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


weig2000

Senior Member
@weig2000 bro I know ,I think from my perspective it is software that is needed now with the design of type 9V frozen and due for production any help (design and silencing tech) coming from the Russia is for future iteration improvement.

My only concern is that it may delay the mass production of type 9V, as the Chinese study and learn what the Russian provide(the type 52C sample instead of the 52D). Instead of having them in 2025 (crucial year) in significant numbers, we will have to wait until 2030 that is a long gestation time.

I was saying software would be a big issue ultimately, similar to the EWS, which has a similar software/data issue and is the main one.

But in terms of nuclear submarines, hardware is the main issue before you start to operate it, after which software starts to dominate. There are a bunch of key challenges such as reactor, hull construction, noise reduction etc. If you trace some of the official or semi-official reports/documents/news over the years, you get the sense that they have made progress across the board in all areas or key subsystems. I suppose 2025 is some milestone date, but it's difficult to know the exact details or dates, particularly now with the crackdown on any defense information disclosure/discussion.
 

Tyler

Senior Member
Registered Member
The 1st new construction hall is huge and can fit 12 SSNs or 3 SSBNs at one time. It just started operation.

Then they decided they needed a 2nd huge construction hall, which can fit 8 SSNs or 2 SSBNs at one time.

This is just for submarines, so you have to draw your own conclusions on what this means.

Assuming they have a competitive submarine design, I think they're aiming to ramp up to at least 3 SSNs per year.
Such a production rate should be sustainable for the next 20+ years
That's a lot of stuff to be cranked out soon.
 

AndrewS

Colonel
Registered Member
The difference in noise level between SSN-774 (Virginia) and SSN-751 (Improved Los Angeles) is given as 13dB. For passive sonar 15dB difference results in maximum detection distance of thirty-one meters.

The difference in noise level between SSN-774 and SSN-688 (Los Angeles) is given as 18dB. For passive sonar 20dB difference results in maximum detection distance of one hundred meters.

The difference in noise level between SSN-774 and SSN-637 (Sturgeon) is given as 35dB. For passive sonar 35dB difference results in maximum detection distance of three kilometers.

My view is that 688 (Los Angeles) is the minimum requirement, and that the latest Chinese design is almost certainly better.

PLAN doesn't need to match USN sub for sub and dB for dB. It needs to be able to put to sea a fleet of 20 or 30 "good enough" SSNs and keep the production line going for the next generation of vessels and USN is in deep trouble with current numbers. Anything more or better and it's a completely novel situation that the USN has never been in before.

The US Navy only has 5-6 submarines on patrol at any time.

But with a Chinese fleet of 30 submarines, 20+ could surge past the 1st Island Chain and then disappear into the Pacific.

And this is why USN is so desperately trying to get more Virginias or wants XLUUVs. Because the submarine game is a numbers and positions game, not a "one good swordsman is worth ten bad ones." If it was then USN would be gunning for top performance at the expense of numbers and it isn't.

Yes, I see underwater warfare moving to a number's game as well.

On that note, it would be comparatively easier for the Chinese Navy to build large numbers of UUVs to offset the current US undersea advantage. Nuclear submarines are expensive and just take too long to develop and build.

So I perhaps a lot of the new Bohai construction capacity will be used for UUVs.

From a strategic perspective, China doesn't yet have a global carrier fleet to wrest blue-water control, and realistically it will take a minimum of another 15 years, even if there was a huge buildup.

But China's core territorial objectives lie in its neighbouring waters.
Plus China dominates its neighbours in terms of economic and military heft.
The other interesting thing is that China and its neighbours comprise a larger concentration of economic, industrial and scientific/R&D strength than the US+Europe combined.

So theoretically, China doesn't need blue-water control of the deep Pacific, as long as the Western Pacific can be sealed off from the US Navy. For that mission, a large fleet of submarines would be much quicker to build than carrier groups.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
So I perhaps a lot of the new Bohai construction capacity will be used for UUVs.

Bohai is currently China's only nuclear capable shipyard, and the only nuclear submarine yard for the foreseeable future.
The new facilities and assembly halls are sized really for SSBNs and SSNs (also, the new southern assembly hall is likely going to be used only for SSNs, not SSBNs -- the arrangement of its rails are not spaced like the eastern assembly hall -- it only has 7.3m gauges, no 13.5m gauges).

I can't see why they'd build UUVs there unless you're thinking of something much much more ambitious.
 

