US needs more subs to counter China ...

[Sea Skimmer]

So did the Soviets see the SSN/SSGN forces as primarily defensive?

That’s a mixed bag. After 1965 they withdrew strategically oriented land attack missiles from all those Echo and Juliet class SSGNs, and armed them purely with anti ship weapons. The big Oscars only ever had an anti ship role. The main objective in wartime would be attacking aircraft carriers approaching the motherland. This changed with the SS-N-21 cruise missile, several Yankee class former SSBNs got converted to carry that weapon for strategic attacks, and apparently the Aklua class, always labeled as an SSN in the west, was specifically intended to be a platform for that missile as well.

In terms of SSNs the orientation was also fairly defensive, the Alfa class for example was an outgrowth of a requirement for a high speed interceptor submarine that would actually wait in port until an American force approached and then race out to destroy it. Bastion defence of SSBNs and defence of other chokepoints would be prime wartime missions, but I can’t see the Soviets using every sub defensively. They’d have kept some spread around the world to cause chaos and disperse NATO forces. Just one obsolete November on the sea lanes around South Africa for example, could easily sink a dozen giant modern tankers and freighters in a few days if left unchecked by modern forces.

Think about it, even a single supertanker could make a Soviet captain the worlds new top submarine ace by tonnage.

[Stuart]

Please explain to me why the US had to deploy submarines everywhere [into every ocean?] and fears the Chinese constructing subs? Because "Defense" in reality means "uphold global domination" as strategy and nothing else?

Remember the SSNs do a lot of things that are not directly concerned with the sinking of ships. The most common publically-acknowledged one is intelligence collection. The SSNs are constantly involved in gathering a wide variety of intelligence data (A few years back one CNO, Frank Kelso, stated that of all the intelligence data gathered by submarines, 96 eprcent could be collected by other assets but that the 4 percent that could not was the most valuable of all the data.) They also do things like hydrograthic and barymetric data collection that's needed for sonar propagation models and oceanic environmental protection. Every time a new sub puts to sea there's an American SSN somewhere around that colelcts its sonar signature. To give you some idea of how important all this, one of the Seawolf class (Jimmy Carter) is modified specifically for such tasks and is not used for combatant purposes.

Then we go to the roles that could involve sinking ships. Trade protection is one. As others here have pointed out, airborne assets are not particularly useful when hunting subs and surface assets even less so. the one tried, true and effective counter to submarines is another submarine. Since the U.S. is a world power, wee have worldwide interests and that means those interests need to be protected. The carriers can do so much; the submarines do the rest.

[Vympel]

Since the U.S. is a world power, wee have worldwide interests and that means those interests need to be protected. The carriers can do so much; the submarines do the rest.

That smacks of circular reasoning to me. On what basis is the US a worldwide power? Clearly, the ability to project military force all over the globe with, in most cases, very little impediment. I can't think of any other basis - but more importantly, I don't see how world wide interests necessarily follow from same.

So, the US is a worldwide power by virtue of its worldwide military presence, by which it (somehow) has worldwide interests (plenty of 'traditional' American conservatives would argue vociferously against that notion), therefore the worldwide military presence of the US must be perpetuated.

I think Stas is saying the same thing - it really seems like little more than "global domination for its own sake".

This is not to deny that US submarines have a role to play, but I think raising the alarm about Chinese shipbuilding when the US will have a clear numerical superiority for the foreseeable future (not enough ships off China's coast if anything where to happen? Divert some from the other oceans!) seems like spurious pork mongering.

As it is, I thought the plan was for 2x SSN-774s to be built from 2012 or 2013?

[Stuart]

On what basis is the US a worldwide power? Clearly, the ability to project military force all over the globe with, in most cases, very little impediment. I can't think of any other basis - but more importantly, I don't see how world wide interests necessarily follow from same.

Because we have worldwide interests. You only need to go to Wallyworld to see that. We import critical strategic materials from all over the place, we have citizens in far-flung places. Our companies have trading interests and subsidiaries all over the world. The U.S. is a world power because we have interests (real liabilities and commitments) everywhere and they have to be protected. We are dependent upon relatively smooth international trade and that needs to be protected. Somebody has to do it and if we don't, who will?

