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

[bsdnf]

PLA's accumulated Pacific hydrological data is likely not enough to support the SSGN's deep penetration into the Pacific for strike missions, but this is precisely the mission for the Type 095.

 

[Tomboy]

A few survivable bombers will easily bring same LACM salvo as SSGN. And will do it again and again.

Given no overseas base, H-20 is unlikely able to hit CONUS in high numbers not to mention each mission will also require atleast one refueling somewhere over the pacific and take 20+ hours.

H-20 can be used for quick and relatively fast strikes but sustained strikes will require a large fleet of SSGNs.

 

[AndrewS]

SSGNs are still obviously terrible for homeland strikes for the same reason they would be against China... What's the total salvo depth they can offer, how many targets are there in CONUS and what effect can each missile achieve per target? Particularly for the kind of large scale industrial/broad purpose strikes you bring up, that's not their utility.

With eight submarines, you could have 2 submarines arriving per week.
That assumes a speed of 25 knots, which should be "silent", given that the Yasen is supposed to be "silent" nearer to 30 knots.

1. An aircraft carrier stationary at port is a much easier target than one at sea, and is worth billions

2. The F-35 factory would likely have a few dozen aircraft in various stages of assembly worth billions. Again, it's a lot easier to destroy an F-35 on the ground than in the air

These are targets that a single SSGN could look to hit.

 

[AndrewS]

PLA's accumulated Pacific hydrological data is likely not enough to support the SSGN's deep penetration into the Pacific for strike missions, but this is precisely the mission for the Type 095.

The vast majority of the Pacific Ocean is deeper than the crush depth of a submarine.
Hydrological data should be of minimal importance.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Given no overseas base, H-20 is unlikely able to hit CONUS in high numbers not to mention each mission will also require atleast one refueling somewhere over the pacific and take 20+ hours.

H-20 can be used for quick and relatively fast strikes but sustained strikes will require a large fleet of SSGNs.

It's a strategic bomber ffs. If it can't strike CONUS efficiently - wtf you even build it for.

 

[Tomboy]

It's a strategic bomber ffs. If it can't strike CONUS efficiently - wtf you even build it for.

You said it yourself, it's a strategic bomber. It's meant to deliver nuclear strikes to CONUS and you only need to do it once and not worry about the logistics afterward which very different from flying 20 intercontinental sorties per day.

 

[Gloire_bb]

You said it yourself, it's a strategic bomber. It's meant to deliver nuclear strikes to CONUS and you only need to do it once and not worry about the logistics afterward very different from flying 20 intercontinental sorties per day.

There isn't much difference in this case - it's meant to deliver strike and return. It can be done with special payloads, it can be done with normal payloads. The only situation it won't be doable if for some reason China wouldn't develop conventional counterparts to weapons in question.

Even if strategic bomber sorties take time indeed - it is incomparably shorter - and, quite likely, safer, - than new sorties by submarines.
Submarine is a sneaky way to have salvo nearby on standby (which is why Russian SSGN in Atlantic always means panic and high readiness), but surely it is single worst possible way to sustain strikes(you literally can produce ICBMs faster)...

 

[Andy1974]

And that still wouldn't make any SSNs into SSBNs, as there isn't enough hull diameter to fit SL-ICBMs that are almost always as long as the hull diameter is tall without having a significant turtleback protruding out of the submarine's hull.

China's JL-3 and JL-4 are about 12-14 meters long, given their immense range requirements. It'd be impossible to fit them on the 095s without significant modifications to the sub's hull (i.e. turtleback etc), such that the PLAN might as well procure a different submarine design altogether.

Wouldn’t it be easier to just procure a shorter missile?

 

[Tomboy]

There isn't much difference in this case - it's meant to deliver strike and return. It can be done with special payloads, it can be done with normal payloads.

Even if strategic bomber sorties take time indeed - it is incomparably shorter - and, quite likely, safer, - than new sorties by submarines.
Submarine is a snealy way to have salvo nearby on standby, but surely it is single worst possible way to sustain strikes(you literally can produce ICBMs faster)..

Sustained strikes to CONUS by air means having bombers and tankers over the pacific effectively 24/7. It's far harder to do than you think it is. Nuclear strikes are comparatively much easier because you only need to do it once. Such operations literally have never been pulled off before.

SSGNs are capable of being constantly rotated in and have deep magazines to do major damage during it's rotation, not to mention these types of mission are rather routine for submarines anyways.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Sustained strikes to CONUS by air means having bombers and tankers over the pacific effectively 24/7. It's far harder to do than you think it is. Nuclear strikes are comparatively much easier because you only need to do it once.

You don't necessarily need tankers - strategic bombers can do it on internal fuel. It just won't be full payload, but payload will still be substantial, and much depends on strike profile. Case example - Soviet Tu-160s could strike CONUS w/o refuel only with 1 bay of missiles (second bay was taken by soft fuel tank), because missiles were shorter ranged and profile had to take into account penetration.
Newer Ru missiles, despite being much heavier - allow 2 bays: their range is so much higher, that bomber doesn't need to do penetration at all, and just keeps small reserve for breaking off pursuit.

Also, we're approaching offtop here, but one of main reasons to even have strategic bombers as opposed to other legs of nuclear triad is exactly that you can have them sortie more than once. They're reloadable strike system, which can search targets for itself even in post-exchange world. It is also used to reinstate deterrence against opportunistic third powers.

SSGNs are capable of being constantly rotated in and have deep magazines to do major damage during it's rotation. Provided you have a sufficiently large fleet.

I think you're for some reason denying rotation to units which rotate in less than 24h(and are overall relatively invulnerable), yet prefer ones which take a month, and which have to penetrate both ASW belts and play checkers with death after their very visible strikes every single time.
Sustained long range ops are better carried by aviation - until and unless you have at sea something so absolutely dominant in delivery aircrafts' ability to ressuply at home airbases turns meaningless. Which is artillery combatants, and those are for now mostly history.

SSGN strike advantage is you can sneak one to eastern pacific, and at desired moment do paralyzing point-blank strike on CONUS (for example, with hypersonics); potentially it can even be disarming in intent, though up to debate how much value it is v US.