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

[Blitzo]

The publicly-available figure on the diameter of the JL-2/As deployed onboard 094/A SSBNs is 2 meters, or 2000 mm.

3x 850mm missile tubes per multipack VLS should be close to the guesstimated dimensions of that 3-big-3-small multipack VLS from earlier as well, which may render it suitable for the 094/094As in case they are to be converted into SSGNs in the future.


I recall that there was a somewhat lengthy discussion in the 093/094 thread early this year based on lyman2003's claim on Weibo about a 1.2-meter diameter VLS on the 093B that could launch AShBMs that can reach targets 1500 nautical miles (2770+ kilometers) away.

If the 1.2-meter VLS is anywhere close to reality, could it be useful for this (bolded) case?



Would be great if the 095s can go the Yasen-way, i.e. multipack VLS arranged in two parallel lines (if the 095s do have multipack VLS). Can save a great deal of length (and thus, displacement) that way.

I personally don't take what Lyman says seriously, unless there is a pre-existing logical basis or corroboration from others. In this case, I am personally doubtful as to whether a 1.2m diameter VLS for submarines is actually being pursued. Obviously we can't rule it out, but that is different to entertaining it as something that is logical or in the works. Personally I think a 1.2m diameter VLS seems a bit much but that may just be me.

My personal suspicion for 09V is that I felt tripack VLS would be a reasonable way to go, assuming each VLS tube in the tripack was about the diameter of a UVLS, which would afford a degree of commonality with existing and future payloads developed for the UVLS as underwater launched variants of those weapons could be developed for submarines to lower costs. Furthermore, a tripack tube would have room for growth as it would necessitate a diameter of 1.8-2m, and can allow it to carry a single larger payload in lieu of three UVLS sized payloads.
(Note for anyone reading: I'm not saying that they would actually adapt the UVLS for submarines, but rather that I think it would make sense for a submarine VLS to have the ability to accommodate UVLS sized payloads for the sake of commonality).

And the other benefit is as you said; a 1.8-2m diameter tripack tube could enable a 12m diameter pressure hull to carry them in two columns adjacent to one another, in the style of Yasen or SSBNs.
I haven't posted it on this forum before, but my personal vision for 09V's potential VLS configuration would be a 2m-ish diameter tripack tube that can carry three UVLS sized payloads or replace those with one much larger missile. A 12m diameter pressure hull should be able to carry two columns of 2m tubes behind the sail at the amidships area without much of a hump at all.
I could see two columns four long, i.e. eight total tubes which would allow for 24 UVLS sized payloads (or replace a tripack/three UVLS sized payloads for a single larger weapon that uses the full diameter of the cell). I think 16-24 UVLS sized payloads is the kind of VLS complement that would be appropriate for a new SSN whose primary mission is hunting other submarines in open ocean. Needless to say, once they have enough such high performance SSNs in service they could build lengthened 09V variants with more VLS capacity, but I do not think the baseline variant would make sense to pursue an excessive VLS capacity.

But as I said that is only my personal vision and I haven't posted it here before because personal unfounded speculation isn't useful.

Warning: purely speculative

The desire to pack two parallel rows of multi-missile vertical launchers might have what caused PLAN to opt for a large diameter hull, if 12 meter sections we saw are indeed for the 095. If this is the case, we are looking at 18-24 hypersonics per boat. Significant...

Mind you, there are multiple speculations here:
1- The said sections were for the 095
2- There is indeed a tri-pack VLS

The desire for a larger pressure hull for 09V has would likely be primarily due to desire to be a high performance open ocean SSN to target opposing SSNs in the way that Seawolf is (which, as we all recall, doesn't have built in VLS). The ability to have two columns of appropriately sized VLS side by side would be very much a secondary benefit.

 

[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?

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.

Here's the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. A machine translated version is attached to this post.

 

[Blitzo]

Here's the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. A machine translated version is attached to this post.

Thanks a lot for that.

So, this describes an electromagnetic mechanism for launching the missile/payload. I might be reading this wrong, and I'm very open to corrections, but it seems like the paper talks about how the EM mechanism involves having an inlet for water as part of the launch process.

Could that be what the smaller tubes are for? That is to say, there are three large tubes for the payloads themselves, and perhaps the three small tubes are individually (or collectively) part of the water flow/inlet system for the unique EM launch mechanism?

