Two More Chinese SSBNs Spotted

[Firehorse]

distances

Well, the distance from Los Angeles, California to Manila, Philippines is 7,295 miles
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/cursortrail.html ;

and from LA to Hanoi is 6,643 Nautical Miles. http://www.theairdb.com/connection/HAN-LAX.html

Distance from Hong Kong (which isn't that far from Hainan- 467 n.miles to Hanoi, about halfway or approx 232.5 mi.) to Los Angeles:
6,298 nautical miles, so Hainan to LA is about 6,298 + 232.5= 6,530.5 miles.
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distanceresult.html?p1=102&p2=137

Airplanes use great circle routes just like ICBMs. So, a boomer on Hainan and in the S.China Sea, i.e. somewhere between Manila & Hanoi, armed with 11K mi range SLBMs that you mentioned earlier can easily target LA, not to mention NW USA. Yes, if launched from at or near Hainan the missiles may/will fly close to Taiwan & Japan, but not if launched from the middle of the S.China Sea. During the Cold War, the NATO navies were able to track less than 1/4 of all Soviet Northern Fleet SSBNs, as noisy as they were. The Chinese, without a doubt, will be improving on quieting of their subs- the USN Ohio class use open, deep water ocean to hide- I don't see why can't PLAN do the same in the future, in NW Pacific, W/S. Pacific or the Atlantic & Indian Oceans? As I said before, from the S.China Sea a boomer/SSGN can easily sneak in either direction. In the meantime, going to the Kurils during piecetime will give potential adversaries plenty of opportunity to track them, record their noises & routines. Also, communicating with a sub across the Sea of Japan and in the Russian's backyard would be not as reliable as in the S.China Sea.
SSBNs are mainly to provide the 2nd strike capability. The Bohai Bay, Yellow & East China Seas are shallow and small, and they'll be nuked in the 1st strike to kill any boomers that might be there. S.China Sea is more than twice as big & dip.

Will the Russians be alarmed if the missiles fly over their area? Certainly but they could see from the trajectories they are not the targets. This is not to mention this can also be cleared or declared to the Russians before hand. Trajectories reaching over Japan or Korea isn't an issue to base boomers in the south China seas because ABM systems generally intercept in the terminal or reentry phase, not in the initial rising phase.

They just could try to get their permission to use the Sea of Okhotsk as a submarine bastion- better than open ocean off the Kurils, and closer to CONUS! I very much doubt the Russians will give them green light to do that!
There is a possibility of miscalculation on Russia's and/or US part regarding ICBMs in NE China- and why depend on Russia's good will that may change in the future? The ABM systems in Korea, Taiwan & Japan may be upgraded later to deal with IC/SLBMs, and the ABL now being tested may also be based on Guam, HI, and Okinawa as part of TBMD/NMD, once it matures. Besides, even if they can't shoot down IC/SLBMs now, the radars will be able to track them and give valuable data to NMD network downrange.

Gates' visit also comes on the heels of a successful ballistic missile test earlier this week above the Pacific Ocean that included the participation of the Japanese Navy. The U.S. military shot down two missiles at once, while a Japanese Navy Aegis-equipped ship, the Kongo, tracked the missile targets. The Aegis is an integrated radar and missile defense system.
The Kongo also simulated firing its own interceptors in preparation for another test off Hawaii next month in which it will attempt to intercept a missile itself. If successful, the event would mark the first time Japan has ever intercepted a ballistic missile.
Tokyo has poured money into missile defense in the decade since North Korea unexpectedly test-fired a long-range missile over northern Japan in 1998.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-11-08-gates-japan_N.htm

Sorry, I tried but couldn't access Sinodef. forum to view that picture.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

Copycat tehnology from old soviet SSBN designs, its still dangerous since its a SSBN , they are planning to build 6 total subs which would mean quite a powerfull strategic power capable of deploying it over the whole world, If China is building its military to protect China why the need for such a powerfull strategic asset ?

