09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread

[ACuriousPLAFan]

so 4-5 units annually will be easy task in near future.

For comparison, the US launched ~2.8 Los Angeles SSNs per year between 1974 & 1995, and ~1.2 Virginia SSNs per year between 2003 & now. The US also launched ~1 Ohio SSBN per year between 1979 & 1996.

(I didn't include the Seawolf SSNs because there are just too few of them to effect.)

Sum up the SSN + SSBN launch rates from above, we get ~4 boats per year during the Cold War, and ~1-2 boats per year thereafter.

Though, the US plans for the launch rate of newer Virginias to reach 2 per year ASAP, I'd say the launch rate should be updated to 3 boats per year for Virginia + Columbia.

Therefore, I believe that China should aim for ~twice (i.e. ~6-7 boats per year) the rate of the US' SSN + SSBN procurement going forward - Both in order to rapidly catch up in quantitative terms (to the US + UK + Australia), and to form a formidable and credible underwater (mainly) conventional and nuclear deterrence for China.

(Note: Here, the "rate of 6-7 boats per year" refers to the sum of SSN + SSBN + "mini-nuke" for the PLAN.

Considering that "mini-nukes" are generally expected to be smaller and less complex than typical SSNs, therefore I do expect them to be built in equal numbers to, if not in greater numbers than the SSNs.

Hence, 0-1 SSBN per year + 2-3 SSNs per year + 2-4 "mini-nukes" per year should do, IMHO.)

 

[TK3600]

Since no one posted it yet.

Hu Defang (CEO of Huludao shipyard) emphasized that the company will bear the heaviest and most arduous construction tasks in its history during "14th Five-Year Plan" and a period of time in the future.


View attachment 115974
Source: Official wechat via

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The quote reflects both the difficulty of the task and work intensity of the task. If it was just a new advanced platform, it would be difficult, but not necessarily intense. Researching is hard but slow, you cannot expect trying harder means better result. There are a lot of bottlenecks.

I am expecting a massive ramping up of yearly production in the next 5 years. Not just new platforms, but also possibly existing platforms. The quote reflects a large scale production that is arduous both in science and average worker on the ground.

Expect large increase of submarine production. This match the ramping up of production facility we saw. Now these facility will start delivering for real. I am talking about 2-3x of current output.

 

[Blitzo]

For comparison, the US launched ~2.8 Los Angeles SSNs per year between 1974 & 1995, and ~1.2 Virginia SSNs per year between 2003 & now. The US also launched ~1 Ohio SSBN per year between 1979 & 1996.

(I didn't include the Seawolf SSNs because there are just too few of them to effect.)

Sum up the SSN + SSBN launch rates from above, we get ~4 boats per year during the Cold War, and ~1-2 boats per year thereafter.

Though, the US plans for the launch rate of newer Virginias to reach 2 per year ASAP, I'd say the launch rate should be updated to 3 boats per year for Virginia + Columbia.

Therefore, I believe that China should aim for ~twice (i.e. ~6-7 boats per year) the rate of the US' SSN + SSBN procurement going forward - Both in order to rapidly catch up in quantitative terms (to the US + UK + Australia), and to form a formidable and credible underwater (mainly) conventional and nuclear deterrence for China.

(Note: Here, the "rate of 6-7 boats per year" refers to the sum of SSN + SSBN + "mini-nuke" for the PLAN.

Considering that "mini-nukes" are generally expected to be smaller and less complex than typical SSNs, therefore I do expect them to be built in equal numbers to, if not in greater numbers than the SSNs.

Hence, 0-1 SSBN per year + 2-3 SSNs per year + 2-4 "mini-nukes" per year should do, IMHO.)

I am not sure if the mini nukes will be built at Bohai or not.
Based on how the mini nukes have been characterized (i.e.: as new generation SSKs with a low power nuclear reactor for augmentation) I expect them to be built at the existing SSK yards at JN and WC, while Bohai produces the "proper" nuclear submarines (nuclear attack submarines, nuclear ballistic missile submarines).


As for what the production rate of the proper nuclear submarines will be, I don't think we can predict it at this stage, but they didn't build those two assembly halls with a combined 20 SSN equivalent floor space and a dedicated SSN sized paint shop for nothing, and we can expect them to gradually ramp it up with time.

 

[tphuang]

I think everyone is expecting a massive buildup in in 093B over this 5 year period, but are we sure the 3rd one has been launched? Sorry, I saw some discussions, but it didn't seem confirmed.

I seems to me that production ramp up takes time. Eventually, I do see 5 nuclear subs a yr, but right now, I think 8 093B by 2025 is pretty reasonable pace.

I'm not convinced we will see a mini-nuke. In fact, I'm not sure of the need for another diesel submarine class to succeed 039C. For conventionally power underwater vessel, I would devote more energy to UUV development at this point and find a way to allow these UUVs to communicate with SSNs and surface ships. Being able to datalink assets while they are underwater is a pretty big deal.