This is not to deny that US submarines have a role to play, but I think raising the alarm about Chinese shipbuilding when the US will have a clear numerical superiority for the foreseeable future (not enough ships off China's coast if anything where to happen? Divert some from the other oceans!) seems like spurious pork mongering.

It may tyo you but when we add up the figures, it isn't so. Let's assume that we maintain the 1 boat per year building rate giving us 27 boats (nice easy figure to work with). That gives us 9 boats that are deployable at any one time which then works out as two in the Pacific, two in the atlantic, two in the Indian Ocean and one in teh med. Suddenly, it doesn't look so good does it. It's 10,000 miles from the Atlantic to the Pacific so, at 30 knots it will take two weeks to move the two boats from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

So, given current force production levels, we are ALREADY outnumbered in the appropriate operational theater by the existing Chinese SSN fleet.

As it is, I thought the plan was for 2x SSN-774s to be built from 2012 or 2013?

Actually, its been brought forward to 2010. However, there has been pontificating from the Democrats about holding teh one per year rate rather than going to two. Hence the article that started this thread.

[Cecelia5578]

It may tyo you but when we add up the figures, it isn't so. Let's assume that we maintain the 1 boat per year building rate giving us 27 boats (nice easy figure to work with). That gives us 9 boats that are deployable at any one time which then works out as two in the Pacific, two in the atlantic, two in the Indian Ocean and one in teh med. Suddenly, it doesn't look so good does it. It's 10,000 miles from the Atlantic to the Pacific so, at 30 knots it will take two weeks to move the two boats from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

So, given current force production levels, we are ALREADY outnumbered in the appropriate operational theater by the existing Chinese SSN fleet.

As it is, I thought the plan was for 2x SSN-774s to be built from 2012 or 2013?

Actually, its been brought forward to 2010. However, there has been pontificating from the Democrats about holding teh one per year rate rather than going to two. Hence the article that started this thread.

Why not have the bulk of the submarine fleet in the Pacific? China is much more of a potential naval threat than the EU or Middle East can be, so why should the Atlantic and Med have a presence?

[montypython]

Why not have the bulk of the submarine fleet in the Pacific? China is much more of a potential naval threat than the EU or Middle East can be, so why should the Atlantic and Med have a presence?

Because they're needed for patrols and intel work in other regions as well.

[Stuart]

Why not have the bulk of the submarine fleet in the Pacific? China is much more of a potential naval threat than the EU or Middle East can be, so why should the Atlantic and Med have a presence?

We need a boat (or two) in the Med - in fact we need two or three, one to keep an eye on the Israelies, one to keep an eye on the North African Littoral. We need several boats (at least four) in the Atlantic to keep an eye on the Russian Northern Fleet which is showing signs of coming back to life. We need at least two, more likely three in the Indian Ocean to deal with Iran/Afghanistan etc requirements and we need our boats in the Pacific.

If we have 54 boats in total (more or less what we have now), that gives is 18 deployable submarines. So we have our two in the Med, four in the Atlantic, three in the IO for a total of nine. So that leaves us with five deployable boats for the Pacific.

The Chinese have four Project 091s and three Project 093s is commisson. So they have 7 SSNs and 25 modern SSKs to our five SSNs. We're already outnumbered and our force trend is down, they'res is up.

[montypython]

The Chinese have four Project 091s and three Project 093s is commisson. So they have 7 SSNs and 25 modern SSKs to our five SSNs. We're already outnumbered and our force trend is down, they'res is up.

That assessment's reminds me of this old thing.

[K. A. Pital]

Stuart, do you assume submarines to be equivalent?

Isn't that profoundly wrong? Aren't U.S. subs capable of twice the patrol intensity of Soviet subs (and the Chinese subs are somewhat capable copies of that)?

[Lusankya]

On what basis is the US a worldwide power? Clearly, the ability to project military force all over the globe with, in most cases, very little impediment. I can't think of any other basis - but more importantly, I don't see how world wide interests necessarily follow from same.

