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

[AndrewS]

From the Chinese point of view, it would be absolutely amazing if nuclear submarines could be built in less than 2 years.

The product development cycle would run a lot faster, as having actual boats in the water is the only way to figure out what is noisy and what isn't.

Unless of course, China has obtained knowledge/technology/techniques from Russia which is not outside the bounds of reason as:

1. China may have hacked Russia or bought it from Russia as they need the money
2. A stronger Chinese submarine force diverts the US military from Europe/Russia to China/Asia.
3. Russia and China share a long land border, so better Chinese submarines don't make any difference in a conflict scenario anyway.

From the Chinese perspective, such a technology transfer could shave off 2 design iterations which is at least 8 years of development time. During that time, China would have spent $8? billion on building submarines.

And remember that the Russians have already given an Akula to India anyway.

 

[plawolf]

While I have also suggested possible co-operation/technology transfer between Russia and China in terms of SSNs, I think if such a deal were to be struck, it would not be done under the counter.

The Russians would be far more interested in selling China Russian build boats rather than selling China the core technologies to allow China to build Russian boats in China.

It should also be noted that not only is the Akula not significantly better than what China can make already, there is again a huge difference between leasing/selling ready built subs compared to selling the know-how to build them.

Given China's technological capabilities, even selling China ready-built subs without any formal ToT would be an order of magnitudes more risk for the Russians in terms of loosing core technologies compared to selling the same sub to the Indians.

The Indian sub tech base is so low, by the time they have figured out how the core Russian sub technologies works and replicated them, Russia should be 1 or two or more generations ahead of the tech lower of the original sub they sold to India, thus Russia would still maintain their lead in sub technology and capabilities.

The same would not be the same with China, as the Russians learnt the hard way with the Flanker deal.

If they are to enter a SSN sell deal with China, they would have to expect China to very rapidly absorb and replicate any technological edge Russian SSNs currently holds over Chinese subs; and given China's vastly larger economy, R&D and defence budgets compared to Russia's, they would then have to expect China to pull ahead of Russia in terms of SSN tech soon after.

The Russians would have to make peace with that before they are prepared to sell their best SSNs to China (China will not be interested by anything but the very best Russia has to offer).

The alternative would be to enter into a joint development deal with China, whereby both sides bring their respective strengths to the table to collaborate and develop new gen subs that neither could achieve alone.

On balance, I think that is the more likely co-operation path for China and Russia to take.

But again, to do that would require Russia to accept China as a true equal, which I think Russia is still no able to do yet.

 

[AndrewS]

Broadly agree.

But I think the Russians could make peace with selling the latest nuclear submarine technology, because it is strategically advantageous for them.

Presumably the US military would have to devote even more resources to China/Asia than Russia/Europe. And even if the cost was $1billion, it probably still would be worth it for China to pay this amount just to get the tech.

And as mentioned before, submarines don't change the strategic balance between Russia and China as they share a land border. Plus there is no arms market for the sale of nuclear submarines, so the Russians don't have to worry about creating an export competitor.

 

[FORBIN]

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.

Interesting, Ok but i count the total, from first part up to delivery...not only from laid down construction have begin and after lauching remain a part to finish, build, we need count all.

Besides it is not mainly a matter about construction time but numbers of Subs build simult. so for L.A a very big rate 3/4 by year.

 

[delft]

The major point as I see it of building this huge hall to build nuclear submarines is that in the eyes of PLAN the time of building a few boats of each class to test the achieved level of technology has now passed and the time has come to build large classes of boats.

 

[tphuang]

Broadly agree.

But I think the Russians could make peace with selling the latest nuclear submarine technology, because it is strategically advantageous for them.

Presumably the US military would have to devote even more resources to China/Asia than Russia/Europe. And even if the cost was $1billion, it probably still would be worth it for China to pay this amount just to get the tech.

And as mentioned before, submarines don't change the strategic balance between Russia and China as they share a land border. Plus there is no arms market for the sale of nuclear submarines, so the Russians don't have to worry about creating an export competitor.

it's generally not strategically advantageous to sell your latest strategic technology, regardless of who it may be to. I would find it quite shocking for Russia to sell their latest technology to China, although some assistance maybe possible.

 

[Jeff Head]

Interesting, Ok but i count the total, from first part up to delivery...not only from laid down construction have begin and after lauching remain a part to finish, build, we need count all.

Besides it is not mainly a matter about construction time but numbers of Subs build simult. so for L.A a very big rate 3/4 by year.

Back when the LA Class were being built, the modular construction methodologies that we have now were not in place. Keel Laying was much closer to the real start of construction than it is today.

 

[FORBIN]

Ah yes a bit too young for remenber but not rookie

 

[AndrewS]

I used to think China was planning on only building 1 nuclear submarine per year, but I've recently changed my mind as:

1. The new submarine construction hall would allow them to increase production rates substantially.
2. The upcoming Type-95 SSN design should have been finalised and be under construction now
3. There was an article about a Rubis sinking a CVN during wargames recently. And the Type-93B should be at least equal to the Rubis.
4. Current SSK production rates look like 1 boat per year, which is nowhere near replacement rate given the number of SSK boats which will retire in the next 10-20 years. But they presumably could be replaced by nuclear boats.

Comments?

 

[Iron Man]

1. The new submarine construction hall would allow them to increase production rates substantially.

I'm sure that's why it was built.

2. The upcoming Type-95 SSN design should have been finalised and be under construction now

Maybe, maybe not. Again, this is your own assumption, without any evidence to back it up. Your 'lead time' argument is not compelling.

3. There was an article about a Rubis sinking a CVN during wargames recently. And the Type-93B should be at least equal to the Rubis.

This is not an argument that the PLAN is or has ramped up production of SSNs. Everybody already knows SSNs are good ship-killers.

4. Current SSK production rates look like 1 boat per year, which is nowhere near replacement rate given the number of SSK boats which will retire in the next 10-20 years. But they presumably could be replaced by nuclear boats.

SSK production rate is not automatically any kind of indication that more or less SSNs are going to be built, regardless of whether they are building enough to replace 1 for 1, which is not necessarily their goal anyway.