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


ougoah

Colonel
Registered Member
If there is a PLAN SLBM that can be called a "failure" it would be JL-1. Even that one worked perfectly. The only "failure" part is that it wasn't as good as Trident and didn't have extreme long ranges like JL-2 does.

Even the JL-1 was perfectly serviceable and created no problems. None of them are failures in any sense except to say JL-1 didn't compare with JL-2 or Trident missiles from US and UK or the Russian SLBMs. Even in this field, it was lesser in range and that was it.

Indians up to now only have K-15 as a "SLBM" even though it is barely MRBM ranged. It isn't a failure either since it works and it is in service.

JL-2 was not a failure lol. That's like saying DF-31 is a failure because China got a better missile ready - DF-41. Is every American ICBM and SLBM that have since become obsolete and replaced in service by a newer model also failures?

Extreme naivety and faulty logic from Kristensen. His other stuff are often troll material as well.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Senior Member
Registered Member
More important take from that is, providing the jl3 comment wasn't made in error, is that jl2 and jl3 are compatible enough to be used on older submarines. Something like trident c4 being compatible with subs that carried earlier Poseidon c3 missiles.
It's likely that the JL-3 comment was made in error - what they're calling "JL-3" might be what we call JL-2A. It's ultimately a matter of missile dimensions; just from eyeballing the JL-2 during the 2019 parade, it's a small missile that matches the DF-31 dimensionally. It's highly unlikely that an SLBM derived from the DF-41 would be that small. Unless the 09-IV has launch tubes that can accommodate a much larger missile than the JL-2 (in which case, why waste the space by loading a small missile to begin with?), or at least newer submarines do, this just doesn't pass the smell test.
 

escobar

Brigadier
It's likely that the JL-3 comment was made in error - what they're calling "JL-3" might be what we call JL-2A. It's ultimately a matter of missile dimensions; just from eyeballing the JL-2 during the 2019 parade, it's a small missile that matches the DF-31 dimensionally. It's highly unlikely that an SLBM derived from the DF-41 would be that small. Unless the 09-IV has launch tubes that can accommodate a much larger missile than the JL-2 (in which case, why waste the space by loading a small missile to begin with?), or at least newer submarines do, this just doesn't pass the smell test.
What source say JL-3 derived from DF-41? and what is JL-2A?
 

Xsizor

Captain
Registered Member
Wasn't the most recent test of JL-3 alleged to be from a stationary undersea platform?

Was the newer 094 designed with the extra space for a bigger missile? Very inconceivable. It is better to conclude that this person is not credible than to believe that JL-3 has found space within Type 094.

OR JL-2D and JL-3 has very little change in dimensions. And the SLBM for the next 096 would be an enlarged JL-3X.

( And I'm not even well versed in this subject).
 

Broccoli

Senior Member
JL-2 is already almost same size as Trident II and diameter wise larger than original Trident I. Is there any reason why 10.000km range JL-3 wouldn't fit on 094A? I mean French M51 is shorter than JL-2 by one meter but is more capable.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Senior Member
Registered Member
JL-2 is already almost same size as Trident II and diameter wise larger than original Trident I. Is there any reason why 10.000km range JL-3 wouldn't fit on 094A? I mean French M51 is shorter than JL-2 by one meter but is more capable.
You have to be careful about comparing the missiles along just one dimensional parameter. The M51 (12m long with 2.3m diameter) is volumetrically the largest missile (around 50 cubic metres), followed by the Trident II (13.41m long with 2.11m diameter) at 47 cubic metres, followed by the JL-2 (13m long with 2m diameter) at 41 cubic metres. Being "skinny" is a very undesirable trait in a missile given that volume scales quadratically with diameter.

Yes, there's a reason a larger JL-3 wouldn't fit in a Type 09-IV launch tube - if the tube could fit a bigger missile, the JL-2 would be a larger missile.
 

Xsizor

Captain
Registered Member
There were reports of China's nuclear Submarines type 093 being detected by UK Carrier group transiting SCS.

Aside from the Global Times report, what is the analysis?
 

ZeEa5KPul

Senior Member
Registered Member
There were reports of China's nuclear Submarines type 093 being detected by UK Carrier group transiting SCS.

Aside from the Global Times report, what is the analysis?
Nothing useful can be gained from any such reports, and you won't find any worthwhile analysis of it given the secrecy of everything involved. If the group was actively pinging then any submarine close to it would have been found, even if it were emitting zero decibels. Also, I wonder if submarines use an enhanced noise emission during peacetime (like stealth fighters use Luneberg lenses to enhance radar emissions) to mask their true acoustic signature.
 

Top