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


AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
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.

Potentially Jiangnan and Wuchang shipyards are going to be expensive locations in the future, because they are part of the cities of Shanghai and Wuhan respectively. In comparison, Bohai is going to remain low-cost because of its location. So you would want to push naval construction to Bohai, which includes UUVs.

So let's say all of Bohai's construction halls are dedicated to SSN or SSBNs, as has been suggested

The 2nd construction hall could hold 8 SSNs for assembly, because it doesn't have the rail spacing for a SSBN sized submarine
The 1st construction hall could hold a combination of another 3 SSBNs or 12 SSNs

Based on the 10-12 month shortest assembly time like we see with the Virginia SSN, you end up with a ridiculously high production capacity, which is beyond the realm of any conceivable estimate of sustainable production.

The 2nd construction hall could be pumping out 8 SSNs per year.
After 10 years, there would be 80 SSNs in total
After 20 years, there would be 160 SSNs
After 30 years, there would be 240 SSNs

And what about production from the 1st construction hall which is 50% larger?

Hence my conclusion that there will be other (unmanned) submarines being built at Bohai.

Or potentially, we could have very large submarine motherships carrying underwater drone fighters and other UUVs
But as @Bltizo has pointed out, the 2nd construction hall doesn't have the rail spacing for this. Only the 1st construction hall has
 
Last edited:

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Potentially Jiangnan and Wuchang shipyards are going to be expensive locations in the future, because they are part of the cities of Shanghai and Wuhan respectively. In comparison, Bohai is going to remain low-cost because of its location. So you would want to push naval construction to Bohai, which includes UUVs.

So let's say all of Bohai's construction halls are dedicated to SSN or SSBNs, as has been suggested

The 2nd construction hall could hold 8 SSNs for assembly, because it doesn't have the rail spacing for a SSBN sized submarine
The 1st construction hall could hold a combination of another 3 SSBNs or 12 SSNs

Based on the 10-12 month shortest assembly time like we see with the Virginia SSN, you end up with a ridiculously high production capacity, which is beyond the realm of any conceivable estimate of sustainable production.

The 2nd construction hall could be pumping out 8 SSNs per year.
After 10 years, there would be 80 SSNs in total
After 20 years, there would be 160 SSNs
After 30 years, there would be 240 SSNs

And what about production from the 1st construction hall which is 50% larger?

Hence my conclusion that there will be other (unmanned) submarines being built at Bohai.

Or potentially, we could have very large submarine motherships carrying underwater drone fighters and other UUVs
But as @Bltizo has pointed out, the 2nd construction hall doesn't have the rail spacing for this. Only the 1st construction hall has

Actually Jiangnan is no longer part of the Shanghai city proper, it already sold its original shipyard long ago. Its located in the Changxing island, so its outside of the city proper and the island has been zoned for shipbuilders. The shipyard is so big that a submarine will be hard to find. People will notice the carrier first, but miss the sub.

E4u8umlUcAMhjvu.jpeg

I often wonder how many Yuans have come out of the shipyard that we visually miss.

Wuchang shipyard isn't a problem either for producing UUVs. They have produced everything from tugboats to coast guard vessels to corvettes for export.

The sail less submarine previously spotted from Jiangnan is likely a large UUV.
 

Maikeru

Senior Member
Registered Member
Actually Jiangnan is no longer part of the Shanghai city proper, it already sold its original shipyard long ago. Its located in the Changxing island, so its outside of the city proper and the island has been zoned for shipbuilders. The shipyard is so big that a submarine will be hard to find. People will notice the carrier first, but miss the sub.

View attachment 77304

I often wonder how many Yuans have come out of the shipyard that we visually miss.

Wuchang shipyard isn't a problem either for producing UUVs. They have produced everything from tugboats to coast guard vessels to corvettes for export.

The sail less submarine previously spotted from Jiangnan is likely a large UUV.
Wuchang has a new and much larger site further down the Yangtze now. Not sure if they still use the city centre site.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Wuchang has a new and much larger site further down the Yangtze now. Not sure if they still use the city centre site.

The issue is that Wuchang and Jiangnan will still be drawing from the same labour force pool as Wuhan and Shanghai.

