09V/09VI (095/096) Nuclear Submarine Thread

[Blitzo]

I think all of China's submarines in the past have used fairwater planes.
They are less complicated and expensive and are still effective.
They don't increase the width of the boat excessively like the Astute's bow design.
They don't need retractable, which brings with it complexity like American bow designs.
They make swin calls more fun for crew, as a diving platform.
I take the Colombia-class SSBN going back to fairwater planes as a sign of where it is going.

Personally, I think they look better than bow-mounted planes too.
Sail-mounted planes give China's submarines more character

The Columbia class is a SSBN, and the Ohio class which precedes it is also a SSBN.

As for all of the reasons you described, those are not reasons for why we should continue to expect them to use sail mounted planes on their next generation SSN.

Bow mounted planes is quite common among modern SSN designs.
Bow mounted planes also have the benefit of being retractable as an option which can be particularly useful for SSNs as being able to retract them has some benefits for stealth at higher speeds.
Complexity is relative, and depends on the benefits versus the costs.
”Character” doesn’t matter.


All of which is my indirect of saying that we have no basis to think whether they would adopt one type of sail configuration over another, although over the last year or so we’ve been getting some indicators that it may pursue bow mounted retractable planes.

If they do go for bow mounted retractable planes, there should be no reason that should be a surprise and if anything it should be very reasonable if that see the case.
And there certainly is not default assumption or null hypothesis that we should expect their next generation SSN to use sail mounted planes.

 

[by78]

An illustration allegedly showing a submarine vertical launcher design, perhaps similar to the vertical payload modules of Virginia Class. Does anyone have the full paper?

An illustration allegedly showing a submarine vertical launcher design, perhaps similar to the vertical payload modules of Virginia Class. Does anyone have the full paper?

Not sure if this is related, but quoting a previous post just in case.

A procurement document describing a vertical launch system that has a diameter of 198mm and a height of 874mm. The prototype/test article is to be delivered around June 10th, 2023.

 

[BoraTas]

Not sure if this is related, but quoting a previous post just in case.

A procurement document describing a vertical launch system that has a diameter of 198mm and a height of 874mm. The prototype/test article is to be delivered around June 10th, 2023.

Should allow triple packing of munitions with a diameter of 850 mm. Also looking at the height, I'd say the main point of this VLS is triple packing of munitions that max out the VLS on the surface ships. For example, if a sub has 6 of these it would be able to launch a salvo of 18 YJ-21s. Of course munitions with up to a diameter of 950 mm can be double-packed. The DF-100 could be quad packed if it really has a diameter of around 630 mm. The DF-10 could be five packed. Of course, this all assumes these munitions are sub launchable and the system is modular.

 

[Blitzo]

Should allow triple packing of munitions with a diameter of 850 mm. Also looking at the height, I'd say the main point of this VLS is triple packing of munitions that max out the VLS on the surface ships. For example, if a sub has 6 of these it would be able to launch a salvo of 18 YJ-21s. Of course munitions with up to a diameter of 950 mm can be double-packed. The DF-100 could be quad packed if it really has a diameter of around 630 mm. The DF-10 could be five packed. Of course, this all assumes these munitions are sub launchable and the system is modular.

Are you assuming that the dimensions are proportionally subscaled or something?

Because keep in mind the dimensions are for 198 millimeters in diameter and 874 millimeters in length.

===


Of course, IF this was a 1:10 subscale prototype, then it would mean 1980 millimeters in diameter and 8740 millimeters in length.
Represented with only 850 millimeter diameter tubes, the cross sectional appearance would get this:





If they fit in three smaller tubes in between the 850mm tubes, then that would appear somewhat similar to the mixed 3 large and 3 small tubes in by78's previous post.

And assuming the cross section of the VLS in by78's previous post shows 850mm tubes in the large one, it is 155 pixels in diameter and the smaller tube is 83 pixels in diameter, which would make the small tube 455mm in diameter looking like this:



455mm is probably too small for any heavy munitions but maybe smaller missiles, or maybe tube launched foldable UAVs, or even UUVs.

 

[BoraTas]

Are you assuming that the dimensions are proportionally subscaled or something?

Because keep in mind the dimensions are for 198 millimeters in diameter and 874 millimeters in length.