Again, happy to be corrected if anyone has a more accurate read of it.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I personally don't take what Lyman says seriously, unless there is a pre-existing logical basis or corroboration from others. In this case, I am personally doubtful as to whether a 1.2m diameter VLS for submarines is actually being pursued. Obviously we can't rule it out, but that is different to entertaining it as something that is logical or in the works. Personally I think a 1.2m diameter VLS seems a bit much but that may just be me.

My personal suspicion for 09V is that I felt tripack VLS would be a reasonable way to go, assuming each VLS tube in the tripack was about the diameter of a UVLS, which would afford a degree of commonality with existing and future payloads developed for the UVLS as underwater launched variants of those weapons could be developed for submarines to lower costs. Furthermore, a tripack tube would have room for growth as it would necessitate a diameter of 1.8-2m, and can allow it to carry a single larger payload in lieu of three UVLS sized payloads.
(Note for anyone reading: I'm not saying that they would actually adapt the UVLS for submarines, but rather that I think it would make sense for a submarine VLS to have the ability to accommodate UVLS sized payloads for the sake of commonality).

And the other benefit is as you said; a 1.8-2m diameter tripack tube could enable a 12m diameter pressure hull to carry them in two columns adjacent to one another, in the style of Yasen or SSBNs.
I haven't posted it on this forum before, but my personal vision for 09V's potential VLS configuration would be a 2m-ish diameter tripack tube that can carry three UVLS sized payloads or replace those with one much larger missile. A 12m diameter pressure hull should be able to carry two columns of 2m tubes behind the sail at the amidships area without much of a hump at all.
I could see two columns four long, i.e. eight total tubes which would allow for 24 UVLS sized payloads (or replace a tripack/three UVLS sized payloads for a single larger weapon that uses the full diameter of the cell). I think 16-24 UVLS sized payloads is the kind of VLS complement that would be appropriate for a new SSN whose primary mission is hunting other submarines in open ocean. Needless to say, once they have enough such high performance SSNs in service they could build lengthened 09V variants with more VLS capacity, but I do not think the baseline variant would make sense to pursue an excessive VLS capacity.

But as I said that is only my personal vision and I haven't posted it here before because personal unfounded speculation isn't useful.

The desire for a larger pressure hull for 09V has would likely be primarily due to desire to be a high performance open ocean SSN to target opposing SSNs in the way that Seawolf is (which, as we all recall, doesn't have built in VLS). The ability to have two columns of appropriately sized VLS side by side would be very much a secondary benefit.

Agreed.

(Please note that the following is purely based on "for-the-sake-of-food-for-thought-discussion" assumption that the 095 SSNs will have the aforementioned multipack VLS. Do not take the following as official information unless stated otherwise)

Though, TBH, I don't think it is viable enough to deploy only one large-sized missile per multipack VLS - For the similarly-sized multipack VLS that can only fit three 850mm missile tubes in a different configuration.

This is because for the similarly-sized multipack VLS that can only fit three 850 mm missile tubes, my own guesstimate for the largest possible diameter of the missile tubes that still allows more than one missile per similarly-sized multipack VLS is around 950-960 mm (i.e. 2).

Depending on the dimension and displacement constrains for the 095 SSNs, I don't think that carrying more than 8 multipack VLS per boat is likely. The key consideration - The 095s is still very much a proper SSN. Any more than 8 would turn the 095s into Virginia Block 5-like SSGNs.

Then, here are some estimations I made:

	4 multipack VLS per boat​	6 multipack VLS per boat​	8 multipack VLS per boat​
One >1000mm missile tube per multipack VLS	4​	6​	8​
Two ~960mm missile tubes per multipack VLS	8​	12​	16​
Three 850mm missile tubes per multipack VLS	12​	18​	24​

My point is that if the multipack VLS can only fit one large-sized missile per multipack VLS, then the width and volume of firepower of which one 095 can deliver against the enemy would become rather limited, alongside concerns WRT the rate of fire, increased chances of enemy interception, etc.

This problem would become more pronounced if the number of multipack VLS per boat is lower.

