All irrelevant in my opinion.
A single VLS tube can test vertically launched cruise missiles and the VLS mechanism for a larger VPM style pack silo which is essentially 7 such VLS tubes packed together. You don't need the whole 7 cell silo to be tested if you're just looking to test the submarine vertical launch cruise missiles and the individual VLS tube itself. (The Ohio pattern/Block V Virginia pattern silo carries 7 cruise missile VLS in a single silo, not 8 btw)
Whether or not 032 has a bump for its VLS is also not very meaningful. One VLS tube in one submarine might result in a bump being necessary, but the same VLS tube in a different submarine may not necessitate a hump -- that depends on the internal structures and subsystems of the submarine at the particular location where the VLS is located.
Depends on the draught of the hull. The draft of the 032 (6.5m) and the YJ-18 is possibly 8.9m if the U-VLS has to be 9m to contain it. The draft of a 09III is about 7.5m. If we assume from the waterline to the top of the 032 is enough to accommodate the YJ-18, the missile won't need a bump on the 09III which has a deeper draught.
This kind of bothers me to figure out what kind of missile that would require the height that the bump would provide unless we are looking at a new long range cruise missile that's longer than a YJ-18.
I'm not sure why you think the position of the VLS is important for the purposes of testing vertical sub launched cruise missiles and its VLS. Yes, the 032's cruise missile VLS is in front of its sail -- surely you aren't suggesting that the tests conducted from those VLS are somehow invalid for a different submarine that may want to place those VLS behind the sail?
Why don't they also put the VLS tubes on the back of the 032 right at the beginning like those Amurs which is a more logical place? Why the front?
I'm aware of the 7 missile VLS silos sued in Ohio and intended for new Virginia blocks.
However, let's break it down -- what is the difference between 7 missile VLS silos and a single VLS tube? After all, the former is basically just 7 of the latter but packed closely in a single larger silo with a single large lid.
Its a matter which is more space, weight efficient and which is less mechanically complex. How many lids do I have to open for seven missiles? How much space and weight does the 7 VLS cost?
Of course we don't know if the PLAN would ever do such, but the PLAN often tries to ape the USN, especially with good ideas that is cost effective, saves money and cuts development costs as it utilizes an existing component.
For the purposes of testing vertically launched cruise missiles and the VLS associated with those missiles, it is not necessary to test the entire 7 cell super silo on a test sub like 032.
And all this is not knowing whether the PLAN's SSNs will have the kind of Virginia Payload Module 7 tube VLS that the USN is using.
One important difference is to test salvo launch the missiles for saturation. One or two missiles has a high chance of interception. But you fire a whole salvo, something is going to get through. Being able to fire YJ-18 out of the torpedo tube is quite limited. Why am I wasting the cost of an entire nuclear submarine if it can only fire two YJ-18s from torpedo tubes, and spend the money instead on a destroyer that can launch as much as 32 and get the saturation I need.
Heck, I'm not even particularly confident that any of the 09III variants we've seen recently have VLS or will even get VLS in the near future at this point.
And that's where bringing up the 032 also brings up a contradiction. They are obviously testing such a system that's meant to end up in a submarine. They have been testing even the front VLS on the 032 for quite a while. If the front VLS does not end up in a future 09III variant, then the next sub class after that. Its also possible the front 032 VLS may also be scrapped for a new VLS. There are only two ways it is going to end, acceptance or rejection.
The Virginia came with a different VLS originally. Why didn't they continue to use this VLS on the back?
I can't see any other good reason of putting a humpback on the sub, and the only precedent cases I have seen for this are all related to VLS. In this case we also have to go back to a second reason on top of the first, and that is the possibility of a new longer length cruise missile which won't fit the VLS without the hump.
I also have a theory that the humped subs we see, even if they don't have VLS now, they may get them in the future through a refit, and all the under pining for that, are under that hump.
