Type 09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread


AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Trying to definitively confirm the precise number of nuclear submarine hulls is nigh impossible.

Not trying to put a damper on the discussion, but I think at best what we can say with a straight face is to give a range in terms of the number of hulls that may exist.


That said, we do have good reason to believe that assembly of at least one submarine has been underway in the new large assembly hall since 2020. But beyond that, trying to guess how many they may have now, and trying to guess how many nuclear submarines they have in total, or by class/type, is very difficult if not impossible.

Just been looking at the literature again, and my best guess is that the latest Type-093B submarines are 110db at most.
That compares with the Improved Akula (110dB) and the Improved Los Angeles (105-110dB).

And the fact that the US has described the latest submarines as the Type-093B denotes that it still has the same powerplant and propulsion train (for acoustic signature purposes)

So we can reasonably conclude that the upcoming Type-095 SSN design will be comparable to the Virginia or Yasen (90-95dB)
And we've already seen 2 new huge assembly halls completed at Huludao, almost certainly with the Type-095 in mind.

It's been 19 years since the first Type-093 SSN was produced, so a successor class is overdue.

There was also a 18 year gap between the first Los Angeles and the subsequent Seawolf that was laid down in the shipyard.
The Russians also originally planned to have a 14 year gap from the first Akula to the Yasen.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Just been looking at the literature again, and my best guess is that the latest Type-093B submarines are 110db at most.
That compares with the Improved Akula (110dB) and the Improved Los Angeles (105-110dB).

And the fact that the US has described the latest submarines as the Type-093B denotes that it still has the same powerplant and propulsion train (for acoustic signature purposes)

So we can reasonably conclude that the upcoming Type-095 SSN design will be comparable to the Virginia or Yasen (90-95dB)
And we've already seen 2 new huge assembly halls completed at Huludao, almost certainly with the Type-095 in mind.

It's been 19 years since the first Type-093 SSN was produced, so a successor class is overdue.

There was also a 18 year gap between the first Los Angeles and the subsequent Seawolf that was laid down in the shipyard.
The Russians also originally planned to have a 14 year gap from the first Akula to the Yasen.

Uhh the post that I wrote didn't have any speculation or discussion about the capability of 09III, so I'm not sure why you're quoting me there.
 

retac21

New Member
Registered Member
Just been looking at the literature again, and my best guess is that the latest Type-093B submarines are 110db at most.
That compares with the Improved Akula (110dB) and the Improved Los Angeles (105-110dB).

And the fact that the US has described the latest submarines as the Type-093B denotes that it still has the same powerplant and propulsion train (for acoustic signature purposes)

So we can reasonably conclude that the upcoming Type-095 SSN design will be comparable to the Virginia or Yasen (90-95dB)
And we've already seen 2 new huge assembly halls completed at Huludao, almost certainly with the Type-095 in mind.

It's been 19 years since the first Type-093 SSN was produced, so a successor class is overdue.

There was also a 18 year gap between the first Los Angeles and the subsequent Seawolf that was laid down in the shipyard.
The Russians also originally planned to have a 14 year gap from the first Akula to the Yasen.
Some big assumptions there. First, the noise levels is broadband noise and only the Russians have especulated about it, so it may be, or not, real. Then, we know that current sonars focus on specific components for detection and classification, so it may not be representative at all. Further, even if using the same reactor and turbines as other classes, silencing measures could be applied to reduce signature, but that's complicated and expensive.

Finally, the time between classes is not representative of anything, that is driven by industrial capabilities, funding and operational needs, none of which would have a bearing on silencing.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Some big assumptions there. First, the noise levels is broadband noise and only the Russians have especulated about it, so it may be, or not, real. Then, we know that current sonars focus on specific components for detection and classification, so it may not be representative at all. Further, even if using the same reactor and turbines as other classes, silencing measures could be applied to reduce signature, but that's complicated and expensive.

I'd say reasonable assumptions given what we know.

Broadband noise emissions is what counts for long range detection.
But you would expect them to work on higher frequencies as well.

Finally, the time between classes is not representative of anything, that is driven by industrial capabilities, funding and operational needs, none of which would have a bearing on silencing.

