09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread
- Thread starter SinoSoldier
- Start date
I don't think the Soviet experience is one comparable because the security concerns and situations are different.
1-During the cold war , the threat of nuclear war are almost definitive. To the point that for a long time it dominated the doctrine for both side, back then it was a immediate threat , and the US wasn't on a 10 year dev cycle in between classes either.
We live in a time that sudden nuclear war is not the primary drive for weapon development .
2-Soviet had much safter lunch areas then China has ,given the direct sea accesses to north pole, and the distance from NATO assets Soviet subs could get out and be hidden in the north pole , even then Soviet subs was often followed by US SSNs .
Compared to that , first Island is severely limits China's options , the only viable place China can hide a sub is the south China sea or Bohai. Both are too close for comfort to US and Japan anti submarine assets.
Bohai is too shallow, consider that a sub is about 15m high , and the safety margins to not be running into things. About 10m of water above is to hide ,10m below is to be safe , the sub is 15m ,so a depth of 35m is needed say the least (sea floor depth attached below). South China sea is quite far to control and quite bit farther from the intended target.
Under those conditions , it makes more sense for China to look else where for its need for 2nd strike , which it does though underground digging over the last 50 years.
3-As stated above JL2 ballistic missile is still long way form been able to hit US from south China sea ,JL2 requires the subs carrying it to get though the first Island Chain to be able to carry it out a nuclear strike on US mainland , which it cannot reliably do.
The next generation of sea based ballistic missiles is not going to be showing up before the 2030s, been a typically a long development cycle weapon as the submarine that carries it.
In conclusion the need for a new SSBN for China is not nearly as high as it was for the Soviet during the cold war, the principle 2nd strike ability is maintained mainly by land based mobile launchers in tunnels ,and the operational reality is that naval nuclear ability cannot fill the the requirement of been a reliable 2nd strike option against US in the near future.
There for under those conditions , it would make sense to investing more in surface warfare ships , and put the SSN and SSBN on a back burner , building up the know how and engineering team experience though solid prototyping prosses.
And I think that what we are seeing right now.
The experience in the US and UK across a number of different platform types is different to that of China, and that has primarily been due to a difference in technological availability and industry maturity.
The Chinese destroyer experience is an excellent comparison.
Between 1997 and 2017, China launched six different classes of destroyers all that were at minimum:
-saw structural differences between one another
-were equipped with different subsystems from each successive class
-experienced advancements between successive classes (barring deliberate conservative backups)
Those classes were:
1997 - 051B
2002 - 052B
2003 - 052C
2004 - 051C
2012 - 052D
2017 - 055
As we can see, the PLAN rapidly iterated with new destroyer classes of small numbers, where each small production run was integrated with new subsystems and technologies.
As more mature and capable subsystems emerged, they were willing to move onto the next class, and once they reached a certain threshold of technological advancement and capability, they were willing to pull the trigger on mass production.
I do not see any reason to believe the PLAN's SSN (and to a smaller extent, SSBN) development will not also go through this.
In fact, we already see this with the 09III class, where there are multiple subvariants of the vanilla 09III and 09IIIA that have been visually confirmed to exist across multiple hulls, all of course built between the 2000s and 2010s.
On top of the existing 09III and 09IIIA, the 09IIIB has also been rumoured with the 09V expected shortly after it, and all this was in context with the veritable massive expansion of Bohai's new production facilities (which are basically all complete now, including the unexpected construction of the new southern hall which seems sized ideally for efficient SSN production), and with rumours from the late 2010s that Bohai would be intended to seek to mass produce nuclear submarines into the near future.
All of which is to say.... I agree that nuclear submarines have development cycles. However, I think over the last two decades we've been seeing the PLAN produce new nuclear submarines in small numbers with progressively advancing technologies and subsystems in the same way that they did for destroyers.
That, coupled with the completion of the massive new Bohai facility, and rumours about the new classes of SSNs and their intended capabilities and characteristics, strongly makes me believe that the PLAN are finally gearing up to ramp up production of SSNs in the same manner that they did with destroyers -- i.e.: being able to produce a technologically competitive platform that is also competitive in capability.
The question becomes one of just how competitive 09IIIB and 09V will end up being.
For the record, I dont' think anyone expects 09V will be towerless. There's no expectation for it to be that "exotic," however expectations for advanced subsystems, technologies, and competitive acoustic stealth, sensor performance, reactor maturity, payload variety, are all very much reasonable projections.
Nice pictures.
So, assuming that the images are indeed depicting a genuine CSSC model, it is clearly a SSN of some sort, but we don't know if it is a generic SSN or if it is depicting a specific design/class.
