Should be 093B I think
09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread
- Thread starter SinoSoldier
- Start date
Should be 093B I think
Should be 093B I think
That's what it is trying to depict yes, but as always these sort of diagrams/drawings are not official so one should treat it well salted.
Interesting to note in that deleted article link is the assertion that the 093B is about the same length as a 093/093A which begs the question of whether it actually has a VLS setup. If it is 110m as estimated the chance that it has a VLS IMO is somewhere in the neighborhood of zero.
The pre- and post-VLS boats of the Los Angeles class have the same length, so I don't think that measurement is a reliable indicator of the presence or lack of a VLS.
This is not an apples to apples comparison because the VLS 688s incorporated the VLS tubes in front of the sail where there was already extra room given that the bow passive sonar array was located far ahead of the rest of the sub presumably for sound isolation purposes, leaving the space in between open for VLS tube insertion. This is not the case for the 093 series since that design's torpedo room is located forward of the sail near the top instead of at the bottom further back in the boat, with the torpedo tubes at the flanks like every American sub design has, so there is no way to put a VLS there. In which case you have to take away a significant amount of space from the interior of the sub which is already in use by something else.
Not a sub expert here by any stretch of the imagination, but could rearrangement of certain onboard systems, in addition to the miniaturization of components that are certainly applicable to the newer 09IIIB boats (given they're 20 years newer vs the lead units), provide the needed space for a VLS?
The biggest clue of a VLS being present is the official CSSC model that shows a 12-18 cell VLS.
It boils down to how much of a redesign internally this variant is vs preceding boats. I dont think its just a matter of miniaturization but perhaps a further revision of the internal arrangement. Notably the American China Military Power report explicitly refers to 09IIIB as an SSGN, suggesting VLS capability. This too is of course purely indicative and circumstantial, but the CMP does contain some originally classified information.
Its a wait and see situation, as usual.
Its a wait and see situation, as usual.
The structural and layout designs inside the submarine hull can be modified, rearranged and/or optimized to provide additional spaces for the VLS tubes.
Besides, the information (or official hints) we have received so far indicates that the VLS tubes are mounted aft of the sail, not near the bow of the boat. This should mean that the degree of constrains and limitations faced by the PLAN submarine designers when dealing with the need to fit VLS tubes onboard the 093B SSNs would be quite lower compared to having to do the same at the boat's bow section.
I don't think that scale model is officially from/by the CSSC.
The hint provided on the presence of VLS tubes onboard the 093B SSNs which can be said to originate from a source of more verifiable official capacity is this particular exhibition board sometime in mid-2023.
Last edited:
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.
Yes, this is what I was alluding to when I said "In which case you have to take away a significant amount of space from the interior of the sub which is already in use by something else".
How are you reasonably sure this is a graphic of the 093B rather than some other hypothetical design, such as the 095 or even a "093C"?