gonna need some sort of sub hunting aircraft that can hover over a suspect target, silently, and without end. something with long, LONG legs; quick enough to prosecute, slow enough to sit still on site for..........days...... at a time? unrefueled.
Nuclear powered Airship could do that quite well. Lots of other design requirements depending on how close it is to the front lines... but much more to work with than for the P-8.
" Nuclear powered Airship " would indeed be fine, and, even though no more hazardous than nuclear powered submarines are, would have a huge battle with environmental groups.
in any case, no need to go that route......
as simple SOLAR POWERED (fuel cell back-up) airships would work quite well, and receive support from those same environmental groups.
(proviso....as ever.......Not blimps or dirigibles)
It's 100% a plus for them to move their SSBN bases to Taiwan, but that's secondary to re-unification. Of course, eastern Taiwan is lousy for port facilities. That wouldn't stop them from using laojao construction of a submarine base.
I have to wonder if we haven’t already wired the SCS for sound. And if the PLAN doesn’t know it. And have a scheme to counter it. Wheels within wheels.
I wonder what the PLAN's capacity to expand submarine buillding is. Unlike the Soviet Union, the CCP really hasn't seemed to have embraced submarine construction. Maybe because they never were on the receiving end of U-boat effectiveness against the northern convoys they don't have the same appreciation.
There's no historical experience of large scale naval campaigns in the Chinese popular mindset. I cannot recall anything similar to the Arctic Convoys or fateful deployments to the Far East that do exist in the Russian mind having a comparable status in the Chinese popular history. There's been a few skirmishes, but no fate of the war engagements since the 19th century for China.
Wuchang and Bohai are the only two that Google Fu came up with. I don't think the PLAN could even imagine, let alone set up production systems and allocate resources like Germany did to pump out over 1k u-boats from '35-'45 at Hamburg, Kiel, Bremen, Danzig, Vegesack, and Lübeck.
I think no matter how things play out, if we attrit their naval, air and SSBNs as we would likely plan to do (an offensive rather than defensive strategy to retake the initiative after a first strike by China), those minds are going to dark places anyway. The question will be what happens to their internal security and cohesion that would disrupt such actions (which, admittedly, also could be bad for decisions on using nukes). The alternative, as is often the case, is to do nothing because we fear the response.
Deterrence on our part has always involved some part of developing capabilities and letting our enemies know, at least partially (sometimes allows secrets to slip), on our intent. It keeps them reacting, sometimes to phantoms, but always guessing and thinking how much further they need to go to overcome our assets.
IIRC, part of the war plan in the 1980s called for asymmetric attacks on Soviet nuclear capability with conventional weapons. Our SSNs in their bastions, and eventually B-2s hunting mobile ICBM launchers.
Considering their military is the Party's first, and Commissars are presumably well-integrated, I think the CCP is willing to trust their boats for short patrols. Considering how they have moved with respect to naval doctrine otherwise, they may follow a crawl-walk-run slow development process for leadership.
You are probably correct. The Chinese have experience with coping with the ruling problem of “the mountains are high and the emperor is far.” The “seas are deep and the emperor is far” is new to them.
You make me laugh...you obviously didn't understand my comment. In the meantime the Israeli intercept rate was far beyond what the naysayers like Biden said. The man who as Senator voted against both stealth and SDI.
Illusions? Nah, I expect four MIRV in my neighborhood.
And, per MAD doctrine? Israel should have nuked Iran in April of last year when the missiles were in the ascent stage.
Gee, it might be an advantageous opportunity to fund some undersea acoustic research arrays on the seabed off the PI, especially between Luzon and Taiwan, solely for studying the burps of whales and fishes and such.
When I see this all I can think about is the bogus “all attack subs need to be nuclear” argument.
Why exactly do you need a sub able to roam the world when you are literally parking them in the middle of the potential conflict zone, such as in the Philippines or Japan? Buy some at like 1/3 the cost of US SSNs (we can’t build them so MIB argument does not apply) from Japan.
We have high/low for ships and aircraft, why not subs???
