09V/09VI (095/096) Nuclear Submarine Thread
- Thread starter Hendrik_2000
- Start date
We don't have Columbo-class, only the Columbia-class SSBN.
As for turbo-electric drive on the 095 SSN - I do think we have reasons to believe that to be the case.
Lethe
Captain
Sutton justifies the 09V/Seawolf comparison exclusively in terms of being a new clean-sheet design with a comparable length:beam ratio. Yet that ratio is unusual only in the American context where the Los Angeles and Virginia-class boats that have defined the last ~40 years of USN's inventory (and will continue to do so for decades hence) have an L:B ratio of ~11:1, significantly longer than is hydrodynamically optimal. In contrast, the current UK Astute and preceding Trafalgar and Swiftsure designs have L:B ratios more in line with Seawolf and 09V, as do many Soviet designs such as Akula and Alfa, also the French Rubis. SSN-AUKUS is merely following in that long British tradition.
Many of us are accustomed to thinking of the Los Angeles-class submarines as the baseline against which other types are compared. But it is useful to recall the genesis of that type as a response to specific requirements (more speed) in a specific industrial (soon) and political (Rickover) context. Even at the time, it was recognised that a portion of the benefits of installing a larger reactor in an otherwise basically Sturgeon-sized hull, requiring the lengthening of the boat, would be lost in hydrodynamics. Many of the competing CONFORM design proposals aimed to achieve similar or only modest slower speeds using significantly less power, in part by hewing closer to the Albacore form with lower L:B ratio.
Obviously submarine design reflects many competing priorities and we should not overestimate the significance of these relatively minor differences. As with surface ships, lengthening a design is always going to present as a cost-effective means of adding "more", with acknowledged compromises. Russia's latest Yasen-class boats are at ~10:1 (or greater in the case of Severodvinsk) but in the context of having 32 VLS cells. In contrast, Virginia is at 11.5:1 before Block V adds an additional ~25m for the VPM. 09V is perhaps notable in that it features significant VLS load while maintaining L:B <10:1.
Last edited:
095 and Sea wolf comparison can also be justified on the basis of perceive core missions. Both designs probably emphasize one against many SSN combat, at some sacrifice of other SSN missions such as anti-surface or land attack. The sea wolf was originally designed to break into Soviet arctic SSBN bastion to put them under threat, in the process it must face a superior number of Soviet SSNs guarding these SSBNs. The 095 would also likely face superior number of western SSNs, whether it is to provide protection to China’s own SSBN bastion in SCS or providing a cordon sanitaire for Chinese coast or Chinese surface fleet.
I don’t think you can compare them because one has VLS and one doesn’t and one has torpedo launched hypersonics and one doesn’t.
The only thing they have in common is size.
For submarines, size and hydrodynamics is actually pretty important because that determines how much of its design is oriented for higher performance underwater warfare.
The most accurate way to describe it would be to compare it with Seawolf, but of course more modern and more multirole.
FriedRiceNSpice
Major
Do you forsee PLAN to continue procurement of 2 SSN classes in the long term, with 095 being a more high end capability produced in smaller numbers and 093B + future related developments forming the baseline mass produced component? Similar to how originally the SeaWolf fit into the USN's procurement strategy as the high end platform, with the Virginia being the baseline mass produced platform?
Not sure. I think that a similar discussion to that was held when 09V emerged a couple of months ago, and the conclusion was that it's just a bit early to tell.
Personally I think it would make sense for eventually shifting to an all 09V family SSN/GN build once 09V production ramps up and once 09IIIB production sunsets, but that's just me.
In the near term 09IIIB will surely continue judging by the ~4:1 ratio of 9m vs 12m hull sections in the 3 storage areas at Huludao in November's Google Maps image.
Right, but the original question was about the long term, not the near term...