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

[Blitzo]

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.

In terms of enabling constructive discourse here and importantly saving everyone's time in context of the inevitable leakage of our discussions onto non-PLA watching specific military areas, I do think that there is right way to approach the question.


There are a lot of possibilities out there which may be technically viable (not only on this topic). This isn't what it's about, it's about deliberately setting some limits on the discussion so we don't create needlessly problems and waste time for ourselves.

 

[BoraTas]

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:

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

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.

Mathematically, when you are inscribing circles into a bigger circle, you get the highest area coverage with 5 circles. The coverage reaches 68% with five circles. 4 or 6 circles get a very similar but less coverage. 3 circles still get a respectable 64% coverage. So them designing the multipack VLS around 3 or 4 UVLS sized launchers is exceedingly likely. This said, that fourth proposal is very intriguing. Assuming that there will be 8 multipack VLSes on the 095, the fourth proposal would mean the sub would carry a salvo of 16 large hypersonics and a salvo of 21 YJ-18s. Because the YJ-18 is small enough for to be launched by the torpedo tube and it has been in the service for a while in that configuration.

 

[zyklon]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Considering:

• The induction of SLBM armed submarines, albeit powered by conventional propulsion systems, by both the Israeli and ROK navies.
• The emergence of missile systems like the Oreshnik and DF-27, which are typically armed with conventional munitions despite (near-)ICBM ranges.
• The existence of SSN and SSBN programs that share a significant number of common systems, especially in terms of propulsion, like the Astute class SSN and the Vanguard class SSBN.
• The continued service of the Ohio class SSGNs and SSBNs, which share a common platform, and the former of which having been leveraged to great effect against fixed targets over the course of GWOT.

I think at some point, we have to acknowledge that the lines between SSGNs and SSBNs, or even SSNs and SSKs (and SSBs assuming that's "really even a thing anymore") is getting increasingly blurry. Not to say it's necessarily wise, or helpful to humanity as a species, to blur the lines between conventional and strategic weapons, but it is what it is, especially given that Israel is a nuclear power (even if Uncle Sam has pretended otherwise since the 1960s) and that South Korea has the industrial capacity to deploy a working nuclear tipped SLBM within a year, if not months.

With that said, it might make sense for the 09V to "more or less" be a 09VI equipped with a (mostly) different variety of (and/or fewer) "tubes." Let's not kid ourselves: if the DF-27 and Oreshnik exist, what are the odds the CMC EDD hasn't developed or isn't developing JL-3 SLBMs tipped with HGVs or a SLBM version of the DF-17 or DF-27 for conventional strikes? The public revelation of such systems is only a matter of time, and at which point, the acronyms SSN, SSGN and SSBN may very well constitute distinctions without a difference, or at least for the latest hulls.

In fact, if the 09V will be capable of launching ASBMs like the YJ-21, which appears to be a certainty at this point, would that make the 09V a SSGN, SSBN or something else altogether?

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.

In terms of enabling constructive discourse here and importantly saving everyone's time in context of the inevitable leakage of our discussions onto non-PLA watching specific military areas, I do think that there is right way to approach the question.


There are a lot of possibilities out there which may be technically viable (not only on this topic). This isn't what it's about, it's about deliberately setting some limits on the discussion so we don't create needlessly problems and waste time for ourselves.

Very glad to be a part of a community with the wisdom to recognize the significant intelligence gaps that are affecting these conversations and our very capacity to indulge in these conversations. At the end of the day, we're very much speculating, especially when it comes to topics like submarines that remain largely unobservable to OSINT.

 

[Andy1974]

A circle inscribed in a square takes up approximately 78.5% of the square's area.

So, why not use a VLS grid like the 093B?

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

A circle inscribed in a square takes up approximately 78.5% of the square's area.

So, why not use a VLS grid like the 093B?

Because a multipack VLS tube offers unmatched loadout versatility (namely, the ability to swap between different missile and UUV/USV/AUV loadouts based on different mission requirements), something that a fixed VLS grid could only dream of, or severely limited of.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Mathematically, when you are inscribing circles into a bigger circle, you get the highest area coverage with 5 circles. The coverage reaches 68% with five circles. 4 or 6 circles get a very similar but less coverage. 3 circles still get a respectable 64% coverage. So them designing the multipack VLS around 3 or 4 UVLS sized launchers is exceedingly likely.

