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

[Blitzo]

Covert Shores article on 09V. He expected it to be longer, estimates 12-16 VLS and ~40 torpedo-tube launched weapons.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I'm going to allow this to remain simply due to the lack of general "articles" on 09V overall, and also because despite his past missteps on... a number of other PLA/PLAN related matters, he does have an underlying base of competent submarine and naval knowledge. Though his opinion here is so brief there's not much to reflect on anyhow.

As for his comments on 09V's characteristics specifically, the strangest part is how none of the usual naval or defense news outlets have tried to do a deep dive (no pun intended) on 09IIIB on all these years, because it somewhat limits the ability to talk about 09V as well.

For example, 09IIIB's VLS count is likely to be 24 (based on satellite imagery as well as suspiciously reflective art/subsequent models), which should provide a bit of a guide/consideration for what 09V's VLS requirement might be.


I would say that is one of the issues with defense commentators who have decent knowledge about their domains/topics in general but lack prior PLA watching experience and to throw their hat into the ring for PLA specific topics -- making estimates and projections without contextual knowledge of what already exists and the grapevine rumour base means doing so at a disadvantage.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Covert Shores article on 09V. He expected it to be longer, estimates 12-16 VLS and ~40 torpedo-tube launched weapons.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Sutton can't do math. 16 is not divisible by 3.

 

[Blitzo]

Sutton can't do math. 16 is not divisible by 3.

If you're referring to the tripack tube, chances are he is not aware of it or isn't considering it to begin with.

 

[Lethe]

On the prospect of future 09III-size SSN to complement 095V.

If we assume that 09V represents a highly optimised alignment between new-generation reactor configuration and output, hull diameter enabling desired rafting and other silencing measures, and hydrodynamic form and performance (tactical speed, top speed, acceleration), it follows that, even if it is possible to fit that same reactor in a smaller SSN, doing so is going to shift away from that multi-axis optimised configuration, probably in several dimensions simultaneously. That is to say, a smaller SSN likely calls for a different reactor (and associated machinery).

One can get away with putting a large SSN reactor in an SSBN hull (as with e.g. Russian or British practice) in large part owing to the different performance targets that those roles entail. Performance requirements for two SSNs are likely to be more similar than between an SSN and SSBN.

Of course it is entirely possible to design and build that different reactor (and supporting machinery) and create another training and sustainment pipeline to support it. It is the economics of doing so that are in question. That depends in part on the number of hulls that would be expected to use that reactor, and any other applications to which it could be put (not obvious that there are any).

 

[mister unknown]

Is it possible that some are tri-pack tubes & some are not (so as to fit munitions with odd dimensions)??

I can't imagine why we would have such a configuration, but that could explain the 16?

 

[Blitzo]

Is it possible that some are tri-pack tubes & some are not (so as to fit munitions with odd dimensions)??

I can't imagine why we would have such a configuration, but that could explain the 16?

I think you're giving him more credit to his thought process than he deserves.

You're assuming he knows about the tripack tube, or that he would come up with some sort of deeper consideration of optimal payload mixtures for 09V.


It's more likely that:
- he is not aware of the tripack tube
- he is not aware (or didn't recall) the way in which 09IIIB's VLS tubes were organized or their count either
- he just handwaved an idea in his mind and came up with a number

 

[tphuang]

I think so far at least, the naval news story is far better than what Sutton wrote. Which given sutton’s background, this is not a great look. Maybe he is waiting to hear more opinions.

I think there is some obvious point you can infer from just what we can see on the outside and the speculated 200MWt reactor.

given that my knowledge on this is limited, I was hoping to see if others had more insight on this. So far, it’s been non existent. Which again shows the lack of knowledge in public realm about submarine operations.

 

[Wrought]

There's just not very much to say—in a professional, publishable, open-source sense—about 09V aside from the obvious "it exists now." You very quickly run out of substantive analysis and veer into baseless speculation. So the lack of coverage should not come as much of a surprise.

 

[Maikeru]

I did notice the NN article stated only 18 VLS on 093B rather than the generally accepted 24. Perhaps @para80 could confirm if this is just a typo or if there is new information?

 

[siegecrossbow]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!