The difference in noise level between SSN-774 (Virginia) and SSN-751 (Improved Los Angeles) is given as 13dB. For passive sonar 15dB difference results in maximum detection distance of thirty-one meters.
The difference in noise level between SSN-774 and SSN-688 (Los Angeles) is given as 18dB. For passive sonar 20dB difference results in maximum detection distance of one hundred meters.
The difference in noise level between SSN-774 and SSN-637 (Sturgeon) is given as 35dB. For passive sonar 35dB difference results in maximum detection distance of three kilometers.
My view is that 688 (Los Angeles) is the minimum requirement, and that the latest Chinese design is almost certainly better.
PLAN doesn't need to match USN sub for sub and dB for dB. It needs to be able to put to sea a fleet of 20 or 30 "good enough" SSNs and keep the production line going for the next generation of vessels and USN is in deep trouble with current numbers. Anything more or better and it's a completely novel situation that the USN has never been in before.
The US Navy only has 5-6 submarines on patrol at any time.
But with a Chinese fleet of 30 submarines, 20+ could surge past the 1st Island Chain and then disappear into the Pacific.
And this is why USN is so desperately trying to get more Virginias or wants XLUUVs. Because the submarine game is a numbers and positions game, not a "one good swordsman is worth ten bad ones." If it was then USN would be gunning for top performance at the expense of numbers and it isn't.
Yes, I see underwater warfare moving to a number's game as well.
On that note, it would be comparatively easier for the Chinese Navy to build large numbers of UUVs to offset the current US undersea advantage. Nuclear submarines are expensive and just take too long to develop and build.
So I perhaps a lot of the new Bohai construction capacity will be used for UUVs.
From a strategic perspective, China doesn't yet have a global carrier fleet to wrest blue-water control, and realistically it will take a minimum of another 15 years, even if there was a huge buildup.
But China's core territorial objectives lie in its neighbouring waters.
Plus China dominates its neighbours in terms of economic and military heft.
The other interesting thing is that China and its neighbours comprise a larger concentration of economic, industrial and scientific/R&D strength than the US+Europe combined.
So theoretically, China doesn't need blue-water control of the deep Pacific, as long as the Western Pacific can be sealed off from the US Navy. For that mission, a large fleet of submarines would be much quicker to build than carrier groups.