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

[Miyayaya]

So is this area meant to be an entirely separate shipyard entity that is unrelated to Huludao, or will this area be Huludao's brand-new 3rd phase of expansion?

Could this be where the nuclear carriers are built... Do the benefits of concentrating nuclear shipbuilding operations in one location outweigh any logistical downsides?

 

[Blitzo]

Could this be where the nuclear carriers are built... Do the benefits of concentrating nuclear shipbuilding operations in one location outweigh any logistical downsides?

Unlikely, we've had more indicators and rumours that the existing yards that have built carriers will build the nuclear ones going forwards.

Considering the complexity and differences of work for a conventional carrier versus a nuclear carrier, it is a fair bit smaller than the carry over experience and infrastructure between nuclear submarines versus nuclear carriers.

 

[tphuang]

I wouldn't say the question was even about a second batch, but rather just continued SSN production.

Continued SSN production could include another batch of 09IIIBs, or 09Vs, or both.


That said I would exercise some prudent caution as to whether they have actually launched 7 09IIIBs up to this point, simply because the satellite pictures we have of the last 4-5 hulls are not conclusive but poor quality and somewhat circumstantial.
If they have launched 7 09IIIBs up to now, then certainly at this stage I wouldn't be surprised if they've started spinning up 09V production and/or further 09IIIB production as well as SSBN production by now.

None of that is too strange, it would have some parallels to the way that they spun up production of four 052C hulls from 2010 for a couple of years slowly before 052D and 055 production both started spinning up as well.

it would be very aggressive of PLAN to start mass production of 09V before they complete sea trials of the 1st couple of units. I think if SSN production continues, it would most likely be 093B.

 

[Maikeru]

I wouldn't say the question was even about a second batch, but rather just continued SSN production.

Continued SSN production could include another batch of 09IIIBs, or 09Vs, or both.


That said I would exercise some prudent caution as to whether they have actually launched 7 09IIIBs up to this point, simply because the satellite pictures we have of the last 4-5 hulls are not conclusive but poor quality and somewhat circumstantial.
If they have launched 7 09IIIBs up to now, then certainly at this stage I wouldn't be surprised if they've started spinning up 09V production and/or further 09IIIB production as well as SSBN production by now.

None of that is too strange, it would have some parallels to the way that they spun up production of four 052C hulls from 2010 for a couple of years slowly before 052D and 055 production both started spinning up as well.

Tom Shughart's tweeted imagery did show what appeared to be an SSBN sized hull section going into the Eastern FAH on the 11+m gage tracks.

 

[gelgoog]

I think much like with the surface ships they would build at most two Type 09V submarines. Then if those prove successful serial production would start.

 

[Blitzo]

it would be very aggressive of PLAN to start mass production of 09V before they complete sea trials of the 1st couple of units. I think if SSN production continues, it would most likely be 093B.

My ranking of the current permutations of SSN construction possibilities that will follow the current initial batch of 09IIIBs (assuming they have indeed built 7 initial hulls for an order of 8 or so), from most likely to least likely:
- Simultaneous construction of 09IIIBs and 09Vs
- Continued construction of 09IIIBs with simultaneous small initial order of 09Vs
- Continued construction of 09IIIBs only (no 09Vs)
- Construction of 09Vs only (no 09IIIBs)
- Construction of neither (aka construction pause of new SSNs)

Part of it depends on how confident they are with 09V -- they commenced mass production of 055s before the first hull was even launched after all, and while I personally don't expect something quite that aggressive for 09V, we are overall in somewhat uncharted waters.

Tom Shughart's tweeted imagery did show what appeared to be an SSBN sized hull section going into the Eastern FAH on the 11+m gage tracks.

If you're talking about this image, this doesn't look like it is situated on the central rail gauge line (which is 13.55m gauge). If it was, the shadow and section itself should be situated more "upwards".

It also looks like it would be more at home on the 7.34m gauge track.


That said, it is certainly larger than a normal 09III sized hull section. Whether it's a SSBN or a SSN is another question (there is some reasonable expectation for 09V to be wider than 09III family for example).