===


Of course, IF this was a 1:10 subscale prototype, then it would mean 1980 millimeters in diameter and 8740 millimeters in length.
Represented with only 850 millimeter diameter tubes, the cross sectional appearance would get this:

View attachment 114169



If they fit in three smaller tubes in between the 850mm tubes, then that would appear somewhat similar to the mixed 3 large and 3 small tubes in by78's previous post.

And assuming the cross section of the VLS in by78's previous post shows 850mm tubes in the large one, it is 155 pixels in diameter and the smaller tube is 83 pixels in diameter, which would make the small tube 455mm in diameter looking like this:

View attachment 114170

455mm is probably too small for any heavy munitions but maybe smaller missiles, or maybe tube launched foldable UAVs, or even UUVs.

Oops. I read centimetres. I assumed subscalability as a possibility as the Yasen class widely rumored to have such tubes.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

(If this post and related discussion is not suitable for this thread, feel free to move it to the 095 SSN/096 SSBN thread.)

Speaking of the purported research paper on submarine-based VLS module discussed above, I observed a flurry of activities by @伏尔戈星图 on Weibo today on the topic of 095 SSN.

From his mainly summary-ish post on claims regarding the 095 SSN:

已知信息合成，复合壳体，侧声呐阵列，鱼雷发射管数量均未知

大孔780mm，小孔410mm，中部vpt数量也未知。

艏伸缩舵，极地破冰铁头，电磁vpt。

Based on what I could roughly gather from the above quoted post and other of his posts on the 095 SSN:
1. Composite (single) hull;
2. (Bow? and) flank-mounted sonar arrays;
3. 2 large VPTs (here I assume those large missile tube modules, akin to VPM on the Block 5 Virginia) mounted at the bow;
4. Each VPT has 3 large 780mm-diameter missile tubes and 3 small 410mm-diameter missile tubes;
5. Number of central-mounted (here I assume behind the sail) VPTs is unknown;
6. Number of torpedo tubes is unknown;
7. Bow-mounted diving planes;
8. The VPT uses some kind of electromagnetic launch method to launch missiles (???); and
9. The sail can break through polar ice caps(???).

Points #1 till #7 can be considered reasonable and logical (at least), but I have no idea how he managed to get to points #8 and #9 (hence the "???").

(Personal comment:
1. I'm still more convinced by Blitzo's estimations on the diameters of those large and small missile tubes on the VPT than his.
2. Though, if his claims regarding those VPTs are anywhere close, then I wager (or more like, hope) that there would be another one or two more VPTs behind the sail.)

Here's a general illustration by him (or his friend) of how the 095 SSN could look like:

(Yep, apparently lyman2003 is still rather unwelcomed in the community lolz)

A word of caution, though: He isn't really known to have a good rep in (at least certain parts of) the community, so make of his claims what you will.

Not sure if these have been posted in this forum before, so here goes.

Note: Could be 094-related or 095-related.

(If this post and related discussion is not suitable for this thread, feel free to move it to the 093 SSN/094 SSBN or the 095 SSN/096 SSBN thread.)

Two possibilities regarding the paper:
1. This is a study on the aforementioned VPT for the 095 SSN; or
2. This is a study on exploring the possibility of converting 094/094A SSBNs into SSGNs (like the first 4 Ohios) by replacing the JL-2s with some kind of missile tube modules that can carry 3 large missiles (presumably AShBMs) each.





For the later option, that could mean that the converted 094/094As can carrying 36 (presumably AShBM) missiles per boat.

Photos and information obtained from @伏尔戈星图's recent Weibo post. He claimed that the later option as being the more likely topic that is being discussed by the paper.

 

[Blitzo]

(If this post and related discussion is not suitable for this thread, feel free to move it to the 095 SSN/096 SSBN thread.)

Speaking of the purported research paper on submarine-based VLS module discussed above, I observed a flurry of activities by @伏尔戈星图 on Weibo today on the topic of 095 SSN.

From his mainly summary-ish post on claims regarding the 095 SSN:


Based on what I could roughly gather from the above quoted post and other of his posts on the 095 SSN:
1. Composite (single) hull;
2. (Bow? and) flank-mounted sonar arrays;
3. 2 large VPTs (here I assume those large missile tube modules, akin to VPM on the Block 5 Virginia) mounted at the bow;
4. Each VPT has 3 large 780mm-diameter missile tubes and 3 small 410mm-diameter missile tubes;
5. Number of central-mounted (here I assume behind the sail) VPTs is unknown;
6. Number of torpedo tubes is unknown;
7. Bow-mounted diving planes;
8. The VPT uses some kind of electromagnetic launch method to launch missiles (???); and
9. The sail can break through polar ice caps(???).

