Grand Danois
Entertainer
Because PLAN can't rely on any surface presence in case of conflict. The US can. The example given apply to the US.
New Chinese Ballistic Missile Submarine Spotted
- Thread starter satcom
- Start date
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Rely on: as in assured. No sensor coverage, no use of the subs.I know what you mean, but they could use modified freighters as well. And if it's impossible to have enough & secure surface presence, we are back at the square 1: use subs!
Well, are 4+2 Yuanwang Space Tracking Ships aren't enough?
And if those aren't enough, could AWACS be modified for "space tracking" ?The Chinese ocean going fleet of survey ships has successively completed intercontinental ballistic missile full range flight test, submarine to shore guided missile underwater launch test, communications satellite launch test and southpole visit, making a great contribution to China's science and technology development as well as weapons and equipment development and test.
The four Yuan Wang tracking ships go to "three major oceans" to support piloted missions. They are assigned to the western Pacific Ocean, southern Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean west of Australia, and southern Atlantic Ocean to track and control the Shenzhou spacecraft. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/yuan-wang.htm
Grand Danois
Entertainer
It's not the tecnology - it's the strategic/tactical concept.Well, are 4+2 Yuanwang Space Tracking Ships aren't enough?
And if those aren't enough, could AWACS be modified for "space tracking" ?
Ask yourself, assuming the surface vessel & ssbn evade detection (!): just how many sensors will pick up and classify the event? What will the response be and how fast will it arrive?
Such a setup will in practice exchange a ssbn plus a surface sensor platform for 1 sat. And that is a best case.
Not a good deal.
My understanding is that: those ships are on routine deployment; SSBNs are not in the same locations with them- they may be separated by 100s of miles; and they probably won't need more sensors than the # the US has used lately. I'm not sure what you mean by "What will the response be and how fast will it arrive?"
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Launch will be detected and located, DSP/"SOSUS"/SSN sonar/BMEWS/surface & air IR/etc; point of intercept will be known -> approximate location of sensor platform is known. Location of shooter is known.My understanding is that: those ships are on routine deployment; SSBNs are not in the same locations with them- they may be separated by 100s of miles; and they probably won't need more sensors than the # the US has used lately. I'm not sure what you mean by "What will the response be and how fast will it arrive?"
How long before the P-3/SSN/F/A-18/etc arrive? You only need to kill the sensor to shut the capability down ie mission kill. Then take out the SSBN with the flyer down.
If it can't be protected it is a one-shot undertaking.
Thanks for the explanation! Even though the USN has more assets, would they be enough to cover the whole Southern Ocean, in addition to their usual AORs? Those tracking ships may have their own SSN and/or surface & air escorts, depending on the situation. I don't see a the great likelihood of US-PRC armed conflict now or in the future; more likely there will be tensions, proxy wars, and maybe stand-offs like in the East-West Cold War. So, the sats we are talking about that may/will be targeted for interference/destruction are going to be of other nations, not exclusively American. So, IMHO, technically it's feasable to use boomers in a war-time scenario to attack enemy space assets and for BMD.
Crobato, what's your take on this article?
Crobato, what's your take on this article?
It seems that China built its latest SSBN using the fundamental design concept of the earlier 092 version as a shortcut to enable rapid deployment of strategic nuclear submarines as part of its effort to deter the United States from intervention in the event of a conflict in the Taiwan Strait.
http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Security/2008/02/29/chinas_nuclear_expansion_at_sea/6362/
Last edited:
Well first of all, the ASAT/BMD issue on a submarine should be given a rest. For that matter, any talk of the SSBN being forced into an anti-CV duty. Technically feasible does not mean tactically feasible or practical or have common sense. Feasibility comes in multiple dimensions and levels, they all have to be checked before it happens.Thanks for the explanation! Even though the USN has more assets, would they be enough to cover the whole Southern Ocean, in addition to their usual AORs? Those tracking ships may have their own SSN and/or surface & air escorts, depending on the situation. I don't see a the great likelihood of US-PRC armed conflict now or in the future; more likely there will be tensions, proxy wars, and maybe stand-offs like in the East-West Cold War. So, the sats we are talking about that may/will be targeted for interference/destruction are going to be of other nations, not exclusively American. So, IMHO, technically it's feasable to use boomers in a war-time scenario to attack enemy space assets and for BMD.
Crobato, what's your take on this article?
On the article, the 092 allusion to the 094 should be dropped. Its one of those arguments based on because they look similar, they must be derived. That's a very fallible logic, done by people who don't know any better.
Any examination of the 094 to the rest of the PLAN subs would show that the 094's bow and rear sections are identical to the 093's. The 094's sail appears like an elongated rectangular version of the 093, and identical in every way except for the rectangular aspect.