Speaking of 5x UVLS in the multipack VLS tube:

Technically speaking, you could actually fit 5x 850mm UVLS cells in a 2400mm-diameter multipack VLS tube radially - But that would require the edges of the UVLS cells to be lined up right against the outer edge of the multipack VLS tube itself. So, not exactly ideal.

Though, if the multipack VLS tube can be made wider (assuming a wider-diameter VLS tube orginally meant for the JL-3 SL-ICBM), e.g. 2500-2600mm, then having 5x 850mm UVLS cells shouldn't just be possible, but probable (or even feasible).

This said, that fourth proposal is very intriguing. Assuming that there will be 8 multipack VLSes on the 095, the fourth proposal would mean the sub would carry a salvo of 16 large hypersonics and a salvo of 21 YJ-18s. Because the YJ-18 is small enough for to be launched by the torpedo tube and it has been in the service for a while in that configuration.

Slight correction - 22x YJ-18Bs, not 21x. There are 6x torpedo tubes in addition to the 16x MVLS cells in the 8x #4 multipack VLS tubes.

Those 2x 1100mm LVLS cells per one #4 multipack VLS tube is more of a "let's see how big of a VLS cell we can fit into a multipack VLS tube without resorting to having only one of those per multipack VLS tube (because it'd be better to just resort to SL-IR/ICBM instead), while staying within reasonable/cautious constrains and limits imposed on the dimension" exercise. They could be wider if the multipack VLS tubes can be wider, of course.

Though, I'd absolutely LOVE it if the navalized and slightly-miniaturized DF-17 can be deployed onboard 095 SSNs (and even 096 SSBNs in SSGN-configuration) in the near future.

 

[BoraTas]

Speaking of 5x UVLS in the multipack VLS tube:

Technically speaking, you could actually fit 5x 850mm UVLS cells in a 2400mm-diameter multipack VLS tube radially - But that would require the edges of the UVLS cells to be lined up right against the outer edge of the multipack VLS tube itself. So, not exactly ideal.

Though, if the multipack VLS tube can be made wider (assuming a wider-diameter VLS tube orginally meant for the JL-3 SL-ICBM), e.g. 2500-2600mm, then having 5x 850mm UVLS cells shouldn't just be possible, but probable (or even feasible).



Slight correction - 22x YJ-18Bs, not 21x. There are 6x torpedo tubes in addition to the 16x MVLS cells in the 8x #4 multipack VLS tubes.

Those 2x 1100mm LVLS cells per one #4 multipack VLS tube is more of a "let's see how big of a VLS cell we can fit into a multipack VLS tube without resorting to having only one of those per multipack VLS tube (because it'd be better to just resort to SL-IR/ICBM instead), while staying within reasonable/cautious constrains and limits imposed on the dimension" exercise. They could be wider if the multipack VLS tubes can be wider, of course.

Though, I'd absolutely LOVE it if the navalized and slightly-miniaturized DF-17 can be deployed onboard 095 SSNs (and even 096 SSBNs in SSGN-configuration) in the near future.

I assumed they would keep a torpedo in one of the tubes just in case. I would love a 1000 mm submarine-launched wedge type HGV too. It would be useful.

 

[Andy1974]

Because a multipack VLS tube offers unmatched loadout versatility (namely, the ability to swap between different missile and UUV/USV/AUV loadouts based on different mission requirements), something that a fixed VLS grid could only dream of, or severely limited of.

Ok, but some versatility can still be achieved in the same way as surface ships, by having different types of missiles in the cells. I don’t see why the extra versatility of having a very large tube justifies the inefficiency of layout and increased cost.

Having a large cell into which you put inserts is great if you are converting an SSBN to an SSGN, but if you are building an SSGN from scratch then why do you need the big tube?

A grid is just more space efficiency and cost effective. A huge tube (and the section that houses it) is problematic and expensive, especially if it has to be designed to handle a full SLBM launch as opposed to a much smaller individual VLS for a hypersonic ASBM.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Ok, but some versatility can still be achieved in the same way as surface ships, by having different types of missiles in the cells. I don’t see why the extra versatility of having a very large tube justifies the inefficiency of layout and increased cost.

Having a large cell into which you put inserts is great if you are converting an SSBN to an SSGN, but if you are building an SSGN from scratch then why do you need the big tube?

A grid is just more space efficiency and cost effective. A huge tube (and the section that houses it) is problematic and expensive, especially if it has to be designed to handle a full SLBM launch as opposed to a much smaller individual VLS for a hypersonic ASBM.

