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

[Blitzo]

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.

Let's put it this way -- I don't think we should assume that 09III was designed to be modular in mind to accept the kind of plug in extensions that you described and which SSNs like Virginia have had.

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.

That is definitely one way to mitigate the issue, yes.

But this is where we hit the wall -- neither of us know whether there are any subsystems in the 09III hull that can be moved or if they have to remain in place.

Overall, my argument WRT the 09III hump issue is that we should not assume that if there is a VLS there, that it means it is because the VLS is longer/taller than the hull is, and that alternative reasons for why the VLS may need the hump should be considered.

I think that is a fair argument from my end.

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?

? We are talking about vertical launched cruise missiles, you realize? I.e.: from a submarine VLS?

I'm not sure what you are talking about here.

They share the same lid and outflow system.

They do share the same lid, and that will have some minor hydrodynamic effects for firing a single cell vs firing from a 7 cell silo. However, the rest of the cell can be tested and verified prior to being tested aboard a 7 cell silo. It is the most practical and cost effective way of significantly mitigating risk, before testing the full 7 cell silo which would be done on the final submarine intended for regular service.

But I'm not sure what you mean by having the same outflow system. I haven't read anything about each VLS tube in the 7 cell silo having a common exhaust or outflow system or anything. Functionally speaking I believe each cell is an independent functional unit.

I haven't found too many sources that go into detail about the 7 cell silo set up, but this article does talk about it a little; page 7:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"For example, the SSGN will store TLAMs in missile tubes that
previously stored Trident missiles. Each missile tube has a missile muzzle hatch on top of the
missile tube that is opened for missile launches from the tube. For a Trident missile, there is a
fiberglass enclosure under each missile muzzle hatch that prevents the Trident missile inside the
missile tube from exposure to seawater before launch. Unlike the Trident missile, however, the
CLS capsule of a Tomahawk missile will have its own individual capsule enclosure. Each
Trident missile also has its own ejection system that propels the missile out of the submarine;
each CLS capsule will have its own individual ejection system."

Unless you can provide me a source suggesting that each cell/tube within the 7 cell silo cannot function independently or is dependent on being in the 7 cell silo, I think my argument is logically sound.

In context with the 09III as a complete system.

I hope you can appreciate why it was natural for me to interpret your statement in a way that was talking about testing only the vertical launch apparatus and the cruise missiles themselves.

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.

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.

OF course testing the final submarine as an entire combat system will have to be done for the actual submarine intended for service, which is beyond the scope of the 032 test submarine.

In this case, this disagreement is a result of miscommunication, but given what you wrote I think my interpretation was entirely reasonable.

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?

Having dedicated test ships whether it's test sub 032 or test ship 891 or others, allows you to have a full time laboratory for testing and significant risk mitigation, without having to use regular in service ships for a period of time every time you need to test a new weapon. Having a dedicated test sub or test ship allows you to also concentrate the human resources to focus on the test role and assigned to a dedicated test unit and test platform without having to gather them and disperse them on and off everytime you need to use a regular in service ship or submarine.

Having dedicated test ships, if one is able to afford it and maintain it (which the PLAN most certainly can do), means you can keep your regular in service surface combatants and submarines to do their operational jobs without having to borrow one every now and then for a period of time and cutting short and messing with their deployment/maintenance cycle.
It is also overall more efficient for maintaining the regular human resources and expertise for a regular ship that they can work on without having to work on and off regular in service combatants or submarines.

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

Yes, likely because the VLS length in 032 is of sufficient length for testing purposes for VLS aboard 09IIIB or 09V etc.

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

Considering how few dedicated test submarines like 032 there are in the world, asking for precedents is not very reasonable.
032 would likely be a pioneer for that specific mission profile.

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


View attachment 47435

How is that relevant to the topic of 032 potentially having a hump in front of its silo?

032 is not an SSBN; it does not need to be as acoustically stealthy as an SSBN.
032 is also a test submarine meant to be externally modified as well.

