New sailless SSN (09X?) thread

[Chaos314159]

I don't want to discourage you guys, but that picture looks like it's been photoshopped and enhanced with AI from this pic below. The Vantor logo is also photoshopped.

 

[Lethe]

Yeah, thats one of the reasons why US subs have an extra set of fins at the stern as the issue got worse when they decided to remove the diving planes from the sail. There is a possibility that X planes help reduce this problem making smaller sails more viable.

View attachment 176091

View attachment 176092

With propulsor plus cruciform tail, I assume this is a Seawolf boat.

Norman Friedman's Submarine Design and Development, published in 1984, contains some pertinent and otherwise interesting notes on preliminary designs of what would become SSN-21.

There is every indication that the FY 89 concept has been motivated by an increasing ambition for tactical independence and an expanded role on the part of the U.S. submarine force. Detail of the proposed design reflect both dissatisfaction with existing US submarine designs, and also a very positive view of Soviet submarine designs, apparently particularly the 'Victor III'. Although there has been very little concrete disclosure of the FY89 design, enough has been said to make comparison with the earlier AHPNAS relevant. In each case, large size makes for a large and varied weapon load, with emphasis on long-range cruise missile capable of striking inland targets. To some extent the attack submarine's ability to carry a significant load of conventional (or even nuclear) land-attack cruise missiles close to key Soviet maritime shore facilities early in a war compensates for the increasing vulnerability of the carrier battle groups currently assigned to this role.

[....] The new submarine will probably have a pump-jet, for higher-speed passive operation: conventional propellers are said to contribute greatly to noise above about 12 knots. The other complaint is insufficient torpedo tubes and weapons. There is also intense dissatisfaction with the current torpedo tube configuration, in which the tubes angle out and down abaft the sonar bow. Sketches of the new design therefore show a much more powerful salvo, eight tubes arrayed across the bow itself in two rows. It appears that there will be two full row of reloads behind each tube, which probably implies capacity for about 40-60 torpedoes altogether. There is also talk of a few (perhaps two) large diameter (30in) tubes, as a hedge against requirements for much larger torpedoes. That leaves only the space under the nest of tubes for a big active/passive sonar to replace the current sphere.

[....] The standard complaint -- insufficient speed -- may be answered by a new PWR plant with about twice the output of the present one. That would allow for about 70 percent displacement growth at the same speed, or for some considerable increase in both speed and displacement. Perhaps more important, the greater the maximum speed, the greater the maximum 'quiet' speed; higher speed becomes more valuable as submarine silencing and signal processing improve to make better use of it.

[....] For many year US submariners have complained of 'snap roll', which they often attribute to the size and position of the sail. The new design therefore shows a much smaller sail, more like the Soviet than the earlier U.S. type. This requires the bow planes to be relocated, and from FY 83 onwards U.S. attack submarines are to have them in the conventional forward position.

[....] Other changes are to include the first US anechoic coatings and probably an X-stern. Although the FY 89 submarine is to have a US-style single hull, it will have a new beamier hull form, with a lower length-to beam ratio reminiscent of the fast Skipjack. This is a very large submarine, almost certainly much costlier than any repeat Los Angeles, let alone any of the smaller submarines (such as the 'fleet attack' or 'Fat Albert') proposed from time to time. In many ways its proposed design appears to reflect a view that American designers have been far too conservative, and have been overtaken by developments in Europe and in the Soviet Union. Some would go so far as to describe it as an Americanised (if grossly enlarged) 'Victor'.

 

[bsdnf]

I don't want to discourage you guys, but that picture looks like it's been photoshopped and enhanced with AI from this pic below. The Vantor logo is also photoshopped.
View attachment 176217

Using that white square as a reference point, it was stretched to the very tip of the shadow.

This cannot be explained by distortion

it should be fake, I've been fooled.

Request mod to delete the post

 

[00CuriousObserver]

Anyway, maybe we could have something like this



Red is 850 and blue is 533

For reference, a quadpacked circle with an 850mm small circle would require a big circle with a minimum diameter of ~2050mm. So it might be a bit of a stretch with 2.5m. For tripacked circles, it's ~1830mm. Virginia Payload Tubes have a 2.21m inside bore, and iirc they're looking to tripack a 876mm missile

 

[Tomboy]

Red is 850 and blue is 533

For reference, a quadpacked circle with an 850mm small circle would require a big circle with a minimum diameter of ~2050mm. So it might be a bit of a stretch with 2.5m. For tripacked circles, it's ~1830mm. Virginia Payload Tubes have a 2.21m inside bore, and iirc they're looking to tripack a 876mm missile

Though the issue with this is that we already know (with reasonable certainty) the multipack tubes on 09V are tripacked UVLS not quad. Also to my knowledge PLAN doesn't operate any 533mm VLS tubes, I don't expect them to custom make missiles just for this one class of submarine.

 

[BoraTas]

I gathered by thoughts. When I first saw Sutton's article I thought it was a seabed warfare and spying sub. These subs are called
special mission subs. I am reposting that here.



Over the time, though, my opinion had changed for several times and now, I am back to the special mission position. I was thinking that the Bohai sub was the same. Also, the next photo showed its L/D was 9-10, not 12. Still thinking its beam was 10 m, I decided this was a lower end SSN or SSGN.
Then, we learnt its true size, and the fact that the Bohai sub was different. At that size, it certainly couldn't be a low end something. At this point I was thinking of the 09V's SSGN variant. Then, yesterday happened. It doesn't have much area on top of it for VLS. It also likely is a hybrid hull sub. So it getting derived from the 09V or being an SSGN are lowly plausible too.

 

[styx]

I'm not convinced that the new Chinese Silesse submarine is actually narrower than the new Chinese Type 095 submarine. It's possible that, because it is semi-submerged, its full beam or diameter is not fully apparent.

 

[Jason_]

The Jiangnan SSN should be seen as a new class of high performance SSN build around a payload section/hull module. The payload section could be a VLS farm, a special forces support section, or a bay for deep sea submersible or mines or UUVs or XXL torpedos. The exact role of the payload section on this first boat is arguably not that important, since different payload sections can be built for different purposes on subsequent boats. None of the payload mission would involve visual range periscope engagement vs surface ships so the sail was omitted.

That being said, the vast majority of the class will likely be built in the SSGN configuration. The PLA needs a lot of firepower against high value targets in Australia, Alaska, Hawaii and CONUS.

 

[Maikeru]

I think the PLAAF analogy is:

093 = J11A
093A = J11B
093B = J16
095 = J20
09X = J36/XDS

039 = J10A 039A/B = J10B 039C = J10C

I suspect 09X is a 'standard' SSN is aimed at very high silent transit speeds to get to operating areas in EastPac, whilst 095 (and 093B before it) is more of a general purpose sub for use in support of CVBGs and/or within 3IC/Indian Ocean.

09X wouldn't have the VLS we appear to see if it was a special mission sub like Jimmy Carter or the many Russian subs in this role.

 

[BoraTas]

The Jiangnan SSN should be seen as a new class of high performance SSN build around a payload section/hull module. The payload section could be a VLS farm, a special forces support section, or a bay for deep sea submersible or mines or UUVs or XXL torpedos. The exact role of the payload section on this first boat is arguably not that important, since different payload sections can be built for different purposes on subsequent boats. None of the payload mission would involve visual range periscope engagement vs surface ships so the sail was omitted.

That being said, the vast majority of the class will likely be built in the SSGN configuration. The PLA needs a lot of firepower against high value targets in Australia, Alaska, Hawaii and CONUS.

Is this from Shilao?