I’ve long argued that its of little use Australia has SSNs as a China deterrent.
This is if our
SSNs are merely armed with torpedoes, Harpoon and/or Tomahawk subsonic SLCMs and mines. These would only add up to a total “throw
weight” of 25 tonnes of high explosive, maximum. Land attacking China merely
with high explosive, subsonic, SLCMs would result in many/most being shot down,
fail to deter China, but just make China more angry.
Australian SSNs need sufficient vertical tube
versatility to be armed with hypersonic missiles of various sizes, or
even ballistic missiles.
So it is by good fortune that the US SSN(X) debate
is publicly
leaning (on Nov 10, 2022) towards larger (therefore more costly) 9,000 tonne Seawolf
sized SSNs/SSGNs. The Seawolf
Mark I’s beam/diameter is 12m permitting a longer/taller missile
than the Virginia’s diameter of 10m.
Hypersonic Missiles on Block V Virginias
& SSN(X)/Seawolf Mark IIs
There appear to be plans to deploy Hypersonic
Missiles on Block
V Virginia SSNs and presumably on not yet diameter
designated SSN(X)/Seawolf Mark IIs (but likely of 12m-13m diameter).
Looking at USNI News (Nov 3, 2022) it seems the USN sees it possible that 3 x Common Hypersonic Glide Bodies (C-HGB) and their boosters could fit in each of 4 Virginia Payload Tubes (VPTs) of 2.2m diameter, behind the sail, by 2029. That is 12 x C-HGBs per Virginia, Block V (the first being USS Oklahoma (SSN-802)).
As hypersonic submarine cruise missiles are new weapon categories under development there is no concrete doctrine (yet) as to whether they can be assumed to have conventional or nuclear warheads.
Meanwhile, the 2 VPTs in front of the Block V's sail may not have the versatility/position to be lengthened - so may be still restricted to subsonic Tomahawk SLCMs.
SSN(X)/Seawolf Mark IIs Capable of Taking 4
Trident IIs?
The 2.2m diameter of VPTs originated from the
2.2m diameter of the originally Trident II silos on the 4
Ohio-class that became SSGNs. Those silos were then converted to each
take 7 x Tomahawk missiles. The 7 Tomahawk accommodating diameter was then
carried over as VPTs to Virginias.
It is highly likely the VPT will be carried
over to the SSN(X)/Seawolf Mark II.
So Trident
II SLBMs, at 2.11m diameter, can horizontally fit
into a 2.2m Virginia Payload Tube (VPT), but not vertically (yet).
But vertically? Where I'm going with this is if
a Seawolf
Mark I’s hull diameter of 12m is only increased by 1m for
an SSN(X)/Seawolf Mark II that would make a diameter of 13m.
13m just happens
to be the diameter
of an Ohio SSBN and planned 13m diameter of a
future Columbia
SSBN. These, of course, can/will vertically fit a Trident II’s 13.58m
height owing to their slight hump.
This would give SSN(X)/Seawolf Mark IIs of
13m diameter and with 4 VPTs the capability to accommodate 4 x Trident IIs.
This might be a future capability much valued by
Australia - if its 8 future SSNs happened to be US SSN(X)/Seawolf Mark
IIs. Fear of China has made possible the unprecedented AUKUS SSN offer. Increasing fear of China (say, in 2030) may swing the Australian public in favour of an Australian nuclear deterrent.
If Australia chooses the UK, perhaps UK SSN(R)s might
have the same SSN(X) (aka common AUKUS) dimensions enabling a Trident II capability.
This thought should not be confused with the nuclear armed Tomahawk TLAM-N debate. Tomahawks, against a nuclear armed enemy, carry with them the "is it carrying a conventional or nuclear warhead" ambiguity-misunderstanding. There is no such ambiguity-misunderstanding with SLBMs as they are always assumed to be a nuclear tipped deterrent.
4 comments:
are we now talking about an omnirole SS(X)N that acts like SSN, SSGN and SSBN?
Given the first island chain is already a veritable naval fortress, the first three lines of the article are moot? don't you agree? next is the following,
Technical issues: For starters will not carrying SLBMs in a 'relatively smooth bodied' SS 'whatever' N sub reduce the ability to be a hunter-killer that can ramp up and ramp down as required?
