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

VESSEL

Junior Member
Registered Member
Exactly He makes it sound as if the pneumatic shock absorber is the best thing since sliced bread. It is not Pneumatic shock absorber is ubiquitous in industry and most commonly use in the heavy truck industry. The Chinese must be blind not knowing it and need to steal the technology from Russia. Another thing we have some report some years back that China has successfully designed a reactor with more than 50% of cooling using natural circulation.Chinese civilian reactor design capability is quite advanced. They have 5 or 6 reactor designs concurrently now. I don't know why China has to beg for Russian design. It all smacks like "China can't invent things".Another thing designing a pneumatic shock absorber is quite simple why wait 10 years . There are hundreds of Chinese industrial suppliers and truck components that can do that. But designing an active feedback control is difficult..There is a report some years back of a Chinese scientist who just do that in Australia.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
In the early stages of developing the next-generation naval reactor in the 1990s, China introduced advanced reactor technology from a certain country. A certain country may refer to Russia or France.
 

para80

Junior Member
Registered Member
Part of the problem I think with the report is it mixes some IMO very good sourcing (including the work by John Lewis and Xue Litai, but also other original Chinese material), which provides very in depth historical perspectives, with some seriously daring assumptions (mind you, assumptions can be right or wrong, but the missing facts here are the issue & reading between lines becomes an effort).

Anyway, hence me sharing here and asking for more input.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
I'm not sure whether this is the best place here (given this is but one of three threads on PLAN nuclear powered submarines) or the PLAN News thread instead, but CMSI has released a rather comprehensive report on PLAN nuclear powered submarines from the beginning to speculation on 09V/VI. I'd be interested to hear informed opinions on relevant aspects/fact checking etc.
Also, I'd like to bring some more information from the report here, relating to @para80's thread on Twitter.


So far, we already knew that 2x new SSNs have been launched since 2022, with the possibility of a 3rd nuke subs launched sometime this year.

In the meantime, there are ~8-9x 093/A SSNs and 6-8x ~094/A SSNs in active service with the PLAN. That's a total of around 14-17x nuclear subs.

(The 091 SSNs and 092 SSBN will be decommissioned very soon, so they aren't taken into consideration.)

Thus far, the alleged/claimed plan from early this year (here and here) listed ~8x 093B SSNs + ~1x 095 SSN + ~2x 094B SSBNs to be constructed by 2025, i.e. 11x new nuke subs for the PLAN by 2025. If that's true, then 18x or 21x new nuclear subs by 2030 means an additional 7x or 9x additional nuke subs for 2026-2030.

~~~

Personal thought: Though, I do feel that the "18x or 21x new nuke subs by 2030" quote is (likely) an underestimation.
 
Last edited:

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
Also, here's a brief illustration on what the CMSI envisioned the 095 SSN to look like (for now):

002bsdDLgy1hh11twk88xj60tu0nvgvc02.jpg

Yes, that "... the Type 095 has the potential to approach the propulsion, quieting, sensors, and weapons capabilities of Russia’s Improved Akula I" one. (LMFAO)

Looks like they just took that cross-sectional model for the alleged 093B SSN, move the 18 VLS tubes towards the front of the sail, and use it to represent the 095 SSN. (LMFAO x2)

Also, I presume that the CMSI authors of this report didn't take into account the Virginia Payload Tube-like multipack VLS cells that we have been discussing in the last couple pages in this thread. Though, it is actually understandable, considering that the multipack VLS cells has only been confirmed to exist in at least one research paper thus far.
 
Last edited:

BoraTas

Captain
Registered Member
Also, here's a brief illustration on what the CMSI envisioned the 095 SSN to look like (for now):

View attachment 117381

Yes, that "... the Type 095 has the potential to approach the propulsion, quieting, sensors, and weapons capabilities of Russia’s Improved Akula I" one. (LMFAO)

Looks like they just took that cross-sectional model for the alleged 093B SSN, move the 18 VLS tubes towards the front of the sail, and use it to represent the 095 SSN. (LMFAO x2)

Also, I presume that the CMSI authors of this report didn't take into account the Virginia Payload Tube-like multipack VLS cells that we have been discussing in the last couple pages in this thread. Though, it is actually understandable, considering that the multipack VLS cells has only been confirmed to exist in at least one research paper thus far.
As I said, what they expect for the 095 is the current 093B at best.
 

para80

Junior Member
Registered Member
Personal thought: Though, I do feel that the "18x or 21x new nuke subs by 2030" quote is (likely) an underestimation.
Possibly, yes. As Rick noted in reply though, there are too many unknowns at this stage that all shape output. The mix of types produced (especially seeing SSBN do take more effort), the types/transition between SSN. Other drivers external to the yard such as crewing/expenses/infrastructure adaption to support the new larger force and so on. In any case I guess we will have some significant clarity on some of these aspects over the next two years.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Also, I'd like to bring some more information from the report here, relating to @para80's thread on Twitter.


So far, we already knew that 2x new SSNs have been launched since 2022, with the possibility of a 3rd nuke subs launched sometime this year.

In the meantime, there are ~8-9x 093/A SSNs and 6-8x ~094/A SSNs in active service with the PLAN. That's a total of around 14-17x nuclear subs.

(The 091 SSNs and 092 SSBN will be decommissioned very soon, so they aren't taken into consideration.)

Thus far, the alleged/claimed plan from early this year (here and here) listed ~8x 093B SSNs + ~1x 095 SSN + ~2x 094B SSBNs to be constructed by 2025, i.e. 11x new nuke subs for the PLAN by 2025. If that's true, then 18x or 21x new nuclear subs by 2030 means an additional 7x or 9x additional nuke subs for 2026-2030.

