Possible US / China War

[Josh]

39 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

We're not talking a total war, we're talking about a USN blockade policy in some sort of less than total conflict.  Some Ticonderoga Class missile cruiser patrolling a Straight within DF-21 or DF-26 range, and stopping and inspecting shipping coming through, looking to see how many of the containers aboard the ship have Chinese goods in them using manifests that will not be forthcoming on such facts.

I personally assume that if the Chinese are actively sinking US sailors, it is a fairly total war, even if there are limitations to striking the mainland. I don’t think the U.S. government has any issue sinking a ship heading to China as soon as it loses a few thousand sailors, unless you think the Chinese strikes would be less effective.

 

39 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Not sure how the USN's demonstrated inability to defeat the Houthis or stop them from firing ballistic missiles at ships helps your point.  I would have thought that the only coherent conclusion is that if the US can't beat a desert tribe in backwater Yemen, that maybe a Sino-Russian challenge would be a little too much for them?

you are moving the goal posts. You said the Chinese could engage USN ships. The Houthi have never done so successfully. I’ve no doubt the Chinese could sink a lot of civilian shipping the world over. As the power more dependent on commodity imports and goods exports, how does that help them? Are they going to blockade themselves?

 

39 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

In terms of the Red Sea, don't overlook the fact that the shipping lines have an alternative choice, they can sail around Africa to get to Europe.  So many have chosen to do so.  If the only route was through the Red Sea, then that's what they'd do.  You will notice that shipping is pretty tough by nature, that many of these ships are being hit by fairly sizable missiles, and for the most part, they are not sunk.

A Houthi missile is a tap on the shoulder compared to a mk48, were it to come to that.

[Josh]

34 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

 20,000kg?  That's nothing.  The Soviets built over 5,000 ICBM's, and many of these were over 100,000kg.    I've  no idea on how many of these things they intend to build, but surely it will be in the hundreds or thousands.

 

 

It is still a weapon whose fuel alone probably costs tens of millions of dollars, if not more, to produce. It is nearly an ICBM class weapon with nearly an ICBM price tag. You talk about them like they were a coastal defense battery to given away; they are strategic assets with a nuclear capability and probably have a ver high overhead not just in per missile cost, but in infrastructure support. Picture the U.S. shipping Pershing II to the Philippines right now, and add in that DF-26 is the principal long range anti shipping weapon on top. That’s how ridiculous your notion is. Rough estimates of DF-26 launcher numbers are 200-300 total right now. You think they are just gonna send 20-30 to Iran and hope nothing happens to them, even assuming the Iranians want that responsibility?

[urbanoid]

7 hours ago, bojan said:

What is a difference for a victim of the violence and secession of the part of it's territory? Is there some condolence that they have made fake country vs scenario where Kosovo was given to Albania or whomever?

In "human" terms, none. In political ones, quite a lot.

[RETAC21]

7 hours ago, glenn239 said:

1) I think the only realistic scenario is one in which the Chinese have a network of allies stretching from Asia into the Middle East, and from there to Africa and South America. 

2) In terms of the Russians, you're simply wrong about their navy.  Their surface forces are second rate, but their submarines are very good, they have good mining capability, and long range aviation. 

3) I don't think USN tenders will be survivable.  They will be hunted down and sunk.  The SSN's will require torpedoes and missiles, and these need to be shipped from the USA to the supply depos.  The Chinese will be trying to penetrate into these networks.

4) I think most of the Allied submarines will be required to protect NATO surface forces.

5) The way the U-boats were defeated in WW2 is that the Allies built more tonnage each year than the Axis navies could sink.  Why, in 1943 alone I believe the Americans built 16 million tons of shipping. 

In comparison, the Chinese build between 35 and 45 million tons a year,

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1064201/china-completed-ship-tonnage-of-shipbuilding-industry/

 

1) You are out of touch with the reality of the World. The PRC tried to build that network through the String of Pearls and the Road and Belt initiative. Didn't work out, because they found out that 3rd world nations are 3rd world for reasons that apply to them too, not just the evil white men, so they have thrown billions to get a pier in Djibouti and little else.

