China allegedly has longer range JL-3s on its six Type 094 (NATO designation Jin class) SSBNs. This is according to former naval aviator US Admiral Sam Paparo (Commander US Pacific Fleet) in the Japan Times, November 19, 2022.
Pete Comment
Other sources indicate at least one Type 094 has been modified (as a prototype fitout) to take the JL-3. The JL-3 might be slightly taller and of greater diameter, than already 13m JL-2s. If diameter has been increased then the hitherto 12 silo 094 might have experienced a reduction from 12 x JL-2s to 10 x JL-3s. Other 094s are being considered for similar JL-3 modifications. But full deployment, with 12 to 16 x JL-3s, will likely need to await completion of the Type 096s.
The JL-3 SLBM may have a range
of 10,000-12,000km (average to lighter payloads) allowing 094s, in the Chinese protected South China Sea, to hit some of the continental US and all of Australia.
Geography and reputed noisiness of 094s (part owing to their pronounced hump - photo below) restrict them to operating in their near China coast bastions.
If they could operate from a captured Taiwan, then quieter, future (13m beam, slightly humped) Type 096s might be able to operate in the mid Pacific - a launch area that could take in all of the continental US.
This is why the debate about whether Australia should get SSNs or not gets silly. Staking out straits in the islands north of Australia is only one mission. Other missions, such as hunting down potential enemy SSBNs, are impossible for even state of the art SSKs. With multiple nations in the Indo-Pacific now developing SSBNs, Australia needs to be able to counter those vessels if in a crisis.
ReplyDeleteAgain we come down to the same discussion ad infinitum. What is the purpose and posture of Australia's defence policies?
ReplyDeleteUUVs/USVs, midget subs, SSKs and SSNs all have a role. The point again being what does Australia's navy want to do? Which part of the military chessboard does it aim to play in and as what? The What, Why, Which, How and When need to be answered carefully. Else I am afraid ACT and Osborne will be flapping around like wet hens forever.
SSN is like the strategic queen of the board while SSKs are more akin to tactical knights and the rest are more like opportunistic pawns. It is not an either or question.
This is also a function of financial feasibility and human capital, how much money is Australia willing to pony up every year along with realistic numbers on number of sub crews and support personnel.
Me thinks that India, Japan, Korea, France, UK, US all have a role here to play alongside Australia. Not only naval assets, but also satellite ELNIT/SIGINT assets and naval air assets are best developed as part of a 'concert'. Only such a navy will give the PLA-N any pause...The Tom Clancyesque firepower scale building by China will not abate.
At the cost of sounding jaded and repetitive - is the US willing to walk the talk and develop another dedicated SSN line at either HII or at EB, GD? That dog needs to bite. As things stand today, a very sorry state of affairs awaits the Quad, ceteris paribus.
Hi Pete
ReplyDeleteType 916 might be pictures [1] and [2], because the sail is relatively longer than Type 914 [3] and its drag seems to be lower.
[1]https://news.ifeng.com/a/20140530/40531281_1.shtml (picture above)
[2]https://news.ifeng.com/a/20140530/40531281_3.shtml (picture above)
[3] https://news.ifeng.com/a/20140530/40531281_4.shtml (picture)
Regards
Thanks Anonymous @Nov 21, 2022, 7:59:00 PM
ReplyDeleteFor the 2014 photos of 094s in frames 1, 3 and 4 of https://news.ifeng.com/a/20140530/40531281_1.shtml
They are still very humped, making for:
- inefficient movement "drag"
and
- disturbed, swirling water, which creates noise when it reaches the rudders and propeller
More useful (but probably unavailable) would be 2022 photos, of what China is doing with an 094 or prototype 096 to reduce drag and noise.
Regards Pete
Hi GhalibKabir @Nov 21, 2022, 5:22:00 PM
ReplyDeleteAs if in response to your questiona above Matthew Knott for SMH Nov 27, 2022, at https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/army-in-line-of-fire-as-sweeping-defence-review-homes-in-on-cuts-20221125-p5c1e2.html reports
"Army in line of fire as sweeping defence review homes in on cuts"
[To prepare] "Australia for a potential war with China within 10 years."
"Sources familiar with the government’s Defence Strategic Review* said the army has been a particular focus for potential cuts compared to Australia’s navy and air force."
[Houston and Smith leading the Strategic Defence Review are looking at cuts of $10s Billions of planned purchase of Army Apache helocopters] "tanks and other infantry vehicles as the government seeks to bolster Australia’s air and maritime capabilities."
"The government is exploring options to acquire long-range [land based? C-HGB Hypersonic? missiles, drones and "jet fighters" [might mean B-21 Bombers?] as part of Marles’ vision for a military capable of “impactful projection”.
"Extra spending on such hardware would be expensive and come on top of the purchase nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS pact at an estimated cost at least $100 billion." **
[The Army are naturally unhappy with this - though land based Hypersonic or Ballistic missiles might be the beginnings of an Army based Strategic? Rocket Force?]
Here's hoping Australia's
* Defence Strategic Review https://www.defence.gov.au/about/reviews-inquiries/defence-strategic-review
and
** SSN Taskforce https://www.defence.gov.au/about/taskforces/nuclear-powered-submarine-task-force
get round to reporting maybe within the first Half (rather than first quarter) 2023.
Regards Pete