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

Any combination of squeezing in more internal subsystems in that space could make sense IMO. Anything from additional noise dampening measures, to changes in other parts of the submarine (like the reactor/propulsion section) causing other areas of the submarine to be modified and "squished" etc.

Overall I think it's not unreasonable to hold the gun in proclaiming the hump is for a VLS.
For the record, I think it would be great for 09III to have a VLS as well. But for the purposes of being thorough I think there's not enough evidence to confirm it is a VLS or rule out other possibilities.

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.

Yes, in the case of 09III, if its hump is a VLS, it means there is some reason why the sub cannot accommodate the VLS.
As I wrote in the first parts of this reply and in previous replies -- the reason why the sub cannot accommodate the VLS could be due to various things, not necessarily because the VLS itself is longer/taller than the submarine's hull.

 

[Tam]

Let's put it this way -- I don't think we should assume that 09III was designed to be modular in mind to accept the kind of plug in extensions that you described and which SSNs like Virginia have had.

Why not?

That is definitely one way to mitigate the issue, yes.

But this is where we hit the wall -- neither of us know whether there are any subsystems in the 09III hull that can be moved or if they have to remain in place.

What kind of subsystems that can't be moved? The only ones I can think of behind the sail is the machinery section, which are in the rear anyway.

Overall, my argument WRT the 09III hump issue is that we should not assume that if there is a VLS there, that it means it is because the VLS is longer/taller than the hull is, and that alternative reasons for why the VLS may need the hump should be considered.

I think that is a fair argument from my end.

Its fair but it does not answer anything. There are no other alternative reasons that have precedence or logical.

? We are talking about vertical launched cruise missiles, you realize? I.e.: from a submarine VLS?

I'm not sure what you are talking about here.

I am just using an example.

They do share the same lid, and that will have some minor hydrodynamic effects for firing a single cell vs firing from a 7 cell silo. However, the rest of the cell can be tested and verified prior to being tested aboard a 7 cell silo. It is the most practical and cost effective way of significantly mitigating risk, before testing the full 7 cell silo which would be done on the final submarine intended for regular service.

I don't see how.

But I'm not sure what you mean by having the same outflow system. I haven't read anything about each VLS tube in the 7 cell silo having a common exhaust or outflow system or anything. Functionally speaking I believe each cell is an independent functional unit.

Sorry brain fart. Each missile should be encapsulated. If you test one missile, you still have to open the lid that covers all seven.

I haven't found too many sources that go into detail about the 7 cell silo set up, but this article does talk about it a little; page 7:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"For example, the SSGN will store TLAMs in missile tubes that
previously stored Trident missiles. Each missile tube has a missile muzzle hatch on top of the
missile tube that is opened for missile launches from the tube. For a Trident missile, there is a
fiberglass enclosure under each missile muzzle hatch that prevents the Trident missile inside the
missile tube from exposure to seawater before launch. Unlike the Trident missile, however, the
CLS capsule of a Tomahawk missile will have its own individual capsule enclosure. Each
Trident missile also has its own ejection system that propels the missile out of the submarine;
each CLS capsule will have its own individual ejection system."

Unless you can provide me a source suggesting that each cell/tube within the 7 cell silo cannot function independently or is dependent on being in the 7 cell silo, I think my argument is logically sound.

??? I don't see why testing it on the 032 means its tested on the 09III.

I hope you can appreciate why it was natural for me to interpret your statement in a way that was talking about testing only the vertical launch apparatus and the cruise missiles themselves.

OF course testing the final submarine as an entire combat system will have to be done for the actual submarine intended for service, which is beyond the scope of the 032 test submarine.

In this case, this disagreement is a result of miscommunication, but given what you wrote I think my interpretation was entirely reasonable.

Has it really ever occurred you right from the beginning, with all these sail and hump variations, that the very fleet itself is like a test fleet?

Having dedicated test ships whether it's test sub 032 or test ship 891 or others, allows you to have a full time laboratory for testing and significant risk mitigation, without having to use regular in service ships for a period of time every time you need to test a new weapon. Having a dedicated test sub or test ship allows you to also concentrate the human resources to focus on the test role and assigned to a dedicated test unit and test platform without having to gather them and disperse them on and off everytime you need to use a regular in service ship or submarine.