Because we have worldwide interests. You only need to go to Wallyworld to see that. We import critical strategic materials from all over the place, we have citizens in far-flung places. Our companies have trading interests and subsidiaries all over the world. The U.S. is a world power because we have interests (real liabilities and commitments) everywhere and they have to be protected. We are dependent upon relatively smooth international trade and that needs to be protected. Somebody has to do it and if we don't, who will?

Just out of curiousity, but how many countries are there that don't have worldwide interests? Do you think that just because other countries aren't the US, they aren't dependant on relatively smooth international trade? Do they not have citizens in far-flung places? Do they not have interests everywhere?

How come only US feels the necessity to enter into arms races to 'protect' these interests?

[thejester]

Stuart, do you assume submarines to be equivalent?

Isn't that profoundly wrong? Aren't U.S. subs capable of twice the patrol intensity of Soviet subs (and the Chinese subs are somewhat capable copies of that)?

As Stuart already pointed out, the Chinese would have the initiative in any kind of conflict - they could surge at least some of their boats to give themselves a strong numerical advantage. Add to that any other commitments in the Pacific and decreasing US submarine numbers and it's easy to see why it is a concern.

Just out of curiousity, but how many countries are there that don't have worldwide interests? Do you think that just because other countries aren't the US, they aren't dependant on relatively smooth international trade? Do they not have citizens in far-flung places? Do they not have interests everywhere?

How come only US feels the necessity to enter into arms races to 'protect' these interests?

The US is a nation of 300 million people and has by far the largest economy in the world. It's hardly surprising that its worldwide interests greatly exceed the minnows with which it shares the pond. Equally, ramping up the production of submarines from one to two a year in a response to Chinese production (driven by similar strategic interests) isn't much of an arms race.

[Lusankya]

Just out of curiousity, but how many countries are there that don't have worldwide interests? Do you think that just because other countries aren't the US, they aren't dependant on relatively smooth international trade? Do they not have citizens in far-flung places? Do they not have interests everywhere?

How come only US feels the necessity to enter into arms races to 'protect' these interests?

The US is a nation of 300 million people and has by far the largest economy in the world. It's hardly surprising that its worldwide interests greatly exceed the minnows with which it shares the pond. Equally, ramping up the production of submarines from one to two a year in a response to Chinese production (driven by similar strategic interests) isn't much of an arms race.

Except the US already spends almost as much on their military as the rest of the world combined. The idea that half of the entire world's military budget is insufficient to protect America's interests is ludicrous, even with China making more subs. 'Needing' moar subs only makes sense in the context of preserving US global supremacy.

[phongn]

Except the US already spends almost as much on their military as the rest of the world combined. The idea that half of the entire world's military budget is insufficient to protect America's interests is ludicrous, even with China making more subs. 'Needing' moar subs only makes sense in the context of preserving US global supremacy.

Why is it ludicrous? Simply because the US military budget is a large number? How much would you consider reasonable for a nation that must defend the seven seas due to its massive trade requirements?

[thejester]

Except the US already spends almost as much on their military as the rest of the world combined. The idea that half of the entire world's military budget is insufficient to protect America's interests is ludicrous, even with China making more subs. 'Needing' moar subs only makes sense in the context of preserving US global supremacy.

Which is just a reflection of how massive the US economy is in comparison to everyone else. How much does of its GDP does the US spend annually on the military? 4%? They're not exactly breaking records for militarization.

[Lusankya]

Except the US already spends almost as much on their military as the rest of the world combined. The idea that half of the entire world's military budget is insufficient to protect America's interests is ludicrous, even with China making more subs. 'Needing' moar subs only makes sense in the context of preserving US global supremacy.

Why is it ludicrous? Simply because the US military budget is a large number? How much would you consider reasonable for a nation that must defend the seven seas due to its massive trade requirements?

... Maybe the same amount relative to GDP that most nations spend? Possibly less on protecting its merchant shipping, since as the world's largest economy, the US can benefit from economies of scale.

According to the CIA, world factbook, Singapore (4.9% of GDP) and Greece (4.3%) are the only two first-world nations which spend a greter percentage of their GDP on their military than does the US(4.06%). South Korea comes in at #4 with 2.7% of their GDP spent on their military. It's not as though all of the other first world nations are failing to protect their mercantile interests.

