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

[antiterror13]

Agree.
Means China have a sea that

We talking about surprise nuclear attack with 2500 strategical and few hundred tactical nuke.
Hardened places require one warhead each.

if you know where the real silos are ... remember so many decoys around that and to built a decoy silos are real cheap

there won't be 2,500 nukes available to attack China ... and do you really think the Russians would just wait doing nothing? you need to learn more matey ... don't waste our time with your non sense arguments. and remember talking about Nuke is forbidden in this forum

 

[Anlsvrthng]

if you know where the real silos are ... remember so many decoys around that and to built a decoy silos are real cheap

there won't be 2,500 nukes available to attack China ... and do you really think the Russians would just wait doing nothing? you need to learn more matey ... don't waste our time with your non sense arguments. and remember talking about Nuke is forbidden in this forum

China has 44 land based ICBM that can reach the USA.
USA has 400 land based ICBM that can reach China.

The START limiting the number of warheads to 2500, the USA keeping only 500 warheads for 400 Minuteman III.

Now, these can accommodate 3 warhead in needs, so if the USA scrap the START treaty with Russia then the USA can increase the number of active warheads on missiles to 1200 in short period of time.


So, today it took only 400 warheads ( nine for dummy silos and one for real) to take out the Chinese land based ICBMs.

Still left 400 more for all Chinese city, and they used up less than third of the nuclear arsenal.

Scrap the START, and there is 1200 warhead against 44 real and 1156 dummy silos from only land based ICBMs.

Now, the Chinese sea 3.5 million square km, and without knowing where is the SSBN it takes one nuclear bomb for each square km to kill the submarines.

3500 warhead has less than 0.1% chance to kill a submarine.

So, by running type 96 with 24 JL-3s it is possible to have at least one ICBM submarine with at least 72-240 warheads.

six of them stationing at SCS at all time gives a retaliation capability with 432-1440 warheads.
It is way more than the current land based capability of China. Way more.

Of course it require lot of Pu-239. OR the number of warheads is on the low estimate.

 

[Biscuits]

Agree.
Means China have a sea that

We talking about surprise nuclear attack with 2500 strategical and few hundred tactical nuke.
Hardened places require one warhead each.

“Surprise” nuclear attack detected within seconds of launch by early warning satellites, confirmed and tracked by destroyers in the ECS and then again confirmed by radars on the mainland. That’s several hours to counter-fire and move people out of risk zones.

Right now the tech to provide an effective cover against thousands of nukes simply doesn’t exist, but PLA is pioneering this field. It’s more or less inevitable that even a thousand nukes can be shot down one day. They used to say satellites couldn’t be shot down.

More importantly, if it’s a limited nuclear strike, China’s setup can let it escape unscathed. Against for example India, being able to glass the subcontinent is a small comfort if a city has already been stuck by nukes. In such a scenario, it’s much more preferable to intercept the handful of incoming nukes than to have a bunch of submarines which do the same thing as land bases.

SSBN heavy layouts only make sense if you believe you can’t defend your land borders or your missiles are so poor that you need to be next to someone to hit them. The former is true for France and UK still today, and the latter was true for the Soviets and Americans during the early-to-mid Cold War

 

[Deleted member 13312]

China has 44 land based ICBM that can reach the USA.
USA has 400 land based ICBM that can reach China.

The START limiting the number of warheads to 2500, the USA keeping only 500 warheads for 400 Minuteman III.

Now, these can accommodate 3 warhead in needs, so if the USA scrap the START treaty with Russia then the USA can increase the number of active warheads on missiles to 1200 in short period of time.


So, today it took only 400 warheads ( nine for dummy silos and one for real) to take out the Chinese land based ICBMs.

Still left 400 more for all Chinese city, and they used up less than third of the nuclear arsenal.

Scrap the START, and there is 1200 warhead against 44 real and 1156 dummy silos from only land based ICBMs.

Now, the Chinese sea 3.5 million square km, and without knowing where is the SSBN it takes one nuclear bomb for each square km to kill the submarines.

3500 warhead has less than 0.1% chance to kill a submarine.

So, by running type 96 with 24 JL-3s it is possible to have at least one ICBM submarine with at least 72-240 warheads.

six of them stationing at SCS at all time gives a retaliation capability with 432-1440 warheads.
It is way more than the current land based capability of China. Way more.

Of course it require lot of Pu-239. OR the number of warheads is on the low estimate.

