6x3.It depicts 6x2, aka 12 VLS tubes, from this perspective.
Note that VLS lids are not perfect squares but more rectangular in shape.
09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread
- Thread starter SinoSoldier
- Start date
In which case - where is it??? Check the 11th May Sentinel photo I posted.
Hmm okay that appears to be a different photo from the ones posted previously.
A bit strange, but perhaps if there was a perfectly birds eye view of the model then we would see a middle VLS door more clearly.
It is notable that the triple tube adjacent configuration is one that has been previously depicted in a study.
No clue.
We can't see the floating barge either. A bit of a mystery, and we can only await clearer pictures.
Yes, if the sub was going in for refit then you'd expect the barge to still be there. Perhaps the alien spacecraft in the next dock had something to do with it? Or maybe PLAN has carried on where the Philadelphia Experiment left off.
I think that model is an early conception of 095. I don't think they'd put real diagram of 093B this public. Also, that VLS section is pretty large. Moving torpedo back also takes up additional space. Don't see them being able to retain the 093 length while also making these changes.
what would be the advantage of the 3 in a row VLS configuration compared to Virginia's one huge tube with inserts for individual missiles?
The Virginia class block I and II had 12 individual tubes arranged as 2+4+4+2 in four rows. From block III it adopted the huge tube from Ohio SSGN.
So the question should haven been why would Virginia made the change.
I can not imagine any technical advantage of the differences. Nor could I find any explanation except cost saving in this article
Block III bow mods
(click to view full)
The most obvious change is the switch from 12 vertical launch tubes, to 12 missiles in 2 tubes that use technology from the . The Virginia’s hull has a smaller cross-section than the converted ballistic missile SSGNs, so the “6-shooters” will be shorter and a bit wider. Nevertheless, they will share a great deal of common technology, allowing innovations on either platform to be incorporated into the other submarine class during major maintenance milestones. Net savings are about $8 million to program baseline costs.
Last edited:
In that case, would it make sense for the PLAN to follow suit on the 093B/095 SSNs? After all, it already has large SLBM tube tech on the 094, so it also can adopt the "large tube with insert" solution.
I also feel that the "large tubes with inserts" solution can accommodate larger missile diameters more easily than small tubes that are baked into the hull structure. The large tubes can just change the inserts to have newer, larger missiles integrated.
Excellent, much appreciated.