09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread

[SinoSoldier]

Another post from POP3 seems to show that official (?) documents are using the 09IIIA and 09IIIB designations. Unfortunately I can't translate the first image.

 

[Blitzo]

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.

It doesn't depend only on the draught of the hull imo. It depends on the internal arrangement of the hull.

For example, in the case of the 032, they might be able to use the full draught of the hull to contain the VLS. However, in the case of 09III, perhaps there are systems or structures beneath where the VLS sits which cannot be moved, causing the VLS to have to create a bump on the top side of the hull.

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?

View attachment 47418

Why do they also need VLS tubes on the back?

Does it matter for the purposes of testing whether it's at the front or the back?

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.

Personally I agree that such a configuration is quite sensible and logical.

Whether the PLAN will go for it is another matter.

More importantly, for the purposes of our discussion, even if the PLAN did want to go for such a configuration, there is no need for the 032 to feature the full 7 cell silo for testing purposes.

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.


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?

View attachment 47419

Again, you are preaching to the choir WRT the 7 cell silo/VPM style set up. I absolutely agree that this is currently the best option for submarine VLS. The fact that the Virginia class changed to the Ohio style multi cell silo is obviously because it was superior -- this is something I agree with you with.

However, we are not debating the issue of whether 7 cell silo/VPM silos are good or not.

We are debating whether the 032 needs the full 7 cell silo/VPM set up to test it for the purposes of testing sub vertical launch systems
I am saying that the single "single tube" VLS could very well be just as applied for a 7 cell silo VLS, simply by testing a single tube.

That is to say, instead of taking the full 7 cell silo and sticking it in the 032, I think you can take simply "1 cell" from the full 7 cell set up, put it into the 032, and test that instead, and it will be able to do most of the testing that you need.

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.

I'd prefer to err on the side of caution at this stage.

 

[taxiya]

Another post from POP3 seems to show that official (?) documents are using the 09IIIA and 09IIIB designations. Unfortunately I can't translate the first image.

View attachment 47429

POP3 was saying:

1. He was involved (temporarily) in the nuclear submarine program in the second half of 1900s.
2. The program can be separated in two major periods with a relative halt in between.
3. The first period developed the first generation. It was named 09x where x is Hindu–Arabic numerals, as 091 and 092.
4. The program (restarted) entered the second period under the leadership of Jiang Zemin in the late 1900s.
5. The naming scheme was also changed during this period where the x in 09x is changed to Roman numerals and plus Latin letters. Therefor, there are 09III, 09IV and 09IIIA,B by the PLAN standard. There is no such thing as 093 and 094.
6. The naming of Chinese dynasties (Song, Yuan, Ming, Qing) of subs are dog shit (his words).
7. The American pressure and containment was a critical push (for urgency) for the restart of the program. Jiang was supposedly saying something like "you are my embodiment" in a video to the J-10 program members.

 

[taxiya]

POP3 was saying:

1. He was involved (temporarily) in the nuclear submarine program in the second half of 1900s.
2. The program can be separated in two major periods with a relative halt in between.
3. The first period developed the first generation. It was named 09x where x is Hindu–Arabic numerals, as 091 and 092.
4. The program (restarted) entered the second period under the leadership of Jiang Zemin in the late 1900s.
5. The naming scheme was also changed during this period where the x in 09x is changed to Roman numerals and plus Latin letters. Therefor, there are 09III, 09IV and 09IIIA,B by the PLAN standard. There is no such thing as 093 and 094.
6. The naming of Chinese dynasties (Song, Yuan, Ming, Qing) of subs are dog shit (his words).
7. The American pressure and containment was a critical push (for urgency) for the restart of the program. Jiang was supposedly saying something like "you are my embodiment" in a video to the J-10 program members.

Should have been something like early second half of 1900s (1950-70s).

 

[Tam]

It doesn't depend only on the draught of the hull imo. It depends on the internal arrangement of the hull.

For example, in the case of the 032, they might be able to use the full draught of the hull to contain the VLS. However, in the case of 09III, perhaps there are systems or structures beneath where the VLS sits which cannot be moved, causing the VLS to have to create a bump on the top side of the hull.