Now, if you showed me this model before the recent satellite pics, I would have said the model resembles what I believe 09IIIB would look like the most.
Essentially, I expected 09IIIB to basically take the same 09III/A family hullform (double hull, mostly same dimensions), but with further external and internal refinements, with inclusion of a VLS, and also possibly some kind of propulsion improvement. A pumpjet for 09IIIB has previously been floated as a possibility, which I read somewhere, though I wasn't sure how seriously to take it.
This model basically depicts all those things.
With the new satellite image of the new mystery SSN at Bohai, I am still not sure if this model and the new mystery SSN are the same thing. Certainly the gross shape), and configuration could be, but the definitive parts which would confirm it would be if we had confirmation that the new mystery SSN has a VLS in the same location (unfortunately/deliberately covered by a tarp on the satellite pic), or if the new mystery SSN is confirmed to have a pumpjet (similarly, the propeller location is covered by a tarp).
In short, going forwards something we should seek to confirm/clarify on satellite images of the future, is whether the new mystery SSN is indeed a new launch SSN (based on where it is located in the shipyard in subsequent images) -- and also for pictures to see whether there is any VLS that can be confirmed in the location that corresponds to the model.
Last edited:
Soviet Union's and modern Russia's ocean access is far worse than China's. And first island chain actually does not limit Chinese naval power. That is 19th-century thinking that is based on much smaller bodies of water. If those islands were harboring a lot of military equipment, this would be partly right but the US is far too focused on global domination to do such a thing. And the US equipment is maintenance nightmares nowadays. The USMC has been playing with austere basing of the F-35B for years now with no results. Those islands have no means of striking Chinese naval power and their existence actually does not limit Chinese naval mobility. Most of them look like this at best. They are small islands on a vast body of water. They aren't very accomodating for human life either.
There are many credible reasons and credible opinions from experts to believe the current JL-2 is capable of reaching all of the USA. It would need a range of 11000 km. The Trident 1 had a weight of 32 tons and was capable of throwing 1.5 tons to 7400 km. And it is a missile from 1979. The JL-2 weighs 42 tons. The DF-31A has the same weight and it has a range of 11200 km. So no. The JL-2 is definitely reaching the USA from China. It would make no other sense anyway. China wouldn't settle with an SSBN that can only hit Hawaii. If that was the case there would be only 1-2 094s.
China's SSBN force can become very credible when it achieves a Borei or Ohio level of silence. The real problem here is all the subs the US keeps on patrol in the SCS. But as China's ASW assets and submarines increase in capability, that will stop being a problem. China in future can also do the same to the US too
antiterror13
Brigadier
well, if your definition of ~8,000 kms (DF-31) to ~11,000 kms (DF-31A) range is "slightly longer" ... you are absolutely correct
China shouldn't seek SSBN parity with US in the near future unless US magically decrease its nuclear submarine fleet.
First is the cost. The procurement, maintenance and refurbishment on SSBN are much, much more expensive than land-based nuclear deterrence. SSBN literally has the worst cost-effective ratio among triad, only cheaper than a nuclear-exclusive bomber fleet on maintenance.
Second is the geography. China has to make JL-3 the longest range SLBM for a reason, and at the expense of payload. China doesn't deploy SSBN in Bohai but in SCS, where is 15,000 km away from south Florida and 12,000km from the West Coast. Either way, it has a far smaller payload compared with Trident and is incapable of destroying enough soft targets in a low yield.
Third is the readiness, SSBN fleet generally has a ~30% alertness, could possibly reach ~60% in an emergency but just in theory. The boats in maintenance could not be moved anywhere in 30 minutes and are primary targets in a theoretically first-strike.
Fourth may sound ridiculous but it is true, SSBN cannot be reloaded in a nuclear war. Silos and TELs can be reloaded and that's why one must strike the silos to "win" a nuclear war even if it is empty.
First is the cost. The procurement, maintenance and refurbishment on SSBN are much, much more expensive than land-based nuclear deterrence. SSBN literally has the worst cost-effective ratio among triad, only cheaper than a nuclear-exclusive bomber fleet on maintenance.
Second is the geography. China has to make JL-3 the longest range SLBM for a reason, and at the expense of payload. China doesn't deploy SSBN in Bohai but in SCS, where is 15,000 km away from south Florida and 12,000km from the West Coast. Either way, it has a far smaller payload compared with Trident and is incapable of destroying enough soft targets in a low yield.
Third is the readiness, SSBN fleet generally has a ~30% alertness, could possibly reach ~60% in an emergency but just in theory. The boats in maintenance could not be moved anywhere in 30 minutes and are primary targets in a theoretically first-strike.
Fourth may sound ridiculous but it is true, SSBN cannot be reloaded in a nuclear war. Silos and TELs can be reloaded and that's why one must strike the silos to "win" a nuclear war even if it is empty.
I do agree with the intention ,and we will see small iteration and small production of more advance models.The experience in the US and UK across a number of different platform types is different to that of China, and that has primarily been due to a difference in technological availability and industry maturity.
The Chinese destroyer experience is an excellent comparison.
Between 1997 and 2017, China launched six different classes of destroyers all that were at minimum:
-saw structural differences between one another
-were equipped with different subsystems from each successive class
-experienced advancements between successive classes (barring deliberate conservative backups)
Those classes were:
1997 - 051B
2002 - 052B
2003 - 052C
2004 - 051C
2012 - 052D
2017 - 055
As we can see, the PLAN rapidly iterated with new destroyer classes of small numbers, where each small production run was integrated with new subsystems and technologies.
As more mature and capable subsystems emerged, they were willing to move onto the next class, and once they reached a certain threshold of technological advancement and capability, they were willing to pull the trigger on mass production.
I do not see any reason to believe the PLAN's SSN (and to a smaller extent, SSBN) development will not also go through this.
In fact, we already see this with the 09III class, where there are multiple subvariants of the vanilla 09III and 09IIIA that have been visually confirmed to exist across multiple hulls, all of course built between the 2000s and 2010s.
On top of the existing 09III and 09IIIA, the 09IIIB has also been rumoured with the 09V expected shortly after it, and all this was in context with the veritable massive expansion of Bohai's new production facilities (which are basically all complete now, including the unexpected construction of the new southern hall which seems sized ideally for efficient SSN production), and with rumours from the late 2010s that Bohai would be intended to seek to mass produce nuclear submarines into the near future.
All of which is to say.... I agree that nuclear submarines have development cycles. However, I think over the last two decades we've been seeing the PLAN produce new nuclear submarines in small numbers with progressively advancing technologies and subsystems in the same way that they did for destroyers.
That, coupled with the completion of the massive new Bohai facility, and rumours about the new classes of SSNs and their intended capabilities and characteristics, strongly makes me believe that the PLAN are finally gearing up to ramp up production of SSNs in the same manner that they did with destroyers -- i.e.: being able to produce a technologically competitive platform that is also competitive in capability.
The question becomes one of just how competitive 09IIIB and 09V will end up being.
For the record, I dont' think anyone expects 09V will be towerless. There's no expectation for it to be that "exotic," however expectations for advanced subsystems, technologies, and competitive acoustic stealth, sensor performance, reactor maturity, payload variety, are all very much reasonable projections.
And with the expansion of the Bohai production facility is for PLAN to build better bigger and mostly more SSNs.
But my argument is , that the time table of which you are comparing to the advancement of surface fleet might not be comparable .
And as you put it the "pulling the trigger" on next generation SSN and SSBN won't be in this decade.
Reason being , nuclear reactors ,nuclear power station has only matured this decade for China.
To make it much much smaller , quieter is a no small task , and that would take time.
To make a SSN you needed a fully matured nuclear industry .There is no skipping this step in my opinion , for example UK was helped US during in the 1950s to speed up it's own reactor development.
The same goes for the next generation ballistic missiles.
The same hold true for the surface fleet ,during the 1990s Chinese electronics manufacturing matured, and gas turbine was bought.
Only as recent in 2010s Chinese surface fleet have been fitted with Chinese turbines. But they have been using Chinese radars since the 2000s cause how Chinese quickly fitted itself in the Chip fabrication chain.
I think the Chinese SSN development using your analog is somewhere in between 052C to 052D right now ,meaning next generation will be 052D , a competent platform that the PLAN is willing to make more then a dozen.
I have no doubts that these hurdles can be overcame with time and resources, but since the pieces that China needed for the development of the next generation only came to be in the 2010s , I would think that the next generation will be ready in the 2030s.
That not the problem about first Island chain I was talking about, the problem is anti submarine patrol by fixed win aircraft, and listing posts all over the Chain, I am talking about the asset surrounding the Chain , not the islands themselves . it makes the ability of Chinese SSN and SSBN though the first island chain undetected hard , given the noise of these platforms , even harder.
It is very unlikely in my opinion that the JL2 has the same range of DF-31A,since it much smaller then it's land based brother.
Also lunching from south china sea need a range closer to 13000 km.
There are not that many 094s ,the true number of them is a mystery, having more that 2 does improve the chances that at least 1 will get though, in any way , land based options makes more sense for China.