New sailless SSN (provisional)
- Thread starter ACuriousPLAFan
- Start date
They updated with a picture! Credits to Naval News
Dated 1st June 2026 at Jiangnan
Also for some Chinese 军迷（I know you are lurking here）：
他们有时不放出卫星图，主要是因为版权费用太高。这类图价格不低，常常超出 Naval News 的预算。作者们也许能免费私下看图，可能是卫星公司主动找上门，提供了查看权限。但只要这些图被正式用进文章里，就属于商业用途，Naval News 就必须付费。
把这个截图发到你们军迷群里。
Dated 1st June 2026 at Jiangnan
Also for some Chinese 军迷（I know you are lurking here）：
他们有时不放出卫星图，主要是因为版权费用太高。这类图价格不低，常常超出 Naval News 的预算。作者们也许能免费私下看图，可能是卫星公司主动找上门，提供了查看权限。但只要这些图被正式用进文章里，就属于商业用途，Naval News 就必须付费。
把这个截图发到你们军迷群里。
Last edited:
From what I gathered mastless design is quite technologically challenging in stability while providing great benefit in lower drag and cruise noise. If it works in this mysterious SSN then should we expect the design to be employed in more future subs as well say 095B?
It almost looks like PLAN is trying two competing designs, a more conventional design we identified as 095 and this one, maybe they will pick a winner as the real 095?
It almost looks like PLAN is trying two competing designs, a more conventional design we identified as 095 and this one, maybe they will pick a winner as the real 095?
Last edited:
This one doesn't seem to feature any VLS cells, let alone multipack VLS tubes?
The problem here is why would "underwater missile trucks" i.e. SSGNs have a smaller hull diameter? Shouldn't they be having similar (if not larger) hull diameters than the "pure-blood" SSNs in order to fit missile tubes that would carry longer and larger-sized anti-ship and land-attack missiles instead? Using a smaller hull diameter could/would inevitably lead to the need for a turtleback design (which is an unavoidable feature on SSBNs, but rather unfavorable on SSNs/SSGNs).
I think an arsenal submarine makes sense. The payload fraction of ballistic/cruse missiles goes from roughly 20% -> 10% -> 5% for ranges of 1600km, 5000km, 10000km. A 5000km range missile on a moving platform is awkward as the total operational cost of a platform plus the munition for payload delivered at range would be similar cost for a 10000km range ballistic/cruise in a silo/TEL, which can hit anywhere relevant in the world from China. For a conventional warhead a moving platform with a shorter range missile makes sense.
A low cost nuclear submarine built to the 20/80 principal focusing on payload delivered to cost ratio with cheap sensors, low crew numbers and reasonable sound levels would be effective and also increase the effectiveness of the navy's other weapon platforms. The key Idea of an arsenal submarine compared to a SSGN is operating as a team. A carrier battle group with 1 aircraft carrier, 4 destroyers, 2 frigates, 2 attack submarines will have their individual capabilities improved by the addition of an arsenal submarine. The destroyers can remove any cruise/ballistic missiles from their VLS and focus entirely on air and missile defense, the attack submarines can likewise also remove their cruise/ballistic missiles they can also forgo VLS tubes and instead dedicate more internal volume to torpedoes. The attack submarines and frigates will keep the carrier battle group safe from other submarines and the aircraft carrier's fighters will keep the air clear from ASW, from this safe bubble sat 2000km from shore the arsenal submarine can move up 1000-1300 km to the shore and launch it's weapons.
From the rumors in this thread i sketched out a design of arsenal submarine based on the typhoon class submarine, at 1.5 billion dollars this should have lower cost per VLS than attritable unmanned small vessels:
A low cost nuclear submarine built to the 20/80 principal focusing on payload delivered to cost ratio with cheap sensors, low crew numbers and reasonable sound levels would be effective and also increase the effectiveness of the navy's other weapon platforms. The key Idea of an arsenal submarine compared to a SSGN is operating as a team. A carrier battle group with 1 aircraft carrier, 4 destroyers, 2 frigates, 2 attack submarines will have their individual capabilities improved by the addition of an arsenal submarine. The destroyers can remove any cruise/ballistic missiles from their VLS and focus entirely on air and missile defense, the attack submarines can likewise also remove their cruise/ballistic missiles they can also forgo VLS tubes and instead dedicate more internal volume to torpedoes. The attack submarines and frigates will keep the carrier battle group safe from other submarines and the aircraft carrier's fighters will keep the air clear from ASW, from this safe bubble sat 2000km from shore the arsenal submarine can move up 1000-1300 km to the shore and launch it's weapons.
From the rumors in this thread i sketched out a design of arsenal submarine based on the typhoon class submarine, at 1.5 billion dollars this should have lower cost per VLS than attritable unmanned small vessels:
Attachments
-
type 9X arsenal sub.png -
Typhoon-class.png
Maybe that's the super fat Bohai sub? If it actually has a 16m+ beam and an oval pressure hull it could foreseeably carry a ridiculously amount of VLS in multipack tubes like those in VPM or 09V, in fact the hull could be so wide that it could possibly carry 3 large tubes in a single row.
It doesn't seem to have a l/d ratio of 12, unlike the initial illustration suggested. It also seems to have a small sail for periscopes. I was on special mission sub opinion. But this photo changes things.They updated with a picture! Credits to Naval News
Dated 1st June 2026 at Jiangnan
Also for some Chinese 军迷（I know you are lurking here）：
他们有时不放出卫星图，主要是因为版权费用太高。这类图价格不低，常常超出 Naval News 的预算。作者们也许能免费私下看图，可能是卫星公司主动找上门，提供了查看权限。但只要这些图被正式用进文章里，就属于商业用途，Naval News 就必须付费。
把这个截图发到你们军迷群里。
please elaborate more. what do you think when saw this new image.