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

[Iron Man]

Agree for 095 but not impossible but not construction time for Virginia first 7 years after 6 and now 5 years

And i don' t see a L.A build in 2 years, enormous !

USS Los Angeles (SSN 688):
Laid down - 8 January 1972
Launched - 6 April 1974

USS Virginia (SSN 774):
Laid down - 2 September 1999
Launched - 16 August 2003

USS New Mexico (SSN 779):
Laid down - 12 April 2008
Launched - 18 January 2009
That's 9 months and 6 days....

 

[AndrewS]

@Iron Man

The 095 may or may not be under construction, but not because it takes "5-8 years" for a new submarine to be built. The USS Virginia was built in under 4 years. Current construction time for follow-on ships of the class is 14-18 months, but it has been built at a rate of every 10-11 months in the past. USS Seawolf was built in 5 years. USS Los Angeles was built in only 2 years. We actually have no idea if the 095 is under construction. We have no idea if even the 095's design has been frozen, though this seems reasonable to assume. Needless to say, how far along the 096 is is pure speculation, because nobody outside the industry knows.

A number of factual corrections here.

Virginia construction is not less than 2 years as Laid Down and Launched is NOT the same as total construction time.

There are long-lead time items that need to be ordered, and the modules need to built and tested before they are assembled / Laid Down

===
"Block I boats were built in 10 modules with each submarine requiring roughly 7 years (84 months) to build"
===
Block 2 had a shortened "construction period by 15 months (20% less) compared to Virginia

Hence my comment 5-8 years for nuclear submarine construction in China. 5 years is certainly long enough to design an improved submarine to incorporate better tech.

 

[AndrewS]

@Iron Man

Agree for 095 but not impossible but not construction time for Virginia first 7 years after 6 and now 5 years

And i don' t see a L.A build in 2 years, enormous !

Forbin is right as as USS San Juan was right in the middle of the production run and probably took 4? years to build.

Ordered: November 1982
Laid down: August 1985
Launched: December 1986

 

[Iron Man]

@Iron Man



A number of factual corrections here.

Virginia construction is not less than 2 years as Laid Down and Launched is NOT the same as total construction time.

There are long-lead time items that need to be ordered, and the modules need to built and tested before they are assembled / Laid Down

===
"Block I boats were built in 10 modules with each submarine requiring roughly 7 years (84 months) to build"
===
Block 2 had a shortened "construction period by 15 months (20% less) compared to Virginia

Hence my comment 5-8 years for nuclear submarine construction in China. 5 years is certainly long enough to design an improved submarine to incorporate better tech.

Fair enough, but construction time for a current class of submarines does not constitute evidence that a subsequent class is already under construction, nor is it certain that 5 years is "long enough" to design an improved class. We just don't know how much of a technological leap there is between 093B and 095. I have said before that it seems reasonable to me that the 095 is in advanced stages of development or even under construction now, but I frankly acknowledge that this is just speculation on my part, whereas you seem to believe that it constitutes strong evidence that 095 is under construction solely because 093B is already in the water. I don't buy that argument because there are too many unfounded assumptions underpinning that claim to make it constitute any kind of strong evidence for the construction of the 095.

@Iron Man
Forbin is right as as USS San Juan was right in the middle of the production run and probably took 4? years to build.

Ordered: November 1982
Laid down: August 1985
Launched: December 1986

I am talking about the namesake, the USS Los Angeles, not the San Juan. And as far as I know they weren't using modular construction techniques back in the early 70s, so these boats were put together on the spot.

 

[Jeff Head]

Agree for 095 but not impossible but not construction time for Virginia first 7 years after 6 and now 5 years

And i don' t see a L.A build in 2 years, enormous !

LA CLass had several very fast builds and commissioning. Her'es some history:

1st in class USS Los Angeles, SSN688:

Laid Down: Jan '72
Launched: Apr '74
Commissioned: Nov '76

So she was built in 27 months (2 years and 3 months, and commissioned 4 years and 10 months after being laid down.