Two words: MAD Doctrine

As currently, China's second strike capability is ineffective at best. The construction of these boats will enhance their striking range greatly, and cover most of U.S. simply by patrolling near the edge of Chinese territorial waters.

As for your question of why the need, you can replace China in the sentence with any country having nuclear strike assets.

 

[Firehorse]

Diesel SSG?

China is not the only nation to bet big on advancing diesel-electric submarine propulsion technology. Germany and France have both scored big overseas sales successes with their own excellent smaller diesel subs. And some of them have been successfully adapted for strategic roles.
Israel, which cannot afford a single nuclear-powered submarine, let alone a fleet of them, now has three German-built Dolphin class subs, or U-boats to carry its nuclear-capable cruise missiles with the range to reach Iran as a sustainable second strike deterrent to guard against some sudden devastating nuclear attack.
India has followed the Israeli example and is investing in French-built Scorpion submarines to carry its survivable second strike deterrent of nuclear capable cruise missiles to deter an increasingly unstable and unpredictable nuclear-armed Pakistan.
Even Russia, America's traditional rival and challenger for blue ocean dominance over the past half century, is now betting big on the new diesel-electric propulsion technology available.
The Moscow newspaper Kommersant on Sept. 12 reported that Russia was developing a new so-called Project 20120 submarine that may have followed German and Swedish designs and further developed them in creating a new diesel-electric drive with hydrogen fuel cells that would allow diesel-powered subs to stay submerged while recharging their batteries.
.. That move may have different implications. It could signify a further willingness to boost conventional naval capabilities against the United States -- or even a desire in the future to sell the technology profitably to China, which has invested heavily in diesel submarine technology. ..
All the arguments that the Navy has used to make the case for converting its four giant nuclear-powered Ohio strategic missile subs into Tomahawk platforms, carrying SEAL commandos, apply not just equally well but better, to putting those weapons, and smaller squads of those men, on far more numerous diesel subs like the Scorpions or the Dolphins.
http://www.upi.com/International_Se.../defense_focus_a-sub_passions_--_part_2/1294/

While the old Xia could be converting to SSGN role, it would probably make a lot of sense to have new SSBNs carry a mixed load of SLBMs/CMs. As the above quote points out, new advanced conventional SSGs could be built in larger numbers than SSBNs, and perform their missions on a par with them, if not better. SLCMs are more accurate than BMs, and can't be dealt with NMD/TBMD.

 

[tphuang]

While the old Xia could be converting to SSGN role, it would probably make a lot of sense to have new SSBNs carry a mixed load of SLBMs/CMs. As the above quote points out, new advanced conventional SSGs could be built in larger numbers than SSBNs, and perform their missions on a par with them, if not better. SLCMs are more accurate than BMs, and can't be dealt with NMD/TBMD.

hmm, ballistic missiles are harder to intercept than cruise missiles. And also, the recent kilos can fire club missiles, does that make them SSGs? If I can get a little clarification from one of our sub experts, it would be great.

 

[gf0012-aust]

hmm, ballistic missiles are harder to intercept than cruise missiles. And also, the recent kilos can fire club missiles, does that make them SSGs? If I can get a little clarification from one of our sub experts, it would be great.

When HMAS Ovens was converted to fire Harpoons (1985) she was reclassified as an SSG.

IIRC she held the record as being the second conventional sub in the world to become an SSG (ie, fire guided weapons while submerged)

The USN holds the record for being the first (1959)

26 years to get second place!

 

[crobato]

In the west maybe. Back im the sixties the Echo class can be considered as the first SSGN and the Juliett class its SSG counterpart. If u remember the movie K-19 with Harrison Ford the actual sub used in the movie is not a real Hotel class but a preserved Juliett class.

 

[gf0012-aust]

In the west maybe. Back im the sixties the Echo class can be considered as the first SSGN and the Juliett class its SSG counterpart.

