09V/09VI (095/096) Nuclear Submarine Thread
- Thread starter Hendrik_2000
- Start date
Regardless of numbers discussion, why shouldnt chinese SSN´s be unable to land attack only because of political considerations? the US navy has no such considerations. And yes, land attack is fundamental everywhere, including the APAC. In fact, SSN are called attack submarines for a reason. They attack everything from surface ships, to other submarines and also land attack, and they have been doing so for decades now.
Your statements are not accurate.
There is actually an optimal production rate to maximise efficiency.
If your production rate is too low or too high, efficiency declines.
I would advise you to take a Manufacturing Management or Operations Management course
Last edited:
There are actually a number of critical maritime chokepoints and also high-value land targets that only nuclear submarines can reach. That would greatly increase the ability of the Chinese military to deter US intervention.
That argues for a significantly larger Chinese fleet than the 36 SSNs you mention.
I mean yeah, I was trying to make the point that running at 100% throughput doesn't happen for reasons. Clearly building 1 sub every 50 years at the yard isn't good either..
Sevmash is currently building three Borei strategic submarines, the maximum prior was five (2017), six Yasen attack submarines, maximum prior was five (2017). So they have like up to eleven submarines in construction maximum at any one time and like four layed a year (two Borei, two Yasen) of these types. That is without taking the Khabarovsk-class submarines into account which would add another submarine to that. Back in Soviet times they had two large nuclear submarine shipyards. One in the North and another in the East. The one in the East was closed since and only the one in the North (Sevmash) is left.
I think the Chinese should build a lot of smallish/medium sized attack submarines kind of like the French ones, and strategic submarines with capability to launch 16x missiles. Building something like the Akula/Typhoon-class makes no sense IMHO because China does not have the same issue the Soviets had with the Grom/Bark SLBM which was simply too huge. The JL-2/3 series missiles are a lot more compact so such large submarines aren't required.
I think the Chinese should build a lot of smallish/medium sized attack submarines kind of like the French ones, and strategic submarines with capability to launch 16x missiles. Building something like the Akula/Typhoon-class makes no sense IMHO because China does not have the same issue the Soviets had with the Grom/Bark SLBM which was simply too huge. The JL-2/3 series missiles are a lot more compact so such large submarines aren't required.
This thread is about 09V and 09VI so I'll be brief with this digression. US Navy does control all the oceans through its Carrier groups and that situation will not change for the next 30 years. Might makes right. The beauty and elegance of the One Belt and One Road Initiative is to render this naval dominance completely irrelevant by shifting the geopolitical center of the world back to the Eurasian continent with overland connectivity (the maritime part was added later to make it sound more economic-oriented and all encompassing). Instead of spending a trillion dollars on instruments of destruction, using that same amount on infrastructures pays much better dividend by create brand new markets and more prosperous consumers while neatly removing the US from the entire picture. If you work remotely from home instead of commuting to office, do you care how dangerous or congested the traffic is? Why use oil tankers when you can have a pipeline from Iran to Xinjiang? Why use USD/SWIFT when you have DCEP (digital currency)? Why play with rules defined for your enemy's benefit (the so called 'International System')? Why bother with Saudi Arabia/UAE when you can build an alliance with Iraq/Iran/Syria/Afghanistan/Pakistan? Why sail the Indian ocean when you have the Northern Passage? Why sweat about selling 5G to an aging population of 500 million in NA and Europe now when your potential market 10 years from now can be five billion people in Africa, Latin America, and Asia?
Great generals win by maneuvering/out flanking the enemy, not by frontal assaults or play into your enemy's strengths. China's strategy has been to bypass areas where US is dominant and leave the US with all the legacy weapons and doctrines. The US Navy is probably the service China worry about the least. USN hasn't come up with a single successful hull design since the Spruance 50 years ago. Zumwalt and LCS are complete disasters. Ford class is being capped at 4 and the Marines no longer have any purpose at all. China's A2/AD strategy is working really well. What good is your CVN if your plane's range + weapon range won't even reach your enemy's coastline? Waiting until China is more resilient in finance and high tech, then it is time to sell Iran MARV technology to keep the Hormuz clear.