But later flight I boats were popping out. #23 was USS Augusta, SSN 710. Here's her data:

Laid Down: Apr '83
Launched: Jan '84
Commissioned: Jan '85

She was built in nine months! Then a year later, she was commissioned. 21 months from being laid down to being commissioned. Very fast, very good manufacture by that point.

Even the Flight III Boats , towards the end were popped out pretty fast, even though by then they were pver a full newer generation boat I actuality.

Boat #60 of the LA Class, The Flight III or so called 688I boat USS Columbuas, SSN-771, which was the 60th LA Class:

Laid Down: Apr '93
Launched: Sep '94
Commissioned: Oct '95

She was built in 18 months, and then commissioned 13 months later. That's a total of 31 months, about two and a half years from being laid down to being commissioned.

She is still a very formidable SSN today.

 

[Jeff Head]

By comparison, the Virginia Class, which is now two generations ahead of the Flight III LA Class, and are much more complex, capable, and deadly...are now being built and commissioned quickly too.

The 9th in class is the USS Mississippi, SSN-782:

Laid Down: Jun 2010
Launched: Dec 2011
Commissioned: Jun 2012

Built in 18 months, commissioned in 24 months from being laid down. Simply amazing.

And that is about typical for the ones since. Two years or a little more from being laid down to being commissioned.

Fourteen of those boats have been launched now, and they are arguably the top of the line for SSNs.

Though the Royal Navy Astute class (of which 3 have been launched) are very close if not equally good, and the Russian Yasen class (of which only 1 has been launched) is also very formidable.

US adversaries have to really...I mean REALLY...respect the rate that the US is putting these very formidable boats into the water.

 

[AndrewS]

Look at the requirements of the Chinese Navy.

They're going to build at least 1 nuclear submarine per year anyway and are behind on technology, but need better submarines out in the seas.

So it makes sense for them to design and build improved small batches as fast as possible. There will be a new follow-on class in a few years anyway, that can incorporate new technology when it is ready.

This is borne out by recent history of first launches.

Type-93 SSN: 2002 2 built?
Type-94 SSBN: 2006? 4-5 built?
Type-93A/G SSGN: 2012? 3 built?


===

I used 4years for San Juan as an example because it was being build right in the middle of the production run when they were going full throttle and knew what they were doing.

The initial Los Angeles submarine that you want to use, presumably would have taken even longer to build.

 

[AndrewS]

@Jeff Head

I think you missed the part about construction time for the Virginia being a lot longer than from lay down to launch.

===

Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Changes in the shipyard production process are aimed in large part at reducing the total shipyard construction time of a Virginia-class submarine from 72 months to 60 months

 

[Jeff Head]

@Jeff Head

I think you missed the part about construction time for the Virginia being a lot longer than from lay down to launch.

===

Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Changes in the shipyard production process are aimed in large part at reducing the total shipyard construction time of a Virginia-class submarine from 72 months to 60 months

No...I did not.

Clearly, the logistics of putting the vessel together requires that some modules be built and a lot of material to be gathered before laying it down.

But an fairly well accepted measure of construction of from being laid down to being launched.

This speaks to a nation's ability to do their logistics very well and be prepared to accelerate construction once it is laid down.

So that comparison stands as a good one.

That is why I have simply been speaking about the amount of time from being laid down (or the keel laid as it used to be called, which for modern construction techniques does not really apply), to being launched as the "construction" element to compare to.

I compare those milestones for subs, destroyers, carriers, etc. because it is about the best measure that speaks to where a country really is in its logistical capabilities and manufacturing capabilities.

Then, it is critical to also watch how long from launch it takes to get the vessel commissioned. This involves a lot more logistics as the vessel is fitted out completely, and to builders trials, Naval trials, and ultimately to being acceptable to the respective NAvy.

If such a process drags on and on...it speaks to issues a nation is still having with its ability to truly produced capable and quality ships for their Naval services.

 

[AndrewS]

Yes, lay down to launch is a good measure for logistical and manufacturing capabilities.

But the question was whether the Type-95 was already under construction.

But before a nuclear submarine goes into construction, the design needs to be finalised,

Therefore the total construction time (5-8 years) is important and would imply that the Type-95 is already under construction.