09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread

Hyperwarp

Captain
Any consensus on the purposes of the different humps? Base variant and variant 1 can be ignored. They lack the humps and problably belong to the very 1st 093s launched in 2002/2003. The allegedly very noisy ones.

Variant 2 might be an SSGN or special missions sub for carrying special units.

What about variant 3 & 4? I think someone here mentioned something about a the humps containing a new reactor but isn't the reactor furthur back towards the propellers?
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Might be for two reasons. The first is hydrodynamic, that it may improve the water flow at the back of the sail. The second is that its a placeholder for a future VLS system on later submarines. In other words, the humps are not done yet, and there might be more variations in the future, or hump variations that we have not seen.

There needs to be a test sub somewhere used for the vertical launching of YJ-18s and cruise missiles.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Something that needs to show it works with the Type 09III's systems. VLS system used on the Type 032 and the 09III variant are not going to be the same.

If I were the Navy looking to develop a test submarine that can test VLS for missiles, while also wanting to introduce a VLS capability aboard submarines in an operational capacity, I would probably do as much as I can to make sure as much of the VLS tests I conduct on my test submarine that can be applied aboard the submarine VLS in an operational capacity, to minimize duplication of resources.


The most obvious way of doing this of course is to simply install the 032 with an identical version of the VLS tube that your SSNs will be installed with.

Other ways of doing so may be to only test verification submarine VLS cruise missile launch from the 032 even if 032 has a different VLS to what the SSNs may use, as a form of significant risk reduction.

Either way, the 032 test submarine can reasonably be expected to have a major role in testing and developing vertically launched cruise missiles with applicability for VLS for SSNs.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
If I were the Navy looking to develop a test submarine that can test VLS for missiles, while also wanting to introduce a VLS capability aboard submarines in an operational capacity, I would probably do as much as I can to make sure as much of the VLS tests I conduct on my test submarine that can be applied aboard the submarine VLS in an operational capacity, to minimize duplication of resources.


The most obvious way of doing this of course is to simply install the 032 with an identical version of the VLS tube that your SSNs will be installed with.

And that's the thing, they're not.

The 032's VLS tubes are single and are on front of the sub. Furthermore, they would not require a bump.


unnamed (1).jpg




While we don't know what the 093's system will look like, the US practice is multipack 8 missiles into a sleeve and into an SLBM silo. This actually requires a bump due to the height of the silo.


IMG_20180608_130043.jpg


A testing 09III sub only needs to have a hump with one or two silos.

But of course, you can test missiles eight packed into the silo at the sail of the 032, or use an 09IV to test this. But you also want to see how it works as a whole upon a 9III, so you can actually go ahead and mass produce a version with four silos.
 
Last edited:

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
And that's the thing, they're not.

The 032's VLS tubes are single and are on front of the sub. Furthermore, they would not require a bump.

View attachment 47416

All irrelevant in my opinion.

A single VLS tube can test vertically launched cruise missiles and the VLS mechanism for a larger VPM style pack silo which is essentially 7 such VLS tubes packed together. You don't need the whole 7 cell silo to be tested if you're just looking to test the submarine vertical launch cruise missiles and the individual VLS tube itself. (The Ohio pattern/Block V Virginia pattern silo carries 7 cruise missile VLS in a single silo, not 8 btw)

Whether or not 032 has a bump for its VLS is also not very meaningful. One VLS tube in one submarine might result in a bump being necessary, but the same VLS tube in a different submarine may not necessitate a hump -- that depends on the internal structures and subsystems of the submarine at the particular location where the VLS is located.

I'm not sure why you think the position of the VLS is important for the purposes of testing vertical sub launched cruise missiles and its VLS. Yes, the 032's cruise missile VLS is in front of its sail -- surely you aren't suggesting that the tests conducted from those VLS are somehow invalid for a different submarine that may want to place those VLS behind the sail?



While we don't know what the 093's system will look like, the US practice is multipack 8 missiles into a sleeve and into an SLBM silo. This actually requires a bump due to the height of the silo.


View attachment 47415


A testing 09III sub only needs to have a hump with one or two silos.

But of course, you can test missiles eight packed into the silo at the sail of the 032, or use an 09IV to test this. But you also want to see how it works as a whole upon a 9III, so you can actually go ahead and mass produce a version with four silos.

I'm aware of the 7 missile VLS silos sued in Ohio and intended for new Virginia blocks.

However, let's break it down -- what is the difference between 7 missile VLS silos and a single VLS tube? After all, the former is basically just 7 of the latter but packed closely in a single larger silo with a single large lid.


For the purposes of testing vertically launched cruise missiles and the VLS associated with those missiles, it is not necessary to test the entire 7 cell super silo on a test sub like 032.
And all this is not knowing whether the PLAN's SSNs will have the kind of Virginia Payload Module 7 tube VLS that the USN is using.


Heck, I'm not even particularly confident that any of the 09III variants we've seen recently have VLS or will even get VLS in the near future at this point.
 