Just that alone tells you the 094 is family derived from the 093. There is common sense to that, by sharing components between the subs, like turbines, reactors and all, they could seriously cut down the cost of the subs, bring commonality to production, training of crews and technicians, and the sheer logistics in maintaining the subs. And there is precedent to that, US SSBNs prior to the Ohio like the George Washington to the Lafayette, share common family bonds to the Skipjack and Thresher classes, like they were stretched and elongated versions of the latter. The Xia class itself is directly derived from the Han class. The Xia itself is not "unique" in that perspective and it should be viewed like a modified Han.
The one thing the 094 has in common with the 092 is the turtle back which peiople's eyes are always too focused upon. The design with lines of holes along the sides can also be seen in the Delta I/II class, so this is where the idea came from. As a matter of fact the Delta III/IV went to a new turtleback design, although the basic hull design is still there.
This Pinkov writer also makes a lot of errors, a bit embarrassing. The 24 silo sub is likely to be derived from someone video capturing an image from CCTV that showed such a sub. In retrospect, that image was from CCTV broadcasting a documentary on modern weapons systems, and in that segment, it was talking about the SSBNs and showed the basic diagram of an Ohio.
Another thing. There is no such thing as an 092M. The Chinese never use "M" like the Russians do to signify modification or improvement. As a matter of fact "M" for the Chinese actually stand for "Export" or "Commerce", from a Chinese word of the same meaning. A lot of people don't understand why the original export F-7s are called F-7M, and now you know.
An improved Xia would have been called 092G instead because G stands for the Chinese Gai which is what the PLA would designate as improved, examples, 039G, ZTZ-96G, J-7G.
Right there, you know this writer does not know what he is talking about. As usual.
Another thing is that the 092 itself would not have embodied all such changes, unless, a second 092 must have been built. There has been a lot of speculation about a second 092, but in retrospect, I do feel its really the first 094. Any test bed of new sub technologies are likely to fall upon the last example of the previous generation, and its going to be on an SSN. This is why on the CDF, I speculated that the first 091G (improved Han) might be in fact, a new submarine built from the ground up to test technologies that would end up in the 093 (and 094). Trying to modify an existing Han would be too much trouble.
The family relationship is that Xia -> Han, while Jin -> Shang. As of 2005, the Xia itself went into a serious refit that appears to might even include a new propeller. You can see the sub in the dock in Google Earth, but that image has not been updated since 2005. In any case, rather than the 094 learning from the 092G, the 092G is going to be a refit using lessons and systems from the 094. In any case, the final product I speculate might end up being a training submarine for future 094 crews.
IMO, it may not be tactically feasable to use boomers against CSGs, but as a last resort it may be the only way! Military history is full of examples of different systems used for things they weren't exactly designed for.
Well, I've suspected that the article was far-fetched. IMO, if they can field MRVed SLBMs, it won't make much difference having 12, 16 or 24 missile tubes. Just having 2-3 warheads on each BM would give them 24-48 different targets to strike (or 2-3 warheads per target) with just one 12-16 tube SSBN, overwhelming the BMD. Indeed, it makes sense to deploy MRVed SLBMs, given the low numbers of boomers. BTW, what is the ideal number of SSBNs for China, and how many are they going to have, anyone?
Well, I've suspected that the article was far-fetched. IMO, if they can field MRVed SLBMs, it won't make much difference having 12, 16 or 24 missile tubes. Just having 2-3 warheads on each BM would give them 24-48 different targets to strike (or 2-3 warheads per target) with just one 12-16 tube SSBN, overwhelming the BMD. Indeed, it makes sense to deploy MRVed SLBMs, given the low numbers of boomers. BTW, what is the ideal number of SSBNs for China, and how many are they going to have, anyone?
MRVs/MIRVs could be used to preserve China's second strike capability by overwhelming a TMD or NMD system. ..China has had the the technical capability to develop multiple RV payloads for twenty years. If China needed a multiple RV capability in the near term, Beijing could use a DF-31 type RV to develop and deploy a simple MRV or MIRV for the DF-5 in a few years.
http://www.nti.org/db/china/wwhmdat.htm
a minimum of three SSBNs must be operational in order to have one constantly on patrol. ..China is believed to be planning the construction of three or four, in order to ensure that one boat is always on patrol. For maximum protection, these will probably operate close to the mainland, behind layered defenses. ..Russia may be helping China to improve the noise insulation of the submarine's hull for quieter movement and decreased vulnerability to anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities.
http://www.nti.org/db/china/wsubdat.htm
Grand Danois
Entertainer
MRV
"multiple reentry vehicle"
From Department of Defense
Definition: (DOD) The reentry vehicle of a delivery system which places more than one reentry vehicle over an individual target.
