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

Jiang ZeminFanboy

Senior Member
Registered Member
The lastest 09III is a B-variant, isn't it? Anyway, what I mean is the 09III is just similar to the 052X series while the 09V analogous to the 055.
Yes, 9IIIB-variant should be getting built right now.

This edit visualizes how another SSN sized hull on the adjacent 7.34m rail would look.
The clearance between the two is slightly over 5m at its narrowest.

For those who don't recall, this assembly hall has six sets of 7.34m rails + is 288m long, aka over double length of a contemporary SSN (Virginia 115m, Astute 97m).


Obviously I'm not suggesting they will be simultaneously assembling twelve SSN's worth of modules in the hall at any one time -- but it does show there's a lot of floor area involved, and as long expected, this hall and its rail gauges are oriented in such a way to likely allow two adjacent 7.34m rails to each hold an SSN adjacent to one another.

View attachment 68239
 

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
From what I could find in my archive the table comes from this book:
Thanks for the effort, I appreciate it. So, if I got this right, those figures are guesswork by Russian authors, some research institute members, but mostly concerning NATO subs. While, at the same time, western authors provided guesswork numbers about Soviet subs. (not from your post) But it seems that neither side is really attempting to guesstimate their own subs' capabilities. It's weird that even 30 years after the Cold war we still don't have a single official source talking about the performance of their old subs. Meaning US sources talking about US subs and Russian sources talking about Soviet subs.

Ok, these authors you mention do mention some Soviet subs, but given the discrepancies, (110 vs 120 db) it seems they too are mostly guessing and are not basing their numbers of some official soviet documents being disclosed. If only Russia retired their Victor subs, maybe there'd be some chance in hell of getting some decent numbers. Then again, Sturgeon is now long retired and I've not seen an official US source talking about it either...
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Thanks for the effort, I appreciate it. So, if I got this right, those figures are guesswork by Russian authors, some research institute members, but mostly concerning NATO subs. While, at the same time, western authors provided guesswork numbers about Soviet subs. (not from your post) But it seems that neither side is really attempting to guesstimate their own subs' capabilities. It's weird that even 30 years after the Cold war we still don't have a single official source talking about the performance of their old subs. Meaning US sources talking about US subs and Russian sources talking about Soviet subs.

Ok, these authors you mention do mention some Soviet subs, but given the discrepancies, (110 vs 120 db) it seems they too are mostly guessing and are not basing their numbers of some official soviet documents being disclosed. If only Russia retired their Victor subs, maybe there'd be some chance in hell of getting some decent numbers. Then again, Sturgeon is now long retired and I've not seen an official US source talking about it either...
I think some amount of fuzziness comes down to the fact that acoustic detection in water is much more varied by conditions than EM detection by air, as the underwater environment is just a lot noisier and the medium is not as neutral to signal transmission.

But I also don’t think you will get a declassification of this sort of old intel anytime soon because the amount of improvement in technical ability across generations of technology may not be that large anymore so knowing this information for older generations could help you triangulate what present capabilities are like far too easily.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
When each boat sounds different, and they do, that's why some countries take the trouble of sending its own submarines to attempt to record the audio signature of the new submarine or surface warship.

Even ships and subs within a class will sound different, some will be quieter.

Let me also add that a refit of the same ship would also change its acoustic signature from its former self.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
The lastest 09III is a B-variant, isn't it? Anyway, what I mean is the 09III is just similar to the 052X series while the 09V analogous to the 055.

I am not sure if the latest is called an A or a B variant. The letter designations seems more for Internet watcher convenience than it is used formally..

I would agree that the 09IIIX is analogous to the 052X, and 09V is an entirely new class of submarine.
 

antiterror13

Brigadier
For a sub to disappear like a "black hole" in the ocean, its noise level should match that of the ocean's underwater background or ambient level of noise. That's around 60 to 90db. So its safe to say, if you want to disappear like a black hole, 85db to 90db is the minimum. I would think the Kilos, which are nicknamed "black hole", achieved this level.

I think the Kilo achieved that level when on battery
 

blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
I am not sure if the latest is called an A or a B variant. The letter designations seems more for Internet watcher convenience than it is used formally..

I would agree that the 09IIIX is analogous to the 052X, and 09V is an entirely new class of submarine.
Someone says the lastest variant will be built in numbers. If that's the case, the formal designation will more likely be 09IIIB. Who knows...
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
I think the latest 09III spotted with the notched sail, is still a 09IIIA variant unless there are significant changes in the sail mounted sensors and sonar equipment, along with other collective changes in the entire sub, something that cannot be verified with fuzzy pictures. Other than the usual updates and refinements to the sensor suite, our 'notched' sail 09IIIA is still a A. While we have little information about the sonar suite, I don't get the impression that the PLAN is dissatisfied with the 09IIIA's sonar suite to change it, rather, like the 052C/D, they scored a bullseye on the suite and will likely stick to it for a long time.

PLAN letter change to A to B tend to be major changes: 054 to 054A, 052 to 052B to 052C to 052D. Even the new radar on the 052D extended does not merit calling the new ship 052E. 056 to 056A represents a significant sensor change, or to be more precise, addition.

For that matter, its better to refer to changes within the production series as "batches", or "Flight" or "Block". A letter change, like from A to B, is like a new class to itself. So 09IIIA to 09IIIB would be a new class change by contemporary standards in the West.
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
The 054A is disappointingly still being procured. I would have liked to see the 054B/057 begin production now, but it seems it needs more time in the oven. However, it's somewhat like the ZTZ-96 in being a "supplemental" capability, with the bulk of work in high intensity naval combat being done by destroyers. I guess the PLAN decided it was more important to get those in shape before the frigates, and so long as the frigates can plug into the battle network properly they'll be fine. But once again, this does not apply to a high end capability like an SSN.

What is the role of the Type-054A now?

In the past 5 years, China has launched 25 destroyers (both Type-052D and the Type-055)

But surface ships are acutely vulnerable to surprise submarine torpedo attacks, which the Chinese Navy can expect.

And when I look at the overall PLAN Orbat, I see a shortage of ASW frigates to provide convoy escort, patrol local waters and also provide an ASW screening ship for higher value surface warships.

My guestimate is that a notional Type-054B would approach the same cost as a Type-052D destroyer. That is based on the Type-054B using a comparable level of electronics fitout as the Type-055, European frigates or Japanese destroyer escorts - and their known costs.

So it wouldn't make sense to build Type-054B frigates to screen a Type-052D destroyer.

What you want is a low-value ASW screening ship that an opposing submarine doesn't want to engage.
For that purpose, a cheaper Type-054A has the exact same ASW capabilities as a more expensive Type-054B.

The lower-performing radar and electronics suite of the Type-054A wouldn't be an issue, as the Type-052D would be providing long-range radars and air defence.

Anyway, back on topic.
 
Top