Maybe, but machinery section tends to be more towards the back, and internal arrangement can always be changed in the paper stage. If the sub is made to be modular, then the mid section is reserved for changes lets say, that's mean entirely for the VLS from top to bottom. Another sub can have a different midsection module for an entirely different purpose. It also makes easier to convert an 09III in production to an 09IV by having the section with SLBM silos. You can have different sections, each section for different missions. What we maybe seeing of multiple humps on the 09III is not an evolution of testing, but an option of different midsection modules each for different missions.

At the design stage, you can move the machinery further aft and have the VLS section go top to bottom with the height of the VLS.

Why do they also need VLS tubes on the back?

Does it matter for the purposes of testing whether it's at the front or the back?

You can put more VLS on the back and fire them all like a salvo. This isn't about developing the missile itself, this is about testing the VLS in a more combat like situation.

Personally I agree that such a configuration is quite sensible and logical.

Whether the PLAN will go for it is another matter.

More importantly, for the purposes of our discussion, even if the PLAN did want to go for such a configuration, there is no need for the 032 to feature the full 7 cell silo for testing purposes.

And what if the missile is longer than what the 032 can fit? The difference is you can hump the back. You can't hump the front.

Again, you are preaching to the choir WRT the 7 cell silo/VPM style set up. I absolutely agree that this is currently the best option for submarine VLS. The fact that the Virginia class changed to the Ohio style multi cell silo is obviously because it was superior -- this is something I agree with you with.

However, we are not debating the issue of whether 7 cell silo/VPM silos are good or not.

And that is not what I am talking about either. Go look at the Virginia class again with the humped VLS modules. It also has of the silos in the bow. But the ones in the bow are not humped. Also look at the earlier flight of the Virginia class with the older design of the VLS at the front. The VLS isn't humped either.

You are putting the VLS on the back.

The back VLS can be raised higher with a hump.

You are raising the VLS for a possibly longer missile.

This isn't about having machinery below the submarine that will cause the hump. You can eradicate the need for the hump in a submarine right at the design stage by moving the machinery further aft, and having an entire midsection module that is straight VLS from top to bottom. You can see this in practice with both the Virginia class as proposed with the VLS module section, and the Amur class as well when you compare the Amur variant with the VLS and the one without.

We are debating whether the 032 needs the full 7 cell silo/VPM set up to test it for the purposes of testing sub vertical launch systems
I am saying that the single "single tube" VLS could very well be just as applied for a 7 cell silo VLS, simply by testing a single tube.

You seem fixated with the idea that its about testing one missile. Its about testing the entire system, the very sub itself.

You need to validate the entire sub or likely two of them as a pair, and once validated, that design can be risked into mass production.

That is to say, instead of taking the full 7 cell silo and sticking it in the 032, I think you can take simply "1 cell" from the full 7 cell set up, put it into the 032, and test that instead, and it will be able to do most of the testing that you need.

If I had lengthened the 032, put a modular midsection with a VLS humped, that would allow for a taller missile.

I'd prefer to err on the side of caution at this stage.

The humps have a purpose. What other purpose would they be there? I thought about whether the hump is just for water flow smoothing, and yet why don't all the other subs use this? Does not make sense either.

Questions need to be answered one way or another.

 

[Blitzo]

Maybe, but machinery section tends to be more towards the back, and internal arrangement can always be changed in the paper stage. If the sub is made to be modular, then the mid section is reserved for changes lets say, that's mean entirely for the VLS from top to bottom. Another sub can have a different midsection module for an entirely different purpose. It also makes easier to convert an 09III in production to an 09IV by having the section with SLBM silos. You can have different sections, each section for different missions. What we maybe seeing of multiple humps on the 09III is not an evolution of testing, but an option of different midsection modules each for different missions.

At the design stage, you can move the machinery further aft and have the VLS section go top to bottom with the height of the VLS.

I'm not sure whether it is safe for us to believe that the 09III would have been designed with that kind of modularity in mind.

