# Submarines China Russia and the US **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 8, 2005, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/submarines-china-russia-and-the-us/293586 "2005-03-08T23:15:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Ring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Ring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ring)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/submarines-china-russia-and-the-us/293586/1 "2005-03-08T23:15:33Z")
I’m reading _Kilo Class_ by Patrick Robinson, and the crux of the book is the US Navy’s effort to prevent China from taking delivery of Russian Kilo Class submarines. Supposedly these diesel electric subs are so silent and lethal that China would be able to completely exclude the US navy and its aircraft carriers from the Taiwan Straight, thus allowing them to attack Taiwan at will. But from a Google search it appears that China is already capable of building their own subs, both diesel electric and nuclear, so is this storyline strictly hokum or is there something I’m missing. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/submarines-china-russia-and-the-us/293586/2 "2005-03-09T00:28:07Z")
I’m not a submariner and most of what I know about this topic comes from Tom Clancy but I know a few things… 1. Diesel electric subs are very quiet. But they’re also short ranged. They have to snorkel to recharge the batteries and when they do, they’re very vulnerable. 2. Since the end of the cold war, it wouldn’t surprise me if the US has already gotten their hands on one of these subs and taken it apart. At the very least, I’d have to say that US nuclear submariners need not fear the diesel boats of the Russians, especially in the hands of the Chinese. Just look at [all the trouble](http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnsubs/chicoutimitimeline.html) Canada has had with a simple refitting job on a diesel electric sub we bought from the Brits. And those subs were in relatively good shape aside from having not been used for a few years. The Russian boats have probably been rotting at the dock for a lot longer. 3. Although the Chinese can build thier own subs, they’re not very good at it and their boats tend to be very noisy. A noisy sub is a dead sub, especially if it’s facing off against a 688 class or a Seawolf. 4. IIRC, Patrick Robinson is not known for his technical accuracy. It tends to get in the way of storytelling. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/submarines-china-russia-and-the-us/293586/3 "2005-03-09T01:09:45Z")
As many nations have found, successfully operating, supporting, and maintaining a submarine is harder than it looks. There’s much more involved than just getting your hands on one. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/submarines-china-russia-and-the-us/293586/4 "2005-03-09T02:21:17Z")
> [@robby](#): > > As many nations have found, successfully operating, supporting, and maintaining a submarine is harder than it looks. There’s much more involved than just getting your hands on one. Indeed. Being able to build a boat that travels underwater is one thing. Being able to build a _silent_ sub and operate it effectively is a whole other matter. Even the former USSR lagged behind the US on this count and they certainly put a lot of effort into the whole thing. In particular the manufacture of the propeller (or screw if you prefer) is a surprisingly hightech piece of equipment on a sub. So much so the US navy (so I hear) shrouds their subs’ propellers when they are in dry dock. This was a huge issue back in the 80’s when Toshiba sold hightech milling equipment to the Soviets allowing them to leap frog several years and make their propellers significantly quieter (IIRC the US government threw a fit over this and imposed sanctions on Toshiba). Of course, there is a whole lot of other factors than go into a quiet sub but noticing that just the propeller will give most countries headaches shows the major difficulties in building a quiet sub. Doubtless a Kilo class sub can be dangerous but my money will be on the nukes for the safe(r) bet. ---
**Author:** ![Ring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Ring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ring)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/submarines-china-russia-and-the-us/293586/5 "2005-03-09T04:07:52Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Doubtless a Kilo class sub can be dangerous but my money will be on the nukes for the safe(r) bet. Supposedly, because of its battery / electric motor propulsion the Kilo, when running under 5 knots, is so silent there is no way whatsoever to detect it. On the other hand the reactors (and all the required pumps etc.) on a nuclear boat always make some detectable noise. So for inshore patrolling (the Taiwan Straight) where they can charge up at local bases the Kilo’s are more deadly than the nukes and would have a decent chance of getting a torpedo into a carrier. In any case is it agreed that China can build subs but just can’t make them quiet enough? And that’s why they have to buy them from Russia? ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/submarines-china-russia-and-the-us/293586/6 "2005-03-09T04:30:20Z")
Well, even for the quietest of subs, there is still active sonar where you actually “ping” for hits, so it’s not like this is the ultimate trump card like the book seems to be describing. It’s not usually tactically advantageous for a submarine to use active sonar, but if there’s a small area that we want to specifically patrol and watch, then it fits the job. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/submarines-china-russia-and-the-us/293586/7 "2005-03-09T04:37:46Z")
