09V/09VI (095/096) Nuclear Submarine Thread

[Blitzo]

Production can only increase after the first 095/096 or any other next gen SSN/SSBN is built and finishes trials. This is how they did it with the 093. The jump to 095 is likely to be as big a technological leap as the 093 was over the 091. That's why I think the initial production rate will be quite low, despite the size of the facility.

As Tam has written, using the original 09III as an example may not be accurate.

For one, the 09III itself seems to have undergone multiple revisions or variants. Including the original baseline variant, there are five unique configurations of it that have been IDed (see picture below). Now, we don't know if all of those are unique hulls, but I wouldn't be surprised if most of them were. Considering past PLAN practice with the 052 and 051 classes and successive variants, chances are they were introducing successive new technologies to each of those 09III variants. There is also the yet to be seen 09IIIB variant that has consistently been described to have a VLS.

What that means for 09V, is that the "leap" to 09V isn't from the original 09III, but rather through various different variants of 09III, including the much spoken of 09IIIB.

There is also definitely precedent for going to mass produce 09V without first producing a limited number to test them; as Tam mentioned for surface combatants and destroyers in particular. For example the 055 as a brand new clean sheet class was mass produced from the outset. The first has yet to be commissioned and already six hulls have been positively IDed with more confirmed to be on the way.

Whether the Navy ends up ordering a large batch of 09Vs from the outset will depend on the capability of the submarine, and overall confidence and maturity of the technology behind it. Do I think the industry is ready for that? Hard to say. However if I were the BHSIC, the Navy or the Chinese govt, I wouldn't have signed off for such a large expansion of nuclear sub production capacity if I didn't think that they could start making use of it fairly early.

If my goal was for them to produce a small number of a new class first and then eventually mass produce it after they are confident in it, then I would've also delayed the new production facility construction as well

They will also need to train enough crews first.

Regarding crew; of course they will. However that's far from a unique challenge for the PLAN. A decade ago they only had two true aegis type AAW destroyers in the form of the two 052Cs, yet they've clearly managed to scale up and proliferate that expertise to be able to greatly expand the number of such vessels in service today and into the future.

Regardless of the initial production rate, however, peak production rate will depend on how many SSNs bohai has been contracted to produce by say the mid 2030s, and that definitely would be a factor that determined the size of this facility. But has Bohai provisioned the facility for being capable of handling a possibly higher production rate, that is the question for me and I think it has.

If such a large facility had been built for them then undoubtedly provisions would've been made for the full extent of the facility to be capable of being used if needed.
The question, as I wrote before and as you've written here, is when or if the full potential of the facility will be utilized.

Is there any facility that assembles subs the way JCNX assembles its destroyers? If there is, then that would make things very interesting, otherwise i'm still leaning towards the subs staying in one slot for the duration of their assembly.

There aren't many submarine assembly halls like what we see at BHSIC. If you look at Newport News, General Dynamics Electric Boat, they are only "long" enough to accommodate a single SSN or SSN/SSBN respectively, they simply lack the length to accommodate two SSNs in series like BHSIC can. They are assembled in a way that they are "fixed" in a single slot from module arrival to module assembly to launch.

However, the UK's BAE facility at Barrow in Furness is quite close to what I described for BHSIC. If you look up images of Astute subs being constructed there, you can see how they have modules transported to each "line" within the building and they are gradually assembled together and the submarine moves forward along the line before it is eventually launched (pictures below).
(edit: Sevmash also has an assembly hall large enough for comparing with BHSIC but there are few if any pictures of submarine assembly in Sevmash that I could find).

Of course, the Astute class production is not quite the same as what I envision for BHSIC, because BAE are building only a limited number of Astutes because of a limited RN order for them. Chances are they aren't using the full capacity of their facility, and there's a lot of free space to go around; whereas for facilities like Newport News they clearly are able to assemble an entire SSN in a single "slot" that is only one SSN long, whereas BAE's facility is similar to BHSIC's in length and able to theoretically accommodate two SSNs in series.