Overall, my point is that it is illogical to assume that if one type of submarine has a hump for its VLS, that it means it is longer to the VLS of a different submarine whose VLS does not have a hump, because the presence or absence of a hump could be determined by a range of other factors rather than merely the length of the VLS itself.

You can put more VLS on the back and fire them all like a salvo. This isn't about developing the missile itself, this is about testing the VLS in a more combat like situation.

Actually, the original statement that this discussion grew from was from your post
"There needs to be a test sub somewhere used for the vertical launching of YJ-18s and cruise missiles."

You yourself only spoke of submarine vertical launching of submarine cruise missiles, nothing about rapid firing of VLS from a 7 cell silo style VLS.

So, even if the PLAN did want 7 cell silo style VLS in their submarines, they don't have to literally integrate a full 7 cell silo style VLS to test each individual VLS cell and the operation of the vertical launch of the cruise missile itself.

And what if the missile is longer than what the 032 can fit? The difference is you can hump the back. You can't hump the front.

On the 032 they certainly can put a hump on the front if they want to. It's a test submarine, the hydrodynamic and acoustic compromise for a test submarine does not matter as much for a test submarine.

And that is not what I am talking about either. Go look at the Virginia class again with the humped VLS modules. It also has of the silos in the bow. But the ones in the bow are not humped. Also look at the earlier flight of the Virginia class with the older design of the VLS at the front. The VLS isn't humped either.

You are putting the VLS on the back.

The back VLS can be raised higher with a hump.

You are raising the VLS for a possibly longer missile.

This isn't about having machinery below the submarine that will cause the hump. You can eradicate the need for the hump in a submarine right at the design stage by moving the machinery further aft, and having an entire midsection module that is straight VLS from top to bottom. You can see this in practice with both the Virginia class as proposed with the VLS module section, and the Amur class as well when you compare the Amur variant with the VLS and the one without.

I'm not really sure how this is relevant to what I wrote.

You seem fixated with the idea that its about testing one missile. Its about testing the entire system, the very sub itself.

You need to validate the entire sub or likely two of them as a pair, and once validated, that design can be risked into mass production.

I'm fixated on the idea of testing a single missile launch and a single VLS because that's the most logical way forward if the PLAN did want to have a 7 cell VLS silo like Ohio/Block V Virginia.

If they wanted to test a fast rate of fire that can be derived from a 7 cell VLS silo then they can simply verify that capability onboard whatever SSN is built with a 7 cell VLS silo. Meanwhile, the rest of the testing can be done by installing single VLS cells into the 032 to enable testing of every other aspect of the VLS and the launch process.

If I had lengthened the 032, put a modular midsection with a VLS humped, that would allow for a taller missile.

If 032's forward VLS could not accommodate the length of the missiles that the PLAN wanted to test then I would consider that to be poor procurement and design planning by the PLAN.
However, even if they wanted a longer cruise missile VLS there is no reason why they could not make a hump in front of the sail to lengthen the preexisting VLS position, or to even adopt the internal sail SLBM launch tubes to be used for VLS cruise missile testing.

I don't see why you believe the location of 032's cruise missile VLS position is a big deal for testing. It isn't.

The humps have a purpose. What other purpose would they be there? I thought about whether the hump is just for water flow smoothing, and yet why don't all the other subs use this? Does not make sense either.

Questions need to be answered one way or another.

I don't disagree with you, however I do not think we have sufficient evidence to call it on the purpose of the humps yet.
At this stage I think "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer rather than making a conclusion in absence of sufficient evidence.

 

[Tam]

I'm not sure whether it is safe for us to believe that the 09III would have been designed with that kind of modularity in mind.

Safe or not? The 09IV is heavily based on the 09III, in a way that the 09IV looks like the 09III with exactly that same section changed.

Overall, my point is that it is illogical to assume that if one type of submarine has a hump for its VLS, that it means it is longer to the VLS of a different submarine whose VLS does not have a hump, because the presence or absence of a hump could be determined by a range of other factors rather than merely the length of the VLS itself.

I would think that the reason for a hump is because you are planning to VLS a missile greater than the sub's draught + freeboard.

In the case of the Virginia class' hump module, that may also be the case.

