Well that really depends on the geostrategic situation. If it comes to a new arms race PRC will want to pump out 096s as fast as possible.
09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread
- Thread starter SinoSoldier
- Start date
It took took 4 years to assemble the first Virginia SSN.
In comparison, it took 2-3 years to assemble the first Type-093B.
---
In the first 8 years, only 4 Virginia SSNs were built, with 2 being assembled simultaneously.
Peak Virginia SSN assembly speeds only started after this time.
In comparison, it only took 3-4 years for the first 4 Type-093B.
In less than 6 years, 10 Type-093B have been launched.
---
Granted, the Type-093B is smaller, so should be easier to produce than the Virginia.
But it sure looks like the Chinese supply chain (for Type-093B production) has already exceeded peak Virginia SSN production in terms of speed and capacity.
In addition, at the time of peak Virginia production, the US military was unchallenged and had no sense of urgency.
That is not the case with the Chinese military, which even today, is overall still significantly less powerful.
China is already on track to match the deployable US nuclear arsenal of 1500 warheads by 2035, as per the Pentagon.
And if China continues building, it is the US that is likely to fall behind, and have to catch up.
The preferable scenario is if China and the US both agree to hold warhead counts steady at 1500, and avoid a nuclear arms race.
---
US-China relations are bad and there is currently an ongoing arms race, so I think it is better for China to focus on capabilities for a conventional war, rather than a nuclear apocalypse
It is more likely that 6-8 09IIIBs have been launched to date.
As for everything else you've written, it simply conveys a sense of optimism and extrapolating the "highest viable trend" from historical markers with assumptions of PRC priority, funding or competency.
There should be a high threshold of evidence for things like nuclear submarine production related matters (as well other domains like aeroengines, etc).
So just give it a rest, and accept that if you want to entertain the prospect of PRC SSN production speeds being that of peak Virginia SSN production speeds, it is something we will have to buy definition only verify in retrospect after we have fairly convincing indicators that it has happened, rather than trying to project it as a guarantee.
If we recalculate for production of 6-8 Type-093N to date, note this is still significantly higher than peak Virginia SSN production levels.
And we can see this has already happened.
---
Plus we'll likely never get public confirmation of the actual construction timelines for Chinese nuclear submarines. But I do think it is useful to take what is known of nuclear submarine programmes elsewhere, and try to extrapolate to China.
---
If we look back to the Los-Angeles SSNs (which should be "comparable" to the Type-093B), during the Reagan buildup years between 1983 and 1985, we saw a run of 15 boats with average of 15-16 months from keel-laying to launch, with half the boats taking 11-13 months. And they didn't have the benefit of modular construction back then.
This original discussion was about the proportion of construction slots allocated to SSN constriction, per #4375 with my contention being they likely have up to 12-14 slots active for SSN production at present.
If you agree with that then I have nothing else to really add.
So that makes it the #8 (and also the final) boat of the 1st batch of 093B SSNs.
I think it is more like 6-8 slots in active use, so about half of that estimate.
I just don't see Type-093B assembly taking 24-36 months.
And even if Type-093B assembly times are 24 months, that implies only 6 slots used. Add 2 Type-095 and an SSBN, and it still only comes to 10 slots out of the 12 slots in the 1st Assembly Hall. So what about the 2nd Assembly Hall with another 8 slots which has presumably been sitting empty since 2021.
--
In the past 5 years, Virginia SSN assembly times have jumped to an average of 34 months.
I think this is due to the effects of COVID, personel retirements and also the Columbia-class being a higher priority which sucks up all the available resources.
In the prior 12 year period (from 2008-2020), there were 14 boats built with an average assembly time of 18 months. But at the beginning of this period, assembly times were less than 10 months.
At the time, the key driver was to get the costs down and US nuclear submarine construction was funded at a minimal level of 1 submarine per year. And you can reduce costs by extending construction times.
Given that 2 shipyards (Groton and NN) alternated assembly, that meant each shipyard only assembled a new submarine every 24 months. So there was no rush to assembly submarines quickly and get them launched.
So during this 12 year period, we can see that the US nuclear submarine chain was being run down.
(Note this run down began before, from 1990-2020.)
---
Now, data on Chinese submarine construction is much less available.
But it does look like that in the 2008-2020 period, the Chinese supply chain was building the equivalent of 1 SSN per year, when you look at the Type-093 and Type-094 combined.
So in the 2008-2020 period, we have both the Chinese and American supply chains at 1 SSN-equivalent per year.
But the American supply chain is running down, and the Chinese supply chain is ramping up.
By 2020, the Type-093 is a mature platform, and we see the first Type-093B variant emerge after 24-36? months.
It is the first ship from a new construction hall and it is a new, larger variant, so we can expect it would take longer to assemble than subsequent boats.
---
So an average 36 month estimate of assembly times for the overall Type-093B programme just doesn't look correct.
Even a 24 month assembly time, means an assumption that the Chinese supply chain for building an established SSN design is significantly worse than the US supply chain. But that assumption flies in the face of:
1. Brand-new, modern production facilities at Bohai, compared to the old facilities in the US
2. A separate building for painting and/or anechoic tile outfitting, which means this task doesn't have to happen in the assembly hall, unlike in the US
3. That the Type-093B should be an easier boat to build, given its smaller size
4. The Virginia is at 1.2 boats per year, with an 18month average assembly time, split across two assembly sites. This means that for two-thirds of the 2010-2020 period, Groton wasn't actively assembling any submarines. The same applies to the Newport News site. You can see how shipbuilding skills atrophy, there are wait times to get resources and there is was urgency to quickly assemble submarines.
5. The increased scale of production of the Type-093B, which is running at 2.5x greater than the Virginia rate Plus this is all concentrated in a single building, not across 2 locations.
6. Adjacent industries such as civilian nuclear reactors, surface warship construction and heavy industry in general. In all these cases, we can see Chinese capability when we're talking about scaling up and producing established designs.
---
But let's go with a 24 month assembly time, which means an average of 6 Type-093B (occupying 6 slots) are in various stages of module assembly at any time. This would compare to Groton/NN having an average of 0.33 SSNs to assemble at any time, so Bohai would have 18x more submarines under simultaneous assembly at a single site .
If a shipyard is assembling at a scale which is 18x greater, you simultaneously benefit from:
1. Specialist resources being available quicker, so there's no waiting around like in Groton/NN with its 18 month assembly times. And costs go down, because those specialist resources have a higher utilisation rate.
2. And because they are repeating tasks at a faster rate, they get better at this faster, it's cheaper, and it's worthwhile to automate/specialise. You end up with a virtuous cycle regarding cost and time. So why should the Type-093B remain at 24 or even 18 months?
Therefore my guess is that assembly times for the Type-093B should be around 12 months. That would mean 3 slots occupied which still represents 9x more submarines under simultaneous assembly than at Groton/NN.
In the absence of information (and with no contrary information), this is my best guess as to what has already happened, or will soon happen with the subsequent batch of Type-093B.
Given China's known industrial capabilities, I think the default assumption should be that China can match and exceed any pre-existing achievement that has already occurred. Or at least, will soon do so.