With their economy in the tank, these fantasies stopped years ago.

2) No, I am definitely not. You just don't know what you are talking about, quelle surprise... Long range aviation no longer exists, it was merged in the VKS years ago. The mighty Russian submarines in the Pacific amount to... 4 SSNs built between 1989 and 1992, of which one is in "reserve", 7 SSGN of which 3 in "reserve" giving you an operational fleet of 7 vs 25 SSNs and 3 SSGN for the US PACFLT.

3) You don't think a lot of things, and this is one of them. just how the Chinese would be able to track and destroy these tenders? with their meager fleet of 6 SSNs, of which 2 are so noisy they are practically useless? 

4) There's no "NATO" in the Pacific and submarines don't do convoy work, now or in the past.

5) No, I'd suggest you read a bit. The way the U boats were defeated was by sinking them, to the point that the German submarine service was the branch of the German armed forces in which you were most likely to die in the line of duty.

[BansheeOne]

2 hours ago, urbanoid said:

In "human" terms, none. In political ones, quite a lot.

I keep saying, it's the difference between French-Belgian occupation of the Ruhr area in 1923, and Germany anschlussing Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland from 1938. 😉

[glenn239]

12 hours ago, Josh said:

I suspect so, because China is at least as dependent on them as the U.S., if not more. If the PLARF wants to target things at >1000 miles/1500km off their coast persistently, they are going to have to rely on satellites, largely in LEO orbit, and their GOS analog.

I think that given the size of the Chinese fishing boat fleet, (500,000 vessels) and the size of their drone industries, that what they will actually do, beyond air and satellite systems, is also equip large numbers of small commercial vessels with drones, or just sail them around the region and see what they see.

Quote

I do not see why. The PLAN SSK fleet is basically useless at the distances I have been discussing. Traveling a thousand miles at five knots in a straight line takes a week. There are all of about five Victor III level PLAN nuke boats in service, and they and the SSKs will pass through the “fish hook” array of underwater sensors as well as persistent deployable sensors like TRAPS. Chinese underwater capabilities outside the second island chain are negligible, and even getting to Guam would likely take a 1 1/2 -2 weeks for an SSK.

The USN will not strip its carriers of their SSN defenses.  They will never, ever assume as you do that the Russians will stay out.  They have 20 big fleet and helo carriers, of which maybe 18 are in service at any one time.  These can sail in groups to economize, but that's still maybe about 24 SSN's tied up with that, some others for patrolling around SSBN bases, some others in routine maintenance.  

On the Chinese sub fleet, the Yuan Class is very quiet and is not a coastal boat.  From these articles, with its AIP, it should be able to sail underwater at about 9kt for 18 days.  That's around 4,000nm.  They have 17 of them and more of the newest type 039C in production,

http://www.hisutton.com/Chinese-Type-039C-Yuan-Class-Submarine.html

https://defencyclopedia.com/2016/07/06/explained-how-air-independent-propulsion-aip-works/

 

[Strannik]

8 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

I think that given the size of the Chinese fishing boat fleet, (500,000 vessels) and the size of their drone industries, that what they will actually do, beyond air and satellite systems, is also equip large numbers of small commercial vessels with drones, or just sail them around the region and see what they see.

Yep and this also could be the motivation, when the shit hits the fan, to exchange their sats for the US ones.  Because they'll have two orders of magnitude more drones than US could field. 

 

[RETAC21]

10 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

I think that given the size of the Chinese fishing boat fleet, (500,000 vessels) and the size of their drone industries, that what they will actually do, beyond air and satellite systems, is also equip large numbers of small commercial vessels with drones, or just sail them around the region and see what they see.