Back to the 09V quantity question. 36 is more than plenty (I was actually thinking 24 09V's and 12 09VI's). (1) Although it is hard to imagine a cheaper form of transportation, China can reduce its dependence and criticality to its national interests. (2) Don't forget the diesels which are inherently quieter and an order of magnitude cheaper life cycle cost. We are at the very beginning of the endurance/AIP revolution. When a diesel can go a month or two underwater, why bother with nuclear? (3) Why use a manned sub for land targets when a submersible arsenal ship (or a swarming mothership from above) can do more for much less. (4) A poor country (like Vietnam) must buy these small Jack-of-all-trades frigates overloaded with all sorts of weapons. When you are rich, you can afford to build 05VI corvettes knowing you have 05IV's, 05II's, and 05V's for the tougher jobs.
Let the 09V's be dedicated SSN hunter killers. With longer range SLBM's, the SSBN's can stay in Bohai which is already a safe-enough bastion. I think the 05VI corvette design shows China recognizes the usefulness of dedicated platforms. US wishes it can do this too but its cost structure is way too high and it has failed too many times that it must adapt the FREMM design for the Constellation class of frigates. If you follow US submarine discussions, USN thinks the Virginia is too small and the follow-on class will be substantially bigger but can the US afford such a Seawolf-like boat.
The US Navy is off kilter. The Virginia submarine program has for the most part been the most well run in the Navy and yet they want large submarines again. I think ever since they saw the Yasen submarine of the Russians they sort of got envious of that huge submarine and decided they need large submarines too.
Like I said I think China could also use attack submarines on the smaller size.
Like I said I think China could also use attack submarines on the smaller size.
Observing a competitor fielding a capable, large, SSN designed for ocean going purposes naturally means one would want to have a submarine to overmatch that if one had the finances and industry to support it. The USN had Seawolf, but went for the still very capable but somewhat less specialized Virginia class after it, and in coming years/decades they want a larger SSN with a mission set not dissmilar to the Seawolf again.
For the PLAN, being able to achieve mature and competitive technologies for a capable SSN and SSBN is the first part -- and 09V and 09VI might be able to achieve that if previous years statements and rumours are to go by.
Having a sufficiently large and viable and survivable SSBN fleet is important of course. The submarine needs to be able to hold at risk significant parts of the world at distances that are relatively close or within regional waters, demanding the missiles be sufficiently capable as well.
It is also important to have a multirole, mass producible SSN that is able to operate in littorals and open oceans well, with respectable torpedo and land attack capabilities consistent with a modern SSN (either by some VLS or torpedo tube launched missiles).
But in the longer term, seeking a fleet that is sufficiently large but also sufficiently varied is also desirable, if the above two basic requirements can be met.
More specialized submarines, such as large payload submarines, or SSBN derived SSGNs, are also desirable -- having the ability to launch well over a hundred cruise missiles for example, in a way like the Ohio SSGNs, would prove quite useful.
Deeper ocean going optimized attack submarines with more torpedo tubes, dedicated more for submarine vs submarine encounters, is also desirable.
Variants of attack submarines with larger cruise missile loads (extended length/VLS plug ins perhaps) would also be quite useful.
Finally, small production runs of more specialized espionage and strategic reconaissance nuclear submarines would also prove ideal.
If the PLAN are satisfied with a design and set of technologies they deem sufficiently competitive and advanced, it becomes a question of how many nuclear submarines (SSNs, SSBNs, but also other more "specialized" boats like large SSNs, large payload/SSBN derived SSGNs, SSN derived SSGNs etc) they feel like they need and how much they can afford and how quickly they want it.
This is well post 2030 nuclear sub procurement requirements of course, so it's well into the future, but it also isn't that far. It's about the same time between now and when J-20 first flew.
The beauty and elegance of the One Belt and One Road Initiative is that it is in a large extent a waste of money. Eurasian land routes will never be able to compete in volume and efficiency with the maritimes routes.
For the contrary, IMO the US Navy is the US military service that china should worry most. It has tremendous firepower, and unlike the USSR, most of china´s industries are in provinces close or relativively close to the shoreline.
Conventional submarines arent able to do what nuclear submarines do. They have a lot less power. There´s a reason that for decades now, the US navy hasnt bother with conventional submarines. Conventional submarines´s only advantage is cost.
Last edited: