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

Biscuits said:

Like you say, the PLAN has to take into account the exact same costs...

The govt can use state ownership to offset the cost, but that only means moving the bill to someone else. Economies of scale can help alleviate some of it, but has less impact than what might think. Look at the USN submarine fleet, even after 40+ SSN, the price isn’t that different.

My point is just that having a large SSN fleet could be economically unfeasible, especially if the large SSK fleet is to be maintained at the same time.

Click to expand...

Or it might be economically feasible, depending on how much the PLA budget may continue to grow (especially if it seeks to match the defense budgets of some other nations like the US in terms of % of GDP).


However as far as capability is concerned, SSNs are very much appropriate for the PLA's likely future defense strategy. A capable and potent SSN force is as useful for conducting open ocean anti shipping and submarine hunting missions into the western pacific that SSKs are simply not capable of doing. Not to mention of course being necessary to escort Chinese carrier battle groups and other large naval formations as well.

This is leaving aside the various other functions like longer range surveillance, land attack/strike, mine laying.



Basically, compared to SSKs, what SSNs offer is much greater range and endurance and much greater cruising speed and top speed. That in turn dictates where SSKs can competitively operate in and where they can't. For more open ocean missions whether it is hunting opposing SSNs, trying to hunt opposing surface ships, or escorting friendly surface ship formations, SSKs simply will not do.

Biscuits said:

Like you say, the PLAN has to take into account the exact same costs...

The govt can use state ownership to offset the cost, but that only means moving the bill to someone else. Economies of scale can help alleviate some of it, but has less impact than what might think. Look at the USN submarine fleet, even after 40+ SSN, the price isn’t that different.

My point is just that having a large SSN fleet could be economically unfeasible, especially if the large SSK fleet is to be maintained at the same time.

Click to expand...

but China is a very very big country, China may do that, having large SSK fleet and also having large SSN fleet. SSK for 1st island chain (perhaps also for 2nd island chain, partly) and SSN for 2nd, 3rd and everywhere else in the world. I think 60 modern SSK and 30 modern SSN are not far off from PLAN requirement

Biscuits said:

Like you say, the PLAN has to take into account the exact same costs...

The govt can use state ownership to offset the cost, but that only means moving the bill to someone else. Economies of scale can help alleviate some of it, but has less impact than what might think. Look at the USN submarine fleet, even after 40+ SSN, the price isn’t that different.

My point is just that having a large SSN fleet could be economically unfeasible, especially if the large SSK fleet is to be maintained at the same time.

Click to expand...

The US military is notoriously inefficient with money, what with all the politically built in pork barrows and gravy trains.

With China’s current lower GDP defence spending, it’s hard to see a large SSN fleet as uneconomical, as China had massive scope for military budget increases even before factoring in consistent high GDP growth.

At the end of the day, even though SSK and SSNs do have many overlaps in mission and capabilities, there are critical difference in performance that makes SSNs indispensable.

Because of their lower speeds and endurance, SSKs are best used defensively as ambush predators and protectors of key areas. SSNs are better for offensive and rapid reaction missions.

I think if it is done right it is possible to share technology for the attack and strategic subs and thus reduce R&D costs.
Just look at the Borei class. The first three boats were built using the hulls of Akulas which are attack subs.
They use the same nuclear reactor, same frontal torpedo section, and other sections are similar too.

plawolf said:

Pakistan also wants to assemble some of those subs domestically, so there will be a huge chuck of that overall contract price associated with individual offset that has nothing to do with the costs of building the subs.

You also have munition, logistics and training costs on top, in additional to support and spares.

The PLAN will need all of that as well, but it’s economies of scale and local pricing will mean it won’t pay anything like as much per boat.

Click to expand...

Yes. I do think China pays around $400M per boat, whereas the $625M price for Pakistan includes support and local production.

If we compare the the Type-52/Type-55 versus the equivalent AEGIS destroyers from US/JP/KR - we can see Chinese ships have a significant cost advantage.

That should carry over into the realm of submarine construction. So Chinese SSKs should be much cheaper than Japanese SSKs.

Also remember that the first Yasen cost $1.6billion.

Given lower production costs in China, and serial mass production, $1 Billion for a Chinese SSN could be feasible.

AndrewS said:

Also remember that the first Yasen cost $1.6billion.

Given lower production costs in China, and serial mass production, $1 Billion for a Chinese SSN could be feasible.

Click to expand...

The $1.6 bn yasen (885, only 1 built) carries a lot of older technologies. Eg. Severodvinsk.
It was basically built because Russians didnt want to dump the entire design because of financial issues. So they took their time building it, albeit with old tech.
The current (885.m) with optimization of new tech costs around double of that eg. $3.5 bn for Kazan

It's said that the Type 095 is already in service. Is there any confirmation or pictures ?

Bhurki said:

The $1.6 bn yasen (885, only 1 built) carries a lot of older technologies. Eg. Severodvinsk.
It was basically built because Russians didnt want to dump the entire design because of financial issues. So they took their time building it, albeit with old tech.
The current (885.m) with optimization of new tech costs around double of that eg. $3.5 bn for Kazan

Click to expand...

Putin has publicly said that the $3.5 bn cost for the second Yasen is a joke.

Also, look at the Royal Navy Astutes which are $1.8 Bn each, which is comparable to the $1.6 Bn for the 1st Yasen.

And the CNO has been on record as saying the Astute is quieter than the Virginia SSN.

So if China has lower costs (say 20%) and a higher production rate with long term stability (another 20% saving), that's why I think they can produce SSNs for around $1 Bn

I have heard a lot of rumors for the added cost on the Yasen including that the later submarines were designed with a lot of imported technologies. Because of the devaluation of the ruble versus the dollar that might have inflated its cost. If that is true, then the answer is simple, they need to find other suppliers either inside Russia or somewhere cheaper like China. I would not be surprised if most of the cost was in electronics components. China shouldn't suffer from these sorts of issues. Russia had similar issues with the digital Su-30 radar until they replaced the chips with Russian produced ones.