The USN will not strip its carriers of their SSN defenses.  They will never, ever assume as you do that the Russians will stay out.  They have 20 big fleet and helo carriers, of which maybe 18 are in service at any one time.  These can sail in groups to economize, but that's still maybe about 24 SSN's tied up with that, some others for patrolling around SSBN bases, some others in routine maintenance.  

On the Chinese sub fleet, the Yuan Class is very quiet and is not a coastal boat.  From these articles, with its AIP, it should be able to sail underwater at about 9kt for 18 days.  That's around 4,000nm.  They have 17 of them and more of the newest type 039C in production,

http://www.hisutton.com/Chinese-Type-039C-Yuan-Class-Submarine.html

https://defencyclopedia.com/2016/07/06/explained-how-air-independent-propulsion-aip-works/

 

You keep making shit up to shore up your fantasy. The notion of fishing boats with killer drone is ridiculous (mainly because the boats are not large enough to hide a proper killer drone) and US carriers do not have a SSN escort usually (you read too many novels)

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

You keep making shit up to shore up your fantasy. The notion of fishing boats with killer drone is ridiculous (mainly because the boats are not large enough to hide a proper killer drone) and US carriers do not have a SSN escort usually (you read too many novels)

Question to Google: do us carriers have submarine escorts?

Answer by Google: In general, a carrier group has between three and four surface ships escorting it, as well as an assumed (but not announced) attack submarine traveling near the fleet underwater.

In terms of Chinese fishing boats, here's literally one picture of thousands out there.   They're perfectly suitable as drone stations, and can house missiles too if the Chinese are not picky about concealing these.  

 

 

 

[glenn239]

15 hours ago, Josh said:

It is still a weapon whose fuel alone probably costs tens of millions of dollars, if not more, to produce. It is nearly an ICBM class weapon with nearly an ICBM price tag. You talk about them like they were a coastal defense battery to given away; they are strategic assets with a nuclear capability and probably have a ver high overhead not just in per missile cost, but in infrastructure support.

Stannik was kind enough to post a piece on the DF-26 that ends the discussion - the factory had 46 DF-26 launchers parked around the facility.  And that's just what they were building at that time.  The Chinese are clearly expanding their coastal ballistic missile forces massively, and will continue to do so.  As the Y-20's come in by the hundreds, they will then have the global reach to position them quickly.

Quote

you are moving the goal posts. You said the Chinese could engage USN ships. The Houthi have never done so successfully. I’ve no doubt the Chinese could sink a lot of civilian shipping the world over. As the power more dependent on commodity imports and goods exports, how does that help them? Are they going to blockade themselves?

The US is shown as incapable of  fully suppressing even short ranged Houthi missile launches, so your argument that they could suppress far longer range DF-21 and DF-26 batteries is ridiculous, and you know it.   Houthi missiles are not of the same league as Chinese hypersonic missiles.  The fact that Houthis have only got to Phalanx range once on their attacks does not mean a US ship can defend itself effectively against a DF-26.

 

Edited February 22 by glenn239

[RETAC21]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Question to Google: do us carriers have submarine escorts?

Answer by Google: In general, a carrier group has between three and four surface ships escorting it, as well as an assumed (but not announced) attack submarine traveling near the fleet underwater.

In terms of Chinese fishing boats, here's literally one picture of thousands out there.   They're perfectly suitable as drone stations, and can house missiles too if the Chinese are not picky about concealing these.  

More and more non-sense.

Look the order in which missions are delineated for US submarines:

https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2169558/attack-submarines-ssn/

Attack submarines are designed to

1) seek and destroy enemy submarines and surface ships;

2) project power ashore with Tomahawk cruise missiles and Special Operation Forces (SOF);

3) carry out Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) missions;

4) support battle group operations;

5) and engage in mine warfare.

Doubt it? let's look at an example (all open source, of course): 

February 21, 1976 , USS OMAHA (SSN 692) was launched by the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics Corp., Groton, CT. 

In late April 1978, she was reassigned to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, effective as of 1 May. 