By the way, what I described regarding ships or submarines being assembled to a stage and then moved is not rare. It's fairly common for semi complete ships to get moved along a rail from one part of a shipyard to another part of a shipyard for a next stage of work. Not every ship is built inside a drydock in a fixed position. Even some ships like DL's destroyers are moved from one part within the drydock to another part (recall the current two 052DLs in the mega drydock at DL were moved to their current position only after the first two 055s were launched).

The fact that we rarely see submarines built in such a fashion is probably because there are few shipyards in the world with such extensive and large facilities to allow it. However, all submarines that are assembled on land and not in a drydock have to be transported on a rail from their assembly position to a drydock for launch anyway. So what I'm describing regarding a submarine being moved between positions as it moves from one stage of assembly to another is really just using the standard practice for submarine transport for a shipyard but applying it before the entire submarine is ready to be launched. It's also no different to transporting modules from a fabrication area to the assembly area like standard submarine yards.

 

[Blitzo]

In the case of the 055 they already had proven the engines and most of the hull design. There were new elements like masts and so on but they were tested with land models.

So the risk was actually quite low.

This is not the same case for the nuclear submarines which will likely use entirely new systems. The engines should be different, as will likely be the periscopes, the control systems, the sonar, probably even the torpedoes and weapons systems. Does any current Chinese submarine even use a photonics mast?

If they engage in concurrency it is quite likely they will have major problems. I think they would be better off building two prototype submarines of each class, 095, 096, and then testing and improving the heck out of those before going forward with more production.

There was certainly some commonality between 055 and past ships like 052D, but there is a fair bit that's new as well.

The powerplants themselves were proven however the arrangement was new for a destroyer (COGAG).
The hull was certainly clean sheet, and not a derivative of a past design.
The arrangement of the sensors and antennae was certainly very new, and if rumours are to be believed much of the ships combat system and command capabilities are to be new and ahead of past ships as well.

Other subsystems like VLS, gun and CIWS were of course relatively mature.


In the case of 09V, it's hard to gauge how much commonality it may have with past submarines because we simply don't know the extent of the changes that recent 09III variants have fielded and what additional capability and technology they may have trialed.
However I expect things like weapons (torpedoes, missiles etc) to be transferable over to 09V, after all new torpedoes like Yu-10 and missiles like YJ-18 have only recently entered service.
We don't know if any Chinese submarines use photonics masts but then again it's not like they would tell us or we are able to positively identify it simply from pictures on the outside. However considering where Chinese electronics and optics technologies are at I'd be surprised if they didn't have photonics mast in service in recent SSKs or SSNs.
Nor do we know what contemporary Chinese quietening technology is like and where their reactors sit in competitiveness.



That said if they do end up mass produce 09V from the outset, that would suggest a degree of confidence and maturity in key requisite technologies and would also retrospectively suggest to me that certain subsystems in the 09V may have already been in use in some form in past submarine types.

Not to mention, that just as various new subsystems or configurations were tested on land mockups for 055 (not to mention Chinese carriers), I expect the same would be done for Chinese nuclear submarines as well, in particular the reactor and propulsion.

Now, this isn't to say that the "risk" for mass producing 09V from the outset would be "low" (just like the risk of mass producing 055s from the outset was not "low" either). It would merely mean that perhaps the PLAN would have sufficient confidence in their suppliers and their technology to judge the risk to be acceptably low.

 

[AndrewS]

@Bltizo zo

Just got a few queries.

If a single production way can accommodate 4 SSNs at once, and can launch 2 SSNs per year, that would mean each submarine would take 2 years to assemble.

Yet some of the Virginia SSNs are listed as 9months from "laying down to launch". Granted there are only 4 blocks to be assembled and the overall construction timescale is 69months.
We can also see Akula SSNs only taking 9months from "laying down to launch"

It also reminds me of the Arleigh Burke at Ingalls with 3 superblocks being assembled in as little as 9months along a "moving" (pulsed?) production line.


So if Bohai also takes 9 months to assemble a submarine, wouldn't that mean each "production way" could assemble a maximum of 5 SSNs per year?

---

For the Astute SSN construction at Barrow, do you know how many production stations were located on the production "line"?