 

[Blitzo]

I think everyone is expecting a massive buildup in in 093B over this 5 year period, but are we sure the 3rd one has been launched? Sorry, I saw some discussions, but it didn't seem confirmed.

I seems to me that production ramp up takes time. Eventually, I do see 5 nuclear subs a yr, but right now, I think 8 093B by 2025 is pretty reasonable pace.

The third 09IIIB has yet to be confirmed, at best there are circumstantial indicators based on satellite imagery, but it is indeed yet to be definitively checked off as having happened.

Personally I think people shouldn't read too much into the significance of this news a little bit -- yes the CEO of Huludao saying that they'll have the heaviest and most arduous construction/work in 14-5 and into the future is notable, but that is something everyone's been predicting for years.
"We'll be building a lot more stuff soon" is basically all that can be surmised, which isn't new to us.

I'm not convinced we will see a mini-nuke. In fact, I'm not sure of the need for another diesel submarine class to succeed 039C. For conventionally power underwater vessel, I would devote more energy to UUV development at this point and find a way to allow these UUVs to communicate with SSNs and surface ships. Being able to datalink assets while they are underwater is a pretty big deal.

In the long term I expect the PLAN subsurface fleet to be more heavily "proper nuclear," but at this stage UUVs are yet to be sufficiently mature that they can replace the role of capable SSKs/mini-nukes in the shorter range, lower performance submarine mission.
In a couple decades, I could certainly see new build SSKs/mini-nukes being replaced with large UUVs, but at the moment they are still in their infancy, and the PLAN is also still in the process of building up its "proper nuclear" fleet as well.

None of this will preclude the importance of advanced and comprehensive networking, but if they want a robust, reliable subsurface warfighting capability within the 1IC, then for the foreseeable future they'll still have to buy SSKs/mini-nukes.

 

[TK3600]

The third 09IIIB has yet to be confirmed, at best there are circumstantial indicators based on satellite imagery, but it is indeed yet to be definitively checked off as having happened.

Personally I think people shouldn't read too much into the significance of this news a little bit -- yes the CEO of Huludao saying that they'll have the heaviest and most arduous construction/work in 14-5 and into the future is notable, but that is something everyone's been predicting for years.
"We'll be building a lot more stuff soon" is basically all that can be surmised, which isn't new to us.




In the long term I expect the PLAN subsurface fleet to be more heavily "proper nuclear," but at this stage UUVs are yet to be sufficiently mature that they can replace the role of capable SSKs/mini-nukes in the shorter range, lower performance submarine mission.
In a couple decades, I could certainly see new build SSKs/mini-nukes being replaced with large UUVs, but at the moment they are still in their infancy, and the PLAN is also still in the process of building up its "proper nuclear" fleet as well.

None of this will preclude the importance of advanced and comprehensive networking, but if they want a robust, reliable subsurface warfighting capability within the 1IC, then for the foreseeable future they'll still have to buy SSKs/mini-nukes.

Think this way. There is definitely some kind of build up coming fast. Could it be we are going to see a lot of new platforms? Maybe, maybe not. We are not sure how well that program is coming along. Are we going to see a 052D moment? Or would new platform going to be slower to test before ramping up? If it is the latter then it makes sense older platforms could see more production, hence the coming big auduous work.

 

[snake65]

Hence, 0-1 SSBN per year + 2-3 SSNs per year + 2-4 "mini-nukes" per year should do, IMHO.)

What is a "mini-nuke"? Nuclear powered AUV similar to Russian Poseidon?

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

What is a "mini-nuke"? Nuclear powered AUV similar to Russian Poseidon?

The only information we have on the "mini-nuke" right now can be summed-up as "basically swapping the conventional propulsion system on SSKs with a small-sized nuclear reactor":


According to the slide, the SS(N)Ks should have "unlimited endurance after just one fuel-up" and "comparable noise levels to conventionally-powered SSKs".

The closest model resembling the SS(N)K (in terms of displacement and propulsion) would be the Rubis-class SSNs of the French Navy.

 

[snake65]

The only information we have on the "mini-nuke" right now can be summed-up as "basically swapping the conventional propulsion system on SSKs with a small-sized nuclear reactor":
According to the slide, the SS(N)Ks should have "unlimited endurance after just one fuel-up" and "comparable noise levels to conventionally-powered SSKs".

The closest model resembling the SS(N)K (in terms of displacement and propulsion) would be the Rubis-class SSNs of the French Navy.

Or Russian special purpose nuclear subs.
Although I have my doubts on "comparable noise levels to conventionally-powered SSKs". Natural circulation?

 

[para80]

Russia looked at nuclear batteries when their AIP efforts for Lada/Amur hit a dead end. But nothing came of that either. As for a full on reactor, I suspect the complexities and cost of design and operation will quickly approach the level of SSNs, hence why the entire effort renders itself somewhat academic. My personal guess is China will for some time continue modernisation of SSK forces incl AIP, but at the same time increasingly focus on a nuclear powered fleet for their most relevant assignments.