Except that you are already looking at a fairly testing fleet in the first place.

Having dedicated test ships, if one is able to afford it and maintain it (which the PLAN most certainly can do), means you can keep your regular in service surface combatants and submarines to do their operational jobs without having to borrow one every now and then for a period of time and cutting short and messing with their deployment/maintenance cycle.
It is also overall more efficient for maintaining the regular human resources and expertise for a regular ship that they can work on without having to work on and off regular in service combatants or submarines.

Once again, you are already looking at a test fleet.

You go beyond a test fleet when a certain model is mass produced with mostly copies of itself. This isn't the case here. Its a limited production run with distinct variations among the members.

Yes, likely because the VLS length in 032 is of sufficient length for testing purposes for VLS aboard 09IIIB or 09V etc.

Only for a missile that would not require a hump on a 09III.

Considering how few dedicated test submarines like 032 there are in the world, asking for precedents is not very reasonable.
032 would likely be a pioneer for that specific mission profile.

There is a reason why are such a few, actually only two, this and its Golf class predecessor are ever built. No one else does this.

If the Russians want to test a new Bulava, they just use any of the submarines.

How is that relevant to the topic of 032 potentially having a hump in front of its silo?

Because there is no precedent for having a large hump on the bow right in front of the sail. Ever. Maybe there is a reason why they don't.

032 is not an SSBN; it does not need to be as acoustically stealthy as an SSBN.
032 is also a test submarine meant to be externally modified as well.

Yet its not done, and another thing is, its the front that have more subsystems that you can't place anywhere. Its the place that is crowded already with torpedoes and sonars.

Why is the center of the sub that is more or less open to modification?

Any combination of squeezing in more internal subsystems in that space could make sense IMO. Anything from additional noise dampening measures, to changes in other parts of the submarine (like the reactor/propulsion section) causing other areas of the submarine to be modified and "squished" etc.

Overall I think it's not unreasonable to hold the gun in proclaiming the hump is for a VLS.
For the record, I think it would be great for 09III to have a VLS as well. But for the purposes of being thorough I think there's not enough evidence to confirm it is a VLS or rule out other possibilities.

Fair enough. I did consider other possibilities, none of whom felt right.

Yes, in the case of 09III, if its hump is a VLS, it means there is some reason why the sub cannot accommodate the VLS.
As I wrote in the first parts of this reply and in previous replies -- the reason why the sub cannot accommodate the VLS could be due to various things, not necessarily because the VLS itself is longer/taller than the submarine's hull.

I don't really see any reason why the sub cannot accommodate a VLS. The same basic design is already used to make a ballistic submarine.

Plus this isn't like you are trying to refit the first two 09III. The "Improved" 09III feels almost like a very different sub from the original 09III. An entire class in its lifetime could have significant internal changes from model to model, even to the point the improved model tethers to being an entirely new class. At this point, VLS use could already be in consideration and the sub's design could already be an exercise for it.

 

[Blitzo]

Why not?

Considering when 09III was designed (and the resources China had at its disposal at the time), as well as the lack of any credible rumours suggesting 09III was designed with the ability to accommodate such modifications, I think it's quite reasonable to not assume such a capability as a given for 09III.

I'm not ruling it out, but I am saying that we shouldn't talk about it as if it's a given.

Its fair but it does not answer anything. There are no other alternative reasons that have precedence or logical.

It doesn't have to answer anything. "Yet to be determined" is a perfectly adequate answer at this stage in the absence of overwhelming evidence pointing towards one conclusion or another.

I am just using an example.

But it's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I don't see how.

??? I don't see why testing it on the 032 means its tested on the 09III.

Has it really ever occurred you right from the beginning, with all these sail and hump variations, that the very fleet itself is like a test fleet?

Except that you are already looking at a fairly testing fleet in the first place.



Once again, you are already looking at a test fleet.

You go beyond a test fleet when a certain model is mass produced with mostly copies of itself. This isn't the case here. Its a limited production run with distinct variations among the members.