---

My read is that Bohai would setup the production process for speed of construction, at least in the beginning.
That would allow them to go through the build/test/improve cycle as fast as possible, given that the designs aren't mature yet.
It would still be at least 5 years from start to finish for a nuclear submarine.

Then once they are happy, they can optimise the production process for cost and scale even though it will result in a slightly longer construction timeline.

 

[Blitzo]

@Bltizo zo

Just got a few queries.

If a single production way can accommodate 4 SSNs at once, and can launch 2 SSNs per year, that would mean each submarine would take 2 years to assemble.

Yet some of the Virginia SSNs are listed as 9months from "laying down to launch". Granted there are only 4 blocks to be assembled and the overall construction timescale is 69months.
We can also see Akula SSNs only taking 9months from "laying down to launch"

It also reminds me of the Arleigh Burke at Ingalls with 3 superblocks being assembled in as little as 9months along a "moving" (pulsed?) production line.


So if Bohai also takes 9 months to assemble a submarine, wouldn't that mean each "production way" could assemble a maximum of 5 SSNs per year?

To be honest, I was being a little bit conservative for my ceiling estimate as well. I think considering the scale of the assembly hall as well as the pressurized hull fabrication center a faster rate of production may certainly be possible but I wanted to even low ball my ceiling estimate.

---

For the Astute SSN construction at Barrow, do you know how many production stations were located on the production "line"?

The most Astutes I've seen under work in that building at once is three, however of those three I could only see the bow module for one of them whereas two were more complete. When we look at the overall length of the facility they're able to accommodate two Astutes in series, and in terms of overall width they could easily accommodate two alongside each other, though there isn't quite as much width to accommodate three alongside. So in theory they could accommodate work on 4-6 SSN sized submarines at once.

However, in all of the pictures of Barrow I haven't seen any specific production stations or slots in the building, probably because the order for Astutes from the RN have been so small and slow that they have so much free space to work with in that massive building, with work only going on for maybe 2.5 astutes at once, tops.

Compare that with Newport News, where the arrangement of their assembly hall means each SSN only gets one slot to be assembled and there isn't much free space either side of it if the adjacent slot is also building an SSN.

---

My read is that Bohai would setup the production process for speed of construction, at least in the beginning.
That would allow them to go through the build/test/improve cycle as fast as possible, given that the designs aren't mature yet.
It would still be at least 5 years from start to finish for a nuclear submarine.

Then once they are happy, they can optimise the production process for cost and scale even though it will result in a slightly longer construction timeline.

One reason I'm a little bit doubtful about the "construct -> test -> improve" cycle for 09V this time around is because of the full 5 year cycle you described.
It will take at least 5 years from order to commissioning for a new SSN, and it will take a number of years on top of that to actually test out the new SSN. Let's call it 2 years, though chances are it might be longer if they really had minimal confidence or familiarity in the new technology.

If we believed the PLAN really would be taking such an approach for their first limited 09V production run (let's say 2 or 3 boats), then it means they would only order additional 09Vs after the Navy has had at least 2 years to properly trial it. That is a total of at least 7 years from receiving the first few 09Vs (i.e.: the "trial" ones) and receiving additional 09Vs.

I am not sure if such a delay in procurement would be acceptable for the PLAN, and if I were them I would've done as much as I can to reduce risk in the new 09V class either through testing relevant technologies in 09IIIBs, or through extensive land based testing of key subsystems, or testing through the 032 test submarine, etc.

I suppose one possibility is that the PLAN might choose to continue producing older SSNs like an 09III variant (like the much elusive 09IIIB) when they are "trialling" the first limited number of 09Vs before being confident enough to mass produce them.
But as far as capabilities go, I'm sure the PLAN would prefer to be able to have the confidence to immediately start mass producing 09Vs from the get go rather than having to build a limited number of 09Vs and wait another 7 years for additional 09Vs and building 09III variants in the interim.

There's just too much we don't know about what relevant 09V systems may already be mature and which may not be, nor do we know the extent of overall risk reduction that has been done so far, nor the PLAN's overall confidence in the technology

 

[AndrewS]

To be honest, I was being a little bit conservative for my ceiling estimate as well. I think considering the scale of the assembly hall as well as the pressurized hull fabrication center a faster rate of production may certainly be possible but I wanted to even low ball my ceiling estimate.



