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

[Blitzo]

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.

Yeah, it's good practice to use accurate nomenclature -- including when a name shouldn't be generalized.

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 boats) when compared to the 093B (yes, I'm assuming the 093B to bear resemblance to that model with VLS missile tubes).

Okay, if you are assuming that the 09IIIB model is representative of the real thing, my question is what depiction of 09V are you talking about?
None of the posts or pictures in the above posts describe even a sliver of an estimate for what sort of VLS magazine size 09V could have, not even a made up one.

Or are you just looking at this CGI they made and thinking that the bow tripack tubes represents what they think 09V's total VLS magazine size would be?

If that's the case, then there are two obvious replies:
1. It's just a fan made CGI, don't give it too much credence to begin with
2. Even the person who made the CGI and is conveying these supposed rumours (which you posted yourself), states that it is unclear what the total VLS magazine size would be, as they are only claiming that there will be two tripack tubes in the bow, and an unknown number in the amidships/central section behind the sail (nor do we know how additional tripack tubes behind the sail might be arranged -- i.e.: single column or dual column)


That said, if I'm wrong please explain in detail your thought process relating where you any previous post as having a claim/depiction of 09V's total VLS magazine size.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Look, I do not intend to be confrontational here. So, no offence meant.

Also, I'm not writing about the multipack VLS as some kind of already-set-in-stone thing. Merely as a food-for-thought memo/discussion.

 

[Blitzo]

Look, I do not intend to be confrontational here. So, no offence meant.

Also, I'm not writing about the multipack VLS as some kind of already-set-in-stone thing. Merely as a food-for-thought memo/discussion.

I'm not trying to be confrontational either.
The reason I'm particularly focusing on this, is because the pictures and text you posted from that account is useful and constructive, and helps to potentially add meaningful refinement to the overall 09V tracking.

If you're saying that what you wrote in #1148 is just your own musing of "oh what if 09V has less VLS than 09IIIB, that would kinda suck wont' it" in a way which is completely unrelated to the previous posts, then that's fine but please flag it as such, both for participants and more importantly for readers of the thread. I hope you can appreciate that other readers or new readers of the thread might have seen #1148 and believed that there were actually some sort of indicator on that page that 09V might have less VLS than the 09IIIB model.

Ultimately this forum benefits from constructive discussion based on assessment of new rumours and pictures, but it also requires us to actually commit to what we write and defend our positions if we are putting forth theories or speculation to advance or refine a consensus, and to do so in a way that tries to avoid misunderstanding and confusion.

====

To summarize the developments of the last page in general, for others, who are reading:
1. Screenshots of some studies have been posted, which depict a multipack (tripack) VLS tube system, and appear to be suited for an approximate UVLS sized payload of three payloads per tripack. Some of the studies also depict three smaller tubes in addition to the three UVLS sized tubes per pack whose role and utility is unknown (though is unlikely to represent a venting system given the system is almost certainly not hot launch).
2. It is unconfirmed if these studies relate to 09V or another submarine project or if it is intended for active development for a PLA submarine at all.
3. However, there are some rumours and a more simple picture from multiple years ago which alluded to a tripack VLS tube system as one that might feature on future PLAN submarines.
4. There have also been longstanding rumours that 09V is expected to have a VLS that might be multipack in nature (which would be a reasonable follow-on to the 09IIIB which has been speculated but not confirmed to have individual VLS tubes possibly 18 as depicted on a model).
5. There are NO indicators on the last page or otherwise, as to what the total VLS magazine capacity on 09V might be.

 

[pevade]

Yeah, it's good practice to use accurate nomenclature -- including when a name shouldn't be generalized.




Okay, if you are assuming that the 09IIIB model is representative of the real thing, my question is what depiction of 09V are you talking about?
None of the posts or pictures in the above posts describe even a sliver of an estimate for what sort of VLS magazine size 09V could have, not even a made up one.

Or are you just looking at this CGI they made and thinking that the bow tripack tubes represents what they think 09V's total VLS magazine size would be?

If that's the case, then there are two obvious replies:
1. It's just a fan made CGI, don't give it too much credence to begin with
2. Even the person who made the CGI and is conveying these supposed rumours (which you posted yourself), states that it is unclear what the total VLS magazine size would be, as they are only claiming that there will be two tripack tubes in the bow, and an unknown number in the amidships/central section behind the sail (nor do we know how additional tripack tubes behind the sail might be arranged -- i.e.: single column or dual column)


That said, if I'm wrong please explain in detail your thought process relating where you any previous post as having a claim/depiction of 09V's total VLS magazine size.