Of course, the multipack VLS can have two or more different configurations on the same boat. But for the sake of comparison, I make it such that every multipack VLS has the same configuration on the same boat. Though, my point still stands.

 

[Blitzo]

Agreed.

(Please note that the following is purely based on "for-the-sake-of-food-for-thought-discussion" assumption that the 095 SSNs will have the aforementioned multipack VLS. Do not take the following as official information unless stated otherwise)

Though, TBH, I don't think it is viable enough to deploy only one large-sized missile per multipack VLS - For the similarly-sized multipack VLS that can only fit three 850mm missile tubes in a different configuration.

This is because for the similarly-sized multipack VLS that can only fit three 850 mm missile tubes, my own guesstimate for the largest possible diameter of the missile tubes that still allows more than one missile per similarly-sized multipack VLS is around 950-960 mm (i.e. 2).

Depending on the dimension and displacement constrains for the 095 SSNs, I don't think that carrying more than 8 multipack VLS per boat is likely. The key consideration - The 095s is still very much a proper SSN. Any more than 8 would turn the 095s into Virginia Block 5-like SSGNs.

Then, here are some estimations I made:

	4 multipack VLS per boat​	6 multipack VLS per boat​	8 multipack VLS per boat​
One >1000mm missile tube per multipack VLS	4​	6​	8​
Two ~960mm missile tubes per multipack VLS	8​	12​	16​
Three 850mm missile tubes per multipack VLS	12​	18​	24​

My point is that if the multipack VLS can only fit one large-sized missile per multipack VLS, then the width and volume of firepower of which one 095 can deliver against the enemy would become rather limited, alongside concerns WRT the rate of fire, increased chances of enemy interception, etc.

This problem would become more pronounced if the number of multipack VLS per boat is lower.

Of course, the multipack VLS can have two or more different configurations on the same boat. But for the sake of comparison, I make it such that every multipack VLS has the same configuration on the same boat. Though, my point still stands.

So, this discussion about the hypothetical VLS configuration for 09V has some merit.

You are thinking along the right lines in terms of dual packing -- i.e.: you are wanting to ensure that the submarine could have sufficient magazine size of weapons.

And you are right -- i.e.: magazine size is important, however when you have a multipack tube launch system like this, another important trait is "volume usage".
Volume usage is important because you don't want to waste important space in the multipack tube, and also because you want your payload to be sufficiently differentiated and capable from each other to fill different roles.

Let's say the overall tube dimension is 2m diameter and 9m long.
That comes to an overall tube volume of 28.3m^3

Let's say that the payloads can all be 8.5m long, in which case the only factor we will change is their diameter and number, and assume a cylindrical geometry for the payloads (realistically they'll be tapered at one end, but this is more for demonstration's sake):

For a tripack configuration of 0.85m diameter per payload:
- the volume of a single payload is 4.82m^3
- the total volume of the three payloads is 14.46m^3
- the volume usage percentage is 51.3% (i.e.: 14.46/28.3)

For a dualpack configuration of 0.96m diameter per payload:
- the volume of a single payload is 6.15m^3
- the total volume of the two payloads is 12.3m^3
- the volume usage percentage is 43.5% (i.e.: 12.3/28.3)

For a single pack configuration of, let's say 1.8m diameter (I won't make it 2m because let's assume that for the purposes of modularity the actual usable diameter will be a bit smaller than 2m):
- the volume of a single payload is 21.6m^3 (the total volume of the single payload is the same)
- the volume usage percentage is 76.3% (i.e.: 21.6/28.3)


Now, the "volume usage percentage" is one of the reasons why I felt that a tripack 0.85m configuration was useful, as it would offer a combination of useful magazine size, while having the overall tube (of about 2m diameter) able to be potentially fitted side by side in a 12m diameter hull. Additionally, 0.85m diameter payloads could be developed from UVLS payloads but adapted for underwater launch -- YJ-18 and YJ-21 (more importantly), and future UVLS weapons could all be implemented.
A weapon like YJ-21 would also have quite useful ranges likely in excess of 1,000km if longstanding rumours are to be believed.

In other words, tripacking 0.85m weapons helps to use the space of a multipack tube efficiently, while each individual weapon is still fairly capable and useful, and also while providing decent overall magazine size.

