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

[SEAD]

Just wondering, do you guys think it would be possible for Russia to sell Yasen/Borei tech in the current situation in exchange for economic aid?

It's basically one of the last aces up their sleeve

There’re some China publications described problems they faced about submarine tech transferring in 2000s. It sounds like they were disappointed to Russian since their ‘new tech’ was even worse than developing domestic peers.

Anyway that’s 2000s, but since then Russia only made limited progress while PLA is even more than completely different.

So if you’re asking about conventional powered submarine, my answer would be never. For nuclear powered submarines, who knows but I think the opportunity is also tiny.

 

[gelgoog]

China's conventional submarines should be more advanced than Russian ones. And Chinese industry has more potential to leap forward than the Russian industry there given Chinese developments in fuel cells and lithium ion battery technology. The Chinese electronics industry should also be further ahead and have the advantage in terms of sensors and combat systems. Where China should still at least observe and maybe make purchases would be in submarine weapons systems. Russia recently modernized its torpedoes for example and it might be useful to compare performance with a limited purchase.

With regards to nuclear submarines there China is still behind Russia. Probably in terms of overall submarine design, nuclear reactors, and pump-jet propulsion. I expect the nuclear reactor gap to be closed over the next 5 years. In terms of submarine design, I think it would be helpful to get design aid from Russian companies, much like was done with the combat helicopter program. The propulsion might be harder since most nations consider that to be the "secret sauce" really. Notice how Russia doesn't even share propulsion technology between different design bureaus. The attack submarine program cannot use the pump-jet system developed for the strategic submarines because it comes from a different design bureau. Then you come to weapon systems. Zircon will be a game changing weapon when it does come into service. I doubt Russia would license 100% of it. But they might, for example, license the airframe design, and keep the recipe for the advanced fuel to themselves. You would get a reduced range weapon out of it, but it would still have the same kinematic characteristics.

 

[SEAD]

China's conventional submarines should be more advanced than Russian ones. And Chinese industry has more potential to leap forward than the Russian industry there given Chinese developments in fuel cells and lithium ion battery technology. The Chinese electronics industry should also be further ahead and have the advantage in terms of sensors and combat systems. Where China should still at least observe and maybe make purchases would be in submarine weapons systems. Russia recently modernized its torpedoes for example and it might be useful to compare performance with a limited purchase.

With regards to nuclear submarines there China is still behind Russia. Probably in terms of overall submarine design, nuclear reactors, and pump-jet propulsion. I expect the nuclear reactor gap to be closed over the next 5 years. In terms of submarine design, I think it would be helpful to get design aid from Russian companies, much like was done with the combat helicopter program. The propulsion might be harder since most nations consider that to be the "secret sauce" really. Notice how Russia doesn't even share propulsion technology between different design bureaus. The attack submarine program cannot use the pump-jet system developed for the strategic submarines because it comes from a different design bureau. Then you come to weapon systems. Zircon will be a game changing weapon when it does come into service. I doubt Russia would license 100% of it. But they might, for example, license the airframe design, and keep the recipe for the advanced fuel to themselves. You would get a reduced range weapon out of it, but it would still have the same kinematic characteristics.

Zircon is impossible since they have at least a half dozen of developing HCM programs and no sign of any barriers. They won’t hope what happened in 2000s submarine tech transfer happens again.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

But if the goal for 09V is a Virginia/Astute category peer, I think a 09III family 11m-ish pressure hull diameter should be sufficient, even in a hybrid single/double hull configuration.

Why is the Virginia as small as it is? If larger submarines have advantages like improved stealth and more room for everything from provisions to munitions, why did the US shrink its SSN size from Seawolf to Virginia?

 

[Blitzo]

We've had several discussions before regarding this topic. I thought it's pretty apparent we had different opinions on where China is in terms of submarine stealth technology.

Now, if they are further ahead than I think they are, I still think it's beneficial to build something close to seawolf class in pressure hull diameter since that could possibly offer them an advantage over Virginia class.