The most Astutes I've seen under work in that building at once is three, however of those three I could only see the bow module for one of them whereas two were more complete. When we look at the overall length of the facility they're able to accommodate two Astutes in series, and in terms of overall width they could easily accommodate two alongside each other, though there isn't quite as much width to accommodate three alongside. So in theory they could accommodate work on 4-6 SSN sized submarines at once.

However, in all of the pictures of Barrow I haven't seen any specific production stations or slots in the building, probably because the order for Astutes from the RN have been so small and slow that they have so much free space to work with in that massive building, with work only going on for maybe 2.5 astutes at once, tops.

Compare that with Newport News, where the arrangement of their assembly hall means each SSN only gets one slot to be assembled and there isn't much free space either side of it if the adjacent slot is also building an SSN.




One reason I'm a little bit doubtful about the "construct -> test -> improve" cycle for 09V this time around is because of the full 5 year cycle you described.
It will take at least 5 years from order to commissioning for a new SSN, and it will take a number of years on top of that to actually test out the new SSN. Let's call it 2 years, though chances are it might be longer if they really had minimal confidence or familiarity in the new technology.

If we believed the PLAN really would be taking such an approach for their first limited 09V production run (let's say 2 or 3 boats), then it means they would only order additional 09Vs after the Navy has had at least 2 years to properly trial it. That is a total of at least 7 years from receiving the first few 09Vs (i.e.: the "trial" ones) and receiving additional 09Vs.

I am not sure if such a delay in procurement would be acceptable for the PLAN, and if I were them I would've done as much as I can to reduce risk in the new 09V class either through testing relevant technologies in 09IIIBs, or through extensive land based testing of key subsystems, or testing through the 032 test submarine, etc.

I suppose one possibility is that the PLAN might choose to continue producing older SSNs like an 09III variant (like the much elusive 09IIIB) when they are "trialling" the first limited number of 09Vs before being confident enough to mass produce them.
But as far as capabilities go, I'm sure the PLAN would prefer to be able to have the confidence to immediately start mass producing 09Vs from the get go rather than having to build a limited number of 09Vs and wait another 7 years for additional 09Vs and building 09III variants in the interim.

There's just too much we don't know about what relevant 09V systems may already be mature and which may not be, nor do we know the extent of overall risk reduction that has been done so far, nor the PLAN's overall confidence in the technology

Giving this some more thought, I don't think Chinese Navy will wait for small test builds for submarines.

That approach was previously acceptable when China-US relations were cordial, and when China's military budget was much more limited.
But in the past 2 years, China's relationship with the US has gotten far worse and is degenerating into a strategic competition across every realm.

There have now been numerous Type-93 variants over the past 10+ years, so the Chinese Navy should know what Bohai is capable of producing and what is proven technology.

As to what a Type-95 will actually look like, I suspect they are going with the SSGN approach because even the quieter Virginia and Yasen classes (which are normally undetectable because they are quieter than ocean background noise) are going down that route for future builds.

It would also offset the disadvantage of the Type-95 in being noisier, because they would all be conducting stand off missile attacks from long distance, instead of having to close to point-blank range of enemy ships to fire torpedoes.

So I'm speculating that the Type-95 will be equipped with 40 cruise missiles just like the Virginia and the Yasen.
That should be feasible, although it may be tight to fit 2 submarines along a single track. Note the Yasen is 139M long and the Virginia with a VPM around 136M.

Given a Type-95 SSGN strategy, the Chinese Navy don't have to wait until their submarines are as quiet as the Yasen/Virginia.
They can just go with the best available (but proven) technology they currently have and start mass production.
Otherwise they would have to wait another 7 years for a build-test-improve cycle.

In the space of 7 years, let's say Bohai were to launch 3 Type-95 SSGNs per year which would be a total of 21 SSGNs.

If the Chinese Navy were to surge those boats, it doesn't matter if they are all detected crossing the SOSUS net across the First Island Chain.
Sheer numbers would mean there aren't enough opposing submarines to tail every submarine. There are only 3 US SSNs on patrol for all of PacFleet at any one time.