In fact, I think going any smaller than 0.85m might not be worth it (unless they want to carry only LACMs which might be smaller in diameter and enable carriage of 6 or 7 per tube, but that's a different topic), which of course is why I am not considering 20cm diameter payloads which would be able to use all of the volume much more efficiently with large magazine sizes but where an individual 20cm diameter payload would be ludicrously useless.


That takes us to the dual pack situation -- imo a 0.96m diameter weapon is not significantly more capable than a 0.85m weapon by volume to warrant development nor to warrant dual packing.
Volume for a missile corresponds to payload, propellant (and thus range), among other things, keeping other factors constant.
A 0.96m diameter weapon has a volume of 6.15m^3, and a 0.85m diameter weapon has a volume of 4.82m^3, i.e.: by volume it's only 27.6% larger. The development cost for a weapon that is only over a quarter larger in volume, and having to only be able to dual pack such a weapon, with a volume usage percentage of 43.5%, strikes me as not a wise use of money and resources.


OTOH, a 1.8m diameter weapon has a volume of 21.6m^3, which is 250% larger by volume than a 0.96m diameter weapon (6.15m^3), and 348% larger by volume than a 0.85m diameter weapon (4.82m^3) -- meaning that a 1.8m diameter weapon has a lot, lot more payload, and a lot, lot more propellant to work with, which of course corresponds to greater range and a heavier warhead, among other things. And of course it also has a high volume usage percentage of 76.3%, minimizing wastage of space.


Now, as you pointed out, a 1.8m diameter weapon does mean you'll be having a much lower magazine size, but a 1.8m diameter weapon would only be used for certain targets in certain conditions. With a hypersonic glide payload on a 1.8m diameter missile, they could likely start to approach your usual ICBM category ranges (like near 8000km), which opens up many many targets that an acoustically competitive and modern SSN could strike, at great distances from the target (and thus preserving the safety of the launch SSN as well). For those that have discussed means of striking the CONTUS west coast, it means they can just be on the edge of the central pacific and be able to launch at those distances without having to get closer past Hawaii, which could be quite important at an earlier stage of a conflict where certain key lynchpin targets may be considered high value.
OTOH, 0.96m diameter weapons would only offer a marginally more capable weapon than a 0.85m diameter weapon, yet with a significantly lower magazine size that is two thirds the size.
A 1.8m diameter weapon would be much much more capable than a 0.85m diameter weapon, with a magazine size that is only one third the size; but I think the capability of the weapon would be more than worth it.


Of course this is all just a thought experiment.

I personally think that if they do go with a ~2m multipack tube, a tripack ~0.85m configuration should definitely be pursued either way (and the papers seem to allude that they're investigating that route).
If they do make the tripack tube modular and able to carry additional payloads, I just think a dual pack load isn't worth it as the minor capability increase won't be worth developing a new bespoke weapon and the dualpack tube configuration to hold it.

If there are concerns about limitations for magazine size for a 1.8m diameter weapon, that can be quite easily managed by:
- recognizing the 1.8m diameter weapon is only for long range higher value targets
- having a single submarine carry a combination of 1.8m diameter weapons in single tubes, and a 0.85m diameter weapons in tripack tubes (e.g.: a hypothetical 09V with eight 2m tubes, could carry four 1.8m diameter weapons in four tubes, and twelve 0.85m diameter weapons in the other four tubes)
- and of course, future lengthened higher VLS capacity variants of 09V could be developed to have 10, 12 or 14 tubes, which would offer up even more options for mixing and matching. If anything, the more tubes a submarine has, the more important it is to try to maximize the total "volume usage percentage" in terms of tube space

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

(Disclaimer: Please, PLEASEEEEE take this with a HUUUUUUGGGGGGEEEEEEEE pinch of salt, since this information is coming from @伏尔戈星图.)

Documents that MIGHT indicate that the upcoming 096 SSBN is likely to have 14 SLBM missile tubes, i.e. 2 more than on the 094/A/B SSBN. (Might also be talking about the upcoming 095 SSN, but that sounds less likely.)

Further verification on the veracity of information is absolutely required.

 

[sunnymaxi]

(Disclaimer: Please, PLEASEEEEE take this with a HUUUUUUGGGGGGEEEEEEEE pinch of salt, since this information is coming from @伏尔戈星图.)