The last time I was at school, 1959 came before the 1960's.

Considering that the 1959 shoot was with a Regulus (nuclear tipped) - then that also was before the 1960's.

The Echo must have been in the mid to late 60's as the russians had only just fielded nuclear torpedoes during the Cuban Crisis. They only had 5 in the whole fleet - so it makes any russian tech for G-AShM's after 1963.

The first missile shoot from a sub was with the USN in 1947.
The first semi submerged rocket firing sub was the germans in WW2 with U-511
The first ballistic launch was with the USN in 1960.

The russians don't hold any records for missile/rocket launches from submarines.



I have no idea why you are bringing up harrison ford and a sub movie - I don't use hollywood movies as reference sources

 

[Firehorse]

hmm, ballistic missiles are harder to intercept than cruise missiles. And also, the recent kilos can fire club missiles, does that make them SSGs?

It's true today, but only if you are talking about the "kinetic kill". That's why the Russians are opting for manuevering warhead(s) atop a BM. With an explosive warhead interceptor you just have to get close enough to destroy the incoming warheads.
I wouldn't call any SSK/SSN without vertical launch tubes an ""SSG", even if it's capable of firing Ash/CMs from her torpedo tubes. But it's worth remembering that even before SSBNs/GNs came out, all first missile trials & patrols were done on diesel subs, as other posters already said.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I wouldn't call any SSK/SSN without vertical launch tubes an ""SSG", even if it's capable of firing Ash/CMs from her torpedo tubes.

There is an International Classification process recognised by all that says otherwise. If the boat fires a guided AShM or Cruise missile, then it's reclassified as a SSG. The classifications are based on not how they launch, it's based on what max potential primary weapon they launch

SSN's that fire Guided Weapons as primary loads are classified as SSGN's

 

[crobato]

I am just saying the movie actually used a real Juliett class sub for those interested how one might look like.

And the last time i remember being second did not take 26 years

 

[Firehorse]

SSN's that fire Guided Weapons as primary loads are classified as SSGN's

Well, then many of the SSN 688 class and perhaps new Virginia SSNs classes should also be redesignated as SSGNs!

The primary weapon systems of the class are the Mark 48 torpedo and the UGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile. ..
Armament: Tomahawk missiles, VLS Tubes (12), MK-48 torpedoes, four torpedo tubes.
http://www.creative-woodworking.net/IMPROVED_LOS_ANGELES_SUBMARINES.htm

SSNs 719-750 - Starting with SSN 719 and beyond the last 31 hulls of the class have 12 vertical launch tubes for the Tomahawk cruise missile, along with an upgraded reactor core.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-688.htm

On the Juliett class subs :

.. had two major identified weaknesses. First, in order to fire their missiles, it was necessary for the submarine to surface. The actual process of arming and firing the weapons took as much as 14 minutes while surfaced. The submarine was then forced to remain exposed while it provided the missiles with targeting information from the ship's own radar during their flight. [Or had to have other platforms to guide them.]
Secondly, American anti-submarine units found, over time, that the Julliett-class vessels provided a distinctive sonar ping due to dimples in the hull built to reflect the rocket jets on board the submarines' cruise missiles. American experts believed that due to the boats' requirement to surface to fire coupled with the U.S. and NATO anti-submarine units' ability to identify and locate them, the Juliett-class submarines could be destroyed before they ever had time to discharge a single warhead.
http://www.juliett484.org/juliett/history/historyofjuliett484.html

They were so vulnerable that could only be safely deployed in inland seas & under the cover of friendly AF.