See also maneuverable reentry vehicle; multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle; reentry vehicle.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/glossarytermsm/g/m4174.htm
As opposed to:
MIRV
Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle
A multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) is a collection of nuclear weapons carried on a single intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) or a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). Using a MIRV warhead, a single launched missile can strike several targets, or fewer targets redundantly. By contrast a unitary warhead is a single warhead on a single missile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIRV
"multiple reentry vehicle"
From Department of Defense
Definition: (DOD) The reentry vehicle of a delivery system which places more than one reentry vehicle over an individual target.
See also maneuverable reentry vehicle; multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle; reentry vehicle.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/glossarytermsm/g/m4174.htm
As opposed to:
MIRV
Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle
A multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) is a collection of nuclear weapons carried on a single intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) or a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). Using a MIRV warhead, a single launched missile can strike several targets, or fewer targets redundantly. By contrast a unitary warhead is a single warhead on a single missile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIRV
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Except for the fact that MRVs, MIRVs and MARVs really aren't maneuverable enough to hit a moving target.
I wonder what acronym is there for maneuverable warhead that can avoid BMD and chase a moving ship? If the Russians can use a CM in place of a regular warhead as an answer to BMD (BTW, I mentioned this a while ago), so could the Chinese!
The Igla maneuverable warhead will be deployed both on some Topol-Ms (it was not specified whether silo- or mobile-based) and on the future submarine launched ballistic missile Bulava, whose first flight test was conducted in September 2005. http://www.wmdinsights.org/I1/R1_RussiatoDeploy.htm
More comments with regards tot he article.
On whether the 094 has passive flank sonars, that is a given. Starting around mid 2006, the PLAN implemented a policy to use white warning markings on subs with flank sonars so that tugboats won't bump into the locations of the sonars and damage them. The Russians before had a similar policy. These white markings are helping in identifying which subs have passive flank sonars and at the same time, gives you a chronological boundary on the pictures, circa 2006 at least for nuclear subs, and with the policy spread to 2007 on the SSKs. So far the 093, 091G (improved Han), the 094, Song and Yuans have them, plus one Ming (probably a test bed), but none of the Kilos. Also starting from 2007 a new small TAS begins to appear in the tail of many PLAN subs as a new fit and retrofit.
As to why the SSBNs are strangely stuck to only 12 missiles, I only have theories. The first theory is that since the SSBNs are basically design conversions from SSNs (Han -> Xia, Shang -> Jin) in order to reduce costs as much as possible but there is only so much they can carry before the performance penalty becomes severe. If the PLAN needs to take the art of keeping SSBNs to the next level, it needs to start with an SSBN that is exclusively designed for that purpose.
The second theory is that there might be a service contention between the PLAN and 2nd Artillery, who controls China's nuclear rocket arsenal. It is possible that as a result of politics the PLAN may be limited at the moment to how many SLBMs it can have, or per sub. On the other hand, the decision to have SLBMs and SSBNs might be a very top down decision from the CMC itself.
On whether the 094 has passive flank sonars, that is a given. Starting around mid 2006, the PLAN implemented a policy to use white warning markings on subs with flank sonars so that tugboats won't bump into the locations of the sonars and damage them. The Russians before had a similar policy. These white markings are helping in identifying which subs have passive flank sonars and at the same time, gives you a chronological boundary on the pictures, circa 2006 at least for nuclear subs, and with the policy spread to 2007 on the SSKs. So far the 093, 091G (improved Han), the 094, Song and Yuans have them, plus one Ming (probably a test bed), but none of the Kilos. Also starting from 2007 a new small TAS begins to appear in the tail of many PLAN subs as a new fit and retrofit.
As to why the SSBNs are strangely stuck to only 12 missiles, I only have theories. The first theory is that since the SSBNs are basically design conversions from SSNs (Han -> Xia, Shang -> Jin) in order to reduce costs as much as possible but there is only so much they can carry before the performance penalty becomes severe. If the PLAN needs to take the art of keeping SSBNs to the next level, it needs to start with an SSBN that is exclusively designed for that purpose.
The second theory is that there might be a service contention between the PLAN and 2nd Artillery, who controls China's nuclear rocket arsenal. It is possible that as a result of politics the PLAN may be limited at the moment to how many SLBMs it can have, or per sub. On the other hand, the decision to have SLBMs and SSBNs might be a very top down decision from the CMC itself.
You touched on something I have long pondered: will their Navy, as a whole, ever become a full & independent branch of the armed forces, instead of being subordinated to the Army? The FSU was the largest continental power, but still had its naval forces, especially during Admiral Gorshkov's tenure as commander, quiet independent of the others. And I agree that they should design a new class of SSBN from the ground up. Interestingly, the French got their 1st SSN only after the 1st SSBNs!