On 22 July 1979, Omaha stood out from Pearl Harbor for deployment to the Eastern Pacific (EastPac). During the year, the submarine also completed NavSea acoustic trials, two major anti-submarine warfare (ASW) exercises, two special operations, and several local operations.

In early 1980, ...She set off for the western Pacific (WestPac) in May, arriving on station on 6 June. She completed special operations for Commander Submarine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet (ComSubPac) through the first week of July

On 16 August, Omaha conducted a surveillance operation in the Philippine Sea and then proceeded to the Indian Ocean, where she operated for the next two months.

Omaha departed for another relatively short WestPac deployment early in June 1981, inchopping to the Seventh Fleet on the 8th. The ship conducted special operations for ComSubPac, then put in to Subic Bay for upkeep (28 July–1 August).

In May 1991, Omaha departed for a seven week deployment to the northern Pacific, conducting operations for ComSubPac.

The ship completed sea trials and concluded her SRA at the end of February 1992 and commenced operations in local waters. In March, the submarine exercised with Pintado (SSN-672) and Birmingham (SSN-695).

The boat participated in the major multi-national fleet exercise RimPac 92 in June and achieved her pre-overseas movement certification in July.

Omaha departed on a six month WestPac deployment in August 1992. During her transit of the Pacific, the submarine took part in battle group support exercises. Later in the month, she conducted a search and rescue exercise and touched at Sasebo, Japan. In November, the boat called at Yokosuka and then headed to Australia to take part in Exercise Lungfish 92 with the Australian submarines HMAS Otway (S.59) and HMAS Ovens (S.70).

Omaha was placed in commission in reserve on 7 February 1995, decommissioned and stricken from the Naval Vessel Register on 5 October 1995.

Sooo,  Omaha only once operated in concert with a battle group during her commissioning and then only in transit. So Googel ASSumes too much. Just like you.

As for the fishing boats, put on your glasses and stop your fantasies, the only drone you can fly out of them is an FPV and ships will shrug them off without even noticing.

Yet more of your bizarre fantasies of a Chinese-Russian empire.

[glenn239]

10 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

More and more non-sense.

Look the order in which missions are delineated for US submarines:

<snip>

 

USN SSN's routinely form part of a CV battle group's escort.  The only real question is how many they have per CV group. 

[RETAC21]

2 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

 

USN SSN's routinely form part of a CV battle group's escort.  The only real question is how many they have per CV group. 

Sez Glenn because Glenn knows what Google assumes.

The only question is how much more non-sense can you spout in order to try to cut back the odds to what you want to play in Risk.

What happened to the fishing boats with SSMs? they can also track and sink CVNs?

[Perun]

both of you are using internet sources and I doubt that any of sources give complete information

Edited February 22 by Perun

[RETAC21]

11 hours ago, Perun said:

both of you are using internet sources and I doubt that any of sources give complete information

The difference is I am using official USN sources. There's more evidence out there, but the people putting it out may be violating their NDAs.

Glenn is looking stuff in Google if anything... just look at the non-sensical idea of putting ASMs on fishing boats.

[Josh]

On 2/22/2024 at 9:58 AM, glenn239 said:

I think that given the size of the Chinese fishing boat fleet, (500,000 vessels) and the size of their drone industries, that what they will actually do, beyond air and satellite systems, is also equip large numbers of small commercial vessels with drones, or just sail them around the region and see what they see.

“Around the region “? Like, outside the first island chain? And what do they do when a U.S. ship or helicopter fires on them?
 

On 2/22/2024 at 9:58 AM, glenn239 said:

The USN will not strip its carriers of their SSN defenses.  They will never, ever assume as you do that the Russians will stay out.  They have 20 big fleet and helo carriers, of which maybe 18 are in service at any one time.  These can sail in groups to economize, but that's still maybe about 24 SSN's tied up with that, some others for patrolling around SSBN bases, some others in routine maintenance.

