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

[BoraTas]

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.

This concept never came into fruition but such modular VLS structures can be used for other purposes too. The Type 216 proposal had such a VLS. It could be fitted with a CM launcher. But it could also act as a special forces or UUV hangar. Or even a mine depot... It had a room below it to support such uses. We also know 2 ex-BM tubes of the Ohio SSGNs are for special operator uses. Such a design is impossible with individual UVLS-sized cells.

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.

I agree. SSGN is becoming a useless designation. I think to call something an SSGN it should really carry an outstanding amount of missiles and it should lack the kinematics of an SSN. The converted Ohios with their 154 VLS are undoubtedly SSGNs. And they are retiring in 4 years without a replacement.

In fact, even the SSBN designation is shaky. The 095 is expected to be able to carry the YJ-21 or similar missiles. Which are arguably evolved forms of traditional BMs. So, technically, it will be an SSBN. Let's go a step forward and assume that China adopted a nuclear-armed YJ-21. Then the 095 will become a nuclear-propelled sub with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. It will be hard for the current designation system to differentiate such a sub from the traditional SSBN. We need a new designation for the latter. Strategic nuclear deterrence submarine, maybe?

Even funnier suggestion to short circuit the designation system: Single JL-3 derivative option for the 095's tubes similar to the Oresnik-Yars arrangament.

 

[Iron Man]

In fact, even the SSBN designation is shaky. The 095 is expected to be able to carry the YJ-21 or similar missiles. Which are arguably evolved forms of traditional BMs. So, technically, it will be an SSBN. Let's go a step forward and assume that China adopted a nuclear-armed YJ-21. Then the 095 will become a nuclear-propelled sub with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. It will be hard for the current designation system to differentiate such a sub from the traditional SSBN. We need a new designation for the latter. Strategic nuclear deterrence submarine, maybe?

Well I think in the case of SSN/SSGN vs SSBN the distinction could still be made as to their "primary" role, whether it be attack or strategic deterrence, even if they carry VL rounds that serve the other purpose more, such as 095s loading nuclear-tipped YJ-21s or 096s loading multi-round canisters filled with LACMs/ASCMs.

Even funnier suggestion to short circuit the designation system: Single JL-3 derivative option for the 095's tubes similar to the Oresnik-Yars arrangament.

You would definitely need the height of the 095 to be the same as the 096 for that arrangement to work, but I did also have this fleeting thought....

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

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.

Those canisters on the Ohio SSGNs are meant to launch Tomahawks, which should weigh no more than 2 tons.

That's smaller than the YJ-20/21 (and especially the hypothetical navalized DF-17), both of which are expected to be quite heavier. The YJ-20/21's warhead alone has been described as weighing around 0.8-1 ton - Meaning that the weight of the entire missile is only going to be much heavier.

Holding against the force/pressure resulted from the rapid ejection of a <2 ton missile from the missile tube + holding against the force/pressure of seawater rushing in to fill the void of the missile tube immediately after the missile ejection can be quite different than doing the same for missiles that weigh considerably heavier (for the YJ-20/21) if not more (for the hypothetical navalized DF-17). This directly affects the requirements on the walls of the individual missile tubes which house and launch those missiles (and hence, the construct and engineering of the multipack VLS tube).

Hence, the choice of taking 50mm as the minimum for the thickness of walls of the individual VLS cells and the overall multipack VLS tube in my previous posts are more of exploration exercises with certain degree of safety factor/margins being included.

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".

View attachment 145925

I believe we have academic papers mentioning 3x 850mm-inner diameter launch tubes for a tripack VLS tube, and that CASC is developing an 800mm diameter tactical missile (of which only the YJ-20/21 looks to fit that profile).

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!

Packing 7x 710mm-diameter VLS cells in a 2400mm-diameter multipack VLS tube is certainly doable. However, the 710mm-diameter VLS cell is quite close to the 850mm-diameter VLS cell in terms of dimension and volume (compared to, say, 650mm-diameter versus 850mm-diameter VLS cells), such that said VLS cell risks introducing wasted (for Tomahawk/YJ-18-category cruise missiles, and potentially BrahMos/RATTLRS-category supersonic missiles) and insufficient (for YJ-20/21-category hypersonic/ballistic missiles) volume capacities.

As for the 1000mm-diameter VLS cells - I'd say that 2x 1100mm-diameter is best for maximizing volume usage for a 2400mm-diameter multipack VLS tube (in conjunction with 2x 650mm VLS cells), simultaneously providing a large enough jump in terms of volume capacity over the 850mm-diameter VLS cells, while also following the aforementioned safety factor/margin limitations.

Of course, 3x 1000mm VLS cells can comfortably fit inside one 2400mm-diameter multipack VLS tube, though the missiles would only be about 950mm in diameter - Which probably isn't warranting a jump that could be deemed big enough that would grant a significantly better missile for the 1100mm-diameter VLS cell when compared to a missile from the preceding 850mm-diameter VLS cell.

Diameter Jump	Volume Jump	Percentage Jump
650mm to 850mm (control)	2.11m^3	70.6%
850mm to 1100mm	3.45m^3	67.6%
850mm to 1000mm	1.97m^3	38.6%