..the first French SSN did not join the fleet until 1983. However, the Rubis and Amethyste classes have operated from their Toulon base for many years and have been subjected to major update rebuilding programmes.
http://www.global-defence.com/2003/astute_03.htm
There are still PLA generals that still wants to treat the PLAAF and PLAN like its subordinate to the Army. But the CMC has different ideas. Under Hu Jin Tao's administration, for the first time, the PLAAF and the PLAN now has their own seat in the CMC.You touched on something I have long pondered: will their Navy, as a whole, ever become a full & independent branch of the armed forces, instead of being subordinated to the Army? The FSU was the largest continental power, but still had its naval forces, especially during Admiral Gorshkov's tenure as commander, quiet independent of the others. And I agree that they should design a new class of SSBN from the ground up. Interestingly, the French got their 1st SSN only after the 1st SSBNs!
The leadership also sent a message that the PLA's 80th Anniversary parade last year wasn't held marching at Tianammen Square as they do traditionally, but inside a PLAN naval base.
IMO, as it goes "Blue Water", it will become more on a par with the other branches.
The bigger size, AORs, and tactics will make it impossible to keep it in the same status as even now. Also, I wonder what branch operates river flottilas, if they do have them? China has 3 big rivers: Yangtze, Huanghe (Yelow), and Heilong, or Black Dragon (Amur). BTW, the Wuhan deep water port & submarine building shipyard is about two hundred kilometers upriver from the mouth of the Yangze River.
Here is the new acronym!-
The bigger size, AORs, and tactics will make it impossible to keep it in the same status as even now. Also, I wonder what branch operates river flottilas, if they do have them? China has 3 big rivers: Yangtze, Huanghe (Yelow), and Heilong, or Black Dragon (Amur). BTW, the Wuhan deep water port & submarine building shipyard is about two hundred kilometers upriver from the mouth of the Yangze River.
Here is the new acronym!-
Missile warhead upgrades for nuclear forces include new maneuvering re-entry vehicles (MaRV), multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles (MIRV), decoys, chaff, jamming, thermal shielding and anti-satellite weapons. The enhancements are intended to defeat missile defenses.
The strategic force buildup will "strengthen China's deterrent and enhance its capabilities for strategic strike," the report said. http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps...80304/NATION/425232058/1002&template=printart
The SS-NX-30 is identical to the SS-27 except for a slight decrease in range resulting from the conversion for submarine launch. It has a range of 10,000 km (6,214 miles) and is reported to be equipped with a 550 kT yield nuclear warheads. It is reported that up to six MIRVs can be placed at the cost of removing warhead shielding and decoys, reducing its ability to penetrate ABM defenses. .. there is the possibility for the technology to be stolen by China, the only other nation that might have the capability and need to integrate it.
http://missilethreat.com/missilesoftheworld/id.158/missile_detail.asp
As far as terminal guidance goes, maneuverable reentry vehicles (or, MARVs) haven't really made it out of the black world, but they apparently exist. We supposedly had them in the pipeline for Pershing II and Trident decades ago. If we could do it then, the Chinese can probably get there in the next decade. Especially if they got hold of the Pershing II plans.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/03/us-navy-carrier.html
One little-noticed intelligence disclosure contained in the Pentagon's annual report on Chinese military power says China now has ballistic missiles designed to hit U.S. aircraft carriers and ships at sea.
The missiles are described in the report as part of China's "anti-access/area denial capabilities" that include "anti-ship ballistic missiles designed to strike ships at sea, including aircraft carriers."
Using a ballistic missile to target ships requires a degree of sophistication not shown by Chinese missiles in the past, and indicates China's military has mastered precision missile targeting, no doubt helped by the theft of U.S. warhead design and other secrets through espionage in the 1990s.
Other new weapons that are part of the precision-guided missile arsenal are advanced cruise missiles, medium-range ballistic missiles, the direct ascent anti-satellite missiles, like the one tested in January 2007. http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080307/NATION04/676427087/0/EDITORIAL
Last edited:
Not totally true.Another thing. There is no such thing as an 092M. The Chinese never use "M" like the Russians do to signify modification or improvement. As a matter of fact "M" for the Chinese actually stand for "Export" or "Commerce", from a Chinese word of the same meaning. A lot of people don't understand why the original export F-7s are called F-7M, and now you know.
An improved Xia would have been called 092G instead because G stands for the Chinese Gai which is what the PLA would designate as improved, examples, 039G, ZTZ-96G, J-7G.
China did not officially use “M” as export suffix, such as Type-90II Tank and FC-1 and lots other examples. And the suffix “G” is also not official although there have examples that PLA do use that letter (Such as 051G) but they only use it on “modified” (Gai in Chinese) existing weapon. However, there is even more examples that PLA do not use such letter. Such as J-7, they use “A” “B” “C” “D” instead.
“G” suffix is use quite often on Chinese military fan site and/or magazines, but such suffix is just like “Song” and “Yuan”, which are not the official naming. That is why some people calls new Type-99 tank 99A and some calls it 99G.