More typically it is roughly three CSGs and three ARGs (some other acronym is used now but I forgot it). It is suspected 1-2 SSNs are attached, though we don’t know. The USMC probably does not rate an SSN escort at all, though again we do not know. SSBNs and their bases are almost certainly not defended by SSNs - the former are to quiet to need or coordinate it and the latter would be a rather pointless local deployment of an asset capable of unlimited motion.

 

On 2/22/2024 at 9:58 AM, glenn239 said:

On the Chinese sub fleet, the Yuan Class is very quiet and is not a coastal boat.  From these articles, with its AIP, it should be able to sail underwater at about 9kt for 18 days.  That's around 4,000nm.  They have 17 of them and more of the newest type 039C in production,

http://www.hisutton.com/Chinese-Type-039C-Yuan-Class-Submarine.html

https://defencyclopedia.com/2016/07/06/explained-how-air-independent-propulsion-aip-works/

 

I will have to circle back to those links, but the 9knts figure is unachievable for a several hundred kW Stirling engine. In fact if you look at the Kilo class, and indeed most SSKs, their diesel generators do not even come close to their full power electric motors, and they are unable to cruise at top speed even when snorkeling. Also your 4000nm figure is in a straight line and one way only. But I’ll do some research when I’m at my laptop; those links are not opening for me on my phone.

 

 

EDIT: I do not see any support for a 9knt AIP speed in either article. I assume you are extrapolating from the second link that says "less then 10knts". Most every reference I've seen for all AIP setups, be they Stirling or PEM cell (Germany), indicate ~300 kW power production which is enough for the hotel load and a creep speed of ~5kts. The 18 day figure you quote is a record set by a German boat and notably the boat that set that record traveled < 1500nm. So basically you are cherry picking an arbitrary speed limit from the article and the maximum time limit between snorting for one particular design and crushing them together when they have NOTHING to do with each other. The usual extrapolation of minimal data. The actual estimated sustained speed for any SSK with AIP, regardless of means of power production, is around 5 knts. The fact that speed increases at the square root of shaft power means that even large geometric increases in power production do not give you much of a greater speed, so we can probably pigeon hole all AIP set ups as being 4-7 knts sustained (higher speeds result in net loss of battery charge), with the 7 being super generous.

A 5kt rate of advance in a straight line means that ~1000nm is over a week. This implies that the boat never snorts or deviates from its course. The actual distance of the boat from home base would likely be less as it navigates around choke points and other obstacles. Your 4000nm is far beyond what any SSK can do without a snort, and the 9knt number is probably something only a Collins class can hope to achieve using regular snorting (Collins was designed for long patrol distances and has vastly more installed power than any other SSK).

Edited February 23 by Josh

[Josh]

20 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Question to Google: do us carriers have submarine escorts?

Answer by Google: In general, a carrier group has between three and four surface ships escorting it, as well as an assumed (but not announced) attack submarine traveling near the fleet underwater.

In terms of Chinese fishing boats, here's literally one picture of thousands out there.   They're perfectly suitable as drone stations, and can house missiles too if the Chinese are not picky about concealing these.  

 

 

 

I have some questions regarding the fishing fleet that I genuinely do not know the answers for: What is the range of those boats? What is the top speed? cruising speed? How dependent is the Chinese population on their output?

[Josh]

On 2/22/2024 at 12:49 PM, glenn239 said:

Stannik was kind enough to post a piece on the DF-26 that ends the discussion - the factory had 46 DF-26 launchers parked around the facility.  And that's just what they were building at that time.  The Chinese are clearly expanding their coastal ballistic missile forces massively, and will continue to do so.  As the Y-20's come in by the hundreds, they will then have the global reach to position them quickly.