Points #1 till #7 can be considered reasonable and logical (at least), but I have no idea how he managed to get to points #8 and #9 (hence the "???").

(Personal comment:
1. I'm still more convinced by Blitzo's estimations on the diameters of those large and small missile tubes on the VPT than his.
2. Though, if his claims regarding those VPTs are anywhere close, then I wager (or more like, hope) that there would be another one or two more VPTs behind the sail.)

Here's a general illustration by him (or his friend) of how the 095 SSN could look like:
View attachment 114202
(Yep, apparently lyman2003 is still rather unwelcomed in the community lolz)

A word of caution, though: He isn't really known to have a good rep in (at least certain parts of) the community, so make of his claims what you will.

So, it is very much possible that the dimensions of the three big/three small VLS tube has the big VLS tubes as 780mm diameter and small VLS tubes as 410mm.
If we do the pixel measurement of the cross section from this picture posted earlier:



... The diameter of the overall tube is 394 pixels, the diameter of the big VLS tube is 157 pixels, and the diameter of the small VLS tube is 83 pixels
If we assume the real thing's diameter is 1980mm, and plugging in this person's numbers for 780mm for the big VLS tube and 410 for the small VLS tube, the ratios work out similarly with only a small degree of error that would be expected.

Which is to say, the numbers don't look unreasonable but also absent actual numbers from the paper, there's no reason to take them too seriously either, just to consider them as plausible.
The bigger question I have is what the intent for three bigger VLS tubes and three smaller VLS tubes would be, after all these are underwater VLS -- the small tubes definitely aren't for venting exhaust or anything because no submarine hot launches missiles when the missile is still within the VLS tube/submarine hull itself.


As for the claims from no. 1 to no. 9, tbh all of them apart from no. 8 appear to be relatively standard, expected and reasonable claims (and vague) that anyone could make.
No. 9, for the sail being strengthened to break through the polar ice caps, is an absolutely entirely normal thing for submarines, and is present on Russian, US, UK nuclear submarines etc.

No. 8 regarding the EM VLS is much more exotic of a claim.


==

Not sure if these have been posted in this forum before, so here goes.

Note: Could be 094-related or 095-related.

(If this post and related discussion is not suitable for this thread, feel free to move it to the 093 SSN/094 SSBN or the 095 SSN/096 SSBN thread.)

Two possibilities regarding the paper:
1. This is a study on the aforementioned VPT for the 095 SSN; or
2. This is a study on exploring the possibility of converting 094/094A SSBNs into SSGNs (like the first 4 Ohios) by replacing the JL-2s with some kind of missile tube modules that can carry 3 large missiles (presumably AShBMs) each.

View attachment 114210
View attachment 114211
View attachment 114212

For the later option, that could mean that the converted 094/094As can carrying 36 (presumably AShBM) missiles per boat.

Photos and information obtained from @伏尔戈星图's recent Weibo post. He claimed that the later option as being the more likely topic that is being discussed by the paper.

TBH for a few years now I've been waiting for a three VLS in one tube submarine VLS to emerge.

There is this picture from many years ago, which when thinking about the existing missile payloads the PLAN already had in service on its surface ships, would make a three in one VLS setup fairly rational




However, the VPT/Ohio SSGN configuration of having 7 SLCMs (or 3 LRHWs) in one Trident sized tube is not the only "multipack" underwater VLS that exists.
Actually the Virginia class bow has six SLCMs in one large tube as well (slightly different to the VPT/Ohio SSGN configuration), and of course the Yasen class has four large diameter SLCM tubes in one larger tube as below:

So, going for three tubes in one larger tube is quite reasonable, and while it may have utility for conversions of 09IV SSBNs to SSGNs, there have also been longstanding whispers that a multipack tube setup is expected to some degree for the 09V.
The only surprise from the recent paper that by78 posted is the idea that they would have three bigger VLS tubes and three smaller VLS tubes in the same overall larger tube pack, and we'd have to be a bit creative to consider what those small VLS tubes (if they are VLS at all) could be for.


Overall I'm going to move the last few posts on this topic to the 09V thread.


