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

[SinoSoldier]

Let's just say that I don't accept your internet guess as being any better than my own.

If you assume that 688 and 688i represent generational differences, then the US has gone through no less than 5 generations of nuclear submarines to get to where 688i was and 6 to get to where Seawolf is. We won't even count the Nautilus as its own generation and we'll even count the Skate and Skipjack classes as a single generation because they were built at almost the same time:

1. Skate/Skipjack class
2. Permit/Thresher class
3. Sturgeon class
4. Los Angeles class
5. Improved Los Angeles class
6. Seawolf/Virginia class

How many generations have the PLAN subs gone through? Let's count the 093B as a separate generation; this gives us only 3 generations of nuclear subs.

1. 091 class
2. 093 class
3. 093B class

Given the extremely low level of technological base that China started from when the 091 and 093 were built, a reasonable progression sees only a one generation improvement from 091 to 093. This corresponds to a Skate/Skipjack to Permit/Thresher improvement. From 093 to 093B is anyone's guess (you certainly don't know, despite your rhetoric). If we allow a 1.5 generation leapfrog, due to rapidly advancing Chinese technological base since the early 093 subs put to sea, the 093B would be somewhere between Sturgeon and early LA; a more improbable 2 generation leap puts it at early LA. Your fantastical scenario sees a 3 generation leap from Permit/Thresher level of the 093 all the way to 688i acoustic levels for the 093B. Is this impossible? No. Is this probable? No. For me the most likely scenario is a 093B that is somewhere between Sturgeon and early LA, maybe even as good as early LA. For you it sounds like the sky is the limit.

Why is it assumed that a generation in submarines is of the same technological gap in the Chinese context as it is in the US one? The US builds submarines and equally develops new classes at far higher rates than do the Chinese and hence it would not be surprising to see its technology being implemented in a markedly more incremental manner than the Chinese.

 

[Iron Man]

Why is it assumed that a generation in submarines is of the same technological gap in the Chinese context as it is in the US one? The US builds submarines and equally develops new classes at far higher rates than do the Chinese and hence it would not be surprising to see its technology being implemented in a markedly more incremental manner than the Chinese.

I only assumed this for the 091 to 093 transition, and do not at all assume this from 093B and onwards. And that is because it is reported that the 093 was only an incremental improvement over the 091, which makes sense given that even during the 1980s and 1990s when the early 093 was being developed, China's tech base was still quite low. Also, an ONI chart from 2009 lists the 093 as significantly worse than Sturgeon class; by that year the USN would have already had several years to study the 093's acoustic levels. In any case, China's tech base didn't really take off until around the turn of the millennium; the last 10 years or so have been quite exciting for PLA watchers. Even so, the 093B was developed during the first decade of the new millennium and IMO represents, like I said, a 1.5 to 2 generation leapfrogged improvement over the 093. The 095 probably represents a somewhat smaller level of improvement over the 093B because it is coming out soon, like within a few years from now is what I have read. All this suggests to me that the 093B is an interim design mean to leverage the tech gains that the PLAN has achieved into a production variant that can be put into the water fairly quickly, but that the 095 towards the end of this decade is the real showpiece. My guess for the 095 is that low end it is at 688i level and high end it is at Severodvinsk level.

 

[SinoSoldier]

I only assumed this for the 091 to 093 transition, and do not at all assume this from 093B and onwards. And that is because it is reported that the 093 was only an incremental improvement over the 091, which makes sense given that even during the 1980s and 1990s when the early 093 was being developed, China's tech base was still quite low. Also, an ONI chart from 2009 lists the 093 as significantly worse than Sturgeon class; by that year the USN would have already had several years to study the 093's acoustic levels. In any case, China's tech base didn't really take off until around the turn of the millennium; the last 10 years or so have been quite exciting for PLA watchers. Even so, the 093B was developed during the first decade of the new millennium and IMO represents, like I said, a 1.5 to 2 generation leapfrogged improvement over the 093. The 095 probably represents a somewhat smaller level of improvement over the 093B because it is coming out soon, like within a few years from now is what I have read. All this suggests to me that the 093B is an interim design mean to leverage the tech gains that the PLAN has achieved into a production variant that can be put into the water fairly quickly, but that the 095 towards the end of this decade is the real showpiece. My guess for the 095 is that low end it is at 688i level and high end it is at Severodvinsk level.

Frankly, not even the most competent of analysts out there know how much Chinese R&D in submarines accelerated in the aforementioned years. The years from 1990-2010s saw an incredible rise of computing and digital-based engineering in the Chinese defense sector, and that alone makes it erroneous to extrapolate a linear technological progression to China's shipbuilding capabilities. Even if we could put the pace of US and Chinese submarine development on equal footing, with respects to the supporting computing/technology, confounding variables such as a vast and diverse supply chain or skill level of shipyards need to be addressed.