So as wages and property costs increase in these cities, shipbuilding costs at Wuhan and Shanghai will increase as well.
That applies particularly for the submarines which are very labour intensive when compared to surface ships.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Captain
Registered Member
The 2nd construction hall could be pumping out 8 SSNs per year.
That's not how it works. The southern hall has 8 slots, but it takes more than a year to construct a submarine. Suppose it takes two years, hence we would have 4 slots handling "year 1" submarines and the other 4 handling "year 2" submarines. At the end of the year the hall would launch 4 and the other 4 would move to "year 2". The now empty 4 slots would take in a new "year 1" batch, etc. This means the hall would launch on average 4 subs per year.
 

caudaceus

Junior Member
Registered Member
That's not how it works. The southern hall has 8 slots, but it takes more than a year to construct a submarine. Suppose it takes two years, hence we would have 4 slots handling "year 1" submarines and the other 4 handling "year 2" submarines. At the end of the year the hall would launch 4 and the other 4 would move to "year 2". The now empty 4 slots would take in a new "year 1" batch, etc. This means the hall would launch on average 4 subs per year.
Only 2 years to build a sub? I thought it will take 5 years min?
 

ZeEa5KPul

Captain
Registered Member
Only 2 years to build a sub? I thought it will take 5 years min?
1. The number of years it takes the US to build a sub isn't the number of years it takes China.

2. The total number of years isn't spent in those halls. They're assembly halls - modules go in, completed submarines come out.

The analysis took two years as an illustrative example. The point is that you have to divide the number of slots by the number of years a submarine spends in those halls to get the average annual output.
 

JSL

Junior Member
Registered Member
Are you suggesting that Chinese subs have to be comparable to American subs as if they were fighter planes headed for a one-on-one duel? That's not how modern submarines work!

First read this post:


Now consider:

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.

That's how submarines see their targets. You see where I am going with it? If not then here's the answer:

The reason why American submarines could hunt Soviet submarines was because until the end of the cold war NATO held significant technological advantage over Soviet submarines that was decisive. American subs were so much quieter and American sonars so much better than American subs could play "air battles" with Soviet subs and Soviets countered it with speed or diving depth.

The ideas for stealth aircraft came from studies of submarine tactics. But that advantage came from significant difference in noise levels and sonar capabilities. Once Soviets matched it - with Improved Akula - scenarios such as "The Hunt for the Red October" were no longer possible. Instead what you get is the British and French SSBNs crashing into each other because neither could hear the other until it was too late.

There is some space for maneuver with conformal and flank array sonars and increasing sonar gain in tower arrays but once noise levels gets cut to background noise level - standard is 90dB - submarines become effectively invisible to passive detection because they become quieter than the sea itself.

The reason why there's a SSN with every carrier group is because that's how you can keep a towed array hidden at depth to counter disturbances caused by thermal layers and other environmental factors. A surface ship can also drag a TASS but it can be spotted by long-range detection while a submarine can't. So the sub is a stealthy way to put a passive sensor ahead of the group or keep it at 200-300m depth while the surface ASW escort has it at 50-100m.

The main reason for having nuclear submarines is the ability to quickly (in nautical terms - at 15-20 knots) move an asset from one place to another without revealing its location to sensors other than passive sonar - so no satellites, no patrol aircraft, no radar etc. Then they lay in wait like snipers. That's what subs are - snipers. Not berserkers running naked into battle.

Because of that to counter US submarines PLAN has surface ships and aviation and not submarines. Submarines are offensive weapons and ambush tools. If you want to think about competition between USN and PLAN in this field you have to rethink your entire understanding of which naval asset does what.

As for China being unable to match US and Russia on technical level, that is soon going to be in the past as well.

What you need to know is what causes the greatest reduction in noise levels:
  • quality of manufacturing of key mechanical elements,
  • ability to measure and model ship noise in practice,
The reason why Soviet subs were significantly louder before USSR acquired numerical machine tools which introduced greater precision and quality for moving parts and propellers. It happened in the 70s and 80s and those revolutionary tools which resulted in noise reduction from Victor III levels to Improved Akula levels are antiques compared to modern industrial machinery. Improved Akula is inferior to latest US SSNs but it nevertheless is a threat that requires that the submarine be deployed to counter it.

So the only thing that China needs is time to learn. They needed to catch up with the 70s, 80s and 90s while having equipment and computing power of the 00s and 10s and the Soviet case study to learn from.

USS San Juan (SSN-751) was laid down in 1982 and entered service in 1988. Considering the production rate of the boats in the class it means that its mechanical design is the product of late 70s and its electronics including sonar was the product of early 80s with minor updates until the MLU overhaul in 2010. If PLAN had San Juan type of submarine it would be a nightmare for USN. Even if the advantage is still on American side San Juan forces USN to go into the field and do the hard work.


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.

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.

China already had SSN compareable to the SSN-751. The latest 093 are at least as good as the improved LA class !
 

Top