> [@Ring](#): > > Supposedly, because of its battery / electric motor propulsion the Kilo, when running under 5 knots, is so silent there is no way whatsoever to detect it. Can they keep steerage under 5 knots? I also thought the latest US nukes were essentially holes in the water at low speed (i.e. essentially undetectable unless you were practically next to them). Could be wrong and doubtless the reality is a massively classified secret. ---
**Author:** ![Jurph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jurph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jurph)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/submarines-china-russia-and-the-us/293586/8 "2005-03-09T04:38:38Z")
Imagine a China that has hojillions of dollars to spend on developing a modern military, or even a China that needs to spend its limited defense budget wisely. We want them to waste as much of it as possible on stuff we know we can defeat. The best way to ensure this is to (publicly) raise a holy stink about them acquiring a sub – _even though we know we can kill it_ – so that (a) the Russians will raise the price, (b) the Chinese will pay it. They get a sub that they think secures them a solid advantage. We get peace of mind and control of the Taiwan Straits. Russia gets cash to stabilize her crappy economy. It may be that we would still be pissed, because the upgrade did increase their survivability against us – in this scenario, our goal is to raise a big stink, drive up the demand, so that they have to purchase it dearly. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/submarines-china-russia-and-the-us/293586/9 "2005-03-09T04:40:43Z")
> [@threemae](#): > > Well, even for the quietest of subs, there is still active sonar where you actually “ping” for hits, so it’s not like this is the ultimate trump card like the book seems to be describing. It’s not usually tactically advantageous for a submarine to use active sonar, but if there’s a small area that we want to specifically patrol and watch, then it fits the job. Surface ships will actively ping as any sub already knows the ship is there. As I understand it subs (at least military ones) almost never ping. The sub sending the ping might gain info but the enemy sub definitely gains info on the pinging sub making it a Bad Idea[sup]tm[/sup] to try. ---
**Author:** ![picker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/picker/32/13969_2.png) [@picker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/picker)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/submarines-china-russia-and-the-us/293586/10 "2005-03-09T04:57:23Z")
> [@Jurph](#): > > Imagine a China that has hojillions of dollars to spend on developing a modern military, or even a China that needs to spend its limited defense budget wisely. We want them to waste as much of it as possible on stuff we know we can defeat. The best way to ensure this is to (publicly) raise a holy stink about them acquiring a sub – _even though we know we can kill it_ – so that > > (a) the Russians will raise the price, > (b) the Chinese will pay it. > > They get a sub that they think secures them a solid advantage. We get peace of mind and control of the Taiwan Straits. Russia gets cash to stabilize her crappy economy. > > It may be that we would still be pissed, because the upgrade did increase their survivability against us – in this scenario, our goal is to raise a big stink, drive up the demand, so that they have to purchase it dearly. Hi **Jurph** That a really interesting idea, and seems to be a fairly wise course of action, from the American perspective. Is this just a \*what if? \* scenario you came up with, or is this based on actual knowledge of geopolitical strategies and goals? ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/submarines-china-russia-and-the-us/293586/11 "2005-03-09T07:36:12Z")
Right. Submarines avoid it, but a cruiser is probably pinging non-stop as a matter of SOP. Maybe someone with more specific knowledge can advise. ---
**Author:** ![Ficer67](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c57346/32.png) [@Ficer67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ficer67)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/submarines-china-russia-and-the-us/293586/12 "2005-03-09T08:12:12Z")
Modern Diesel-Electric submarines can stay underwater for much longer. Germany is limited to non-nuclear submarines. Thier submarines are powred by a combination of diesel and hydrogen cells. Also many diesel electric submarines are able to store liquid oxygen to fuel thier engines. So the duration that they can spend underwater is much longer than you might think. ---
**Author:** ![Ficer67](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c57346/32.png) [@Ficer67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ficer67)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/submarines-china-russia-and-the-us/293586/13 "2005-03-09T08:19:51Z")
There is another angle to consider, it is very likely that china may purchase a submarine from russia and sell it to us. The US purchased an entire squadron of soviet fighter planes from germany, and modeled our fighter planes on what we found out. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/submarines-china-russia-and-the-us/293586/14 "2005-03-09T12:22:35Z")
About those “closed-cycle” diesel-electric subs (which the Swedes and Australians are building): how long can they stay underwater? Are they just coastal patrol boats, or can they undertake “blue water”;ong-duration missions? ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/submarines-china-russia-and-the-us/293586/15 "2005-03-09T14:00:41Z")