Err.
I think we may have differing interpretations of the what the word "test" means in the context.
For example, when we saw "test ship" I think of a ship whose dedicated role and primary purpose is to test subsystems, not meant for any sort of operational service.
A "test fleet" would thus be a fleet of vessels each of which whose purpose is only to test subsystems, and not meant for any sort of operational service.

The 09III family, with their multiple variations, I consider to be regular operational service vessels with steadily improving subsystems and capabilities from one another, but they are definitely not "test ships/subs" or a "test fleet".

The 051B, 052B, 051C, and first two 052Cs are a good parallel to the 09III family, in that they were all installed with progressively improving subsystems and capabilities, but none of those ships were "test ships" because they were all vessels intended for operational, regular service. None of those ships had a dedicated role to test subsystems full time.


So no, I do not consider the 09III family to be a "test fleet" nor do I consider any of the 09III family to be "test submarines" in the same way that 032 is.

Only for a missile that would not require a hump on a 09III.



There is a reason why are such a few, actually only two, this and its Golf class predecessor are ever built. No one else does this.

If the Russians want to test a new Bulava, they just use any of the submarines.

There are few other navies who have ships like the 891 for dedicated shipborne VLS tests either.

Are you really trying to argue that the PLAN's use of a test submarine like 032 is a poor choice?

Because there is no precedent for having a large hump on the bow right in front of the sail. Ever. Maybe there is a reason why they don't.

Jeez fine, if you really want a submarine with a hump in front of its sail, there are actually examples of submarines with that. For example the 209 class in service with Argentina (look up ARA Salta) or Turkey (S 349 Bataray) have humps that extend in front of the sail.
And those are regular in service diesel electric boats, not a test sub which will not see regular operational service in the case of the 032.

Yet its not done, and another thing is, its the front that have more subsystems that you can't place anywhere. Its the place that is crowded already with torpedoes and sonars.

Why is the center of the sub that is more or less open to modification?

Considering no other navies have a test submarine like the 032, the fact that other SSBNs or SSNs do not have the proposed modification we're talking about for 032, does not mean the 032 cannot have such a modification.

What kind of subsystems that can't be moved? The only ones I can think of behind the sail is the machinery section, which are in the rear anyway.

Fair enough. I did consider other possibilities, none of whom felt right.

I take it this part of the discussion is settled.

I don't really see any reason why the sub cannot accommodate a VLS. The same basic design is already used to make a ballistic submarine.

Plus this isn't like you are trying to refit the first two 09III. The "Improved" 09III feels almost like a very different sub from the original 09III. An entire class in its lifetime could have significant internal changes from model to model, even to the point the improved model tethers to being an entirely new class. At this point, VLS use could already be in consideration and the sub's design could already be an exercise for it.

I do also believe that the 09III can probably accommodate a VLS.

The reason I'm being very careful in judging whether the hump for 09III actually may be a VLS or not, is because the geometry just doesn't look right. It isn't wide enough nor long enough to what I would expect.

More importantly, if any of the pictures of the various 09III family did actually have a VLS within them, I suspect that the big shrimps would have long confirmed it or at least referenced to it the moment those pictures became released/leaked/declassified. The fact that they have not, makes me very wary.


Because by the sounds of it, there is definitely an 09III variant that has a VLS -- the 09IIIB. However, none of the pictures of the 09III family boats that we've seen in the last few pages have been referenced to be 09IIIB -- in fact they all seem to be described as part of the 09III or 09IIIA family.
That is why I think we should wait a while before casting judgement on whether the humps in the pictures from the last few pages are likely to be VLS or not.

 

[jobjed]

1. 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.

It's not "my embodiment" but "my source of confidence". His message to the J-10's chief designers was along the lines of "without people like you, our country have no cards to play".

 

[jobjed]

POP3 seems to confirm that the 09IIIB carries a VLS. A few other interesting tidbits have been included as well. Contribution from other members would be helpful.

