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

[TopolMSS27]

Yep. That's what happened.

It is still very good elsewhere however, much of which can't be seen without the subscriptions - for which I have. I wouldn't judge the book by its cover by the online articles they have to fire out to try to keep up with Social Media.

I still provide data and photos for JFS.

 

[AndrewS]

I’m not suggesting they are for nuclear ICBM’s, simply that they use the whole tube as it is there, they can have the option to tri-pack or to not.

In the case where they use the whole tube the missile will go much further than a much slimmer tri-packed one.

They could use it for something like a navalised DF-26.

Of course there is nothing stopping them putting a nuke on this missile, but it won’t be ICBM ranged, which is fine, because it’s not a SSBN.

But it would be a SSN with a 6000km range missile which is pretty awesome.

I think the best would be to have some large missiles and some tri-packed on the same boat.

There isn't really any need for an SSN with a 6000km range missile.

A smaller 3000km range submarine-launched missile (as indicated by Patch before his departure) could be carried in greater numbers and would be lower cost.

And for the vast majority of targets, 3000km is more than sufficient.

 

[AndrewS]

A related question since it was touched already, and probably not worth bumping the relevant thread just for this, regarding the possibility of the 095 SSN and 041 SSNK acting as a high-low mix, are there any indications from the chinese grapevine about more 041s being built apart from the one already launched?

It would make sense to build Type-041 SSKNs as well.

The pure SSN designs of the Virginia and Astute are probably $3 Billion these days, so a Type-095 would be at least $1.5 Bn
My guess is that the Type-041 SSKN would cost about $0.5 Bn. So they could buy at least 3 SSKNs for a single Type-095.

And the SSKN provides much of the capability of an SSN, particularly within the 1IC and in littoral waters such as in South East Asia.

 

[Squadson]

Just visual distortions from viewing at the sub from an angle (i.e. not exactly 90 degrees vertical).

Is there any possibility that the PLA could adopt a new X-tail design different from the one seen on Japan’s Taigei-class submarines or the French Barracuda-class submarines? Or are they using a similar design, but we are unable to see it clearly due to low-resolution satellite imagery?

 

[AndrewS]

Some thoughts on the Type-095.

---

The US Navy has been working on a next generation SSN(X) design to replace the Virginia-class.
The CBO reports the 2023 design as being 11% larger than the Seawolf.

Assuming that the Seawolf exterior hull has the optimal hull shaping, and that the SSN(X) follows this shaping, this implies that the SSN(X) has a diameter of 12.4m and length of 111.2m.

This sounds very much like the observed Type-095 boat, but it shouldn't be surprising given that the US Navy and Chinese Navy have similar, if not near identical requirements for their future SSNs.

---

Am I correct in saying the best satellite imagery indicates a diameter of 12.5m rather than 12m?

If so, rather than call the Type-095 a sino-Seawolf, wouldn't it be more accurate to refer to the Type-095 as a sino-SSN(X)?

Granted, it will take some time for the Type-095 to mature, but we already see the tender documents for a quiet electromagnetic torpedo tube, so it looks like Chinese submarines will be first to deploy this technology.

I also note that the first SSN(X) has been pushed back to the 2040s

 

[sunnymaxi]

Some thoughts on the Type-095.

---

The US Navy has been working on a next generation SSN(X) design to replace the Virginia-class.
The CBO reports the 2023 design as being 11% larger than the Seawolf.

Assuming that the Seawolf exterior hull has the optimal hull shaping, and that the SSN(X) follows this shaping, this implies that the SSN(X) has a diameter of 12.4m and length of 111.2m.

This sounds very much like the observed Type-095 boat, but it shouldn't be surprising given that the US Navy and Chinese Navy have similar, if not near identical requirements for their future SSNs.

---

Am I correct in saying the best satellite imagery indicates a diameter of 12.5m rather than 12m?

If so, rather than call the Type-095 a sino-Seawolf, wouldn't it be more accurate to refer to the Type-095 as a sino-SSN(X)?

Granted, it will take some time for the Type-095 to mature, but we already see the tender documents for a quiet electromagnetic torpedo tube, so it looks like Chinese submarines will be first to deploy this technology.

I also note that the first SSN(X) has been pushed back to the 2040s

i m not getting into the comparison or exact 095 specifications. but don't forget 09VA an improved variant is also under development.

 

[ENTED64]

Am I correct in saying the best satellite imagery indicates a diameter of 12.5m rather than 12m?

If so, rather than call the Type-095 a sino-Seawolf, wouldn't it be more accurate to refer to the Type-095 as a sino-SSN(X)?

I think given the inherent inaccuracies with publicly available satellite imagery, it's probably too much to differentiate 12.5m vs 12m with any real degree of confidence.

As for sino-Seawolf or sino-SSN(X) I mean these kind of comparisons are by nature mostly based on vibes and not an actual strict criteria so call it whatever you like.

 

[BoraTas]

That certainly sounds like compelling enough tech to build the later variants on. That said, MSR is probably a relatively better tech on an SSN than FSR right? I know I wouldn't want a generator that explodes if it touches water on any kind of naval vessel, no matter how well contained it is.

In any case - MSR + SCO2 + rimless pumpjet propulsion: THAT would be a hell of a combo. Granted the PLAN will never be risk tolerant enough to put all that new tech into the next follow on model, but hopefully they get separately tested in other platforms soon enough so that they can be integrated into future ships of this class.

I looked at that one too. Thermal MSRs unfortunately suck from weight and density perspective. Fast MSRs are very experimental. The existing thermal ones are 5 to 20 times bigger than a PWR for the same power output. They are also 5 times heavier. This for commercial designs. A military HEU design could be different. But PWRs benefit immensely from that too. American naval reactors' cores are reportedly a large trash bin sized. The biggest benefit of a MSR is it is very safe. It cannot meltdown because the fuel is molten already. It can also be taken out of the core by simply letting it flow away by a plug.

 

[RoastGooseHKer]

One thing Jane's is still good for occasionally, is having the money to buy satellite imagery lol.

View attachment 169828

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Bangers and Mash for Chinese New Year family dinner! This banger is massive, delicious, and offers plenty of leftovers for the entire duration of the holiday.

 

[mister unknown]

I looked at that one too. Thermal MSRs unfortunately suck from weight and density perspective. Fast MSRs are very experimental. The existing thermal ones are 5 to 20 times bigger than a PWR for the same power output. They are also 5 times heavier. This for commercial designs. A military HEU design could be different. But PWRs benefit immensely from that too. American naval reactors' cores are reportedly a large trash bin sized. The biggest benefit of a MSR is it is very safe. It cannot meltdown because the fuel is molten already. It can also be taken out of the core by simply letting it flow away by a plug.

Whatever happened to HTGRs? I recall people speculating that this type of reactor would go into PLAN SSNs since the 90s, but nothing seems to have ever materialized...