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

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Is the VLS going to be arranged like on Virginia Block V or Yasen?

Likely to be Yasen.

As an add-on: Doing the Virginia Block 5 SSN's way would require lengthening the boat to such a degree that it is likely causing a not-insignificant impact on the maneuverability of the boat itself due to its higher-than-usual length-to-beam ratio - A key requirement for high seas-going SSNs.

Sounds like 09V v. 09VI might be analogous to Ohio SSGN v. Ohio SSBN (though overall length may vary).

Am I reading this right?

No.

Even if the 095 SSN and 096 SSBN does share the same hull diameter (which we do expect/suspect to be the case for the time being), hull design (hybrid hull or single hull) and some other characteristics, we expect the 095 SSN to only carry half the number of multipack VLS tubes as the 096 SSBN (8 vs 16), assuming the latter is equipped with the capability to conduct the roles of SSBN and SSGN in one hull through swapping the JL-3 SL-ICBMs with multipack VLS tubes and vice-versa.

I certainly do hope that the 096 SSBN are equipped with such capabilities from the get go.

 

[Blitzo]

Is the VLS going to be arranged like on Virginia Block V or Yasen?

The hypothetical configuration that myself and ACuriousPLAFan are talking about would be more akin to Yasen (but tripack per tube rather than quadpack per tube).

Whether it actually ends up like that, who knows.

Sounds like 09V v. 09VI might be analogous to Ohio SSGN v. Ohio SSBN (though overall length may vary).

Am I reading this right?

If --- IF 09V and 09VI share the same pressure hull diameter and the same primary VLS "sleeve"/dimensions/external structure, they would still not be analogous to Ohio SSGN vs Ohio SSBN.

Apart from the obvious pressure hull difference in length (which is not a minor difference at all, frankly), the internal structural arrangement of their primary compartments, as well as their torpedo/underwater weapons payloads, sensor suites, crewing facilities, etc are all likely to be very different.


If 09V and 09VI do share the same pressure hull diameter and the same primary VLS dimensions/structure, the best way to view it is that they would share certain key characteristics/technologies but are very much not "variants" of each other in the way the Ohio SSGN and SSBN are.

 

[Iron Man]

Apart from the obvious pressure hull difference in length (which is not a minor difference at all, frankly), the internal structural arrangement of their primary compartments, as well as their torpedo/underwater weapons payloads, sensor suites, crewing facilities, etc are all likely to be very different.

If 09V and 09VI do share the same pressure hull diameter and the same primary VLS dimensions/structure, the best way to view it is that they would share certain key characteristics/technologies but are very much not "variants" of each other in the way the Ohio SSGN and SSBN are.

Doesn't have to be very different at all. Torpedo/weapons payloads have no bearing on the structural layout of the boat, especially in the case of PLAN subs which universally have an upper bow torpedo room with 2 + 4 tubes. Sensor suites also don't have to be different; for example IIRC the Columbia leverages the sensor suite of the latter Virginia blocks, like the conformal array. Crewing facilities will be less for the SSN since the SSBN missile compartment has extra space for bunks, but then again the SSN could turn the SSBN's missile control center into crewing space and also leverage the use of hot bunking. Little else needs to be different.

 

[Blitzo]

Doesn't have to be very different at all. Torpedo/weapons payloads have no bearing on the structural layout of the boat, especially in the case of PLAN subs which universally have an upper bow torpedo room with 2 + 4 tubes.

I would be pleasantly surprised if 09VI has a torpedo bay arrangement similar to that of 09V, which has been suggested as having an 8 tube layout, four per side departing from the bow 2+4 configuration.
It would certainly make 09VI a more capable boat in undersea warfare against other boats, but given its primary role as a SSBN I wouldn't be surprised if it was cut down to 8 tubes or even 4 tubes total (3 or 2 per side)

Sensor suites also don't have to be different; for example IIRC the Columbia leverages the sensor suite of the latter Virginia blocks, like the conformal array. Crewing facilities will be less for the SSN since the SSBN missile compartment has extra space for bunks, but then again the SSN could turn the SSBN's missile control center into crewing space and also leverage the use of hot bunking. Little else needs to be different.

I would be surprised if they didn't leverage subsystems from 09V onto 09VI, but I expect their arrangement to be different.
I expect SSBN crewing facilities (not just bunks, but also recreational areas, stores etc) to be somewhat more substantial. Other areas that I include in the compartments part also include nuclear specific command/control areas.


