If we had a confirmation of all that, it wouldn't be a suggestion any more, but highly likely
New SSN (09X?) thread
- Thread starter ACuriousPLAFan
- Start date
If we had a confirmation of all that, it wouldn't be a suggestion any more, but highly likely
No, I disagree with that.
If you're saying "Test results may have suggested to build a modified 095" based on the fact that both have X tails, I don't think that's a sufficient premise to make that statement.
We shouldn't see X tails as if they are something exotic, and it shouldn't be seen as a defining feature of 09V in terms of its relationship to other submarine designs.
An X tail should be seen as no more unique than having diving planes on a sail or diving planes on a hull, or a cruciform tail, or anything else.
It is the geometry and the configuration which matters.
In fact, the presence of an X tail on the 09V, 09X, and the 041 SSKN (not to mention many large PLAN UUVs) should point to that X tails are not a particularly unique feature for PRC undersea design now, but just something "ordinary".
The talk about the tail configuration reminded me of the Borey evolution, as known Borey-A has a completely different tail, a modified sail, and a generally streamlined body seemingly a bit longer too, but it's still a Borey. The point being that with the usual caveats the SSN(S) could still be a variant of the 095 (095A?), being longer and sailless and with other detail changes to better suit it's intended role, whatever that might be.
Just as I replied to @Blitzo earlier, anti-sub missions and anti-ship + land-attack missions do not mutually exclude each other. In fact, both types of missions are very much relevant and necessary going forward.
We can debate which one of the two would have higher priority than the other until the end of time, but the importance and impact of having both anti-sub and anti-ship + land-attack capabilities should be non-negotiable for the PLAN's subsurface fleet.
The idea of completely excluding land-attack + anti-ship elements in favor of going 100% with anti-sub elements for the PLAN's subsurface fleet is plain and outright ridiculous.
In that case, then why did China start procuring the J-16s at about the same time as the J-20 began its production run, and that's also when pretty much the entirety of the PLAAF's fighter fleet was made up of 2nd-gen, 3rd-gen and early 4th-gen fighters?
And why did the CCTV announce that the J-35A is a multi-role fighter, instead of an air-superiority fighter like the J-20?
Last edited:
you need mini-reactors for submarines, so I think the transfer of 200MWt from Russia is likely the culprit here.
by the way, every big shrimps seems to talk about this sub as a total game changer. Very interesting development to see China essentially jump 3 generation in noise level in 4 yrs in terms of launched boats. 093A -> 093B -> 095 -> 09V.
at least the intention here is for this sub to be at a different stealth level vs 09V. In terms of stealth vs passive and active + at higher speed.
Last edited:
Some are taking comments from the Chinese side (who are getting too excited as well) too much at face value and treating them with too much respect, without properly adjusting for imprecision or a lack of rigor.
People are getting too excited about a "J-36 moment" and "weapon with the potential to change human history"
Like, it's Ayi who said that. Give it a "0.1x modifier" before you even analyze what it might mean.
Even if the commentaries in question could be taken as a bit of exaggeration, anyone with any serious degree of understanding of Cold War and Post-Cold War submarine development, along with information technological changes (especially with Chinese technical specializations), would realize how much closer the new design is to a new performance and capability paradigm rather than just an iterative improvement on existing capabilities and methodologies. The systems integration of the new sub would be the biggest indicator of this in any case.
Lethe
Captain
Much commentary appears to implicitly assume that the two types in question share similar if not identical reactor and machinery arrangements. That doesn't seem an unreasonable assumption in light of the basic physical features that we can observe and that they have emerged so closely in time to one another, but it is nonetheless an assumption. If we take the sail-less configuration of 09X as an indication that it may embrace a greater level of technological risk than 09V (beyond any potential role differences that may also exist), it's worth considering that this risk tolerance may extend to the reactor or machinery spaces.
Many have identified the combination of X-form tail (with smaller surfaces that protrude less from the centreline) and lack of a traditional sail as minimising drag and suggesting a focus on underwater speed and maneuvering characteristics. The lack of a sail will mitigate snap-roll when maneuvering at high speed, while X-form tail mitigates against the loss of depth control that is the most dangerous consequence of snap-roll. The consequence is that is that a submarine with this configuration can afford to run at greater depth with lesser margin of safety, with implications for maximum speed without cavitation. One characteristic that doesn't neatly cohere with this, however, is the roughly 10:1 L:B ratio (assuming length of 120m and 12m hull diameter) which is significantly longer than is hydrodynamically optimal. The shorter 09V design is superior in this respect. However, there are certainly cases where submarines have accepted a longer-than-optimal hull length specifically to improve performance characteristics: this occurred with the Los Angeles-class submarines, where most of the growth over the preceding Sturgeon-class boats was in length and reflected the requirement to accommodate the larger D1G/S6G reactor and associated machinery as the most expedient, if not the most efficient route to achieving higher speed. Return to preceding paragraph.
TL;DR: Perhaps the greater length of 09X doesn't so much reflect what is forward of the reactor compartment, but what is in or aft of it.
Many have identified the combination of X-form tail (with smaller surfaces that protrude less from the centreline) and lack of a traditional sail as minimising drag and suggesting a focus on underwater speed and maneuvering characteristics. The lack of a sail will mitigate snap-roll when maneuvering at high speed, while X-form tail mitigates against the loss of depth control that is the most dangerous consequence of snap-roll. The consequence is that is that a submarine with this configuration can afford to run at greater depth with lesser margin of safety, with implications for maximum speed without cavitation. One characteristic that doesn't neatly cohere with this, however, is the roughly 10:1 L:B ratio (assuming length of 120m and 12m hull diameter) which is significantly longer than is hydrodynamically optimal. The shorter 09V design is superior in this respect. However, there are certainly cases where submarines have accepted a longer-than-optimal hull length specifically to improve performance characteristics: this occurred with the Los Angeles-class submarines, where most of the growth over the preceding Sturgeon-class boats was in length and reflected the requirement to accommodate the larger D1G/S6G reactor and associated machinery as the most expedient, if not the most efficient route to achieving higher speed. Return to preceding paragraph.
TL;DR: Perhaps the greater length of 09X doesn't so much reflect what is forward of the reactor compartment, but what is in or aft of it.
Last edited:
As per the previous Xiyazhou post, the removal of the sail makes the submarine more unstable/manoeuvrable, perhaps too much so.
That explains the very large X-rudders.
But making the submarine longer with a higher length/diameter ratio also improves the stability of the submarine.
It's not, with a 12.5m beam this submarine has a L/D ratio of around ~9.6 compared to 09V's ~9.1 depending on the exact diameter. While it is slightly on the higher side of things, any L/D ratio between 7-10 is still considered optimal for a generally teardrop shaped submarine hydrodynamically.
IMO, the thing is that 09V's propulsion design and architecture is allegedly already extremely advanced to the point that there isn't much to improve upon with current technology. Theoretically, it may be possible for 09X to use more exotic type of reactor like LMR, but I doubt it given tender info do vaguely point to a more standard two looped PWR or use sCO2 as working fluid for turbomachinery though there isn't any evidence of this being the case.
What I find more likely (and Xiyazhou also talked about this) is that 09X uses more advanced quieting technology than 09V. He speculated that 09V may use a similar type of hexagonal rafting as the Yasen class while 09X could possibly use more advanced concepts like magnetic assisted active isolation raft for better broad spectrum acoustic performance.