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


Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
My hypothesis is that the reactor they are testing is so tall that it exceeds the draft of the submarine and a hump is needed to clear the top of it. Given the presence of a hump, and the potential water flow turbulence it would bring, the reactor and the hump would have to behind the sail and then streamlined to minimize the flow effects.

Not a problem for the 094 which can hide the height with its hump.

Next generation PLAN SSN would have to call for a taller draft on the sub in order to sufficiently contain the natural circulation reactor.
Pressure vessel doesn't work like that.

Creating a non-circular cross section pressure vessel will decrease to the fraction of the pressure rating .

That is more likely something on the outside of the pressure vessel, in the double wall section of the boat, and it is more likely unrelated to the reactor.

Ad absurdum it can be just an additional ballast tank, to increase the underwater stability.
 

azesus

Junior Member
Registered Member
"Small steps quick jog" Chinese Type 09IIIB nuclear attack submarine on an almost-concurrent timeline as the 09V to test shared subsystem first
 

by78

Lieutenant General
The hump I suspect might be a natural circulation reactor they might be testing.

Natural circulation reactors, which uses less pumps and the difference of hot-cold in the water temperature to move the water around, would have been tall for gravity to aid downward water flow.

Example of one.

View attachment 53095

My hypothesis is that the reactor they are testing is so tall that it exceeds the draft of the submarine and a hump is needed to clear the top of it. Given the presence of a hump, and the potential water flow turbulence it would bring, the reactor and the hump would have to behind the sail and then streamlined to minimize the flow effects.

Not a problem for the 094 which can hide the height with its hump.

Next generation PLAN SSN would have to call for a taller draft on the sub in order to sufficiently contain the natural circulation reactor.

Unlikely. The hump is too close the sail. Not saying it's impossible technically, but that would be incredibly stupid, almost akin to putting the engine where the second-row seats should be on a minivan, with the van being rear-wheel drive to boot so that the drive shaft would have go through the third-row seats and connect to the rear differential located where the cargo area should be. A complete waste of precious space.
 
Last edited:

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Unlikely. The hump is too close the sail. Not saying it's impossible technically, but that would be incredibly stupid, almost akin to putting the engine where the second-row seats should be on a minivan, with the van being rear-wheel drive to boot so that the drive shaft would have go through the third-row seats and connect to the rear differential located where the cargo area should be. A complete waste of precious space.

If you put the hump away from the sail because it would result in a hydrodynamic flow issue caused by the downdraft from the sail. I am assuming that the draft of the sub isn't enough for the sheer height of the natural circulating reactor as the sub wasn't originally designed to contain it.

But yes, it would be putting the engine behind the second row seats. Very Soviet in design. Comfort is secondary. You are not following USN type submarine plans after all.

plan victor III.jpg

With ballistic submarine like 094, you can move the reactor to the back of the missile laden hump.

If you are putting cruise missiles at the back which will result in a raised hump, you can put the reactor to the back and the raised hump caused by the cruise missile silos will go all the way to the back of the sail.

093 isn't the latest design after all, they must have been designing the sub around the 1990s.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
Well whatever the true purpose of that hump is, we can be fairly certain it being a VLS farm is out of the picture now.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
I would also go and say the 093 design is very dated. If you have a submarine with enough draft in the first place you won't need a hump and it would have been smoother hydrodynamically. You can also get rid of things like being a pure double hull to a single hull or mixed single-double hull hybrid and you won't have to make the 094 look so humpy compared to the other ballistic subs out there. Its even a disappointment they would still go on and make 093/094 based hulls, when they should have already begun with 095/096 hulls that better reflect the state of Chinese nautical engineering in the 2010-2020.
 
D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
I would also go and say the 093 design is very dated. If you have a submarine with enough draft in the first place you won't need a hump and it would have been smoother hydrodynamically. You can also get rid of things like being a pure double hull to a single hull or mixed single-double hull hybrid and you won't have to make the 094 look so humpy compared to the other ballistic subs out there. Its even a disappointment they would still go on and make 093/094 based hulls, when they should have already begun with 095/096 hulls that better reflect the state of Chinese nautical engineering in the 2010-2020.
"Shrugs" alot of Chinese military decisions are so steeped in secrecy and apparent confusion the only thing you can say is "why" most of the time. But since the common response is :" I am sure that the higher ups had think this hard and through" (which seems to be the common retort to anything that cannot be logically explained), I don't think we will be getting any good answers anytime soon.

Perhaps the current 093s are to serve as a test bed for advance tech, but that could be done with a smaller hull. But then again using a proper SSN hull would give the PLAN better data to work with. I dunno, at this point it is extremely wild speculation.
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
Unlikely. The hump is too close the sail. Not saying it's impossible technically, but that would be incredibly stupid, almost akin to putting the engine where the second-row seats should be on a minivan, with the van being rear-wheel drive to boot so that the drive shaft would have go through the third-row seats and connect to the rear differential located where the cargo area should be. A complete waste of precious space.


The reactor is very heavy, with lot of radiation shielding, and it has only two pipe connection to the steam turbine/feed pump.
Means it is not that much restricted regarding of its position, but has to be placed carefully to keep the ship stable.
 

by78

Lieutenant General
Showing the flags...

(2034x1346)
48460661301_beeb3ce90b_o.jpg
 

Top