I have to say that I find it highly dubious that this submarine assembly hall, if that's what it is, can assemble 12 subs simultaneously, even as only a theoretical maximum. The narrower set of tracks is allegedly 7.34m wide, which I think is not nearly enough to accommodate even a thinner SSN, which have beams typically in the range of 10-11m or more. I've been looking at internet photos of dozens of subs being assembled and there is not one photo showing a support structure with a wheelbase/gauge that is significantly narrower than the beam of the submarine itself. They are typically as wide or wider than sub's beam. The larger track gauge of 13ish meters is far more appropriate for both SSN and SSBN construction; it's possible SSBN builds would use the even wider gauge (or both tracks at the same time). I think a far more reasonable estimate for that assembly hall is 3-6 submarines at various stages of construction. As long as you start construction of a triplet of subs closest to the doors with a sufficient lag time for the "rear" triplet of subs to start, then there will be no bottleneck for subs that need to exit to head over to the paint garage. As the front group of subs move out, the rear group of subs can move forward leaving room for the next group of subs to start construction, which can easily be facilitated by the invariable presence of multiple gantry cranes in these types of assembly halls.
09V/09VI (095/096) Nuclear Submarine Thread
- Thread starter Hendrik_2000
- Start date
I did wonder about that too a few years ago.
At Newport News they have 8.18m gauges which they have cradles to launch SSNs from (like Virginia class, below), and the actual cradles look a little wider than the rail gauge as well as the overall diameter of the submarine (which makes sense because a Virginia has a larger beam than 8.18m).
General dynamics otoh have gauges of 10.19m to launch the same class of SSNs, where the cradle is closer in width to the overall rail gauge. So I think there's some room for leeway in terms of tracks being able to accommodate cradles that are slightly wider than the rail gauge.
But even if we left those examples aside, I would argue the fact that the final rail leading from the painting workshop has both the 7.34m gauge and the 13.57m gauge to the drydock, strongly suggests that the 7.34m gauge is intended to accommodate submarines. Otherwise the final rail leading from the paint workshop to the drydock should only need the 13.57m rail gauge.
In fact, if the 7.34m gauge was not intended to accommodate submarines then we would have to wonder why they'd have 7.34m gauges at all -- why have three production ways that have two 7.34m gauge rails (or one 13.57m gauge track), and why not eliminate the two peripheral tracks to have only the middle 13.57m rail instead?
I was going to say that the photos that you associate with Newport News do not seem to fit together because the second photo showing an actual Virginia on the blocks clearly shows a wheelbase that is wider than the beam of the Virginia itself. Then I looked more closely and saw that the widest wheel/roller is actually wider than the track. So it seems like there is a rail wheel sitting directly over the track and the outermost (rubber?) wheels sit outside of that. This seems to be the case for both Newport News and General Dynamics.
The newport news photo definitely shows the cradle as being wider than the beam of the Virginia as well as being wider than the rail gauge.
However based on my research I do not think there are any wheels beyond (i.e.: wider than) the track width/rail gauge itself.
That is to say, looking at the cradle I think the cradle itself at its lowest/widest point is wider than the actual track width/rail gauge width.
These photos below showing Virginias being launched from Newport demonstrates we can see that the wheels and the track distance between them (blue) is narrower than the overall cradle, and that the "widest points" of the cradle (green) do not actually touch the ground. Instead, the only points of contact with the ground for the cradle are the wheels which reside in the rail tracks.
In other words, these photos demonstrate that the actual cradle width can be greater than the rail gauge width/wheelbase width, therefore allowing the rail gauge to be capable of supporting a submarine with a beam greater in width than the rail gauge itself.
The wheels are in contact with the rail/ground, whereas the wider points of the cradle are lifted up off the ground, not in contact with it.
So the rail gauge is not a hard limit for the beam of submarine that it can support... meaning I think the 7.34m rail gauge we see at Bohai should be of reasonable width to support SSN sized submarines.
Last edited:
The cradle , rail axles and submarine independent from each other.
You can build whatever you want onto the cradle.
The railway axle set more likely designed for a cradle set, and the spacing can be based on the weight of the submarine.
Each axle has to have a hydraulic lift, synchronised across all axle.
