09V/09VI (095/096) Nuclear Submarine Thread

[gelgoog]

Yes, they should have the design on paper, but I think they made a huge gamble to build this facility without even having an actual physical prototype built.
Especially considering their level of experience in the area. Perhaps they consider themselves to have enough design experience in their other naval shipbuilding sectors. But I am really uncertain about this. Then again they have enough resources and spare manpower to take on such a gamble.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Yes, they should have the design on paper, but I think they made a huge gamble to build this facility without even having an actual physical prototype built.
Especially considering their level of experience in the area. Perhaps they consider themselves to have enough design experience in their other naval shipbuilding sectors. But I am really uncertain about this. Then again they have enough resources and spare manpower to take on such a gamble.

They already tested some of the new technology on type 93 None of them are identical each of them are unique and technically progression from the previous one. that is why it take so long each progress has to be validated and tinkered with each new version of sub. So it is incremental progression and not in one fell swoop change. All along they wait for the breakthrough with new propulsion and IEPS. which they have in their pocket following flurry of exposure last year . Even after that the first 2 sub will be their prototype and more testing Just like they do it with the first 2 type 52C
So you can say type 93 are their test bed Now that they are comfortable with their design they proceed with mass fabrication

 

[Blitzo]

Yes, they should have the design on paper, but I think they made a huge gamble to build this facility without even having an actual physical prototype built.
Especially considering their level of experience in the area. Perhaps they consider themselves to have enough design experience in their other naval shipbuilding sectors. But I am really uncertain about this. Then again they have enough resources and spare manpower to take on such a gamble.

It all depends on how many of the key subsystems they have already tested or installed on the various 09III variant boats, as well as how many other key subsystems (not tested on 09III boats) have undergone land based testing to a sufficiently rigorous standard.

I don't think we can pretend to know just how extensive that preceding work will have been at this stage, however if they do end up mass producing 09Vs and 09VIs straight off the bat, then we would likely be safe to conclude that the PLAN have sufficient confidence in whatever new technologies and subsystems those boats incorporate. Whether those new boats perform the way they want without major technical issues will depend on how accurately the PLAN's judgement for the maturity of those key subsystems and technologies have been.

Undoubtedly it would be lower risk for the PLAN if they built a couple of the new boats to test as well and only to continue production years down the line. However what the PLAN should be interested in is the level of risk to do mass production immediately.

 

[AndrewS]

Yes, they should have the design on paper, but I think they made a huge gamble to build this facility without even having an actual physical prototype built.
Especially considering their level of experience in the area. Perhaps they consider themselves to have enough design experience in their other naval shipbuilding sectors. But I am really uncertain about this. Then again they have enough resources and spare manpower to take on such a gamble.

It's not huge gamble, because it's just an assembly facility

It joins modules (fabricated elsewhere) and other final assembly works.

These are common tasks for every submarine.

 

[AndrewS]

I don't necessarily agree since the cost of a single boomer is as much as a carrier itself

1 x SSBN and 1-2 x SSN build rate per year would entail a astronomical cost, and I am talking 10s of billions and the cost of keeping in service 40-50 x SSN and 10+ x SSBN is enough to bankrupt even a economy like China, it would probably consume at least a quarter of the entire defence budget

Nuclear Submarine race is what killed off the Soviet Union, China will not make that mistake

The cost of a nuclear submarine programme is just so high but then why would China build a new facility for construction nuclear submarines in multiples ?

So either way I guess

What killed off the Soviet Union

China's Greatest Fear: Dead and Buried Like the Soviet Union (Closed)
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/ch...nd-buried-like-the-soviet-union-closed.t7964/

---

Maintaining a fleet of 50 SSN and 10 SSBN is not going to bankrupt China.

That works out as 2 submarines per year, and my guess is that the total construction cost is $2-3 Billion per year plus ongoing maintenance.

Remember China's military spending is roughly 2% of GDP, which is currently $250B (exchange rate) or closer to $500B (based on PPP)

My view is that the initial plan is a sustained 2-3 nuclear submarines per year.

