This is similar to why the Rafale can't be a 5-gen fighter jet
The overall system layout and design surrounding the aerodynamic/hydrodynamic shape are already fixed; you can't modify the 095 into a sailless submarine.
New sailless SSN (09X?) thread
- Thread starter ACuriousPLAFan
- Start date
The overall system layout and design surrounding the aerodynamic/hydrodynamic shape are already fixed; you can't modify the 095 into a sailless submarine.
Could the sailless sub be the rumoured 095A, would that be a big stretch? Recall rumours from not long ago about 095A already being in the works even if 095 was just launched. As for 095, i would imagine they're not just going to build a single unit of it, but at least 2-4? We anxiously await good images of that Bohai mystery sub to figure out what it is.
I am confused.
So the 095 remains a double hull vessel, whilst the new boat at JN would be PLAN’s first single hull SSN?
I don't think it's mentioned anywhere that the 095 employs a double hull. All he is effectively saying is that thanks to a major redesign effort the 095 became more or less a parallel project to the latest model, and since the latter constitutes a major improvement over the 095, it will likely replace it in subsequent mass production.
A 15% drag reduction would mean a 5-7% increase in top speed?
And a sailless hydrodynamic design would be quieter/faster than any other submarine in the world.
Is the 09X generationally ahead of the 095?
It would have a somewhat higher maximum speed and higher silent speed, but otherwise the other subsystems could fit in the same hull.
If the 09X beam is at least 12.5m, that's barely any difference to the Type-095 diameter (12.4-12.8m?)
So it would be logical to keep the 09X beam the same, as they can reuse the same design/subsystems as the Type-095, such as the pumpjet and reactor for example, which should already be state of the art.
If so, perhaps we can call the 09X as the [higher-risk, higher underwater performance] counterpart to the [low-risk, lower-cost, general purpose] Type-095.
And from the perspective of the Chinese submarine industry and presumed Chinese Navy submarine requirements, I reckon they could sustain a minimum of [two annually for the Type-095] and also another [two annually for the 09X]
Note that a production rate of two submarines annually would be the highest in the world, and presumably efficient.
And if they both share the same reactor and propulsion, well, those modules would be at four annually.
Last edited:
That's kind of expected, given how we've been waiting for the 095 to come out for too long already.
Assuming Xi Yazhou's claim to be accurate/true, then I believe we could deduce/infer that China's future SSN fleet would be developed as follows:
- The 095 SSN (which is considered "older/less-advanced" than the 09X SSN) would become the PLAN's Virginias (despite many of us in the OSINT circles equating it to the Seawolf) - Namely, general-purpose SSNs (and hopefully SSGNs in future variants with more than 24x VLS cells per boat) for anti-ship and land attack missions, which would be relatively cheaper to procure and operate.
- The 09X SSN, on the other hand, would become the PLAN's Seawolfs instead - Namely, dedicated hunter-killer SSNs for anti-sub (and potentially even special) missions, which would be relatively more expensive to procure and operate.
In the meantime, if there is no general-purpose variant (for land-attack and anti-ship missions, serving as proper successors to the 095 family) being considered by the designers and engineers of the 09X and the PLAN for the foreseeable future, then I believe that we could very well see the 095 family having a substantial production run for many years to come (i.e. parallel production runs with the 09X). At this stage, I don't quite see how the PLAN would just gladly give up the capability of conducting anti-ship and land-attack missions far beyond the 2IC in favor of an all-sub-hunter fleet. This is apart from the time required for all the advanced/next-gen technologies onboard this prototype SSN to be tested, verified and accepted by the operators before proceeding with serial production, which would necessitate using the 095 family as a stopgap.
On the other hand, once the 095 family's production run kicks into high gear, then I think it's a rational expectation for the 093B's production run to be massively scaled back and terminated.
Last edited:
Just to add a bit more context to this, here is a summary of Xiyazhou's original post on this matter:
- The biggest noticeable feature of this submarine is the complete lack of a sail structure
- Typically, sails are used to mount equipment like ISR masts, periscopes, navigation radar etc, it also doubles as a vertical stabliser to maintain directional stability for submarines due to relatively low L/D ratio. In fact, a general rule of thumb would be the shorter the submarine the larger the sail structure would need to be to maintain directional stability. The sail sometimes also serves special purpose like being a hangar for the Japanese I-400 or fairing for VLS launch tubes for SSBNs, a feature found on some Chinese, North Korean and Soviet submarines.
- With many advantages of having a sail, there unfortunately are some major drawbacks as well. One of the largest disadvantages would be the impact to acoustic signature, during low speed cruise, the main effect of the sail acoustically is that it acts like a reflector for active sonar systems hence getting rid of the sail is similar to how 6th generation fighters are getting rid of the vertical stabliser for better radar signature. On the other hand, during high speed cruise, the sail is one of the largest sources of flow noise, hence getting rid of it also has the advantage of increasing stealthiness at high speed.