We know the Chinese have DF-26 launchers in the low hundreds. What we do not know is rocket production or the envisioned salvo size: how many missiles do I fire at a Burke class target to ensure a hit? If the salvo is insufficient to overwhelm the soft and hard kill defenses, then the missiles are wasted. For a CSG, the problem gets more complicated since there are more firing platforms that might also double as decoys. I doubt either the PLAN or USN has a really firm idea of how many missiles would really be necessary, but I suspect the PLAN would want to error on the side of more. They also need to plan to suppress Guam and other 2nd chain targets, which is pretty much a DF-26 only range band. So there might be a need for several very large salvos (Guam area and  around two CSGs) in the opening hour of hostilities (targeting likely gets more difficult there after). There needs to be a robust number of launchers in China for this purpose. There also needs to be a robust number of missiles for targeting all of the follow on forces that will be committed from the other USN fleets eventually - remember that an RGM-109 can reach out to a thousand miles, so the shipping lanes from China to Taiwan can be threatened by surface ships from beyond practical DF-21 range (and there are other carrier targets). Production of these missiles per month is almost certainly low enough that the war has to be won with what is on hand.

I do not see China parting with any of its DF-26 inventory (or DF-21 for that matter) just to park its strategic AShM weapons in other parts of the world where they would be far more exposed. And again, I do not think any country would want to host them. Anything fired from their territory makes them a belligerent. And even in peace time, the US is likely to react strongly to the presence of what it would view as offensive nuclear cable IRBMs. Cuba might be a historical example, though more extreme since that threatened all of the CONUS.

 

On 2/22/2024 at 12:49 PM, glenn239 said:

The US is shown as incapable of  fully suppressing even short ranged Houthi missile launches, so your argument that they could suppress far longer range DF-21 and DF-26 batteries is ridiculous, and you know it.   Houthi missiles are not of the same league as Chinese hypersonic missiles.  The fact that Houthis have only got to Phalanx range once on their attacks does not mean a US ship can defend itself effectively against a DF-26.

 

A DF-26 TEL with missiles and reloads is an object worth hundreds of millions of dollars and something that would take a warehouse to hide from satellite detection. I do not think the US could destroy them all in a given host country, but I also think China's ability to supply them to a host country is dramatically more limited compared to Iran supplying Fateh-110s, let alone drones and cheep cruise missiles (even a US AGM-158 is only a $1 million purchase) . The US has destroyed a couple dozen missiles on the ground in Yemen - if we extended that success rate to a couple dozen DF-26 TELs with missiles on them, we are talking about a loss of equipment measured in the billions of dollars. And while the US has not been able to completely stop Houthi missile attacks, the number of attacks and their success rate has dropped rather notably.

Edited February 23 by Josh

[Josh]

I think it is worth digging in a little more into what SSKs and AIPs are capable of relative to a nuke boat.

For starters, let us start with the fact that nuclear propulsion vs diesel propulsion vs AIP propulsion represent power generation at orders of magnitude differences. So for instance, a nuke plant might produce 30 MW, a pair of diesels 3 MW, and a set of Stilrlings or PEMs 0.3 MW. Those rough numbers and of course thermal generation is different than actual electrical or shaft horse power generation, but broadly speaking we talking about an order of magnitude difference between each of those. And again, speed increases at a square root of shaft power, so increases in propulsive horse power do not increase speed at a geometric rate.

Second of all, almost every D/E boat out there uses an electric motor than has far more horsepower than the diesel generators can support. I'll use the Kilo class and the Collins class to illustrate this, because numbers are unavailable for the Yuan class but it seems to borrow heavily from the Kilo's that China imported from Russia. Collins I also post just because I think it is illustrative of what the RAN was shooting for when it comes to boat with long range and rate of advance speed.

Kilo:

• Diesel-electric propulsion
• 2 × 1000 kW diesel generators
• 1 × 5,500–6,800 shp (4,100–5,100 kW) propulsion motor
• 1 × fixed-pitch 6-bladed (Project 877) or 7-bladed (Project 636) propeller

Note that power generation is less than half of the propulsive electric motor's power. Kilo can sprint at 20 knts, but even if it could snort at that speed (questionable if a snort mast could support the pressure) its engines could never supply enough power to maintain that speed. It is a 5knt platform with 20 knt emergency sprint speed.

