09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread


Maikeru

Senior Member
Registered Member
China's submarine decade just begun. wait and watch. by 2030 PLAN sub fleet will be much larger than what we are thinking.

type 093B first batch construction has begun. total 8 subs

type 095 construction will begin soon. if those leaked satellite pics are real.
One thing is for sure is that the facilities at Wuchang and especially Huludao aren't just for show.
 

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
For comparison, the Russian Navy has 12-14 SSNs and SSGNs in service, with another 10 undergoing refit or sea trials and 1 in reserve = 25 Russian SSNs and SSGNs in total.

Meanwhile, China only has 9-10 SSNs in total. Those alone would have to face 50 American SSNs - A ratio of 1 : 5, regardless of the general status of their respective SSN fleets.

I would say that it would be optimal for China to have her own SSBN fleet that is equal to the size and firepower of her American counterpart.
Yeah I have also been saying this for quite some time now. It is pretty clear that is the US strategy to choke Chinese economic development in case of conflict. Still, I am fairly sure that China would be able to keep its coastlines safe, because a lot of people forget China, unlike the US, also has diesel subs. 10 Kilos, 30 Type 039. Russia also has diesel subs. 22 Kilos, 1 Lada.

On the shallow waters close to China's coast and near the First Island Chain the diesel submarines will be way more effective than a nuclear submarine would. Diesel submarines can run on batteries and are a lot more quiet.

The main problem China has is how to escort the civilian merchant fleet and keep it safe from enemy submarine attacks.

China needs to make its own modern equivalent of like the Soviets did with Victor III. Some kind of cheap mass produced nuclear attack submarine.
 
Last edited:

charles18

New Member
Registered Member
That is not a problem, nor could it ever be.
In a WW3 scenario it will be. Chinese merchant fleets will be attacked. That is a guarantee. For example during WW2, American merchant fleets crossing the Atlantic, were routinely attacked by German submarines. In an all out war, I expect the US to use "Privateers" / private military contractors to raid Chinese merchant fleets.
 

no_name

Major
In a WW3 scenario it will be. Chinese merchant fleets will be attacked. That is a guarantee. For example during WW2, American merchant fleets crossing the Atlantic, were routinely attacked by German submarines. In an all out war, I expect the US to use "Privateers" / private military contractors to raid Chinese merchant fleets.
In future perhaps Chinese merchant ships will be equipped with their own drones.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Captain
Registered Member
That is not a problem, nor could it ever be.
Sorry to be blunt, but have you forgotten about the lessons from the last century?

Submarines are a very effective weapon platform at breaking shipping lanes, which are very important for a country's economy, people's wellbeing and even a nation's livelihood. The United Kingdom and Imperial Germany learnt that lesson the very hard way in WW1. While the UK barely hung on a thread in WW2, Imperial Japan learnt that lesson the very hard way at the same time.

Meanwhile, the Soviets rushed to massively expand their underwater fleet during the Cold War. Why? Because in case of total war between NATO and WTO on mainland Europe, the US would be forced to resupply and reinforce their garrisons stationed on mainland Europe by sailing across the Northern Atlantic. Soviet submarines would then be deployed to cut those reinforcement lanes in order to reduce the ability of NATO to reinforce and resupply their forces on mainland Europe, thereby granting WTO better chances to roll over Europe with their sheer size.

Same thing today, with the only difference being the technological level involved.
 

Godzilla

Junior Member
Registered Member
Sorry to be blunt, but have you forgotten about the lessons from the last century?

Submarines are a very effective weapon platform at breaking shipping lanes, which are very important for a country's economy, people's wellbeing and even a nation's livelihood. The United Kingdom and Imperial Germany learnt that lesson the very hard way in WW1. While the UK barely hung on a thread in WW2, Imperial Japan learnt that lesson the very hard way at the same time.

Meanwhile, the Soviets rushed to massively expand their underwater fleet during the Cold War. Why? Because in case of total war between NATO and WTO on mainland Europe, the US would be forced to resupply and reinforce their garrisons stationed on mainland Europe by sailing across the Northern Atlantic. Soviet submarines would then be deployed to cut those reinforcement lanes in order to reduce the ability of NATO to reinforce and resupply their forces on mainland Europe, thereby granting WTO better chances to roll over Europe with their sheer size.

Same thing today, with the only difference being the technological level involved.
So here is the question. In case of war, wouldn’t exports to NATO countries dwindle to 0 anyway, along with imports. 2, wouldn’t shipping lanes to Japan, Korea and Taiwan be dead too anyway?
3. A lot of the container ships will be going to Singapore anyway to divert to other countries, how would submarines pick up neutral country flagged ships making multiple stops doing that?
4. What’s stopping China from using ports from BRI countries like Burma, Kazakh, Pakistan and other SE Asian countries as transits and use inland rail to get goods in and out of China.
I just think people thinking about blockading China via sea lanes is deluded unless they can get the whole world to join in.
 

FIDEL de Chacal

Just Hatched
Registered Member
For comparison, the Russian Navy has 12-14 SSNs and SSGNs in service, with another 10 undergoing refit or sea trials and 1 in reserve = 25 Russian SSNs and SSGNs in total.

Meanwhile, China only has 9-10 SSNs in total. Those alone would have to face 50 American SSNs - A ratio of 1 : 5, regardless of the general status of their respective SSN fleets.