===


Edit:
I've been trying to find that paper posted on weibo by 伏尔伐星图, but without the full title I can't get the full hit

However, I have been able to find a very similar paper which shows the same tripack submarine VLS:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

archived:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

with similar pictures here:

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

... The diameter of the overall tube is 394 pixels, the diameter of the big VLS tube is 157 pixels, and the diameter of the small VLS tube is 83 pixels
If we assume the real thing's diameter is 1980mm, and plugging in this person's numbers for 780mm for the big VLS tube and 410 for the small VLS tube, the ratios work out similarly with only a small degree of error that would be expected.

Which is to say, the numbers don't look unreasonable but also absent actual numbers from the paper, there's no reason to take them too seriously either, just to consider them as plausible.
The bigger question I have is what the intent for three bigger VLS tubes and three smaller VLS tubes would be, after all these are underwater VLS -- the small tubes definitely aren't for venting exhaust or anything because no submarine hot launches missiles when the missile is still within the VLS tube/submarine hull itself.

Agreed.

Personal thoughts, though (and do pardon me on this): If the VPTs purported for the 095 is anywhere close to being as shown and estimate-calculated as above, then it kinda sounds like a downgrade from the 093B (which I do hope isn't true)...

 

[Blitzo]

Agreed.

Personal thoughts, though (and do pardon me on this): If the VPTs purported for the 095 is anywhere close to being as shown and estimate-calculated as above, then it kinda sounds like a downgrade from the 093B (which I do hope isn't true)...

Okay, first it is important that they are not called VPTs -- VPTs stand for Virginia Payload Tubes, which is a specific model of multipack VLS that later block Virginias have.
Just call them multipack VLS or multipack payload tube -- a generic term that covers various types of payload tubes including VPTs, the Ohio SSGN's 7 pack tubes, the Yasen quad pack tube, or this purported tripack tube.


As for "downgrade" -- what do you mean? Do you mean VLS capacity/magazine size, or pack density?

Take a step back -- we don't actually know whether the 09IIIB has VLS to begin with, so it's not like there can be a "downgrade" from something that is not yet certain.
If we make a (not unreasonable) assumption that 09IIIB does have VLS based on that model from last year, that model only has 18 VLS tubes (let's assume they are each for a normal near UVLS sized payload like YJ-18 or YJ-21).

If we operate on that, I don't know why you think any of the posts above indicate what they think the total VLS capacity of 09V would be?? The above studies show a tripack VLS for a UVLS or near UVLS sized payload, as well as possibly three smaller tubes in the same overload payload tube. However it's not like any of the above posts even claim a guess for how many total tripack VLS payload tubes the 09V will actually have, so no one even claims to make a guess as to what they think the total VLS capacity for 09V is.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Okay, first it is important that they are not called VPTs -- VPTs stand for Virginia Payload Tubes, which is a specific model of multipack VLS that later block Virginias have.
Just call them multipack VLS or multipack payload tube -- a generic term that covers various types of payload tubes including VPTs, the Ohio SSGN's 7 pack tubes, the Yasen quad pack tube, or this purported tripack tube.

Understood. Though the term VPT which I used in above posts is from @伏尔戈星图 when referring to those missile modules. Will use multipack VLS from now on.

As for "downgrade" -- what do you mean? Do you mean VLS capacity/magazine size, or pack density?

Take a step back -- we don't actually know whether the 09IIIB has VLS to begin with, so it's not like there can be a "downgrade" from something that is not yet certain.
If we make a (not unreasonable) assumption that 09IIIB does have VLS based on that model from last year, that model only has 18 VLS tubes (let's assume they are each for a normal near UVLS sized payload like YJ-18 or YJ-21).

If we operate on that, I don't know why you think any of the posts above indicate what they think the total VLS capacity of 09V would be?? The above studies show a tripack VLS for a UVLS or near UVLS sized payload, as well as possibly three smaller tubes in the same overload payload tube. However it's not like any of the above posts even claim a guess for how many total tripack VLS payload tubes the 09V will actually have, so no one even claims to make a guess as to what they think the total VLS capacity for 09V is.

Well, mainly magazine pack density, though it does relate to magazine size per boat (and therefore, meaningful long-range land-attack and anti-ship strike capabilities per boat + overall combat performance and effectiveness of the 095s) when compared to the 093B (yes, I'm assuming the 093B to bear resemblance to that model with VLS missile tubes, since it is widely regarded to be a reasonable assumption/estimation that the 093B has VLS missile tubes).