Last edited:

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Any consensus on the purposes of the different humps? Base variant and variant 1 can be ignored. They lack the humps and problably belong to the very 1st 093s launched in 2002/2003. The allegedly very noisy ones.

Variant 2 might be an SSGN or special missions sub for carrying special units.

What about variant 3 & 4? I think someone here mentioned something about a the humps containing a new reactor but isn't the reactor furthur back towards the propellers?

At this stage I think we are basically at square 1 -- we have no idea what the humps are actually for.
As recent as the beginning of the year, the prevailing belief seemed to be there was only one variant of 09III with a single hump design. After the naval parade off Hainan when we had photos of the two 09IIIs we recognized there were at least 09IIIs with at least two hump designs in existence.

But the latest photos suggest there are at least three hump designs making three 09III subvariants, not including the baseline 09III as well as the baseline 09II with a blended sail but no hump.

That gives us 5 09III subvariants! Not to mention at this stage we don't know even how many 09IIIs overall there are...
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
All irrelevant in my opinion.

A single VLS tube can test vertically launched cruise missiles and the VLS mechanism for a larger VPM style pack silo which is essentially 7 such VLS tubes packed together. You don't need the whole 7 cell silo to be tested if you're just looking to test the submarine vertical launch cruise missiles and the individual VLS tube itself. (The Ohio pattern/Block V Virginia pattern silo carries 7 cruise missile VLS in a single silo, not 8 btw)

Whether or not 032 has a bump for its VLS is also not very meaningful. One VLS tube in one submarine might result in a bump being necessary, but the same VLS tube in a different submarine may not necessitate a hump -- that depends on the internal structures and subsystems of the submarine at the particular location where the VLS is located.

Depends on the draught of the hull. The draft of the 032 (6.5m) and the YJ-18 is possibly 8.9m if the U-VLS has to be 9m to contain it. The draft of a 09III is about 7.5m. If we assume from the waterline to the top of the 032 is enough to accommodate the YJ-18, the missile won't need a bump on the 09III which has a deeper draught.

This kind of bothers me to figure out what kind of missile that would require the height that the bump would provide unless we are looking at a new long range cruise missile that's longer than a YJ-18.


I'm not sure why you think the position of the VLS is important for the purposes of testing vertical sub launched cruise missiles and its VLS. Yes, the 032's cruise missile VLS is in front of its sail -- surely you aren't suggesting that the tests conducted from those VLS are somehow invalid for a different submarine that may want to place those VLS behind the sail?

Why don't they also put the VLS tubes on the back of the 032 right at the beginning like those Amurs which is a more logical place? Why the front?

amur subs.gif

I'm aware of the 7 missile VLS silos sued in Ohio and intended for new Virginia blocks.

However, let's break it down -- what is the difference between 7 missile VLS silos and a single VLS tube? After all, the former is basically just 7 of the latter but packed closely in a single larger silo with a single large lid.

Its a matter which is more space, weight efficient and which is less mechanically complex. How many lids do I have to open for seven missiles? How much space and weight does the 7 VLS cost?

Of course we don't know if the PLAN would ever do such, but the PLAN often tries to ape the USN, especially with good ideas that is cost effective, saves money and cuts development costs as it utilizes an existing component.


For the purposes of testing vertically launched cruise missiles and the VLS associated with those missiles, it is not necessary to test the entire 7 cell super silo on a test sub like 032.
And all this is not knowing whether the PLAN's SSNs will have the kind of Virginia Payload Module 7 tube VLS that the USN is using.

One important difference is to test salvo launch the missiles for saturation. One or two missiles has a high chance of interception. But you fire a whole salvo, something is going to get through. Being able to fire YJ-18 out of the torpedo tube is quite limited. Why am I wasting the cost of an entire nuclear submarine if it can only fire two YJ-18s from torpedo tubes, and spend the money instead on a destroyer that can launch as much as 32 and get the saturation I need.

Heck, I'm not even particularly confident that any of the 09III variants we've seen recently have VLS or will even get VLS in the near future at this point.


And that's where bringing up the 032 also brings up a contradiction. They are obviously testing such a system that's meant to end up in a submarine. They have been testing even the front VLS on the 032 for quite a while. If the front VLS does not end up in a future 09III variant, then the next sub class after that. Its also possible the front 032 VLS may also be scrapped for a new VLS. There are only two ways it is going to end, acceptance or rejection.

The Virginia came with a different VLS originally. Why didn't they continue to use this VLS on the back?

67c4cb9e6727800f6408e33f080788b3.jpg

I can't see any other good reason of putting a humpback on the sub, and the only precedent cases I have seen for this are all related to VLS. In this case we also have to go back to a second reason on top of the first, and that is the possibility of a new longer length cruise missile which won't fit the VLS without the hump.

I also have a theory that the humped subs we see, even if they don't have VLS now, they may get them in the future through a refit, and all the under pining for that, are under that hump.
 