No, you can't.

As missiles grow bigger in size to fit larger/more powerful engines and larger fuel storage in order to strike faster and/or farther, having only one fixed VLS size means that an impassable celling is imposed on how far and/or how fast a missile can go, no matter how much that VLS cell volume is milked, and how perfect you are with your missile engineering and manufacturing.

That's the reason why the US Navy proceeded with the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) section that is fitted with 4x VPTs, which are then inserted amidships (more like amidboats). Apart from the ability to fit 7x of the Tomahawk missiles (~520mm diameter) per VPT, it also has the capability to fit 3x of the much larger CPS missiles (~880mm diameter) per VPT.

The great degree of versatility offered by such multipack VLS tubes to carry out strikes against land or surface targets at extended ranges (~2000-4000+ kilometers) and/or at very high speeds (Mach 8-12+) can never be overstated, especially for SSNs (and even SSBNs in SSGN-configuration) which are perfect platforms for conducting such strikes against faraway enemy targets from waters that are still contolled/disputed by hostile forces. Such advantages which is unique to subsurface platforms more than enough overweighs any drawbacks related to costs and volume utilization onboard SSNs.

Moreover, since the tubes on SSBNs (and perhaps even SSNs, if the PLAN wants to go even further in terms of versatility in SL-ICBM deployment) that house both SL-ICBMs and multipack VLS tubes are already designed and made for both firing SL-ICBMs and housing multipack VLS tubes from the get go - I don't see how that's going to be much of an issue/problematic.

 

[Iron Man]

With that said, it might make sense for the 09V to "more or less" be a 09VI equipped with a (mostly) different variety of (and/or fewer) "tubes." Let's not kid ourselves: if the DF-27 and Oreshnik exist, what are the odds the CMC EDD hasn't developed or isn't developing JL-3 SLBMs tipped with HGVs or a SLBM version of the DF-17 or DF-27 for conventional strikes? The public revelation of such systems is only a matter of time, and at which point, the acronyms SSN, SSGN and SSBN may very well constitute distinctions without a difference, or at least for the latest hulls.

In fact, if the 09V will be capable of launching ASBMs like the YJ-21, which appears to be a certainty at this point, would that make the 09V a SSGN, SSBN or something else altogether?

The 095 would always only ever be an SSN or SSGN, though increasingly the "SSGN" designation seems to be getting more and more meaningless as the years pass and more SSNs are being designed with more and more VLS tubes.

OTOH a 096 loaded with VLS AND SLBM tubes simultaneously while on deployment would absolutely blur the line. That is to say, obliterate it altogether. Not sure this is a wise choice since if your enemy attacks your 096 loaded with both, is he attacking your conventional loadout of LACMs/whatever or trying to take out your nuclear deterrent as a prelude to a full nuclear strike on your territory? This question would pose a massive decisional challenge to both China and the attacker (presumably the US) on a strategic level. Similarly, even if the PLAN designs and builds a 096 with the intention of using the platform as one or the other but not both at the same time, it would be difficult for the USN to distinguish which 096 is being used as an SSBN and which is being used as an SSGN. IMO it's probably wiser to stick to one or the other. The Ohio had the benefit of (essentially) nobody being able to tell it's even there to have such a conundrum to begin with. The Columbia and the 096 may not have this luxury.

Ok, but some versatility can still be achieved in the same way as surface ships, by having different types of missiles in the cells. I don’t see why the extra versatility of having a very large tube justifies the inefficiency of layout and increased cost.

Having a large cell into which you put inserts is great if you are converting an SSBN to an SSGN, but if you are building an SSGN from scratch then why do you need the big tube?

A grid is just more space efficiency and cost effective. A huge tube (and the section that houses it) is problematic and expensive, especially if it has to be designed to handle a full SLBM launch as opposed to a much smaller individual VLS for a hypersonic ASBM.

I'm not sure there is either more inefficient layout or cost with the extra-large (?JL-3 sized) VLS tubes. A grid layout requires space in between tubes, and every last one of them needs have separate thicker pressurized walls and have separate monitoring and power systems, which increases bulk and cost. OTOH a bank of (e.g.) 7 VLS tubes packed tightly inside a single larger tube all share that tube's pressurized wall and associated monitoring/power systems. By way of example the Virginias went in the opposite direction of what you are proposing. Their original bow-end 12 individual VLS tubes got converted into two 6-round VLS tubes sharing the same larger container.