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

[Lethe]

What's the JL-3's range? There's a 9,000 km number that seems to be floating around, but I can't track down a reliable source for it. It seems far too low given the range of the DF-41, even if navalizing it sacrifices some range. The 14,000 km number given by RT is at the upper end of plausible, but it too doesn't cite a source.

DF-41 is 21m long and weighs 80 tons. That's longer than and in the same weight class as the Soviet R-39 missiles that required the enormous Typhoon-class submarines to carry them. It is therefore a poor benchmark against which to estimate JL-3 performance.

DF-31 provides a much better basis for comparison, being 13m long and weighing around 40 tons -- the same figures as given for JL-2. The range figure cited for DF-31A of 11,000km (with a single warhead) therefore serves as the upper bound for plausible JL-3 range, assuming it is the same size as JL-2.

Alternatively, JL-3 may be somewhat larger than JL-2, moving into the 50-ton class (like the French M51) or the 60-ton class (like the US/UK Trident II) and offering correspondingly greater performance. Such a missile would require a correspondingly larger launch platform, which would in turn require either a bespoke reactor solution or twin reactors. As such, the 09VI program may provide clues as to the size and likely performance characteristics of JL-3.

 

[asif iqbal]

Are you referring to Operation Behemoth-2 in 1991, when K-407 Novomoskovsk launched a full salvo of 16 R-29 missiles?

No I think 2016

Maybe YouTube it

Absolutely stunning

 

[SpicySichuan]

Isn't there a variant of JL-2 with a range of 12000 km?

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

As such, the 09VI program may provide clues as to the size and likely performance characteristics of JL-3.

Which do you think is likeliest, the 40, 50, or 60 ton class? @Bltizo did a splendid analysis of BHSIC's new yard here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A 13.55 m gauge rail line is more than sufficient to accommodate cradles necessary for modern SSBNs such as the U.S. Ohio class or Russian Borei class, which have beams of 13 m and 13.5 m respectively. The next generation Chinese SSBN is thought to be designated the 09VI class, and may accommodate the new JL-3 SLBM. A 13.55 m gauge rail line may be capable of supporting even wider cradles for larger nuclear submarines in future, perhaps upwards of 18 m in beam; however this could merely be a case of future proofing the facility’s rail gauges as well.

It seems the hall was set up to build some pretty damn big SSBNs, so I don't think the Type 09-VI is getting shortchanged in the size department. This leads me to think that the 60 ton class is most likely, with a range of 12,000 - 14,000 km with 10+ MIRVs.

 

[Klon]

According to one well-known writer:

Therefore, the author speculates that China's new generation of submarine-launched ballistic missiles should be divided into two types:
The first type of missile will not exceed Julang-2 in size, so that it can be used on the existing 094 type without too large-scale modification of the submarine. However, through the use of new materials and other technologies, its range needs to significantly exceed the giant wave-2 in order to achieve the minimum deterrent requirements for the strong enemy's West Coast (in the fortress area).

The second kind of missile is the next generation ballistic missile nuclear submarine. As the size of the projectile is properly enlarged, it is necessary to enhance the carrying capacity, especially the carrying capacity of the Multi-warhead with divergent guidance, while extending the range to cover most of the important targets in the strong enemy's territory, so as to ensure the effectiveness of the second nuclear strike.

 

[Hyperwarp]

Regarding the length of ICBM vs SLBM, SLBM have to be shorter and a bit "fatter". Just look at imaged of Bulava, Trident-C/D, M51, etc.

 

[Lama]

I think we dont need to care too much about the range. If this new type of SLBM cant hit the western America from the south china sea it's meaningless. I am more interested in how many warheads it can take and whether it is a three stage rocket.

 

[Totoro]

Range and payload (number of warheads) are directly connected. Adding several to 10 warheads instead of one (if all are the same size) will lower the range of an ICBM by 10-20%. It may very well be Chinese designers will have to/ already had to choose: single small warhead reaching most of required targets or several warheads reaching fewer targets.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

It may very well be Chinese designers will have to/ already had to choose: single small warhead reaching most of required targets or several warheads reaching fewer targets.

Is this some roundabout way of throwing shade on China's technological capability? Chinese designers don't face any more constraints than Russian designers of the Bulava or American designers of the Trident II faced.

 

[Lethe]

Which do you think is likeliest, the 40, 50, or 60 ton class? @Bltizo did a splendid analysis of BHSIC's new yard here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It seems the hall was set up to build some pretty damn big SSBNs, so I don't think the Type 09-VI is getting shortchanged in the size department. This leads me to think that the 60 ton class is most likely, with a range of 12,000 - 14,000 km with 10+ MIRVs.

I think we can assume that JL-3 and the 09VI SSBN program have both been designed with PLAN's deterrence requirements and strategic geography in mind. As such, I would expect the JL-3 missile to be capable of striking at least the US west coast from within the first island chain, a distance of roughly 11,000km. Because this seems to be at the upper range of what a JL-2 sized missile could deliver with minimal payload, and because additional range beyond 11,000km (up to 14,000km) would certainly be useful to bring more of the continental US within striking distance, to allow for increased payload, and to enlarge potential SSBN operating areas further south, I would anticipate JL-3 to be somewhat larger than JL-2 in order to more adequately meet China's requirements, in turn suggesting a submarine that is significantly larger than 09IV.

Of course such logic raises the question of why, if China so clearly requires an SLBM with a range of >11,000km, China has not previously fielded one. I think the answer is that in the previous era China was not capable of producing an SLBM with the required range unless it was truly enormous, in turn requiring a very large and expensive SSBN. Given China's awareness of its general inferiority in submarine technology, such an investment was deemed unwise at the time. An additional generation of development has made such a project feasible.

As described by Klon I think it is reasonably likely that China will also produce an upgraded "JL-2A" missile to equip its 094 boats. The only reason not to do this is if China plans to replace the 09IVs in short order with a larger production run of 09VI submarines. The 09IVs could then be refitted as cruise missile carriers or for intelligence work.