Actually, the original statement that this discussion grew from was from your post
"There needs to be a test sub somewhere used for the vertical launching of YJ-18s and cruise missiles."

You yourself only spoke of submarine vertical launching of submarine cruise missiles, nothing about rapid firing of VLS from a 7 cell silo style VLS.

I was thinking that the 09III is somewhat like the 052C/D, a pair is needed to prove the validity of the class to approve mass production.

So, even if the PLAN did want 7 cell silo style VLS in their submarines, they don't have to literally integrate a full 7 cell silo style VLS to test each individual VLS cell and the operation of the vertical launch of the cruise missile itself.

They will have to use the silo itself, and that means all seven sleeves. It comes as a set. Even if you tested the missile on a different VLS system, you still need to eventually test the missile on this VLS.

On the 032 they certainly can put a hump on the front if they want to. It's a test submarine, the hydrodynamic and acoustic compromise for a test submarine does not matter as much for a test submarine.

That would be awful for hydrodynamics, unlike the back of the sail.

I'm fixated on the idea of testing a single missile launch and a single VLS because that's the most logical way forward if the PLAN did want to have a 7 cell VLS silo like Ohio/Block V Virginia.

I am fixated at the idea of the entire sub as one whole combat system. You will still have to eventually test it on the platform where it is going to be used. Otherwise, you are just adding more steps and you are still not going to skip that eventually in the first place.

If they wanted to test a fast rate of fire that can be derived from a 7 cell VLS silo then they can simply verify that capability onboard whatever SSN is built with a 7 cell VLS silo. Meanwhile, the rest of the testing can be done by installing single VLS cells into the 032 to enable testing of every other aspect of the VLS and the launch process.

You still have to eventually test the missile along with the sub under more realistic conditions, not as an isolate from the platform it is intended for.

You think testing missiles is isolation is more than enough? A case happened with the Russians, where the Redut SAMs worked fine with S-400 systems, along on board Project 20381 corvette. But for some reason, the missile had issues working on the Admiral Gorshkov despite having a strong history of working with other platforms. This issue should have been fixed by now.

If 032's forward VLS could not accommodate the length of the missiles that the PLAN wanted to test then I would consider that to be poor procurement and design planning by the PLAN.

Mistakes happen all the time, although I think in this case, something that wasn't foreseen properly. You can see that when they stepped the sail to increase the height for one of the silos.

However, even if they wanted a longer cruise missile VLS there is no reason why they could not make a hump in front of the sail to lengthen the preexisting VLS position, or to even adopt the internal sail SLBM launch tubes to be used for VLS cruise missile testing.

There is a big reason for that, its simply bad hydrodynamics. You increase water flow noise, you increase drag, you are less efficient and more vulnerable.

I don't see why you believe the location of 032's cruise missile VLS position is a big deal for testing. It isn't.

I do, particularly for the design of the VLS which lacks a hump and which allows for a taller missile.

I don't disagree with you, however I do not think we have sufficient evidence to call it on the purpose of the humps yet.
At this stage I think "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer rather than making a conclusion in absence of sufficient evidence.

We have sufficient precedence to indicate its likely related to a VLS system, unless you can show another precedence. But of course, a VLS system does not necessarily need a hump as we have also seen with many examples, but here is the secondary condition --- the VLS also needs to be taller than the sub's draught and freeboard because of a certain particular missile.

Which brings me back to the 032, because if such a missile is being tested, it may not fit the 032's front VLS.

Humps are a bit of a drag, even a potential source for noise and a radar reflector for aircraft, and you don't put those in just for the looks. Whatever purpose that you have to put a hump for, it better be worth those drag penalties. And then the next time you design a sub, your next generation needs to be able to house that reason without needing a hump.

 

[Blitzo]

Safe or not? The 09IV is heavily based on the 09III, in a way that the 09IV looks like the 09III with exactly that same section changed.

Of course the 09IV is derived from the 09III, but whether the 09III was designed with the kind of modularity you're proposing -- i.e.: plug in modules like the Virginia blocks -- is another matter.

I would think that the reason for a hump is because you are planning to VLS a missile greater than the sub's draught + freeboard.