In terms of (raw) industrial capabilities, funding and operational needs - the Chinese Navy has far greater requirements and resources than the Russian Navy.

And what is submarine silencing but the combination of [industrial capability] + [funding] + [time to develop, test and build]
 

retac21

New Member
Registered Member
I'd say reasonable assumptions given what we know.

Broadband noise emissions is what counts for long range detection.
But you would expect them to work on higher frequencies as well.



In terms of (raw) industrial capabilities, funding and operational needs - the Chinese Navy has far greater requirements and resources than the Russian Navy.

And what is submarine silencing but the combination of [industrial capability] + [funding] + [time to develop, test and build]
If they are so advanced in silencing as you imply, long range detection is out of the window, so boradband noise again becomes irrelevant. Making your assumptions unreasonable.

Re the second, yes, indeed, but we aren't seeing hardware yet, so the indications are that they are not satisified with what they have,
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
If they are so advanced in silencing as you imply, long range detection is out of the window, so boradband noise again becomes irrelevant. Making your assumptions unreasonable.

Re the second, yes, indeed, but we aren't seeing hardware yet, so the indications are that they are not satisified with what they have,

110db is still detectable above background noise, but at much shorter distances.

But 95db seems to be the benchmark for ocean background noise.

Well, it takes time to ramp up submarine construction. But you can see they are building a vast new construction complex for nuclear submarines.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
110db is still detectable above background noise, but at much shorter distances.

But 95db seems to be the benchmark for ocean background noise.

Well, it takes time to ramp up submarine construction. But you can see they are building a vast new construction complex for nuclear submarines.

According to the Chinese wiki entry, 110db has a context. To be precise it is 110db/1yrd or on the first yard from the submarine. You have to remember that as you get farther from the submarine, the sound level goes down dramatically, with the curve shape based on the sound frequency.
 

retac21

New Member
Registered Member
According to the Chinese wiki entry, 110db has a context. To be precise it is 110db/1yrd or on the first yard from the submarine. You have to remember that as you get farther from the submarine, the sound level goes down dramatically, with the curve shape based on the sound frequency.
This. Let me stress this again, all we have to judge is anecdotal evidence. The PLAN is not going to have access to the noise levels of other navies other than what is published, which is unlikely to be relevant, and what they gathered themselves, which, at this point is unlikely to be a lot. it doesn't mean it will always be like this, and I agree that recent construction seems to point out that they are ready to crank up production of something, but we (nor does anyone else) know how this will compare to other navies that have the experience under their belt of operating SSNs vs other SSNs. We will have to wait and see what comes out, if it comes out.
 

ansy1968

Colonel
Registered Member
This. Let me stress this again, all we have to judge is anecdotal evidence. The PLAN is not going to have access to the noise levels of other navies other than what is published, which is unlikely to be relevant, and what they gathered themselves, which, at this point is unlikely to be a lot. it doesn't mean it will always be like this, and I agree that recent construction seems to point out that they are ready to crank up production of something, but we (nor does anyone else) know how this will compare to other navies that have the experience under their belt of operating SSNs vs other SSNs. We will have to wait and see what comes out, if it comes out.
@retac21 bro what about Russia? they may share and provide the noise signature, they're cooperating in a lot of areas, like Ballistic Missile Warning System which more strategic in mature.
 

retac21

New Member
Registered Member
@retac21 bro what about Russia? they may share and provide the noise signature, they're cooperating in a lot of areas, like Ballistic Missile Warning System which more strategic in mature.
Yes, they may, but why? providing the signature of their own submarines is a big no no. And giving up the one they may have gathered on US subs would be giving up a state secret for no gain at all. And they would be "owned" by the Russian Navy, not the industrial enterprises.

It's better for the Russians to not provide anything and instead sell the technologies that they claim reduce the noise signature to a level comparable to the US or better, and then let the PLAN find out if this is so. Also, in contrast to other items, former Soviet submarine bureaus remained all in Russia, so access to their information would be limited.

And then, there's stuff like this:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


So I would rule out significant Russian collaboration in anything other than conventional designs or specific items, and, as the Soviets found out painfully, submarine silencing needs to be tackled as an overall approach involving all the systems in the submarine, no matter how small and irrelevant it may seem.
 

Top