Also placing the VLS in the front wouldn't make sense since it would occupy space required for the forward torpedo tubes. Shouldn't the VLS be placed in the middle as is convention to maintain the center of mass when the weapons are fired?

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Also placing the VLS in the front wouldn't make sense since it would occupy space required for the forward torpedo tubes. Shouldn't the VLS be placed in the middle as is convention to maintain the center of mass when the weapons are fired?

The Virginia SSNs do place their individual VLS cells (Block 1 and 2) or VPTs (from Block 3 onwards) towards the bow section. The torpedo tubes are located on either side of those VLS cells or VPTs.

Here's a cutaway illustration of a Block 5 Virginia SSN. Notice #40 and #41.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I'm not trying to be confrontational either.
The reason I'm particularly focusing on this, is because the pictures and text you posted from that account is useful and constructive, and helps to potentially add meaningful refinement to the overall 09V tracking.

If you're saying that what you wrote in #1148 is just your own musing of "oh what if 09V has less VLS than 09IIIB, that would kinda suck wont' it" in a way which is completely unrelated to the previous posts, then that's fine but please flag it as such, both for participants and more importantly for readers of the thread. I hope you can appreciate that other readers or new readers of the thread might have seen #1148 and believed that there were actually some sort of indicator on that page that 09V might have less VLS than the 09IIIB model.

Ultimately this forum benefits from constructive discussion based on assessment of new rumours and pictures, but it also requires us to actually commit to what we write and defend our positions if we are putting forth theories or speculation to advance or refine a consensus, and to do so in a way that tries to avoid misunderstanding and confusion.

Sure, will do.

 

[dingyibvs]

Just wondering, but why circular VLS modules with tri-packing? They're not being retrofitted onto existing SLBM tubes.

 

[latenlazy]

Just wondering, but why circular VLS modules with tri-packing? They're not being retrofitted onto existing SLBM tubes.

Probably the most efficient way to use volume when you need all the tubes to have plumbing to deal with the fact that you’re launching stuff from a pressurized hull sitting underwater.

 

[Kalec]

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.

Late to party but didn't the essay explicitly says that the launch tube has a diameter of 0.85m or 850mm?


In the model, the inner diameter of the launch tube is set to be 0.85 m, and the length of the tube space in the initial state is 9 m.


More importantly I generally didn't focus on tactical missile because they were usually made by CASIC.

However CASC said that they are actively developing a 800mm-diameter tactical missile. IIRC there is no such missile of 800mm diameter in current inventory made by CASC except mysterious YJ-21.

公司首台800直径金属壳体评审交付
6月2日，公司首台800直径金属壳体完成评审，各项性能指标满足设计要求。该台壳体生产过程中，各单位及时进行信息沟通，保证技术要求的落实，各车间克服工装夹具不足的困难，保证交付时间节点。壳体的成功交付标志着公司在战术壳体生产领域又增添新成员。后续，公司将借鉴首台产品加工经验，完善工艺方案，稳定产品质量，确保竞标成功。（陆小蕊）

The company's first 800-diameter metal shell review and delivery

On June 2, the company's first 800-diameter metal shell completed the evaluation, the performance indicators meet the design requirements. During the production of this shell, all units communicate information in time to ensure the implementation of technical requirements, and all workshops overcome the difficulties of insufficient tooling and fixtures to ensure the delivery time node. The successful delivery of the shell marks the addition of a new member to the company in the field of tactical shell production. Subsequently, the company will learn from the experience of processing the first product, improve the process plan, stabilize product quality and ensure the success of the bid. (Xiaorui Lu)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Blitzo]

Late to party but didn't the essay explicitly says that the launch tube has a diameter of 0.85m or 850mm?

View attachment 114459
In the model, the inner diameter of the launch tube is set to be 0.85 m, and the length of the tube space in the initial state is 9 m.


More importantly I generally didn't focus on tactical missile because they were usually made by CASIC.

However CASC said that they are actively developing a 800mm-diameter tactical missile. IIRC there is no such missile of 800mm diameter in current inventory made by CASC except mysterious YJ-21.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yes, for that particular tripack only tube they used those numbers.

It is however different to the one that by78 posted (assuming scaled down) and also different to the "three big and three small" tube in terms of configuration. So I'm not sure if they're parallel developments or if one preceded the other.

Personally overall I think it would make sense if a new SSN VLS could make use of variants of existing UVLS launched weapons (including YJ-21), and if they go the tripack route it was ould also have utility in replacing a tripack with a single larger diameter weapon as well.