~~~

Personal thought: Though, I do feel that the "18x or 21x new nuke subs by 2030" quote is (likely) an underestimation.
I respect Alex thoughts on this one and don't think we need to over think what the new report is saying unless they are a little more clear on the breakdown and such.

I do think 8 093b launched by 2025 is pretty reasonable. All of them joining service is pretty reasonable too.

If we count the last 2 093a as the first really quiet subs that plan has in service, then you basically have 10 Subs probably comparable to akula class by 2028. Whether they have more than that really depends on whether they immediately build another batch of 093b or just go directly to 095. I see merit in the former if they are concerned about a more immediate conflict but also to just continually train more crewmember and support team and just general infrastructure.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Also, I'd like to bring some more information from the report here, relating to @para80's thread on Twitter.


So far, we already knew that 2x new SSNs have been launched since 2022, with the possibility of a 3rd nuke subs launched sometime this year.

In the meantime, there are ~8-9x 093/A SSNs and 6-8x ~094/A SSNs in active service with the PLAN. That's a total of around 14-17x nuclear subs.

(The 091 SSNs and 092 SSBN will be decommissioned very soon, so they aren't taken into consideration.)

Thus far, the alleged/claimed plan from early this year (here and here) listed ~8x 093B SSNs + ~1x 095 SSN + ~2x 094B SSBNs to be constructed by 2025, i.e. 11x new nuke subs for the PLAN by 2025. If that's true, then 18x or 21x new nuclear subs by 2030 means an additional 7x or 9x additional nuke subs for 2026-2030.

~~~

Personal thought: Though, I do feel that the "18x or 21x new nuke subs by 2030" quote is (likely) an underestimation.

This isn't directed specifically at you, but it just so happens to be an example that I happened to see -- can people stop quoting successive tweets if it's literally just a multi-tweet thread?

If you've read a long form thread itself, just paraphrase the argument with a single link to a thread rather than putting in multiple links...

=====

As for the original Sky news segment itself, it is stating that "China is expected to have built 21 nuclear submarines by 2030" -- which is to say, inclusive of the nuclear submarines it already has (minus retirements, but plus new builds) -- 21 nuclear submarines isn't the number of nuclear submarines they are stating that "will be built" between now and 2030 lol.
But more importantly, we shouldn't be giving Sky news any particular attention to begin with, and even Alex's thread on twitter was just pondering about the potential production rate and capacity of the Huludao facility, which is fine, but also literally is not anything new for this thread or forum?


Like, we've literally discussed Huludao's potential production rate/capacity of the new facilities so many times in this very thread, and Alex is also on this forum and reads these threads as well, so I'm just wondering why are we literally repeating content that everyone has already established in the SDF context???


Twitter's average level of PLA comprehension is obviously a few rungs than here, so I don't see the need to duplicate explanations written there for the less PLA-literate for us over here.
 
Last edited:

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
Also, here's a brief illustration on what the CMSI envisioned the 095 SSN to look like (for now):

View attachment 117381

Yes, that "... the Type 095 has the potential to approach the propulsion, quieting, sensors, and weapons capabilities of Russia’s Improved Akula I" one. (LMFAO)

Looks like they just took that cross-sectional model for the alleged 093B SSN, move the 18 VLS tubes towards the front of the sail, and use it to represent the 095 SSN. (LMFAO x2)

Also, I presume that the CMSI authors of this report didn't take into account the Virginia Payload Tube-like multipack VLS cells that we have been discussing in the last couple pages in this thread. Though, it is actually understandable, considering that the multipack VLS cells has only been confirmed to exist in at least one research paper thus far.
And here's one for the 096 SSBN:
008pTJr2ly1hh1yqvqmh1j30wj0nsad0.jpg

12, 14 or 16 SBLM VLS tubes per boat - I guess we'll have to wait and see...
 
Top