A few answers to the OP and other posters. First of all, if _Kilo Class_ refers to the former Soviets Kilo class boat, then he’s taken some directors liberty, shall we say. The Kilo class boats are diesel/electric, but they are old. Unless they’ve undergone a major refit (new types of batteries, etc.) they’re reaching the end of their service life. (Which is probably why the Russians are selling them) Secondly, yes, they can sit on the bottom for hours and launch a surprise attack on sub or surface traffic. The gamble by the Chinese may be to sacrifice two or three twenty million dollar boats to sink a four billion dollar carrier or a couple of one billion dollar nuke boats. Third, 99.99 percent of nuke boats only use active sonar for navigating in/out of port. Going active means you’ve announced your presence to every ship within 60 miles. Most of our fast attack boats track others using passive sonar, such as the towed array. They’re not really tracking noise per se, but electronic frequencies emanating from the other ship/boat’s mechanical and electric systems. _The Hunt for Red October_ is one of the most accurate depictions of this. Fourth, most of the diesel/electric boats are capable of deep water operation, however, they lose the stealth when they have to surface to recharge their batteries. An excellent example is the long range operations of the U-Boats and American boats during WWII. The difference now though is satellite imagery. If a boat surfaces and runs it’s diesels at night, it can probably be identified through it’s heat signature. Hope this helps. BF, ex-submariner, '81-'87 ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/submarines-china-russia-and-the-us/293586/16 "2005-03-09T14:01:19Z")
Why in the world would you want to part a carrier in the Strait? Seems like a quick way to get it sunk. The Straits can be closed by a carrier way to the east of Taiwan. Put some SSNs in the narrow waters if you want to for good measure. ---
**Author:** ![Ring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Ring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ring)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/submarines-china-russia-and-the-us/293586/17 "2005-03-09T18:33:11Z")
> [@BF](#): > > First of all, if _Kilo Class_ refers to the former Soviets Kilo class boat, then he’s taken some directors liberty, shall we say. The Kilo class boats are diesel/electric, but they are old. Unless they’ve undergone a major refit (new types of batteries, etc.) they’re reaching the end of their service life. (Which is probably why the Russians are selling them) > > Secondly, yes, they can sit on the bottom for hours and launch a surprise attack on sub or surface traffic. The gamble by the Chinese may be to sacrifice two or three twenty million dollar boats to sink a four billion dollar carrier or a couple of one billion dollar nuke boats. > > Hope this helps. > > BF, > ex-submariner, '81-'87 Thanks BF. A few items from the aforementioned book (for whatever that’s worth) 1. Russia is presently building _brand new_ updated Kilos for sale to other countries. 2. They can now stay submerged without snorkeling for days. 3. They charge three hundred million for each sub. 4. For inshore work the Kilo’s most dangerous adversary is the British Upholder class, but Britain is selling off their Upholders as fast as they can. ---
**Author:** ![paperbackwriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@paperbackwriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paperbackwriter)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/submarines-china-russia-and-the-us/293586/18 "2005-03-09T21:26:21Z")
Except for the price, all those elements are points where the book turns into fiction. I suspect the price might be, as well. In 1997, for instance, Chile was planning on buying up-to-date and much more capable nuke boats from France for $450M. ---
**Author:** ![Ring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Ring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ring)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/submarines-china-russia-and-the-us/293586/19 "2005-03-09T23:01:33Z")
If anyone’s interested I finally found some facts > [@](#): > > [http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/kilo.asp](http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/kilo.asp) > > The Project 636 features improved fire control and propulsion system, and is regarded as one of the quietest conventional submarines in the world. > > In 2002, China ordered 8 more Project 636 submarines in a US$1.6 billion deal that will significantly boosts the PLA Navy’s conventional submarine force. These submarines are said to be armed with the Russian Klub long-range, anti-ship missile system, which poses a serious threat to any naval forces operating in the area. Currently under construction at St Petersburg, these eight submarines are scheduled to be delivered by 2007, increasing the total number of the Kilo class in service with the PLA Navy to twelve. > > The purchase of the Kilo class submarine is yet another example of China’s urgency to build a credible naval force capable of supporting its military action against Taiwan and deterring any intervention by the United States. On the other hand, the submarine purchases also reflect the difficulties in developing China’s own indigenous submarine. > > Endurance: 45 day; 6,000 miles with snorkel (@7 knots); 400 miles submerged (@3 knots) ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2005, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/submarines-china-russia-and-the-us/293586/20 "2005-03-11T07:45:25Z")
Only $300 M? Hot damn, I’m gonna get me one of dem’! [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/submarines-china-russia-and-the-us/293586.md?page=2)