The can remove the axles ( so they need no more than two full set at the plant) and it is possible to put them under the cradle 90 degree rotated, to move it across the assembly hall, and position it precisely to the middle of track ( few decimetres of misalignment can create surprisingly big overload on one side).
So one submarine can not block the exit of assembly hall if there is an issue with it.
The other variable is the mass load of concrete and railway, that can define the spacing / number of axles.
If the ground rubbish ( more likely close to the shore) then the allowable load will be smaller, and probably more axle needed to move the same load.
I like more the railway type moving equipment, the airfilm ones are so sensitive, a steel plate accidental drop can make damage that prevents them to operate on that patch of concrete .
It is more expensive, and restrictive about the usage of floor, but in long term the maintenance cost lower .
Generally, this kind of manufacturing would need two submarine wide assembly hall, few submarine long.
Challenge is to connect the segment making areas to the final assembly, with easy part transportation.
You can build whatever you want onto the cradle.
The railway axle set more likely designed for a cradle set, and the spacing can be based on the weight of the submarine.
Each axle has to have a hydraulic lift, synchronised across all axle.
The can remove the axles ( so they need no more than two full set at the plant) and it is possible to put them under the cradle 90 degree rotated, to move it across the assembly hall, and position it precisely to the middle of track ( few decimetres of misalignment can create surprisingly big overload on one side).
So one submarine can not block the exit of assembly hall if there is an issue with it.
The other variable is the mass load of concrete and railway, that can define the spacing / number of axles.
If the ground rubbish ( more likely close to the shore) then the allowable load will be smaller, and probably more axle needed to move the same load.
I like more the railway type moving equipment, the airfilm ones are so sensitive, a steel plate accidental drop can make damage that prevents them to operate on that patch of concrete .
It is more expensive, and restrictive about the usage of floor, but in long term the maintenance cost lower .
Generally, this kind of manufacturing would need two submarine wide assembly hall, few submarine long.
Challenge is to connect the segment making areas to the final assembly, with easy part transportation.
From fzgfzy
"久伍已经有了，如果运气好，明年应该有照片了吧。"
Claims that 09V is already "there" (not sure if he means launched or in advanced stages of construction). Says that next year if we're lucky we might get a picture of it (presumably by satellite).
Also, in the comment thread when someone asks when we can expect 09VI, fzgfzy says "这个应该慢一点" -- it should be slower (presumably relative to 09V).
However when someone else asks if he has hope to see it in 5 years, fzgfzy then says "那又不用五年" -- it also shouldn't need 5 years.
So presumably he is saying 09VI will emerge after 09V (as expected), but that it should emerge before 5 years from now.
===
Personally I'm a bit surprised if we will be able to see 09V next year, that is a year or two earlier than I would've personally predicted. I was under the impression production of the lead 09V would've only began in late 2017/early 2018 at the earliest, so if it's launched by 2020 that's rather speedy. All the moreso if they're using the new Bohai facility because it looks like that overall production facility was fully finished late last year/early this year.
09VI emergence period is quite reasonable though.
"久伍已经有了，如果运气好，明年应该有照片了吧。"
Claims that 09V is already "there" (not sure if he means launched or in advanced stages of construction). Says that next year if we're lucky we might get a picture of it (presumably by satellite).
Also, in the comment thread when someone asks when we can expect 09VI, fzgfzy says "这个应该慢一点" -- it should be slower (presumably relative to 09V).
However when someone else asks if he has hope to see it in 5 years, fzgfzy then says "那又不用五年" -- it also shouldn't need 5 years.
So presumably he is saying 09VI will emerge after 09V (as expected), but that it should emerge before 5 years from now.
===
Personally I'm a bit surprised if we will be able to see 09V next year, that is a year or two earlier than I would've personally predicted. I was under the impression production of the lead 09V would've only began in late 2017/early 2018 at the earliest, so if it's launched by 2020 that's rather speedy. All the moreso if they're using the new Bohai facility because it looks like that overall production facility was fully finished late last year/early this year.
09VI emergence period is quite reasonable though.
Last edited:
Another way to translate “久伍已经有了” is “We already have/There already is a 09V”. I would interpret this to mean that there is probably a Type 09V that’s already complete.