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

[Iron Man]

I mean clearly they will have enough to achieve that. I think 30% of USN subs are out of action for repairs. Now you are down to 35. You might have 5 SSNs in the close proximity of China at any given time and they can’t be all deployed. Most of those subs are LA class.

so yeah, PLAN adding 8 093B in a short time is a big deal. They might already have an advantage around first island chain actually.

Well the ratio of actual deployed to out-of-action ships is more like 1:2 or even 1:3. 1 on station, 1 in transit/training, and 1 in maintenance/MLU. The US needs 11 carriers to have 3 on station at any time. France and UK need 4 SSBNs to have 1 on station at any time. Ohio SSBNs have a higher rate of deployment than that due to their blue/gold crewing but this is unusual for most navies. Ships can be surged into action but it will cost you in training, crew fatigue, maintenance, or all of the above.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

China has churned out more SSNs in less than 3 years than she had been over the past 3 decades. From the past <3 years, we've also seen that Huludao Shipyard is able to achieve a stable annual production (or shall I say, launch) rate of 3 boats for the past two years.

If such a production/launch rate can be maintain for the coming years:

Submarines per year	3 boats/year	Alternating (3-4 boats/year)	4 boats/year
1 decade (10 years)	30	35	40
2 decades (20 years)	60	70	80

(For reference, the US regularly launched 3-4 Los Angeles SSNs per year throughout the Cold War.)

Moreover, per one of my previous analyses in the Miscellaneous News thread - Even by using only half of the construction bays available at the eastern site of Huludao, that would mean an annual production/launch rate of 5 boats per year (4x SSNs + 1x SSBN/SSGN or 3x SSNs + 2x SSBN/SSGNs).

Depending on the actual needs of the PLAN, that number could actually be higher.

Besides, it is also entirely conceivable that the PLAN would surge the number of SSNs initially (in order to achieve regional parity with (or even regional superiority against) the US&LC's present and anticipated submarine forces in the WestPac as soon as possible, for instance), before settling on a slightly lower but more stable SSN production/launch rate later on.

Of course, this also depends on whether the PLAN considers the SSK (and also the long-rumored SSK-N) as part of their overall equation...

 

[00CuriousObserver]

Might be confirmation that it's more than 12 tubes

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1891467833344733290

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Might be confirmation that it's more than 12 tubes

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1891467833344733290

That's a good sign. 21 (if not 18) is also good enough, though I'm still seeing the potential for 24 as of present.

---

In the meantime, it is conceivable to expect that the 095 SSNs would maintain roughly similar (or slightly more, as long as not more than 24) number of VLS tubes as the 093B SSNs, whether that be in individual or tri/multipack VLS tubes.

 

[Andy1974]

That's a good sign. 21 (if not 18) is also good enough, though I'm still seeing the potential for 24 as of present.

---

In the meantime, it is conceivable to expect that the 095 SSNs would maintain roughly similar (or slightly more, as long as not more than 24) number of VLS tubes as the 093B SSNs, whether that be in individual or tri/multipack VLS tubes.

If the 095 is wider that the 092 then perhaps we will see 4 tubes across, rather than 3.

Assuming they keep the same number of rows, that would give the 095 a total of 32 VLS while still keeping the boat quite short.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

If the 095 is wider that the 092 then perhaps we will see 4 tubes across, rather than 3.

Assuming they keep the same number of rows, that would give the 095 a total of 32 VLS while still keeping the boat quite short.

Post to be replied in the 095 SSN/096 SSBN thread to avoid derailing this thread.

 

[para80]

That's a good sign. 21 (if not 18) is also good enough, though I'm still seeing the potential for 24 as of present.

---

In the meantime, it is conceivable to expect that the 095 SSNs would maintain roughly similar (or slightly more, as long as not more than 24) number of VLS tubes as the 093B SSNs, whether that be in individual or tri/multipack VLS tubes.

I think its likely 24. There's some funny stuff going on with the angle in that newest pic and the visible tubes centre left casting a shadow over the open hatches next to them.

 

[Blitzo]

I think its likely 24. There's some funny stuff going on with the angle in that newest pic and the visible tubes centre left casting a shadow over the open hatches next to them.

I agree.

I suspect 09IIIB's VLS are arranged in a "3x2 tube hull section" -- 6 per section. We can even partly see the grouping on the original model (pic), which had "3 sections"; 18 tubes in 3x6.



The art would then have 4 such sections, for 24 tubes in 3x8.

3x7 doesn't quite jive imo.


And the followup art had 8 in a column (likely 3x8); it's possible the model (which preceded the art) was an original depiction of how many VLS they wanted, but then they actually put in 4 sections of 3x2. Or alternatively the model itself might depict an earlier hull or two that were produced which had a 3x6 arrangement, and later boats have a 3x8 arrangement.

But IMO the VLS arrangement of 09IIIB is likely to be a 3xY arrangement, where "Y" has to be an even number.

 

[hkvaryag]

It should be noticed that the satellite photo below was taken in 2015. It should be a 09IIIA, but it also had a platform which has a similar size to the SSN above.

 

[Blitzo]

View attachment 145852
It should be noticed that the satellite photo below was taken in 2015. It should be a 09IIIA, but it also had a platform which has a similar size to the SSN above.

I don't think that should be noted or punctuated, because over the years of observation there has been no indication that any of the 09IIIA subvariants has any VLS, and the fact that it has a minor hump in that location (as well as potentially a minor recess below the external hull) could be attributed to other things like a TAS location.


In short, there is no need for us to muddy the waters by resurrecting the discourse of "is it possible that 09IIIA may also have VLS".

(if that's not what you're implying, then no worries, but I think we should be also actively trying to avoid the idea of "is it possible 09IIIA may also have had VLS")