Collins class:

3 × Garden Island-Hedemora HV V18b/15Ub (VB210) 18-cylinder diesel motors, 3 × Jeumont-Schneider generators (1,400 kW, 440-volt DC)

Main: 1 × Jeumont-Schneider DC motor (7,200 hp or 5,400 kW), driving 1 × seven-bladed, 4.22 m (13.8 ft) diameter skewback propeller Emergency: 1 × MacTaggart Scott DM 43006 retractable hydraulic motor

Note that in this case, the gen set can produce almost the same amount of power as the drive motor, or at least about 80% of it. This is because Collins was specifically built with long distance patrols in mind and rapid battery recharges were necessary for it to achieve a remotely usable average speed of advance. This is also why Collins skips any AIP, and the Attacks were going to as well: AIP does not generate enough power to be useful except at a creep speed, and the RAN needs its boats to move faster than that all the way up to their patrol stations. AIP was not seen as useful compared to a relatively shorter snort period.

So really, most any SSK in existence were count as more of a coastal boat: trying to range a thousand miles would involve using up nearly half the patrol time (and in the case of relying on AIP for transit, all of the AIP related fuel coming and going, or else none left for the return trip).

I'm sure the first question some of you will ask is "then how did the Germans manage to have much longer ranges and higher speeds in WWII?". Answer: because those were U-boats that optimized their hulls for surfaced speed. Modern SSKs reverse this and optimize for underwater speed, but there's a lot more wetted area if you are completely submerged. A Type IX was more of a torpedo boat that could also submerge than a modern diesel electric submarine.

 

[Strannik]

FWIW  I don't think China would start distributing DF-26s  - too hard to hide, too expensive to loose.  It would amass them around it's coast to insure a 3,000km exclusion zone for US surface naval assets that want to remain ... err on the surface. 

[Josh]

18 minutes ago, Strannik said:

FWIW  I don't think China would start distributing DF-26s  - too hard to hide, too expensive to loose.  It would amass them around it's coast to insure a 3,000km exclusion zone for US surface naval assets that want to remain ... err on the surface. 

Agreed, the DF-26s would be dramatically safer in China. It would be hugely difficult for the US to find and engage them there given the air defenses they would be operating under. Maybe in the future the US might have some kind of realistic ability to engage them with a combination of long ranged unmanned air to air UAVs, prolific LEO missile tracking architecture, B-21s, and hypersonic weapons, but currently they are more or less invulnerable.

Edited February 23 by Josh

[glenn239]

12 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

The difference is I am using official USN sources. There's more evidence out there, but the people putting it out may be violating their NDAs

Surface ships are not as good at ASW as submarines are, so it is fairly common for navies to use submarines to protect surface forces from hostile submarines.  Back in Syria in 2018, the Russians had deployed surface forces, and they had Kilo Class submarines protecting them,

https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-submarine-russia-tracked-before-syria-strikes-2018-4

The USN does the same thing.  Here,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group

 Each of the Navy's 12 existing carrier battle groups consisted of an aircraft carrier; an embarked carrier air wing; cruisers, destroyer, and frigate units; and two nuclear-powered attack submarines.

Two SSN's per carrier sounds plausible, one for each hemisphere.   

Also, in addition to the carriers, the USN will be needing to escort convoys to Japan and places like Guam.  These too will require SSN escorts, to supplement surface forces.

[glenn239]

9 hours ago, Josh said:

I have some questions regarding the fishing fleet that I genuinely do not know the answers for: What is the range of those boats? What is the top speed? cruising speed? How dependent is the Chinese population on their output?

This article,

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/26/world/asia/china-fishing-south-america.html

Indicates that the 'deep water' fishing fleet capable of reaching the Americas and operating is about 3,000 ships strong.   The smaller ones presumably have to keep closer to China, but there will be plenty that can sail out to DF-21 and DF-26 ranges.