AndrewS

Colonel
Registered Member
Bohai is currently China's only nuclear capable shipyard, and the only nuclear submarine yard for the foreseeable future.
The new facilities and assembly halls are sized really for SSBNs and SSNs (also, the new southern assembly hall is likely going to be used only for SSNs, not SSBNs -- the arrangement of its rails are not spaced like the eastern assembly hall -- it only has 7.3m gauges, no 13.5m gauges).

I can't see why they'd build UUVs there unless you're thinking of something much much more ambitious.

We're in the early days of an underwater warfare revolution (mainly due to AI and unmanned), so nobody knows what the optimum mix and size of underwater submarines will be

My gut tells me that large numbers of unmanned underwater fighter and surveillance drones will be a key element, similar to today's situation with aircraft carriers and naval fighter jets.

But nobody can actually say definitely, so you might as well size your production facilities on the large side to accommodate today's large submarine designs.

EDIT

For example, an Orca XLUUV currently costs about $60M.
But for the $3.4B cost of a single Virginia SSN, you could buy 56 Orcas to act as sensor and payload platforms.

Chinese Orcas should be able to silently drop mines across all the ports in the Western Pacific, including Guam. And come to think of it, further afield as well like Hawaii or San Diego.
Of course, China could face the same issue with its ports.

But the difference is that China is a huge continental nation that can be largely self-sufficient.
In comparison, all the other countries are small littoral island nations that need seaborne traffic to survive
The US also needs local ports to supply its expeditionary forces
 
Last edited:

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
We're in the early days of an underwater warfare revolution (mainly due to AI and unmanned), so nobody knows what the optimum mix and size of underwater submarines will be

My gut tells me that large numbers of unmanned underwater fighter and surveillance drones will be a key element, similar to today's situation with aircraft carriers and naval fighter jets.

But nobody can actually say definitely, so you might as well size your production facilities on the large side to accommodate today's large submarine designs.

EDIT

For example, an Orca XLUUV currently costs about $60M.
But for the $3.4B cost of a single Virginia SSN, you could buy 56 Orcas to act as sensor and payload platforms.

Chinese Orcas should be able to silently drop mines across all the ports in the Western Pacific, including Guam. And come to think of it, further afield as well like Hawaii or San Diego.
Of course, China could face the same issue with its ports.

But the difference is that China is a huge continental nation that can be largely self-sufficient.
In comparison, all the other countries are small littoral island nations that need seaborne traffic to survive
The US also needs local ports to supply its expeditionary forces

My point is that the new Bohai facilities are for full sized proper nuclear submarines.

I cannot see why they would be required to build UUVs -- even extra large UUVs -- at Bohai... Unless you envision future UUVs that approach the size of SSNs.
 

AndrewS

Colonel
Registered Member
My point is that the new Bohai facilities are for full sized proper nuclear submarines.

I cannot see why they would be required to build UUVs -- even extra large UUVs -- at Bohai... Unless you envision future UUVs that approach the size of SSNs.

My point is that we don't know what the optimum UUV sizes will be in the future. I expect they will be bigger than todays and really be mass produced compared to submarines today.

So if you're building construction halls, you might as well size everything to current standards. Otherwise you would have to develop another (smaller) rail track size and distance separation just for UUVs, which may actually turn out to be too small in the future
 

The Observer

Junior Member
Registered Member
My point is that we don't know what the optimum UUV sizes will be in the future. I expect they will be bigger than todays and really be mass produced compared to submarines today.

So if you're building construction halls, you might as well size everything to current standards. Otherwise you would have to develop another (smaller) rail track size and distance separation just for UUVs, which may actually turn out to be too small in the future
Even then it still doesn't really add up. Bohai facility is for nuke subs. It can make XXLUUVs, but why not delegate that task to the facilities making SSK/SSPs? The 039A/B/C/D are still pretty big subs, and facilities that can build it can also build XXLUUVs. Unless if the XXLUUV is nuclear powered, of course.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Bohai is currently China's only nuclear capable shipyard, and the only nuclear submarine yard for the foreseeable future.
The new facilities and assembly halls are sized really for SSBNs and SSNs (also, the new southern assembly hall is likely going to be used only for SSNs, not SSBNs -- the arrangement of its rails are not spaced like the eastern assembly hall -- it only has 7.3m gauges, no 13.5m gauges).

I can't see why they'd build UUVs there unless you're thinking of something much much more ambitious.

True. You can build UUVs in other places, such as Wuchang shipyard in Wuhan, or Jiangnan shipyard which made that sailless submarine, which could be a large UUV.
 

Top