New SSN (09X vs 09VA) thread

[Maikeru]

Excluding shadow, the same photo, I measure a beam-length ratio of ~0.107. If length is indeed 121 meters, beam would be 13 meters.

That gives cylindrical volume of 16060m3 so maybe ~14kt submerged displacement.

 

[David78]

That gives cylindrical volume of 16060m3 so maybe ~14kt submerged displacement.

From Wiki, Russia's Yasen-M length 130 meters beam 13 meters, submerged displacement 13,800 tons.
I think 11,500 - 12,500 tons would be a reasonable guess for 09VA

 

[kent]

Someone made some measurements of the new sub. Don't know if they are accurate or not though.
View attachment 178714
View attachment 178715

 

[Tomboy]

New picture of the JN submarine via @lyman2003 on WB. Sail is shrouded in somekind of tarp or scaffolding. There is also some kind of large opening on the middle back of the submarine, likely for working on the reactor. No sign of VLS from this pic

 

[mack8]

I can't see an image, is it same as the one posted on SPF?

 

[Tomboy]

I can't see an image, is it same as the one posted on SPF?
View attachment 178767

Yes

 

[Kejora]

Is it just me or I could see some holes on the top of the ships.

 

[Tomboy]

Is it just me or I could see some holes on the top of the ships.
View attachment 178772

One does not put VLS behind the reactor, so IMO very unlikely

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

One does not put VLS behind the reactor, so IMO very unlikely

If it's a turboelectric submarine, it doesn't matter where the VLS goes relative to the reactor.

 

[Tomboy]

If it's a turboelectric submarine, it doesn't matter where the VLS goes relative to the reactor.

You'd still need a turbine which is normally behind the reactor and even with turboelectric or IEPS you would still ideally integrate everything as close as possible to cut losses, reduce magnetic shielding required and possible EM interference.

IMO it just doesn't make much sense to try and change what already works very well even if you could theoretically do it with IEPS or turboelectric.