I would say that it would be optimal for China to have her own SSBN fleet that is equal to the size and firepower of her American counterpart.
Think we're in agreement on the SSN side. More SSNs are needed. 50+ SSNs should be the goal.

as @sunnymaxi has stated , the batch of 8 type 093B boats is a good start!

On the SSBN side we differ a bit , the PRC should end(STOP!) the production run of the type 094 boats at six as place holders for the JL3s. When the type 096 boats come online convert all six type 094 boats into SSGNs armed with a sub launched variant of the YJ-21 or a "HyperSonic Anti-Ship" missile type. (example canceled Project 667M "Yankee" SSGN)

Now if the PLAN opted to build a clean sheet "Project 949A SSGN type boat" out right. Then convert 2-3 of the type 094 boats into "mother droneships/ UUV carriers" and scrap(decommissions) the rest. Mothball the type 092 to a museum if still around.

The Royals(who gave up on their bomber force decades ago) and the French(who have a few tactical nukes left) operate just 4 SSBN each as their main or only nuclear platforms. Both fleets are more then enough(capable) to get the point(message) across. So the PLAN SSBN fleet should stand at 6(type 094) boats until the new class(type 096) replaces those 6. The USN current SSBN fleet stands at just 14 boats plus 1 new class building. Their end goal is to replace all their old boats with this new class minus(short) 2 , giving them 12 total by the 2050s.

6 SSBN boats plus JL3s is a good number/mix. Any more is just wasteful spending and that could be better used on a offensive frontline platform with more flexibility , like more type 093Bs , 095s , 095As etc.

Also US geography/doctrine drastically differs from the PRC. The US is a two sided coastal state with bases all over the world with vast access to deep waters. On other hand (until reunification "2040") the PLAN lacks the basing and access to deep waters where they could send out a type 094 boat on patrol "cleanly" on a continue basis. The US is about world power projection and is a "first use" state. Their false doctrine is still rooted in "cold war" thinking , which dictates that an "X" number of SSBNs is required for nuclear deterrent in today's world where they No longer have the large advantage they once enjoyed on multiple fronts. There's a lot of "grey" and less black and white. The Paradigm has shifted.

Again this is just my opinion in respect to yours.
 

sunnymaxi

Senior Member
Registered Member
Think we're in agreement on the SSN side. More SSNs are needed. 50+ SSNs should be the goal.

as @sunnymaxi has stated , the batch of 8 type 093B boats is a good start!

On the SSBN side we differ a bit , the PRC should end(STOP!) the production run of the type 094 boats at six as place holders for the JL3s. When the type 096 boats come online convert all six type 094 boats into SSGNs armed with a sub launched variant of the YJ-21 or a "HyperSonic Anti-Ship" missile type. (example canceled Project 667M "Yankee" SSGN)

Now if the PLAN opted to build a clean sheet "Project 949A SSGN type boat" out right. Then convert 2-3 of the type 094 boats into "mother droneships/ UUV carriers" and scrap(decommissions) the rest. Mothball the type 092 to a museum if still around.

The Royals(who gave up on their bomber force decades ago) and the French(who have a few tactical nukes left) operate just 4 SSBN each as their main or only nuclear platforms. Both fleets are more then enough(capable) to get the point(message) across. So the PLAN SSBN fleet should stand at 6(type 094) boats until the new class(type 096) replaces those 6. The USN current SSBN fleet stands at just 14 boats plus 1 new class building. Their end goal is to replace all their old boats with this new class minus(short) 2 , giving them 12 total by the 2050s.

6 SSBN boats plus JL3s is a good number/mix. Any more is just wasteful spending and that could be better used on a offensive frontline platform with more flexibility , like more type 093Bs , 095s , 095As etc.

Also US geography/doctrine drastically differs from the PRC. The US is a two sided coastal state with bases all over the world with vast access to deep waters. On other hand (until reunification "2040") the PLAN lacks the basing and access to deep waters where they could send out a type 094 boat on patrol "cleanly" on a continue basis. The US is about world power projection and is a "first use" state. Their false doctrine is still rooted in "cold war" thinking , which dictates that an "X" number of SSBNs is required for nuclear deterrent in today's world where they No longer have the large advantage they once enjoyed on multiple fronts. There's a lot of "grey" and less black and white. The Paradigm has shifted.

Again this is just my opinion in respect to yours.
PLAN is now very serious about SSN. they want much larger and modern fleet of SSN to compete with US.

after years of delaying and breakthrough in new techs. they finally start moving towards their goal.

Bohai Shipyard expansions are unprecedented. and construction of multiple subs will be done simultaneously.

first batch of type 093B approved. second will soon too. 8 subs in one batch

type 095 construction can begin too if those leaked images are real.

exact numbers of type 094 are unknown. 6-8 units from different source. all are equipped with long range JL-2A SLBMs. but as per US report, PLAN replaced these with JL-3. not sure about that.

type 096 design , new technologies have finalized. rumors about trial construction but again not sure. submarines information are very secretive.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Captain
Registered Member
I think it was "FIDEL de Chacal" that said perhaps the YJ-21 missile can be launched from submarines.
I like that idea!
The US is already planning for the Virginia SSNs to be fitted with the Conventional Prompt Strike hypersonic missiles starting in the late 2020s.

Therefore, it is indeed possible for China's 093B/G SSNs and upcoming 095 SSNs to be fitted with hypersonic missiles like the YJ-21 or more advanced models, similarly to the Virginia SSNs in the coming years.
 

Top