• The 09IIIB has made breakthroughs in noise reduction

This is the most important point of all. It's taken for granted that the first 09IIIs were meh which can now be attributed to the PLAN's having to restart nuclear sub development after a decade hiatus. However, if they were able to take some of the 039A/B's quieting tech developed and matured during the 2000s and 2010s, and use it on the 09IIIB, the difference in quietness between the first few 09IIIs and the current 09IIIBs might be very pronounced. With these possible improvements, I wouldn't be surprised if the 09IIIB's quietness reaches the level of Akulas or later LAs.

 

[Hyperwarp]

This is the most important point of all. It's taken for granted that the first 09IIIs were meh which can now be attributed to the PLAN's having to restart nuclear sub development after a decade hiatus. However, if they were able to take some of the 039A/B's quieting tech developed and matured during the 2000s and 2010s, and use it on the 09IIIB, the difference in quietness between the first few 09IIIs and the current 09IIIBs might be very pronounced. With these possible improvements, I wouldn't be surprised if the 09IIIB's quietness reaches the level of Akulas or later LAs.

Some of the tech used in 039A/B/C may have been used in new 093#, but the key is the nuclear reactior and accompanying complications. I wouldn't be suprised that 09IIIA/B comes close to the LA 688i and 971U/M when at slow speeds, but the key for SSN is the quietness at high speeds the SSKs can never reach. IIRC, 971U/M is a bit quiter than 688i at slower speeds but louder when travelling faster.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

but the key for SSN is the quietness at high speeds the SSKs can never reach. IIRC, 971U/M is a bit quiter than 688i at slower speeds but louder when travelling faster.

Is not nuclear submarine's greatest asset be it's extreme underwater duration and range, not it's stealth at high speed? Above a certain speed limit, all submarine's propellers will cavitate,a shrouded/skewered propeller can help mitigate this to some degree. But you want to be at lower speeds when approaching a potential target.
It is also interesting to see what route the PLAN will take for it's future submarine force. The Type 93 and it's variants can be viewed as experimental platforms to test out concepts and technology.
Whether China will take the Russian approach, in which their submarines will carry a huge number AShM missile to attack surface groups and have high speeds to make a dash to the open Pacific to attack convoy routes. Or will they go down the US path which entitles a more traditional submarine doctrine with torpedoes taking priority and stealthiness being paramount for both area denial and hunting down other enemy submarines will be one to watch in the coming years.

 

[Skywatcher]

Is not nuclear submarine's greatest asset be it's extreme underwater duration and range, not it's stealth at high speed? Above a certain speed limit, all submarine's propellers will cavitate,a shrouded/skewered propeller can help mitigate this to some degree. But you want to be at lower speeds when approaching a potential target.
It is also interesting to see what route the PLAN will take for it's future submarine force. The Type 93 and it's variants can be viewed as experimental platforms to test out concepts and technology.
Whether China will take the Russian approach, in which their submarines will carry a huge number AShM missile to attack surface groups and have high speeds to make a dash to the open Pacific to attack convoy routes. Or will they go down the US path which entitles a more traditional submarine doctrine with torpedoes taking priority and stealthiness being paramount for both area denial and hunting down other enemy submarines will be one to watch in the coming years.

It depends on the doctrine, as you've noted, but I imagine China would be more interested in the USN path, since the Chinese military is more interested in area denial at the moment.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

It depends on the doctrine, as you've noted, but I imagine China would be more interested in the USN path, since the Chinese military is more interested in area denial at the moment.

A SSGN (nuclear cruise missile submarine) fleet can also be tempting to China, as technologically wise it is less expensive to both build and maintain with the main focus being on the missiles. The down side is compared to torpedoes, there are more active and passive defensive systems in existence designed to defeat missiles.

 

[Hyperwarp]

Is not nuclear submarine's greatest asset be it's extreme underwater duration and range, not it's stealth at high speed?.. .

Compared to SSK, yes it is, endurance/range as well as divinng depth and speed. SSK max out at around 20 knots with limited range. Aircraft carriers can exceed 30 knots and SSN can exceed 35 knots. Seawolf top speed is actually classified. So being quiter at higher speeds is quite an advantage.