Finally, ONI charts should be taken with a pinch of salt; especially when they attempt to give decibel readings to vessels that have yet to be built.

 

[Iron Man]

Frankly, not even the most competent of analysts out there know how much Chinese R&D in submarines accelerated in the aforementioned years. The years from 1990-2010s saw an incredible rise of computing and digital-based engineering in the Chinese defense sector, and that alone makes it erroneous to extrapolate a linear technological progression to China's shipbuilding capabilities. Even if we could put the pace of US and Chinese submarine development on equal footing, with respects to the supporting computing/technology, confounding variables such as a vast and diverse supply chain or skill level of shipyards need to be addressed.

Finally, ONI charts should be taken with a pinch of salt; especially when they attempt to give decibel readings to vessels that have yet to be built.

I'm pretty sure I outlined a nonlinear technological progression to China's submarine capabilities directly reflecting the fact of China's rapidly advancing tech base in the last 10-15 years. The plain fact is we are all just plain speculating given the highly secretive nature of something like submarine acoustic levels, and saying one person is flat out wrong seems to me to be a laughable exercise of the blind accusing the blind that their blue is not blue enough.

 

[antiterror13]

Thanks @Iron Man ... as a new member you have posted very interesting points and I agree mostly. When do you think the launching of new 095? and how many PLAN will get?

 

[Iron Man]

Thanks @Iron Man ... as a new member you have posted very interesting points and I agree mostly. When do you think the launching of new 095? and how many PLAN will get?

Weren't people saying towards the end of this decade? I'm not really sure; like I said, we're all just guessing. As to how many I would hazard a guess of 4-5 units maybe up to as many as 8-10 if the PLAN likes the design, and depending on the maturity of the conjectural "097" design, or whatever the next SSN will be called.

 

[antiterror13]

Weren't people saying towards the end of this decade? I'm not really sure; like I said, we're all just guessing. As to how many I would hazard a guess of 4-5 units maybe up to as many as 8-10 if the PLAN likes the design, and depending on the maturity of the conjectural "097" design, or whatever the next SSN will be called.

some thought it has been launched and would enter service soon, as soon as early 2017 ... obviously it is just a guess. I was asking what your opinion and analysis of the launch and deploying 095

 

[FORBIN]

Imposible 2017, if it is ready for 2017 we have yet him on sat views and we don' t have, excpected for around 2020.

 

[plawolf]

One should remember China hasn't just been building nuclear subs, and has designed and built several generations of conventional SSKs that are generally agreed to be right up there with the best in the world.

Obviously an SSK and SSN are vastly different, but not so fundamentally so that experience, technology and expertise do developed from China's SSK programme could not be applied to its SSNs to lead to huge laps and bounds compared to previous generation SSNs.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Frankly, not even the most competent of analysts out there know how much Chinese R&D in submarines accelerated in the aforementioned years. The years from 1990-2010s saw an incredible rise of computing and digital-based engineering in the Chinese defense sector, and that alone makes it erroneous to extrapolate a linear technological progression to China's shipbuilding capabilities. Even if we could put the pace of US and Chinese submarine development on equal footing, with respects to the supporting computing/technology, confounding variables such as a vast and diverse supply chain or skill level of shipyards need to be addressed.

Finally, ONI charts should be taken with a pinch of salt; especially when they attempt to give decibel readings to vessels that have yet to be built.

Well said it dangerous to assume that one country progression in technology must follow the same rate of progression as the other.Assuming arbitrary multiplier to balance it is not logical.When we see at other technology development like computer who can guess that China will top US in supercomputer now?

We seen that in every sphere of technology in China Let see in fighter jet J7->J8->J10->J20
That is only 4 generation of fighter I bet US has much more generational changes than 4. It take me too log a time to research but I can dig it
But the main thing is that J 20 is at the cutting edge of technology.

Now let see Navy destroyer development
Jianghu class(which is post WW2 type) then suddenly we have huge leap into type 52 then type 52C & type 52 D. If we follow Iron Man logic then Chinese destroyer should be at Fort Knox class now But that is not true

I can go on and on with this example

What we know as PLA wolf said is that in conventional submarine China is up there with the best. Recently China won contract in Thailand..Definitely the quieting technology ,sonar, battle management, weapon system should be similar or better in Nuclear Sub. The only difference is the power pack.But chinese nuclear technology experience transformational leap in the last 20 years. They are at the cutting edge of civilian nuclear technology working simultaneously at 4 third generation nuclear power tech from pebble technology to thorium cycle, breeder, and so on .
So it doesn't take leap of faith to assume that the similar technological leap occur in the realm of submarine nuclear tech.

We are at disadvantage here because China release very little information regarding submarine development so China basher has field day here