In the case of the Virginia class' hump module, that may also be the case.

Technically speaking, the reason for a hump is because the VLS is forced to extend beyond the confines of the submarine's pressure hull and external hull.

But the reasons for why the VLS is forced to extend out does not only have to be because of the VLS being longer/higher than the hull itself, but also because of internal structures and subsystems that cannot be moved, necessitating the VLS to be placed "on top" of those subsystems.

I was thinking that the 09III is somewhat like the 052C/D, a pair is needed to prove the validity of the class to approve mass production.

Well that is very different to what you originally said, which was "There needs to be a test sub somewhere used for the vertical launching of YJ-18s and cruise missiles."

My point is that the job of testing a submarine VLS and testing the launch of submarine VL cruise missiles will be given to test sub 032.

They will have to use the silo itself, and that means all seven sleeves. It comes as a set. Even if you tested the missile on a different VLS system, you still need to eventually test the missile on this VLS.

No, each sleeve/cell/tube should be able to function independently. The silo with 7 cells is merely an arrangement of 7 individual units.

That would be awful for hydrodynamics, unlike the back of the sail.

test sub, doesn't matter.

I am fixated at the idea of the entire sub as one whole combat system. You will still have to eventually test it on the platform where it is going to be used. Otherwise, you are just adding more steps and you are still not going to skip that eventually in the first place.

Of course the entire submarine will have to be tested as a whole combat system. That is what the submarine is for!

But your original statement said "There needs to be a test sub somewhere used for the vertical launching of YJ-18s and cruise missiles" -- which was much more limited in scope than what you're saying now.

You still have to eventually test the missile along with the sub under more realistic conditions, not as an isolate from the platform it is intended for.

You think testing missiles is isolation is more than enough? A case happened with the Russians, where the Redut SAMs worked fine with S-400 systems, along on board Project 20381 corvette. But for some reason, the missile had issues working on the Admiral Gorshkov, though that should have been fixed by now.

See above.
The only reason I'm fixating about testing missiles and launch systems in isolation is because your original statement led me to perceive that's what you meant.

What you're describing now about testing the whole combat system under realistic conditions is something that would be done for submarines intended for regular service. It's not something that would be done on a test submarine like 032.

Mistakes happen all the time, although I think in this case, something that wasn't foreseen properly. You can see that when they stepped the sail to increase the height for one of the silos.

Fair.

Personally I actually agree with that -- I believe the 032 was likely designed with the intent to make various modifications over its lifetime.
But the modification you described, as well as the 032's ventral hump under its sail, are also indicative of how the Navy is willing to compromise hydrodynamics for a test submarine, which is entirely logical.

There is a big reason for that, its simply bad hydrodynamics. You increase water flow noise, you increase drag, you are less efficient and more vulnerable.

As a test submarine that is far less of an issue than for a submarine intended for regular service.

The fact that the 032 submarine has a massive ventral hump for the sail's SLBM test tubes is as indicative of that as anything.

I do, particularly for the design of the VLS which lacks a hump.

Let's put it this way -- if the VLS in that position was equally long as whatever VLS that ends up in 09IIIB or 09V or whatever, would it be important that it was in front of the sail rather than behind it?

We have sufficient precedence its likely related to a VLS system, unless you can show another precedence. But of course, a VLS system does not necessarily need a hump as we have also seen, but here is the secondary condition --- the VLS also needs to be taller than the sub's draught and freeboard because of a certain missile. That may depend from sub to sub, given their draught and freeboard, but so will the missile, relative to the draught + freeboard of the sub.

I do not believe that any of the humps we are seeing aboard the 09III variants yet are convincingly for VLS. I certainly agree that it is a possibility, however I don't think we have a high enough index of suspicion.

Which brings me back to the 032, because if such a missile is being tested, it may not fit the 032's front VLS.

Which in turn brings me back to -- just because a VLS has a hump in one submarine doesn't mean it has to be longer than a VLS in a different submarine without a hump.

 

[Tam]

Of course the 09IV is derived from the 09III, but whether the 09III was designed with the kind of modularity you're proposing -- i.e.: plug in modules like the Virginia blocks -- is another matter.