However, the auction attempt did draw the notice of Intermedia Film Equities Ltd., who chartered K-77 for $200,000 to shoot the action drama K-19: The Widowmaker, starring Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson. In 2000, the submarine was towed to Halifax, Nova Scotia for filming. K-19: The Widowmaker is the story of the actions of Soviet sailors faced with a nuclear reactor meltdown while on the maiden voyage of the Hotel-class submarine K-19 in 1961.
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GCMZ8P

 

[Firehorse]

ASAT application

Back to the Chinese SSBNs: I agree that they can be used to destroy and/or deploy SATs, and, by extension, in the ABM role:

.. Chinese military academic writings indicate that the PLA may also be considering using nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines to launch direct ascent ASAT missiles. In early 2004 one Chinese author with the Dalian Naval Academy noted, "By deploying just a few anti-satellite nuclear submarines in the ocean, one can seriously threaten the entire military space system of the enemy. In addition to anti-satellite operations, these nuclear submarines can also be used for launching low orbit tactical micro-satellites to serve as powerful real time battlefield intelligence support."http://www.strategycenter.net/resear...pub_detail.asp

It's interesting, by what means will the PLAN be able to communicate over long ranges with its SSBNs? They now don't have Tu-142, so, IMO their own B-707 ala TACAMO, or converted IL-86 would do!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Back to the Chinese SSBNs: I agree that they can be used to destroy and/or deploy SATs, and, by extension, in the ABM role:

.. Chinese military academic writings indicate that the PLA may also be considering using nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines to launch direct ascent ASAT missiles. In early 2004 one Chinese author with the Dalian Naval Academy noted, "By deploying just a few anti-satellite nuclear submarines in the ocean, one can seriously threaten the entire military space system of the enemy. In addition to anti-satellite operations, these nuclear submarines can also be used for launching low orbit tactical micro-satellites to serve as powerful real time battlefield intelligence support."http://www.strategycenter.net/resear...pub_detail.asp

It's interesting, by what means will the PLAN be able to communicate over long ranges with its SSBNs? They now don't have Tu-142, so, IMO their own B-707 ala TACAMO, or converted IL-86 would do!

Good grief, it's this kind of nonsense that is so frustrating.

The PLAN couldn't knock out the Russian Sat Constellations - let alone the US which has more mil satellites in orbit than all other military satellite users combined at various orbit depths (outside the range of the pretend ASAT kill done on a decaying satellite as evidenced a few months back). More satellites means redundancy issues.

To conduct enough ASAT missions to kill enough satellites to gap the redundancy would be significant. Add up the numbers. China doesn't have it and won't have it in 2012. Top undertake this would mean that the third leg of the launch option has been neutered.

Seriously, this is turning into a Hans Christian Andersen event.

Killing any satellite would be cassus belli for a violent response as its an act of war.

This notion that China has an ASAT capability because she was able to terminate one of her own satellites on a decaying orbit does not translate to being able to reach out and kill satellites out at the deeper layers.

And for the last time, the USN and the Soviets had the ability to wage war independant of targetting data from satellites. There were procedures to bring into play if systems went blind - the assumption was that you were at war and that meant a very different response.

This is being game played like some poor B Grade movie where the other side has no procedures about what to do if they are seeing comms degradation and denial taking place.

This is ridiculous as it assumes that while china has been improving capability that the overall political element is inert, and that the technology and platform developments on the US side are inert if not benign.

 

[Firehorse]

This tread isn't about how to kill US SATs only! But in any case, I've seen articles that have USAF official say that if they are able to go that high now, it's only a matter of time before being able to get much higher. Moving CTF within striking range and announcing the intent to intervene, and deploying weapons in space can also be taken as an act of war. "Free passage" in and over the inernational waters doesn't mean that it's OK to menace and spy just outside EEZ/ADIZ on a permanent member of the UN Security Concil. Recall the EP-3 affair.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well, then many of the SSN 688 class and perhaps new Virginia SSNs classes should also be redesignated as SSGNs!

??? The Virginas primary mission is not to launch guided weapons at skimmers or land targets.

Just because you don't like the internationally accepted definitions doesn't mean that you can rewrite the primary roles of the boats.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This tread isn't about how to kill US SATs only! But in any case, I've seen articles that have USAF official say that if they are able to go that high now, it's only a matter of time before being able to get much higher. Moving CTF within striking range and announcing the intent to intervene, and deploying weapons in space can also be taken as an act of war. "Free passage" in and over the inernational waters doesn't mean that it's OK to menace and spy just outside EEZ/ADIZ on a permanent member of the UN Security Concil. Recall the EP-3 affair.

Of course they'll say it - it means more leverage for funding when Congress is in a period of recalcitrance.

A CTF or a floating donut can go anywhere it likes if it is in international waters. The Russians and the Chinese stick their own vessels on the perimeters of events such as Exercise Talisman Sabre - or didn't you know that??? The Chinese had a sub sniffing around TalSabre a few years back - its international waters, its a declared zone, but they can still trawl around right on the fringe if they choose to do so.

Don't quote International Maritime Law to me when its apparent you don't know whats permitted.

The EP3 affair occurred because some idiot pilot lost control of his own aircraft in wake turbulence trying to monster an EP3 that was in international air space.

 

[Firehorse]

I said "perhaps", and in any event, they are multirole- just like F-16 & F-18s are. Are the B-52s in reality still "strategic bombers"? I neither like nor dislike "internationally accepted definitions"- but do try to be as objective as possible.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I said "perhaps", and in any event, they are multirole- just like F-16 & F-18s are. Are the B-52s in reality still "strategic bombers"? I neither like nor dislike "internationally accepted definitions"- but do try to be as objective as possible.

The bottom line is that the Virginias primary role is not SSGN - their primary tasking is for other work

The B-52's primary role is strategic delivery as they are still the numerical backbone for that role. Having 1 B-52 as an ewarfare mule doesn't make them Elint assets

Strategic bombing denotes depth of mission tasking, it doesn't matter whether they're throwing inert bombs or PGMs as they do in Afghanistan, ditto for the B-1's.

Every asset can become multi-role if it the weapons fit, if they're bussed for it and if they're certified for it. It doesn't change their baseline tasking definitions.

 

[Firehorse]

Don't quote International Maritime Law to me when its apparent you don't know whats permitted.
The EP3 affair occurred because some idiot pilot lost control of his own aircraft in wake turbulence trying to monster an EP3 that was in international air space.

If something is permitted, it doesn't always going to be liked by others on a receiving end of it. In the Cold War, there were many Western airplanes (and at least 2 ships- USS Liberty, USS Pueblo) shot down and captured near Russia, N.Korea & Med. Sea; more recently NK Mig-29s forced USAF reconn. plane to abort its mission- so it follows that then it's also permitted to harass, shot or force them down. I would like to see the NORAD reaction if a Russian or Chinese planes started to regularly patrol and snoop just outside the 12mi limit. In fact, the USN is not happy with the new Sea Convention as it would allow coastal nations to claim 200mi EEZ and prevent CSG from legally showing off!
The B-52s aren't used as nuclear strategic bombers anymore, although they are capable of fulfilling that role.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If something is permitted, it doesn't always going to be liked by others on a receiving end of it. In the Cold War, there were many Western airplanes (and at least 2 ships- USS Liberty, USS Pueblo) shot down and captured near Russia, N.Korea & Med. Sea; more recently NK Mig-29s forced USAF reconn. plane to abort its mission- so it follows that then it's also permitted to harass, shot or force them down.

You need to actually study history rather than generalise.

In actual fact the USAF/USN/CIA have lost 158 aircraft and more than 350 personnel since the end of WW2 due to ferret or perimeter ISR missions.

Red Tide Rising. Weir.
Air Classics April 2001. Larson

The only reason why the Russians and the Chinese haven't is that they can't. Their only options have been (surprise surprise) an ability to use satellites as they're benign and nobody owns the non atmosphetric air space above their country .

People who can will. People who can't - complain until they can.