It just seems to me that the only interest that's really being threatened by Chinese subs is American military supremacy, and I don't know why you guys are so reluctant to admit it.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Except the US already spends almost as much on their military as the rest of the world combined. The idea that half of the entire world's military budget is insufficient to protect America's interests is ludicrous, even with China making more subs. 'Needing' moar subs only makes sense in the context of preserving US global supremacy.

Why is it ludicrous? Simply because the US military budget is a large number? How much would you consider reasonable for a nation that must defend the seven seas due to its massive trade requirements?

... Maybe the same amount relative to GDP that most nations spend? Possibly less on protecting its merchant shipping, since as the world's largest economy, the US can benefit from economies of scale.

According to the CIA, world factbook, Singapore (4.9% of GDP) and Greece (4.3%) are the only two first-world nations which spend a greter percentage of their GDP on their military than does the US(4.06%). South Korea comes in at #4 with 2.7% of their GDP spent on their military. It's not as though all of the other first world nations are failing to protect their mercantile interests.

It just seems to me that the only interest that's really being threatened by Chinese subs is American military supremacy, and I don't know why you guys are so reluctant to admit it.

You forgot: Israel (7.3, but it's presumably higher), Switzerland 4.7 (Fucking Switzerland, they haven't had a war in centuries, and have universal conscription). Turkey is also a lot closer to first than second world, and its 5.3. Those countries have far less international interests than the US , and are all western countries. (To a degree, if you count Turkey).

[Stuart Mackey]

It just seems to me that the only interest that's really being threatened by Chinese subs is American military supremacy, and I don't know why you guys are so reluctant to admit it.

You forget ego and corporate profit.

[K. A. Pital]

You forgot: Israel (7.3, but it's presumably higher), Switzerland 4.7 (Fucking Switzerland, they haven't had a war in centuries, and have universal conscription). Turkey is also a lot closer to first than second world, and its 5.3. Those countries have far less international interests than the US , and are all western countries. (To a degree, if you count Turkey).

Seriously DEATH, those are oddities. Israel is in a state of permanent war actually. Switzerland - I guess the disproportionate spending comes due to huge payouts to their servicemen and because it's generally a tiny state - tiny states can have military spending that seems kind of out of line.

But look at China and Russia, both are gigantic nations with multitude of military threats to homesoil - internal terrorism, rebellions, secessions, hostile or would-be hostile neighbors - and yet they spend far less than the US. Many other nations trade with the entire world too. Actually, both Russia and China do so.

Can you truly say that the US is more threatened than those nations? No, the threats to US homeland are neglible compared to what other nations experience.

Lusankia is correct, it's the US global dominance that is at question, and all the talk about "trade interests" is part of that, when the US fails to protect peace it will use it's world-wide military club on any nation that it feels "threatening". That's the real reason why the US says the entire world is it's sphere of interests.

No amount of blusterspeak is going to change the fact that the US upholds a military supremacy as a self-perpetuating policy, and in the past the US leaders have lied multiple times to their own people to maintain and increase that world superiority in military affairs. How is that one any different?

[thejester]

It's actually Swaziland on the list - Singapore is underneath, so if you only glance whilst scrolling it looks like Switzerland.

[The Grim Squeaker]

You forgot: Israel (7.3, but it's presumably higher), Switzerland 4.7 (Fucking Switzerland, they haven't had a war in centuries, and have universal conscription). Turkey is also a lot closer to first than second world, and its 5.3. Those countries have far less international interests than the US , and are all western countries. (To a degree, if you count Turkey).

Seriously DEATH, those are oddities. Israel is in a state of permanent war actually. Switzerland - I guess the disproportionate spending comes due to huge payouts to their servicemen and because it's generally a tiny state - tiny states can have military spending that seems kind of out of line.

But look at China and Russia, both are gigantic nations with multitude of military threats to homesoil - internal terrorism, rebellions, secessions, hostile or would-be hostile neighbors - and yet they spend far less than the US. Many other nations trade with the entire world too. Actually, both Russia and China do so.

