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

[by78]

Another magazine scan from the naval review...

(2048 x 1405)

 

[SinoSoldier]

Finally, my words are confirmed

So, the 09IIIB has barely started construction?

 

[antiterror13]

So, the 09IIIB has barely started construction?

hard to believe

 

[taxiya]

We have seen four variants of 09III. The original, no sail shaping, no hump and three others with different size of humps. Are people here saying that all these "humped" are 09IIIAs? And the bigger humped are experiments not for service and eventually modified to this one, they true final 09IIIA? It seems to me to be a very wasteful and crazy development strategy. Therefor, I will remain cousious to interpret the table in post #2141.

 

[Tam]

Maybe the original 09III --- no hump. 09IIIA --- have hump. They might have a further suffix after A, like G. Who really knows?

When it comes to ships, as opposed to the planes, it seems that the difference of a letter represents a significant technology bump. Very significant indeed. Ex. 052 -> 052B -> 052C -> 052D. The 052D gets an extended version with a new VHF radar and minor improvements, no one is calling this 052E.

History of submarines tend to show many changes within a certain type. Example, Type XIIA, XIIB, XIIC, XIIC-41, XIIC-42, XIID, just to name a famous German U-boat.

 

[taxiya]

Maybe the original 09III --- no hump. 09IIIA --- have hump. They might have a further suffix after A, like G. Who really knows?

When it comes to ships, as opposed to the planes, it seems that the difference of a letter represents a significant technology bump. Very significant indeed. Ex. 052 -> 052B -> 052C -> 052D. The 052D gets an extended version with a new VHF radar and minor improvements, no one is calling this 052E.

History of submarines tend to show many changes within a certain type. Example, Type XIIA, XIIB, XIIC, XIIC-41, XIIC-42, XIID, just to name a famous German U-boat.

I will settle on this "Who really knows?".

 

[Anlsvrthng]

My hypothesis is that the reactor they are testing is so tall that it exceeds the draft of the submarine and a hump is needed to clear the top of it. Given the presence of a hump, and the potential water flow turbulence it would bring, the reactor and the hump would have to behind the sail and then streamlined to minimize the flow effects.

Not a problem for the 094 which can hide the height with its hump.

Next generation PLAN SSN would have to call for a taller draft on the sub in order to sufficiently contain the natural circulation reactor.

Pressure vessel doesn't work like that.

Creating a non-circular cross section pressure vessel will decrease to the fraction of the pressure rating .

That is more likely something on the outside of the pressure vessel, in the double wall section of the boat, and it is more likely unrelated to the reactor.

Ad absurdum it can be just an additional ballast tank, to increase the underwater stability.

 

[azesus]

"Small steps quick jog" Chinese Type 09IIIB nuclear attack submarine on an almost-concurrent timeline as the 09V to test shared subsystem first

 

[by78]

The hump I suspect might be a natural circulation reactor they might be testing.

Natural circulation reactors, which uses less pumps and the difference of hot-cold in the water temperature to move the water around, would have been tall for gravity to aid downward water flow.

Example of one.

View attachment 53095

My hypothesis is that the reactor they are testing is so tall that it exceeds the draft of the submarine and a hump is needed to clear the top of it. Given the presence of a hump, and the potential water flow turbulence it would bring, the reactor and the hump would have to behind the sail and then streamlined to minimize the flow effects.

Not a problem for the 094 which can hide the height with its hump.

Next generation PLAN SSN would have to call for a taller draft on the sub in order to sufficiently contain the natural circulation reactor.

Unlikely. The hump is too close the sail. Not saying it's impossible technically, but that would be incredibly stupid, almost akin to putting the engine where the second-row seats should be on a minivan, with the van being rear-wheel drive to boot so that the drive shaft would have go through the third-row seats and connect to the rear differential located where the cargo area should be. A complete waste of precious space.

 

[Tam]

Unlikely. The hump is too close the sail. Not saying it's impossible technically, but that would be incredibly stupid, almost akin to putting the engine where the second-row seats should be on a minivan, with the van being rear-wheel drive to boot so that the drive shaft would have go through the third-row seats and connect to the rear differential located where the cargo area should be. A complete waste of precious space.

If you put the hump away from the sail because it would result in a hydrodynamic flow issue caused by the downdraft from the sail. I am assuming that the draft of the sub isn't enough for the sheer height of the natural circulating reactor as the sub wasn't originally designed to contain it.

But yes, it would be putting the engine behind the second row seats. Very Soviet in design. Comfort is secondary. You are not following USN type submarine plans after all.



With ballistic submarine like 094, you can move the reactor to the back of the missile laden hump.

If you are putting cruise missiles at the back which will result in a raised hump, you can put the reactor to the back and the raised hump caused by the cruise missile silos will go all the way to the back of the sail.

093 isn't the latest design after all, they must have been designing the sub around the 1990s.