I recall that we've had discussions about the importance of pressure hull diameter for improving acoustic stealth dampening measures.
I admit I can't recall us talking about what the pressure hull diameter requirement for 09V would have to be to be competitive with say, Virginia class. But that's fine.

Why is the Virginia as small as it is? If larger submarines have advantages like improved stealth and more room for everything from provisions to munitions, why did the US shrink its SSN size from Seawolf to Virginia?

The Virginia isn't really that small, its hull diameter is similar to the LA class that preceded it.

Virginia is smaller than Seawolf class because the latter was very expensive, and post cold war, the US wanted a more multirole and cheaper SSN than Seawolf, but which was as technologically and acoustically capable at the same time.

They basically took Seawolf technology and put it onto a smaller diameter hull.
The resulting SSN is one that is less optimized as a high performance SSN-killer, but which is still able to outmatch basically almost all contemporary competitors of its era, by virtue of its technology (propulsion, acoustic stealth, sensors, weapons), while being suitable for open ocean operations but also able to operate better in littorals than Seawolf, and possessing more inbuilt multirole capability (built in VLS as standard).
All of these factors and being a well managed program (not only by USN standards, but by global standards as well), resulted in a long production run and in turn enabled development of successively more capable variants, with the forthcoming Block V boats having a plug in hull module that adds additional VLS capability (either 28 Tomahawks, or they can trade 7 Tomahawks for 3 LRHWs), on top of the 12 bow fixed VLS Tomahawks.

Virginia class is a true worthy heir to the 688 and 688i class, a very qualitatively capable and multirole SSN, produced in large quantities (the latter of which is very important).

For 09V, the idea of it being a Seawolf category high performance large diameter SSN is not beyond the pale, but I do believe that they would have a requirement to want to mass produce it and have subvariants of it.
Who knows, maybe they can achieve such a design while also mass producing it in large numbers.

 

[SEAD]

Do you think it’s possible that 095 is designed not only a ‘Virginia killer’ but also ‘Ohio and Columbia killer’? That perhaps the only way for China to build an equal nuclear force with US, since if your SSBNs are always hunted by SSNs and you cannot hunt your enemy’s SSBNs, you can hardly win a nuclear war. Red Navy had never tried it so they were defeated shamefully.

and if anyone can answer my question about hull and vibration isolating system I would appreciate.

 

[banjex]

you can hardly win a nuclear war.

Scary that people still think this is possible.

 

[SEAD]

Scary that people still think this is possible.

You d better think it’s possible if the other player thinks so. (US absolutely think it’s possible)

If PLA can hunt for Ohio, US must think twice before any 1st strike. You know PLA is more ambitious than most expectations.

 

[weig2000]

Scary that people still think this is possible.

Yes, it's a very tiny number of people that still think so, yet they're disportionately more influential ...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Blitzo]

Do you think it’s possible that 095 is designed not only a ‘Virginia killer’ but also ‘Ohio and Columbia killer’? That perhaps the only way for China to build an equal nuclear force with US, since if your SSBNs are always hunted by SSNs and you cannot hunt your enemy’s SSBNs, you can hardly win a nuclear war. Red Navy had never tried it so they were defeated shamefully.

The realistic ability to hunt opfor SSBNs is not only dependent on the capability of one's own SSNs, but rather global naval (and air) basing that you have access to and the global naval (and air) basing that the opfor has access to.

So sure, if the 09V is a modernized Chinese version of Seawolf, in theory it could be used to hunt all manner of opfor high performance nuclear submarines.
But in practice, it is dependent on Chinese naval (and air) basing availability and US naval (and air basing) availability around the world.... so no, barring major tectonic upheavals in geopolitical alignment and basing, that is not going to be a likely realistic mission for 09Vs, even assuming they are a large diameter high performance SSN like a modern Seawolf.

and if anyone can answer my question about hull and vibration isolating system I would appreciate.

As for your question about hull diameter "fixing" a tech gap -- what tphuang was implying was that with more advanced technology, you can achieve greater levels of noise reduction in the same volume/hull diameter.
If your technology is less advanced, you will need greater volume/hull diameter to achieve the same level of noise reduction versus a submarine using more advanced technology.