 

[Maikeru]

My ranking of the current permutations of SSN construction possibilities that will follow the current initial batch of 09IIIBs (assuming they have indeed built 7 initial hulls for an order of 8 or so), from most likely to least likely:
- Simultaneous construction of 09IIIBs and 09Vs
- Continued construction of 09IIIBs with simultaneous small initial order of 09Vs
- Continued construction of 09IIIBs only (no 09Vs)
- Construction of 09Vs only (no 09IIIBs)
- Construction of neither (aka construction pause of new SSNs)

Part of it depends on how confident they are with 09V -- they commenced mass production of 055s before the first hull was even launched after all, and while I personally don't expect something quite that aggressive for 09V, we are overall in somewhat uncharted waters.





If you're talking about this image, this doesn't look like it is situated on the central rail gauge line (which is 13.55m gauge). If it was, the shadow and section itself should be situated more "upwards".

It also looks like it would be more at home on the 7.34m gauge track.


That said, it is certainly larger than a normal 09III sized hull section. Whether it's a SSBN or a SSN is another question (there is some reasonable expectation for 09V to be wider than 09III family for example).

It doesn't appear to be on the 7.34m track either, which is odd.

 

[Blitzo]

It doesn't appear to be on the 7.34m track either, which is odd.

It could just be getting moved laterally across the tracks before getting positioned on the 7.34m gauge track to be then manoeuvred into the hall, and the satellite picture only captured the image as it was moving laterally.

 

[TK3600]

The article was probably written some time ago, so I wouldn't be surprised if a more recent launch was simply not incorporated due to the time when it was submitted for publication and the time of publication.

It has a couple of weird parts to it but overall it's quite an impressive summary, and makes me wonder where they've been reading to inform their output.




When was "miniaturization" of nuclear reactor technology specifically a bottleneck?
I assume you meant to write "nuclear propulsion" in general rather than specifically focusing on miniaturization.

Rather than nuclear minimisation, the SSKN require total subsystem minimization. There are rumored tech advance to support this argument. Electromagnetic torpedo launcher, etc. Signs show to support a nuclear sub at SSK size, many thing had to shrink. Internal lay out likely had radical change.

The reason for these space optimisation is not just reactor, but many other reasons.

1. Advanced Insulation. Sub is rumored to be SSK level stealth. Shrinking reactor alone wont suffice. Space saved goes to insulations.

2. Advanced life support system. It is meaningless to have nuclear reactor's longevity unless crew can live long. Space saved goes to things like water filtration, food, etc. Crew support is a constant limit no matter how much machine shrinks.

3. Advanced automation. This follows number 2, life support. The less crew carried the less life support needed. Automation could reduce crew use.

In addition: crew training needs to improve. Less people doing more things, with technical knowledge for operating machines that saves crew size.

These are my assesment on new SSKN design through reasonable inference.

 

[Blitzo]

Rather than nuclear minimisation, the SSKN require total subsystem minimization. There are rumored tech advance to support this argument. Electromagnetic torpedo launcher, etc. Signs show to support a nuclear sub at SSK size, many thing had to shrink. Internal lay out likely had radical change.

The reason for these space optimisation is not just reactor, but many other reasons.

1. Advanced Insulation. Sub is rumored to be SSK level stealth. Shrinking reactor alone wont suffice. Space saved goes to insulations.

2. Advanced life support system. It is meaningless to have nuclear reactor's longevity unless crew can live long. Space saved goes to things like water filtration, food, etc. Crew support is a constant limit no matter how much machine shrinks.

3. Advanced automation. This follows number 2, life support. The less crew carried the less life support needed. Automation could reduce crew use.

In addition: crew training needs to improve. Less people doing more things, with technical knowledge for operating machines that saves crew size.

These are my assesment on new SSKN design through reasonable inference.

None of this relates to the prior conversation, which was about nuclear propulsion for proper SSNs and SSBNs, not about the rumoured SSKN.

The entire point of that part of my post was demonstrating that he didn't know what he was actually asking about -- he was wondering about nuclear power related bottlenecks for proper SSNs and SSBNs. He specified "miniaturisation" as a bottleneck, and I explained that what he meant to actually ask was about nuclear propulsion for SSNs/SSBNs in general rather than miniaturisation specifically.