I do think that modularity helps create the 09IV. Even if the original 09III wasn't designed for it, its next variant may have been, and in turn was the stepping stone to the 09IV.

Technically speaking, the reason for a hump is because the VLS is forced to extend beyond the confines of the submarine's pressure hull and external hull.

But the reasons for why the VLS is forced to extend out does not only have to be because of the VLS being longer/higher than the hull itself, but also because of internal structures and subsystems that cannot be moved, necessitating the VLS to be placed "on top" of those subsystems.

Did I tell you this before. You are supposed to mitigate those subsystems to another place in the design stage of the submarine. Usually the modular space would have to be the section before the machinery and reactor section.

Well that is very different to what you originally said, which was "There needs to be a test sub somewhere used for the vertical launching of YJ-18s and cruise missiles."

My point is that the job of testing a submarine VLS and testing the launch of submarine VL cruise missiles will be given to test sub 032.

Why at all? You could test the cruise missiles by firing them off a 039B's torpedo tubes to see if it actually works on the Yuan. You don't have to test it on the 032.

Why do you have to bother testing launching the torp launched YJ-18s on the 09III if you can do it on the 032?

No, each sleeve/cell/tube should be able to function independently. The silo with 7 cells is merely an arrangement of 7 individual units.

They share the same lid and outflow system.

test sub, doesn't matter.

Still matters. Its still a sub.

Of course the entire submarine will have to be tested as a whole combat system. That is what the submarine is for!

But your original statement said "There needs to be a test sub somewhere used for the vertical launching of YJ-18s and cruise missiles" -- which was much more limited in scope than what you're saying now.

In context with the 09III as a complete system.

The PLAN also has a weapons testing ship. That doesn't mean it saves the task of testing the weapons in the context of their intended platforms.

See above.
The only reason I'm fixating about testing missiles and launch systems in isolation is because your original statement led me to perceive that's what you meant.

What you're describing now about testing the whole combat system under realistic conditions is something that would be done for submarines intended for regular service. It's not something that would be done on a test submarine like 032.

But that is what I was thinking when I made that statement. It may not have been phrased properly but you do need the eventual step of validation.

Fair.

Personally I actually agree with that -- I believe the 032 was likely designed with the intent to make various modifications over its lifetime.
But the modification you described, as well as the 032's ventral hump under its sail, are also indicative of how the Navy is willing to compromise hydrodynamics for a test submarine, which is entirely logical.

Only to test that missile, and note they still use the third silo, which would have given less drag as opposed to using the first.

In any case, the use of such a submarine is getting to be more and more a bad idea. The submarine is only useful if the missile which it is intended to test cannot be tested on an existing class, or the class the missile is intended for, does not exist yet.

If I have a new antiship missile that I could torp launch off a 039B, why would I need a 032 for?

As a test submarine that is far less of an issue than for a submarine intended for regular service.

The fact that the 032 submarine has a massive ventral hump for the sail's SLBM test tubes is as indicative of that as anything.

Yet said submarine doesn't have a large bow hump.

Have you ever seen a submarine with a large bow hump, other than say, used for sonar?

Let's put it this way -- if the VLS in that position was equally long as whatever VLS that ends up in 09IIIB or 09V or whatever, would it be important that it was in front of the sail rather than behind it?

If a sub has ballistic missile silos at the front of the sail, would it hump it?

I do not believe that any of the humps we are seeing aboard the 09III variants yet are convincingly for VLS. I certainly agree that it is a possibility, however I don't think we have a high enough index of suspicion.

For the moment I don't see any other reason for it. Feel free to fill in the blanks.

Which in turn brings me back to -- just because a VLS has a hump in one submarine doesn't mean it has to be longer than a VLS in a different submarine without a hump.

You would have to have a submarine whose hull is a total height or depth longer than the missile. Maybe the 09V will. But in the case of the 09III, you are humping the sub because there is some reason that the sub's current height of its hull could not accommodate it. The 09III is a fairly dated design, and it could not have foreseen this purpose.

 

[Tam]

From LKJ86 at PakDef.

CCTV 7 shots.