterrence against her Asian neighbors. The purpose of a SSBN is to bring nuclear deterrence beyond and unto any nation on the planet.

Whatever enemies or perceived enemies that the PRC may have today, the world tomorrow may be a very different place. Prior to WWI, many strategic analysts thought the 20th century would continue to follow the pre-WWI power structure. Nobody predicted the rise of communism and cold war. For the PRC, building SSBN's today is preparation for an unknown tomorrow.

I'm a strong supporter of SSBN and SSGN concept. For great powers and up-coming great powers, SSBN's provide nuclear deterrence with global projection, and SSGN's offer conventional strike capability with near-global projection (limited by cruise missile range when striking inland targets). IMO the USN Ohio class SSGN is a platform that countries like China and India should strive for. With 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, a single SSGN can take out all major strategic infrastructure target (power plant, bridge, telecom centers, dam, etc) of any coastal or near-coast city, without using nukes.

What I find interesting is US assessment that the PRC would need 5 x SSN's to maintain at least 1 ship at sea. For Western Europe the model is 4 subs (to provide continuous coverage), and for the Israelis, 3, because they don't need to go very far. For the US military intelligence to claim that PLAN needs 5, that means they think the PLAN's SSBN's will only have 20% overall availability between missions and overhaul/maintenance?

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

adeptitus said:

With road-mobile DF-21 MRBM and DF-31 ICBM's, the PRC doesn't need to field SSBN's to provide nuclear deterrence against her Asian neighbors. The purpose of a SSBN is to bring nuclear deterrence beyond and unto any nation on the planet.

Whatever enemies or perceived enemies that the PRC may have today, the world tomorrow may be a very different place. Prior to WWI, many strategic analysts thought the 20th century would continue to follow the pre-WWI power structure. Nobody predicted the rise of communism and cold war. For the PRC, building SSBN's today is preparation for an unknown tomorrow.

I'm a strong supporter of SSBN and SSGN concept. For great powers and up-coming great powers, SSBN's provide nuclear deterrence with global projection, and SSGN's offer conventional strike capability with near-global projection (limited by cruise missile range when striking inland targets). IMO the USN Ohio class SSGN is a platform that countries like China and India should strive for. With 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, a single SSGN can take out all major strategic infrastructure target (power plant, bridge, telecom centers, dam, etc) of any coastal or near-coast city, without using nukes.

What I find interesting is US assessment that the PRC would need 5 x SSN's to maintain at least 1 ship at sea. For Western Europe the model is 4 subs (to provide continuous coverage), and for the Israelis, 3, because they don't need to go very far. For the US military intelligence to claim that PLAN needs 5, that means they think the PLAN's SSBN's will only have 20% overall availability between missions and overhaul/maintenance?

Click to expand...

It may be that most Western powrs have relatively open access to the open sea, whereas China has access to a couple of lakes that are connected to the open ocean, and some very paranoid powers with excellent ASW sitting over the connections.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

5 subs I think means one in patrol, one in the base, two in transit-one returning and one leaving, one in repair or refit.

I agree with this.

I'm a strong supporter of SSBN and SSGN concept. For great powers and up-coming great powers, SSBN's provide nuclear deterrence with global projection, and SSGN's offer conventional strike capability with near-global projection (limited by cruise missile range when striking inland targets). IMO the USN Ohio class SSGN is a platform that countries like China and India should strive for. With 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, a single SSGN can take out all major strategic infrastructure target (power plant, bridge, telecom centers, dam, etc) of any coastal or near-coast city, without using nukes.

Click to expand...

One should note that the SSBNs is not just an insurance card against the US, but also against the Russians and India. In fact, its an insurance card against any current or potential nuclear power in a broad and general sense. It should be noted that the Xia was primarily against the USSR and during SALT talks the Soviets did account British, French and Chinese SSBNs as being against them.

One thing that still leaves me curious is what ever happened to the Xia? It was last known in the 2005 GE image as having a major refit in Qingdao. With the JL-1A obsolete, will it be turned into an SSN or SSGN?

There are some developments that need to be observed. So far I don't the PLAN has anything that works like a cruise missile SSGN. It would depend on these developments.

1. A VLS launched YJ-62.

2. If not can the YJ-62 be launched from a 533mm torpedo tube?

3. If not, do the subs have a torpedo tube large enough to accommodate the diameter of the YJ-62?

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

daveman said:

No larger a threat than the carriers, fighter jets, subs, and 80,000+ troops the U.S. has stationed in the Pacific... thousands of miles away from the U.S. mainland, curiously.

Click to expand...

Actually, I would view a fully armed SSBN as somewhat more dangerous and a larger strategic threat than any carrier strike group that is armed conventionally. And understandably and justafiably so. It is a strategic deterrent. The US keeps quite a few out to sea at any one time for that same reason. For those nations without such a deterrent, the existance of several of them in any competitors arsenal is a significant issue.

daveman said:

As opposed to the U.S., which has eagerly extended an olive branch toward China and has refrained from having its president openly calling China its "strategic competitor?"

Unlike the U.S., which does not employ its military forces to defend and acquire WHAT IT VIEWS as its national interest, both close to the mainland, and, IMHO, out into Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, Egypt, Israel, the Koreas, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Phillipines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, HK, India, Pakistan.....

Click to expand...

Your dripping sarcasm is noted.

If you read my post caerfully, you will see that I have indicated that the US has increased its naval power in the region and that China is responding to this and other nations buildup, just as much as vice versa.

My post was not meant to be a slam on China, just a rational discussion of what she is doing and why and how neighbors are apt to react, and the impact of those reactions.

So, in summary...of course the US projects its power in what it feels is its national interest. There was no part of my post that denied, or attempted to deny this. I believe the Chinese are simply doing the same in what they believe to be their own national interest.

Let's all hope that the two never have reason to run afoul of one another or collide violently.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

crobato said:

One thing that still leaves me curious is what ever happened to the Xia? It was last known in the 2005 GE image as having a major refit in Qingdao. With the JL-1A obsolete, will it be turned into an SSN or SSGN?

Click to expand...

The 092 Xia would make excellent testbed for new equipment, but probably not active service at this point. The PLAN is better off building new SSBN's (094).

If we look at the dimensions between Tomahawk and Trident missiles, it's not that much different from YJ-62 and JL-2 in length and diameter. If the PLAN can figure out how to install 7 x YJ-62 in place of 1 x JL-2, then a 094 SSGN conversion could field up to 84 VL cruise missiles, plus whatever else launched from the torpedo tubes.

IMO PLAN's long term strategic planning has to look beyond US and Japan. Imagine a scenario in 2020, where nation XYZ in Africa undergoes a revolution and executes PRC citizens for "economic exploitation". The PRC leadership orders a non-nuclear punitive military strike in response.

A submarine launched cruise missile attack would be far safer for PLAN personnel than surface ships or aircraft. You simply sail to 100km off their coastline and launch a few dozen land attack cruise missiles, targeting their fixed military, political, and infrastructure targets. There would be no invasion, just military and economic damage, with minimal civilian deaths.