Last edited:

SinoSoldier

Colonel
POP3 seems to confirm that the 09IIIB carries a VLS. A few other interesting tidbits have been included as well. Contribution from other members would be helpful.
简单聊聊中国海军核潜艇的发展

本月11日,习主席在北部战区视察了中国海军核潜艇部队,从电视新闻画面上来看,很多核潜艇内部的装备细节都是首次出现在公众面前,这引起了广泛的关注。核潜艇部队作为国家战略作战部队和二次核打击力量,历来受到世界上各海洋强国的重视,并积极发展自己的核潜艇力量,中国也不例外。中国核潜艇的研制起步较早,从1958年中央批准《关于开展研制导弹原子潜艇的报告》开始,就正式着手研制自己的核潜艇。其后虽历经了诸多的困难和反复,但中国人要研制自己核潜艇的决心是坚定不移的,毛泽东主席就曾说:“核潜艇,一万年也要搞出来”。

中国第一艘核潜艇091型核潜艇历经九年的研制,于1974年8月1日正式交付海军,舷号401艇,中央军委将其命名为“长征1号”艇,随着“长征1号”核潜艇的入列服役,中国成为世界上第五个拥有核潜艇的国家。091型核潜艇为鱼雷核潜艇,采用水滴形大直径耐压船体设计。1983年8月25日,中国第一艘导弹核潜艇正式交付海军,型号为092型,可搭载12枚巨浪一号潜地导弹;1988年9月,中国导弹核潜艇成功完成水下发射运载火箭试验,中国终于成为世界上以海洋为基地具备二次核打击能力的国家。

上个世纪末期,在江泽民同志指示下,中国再次启动核潜艇项目的研制工作,开始了09III攻击型核潜艇的研制,该型核潜艇在战术技术指标上和装备技术水平上全面超越091型鱼雷核潜艇。09III攻击型核潜艇还形成了系列化发展型号,从09III型发展到09IIIA型再发展到09IIIB型,09IIIB攻击型核潜艇于2011年完成深化技术方案的设计。09III型核攻击潜艇在研制过程中曾发生严重失泄密事件,艇载作战系统的全套文件丢失,引起中央和军委高层的震怒,限期破案,后查明为个人渎职行为所导致,未造成严重后果,当事人等后均被判刑。

09IIIB攻击型核潜艇在噪声指标上有了很大的突破,艇载各系统进行了全面优化配置。现代核潜艇电子武器技术复杂,艇载设备数量多,也因此导致辐射噪声源较多,使得噪声指标难以降低。09IIIB攻击型核潜艇在降低设备数量上进行了努力,对系统进行全面整合及小型化和控制集成化设计,实现高度的信息共享,减少专用设备。做到区域计算机和中心计算机集中控制,常规通信与卫星通信及导航功能天线多功能优化集成。对艇载各类武器和浮标采取共用发射通道,统一发射控制流程等顶层设计。经过上述优化设计后,09IIIB攻击型核潜艇在艇员编制人数上也得到了精简。

09IIIB攻击型核潜艇能发射鱼雷武器和水雷武器,还是中国海军首次列装对陆攻击巡航导弹的核潜艇,其搭载了YJ-18B型垂直发射反舰巡航导弹武器系统,该系统能与YJ-18对陆攻击巡航导弹共用武器发射通道和武器控制系统,YJ-18导弹是一个系列,可搭载于水面舰艇和潜艇,并有对舰攻击型和对陆攻击型等多个型号。09IIIB攻击型核潜艇也是中国海军航母作战编队内重要的作战节点。在启动09III攻击型核潜艇研制时,中国还启动了09IV战略核潜艇的研制,中国海军以水下潜艇及水面航母为重点的两个发展方向,目前已初具规模,并带动了配套舰艇的发展。时至今日,毛泽东主席当年所说“为了反对帝国主义的侵略,我们一定要建立强大的海军”之目标,中国已经基本达到,但中国海军的发展,永远在路上。

Key points (please correct if inaccurate):
  • The progression of the 09III design is as follows: 09III > 09IIIA > 09IIIB
  • The 09IIIB submarine completed detailed technical design in 2011
  • A serious breach of confidentiality occurred during the 09III's development, in which the entire set of documentation concerning its onboard combat systems was lost (which subsequently angered their Central Military Commission to a great extent)
  • The 09IIIB has made breakthroughs in noise reduction
  • 09IIIB has fully-optimized onboard combat systems
  • The 09IIIB has successfully integrated and miniaturized its combat systems, resulting in the reduction of needed equipment and increased information sharing [between them]
    • The regional and central computer have a centralized control system
    • Regular communications, SATCOM, navigation antennae have been integrated and optimized
    • Weapons & buoys have common launch channels
    • Uniform launch control procedures are in place
  • Weapons systems
    • 09IIIB can launch torpedoes, mines, and (for the first time in PLAN sub history) land-attack cruise missiles
    • 09IIIB carries the vertically-launched YJ-18B AShM
    • The YJ-18B AShM and YJ-18 land-attack missile share the same "launch channels" and weapons control systems
  • 09IIIB will serve as an important component within Chinese CBGs (and the development of China's nuclear subs continues)
Link to the post:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top