Uhh, are we looking at the same map? You actually think the US is willing or able to send ASW aircraft into the Bohai Sea when it's surrounded on 3 sides by China's own land mass? That's essentially saying the US would enjoy allowing their ASW planes to be target practice drones for the PLA, PLAN, PLANAF, and PLAAF inside the lion's mouth, along with whatever escorts are flying with the suicidal ASW aircraft. In fact even Korea Bay would be a risky endeavor for the USAF nowadays.
Conversely, do you really think that US & its allies would ignore China's ASW assets near the Bohai Sea? Do look at the proximity of the Bohai Sea to South Korea & Japan (home to US bases & sensors). If anything, the Bohai Sea area (which is also where the Chinese actually
produce submarines) would be a priority area of concern should any hostilities break out.
Your assertion that an enclosed, concentrated area of PLAN assets somehow offsets the immense US firepower next door ignores the fact that operating in such limited spaces is actually risky for PLAN submarines.
By the same logic I could've claimed (in theory) that Pearl Harbor in 1941 would've been invulnerable to Japanese attack since the IJN would be "surrounded" by US battleships "from all sides".
And BTW, who said anything about Filipino or Taiwanese sub tracking capabilities? I know I didn't, so don't start with the straw man arguments. What I said was that these countries would be happy to HOST a SOSUS array if the PLAN tried to use the SCS as an SSBN bastion.
Fair enough; I overlooked that statement. That doesn't negate my argument that having a large area for PLAN subs to hide in is far more reasonable than to bottle up the 094s in the Bohai Sea, right next to two USN homeports & that of their allies.
"Isn't a perfect solution"?? LOL that's like saying a sieve "isn't a perfect solution" for holding water. Second, you don't know that the USN would have the capability to tag each and every PLAN submarine with one of their own. In fact even now they do not have this capability. For the loud nuke subs like the 091, 092, 093 and maybe the 094 they probably can, but they certainly cannot track the quieter subs like the SSKs, to speak nothing of the fact that they utterly lack the available subs to tag "each and every PLAN submarine with one of their own". Where do you even get this idea from? Not only that, we are NOT talking about full blown bases in the SCS. These islands have airfields and some hangars for fighters and a few larger aircraft, but they should certainly not be confused for full-fledged air or naval bases, which they are most certainly not.
Tracking the "loud subs" is already sufficient to knock out China's sea leg of its triad. The idea of placing SSBNs within the SCS is so that the Chinese SSKs (which you claim is "quiet" even though there is no evidence for this) can provide a half-decent screen for them. It's also so that land-based ASW aircraft & frigates (both of which cannot operate far from the Chinese mainland) could assist in defending against attacking USN subs. The flimsy islands China is building in the SCS doesn't have a part in this equation.
My sense is that your own timelines here are significantly skewed. BTW nobody said 096 would be any sort of game changer. Who said that? What I said was that I expect the 096 to be at the very least comparable to the Ohio, a submarine which was introduced in 1976 and would be equivalent in technology to early LA class subs. Game changer? LOL is this some kind of joke?
You do know that the Ohio SSBN is being constantly upgraded, right? If any PLAN submarine manages to approach the capabilities of the Ohio, it would be a game changer for the Chinese no matter how one looks at it.
Again, show me a USN/JMSDF/ROKN ASW aircraft flying inside the Bohai Sea during a war and I will show you an aircraft that's about to be turned into flaming aerial scrap metal. And again, the SCS islands are neither air bases nor are they naval bases and would certainly NOT provide the kind of protection for SSBNs that you are envisioning from actual air or naval bases.
You seem to be disregarding the fact that the US aircraft, submarines, and surface combatants right next door would almost certainly make short work of whatever major land-based PLAN asset the US could lay its eyes upon, including air defense networks. Not to mention Ohio-class SSGNs equipped with 154 Tomahawks that would be saturating coastal PLAN/PLAAF facilities with LACMs. Having your assets bunched in an enclosed space (i.e. the Bohai Sea) does not bode well in the age of computer-assisted warfare.
I wasn't referring to SCS islands when talking about land-based assets. I was referring to the Chinese coastline (which would be targeted by US forces but nevertheless the only available place for bases).
Correct. I am implying a 096 submarine that is larger than the 094 submarine. And yes, it would be more time and money than a "more efficient" SLBM. I have no doubt that the Chinese military is right at this minute actively pursuing research on both a larger, more efficient SLBM to be housed inside a larger, quieter 096 SSBN.
The question isn't whether a 096 will be "larger" than the 094 (which would have to happen anyways if they are to get rid of the hump) but rather if the PLAN would seek a larger SLBM. The French M51, US Trident, and Russian Bulava are all examples of JL-2-sized missiles that have far greater capability.
My point is that you
do not need to increase the size of the SLBM to achieve longer range.
