The first picture shows the left side of the opening aligned with the sub's centerline. The right side slopes down the side of the sub. The diagonal lighter gray shading denotes the 'edge' between the top and starboard side of the sub. The top right note also translates to 'sub side'.
09V/09VI (095/096) Nuclear Submarine Thread
- Thread starter Hendrik_2000
- Start date
The first picture shows the left side of the opening aligned with the sub's centerline. The right side slopes down the side of the sub. The diagonal lighter gray shading denotes the 'edge' between the top and starboard side of the sub. The top right note also translates to 'sub side'.
If that's the basis for it, then I wouldn't rate that too highly, because we've seen similar images to that before depicting a slightly "offset" triple pack tube (see below), but even back then it was possible that the "offset" tube was not actually able to fit two tubes side by side but perhaps meant fitting them in a manner that was single column but partly staggered, or even potentially just for representative purposes.
Which is to say, overall I do expect this triple pack tube is configured in a manner that allows for a dual column fit on whatever future SSN/SSGN it is intended for simply because it makes sense, but I don't think there's any particular indicator from the images we can draw as indicating what the fit on the intended SSN will be, unless there is additional information in the paper I'm not privy too.
Do we know if there's anything more coming out of that particular quote-posting of @UribatakeSeiya's initial tri-packed VLS tube studies by that @喵笑了本人 on Weibo?
Though, technically speaking - A ~2.2-meter diameter VLS tube (i.e. similar diameter to the JL-2 SLBM) should be able to quad-pack 850-mm diameter VLS tubes rather comfortably, albeit with reduced volume for smaller-diameter VLS tubes for smaller missiles and/or small UUVs as seen in the tri-packed VLS tube papers sometime ago.
Though, given the advent of subsurface and seabed warfare developments, it is understandable why the PLAN would choose the tri-pack option over the quad-pack one for further development.
Last edited:
That was a post was made well over five years ago if not nearly a decade ago, and it was one of the first indicators I saw which made me feel like a tripack VLS for a submarine would be on the cards for the PLAN.
I don't even know the link to the original quote post itself.
I'm sure they've explored multiple configurations for different prospective payloads.
The fact we seem to be seeing tri pack VLS configuration studies, could indicate it is the one they're going with, or alternatively it could mean it's the one they aren't going with and are thus comfortable releasing papers of it publicly, or it may mean nothing at all.
In theory, it's not impossible for a 2.2m diameter overall tube to have different configurations/multi-pack counts for different payload sizes.
I read that JL-3 missile is already equipped in the 094. Does the JL-3 have enough range to attack continental US from South China sea? Likely Chinese Sub bastion?
What about the 096, is there a new missile being built for the 096 with even greater range?
What about the 096, is there a new missile being built for the 096 with even greater range?
If you're reading it from where I think you're reading it, the impression is that isn't the "JL-3" we are all expecting (which is expected for 096), but rather a JL-2 variant which the US govt/military has called JL-3 instead.
What is the range of this improved JL-2? China is really constrained in its use of SSBN since it can't get to open ocean without passing a chokepoint. US can probably detect any SSBN passing a choke point if they place sensors there. What would be the strategy for China when it comes to using the current SSBN with lower range. How does it expect to bypass the choke points and achieve second strike on CONUS.
So, we can address the "improved JL-2" question at least. The "improved JL-2" (which the US government has described as "JL-3") is described by the US govt as having a range in excess of 10,000km, which sounds fairly reasonable and expands the ability of 09IV family SSBNs to target longer ranged locations than standard JL-2.
Of course, the SSBNs with lower range SLBMs like JL-2 (rather than "improved JL-2") means that they will not be able to target CONTUS reliably from safer home waters, however it does mean they can still hold other closer range targets at risk, while the mission for nuclear deterrence against CONTUS is probably being saved by land based DF-31A/G and DF-41. Obviously that is less optimal than having both land and undersea deterrents that are plentiful and survivable, but that's the present reality until they have future SSBNs and future SLBMs in service.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Just like that GIUK gap, the current IUSS network probably goes all the way from Philippines up to Japan and likely further north.
These sophisticated arrays of hydrophones, SURTASS and other undersea detection devices wmmake it very hard to break out if the 1st IC w/o ringing some alarm bells
plawolf
Lieutenant General
In peace time maybe, in war time those arrays will be some of the first targets to be NordStream’d. This is a big reason why China hasn’t bothered to develop its own version of those underwater hydrophone arrays.