[glenn239]

4 hours ago, Josh said:

So really, most any SSK in existence were count as more of a coastal boat: trying to range a thousand miles would involve using up nearly half the patrol time (and in the case of relying on AIP for transit, all of the AIP related fuel coming and going, or else none left for the return trip).

The USN says this, 

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2021/march/promise-better-submarine-air-independent-propulsion

In the ideal world, then, a modern 1,800-ton conventional AIP submarine could carry up to 3 metric tons of hydrogen for the cost of 216 metric tons of metal hydrates, to which must be added 48 tons of liquid oxygen—some 290 tons in total for the hydrogen and oxygen cryogenic containers. In essence, we have a maximum of 70,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) for three weeks’ patrolling, or 504 hours at 4 knots with a hotel load of less than 100 kW.

And,

It is time again for modern navies to complement their submarine forces with non-nuclear-powered submarines. They are more affordable, and this new AIP technology can give them an underwater endurance of 10,000 nm at 10 knots—without a single hour of snorting.

So the 1st gen AIP systems on an 1,800 ton sub give about 2,000nm at 4kt.  But that's older technology, and the Yuan Class is 3,600 tons, not 1,800 tons.  They've built them bigger, no doubt increasing their range.  The newer AIP systems are much longer range, and I don't think we'll have any way to tell just how far the Yuans can go, but I can say this - they're not building them at 3,600 tons because they're coastal boats.

[glenn239]

6 hours ago, Josh said:

We know the Chinese have DF-26 launchers in the low hundreds. What we do not know is rocket production or the envisioned salvo size: how many missiles do I fire at a Burke class target to ensure a hit? If the salvo is insufficient to overwhelm the soft and hard kill defenses, then the missiles are wasted. 

Insufficient information.   Worst case scenario is that the missiles are beyond the design limits of the ships and cannot be effectively intercepted at all.  Best case scenario would be the opposite.  DF series missiles appear to have one warhead.  If so, then this would suggest the Chinese expect them to be able to get through the defenses to their targets.  Otherwise, they'd provide more mirvs per missile?

Quote

I do not see China parting with any of its DF-26 inventory (or DF-21 for that matter) just to park its strategic AShM weapons in other parts of the world where they would be far more exposed. And again, I do not think any country would want to host them. 

I think if the US is looking to blockade China, they need to reckon with a very serious international situation in which dozens of countries are picking sides, and many will not pick the USA.  In terms of overseas deployments, once the coastal forces have enough DF-26's for home defense, there would be no reason at all that surplus forces won't be trained for out-of-country deployments.  China will eventually have allies that will need and demand DF-26's to protect them from US carrier strikes, right?

Quote

A DF-26 TEL with missiles and reloads is an object worth hundreds of millions of dollars and something that would take a warehouse to hide from satellite detection.

HIMARS in Ukraine are being hunted by Russian drones and satellites all the time, and they operate at ranges far closer to the front than would DF-26's.  I think finding these things would be needle in a haystack, but the deployment zone would have to friendly to China.

In terms of cost, a Kinzhal is quoted at about $10 million for a 4,300kg round.  So if we x5 for the weight of the DF-26, we get $50 million each.  A Ford costs 13 billion, call it 20 billion with the planes and such - for twenty billion the Chinese can get maybe about 400 DF-26 missiles.  Would it take 400 to eliminate the carrier BG?  Seems unlikely.  Would it take as few as 20?

Quote

I do not think the US could destroy them all in a given host country

I think the scenario is extraordinarily dangerous to the USN and the future of the US as a power capable of power projection on a global scale and that at all costs and under almost any conceivable circumstances, the USN must not be placed in a position to find out.  Taiwanese politicians should take notice of this to understand that when American politicians are lying to them, they need to know that the actual extent of support will be less than what might be being whispered.

Edited February 24 by glenn239