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

[AndrewS]

Can anyone see when the module assembly hall and pressure hull building were completed?

Presumably they're already building modules and the pressure hull components, as they only need the final assembly hall once everything is ready to be bolted together.

That would roughly match with:

the 095 program was officially approved in 2012 and, in 2014 governor of Liaoning province, the former CEO of CSSC, said publicly that China has completed the design of the "4th generation" of nuclear submarine.

So I'm speculating that the Type-95 programme timeline is as follows:

2012: Programme Approval. Design started.
2014: Design completed. Long lead time items ordered.
2015/2016: Module and pressure hull construction begins in new buildings.
2018: Final Assembly hall completed. Module assembly begins
2019/2020: Module assembly completed. Launch of First Boat.

So that would be a 5-7 year construction period, which sounds about right.

And in terms of quietness, somewhere between an early Los Angeles and a late Los Angeles. Although if the Russians transferred some tech, it could be quieter.

And the final assembly hall has space for at least 3 submarines to be assembled at the same time.

 

[AndrewS]

@weig2000

Yeah, I don't see them doing the Type-95 SSN and Type-96 SSBN in parallel either.

They lose economies of scale and end up with higher prices, plus have to manage and resource 2 different programmes, along with the conflicts.

They also lose the ability to learn from a completed Type-95, and to incorporate improvements into the Type-96 design.

So it's just better to build them one after another.

 

[AndrewS]

An interesting article on the Virginia going from 10 modules to 4 modules from the Virginia/EB guys. It covers a bunch of manufacturing organisation improvements, techniques and rules of thumb.

The Four-Module Build Plan

Thus, a job that could be completed in one hour on the shop floor or three hours in a modular outfitting building can take up to eight hours inside a hull.
...
Applying hull coatings during construction instead of during post-shakedown availability (PSA) helps reduce time spent in PSA by 60 percent. Installing electronics later in the construction cycle obviates the need for a post-delivery electronics modernization period. Redesigning sonar hull arrays to move them off of hull butts facilitates the modular build and reduces assembly time.
...
Moving critical path work such as end loads, hull butts and critical installs back to the module manufacturing phase means less time spent in final assembly, outfit and test. For Hawaii this last phase took just 16 months—eight months, or 33 percent, less than the lead ship.

Full article below

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

===

My comments are:

1. The Quonset module construction location is physically separated from the final assembly locations at Groton and Newport News. In comparison, it looks like the entire construction and assembly process is consolidated in a single location at Huludao.

2. Any ideas on what the maximum transportable module weight would be at Huludao?

 

[AndrewS]

Also, does anyone know where the nuclear submarine design institute is located?

It might be worth relocating them to Huludao with the manufacturing facilities, as it would result in a higher quality boat, lower cost also faster construction overall.

That statement is based on how nuclear submarines are expensive, have long lead-times, have very low tolerances/margins and are densely packed with lots of integrated/interlocking components. That sort of requirement argues for vertical integration, and co-locating the design authority and manufacturing facilities together.

In comparison, surface ships have a lot more space to work and minor design changes don't have a huge ripple effect on the rest of the design. Plus any mistakes can always be corrected without risking flooding and the loss of the ship, unlike in a submarine.

The counter-argument is that it might be better to keep the design team(s) for both the conventional AIP submarines and nuclear submarines co-located, particularly if they're in Wuhan next to the Wuchang submarine shipyard.

But if Wuchang stabilises at 1 SSK per year (worth $300-400million), and Huludao increases to 2 SSNs per year )worth $2000? million), perhaps it would be worth moving both design teams to Huludao instead?

 

[FORBIN]

And in terms of quietness, somewhere between an early Los Angeles and a late Los Angeles. Although if the Russians transferred some tech, it could be quieter

To minimum they need get a Sub quiet as a L A 688i, idealy as a Yasen/885orM can reach it ??? with a noise btw a 688i and the best Seawolf/Virginia/Astute, Yasen is very new so according first datas but fortunalely more easy get infos with Russia as with China... !!!

Don' t forget Electric Boat build subs since a century, China begin copy Soviet Roméo, Tu-16, etc... in 1960's but do really new, modern armament since 15/20 years only.

 

[AndrewS]

Well, for surface ships (particularly noisy carrier strike groups) in the open ocean, China can
use the current Type-93B class. They can launch missiles and also cue other assets like ASBMs which is good enough.

As for China catching up to Yasen/Virginia quietness, if China has to do this itself, it will probably be the next generation of submarines after the Type-95 / Type-94.

But the wildcard is whether Russia would sell Yasen-level technology?

It is strategic, yes. But then again, the USSR did provide China with nuclear weapons assistance when they were both allied against the USA/NATO.

 

[AndrewS]

And I'm just looking at how the undersea balance will change in the future.