But I can see them going higher in the long run because:

1. they will easily have the budget for this
2. the next generation of submarines will be quieter
3. larger numbers of submarines are really useful for A2AD in the Western Pacific and also great for power projection in distant seas.
4. they will want to keep up with US submarine construction at a minimum. We've seen this in other naval realms.

 

[Biscuits]

Yes, they should have the design on paper, but I think they made a huge gamble to build this facility without even having an actual physical prototype built.
Especially considering their level of experience in the area. Perhaps they consider themselves to have enough design experience in their other naval shipbuilding sectors. But I am really uncertain about this. Then again they have enough resources and spare manpower to take on such a gamble.

Porting technology from the SSK program should make it easy. While the political will to build lots of SSN never existed, the PLAN is very experienced with submarine design in general.

 

[AndrewS]

Porting technology from the SSK program should make it easy. While the political will to build lots of SSN never existed, the PLAN is very experienced with submarine design in general.

It just didn't make sense to build a huge fleet of SSNs before.

The technology wasn't good enough, the economy and military budgets were much smaller, plus the strategic environment was fairly benign over the past 20 years.

But we've previously seen China does have the political will to undertake huge military buildups when feeling threatened, such as after the Sino-Soviet split. In the 4 year period from 1960-1964, it's estimated that Chinese military spending doubled from $6.7B to $12.8B

And in the late 1970s at the height of the cold war, China was spending about 15% of GDP on the military
But then there was a gradual decline, so that in 1983, military spending was at 7% of GDP.
But by 1989, military spending was only 2% of GDP, where it still remains today.

 

[AndrewS]

Let's say China builds 3 SSNs/SSGNs per year from now on.

How does that impact the strategic environment?

The US has 50 SSNs, and has 6 on patrol at any one time. 3 are allocated to Pacific Fleet, with the other 3 to Atlantic Fleet.

So if in the next 8 years, China builds 3 boats per year, that means 24 boats, which is 3 on patrol at any time.
Will there be enough US SSNs to physically track these Chinese submarines as they cross the First Island Chain, before they disappear into the Pacific? Particularly given other commitments?

And in times of tensions, China could surge another 15 boats which are at their homeports.
It only takes a day for Chinese submarines to reach the First Island Chain. Then they would disappear into the Pacific.

In the long run, if China continues with 3 boats per year, with a 35 year service life, that is a fleet of 100 SSNs/SSGNs

That would be 12 boats deployed at any one time, and the ability to surge 60 boats past the First Island Chain into the Pacific Ocean.
That is a credible force that could prevent a hostile Navy from reaching Asia and also be able to project power globally.
Remember China is the world's largest trading nation and sits at the centre of the Asian trade network, so it is in China's interest to keep Asian (and global) sea lanes open for commercial shipping. In comparison, the USA would want to blockade China and shut down China's trade.


And such a fleet is easily affordable based on the size of the Chinese economy today, with modest military spending of 2% of GDP.
It disregards how much bigger the Chinese economy will be in the future, nor if China decides to match the US/Russia with 4% of GDP devoted to military spending.

Just for comparison, the USSR had a fleet of 200 SSNs/SSGNs towards the end of the Cold War

 

[Totoro]

If China starts building 3 SSNs per year, US will finance building 3 or 4 per year within a year or two. (actual time to build them may still be pushed later)

Also, US pacific fleet will be getting more and more assets. It wouldn't surprise if in such a world US went 70% pacific, 30% Atlantic.

SSNs aren't the only ones doing the enemy tracking.
There are underwater fixed sonar networks, various airborne sonars as well as surface ships.

Going beyond the first island chain would still be quite risky for PLAN, even with many subs, for the next several decades.

USSR had a fleet of some 122 active SSN and SSGNs in 1989.

 

[Biscuits]

@Totoro

But that’s the good part. Hit them with the Soviet Union trick, make them overspend their economy to death.

China has a higher build capacity. If they commit down this road, they’ll match the USN numerically soon as well.

And China doesn’t even need match 1-1 to present an equal power, not if they keep next generation designs going so they remain a step ahead all the time.