All of which to say -- no, I don't think even if 09V and 09VI share a similar pressure hull diameter and a similar VLS tube, that it is wise at this stage to think about the relationship as one of Ohio SSGN with Ohio SSBN except for one being shorter with lesser tubes than the other.
A better way to view it would be that they would share common key technologies and subsystems.

If there ends up being evidence to the contrary, then sure, reassess.

 

[gelgoog]

In the case of submarines, "strategic" has a very specific meaning, and means nothing other than "carries alot of SLBMS". Note that an Ohio SSGN is no longer considered a strategic submarine, but a tactical one, just like any other SSN with VLS tubes.

The difference between a strategic and a tactical weapon is with regards to the effects. I would definitely consider the Ohio SSGN to be strategic due to its long range mass attacks.
A Yasen will carry Zircon, Oniks, and Kalibr, and those can be optionally nuclear tipped. Even with the conventional warheads you can get strategic effects. You can hit decision centers deep into enemy territory for example.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Speaking of multipack VLS tubes - From what @Kalec had mentioned many months before, the upcoming JL-3 SL-ICBM for the 096 SSN is likely (if not slated) to have a diameter of ~2300mm.

Provided combined spacings of ~100mm between the outer walls of the SL-ICBM and the inner wall of the SL-ICBM missile tube, this means that the multipack VLS tube will have an outer diameter of ~2400mm.

I did some fumbling around on CAD, and here's what I obtained:



From left to right:
#1 - 7x 650mm VLS cells
#2 - 3x 850mm UVLS cells and 3x 450mm VLS cells (roughly similar to the illustration from this academic paper)
#3 - 4x 850mm UVLS cells
#4 - 2x 1100mm LVLS cells and 2x 650mm VLS cells

All the VLS cells in the CAD illustration have at least 50mm of spacings in between them, and also 50mm of spacings between the radial VLS cells and the outer edge of the multipack VLS tube.

If we take ~50mm spacing requirements for the individual VLS cells in the multipack VLS tube (the YJ-20/21 has about 800mm diameter inside the UVLS of 850mm diameter), and assuming that all missiles and UUVs are cold-launched (i.e. ejected from VLS cells by compressed gas before engine ignition):
1. 450mm VLS cells should be able to fit ~400mm diameter missiles/UUVs;
2. 650mm VLS cells should be able to fit ~600mm diameter missiles/UUVs (e.g. YJ-18);
3. 850mm UVLS cells should be able to fit ~800mm diameter missiles/UUVs (e.g. YJ-20/21); and
4. 1100mm LVLS cells should be able to fit ~1050mm diameter missiles (e.g. miniaturized DF-17?).

---

Please do not take the above information as any sort of indication/claim/rumor/hint from official sources, as this is just a surface-level exploration on the various loadout configurations that could be made available with the loadout flexibility benefit from such multipack VLS tubes, on my own accord.

 

[Iron Man]

I would be pleasantly surprised if 09VI has a torpedo bay arrangement similar to that of 09V, which has been suggested as having an 8 tube layout, four per side departing from the bow 2+4 configuration.
It would certainly make 09VI a more capable boat in undersea warfare against other boats, but given its primary role as a SSBN I wouldn't be surprised if it was cut down to 8 tubes or even 4 tubes total (3 or 2 per side)

I would be surprised if they didn't leverage subsystems from 09V onto 09VI, but I expect their arrangement to be different.
I expect SSBN crewing facilities (not just bunks, but also recreational areas, stores etc) to be somewhat more substantial.

I'm not saying the 095 will be based solely off the 096, but there is certainly nothing design-wise that would prevent that from happening, whether in weapons, sensors and interfaces, or even crewing spaces, assuming SSNs embark less crew, which is generally true.

Other areas that I include in the compartments part also include nuclear specific command/control areas.

Yes, this is called the missile control center, and is the only thing on an SSBN that would necessarily differ from an SSN, which I already addressed as easily being convertible to extra crew space for an SSN design.

All of which to say -- no, I don't think even if 09V and 09VI share a similar pressure hull diameter and a similar VLS tube, that it is wise at this stage to think about the relationship as one of Ohio SSGN with Ohio SSBN except for one being shorter with lesser tubes than the other.
A better way to view it would be that they would share common key technologies and subsystems.

If there ends up being evidence to the contrary, then sure, reassess.

