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

[Maikeru]

At least 12 cells. Possibly more aft of the ones we can see.

 

[Iron Man]

The backpedal is crazy. You said 'that it has A Vertical Launch System was near zero' meaning that it can't have any VLS if the size remained as estimated. But now you said you were only referencing about having an 18 cell launch system. Okay, here it is with A VLS of 12 cells.

You apparently don’t know how to read since the length of this new sub has not been established and is exactly what we’ve just been talking about.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Well tbh the length doesn’t matter all that much to me. I was only pointing that detail out to you since you seemed intent on gloating for some internet points without having access to the most relevant detail, which is the length.

How about you go get the measurement of the 093B's exact length before coming back to continue this discussion?

Otherwise, it's just meaningless.

 

[Iron Man]

Again, it'd be better for you to go get the exact measurement of the 093B's length before continuing this discussion. Otherwise, it's meaningless.

Sorry but YOU quoted a previous post of mine intending to score some kind of victory points without actually having the necessary bona fides to do so but insist that I be the one to provide you with your claimed victory? LOL

 

[Hub]

Because we don't have good resolution and detailed satellite photographies to work with. The Google Map/Earth don't have the photography of Huludao Shipyard with a 093B SSN in it so far. Constantly updated photos from the EO Sentinel/Corpencius are pretty much all we have, apart from occassional greater quality photos from Airbus and Maxar, but those are paid.

So if you really do want the exact length of the 093B, there are 3 things which you can do:

1. Ask for the exact measurements from Tom Shugart, since he's the first one to post these photos on the internet; or
2. Go to Google HQ and tell them to update the satellite imagery of Huludao on Google Maps/Earth, then measure it there after Google updated the imagery; or
3. Get some 100-meter wheel measuring tapes, fly to Beijing, take a HSR to Huludao, take a taxi to the shipyard, scale the perimeter walls, measure that boat, and come back to us with the exact length of that boat

I think there are another group of VLS tubes after checking the images again. look closely, you will find that there is a rectangular frame behind the sail cover structure of the upper and lower submarines. This should be used for some kind of protection or cover for VLS loading. Observe the length and position of this frame, which is basically consistent with the original poster. Basically, there is not only another set, but it is most likely 3*4 12 tubes.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I think there are another group of VLS tubes after checking the images again. look closely, you will find that there is a rectangular frame behind the sail cover structure of the upper and lower submarines. This should be used for some kind of protection or cover for VLS loading. Observe the length and position of this frame, which is basically consistent with the original poster. Basically, there is not only another set, but it is most likely 3*4 12 tubes.


View attachment 145205

I believe that frame belongs to the same 3x4 VLS section we've seen at the bottom boat (marked #2), no?

 

[Nx4eu]

You apparently don’t know how to read since the length of this new sub has not been established and is exactly what we’ve just been talking about.

Length has not been established no, but its been suggest to be in 110m ballpark of the 093A and based on the partial evidence, you suggested that it would be near impossible to have Any Vertical launch system. Despite a lot of partial evidence that it would feature a vertical launch system. Now it's been proved it does have a VLS you fall back on the "no concrete length measurement." And we aren't arguing for 'internet points' It's just pointing out how you are consistently pessimistic from what few sources of information we do have.

 

[Iron Man]

Length has not been established no, but its been suggest to be in 110m ballpark of the 093A and based on the partial evidence, you suggested that it would be near impossible to have Any Vertical launch system. Despite a lot of partial evidence that it would feature a vertical launch system. Now it's been proved it does have a VLS you fall back on the "no concrete length measurement." And we aren't arguing for 'internet points' It's just pointing out how you are consistently pessimistic from what few sources of information we do have.

WTF are you even smoking? I like how you're so selective in quoting me. Here is what I also said:

This is of course FAR easier said than done. It's not like "optimization" can all of a sudden magically provide additional space for EIGHTEEN VLS tubes and associated interfaces, power, cooling, wiring, etc. in a space that's already being used for something else. It would be far easier to simply insert a new section into the middle of the hull, for example like in the Block V Virginias.

Again, you have NOT established this sub's length. If later the sub's length is established to be 115m or even longer, then clearly what has happened is not that you "won", but that you will end up putting your fanboi foot in your own mouth. Even IF the sub's length remains at 110m, what you actually have is still 12 cells, not 18. You are obviously too dense to realize that the discussion isn't whether PLAN subs have the technology to load VLS tubes in them, but whether putting brand new 18 tubes into a current sub design with an unchanged length is feasible. If we end up with 12 tubes at 110m, you still didn't win since the discussion was around 18 tubes, NOT whether PLAN subs could load VLS tubes in general. I can't believe I actually have to spell this out in a long paragraph for you ROFLMAO

 

[Maikeru]

I believe that frame belongs to the same 3x4 VLS section we've seen at the bottom boat (marked #2), no?

View attachment 145206

We're talking about #5 in both boats as the 'empty VLS racks".

 

[Nx4eu]

WTF are you even smoking? I like how you're so selective in quoting me. Here is what I also said:

Again, you have NOT established this sub's length. If later the sub's length is established to be 115m or even longer, then clearly what has happened is not that you "won", but that you will end up putting your fanboi foot in your own mouth. Even IF the sub's length remains at 110m, what you actually have is still 12 cells, not 18. You are obviously too dense to realize that the discussion isn't whether PLAN subs have the technology to load VLS tubes in them, but whether putting brand new 18 tubes into a current sub design with an unchanged length is feasible. If we end up with 12 tubes at 110m, you still didn't win since the discussion was around 18 tubes, NOT whether PLAN subs could load VLS tubes in general. I can't believe I actually have to spell this out in a long paragraph for you ROFLMAO

Please I thought this forum was a bit more professional than using words like LOL and ROFLMAO. We are just speculating on the information that we are given. Stop calling everything 'fanboism.' I don't care about winning, I care about trying to accurate assess the submarine. You seem to be getting far too heated for no reason at all. If we get confirmation that the submarine is greater than 110m, that is great news not some kind of self own to my esteem. 18 tubes was optimistic I do agree. But fitting 12 cells is still just as much of a task in optimization given a similar form factor.