I think you are seriously misunderstanding how anti SSBN tactics work. It is really much more complex then plastering an entire area with nukes and hoping that one hits. The earliest, and still best way of countering SSBNs is to deploy your own SSN to track and sink them. That is why the Soviets spent so much effort and resources on the bastion strategy which is being emulated by the PLAN and the USN spend an equal amount of effort to design ever quieter and stealthier submarines.

 

[gelgoog]

I think @Anlsvrthng is severely underestimating the number of missiles that China has which can hit the USA. They probably have more than that amount in DF-41 and DF-31AG launchers (not missiles) alone. The SSBN is still the weak part of the Chinese Nuclear Triad, together with the air force aspect, but I think the main issue is the launch platforms like the submarines rather than the missiles. Although those also could use some improvement.

Also, like @Viktor Jav said, SSBNs are mostly hunted using attack submarines. You basically have sonobuoys stringed around the area of operation of the enemy submarines. We know that the USA has these systems both in the North Atlantic and the Southern Pacific at least. Those together with the SSBNs and dedicated anti-submarine aircraft like the P-3 Orion, which have a magnetic anomaly detector, can detect and hunt submarines.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

I think you are seriously misunderstanding how anti SSBN tactics work. It is really much more complex then plastering an entire area with nukes and hoping that one hits. The earliest, and still best way of countering SSBNs is to deploy your own SSN to track and sink them. That is why the Soviets spent so much effort and resources on the bastion strategy which is being emulated by the PLAN and the USN spend an equal amount of effort to design ever quieter and stealthier submarines.

They use SSNs because there is no other (cheap) way..


Each land based silo need one warhead each, each SSBN take one-three SSN each.(and the virginias never intended as submarine hunters)

So, to kill one land based silo cost few million $, to kill one SSBN take few ten billion $.

But SSNs require air cover , intelligence gathering and so on.

The type 001 very good to prevent the seawolfs to operate in the SC sea.

 

[Hyperwarp]

China has 44 land based ICBM that can reach the USA...

Regading the numbers, there are 20 silo-based DF-5 ICBM (DF-5A/5B). Dont know how many dummy DF-5 silos are available. On the other hand, the number of mobile ICBM such as the DF-31A/AG (and possible DF-41) is an unknown. There are some vague statements on the DF-31A number like as "over 15" by NASIC and 25 by CSIS. If we go by the number of TEL displayed during official parades then there are at least 12x DF-31A (2015) and 17x DF-31AG (2017).

Having new generation quieter SSBN (096?) armed with a new SLBM (JL-3?) would be a great boost for China's 2nd strike capability. But unlike China's sea-based deterrence (which is completely one-sided with the USN having 18 Ohio class SSBN and more than half being armed with Trident II D5), the land-based deterrence is not so one side with the introduction of the DF-31A/AG and DF-41. DF-31A and DF-41 have road mobile TELs deployable from underground tunnels. DF-41 also has a hardened fully off-road capable TEL. This will increase their survivability.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

I think @Anlsvrthng is severely underestimating the number of missiles that China has which can hit the USA. They probably have more than that amount in DF-41 and DF-31AG launchers (not missiles) alone. The SSBN is still the weak part of the Chinese Nuclear Triad, together with the air force aspect, but I think the main issue is the launch platforms like the submarines rather than the missiles. Although those also could use some improvement.

Also, like @Viktor Jav said, SSBNs are mostly hunted using attack submarines. You basically have sonobuoys stringed around the area of operation of the enemy submarines. We know that the USA has these systems both in the North Atlantic and the Southern Pacific at least. Those together with the SSBNs and dedicated anti-submarine aircraft like the P-3 Orion, which have a magnetic anomaly detector, can detect and hunt submarines.

Even if the number of land based is ten times more the equitation doesn't change too much.

Fake launchers needs only one mistake/picture to get recognised, means each real launcher can have maybe one-two working fake .

So, one USA ICBM can kill three-four landbased Chinese ICBM with first strike.

 

[Broccoli]

Of course it require lot of Pu-239. OR the number of warheads is on the low estimate.

If Chinese weaponeers use only plutonium they can make at least 400 new warheads from their current pu stockpile, and i'm sure they recycle plutonium from old warheads what are being retired, but if they have composite pits that number goes up to 900 new warheads.

Also, it's not known what pit material is used in the 90kt MIRV warhead developed between 1992-1996.

 

[asif iqbal]

here we go again more wet dreams

I click here to check for updates and all we have is a open ended discussion on who wins a nuclear wars between China and US?

cut it out guys keep the standard on SDF