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

[Hendrik_2000]

But you are putting the cart in front of the horse and not the other way around. In order to put in all those anti vibration raft and the associated mechanism and damper, you need much bigger diameter than 10 or 11 m hull. That is design requirement there is no bargaining in it.
Looking at the cross section of the those sub It is cramp as hell there is no way you can fit in those anti vibration raft in 10 or 11 m diameter hull

Whether they design double or single hull it is irrelevant It all depend on the strength of Chinese metallurgy and how advanced they are in producing high strength steel . China design the sub with double hull following Russian practice But I think they can drop that practice now that their steel industry can produced high strength steel

Rail gauge should not be the limiting choice since they can support the carriage with large overhang

 

[Blitzo]

But you are putting the cart in front of the horse and not the other way around. In order to put in all those anti vibration raft and the associated mechanism and damper, you need much bigger diameter than 10 or 11 m hull. That is design requirement there is no bargaining in it.
Looking at the cross section of the those sub It is cramp as hell there is no way you can fit in those anti vibration raft in 10 or 11 m diameter hull

No... Dampening rafts are not inherently massive.
You can have large rafts and small rafts depending on how big the submarine and its pressure hull diameter is.

There's nothing stopping a double hull submarine have rafting inside it's pressure hull or inside a single hull submarine.

E.g. western SSNs with pressure hull diameters of 10-11 diameter have had rafting for years, and even smaller diesel electrics have had rafting as well.
And Russian and chinese submarines that are double hulled with smaller pressure hull diameters also have rafting -- none of this is brand new all or nothing technology.


Again, another useful article from covert shores on the topic:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

-------

And yes, the rail gauge and the width of the construction slot is a limiting factors because you need to actually assemble the submarine in the surface of the construction hall and the width of the construction hall is ultimately still limited to 22.5m for each 7.34m rail gauge.


My overall point is that rafting is not a new technology, and you don't need a massive 13m+ pressure hull to accommodate rafting.
Instead, it is the pressure hull diameter that will determine the extent of rafting and insulation and equipment that a submarine can enjoy.

 

[Tirdent]

Between single/hybrid and double hulls, which is more technologically advanced?

Yes.



Seriously though, it's largely a question of philosophy, each has its own set of advantages and drawbacks. Depending on the circumstances which you happen to be operating under, these will cause you to chose one or the other approach as more suitable. You can build submarines of equivalent capability either way, merely the trade-offs to get there will be different.

Very generally speaking, a single hull sub is liable to end up cheaper, all other things equal (it's going to be smaller for the same interior volume, therefore require less power to attain the same speed and take less material and fewer man hours to build). On the other hand, double (or even multi) hull gives you a couple of additional degrees of freedom in configuration which might facilitate more creative solutions to certain problems. You are not going to build a single-hull Typhoon class (non-circular external cross section).

That means the double hull SSN with a 10m diameter in reality only has a 8m pressure hull to put its machinery and insulation into.

One thing which slightly mitigates this difference is that the stiffening frames on double hull subs can be (and generally are) external to the pressure hull (i.e. inside the space between outer and inner hulls). This frees up some room inside, i.e. if we compare single and double hull subs with the same *pressure* hull diameter rather than the same overall hull diameter, the double hull will effectively have a slightly larger usable diameter. Nowhere near enough to fully compensate for the outer hull in the comparison you made, but it helps a little.

Whether they design double or single hull it is irrelevant It all depend on the strength of Chinese metallurgy and how advanced they are in producing high strength steel . China design the sub with double hull following Russian practice But I think they can drop that practice now that their steel industry can produced high strength steel

Strength of the hull material is irrelevant to the question of double vs. single hull - the outer hull on a double hull submarine is merely a hydrodynamic fairing which contributes nothing to bearing the pressure loads. Russian submarine steel formulations are among the strongest in use anywhere (along with French).

 

[Tam]

But you are putting the cart in front of the horse and not the other way around. In order to put in all those anti vibration raft and the associated mechanism and damper, you need much bigger diameter than 10 or 11 m hull. That is design requirement there is no bargaining in it.
Looking at the cross section of the those sub It is cramp as hell there is no way you can fit in those anti vibration raft in 10 or 11 m diameter hull

Whether they design double or single hull it is irrelevant It all depend on the strength of Chinese metallurgy and how advanced they are in producing high strength steel . China design the sub with double hull following Russian practice But I think they can drop that practice now that their steel industry can produced high strength steel

Rail gauge should not be the limiting choice since they can support the carriage with large overhang

Like previous post, it has nothing to do with the quality of metallurgy. In addition the Russians are also using Titanium for their hulls.

People are looking at it in the wrong way. It is the machinery that is used to press the these extremely strong metal plates into complex hydrodynamic shapes. Compared to the US, the Soviet Union is behind on this.

So what do you do? You have an extremely strong pressure hull but because of your machinery, you can only press them to crude basic geometric shapes, like a cylinder. But your exterior hydrodynamic hull, which has thinner plates, can be pressed into any form you want, allowing for more complex geometry.



There are still limitations in pressing pressure hull grade plating into hydrodynamic forms, which is why US submarines tend to have simpler, nearly generic designs. Even then, the pressure hull stops where the nose is, and the bow of the submarine where the sonar sphere is, is much thinner plate that can be formed into a more hydrodynamic curved surface, assuming they are not using polycarbonate.




The Soviet Union also has another factor requirement for fast submarines to chase down US carrier groups, which require highly streamlined submarines, which in turn, require teardrop shapes with more complex surface geometries.




Nowadays, China's machine tools have progressed leaps and bounds from the time of the Han submarine. Remember the one of a kind press used to roll press the 055's hull plates? China can certainly afford to drop the practice of building double hull submarines unless you find some other benefits of using double or hybrid hull submarines, regardless of the state of your machine press technology, like Japan does with the Soryu class.

 

[broadsword]

Even then, the pressure hull stops where the nose is, and the bow of the submarine where the sonar sphere is, is much thinner plate that can be formed into a more hydrodynamic curved surface, assuming they are not using polycarbonate.

Or is it because the spherical shape of the bow is inherently stronger and so does not need to be as thick as the body of a cylinder?

 

[Tam]

Or is it because the spherical shape of the bow is inherently stronger and so does not need to be as thick as the body of a cylinder?

There are limits to how thick the bow can be, since you're going to be putting your bow sonar there and the sound has to pass through. The spherical bow with sonar sphere is entirely filled with water and it acts as a ballast tank. In the second illustration, the bow of the submarine is almost like a double hull section, with ballast tanks surrounding an inner cylinder that contains the berthing and diesel generator room.

 

[Tam]

A single hulled submarine is really never 'pure'. There are sections where it is double hulled in order to accomodate the ballast tanks. Aside from the bow, the ballast tanks are in the shoulder and waist of the submarine, where the pressure hull section would funnel off into a narrower section.









The last part makes me think the ballistic missile section of the Type 094 is single hulled to accomodate the length of the tubes down to the floor, and the enormous humpback is a massive ballast tank which the long lines of sink holes for drainage would suggest.

 

[go4sdff]

is this new variant of type 094 or new type 096?




comparing with known type 094

 

[go4sdff]

is this new variant of type 094 or new type 096?

View attachment 61259


comparing with known type 094
View attachment 61260

confirmed this is another 094. the photo was released in 2014

 

[banjex]

Given the impressive build up the PLAN is conducting in other areas of her fleet, are they planning to speed up development and procurement of the next gen SSN? Having a modern SSN in large number is probably the biggest capability gap at the moment. I understand their nuke sub programs are very secretive.