Inevitably there would be a large number of undetected Type-95 submarines prowling the Oceans.

So is there a submarine off Hawaii? Guam? Los Angeles? San Francisco? San Diego? Seattle? Panama? Sydney? Diego Garcia? The Middle East? The Suez Canal? The Cape of Good Hope?

That would fundamentally alter the strategic military balance in China's favour across the globe, but particularly in the Western Pacific.

If I look at military cost-effectiveness, money spent on building Type-95 SSGNs should have more impact than money spent on additional carriers or destroyers. Given the build rates we see on destroyers and carriers, would it actually make sense to start building 6 SSGNs per year?

 

[AndrewS]

Say there were 10 Type-95 SSGNs operating in the waters between the First Island Chain and the Second Island Chain.

They would serve as surveillance assets, as they would be able to detect noisy carrier strike groups from very long distances, and then cue other assets.

That would go a long way to isolating the First Island Chain from outside interference.

 

[Blitzo]

Giving this some more thought, I don't think Chinese Navy will wait for small test builds for submarines.

That approach was previously acceptable when China-US relations were cordial, and when China's military budget was much more limited.
But in the past 2 years, China's relationship with the US has gotten far worse and is degenerating into a strategic competition across every realm.

There have now been numerous Type-93 variants over the past 10+ years, so the Chinese Navy should know what Bohai is capable of producing and what is proven technology.

As to what a Type-95 will actually look like, I suspect they are going with the SSGN approach because even the quieter Virginia and Yasen classes (which are normally undetectable because they are quieter than ocean background noise) are going down that route for future builds.

It would also offset the disadvantage of the Type-95 in being noisier, because they would all be conducting stand off missile attacks from long distance, instead of having to close to point-blank range of enemy ships to fire torpedoes.

So I'm speculating that the Type-95 will be equipped with 40 cruise missiles just like the Virginia and the Yasen.
That should be feasible, although it may be tight to fit 2 submarines along a single track. Note the Yasen is 139M long and the Virginia with a VPM around 136M.

Given a Type-95 SSGN strategy, the Chinese Navy don't have to wait until their submarines are as quiet as the Yasen/Virginia.
They can just go with the best available (but proven) technology they currently have and start mass production.
Otherwise they would have to wait another 7 years for a build-test-improve cycle.

I wouldn't be surprised if 09Vs would have a respectable SLCM capability, though I'm not sure if they would aim to have an arsenal as large as 885 or Block V Virginias.

It might make sense if they wanted a larger SLCM capability to compensate for acoustic performance that was not as competitive. But that big question will be just how quiet the 09Vs will be.

09IIIs were often described openly to be rather loud, but considering they were designed and built in the early 1990s, and 09V would've been designed and built in the mid to late 2010s on the back of successive iterative 09III variants, I would be interested to see how much nuclear submarine technologies have progressed in that time.
After all, let's recall that in the early 1990s the top of the line destroyers they were producing were 052s, whereas the current top of the line are 055s.

In the space of 7 years, let's say Bohai were to launch 3 Type-95 SSGNs per year which would be a total of 21 SSGNs.

If the Chinese Navy were to surge those boats, it doesn't matter if they are all detected crossing the SOSUS net across the First Island Chain.
Sheer numbers would mean there aren't enough opposing submarines to tail every submarine. There are only 3 US SSNs on patrol for all of PacFleet at any one time.

Inevitably there would be a large number of undetected Type-95 submarines prowling the Oceans.

So is there a submarine off Hawaii? Guam? Los Angeles? San Francisco? San Diego? Seattle? Panama? Sydney? Diego Garcia? The Middle East? The Suez Canal? The Cape of Good Hope?

That would fundamentally alter the strategic military balance in China's favour across the globe, but particularly in the Western Pacific.

If I look at military cost-effectiveness, money spent on building Type-95 SSGNs should have more impact than money spent on additional carriers or destroyers. Given the build rates we see on destroyers and carriers, would it actually make sense to start building 6 SSGNs per year?

I didn't want to get into the nitty gritty of submarines vs surface ships too much in my piece and I'm not going to do so now either. Too many things to juggle; cost effectiveness vs actual funding available vs power projection. Needless to say having even a decent sized and even semi competitive SSN force would be capable of causing significant complications to an opfor.