Documents that MIGHT indicate that the upcoming 096 SSBN is likely to have 14 SLBM missile tubes, i.e. 2 more than on the 094/A/B SSBN. (Might also be talking about the upcoming 095 SSN, but that sounds less likely.)

Further verification on the veracity of information is absolutely required.

View attachment 115413
View attachment 115414

type 096 SSBN will definitely bigger than type 094 in length/displacement so having 14 missile tubes is not a big deal considering Borei and Ohio class SSBNs ..

 

[Kalec]

(Disclaimer: Please, PLEASEEEEE take this with a HUUUUUUGGGGGGEEEEEEEE pinch of salt, since this information is coming from @伏尔戈星图.)

Documents that MIGHT indicate that the upcoming 096 SSBN is likely to have 14 SLBM missile tubes, i.e. 2 more than on the 094/A/B SSBN. (Might also be talking about the upcoming 095 SSN, but that sounds less likely.)

AFAIK, the so-called 14 tubes are more likely to be torpedo tubes other than SLBM tubes.

Simple as the required burning rate is 24mm/s ~ 1mm/s and the burn temperature is 2470K.

FYI, NEPE for strategic missiles normally burns at 3750K and 7mm/s. ofc water could cool the temperature and the burning rate can be manipulated by accelerators. However, a burning rate around 24mm/s almost certainly indicated that it is a sort of munition requiring ultra fast burning,typically intercepting missiles, cold launch gas generators etcs.

Also the testing requirement didn't say they are "14 tubes," the original wording means that they are 14 "metal structured equipments."

 

[Blitzo]

AFAIK, the so-called 14 tubes are more likely to be torpedo tubes other than SLBM tubes.

Simple as the required burning rate is 24mm/s ~ 1mm/s and the burn temperature is 2470K.

FYI, NEPE for strategic missiles normally burns at 3750K and 7mm/s. ofc water could cool the temperature and the burning rate can be manipulated by accelerators. However, a burning rate around 24mm/s almost certainly indicated that it is a sort of munition requiring ultra fast burning,typically intercepting missiles, cold launch gas generators etcs.

Also the testing requirement didn't say they are "14 tubes," the original wording means that they are 14 "metal structured equipments."

The total torpedo tubes for 09V has been floated to be possibly 8 in number (four each side), so hypothetically if 8 tubes can count as 8 metal structured equipments, it makes me wonder what the other 6 are.

That is, if we believe these 14 metal structured equipments are even for a specific interesting subsystem for the next gen nuclear submarines to begin with.

 

[Kalec]

AFAIK, the so-called 14 tubes are more likely to be torpedo tubes other than SLBM tubes.

Simple as the required burning rate is 24mm/s ~ 1mm/s and the burn temperature is 2470K.

FYI, NEPE for strategic missiles normally burns at 3750K and 7mm/s. ofc water could cool the temperature and the burning rate can be manipulated by accelerators. However, a burning rate around 24mm/s almost certainly indicated that it is a sort of munition requiring ultra fast burning,typically intercepting missiles, cold launch gas generators etcs.

Also the testing requirement didn't say they are "14 tubes," the original wording means that they are 14 "metal structured equipments."

Update:

More bidding information and publication surfaced in recent days and it seems that it is very likely to be the SLBM tube but the bidding propellant is gas-generator, which is to eject the missile out of the launch tube instead of missile itself.

Why is it a launcher test not the missile itself?

As I have said, the bidding temperature and environment matches the gas generator not a typical NEPE propellant. More public information can be seen here for MX ejector publication. Imperial measurement is so annoying that one has to convert every data back to metric. But the general idea is that gas generator has a low burning temperature (to protect the tube) and a faster burning rate (to burn faster and more thrust) than an actual missile.

"To produce the required launch pulse, the hot gas generator operated for approximately 0.7 s at a pressure of 3340 psia and a flame temperature of 4860°F."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Or more simply, because they don't design missile but launch tube.

For example here, a simulated blast test.


I have already discussed the further in the ICBM/SLBM thread as well, the next-gen SLBM is very likely to have a diameter of 2.3 meters.

And the number of 14, I still hold my suspicion that CASC is going in a unique way on SSBN in the world. My expectation is either 12 or 16 tubes.