That's about the size of Yasen, which has 32 cells,
09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread
- Thread starter SinoSoldier
- Start date
This is a SSBN
But the model has only 8 hatches, 3 SLBMs in a row?
The model is 100 percent a fake, it doesn't even match the descriptions, and neither are the descriptions realistic
Well, however long it takes to build an 093B, it can't be as long as an Astute class boat. Agamemnon took over 12 years from laydown to commissioning and it's still in trials!
The UK trying to keep up just looks embarrassing now.
The gravity of the outcome should have no bearing on the analysis process.
The results of an analysis are what they are, as long as the assumptions are laid out and why.
The point of doing an analysis is to see what the outcome is, and then assess the implications and their gravity.
This is why so many analyses from the West are so wrong about China, because there are certain outcomes that they can't accept in their worldview.
---
The assumption of 24-36 months of assembly time requires that Chinese Type-93B production capability be markedly inferior to American Virginia production capability, but all the available data (direct and indirect) indicates Chinese capability/speed being way better, and there are so many data points.
---
And thinking about it, another data point came to mind, which is Gavekel's recent analysis of manufacturing productivity between selected American and Chinese industries.
In civilian shipbuilding, they estimate each Chinese worker produces 2.85x more shipbuilding tonnage than their American equivalent. And in the preceding one year period, Chinese workers increased their productivity by 15%, whilst American shipbuilding productivity was stagnant.
They also note that robot density in the overall Chinese manufacturing sector in 2024 was 50% higher than in the US.
This doesn't address nuclear submarine construction capability directly, but you can see the implications
Last edited:
On the contrary the gravity of the outcome should absolutely influence the weighting of the evidence and underlying assumptions.
Things like aero-engine progress, carrier construction count, nuclear submarine construction count, are strategically important in a manner that is greater than say, the production rate difference of a AFV or an assault rifle with greater implications for underlying technological capabilities and significance in a conflict, which should absolutely mandate greater caution around the inputs put in.
You don't need to tell me the flaws of western projections of PLA or PRC progress.
However that does not invalidate the point that we as observers also have a responsibility to know which projections may be more consequential than others and which ones we have the freedom to be more cavalier about and which we do not.
Let's wait until we see Bohai pump out some SSNs at a pace that is of such a pace first in a manner which is irrefutable, before setting that as a reasonable baseline expectation or projection.
12 years for a boat is a lot, although the Brits are not unique.
Boats are becoming extremely complex machines. USA has slowed down from 2 boats a year to a single since 2022, with average of 6 years between laying down and commissioning. Russians have an average of 8 years, both Borei and Yasen, Borei is built at a slightly faster pace, as nuclear deterrence is a priority. French are on par with Brits, Suffren class boat takes 12 years between laying down and commissioning.
The bottleneck is not the construction of the hulls, rather the production rate of nuclear powerplants, sonar suites and other complex equipment.
The bottleneck is primarily thin financing for keeping the yards going. Neither the UK nor French design actually require 12 years to built, but if you have to negotiate an adequate pace until the next requirement is filled, this is what you end up with. There's no point producing SSN no one wants to buy.