The ocean still hasn't changed. The value of small nuclear submarine for coastal defense remains the same as what came out of Project Nobska - the potential for high speed and endurance. Even 21st century battery technology doesn't compare to a nuclear reactor when it comes to both of those characteristics. Nobska led to both NR-1 and X-1, though the navalization of the reflector-moderated reactor derived from the Air Force bomber program necessary for a small SSN was never matured. Just one of the many concepts the Ship Characteristics Board didn't carry to fruition. Boy! If only today's NAVSEA could remember how the SCB operated to drive innovation over their two decades of existence.
Nobody is arguing that than SSN is superior. But it’s not 3x better (cost driven). And many of the disadvantages go away if you operate close to base and in shallow water.
We need numbers and we can’t afford to build SSNs in big numbers. Heck, we can’t even get two a year.
We need SSKs, and we need them built somewhere where they can build them at warp speed.
gonna need some sort of sub hunting aircraft that can hover over a suspect target, silently, and without end. something with long, LONG legs; quick enough to prosecute, slow enough to sit still on site for..........days...... at a time? unrefueled.
just sayin...
Likely LUUVs on more or less permanent station...waiting...whether with active torpedoes or mines.
Nuclear powered Airship could do that quite well. Lots of other design requirements depending on how close it is to the front lines... but much more to work with than for the P-8.
" Nuclear powered Airship " would indeed be fine, and, even though no more hazardous than nuclear powered submarines are, would have a huge battle with environmental groups.
in any case, no need to go that route......
as simple SOLAR POWERED (fuel cell back-up) airships would work quite well, and receive support from those same environmental groups.
(proviso....as ever.......Not blimps or dirigibles)
Isn't that one of the reasons they want Taiwan? So that their subs can depart port from eastern Taiwan and immediately disappear into deep water?
It's 100% a plus for them to move their SSBN bases to Taiwan, but that's secondary to re-unification. Of course, eastern Taiwan is lousy for port facilities. That wouldn't stop them from using laojao construction of a submarine base.
Scary times as we have been sleep walking into Armageddon with our own money being used to potentially wipe us from the face of the earth.
I have to wonder if we haven’t already wired the SCS for sound. And if the PLAN doesn’t know it. And have a scheme to counter it. Wheels within wheels.
We may not have the SCS wired but I would bet a dollar to the hole in a donut that the Chinese do.
I read something recently about UUVs to search and destroy hydrophones being a priority for the Chinese.
Taiwan Strait must be full of hydrophones.
I guess UUVs themselves can be placed as hydrophone arrays. The problem is communication at depth?
I wonder what the PLAN's capacity to expand submarine buillding is. Unlike the Soviet Union, the CCP really hasn't seemed to have embraced submarine construction. Maybe because they never were on the receiving end of U-boat effectiveness against the northern convoys they don't have the same appreciation.
There's no historical experience of large scale naval campaigns in the Chinese popular mindset. I cannot recall anything similar to the Arctic Convoys or fateful deployments to the Far East that do exist in the Russian mind having a comparable status in the Chinese popular history. There's been a few skirmishes, but no fate of the war engagements since the 19th century for China.
There new facility is claimed to have a potential capacity of 6 boats a year.
Wuchang and Bohai are the only two that Google Fu came up with. I don't think the PLAN could even imagine, let alone set up production systems and allocate resources like Germany did to pump out over 1k u-boats from '35-'45 at Hamburg, Kiel, Bremen, Danzig, Vegesack, and Lübeck.
I think no matter how things play out, if we attrit their naval, air and SSBNs as we would likely plan to do (an offensive rather than defensive strategy to retake the initiative after a first strike by China), those minds are going to dark places anyway. The question will be what happens to their internal security and cohesion that would disrupt such actions (which, admittedly, also could be bad for decisions on using nukes). The alternative, as is often the case, is to do nothing because we fear the response.
Deterrence on our part has always involved some part of developing capabilities and letting our enemies know, at least partially (sometimes allows secrets to slip), on our intent. It keeps them reacting, sometimes to phantoms, but always guessing and thinking how much further they need to go to overcome our assets.