- Getting rid of the sail also decreases hydrodynamic drag, in some cases potentially up to 15 percent.
- From above arguments, the ideal conclusion should be, the sail design should be according to the specific role of the submarine instead of going sailless for everything.
- As an example, for SSKs, it is quite difficult to get rid of the sail due to the relatively low L/D ratios compared to SSNs hence requiring some kind of sail to maintain stability, they also need this a sail to put equipment like snorkels for main diesels. Though for this type of submarines, due to their low speed requirements the drawbacks such as flow noise, extra drag etc isn't actually noticeable, the largest disadvantage would be against active sonars hence it is easier to solve this by using a stealthy sail design like 039C/A26 instead of completely removing the sail.
- On the other hand, for SSN with very high speed requirements, it is completely different. From relevant papers, it is easy to conclude greatest disadvantage for a sail is its large flow noise at high speeds. For this reason, this is why from Alfa and Akula onward for the Soviets started using highly blended sails while on the American side from 688i onwards used curved leading edges. The Americans improved this even further with the 774 class, where they used the so called "Thin airfoil" design to reduce the width of the sail by turning the sail into a glorified equipment rack and removing the sail access point.
- Though the thin design came with its own problem, namely the thin structure is prone to vibrations at high speed. To fix this, researchers and engineers worldwide started looking at using high performance composites to build sails out of. Though from public sources, research on this subject seems to be quite incomplete, likely due to the narrow usage of this technology.
- Under these circumstances, completely removing the sail becomes increasingly more attractive. This is why from the 70/80s onward alot of countries have already started researching and validating sailless submarines though basically no full scale prototype has ever been built.
- This is due to getting rid of the sail completely is a massive technical challenge at the time, one main problem is due to equipment found in the sail is quite hard to "fold" like radar antennas, optical periscopes etc. These problems could be solved easily by using integrated digital masts while miniaturisation made radar antennas small enough to be foldable, in fact with the development of UUVs, the submarine could in fact rely solely on these to carry antennas and cameras to the surface while the sub itself remains hidden far below the waves. Though another huge issue is compensating the lack of stability from removing the sail, this even to today is still a challenge, unlike tailless aircraft where they could use many different control surfaces to compensate, a submarine doesn't have that many control surfaces in the first place to use. He believes the small bump in place of the sail is some kind of vortex generator to generate some stability from vortex lift, while this will cause some flow noise, it is still much quieter than a full sail and has less drag penalty.
- From this feature, we can reasonably expect that the overall noise level of this submarine is so low to the point that any tiny improvements matters. This is somewhat like with stealthy fighters using serrated panels and cockpit coatings, typically for a normal fighter, those additions bring modest improvements at best while for stealth jets, it is a massive source of radar reflections.
- Hence from above analysis we can be pretty confident that this submarine is designed with an emphasis on very high silent cruise speed while also having extremely high requirements for absolute noise level and top speed.
- He believes that based on above inference, this is more likely to be the next generation submarine prototype beyond the Type 09V.
- We know that the 09V was a product to catch up to 774 and SSN-21, it used a highly innovative nuclear IEP combined with a pumpjet to improve high speed acoustic signature. This means 09V could be seen as the "ancestor" of modern nuclear IEP in high speed SSNs, with the addition of natural circulation reactors that was first integrated on later 09III boats, it is reasonable to claim that the acoustic performance of 09V is extremely competitive.
- In fact, it is reasonable to make the following comparison to fighter generations, with 09V being the Chinese "5th generation fighter", with the propulsion system being basically state of the art even compared to the Americans. As for the new SSN, while it is very difficult to build a propulsion system more advanced than what is used in the 09V, the overall design concepts used, and configuration can be considered one generation ahead of 09V hence being the "6th generation fighter" of PLAN.
- Assuming trials for this new SSN goes well, it is very likely that 09V will receive the same treatment as J-35. Initially when the J-35A project first started, it was planned to be the "light 5th gen" aircraft of PLAAF with projected overall production on the order of F-35 but with smooth development 6th generation fighters, projection for future J-35A production has become increasingly grim (Atleast compared to initial plans) to the point that they rushed it to the export market.
- With 09V and the new SSN, PLAN has completed the catch up to USN and even now leads in submarine development, to remain competitive, USN's SSN(X) project will likely need major project revisions to speed up the timeline, as for Virgina B5, ironically it may face the predicament of "obsolete upon service".
As usual, here is the full article by Xiyazhou:
Last edited: