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


blindsight

Junior Member
Registered Member
A bit out of topic. Sorry.

Don't think the 054B will approach the cost of the 052D. Two phase arrays working at the same wavelength will have the same density of Rx/Tx elements, and the spacing between each element is about 1/2 of the wavelength. This does not change even if the technology behind the elements changes, and applies the same for both AESA and PESA.

Assuming that the wavelengths of the 054B's search radar and the Type 346A of the 052D is about the same, the element density of both their arrays should be about the same.

Assuming the dual sided array we have seen is for the 054B, its side is only 2.9 meters at X and Y dimensions, and you have two sides. The 052D's main Type 346A arrays are about 4.3 meters estimated in both X and Y dimensions and there are four of them. So the number of AESA elements and modules on the 052D are far greater than the 054B. The greatest cost of these radars lies with each module, and there would be thousands and thousands of them, probably well over 5000 per face on the 052D. Consequentially, the radar on the 052D remains significantly more powerful.

So there is no way the 054B's search radar would cost more than the 052D's, and that probably accounts a considerable chunk of the systems package. AESAs are notorious for being expensive. Adding to the cost of the 052D would be the cooling systems needed for its humongous radars, which has to be embedded in the hull. For the 054B, using the rotating dual sided radar, only a small cooling system is placed within the radar. For the same reasons, the power systems feeding to the radars and cooling systems would be much more powerful on the 052D than on the 054B, which means more generators and other power related infrastructure and so on. The IT systems would have to be more complex to process the information from the larger radars and so on.

There is a serious possibility that the 054B might use the X-band AESA fire control radars from the 055 and that may raise the bill. That's going to raise the upfront cost, but one radar set can replace three mechanical fire control and surface search radars instead. Your med to long term maintenance costs are cheaper because the radar is non mechanical and solid state, compared to the mechanical radars that is subject to wear and tear and requires periodic inspection. Having said to be fair, the dual sided search radar which is rotational, will be subject to wear and tear compared to the fixed main radars of the 052D. But again, this is only a possibility. The 054B might also well retain the old mechanical fire control radars to lower cost and stick to the proven.

The issue with drive trains, IEPS likely with diesel electrics vs. two GT two diesels in CODAG, isn't likely to make a dent in terms of cost compared to the sensor and weapons system integration.

Based on this, the 054B isn't going to cost as much as the 052D, although it will cost more than a 054A on the upfront costs, but at the same time, its not likely the 054B will challenge the 052D for air protection missions either, and like its predecessor, will focus more on a closer range air defense bubble. However, on the mid to long term costs, a 054B with its AESAs can offer potentially better running costs over the 054A in terms of mechanical maintenance costs, offer potentially greater reliability, as in less moving parts, with much greater combat potential especially in AAW.

IMO conclusions, 054B still offers a plate to the ASW table.

Will cost less than a 052D.
Higher upfront costs but lower long term costs than 054A.
The potential of IEP.
The potential for a longer deck for a larger ASW helicopter.
If U-VLS is used, the potential for a new ASROC missile.
Directed high speed digital communications (CEC) with other ships equipped with the same.
Yes, there's no way for the 054B to be more expensive than the 052D, at least when we look at the long term average (assuming the initial price could be higher due to the new technologies).

As for the VLS, if it'll really feature the U-VLS, does that mean it'll rely on the new "555"? So they'll have to trade some range for quantity.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Yes, there's no way for the 054B to be more expensive than the 052D, at least when we look at the long term average (assuming the initial price could be higher due to the new technologies).

As for the VLS, if it'll really feature the U-VLS, does that mean it'll rely on the new "555"? So they'll have to trade some range for quantity.

I suspect they will go 32 VLS as usual but there are nuances that must be noted. I'll put my reply on the 054B thread.
 

tonyget

New Member
Registered Member
So there is no way the 054B's search radar would cost more than the 052D's, and that probably accounts a considerable chunk of the systems package. AESAs are notorious for being expensive. Adding to the cost of the 052D would be the cooling systems needed for its humongous radars, which has to be embedded in the hull. For the 054B, using the rotating dual sided radar, only a small cooling system is placed within the radar. For the same reasons, the power systems feeding to the radars and cooling systems would be much more powerful on the 052D than on the 054B, which means more generators and other power related infrastructure and so on. The IT systems would have to be more complex to process the information from the larger radars and so on.

There is a serious possibility that the 054B might use the X-band AESA fire control radars from the 055 and that may raise the bill. That's going to raise the upfront cost, but one radar set can replace three mechanical fire control and surface search radars instead. Your med to long term maintenance costs are cheaper because the radar is non mechanical and solid state, compared to the mechanical radars that is subject to wear and tear and requires periodic inspection. Having said to be fair, the dual sided search radar which is rotational, will be subject to wear and tear compared to the fixed main radars of the 052D. But again, this is only a possibility. The 054B might also well retain the old mechanical fire control radars to lower cost and stick to the proven.


The largest share in weapon costs is R&D not actual production,the more you buy the more you build the cheaper it will costs. The reason why electronics used in military is so expensive compare to commercial version is production volume is too small.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Really?

Seems that im not the only one that doesnt know.

Don't compare our answers.

What I wrote here, was that there have been strong indications that 09V is intended to be competitive with the world's leading SSN classes, however wanting to confidently claim the extent of that competitiveness is not something we can do.

What you are suggesting here, is outright saying you do not believe that 09V can be competitive at all in general with the world's leading SSN classes.

And what fairandunbiased wrote here, is that the current main domains needed to mitigate noise control specifically in SSNs are a matter of technological advancement in established areas of industry for China.



Out of all of our three posts -- yours is the only one that outright suggests China cannot build or develop a competitive SSN.
Whereas what I wrote was that based on past rumours and indicators it seems like they believe they can develop a competitive SSN in the form of 09V, but the exact extent of competitiveness in various domains is not something we can state.
Whereas for fairandunbiased, he is saying that the specific methods to mitigate noise in submarines is well understood and is merely a matter of technological advancement in terms of machinery and hydrodynamic modelling.
 

weig2000

Senior Member
With the quad-packed missile on display in Zhuhai, I hope 054B will feature quad-packed medium-range SAMs.
Really?

Seems that im not the only one that doesnt know.

It's not like you have posted some profound or informative opinions on 095/096 or Chinese nuclear submarines in general. In fact, you did not provide any arguments or evidence (even garbage ones) to support your opinion. Instead, all you've done is to try to associate whatever you view with others who obviously have their own clear thinking and arguments, to make us somehow believe that your opinion worth something, which most certainly isn't.

But then again, this isn't exactly something new from you.
 

AndrewS

Colonel
Registered Member
The largest share in weapon costs is R&D not actual production,the more you buy the more you build the cheaper it will costs. The reason why electronics used in military is so expensive compare to commercial version is production volume is too small.

Actually that is not accurate.

But the exact figures (for the US Navy) are buried away in an old post last year

If I look at the 2017 report, it is:

R&D Total: $61B
Procurement Total: $241B


Just a short backtrack to economies of scale.

The GAO have helpfully collated the R&D and Procurement costs of major Navy acquisition programmes.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


If I look at the 2017 report, it is:

R&D Total: $61B
Procurement Total: $241B

Given fixed R&D costs - a doubling of procurement would result in a cost increase of 78% - assuming each unit costs the same.

But twice as many units are being purchased, so we can actually expect additional cost savings.
 
Last edited:

BoraTas

Junior Member
Registered Member
Nice chart but it makes me wonder how whales do it? After all, their cries and songs can still be heard as far as 10,000 miles away.
Active sonars are really powerful. For example, Turkey currently has the specs of a fairly modern active sonar element public.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The transmitting voltage response of the element is 151.5 dB microPascal/V at 1 m at 7.5 kHz. The driving voltage is 600 V. This means the sound intensity level (SIL) of the element at 1 m and 7.5 kHz will be 179.3 dB. Its receiving sensitivity is 10.5 dB higher. This element was used in a Turkish hull-mounted sonar for corvettes. That sonar looks like this:

yakamos.jpg
Each vertical column has 8 elements, which means each vertical column will generate 188.3 dB (SIL). The increased gain (by 9dB) would make this equal to 197.3 dB. With a single column and a fairly noisy warship (let's say 140 dB), we can already detect submarines from around 600 meters away. With other columns, it is very possible that this sonar has a SIL close to 200 dB and an array gain of 30 dB. This would mean a 100 km detection range against submarines for our noisy corvette if ignore losses. If we account for losses this would decrease to 15-20 km.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Junior Member
Registered Member
Active sonars are really powerful. For example, Turkey currently has the specs of a fairly modern active sonar element public.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The transmitting voltage response of the element is 151.5 dB microPascal/V at 1 m at 7.5 kHz. The driving voltage is 600 V. This means the sound intensity level (SIL) of the element at 1 m and 7.5 kHz will be 179.3 dB. Its receiving sensitivity is 10.5 dB higher. This element was used in a Turkish hull-mounted sonar for corvettes. That sonar looks like this:

View attachment 77546
Each vertical column has 8 elements, which means each vertical column will generate 188.3 dB (SIL). The increased gain (by 9dB) would make this equal to 197.3 dB. With a single column and a fairly noisy warship (let's say 140 dB), we can already detect submarines from around 600 meters away. With other columns, it is very possible that this sonar has a SIL close to 200 dB and an array gain of 30 dB. This would mean a 100 km detection range against submarines for our noisy corvette if ignore losses. If we account for losses this would decrease to 15-20 km.
also note that towed sonars can be active, and they are decoupled from ship noise. So even though they may have lower transmission powers, they have FAR lower background.
 

Top