IIRC, part of the war plan in the 1980s called for asymmetric attacks on Soviet nuclear capability with conventional weapons. Our SSNs in their bastions, and eventually B-2s hunting mobile ICBM launchers.
I hate the Chicoms. Just doing my bit.
At some level I wonder if the CCP really trusts having nuclear weapons at sea, out of sight and easy supervision.
Considering their military is the Party's first, and Commissars are presumably well-integrated, I think the CCP is willing to trust their boats for short patrols. Considering how they have moved with respect to naval doctrine otherwise, they may follow a crawl-walk-run slow development process for leadership.
You are probably correct. The Chinese have experience with coping with the ruling problem of “the mountains are high and the emperor is far.” The “seas are deep and the emperor is far” is new to them.
Thanks, very interesting.
At this point, it feels as though once again there will be nuclear guns aimed at the heads of great powers.
The conflict hiatus is very much over.
It was not going to last. One thing is immutable - human nature. "Times of Noah" and "the earth was filled with violence" are here.
Hard to see "human nature" lasting. One day the nukes will fly unless there's an arms control breakthrough. Murphy's Law.
MIRV and leakers aside? We're also living in era where ABM defense is real.
THAAD, Patriot and Iron Dome couldn't keep several primitive missiles from hitting Tel Aviv. Without EMP and decoys.
With the SS-18 "Satan" you don't need many to get through. Ten 750kt warheads per missile. Have no illusions that you're safe.
You make me laugh...you obviously didn't understand my comment. In the meantime the Israeli intercept rate was far beyond what the naysayers like Biden said. The man who as Senator voted against both stealth and SDI.
Illusions? Nah, I expect four MIRV in my neighborhood.
And, per MAD doctrine? Israel should have nuked Iran in April of last year when the missiles were in the ascent stage.
or they knew Iran wasn’t close to having a nuke
Before eternity, man's sinful nature will remain a constant.
"...who want nothing more than to track a noisy SSBN in deep waters like there dear, old, Grandad did."
Their not there. By the bye, I'm not an old hippy, just a boomer USAF Brat. I rebelled and went into the Navy.
Gee, it might be an advantageous opportunity to fund some undersea acoustic research arrays on the seabed off the PI, especially between Luzon and Taiwan, solely for studying the burps of whales and fishes and such.
Good article from US Naval Institute (Feb 2021) on SOSUS and undersea detection. Much is history and for some, probably skippable, but still a good read and if you have not been paying close attention, some new information also. For example, I did not know about low frequency active sonar. https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2021/february/66-years-undersea-surveillance
Time to bring back the ASWOCs!!
When I see this all I can think about is the bogus “all attack subs need to be nuclear” argument.
Why exactly do you need a sub able to roam the world when you are literally parking them in the middle of the potential conflict zone, such as in the Philippines or Japan? Buy some at like 1/3 the cost of US SSNs (we can’t build them so MIB argument does not apply) from Japan.
We have high/low for ships and aircraft, why not subs???
The ocean still hasn't changed. The value of small nuclear submarine for coastal defense remains the same as what came out of Project Nobska - the potential for high speed and endurance. Even 21st century battery technology doesn't compare to a nuclear reactor when it comes to both of those characteristics. Nobska led to both NR-1 and X-1, though the navalization of the reflector-moderated reactor derived from the Air Force bomber program necessary for a small SSN was never matured. Just one of the many concepts the Ship Characteristics Board didn't carry to fruition. Boy! If only today's NAVSEA could remember how the SCB operated to drive innovation over their two decades of existence.
Nobody is arguing that than SSN is superior. But it’s not 3x better (cost driven). And many of the disadvantages go away if you operate close to base and in shallow water.
We need numbers and we can’t afford to build SSNs in big numbers. Heck, we can’t even get two a year.
We need SSKs, and we need them built somewhere where they can build them at warp speed.
Maybe the xluuv is the modern answer.
https://www.boeing.com/defense/xluuv#overview
It could be.
More like it will HAVE to be because we don’t have any other choice.