If China moves to 2 nuclear submarines per year, then that's 20 new boats over 10 years. Say 5 of those are SSBNs and the rest SSNs.

So that's a fleet of 20 SSNs plus 10 SSBNs. So China should be able to have 6 SSNs on patrol at any one time, plus the ability to surge another 7 SSNs at short notice through the first island chain and then stay out for 90 days.

In comparison, my understanding is that the US Navy has 3 SSNs in the Pacific and another 3 SSNs from the Atlantic Fleet which are forward deployed at any one time, to make a total of 6. But in 10 years time, that will probably drop to only 5 as the US submarine force shrinks during the trough.

At the moment, the US does have enough nuclear submarines to track the small number of Chinese submarines that exist.

But in the future, even if SOSUS detects China's nuclear submarines when passing through the First Island Chain, there aren't enough assets to keep track of them as they spread out through the Pacific. Guam, Hawaii and Yokosuka come to mind.

And in the following years, the Chinese nuclear submarine force would continue to grow larger.

 

[Iron Man]

To minimum they need get a Sub quiet as a L A 688i, idealy as a Yasen/885orM can reach it ??? with a noise btw a 688i and the best Seawolf/Virginia/Astute, Yasen is very new so according first datas but fortunalely more easy get infos with Russia as with China... !!!

Don' t forget Electric Boat build subs since a century, China begin copy Soviet Roméo, Tu-16, etc... in 1960's but do really new, modern armament since 15/20 years only.

I seriously doubt the PLAN would settle for a 095 that is anything less than 688i acoustic levels at this point, especially since this brand new sub would still be an entire generation behind the state of the art. I would guess the 095 is going to end up somewhere between 688i and Yasen.

 

[Jeff Head]

And I'm just looking at how the undersea balance will change in the future.

If China moves to 2 nuclear submarines per year, then that's 20 new boats over 10 years. Say 5 of those are SSBNs and the rest SSNs.

So that's a fleet of 20 SSNs plus 10 SSBNs. So China should be able to have 6 SSNs on patrol at any one time, plus the ability to surge another 7 SSNs at short notice through the first island chain and then stay out for 90 days.

In comparison, my understanding is that the US Navy has 3 SSNs in the Pacific and another 3 SSNs from the Atlantic Fleet which are forward deployed at any one time, to make a total of 6. But in 10 years time, that will probably drop to only 5 as the US submarine force shrinks during the trough.

At the moment, the US does have enough nuclear submarines to track the small number of Chinese submarines that exist.

With the newest LA Class still operating, and being replaced one for one by the new Virginia Class, , the Sea Wolf Class, and the building Virginia Class boats, the US has approximately 54 SSNs available.

They maintain approximately 18 of those on patrol at any given time, and can surge up to 35 or 36..

You can count on there always being one attached to a carrier strike group when they are out to sea, meaning 4 or 5 at a time

I have seen six boats at Guam at one time in the past.

The US probably has about ten boats in the Pacific at any given time, some out of Guam/Japan, others out of Hawaii, San Diego, and Washington State. But they could easily add more to that at any time they thought necessary, and I believ they plan to increase the total number of SSNs to 56 over time.

 

[FORBIN]

With the newest LA Class still operating, and being replaced one for one by the new Virginia Class, , the Sea Wolf Class, and the building Virginia Class boats, the US has approximately 54 SSNs available.

They maintain approximately 18 of those on patrol at any given time, and can surge up to 35 or 36..

You can count on there always being one attached to a carrier strike group when they are out to sea, meaning 4 or 5 at a time

I have seen six boats at Guam at one time in the past.

The US probably has about ten boats in the Pacific at any given time, some out of Guam/Japan, others out of Hawaii, San Diego, and Washington State. But they could easily add more to that at any time they thought necessary, and I believ they plan to increase the total number of SSNs to 56 over time.

10 SSNs on patrol at any given time + 25 in fast Rfts, some day, weeks CRS reports, minimum necessary 48, USN want idealy 51 actual number.

Can anyone see when the module assembly hall and pressure hull building were completed?

Presumably they're already building modules and the pressure hull components, as they only need the final assembly hall once everything is ready to be bolted together.

That would roughly match with:

So I'm speculating that the Type-95 programme timeline is as follows:

2012: Programme Approval. Design started.
2014: Design completed. Long lead time items ordered.
2015/2016: Module and pressure hull construction begins in new buildings.
2018: Final Assembly hall completed. Module assembly begins
2019/2020: Module assembly completed. Launch of First Boat.

So that would be a 5-7 year construction period, which sounds about right.

And in terms of quietness, somewhere between an early Los Angeles and a late Los Angeles. Although if the Russians transferred some tech, it could be quieter.

And the final assembly hall has space for at least 3 submarines to be assembled at the same time.

Seems a reasonnable planning first in service for 2022/23