In terms of numbers, I wouldn't be surprised if the PLAN probably has a medium to long term requirement for an SSN/SSGN fleet of around 40 boats. But I also think the PLAN would only be comfortable building a truly large run of a class of nuclear submarine if they judged it to be sufficiently capable against opposing ASW and opposing nuclear submarines as well.

Depending on what 09VI SSBN looks like, it might make sense to also produce a number of SSGN variants as well.

 

[AndrewS]

I wouldn't be surprised if 09Vs would have a respectable SLCM capability, though I'm not sure if they would aim to have an arsenal as large as 885 or Block V Virginias.

It might make sense if they wanted a larger SLCM capability to compensate for acoustic performance that was not as competitive. But that big question will be just how quiet the 09Vs will be.

09IIIs were often described openly to be rather loud, but considering they were designed and built in the early 1990s, and 09V would've been designed and built in the mid to late 2010s on the back of successive iterative 09III variants, I would be interested to see how much nuclear submarine technologies have progressed in that time.
After all, let's recall that in the early 1990s the top of the line destroyers they were producing were 052s, whereas the current top of the line are 055s.

Yes, but if the Type-95 is still quite noisy, then it really makes much more sense to design a submarine with a greater number of longer-ranged missiles.

I didn't want to get into the nitty gritty of submarines vs surface ships too much in my piece and I'm not going to do so now either. Too many things to juggle; cost effectiveness vs actual funding available vs power projection. Needless to say having even a decent sized and even semi competitive SSN force would be capable of causing significant complications to an opfor.

In terms of numbers, I wouldn't be surprised if the PLAN probably has a medium to long term requirement for an SSN/SSGN fleet of around 40 boats. But I also think the PLAN would only be comfortable building a truly large run of a class of nuclear submarine if they judged it to be sufficiently capable against opposing ASW and opposing nuclear submarines as well.

Depending on what 09VI SSBN looks like, it might make sense to also produce a number of SSGN variants as well.

Personally I think a force of 40 SSN/SSGN is too small because:

1. If they were only aiming for 40 SSN/SSGN plus SSBNs, which is only 1.5 submarines per year. So they could have built the new construction hall at half the size but still have so much spare capacity left.

2. Plus look at China's available budgets/resolve on the surface navy.
At current construction rates, China will eventually end up with a larger surface navy (in terms of quantity and quality) than the USA.
But that surface navy will struggle to obtain sea control and project power in distant waters because of logistics.
Plus it will still be a lot smaller (and vulnerable) for another 15+ years.
Building a larger nuclear submarine force allows China to become a global maritime power much faster, with the ability to deny others command of the oceans

We can also see the US moving to construction of 3 nuclear submarines per year, so I would expect China to at least match that.
With a 35 year service life, we end up with a fleet of 100 nuclear submarines, so building 20 semi-competitive SSN/SSGNs over the next 7 years, isn't such a big deal.
Plus also consider how submarine construction is really labour intensive, even compared to surface warship construction.
Wages in China are still rising at almost 10% per year. If sustained, that means wages would DOUBLE in the next 7 years.
So from a cost-effectiveness point of view, it may still be worth building less capable submarines, but which are significantly cheaper.

 

[gelgoog]

I think comparing the progress on the Chinese nuclear submarines with the destroyers is a mistake. The Chinese had technology infusions with purchases from abroad in the Type 052-class, the Sovremennyy-class, plus aid from Ukraine. We have not heard of anything like that with regards to their nuclear submarine program. The Chinese nuclear power sector is well developed, they likely have much more advanced simulation tools and test facilities, they have improved construction facilities. But the question is can they put everything together and make it work well? A lot of systems we consider to be standard requirements for modern submarines AFAIK have not shown up in any Chinese nuclear submarines yet.

 

[latenlazy]

A lot of systems we consider to be standard requirements for modern submarines AFAIK have not shown up in any Chinese nuclear submarines yet.

How do we know they haven’t shown up in any Chinese nuclear submarine when we don’t know what’s in any of them in the first place?