There is no evidence either way and thus at present it constitutes nothing but pure speculation based off of ignorance regarding the significance of a 12m section of pressure hull seen by satellite. The point is that there is nothing inherent in the design of either an SSN or SSBN that would prevent the former from being based substantially off of the latter.

 

[Blitzo]

I'm not saying the 095 will be based solely off the 096, but there is certainly nothing design-wise that would prevent that from happening, whether in weapons, sensors and interfaces, or even crewing spaces, assuming SSNs embark less crew, which is generally true.


Yes, this is called the missile control center, and is the only thing on an SSBN that would necessarily differ from an SSN, which I already addressed as easily being convertible to extra crew space for an SSN design.


There is no evidence either way and thus at present it constitutes nothing but pure speculation based off of ignorance regarding the significance of a 12m section of pressure hull seen by satellite. The point is that there is nothing inherent in the design of either an SSN or SSBN that would prevent the former from being based substantially off of the latter.

The question was not about whether it would be viable or not for the 09V to be based off 09VI (or vice versa for that matter), the question was whether it is right to read the current basis of speculation/rumours as comparing 09V with 09VI in the same vein as Ohio SSGN vs Ohio SSBN except for accounting of length (and presumably missile tube count, and other key subsystems and compartments).

I am saying that with the basis of information that we do have, even if they do have the same pressure hull diameter and the same external VLS tube dimensions, interpreting their relationship in a manner similar to Ohio SSGN vs Ohio SSBN (sans length differences etc) is not the right way to view it for now.

I would also say that right now it is probably not the most practical way to view the 09V and 09VI relationship, including if it was for discourse outside of the immediate PLA watching community.


It's not an unreasonable idea, and it's not technologically or practically non-viable either, it's just not a good way of viewing it for now and just adds unnecessary complication to the present discourse about 09V and 09VI which is already tenuous enough as it is.


I.e.: "nice idea, let's not bring it up again for everyone's sake, thanks".

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

View attachment 145881

From left to right:
#1 - 7x 650mm VLS cells
#2 - 3x 850mm UVLS cells and 3x 450mm VLS cells (roughly similar to the illustration from this academic paper)
#3 - 4x 850mm UVLS cells
#4 - 2x 1100mm LVLS cells and 2x 650mm VLS cells

Just an addition to the probable multipack VLS tube configuration lineup:



From left to right:
#1 - 5x 650mm MVLS cells and 4x 450mm SVLS cells
#2 - 7x 650mm MVLS cells
#3 - 3x 850mm UVLS cells and 3x 450mm SVLS cells
#4 - 4x 850mm UVLS cells
#5 - 2x 1100mm LVLS cells and 2x 650mm MVLS cells

 

[Iron Man]

The question was not about whether it would be viable or not for the 09V to be based off 09VI (or vice versa for that matter), the question was whether it is right to read the current basis of speculation/rumours as comparing 09V with 09VI in the same vein as Ohio SSGN vs Ohio SSBN except for accounting of length (and presumably missile tube count, and other key subsystems and compartments).

I am saying that with the basis of information that we do have, even if they do have the same pressure hull diameter and the same external VLS tube dimensions, interpreting their relationship in a manner similar to Ohio SSGN vs Ohio SSBN (sans length differences etc) is not the right way to view it for now.

There is no "right way" to interpret anything right now given the the giant holes in information that exist for both the 095 and 096 so I'm not sure how anyone can lean any which way particularly strongly at this point.

Just an addition to the probable multipack VLS tube configuration lineup:

View attachment 145922

From left to right:
#1 - 5x 650mm MVLS cells and 4x 450mm SVLS cells
#2 - 7x 650mm MVLS cells
#3 - 3x 850mm UVLS cells and 3x 450mm SVLS cells
#4 - 4x 850mm UVLS cells
#5 - 2x 1100mm LVLS cells and 2x 650mm MVLS cells

The tolerances on the MAC canisters for the Ohio SSGN are much tighter than what you have been drawing, so I think the canister sizes can be a little bigger. My personal speculation is that the PLAN will stick with 2 canister types, one general purpose type for multiple missile types each with their own adapter canisters to fit snug inside the general purpose canister, and one ASBM-specific 3-round canister to launch only ASBMs. The smaller canisters have a diameter of ~710mm, while the larger canisters have diameter of ~1,000mm. The smaller ones should be able to launch any missile in the PLAN inventory (minus the YJ-12). The larger ones should be able to launch the "YJ-21".