Except that both those nations are massively ramping up their military spending, now that they have the cash to do so, despite reduced threats. (Russia is less at risk now, than it was right after the breakup of the USSr, same for China), and as they gain more global influence and trade.
Your example ignores that . (And many countries such as Japan rely on the US for a "Defense" subsidy, allowing the Americans to handle the economic burden of defense).

[Surlethe]

Except the US already spends almost as much on their military as the rest of the world combined. The idea that half of the entire world's military budget is insufficient to protect America's interests is ludicrous, even with China making more subs. 'Needing' moar subs only makes sense in the context of preserving US global supremacy.

Which is just a reflection of how massive the US economy is in comparison to everyone else. How much does of its GDP does the US spend annually on the military? 4%? They're not exactly breaking records for militarization.

IIRC, US military spending is not only massive, it's also disproportionate to the rest of the world's military spending, too.

[Pelranius]

Of course, we have to ask questions about how much of US military spending is wasteful pork directed towards political objectives. That still doesn't change the fact that America spends so much on war.

[Lusankya]

Except that both those nations are massively ramping up their military spending, now that they have the cash to do so, despite reduced threats. (Russia is less at risk now, than it was right after the breakup of the USSr, same for China), and as they gain more global influence and trade.
Your example ignores that . (And many countries such as Japan rely on the US for a "Defense" subsidy, allowing the Americans to handle the economic burden of defense).

Two points:

1) regardless of them ramping up their military spending, they are still not a credible threat to the US, except in made-up fantasy-land.

2) There is this one nation that's been going around randomly declaring countries to be "evil" and then invading them for made-up reasons. Perhaps China and Russia may view such a nation as a threat.

[thejester]

But look at China and Russia, both are gigantic nations with multitude of military threats to homesoil - internal terrorism, rebellions, secessions, hostile or would-be hostile neighbors - and yet they spend far less than the US. Many other nations trade with the entire world too. Actually, both Russia and China do so.

...China spends more of its GDP (and it's deceptive - the Chinese almost certainly underreport defence spending to a massive degree) than the US on defence, and the naval buildup mentioned in the OP has been triggered - or at least reinforced - by China becoming suddenly ultra-dependent on mineral imports.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Except the US already spends almost as much on their military as the rest of the world combined. The idea that half of the entire world's military budget is insufficient to protect America's interests is ludicrous, even with China making more subs. 'Needing' moar subs only makes sense in the context of preserving US global supremacy.

Which is just a reflection of how massive the US economy is in comparison to everyone else. How much does of its GDP does the US spend annually on the military? 4%? They're not exactly breaking records for militarization.

IIRC, US military spending is not only massive, it's also disproportionate to the rest of the world's military spending, too.

Only the first part is true, percentages matter. The key issue is how much of an effort (GDP percentage is spent), since that sproportional of the effort it spends, or you might as well say that 3d world nations spending 11% of their GDP on arms "Are barely spending anything" due to their miniscule absolute GDP.
In addition, much the rest of the world relies on the US. Japan does, Europe does. Without those "Subsidies" you could expect many of those nations to spend far more (Japan especially, Russias neighbours maybe etc')

...China spends more of its GDP (and it's deceptive - the Chinese almost certainly underreport defence spending to a massive degree) than the US on defence,

Last figures I heard was them cutting down to some 15-25% of their overall GNP, around 2005. Before the buildups afforded by a booming, export budget and increased technical capabilities.

1) regardless of them ramping up their military spending, they are still not a credible threat to the US, except in made-up fantasy-land.

So "They're not a threat now, so we should wait enough time until they have superiority?". (Not saying it can be avoided or that this is the solution, i'm saying that a short term view is a crime for a nation state, a veritable crime).
If it takes you years to build a submarine, and combined with the timescaled discussed, then a long term view is worth taking a look at. "Look, they won't have nuclear weapons for a good 3, no 4 years at least, so why worry?". "Peak Oil hasn't happened yet, there's a good 5, no 7! years left, so leave those gas txes be!".

2) There is this one nation that's been going around randomly declaring countries to be "evil" and then invading them for made-up reasons. Perhaps China and Russia may view such a nation as a threat.

Redherring. You admit that now that they have the capabilities, resources, worldwide interests they're drastically ramping up their militaries?