If Australia is that serious about long range missile capability, then might as well have LGM Minuteman in the middle of desert in deep silos... no shortage of woop woop in Australia in any case. it will be costly but doable and act as a MAD deterrent.
Me thinks having a good SSN/SSGN backed by allied nuclear umbrella is the only way to go politically/financially in a feasible fashion.
Trying to fit too many goals into one platform only guarantees decision paralysis I think.
Hi GhalibKabir @Nov 24, 2022, 5:54:00 PM
Under the proviso that this article is a think piece cunningly penned to arouse interest and prompt discussion.
I'd say you're right on an Aus SSN packing 4 x Trident IIs having too many roles, ill-fitting in shape and reactor (stop-start OR stable running). I'm less sure about dual warhead capable Hypersonic SLCMs.
I'd also add you'd need about 10 extra crew to manage the Tridents and an extremely flexible Captain, XO, and combat system operators schooled in SSN, SSGN and SSBN disciplines. I wonder how the Israelis handle all this in their Dolphin nuke armed SSGs?
Use it or Lose it Conundrum? Very relevant to said Israelis and also the Pakistanis if you are likely to lose your nuclear tipped Babur-3 SLCMs with your SSK about to be destroyed, should you Use these Baburs? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur_(cruise_missile)#Variants
If Australia is to have the most secure second strike platform this rules out (say) 25 Aussie ICBMs or 12 odd B-21s - all of which China could pre-emptively strike and/or sabotage.
AUKUS SSBNs
With due modesty call it "Pete Plan 2022" for secure second strike
is 6 x AUKUS SSNs to defend the then constructed 4 AUKUS SSBNs.
Rather than Australia blowing A$500 Billion, counting 5% inflation/year over 35 years construction of 8 SSNs (including operation)
Instead we should blow A$550 Billion for 6 SSNs and 4 SSBNs.
Also, like India, all this will give Australia a chair at the Top (Nuclear) Table with all its broader foreign and defence policy implications.
You read it first here Ghalib.
Pete :)
"With due modesty call it "Pete Plan 2022" for secure second strike
is 6 x AUKUS SSNs to defend the then constructed 4 AUKUS SSBNs."
This is the ongoing Indian plan isn't it? 4 Arihant/Arihant extended SSBNs protected by 6 Project 75-A SSNs lol :)
I think India is finding that it will actually need 12 SSNs and possibly 15-18 if hunter-killer and SSBN/surface fleet shepherding roles are to be delineated.
I don't think Aus can find crews for 4 SSBN+12-16 SSN subs... the ICBM silos on the other hand can be secured quite well from a Chinese strike. If things get so bad that Aus becomes the target of a Chinese strike then the US and quad will have to be involved as such an act will not be an isolated one and will likely be part of a larger regional war.
For tactical CBG decapitating strikes in open sea, a mix of small nuke TLAMs/EMP deliverable warheads will do.
PS: Israel is the best model. ICBM bases so deep in the desert that they can survive MT scale first attacks and most EMP strikes. The SSG Dolphin class has the Popeye which will deliver a tactical nuke of possibly 10-20 kT max. Again perfect to decapitate most regional navies and cities, goodness forbid, if it comes to that.
PS: I read it first here, agreed, lol. ACT might even act similarly, who knows!
Hi GhalibKabir @Nov 24, 2022, 9:10:00 PM
Oh no, Indian nuke sub construction has followed the less usual French model. That is Indian made SSBNs and then maybe Indian made SSNs. Why?
While the UK and France as middle-great powers have only averaged 6, or a few more, SSNs I think your prediction India may one day having up to 18 SSNs is India as a SUPER POWER - which is possible.
- something on average dry continent Australia has insufficient fresh water to aspire to.
So Australia will not exceed the Anglo-French numbers.
On the US defending Australia with nuclear weapons the US were quietly telling my Dad, in the 1980s Defence Attache Washington, "do you really believe the US would go to nuclear war in defense of Australia?!". And that was before the Trumpian weak alliance isolation.
Even more remote is India risking nuclear war in defence of Australia.
Australia having its own nukes (a la Israel) is our surer defence.
Regards Pete
Post a Comment