It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia newest Attack Sub.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Brende posted:

"There was a 688 out there, just not very close. My sources are multiple first hand accounts from people on that submarine. I am an active duty submariner, and there are lots of things that people just don't know about, nor should they know. "

Man oh..man ..I miss working 688 boats. It was hard work...very hard ..but educational too. State of the art is moving on....changing...quickly. If you can handle submarine work ..other types of ships are a piece of cake.

Yes..lots that people just dont know..nor should they..agreed.

Thanks,
Orangetom




posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Very interesting thread, and it begs a fairly simple question from my non-technical mind:

If they do finish this 955 boat this year, keep the second one coming along, and lay the keel of the 3rd one which is planned for 2010, will they be looking to get rid of some of the Victor IVs that are coming to the end of their service life, perhaps to Iran, India, or China?

Probably not Iran I suppose; I'd expect Iran to know better; waste of money and it'd have an "unfortunate accident" the minute they took it out. If we decide not to hit them, they'd have to be nuts to push our buttons like that.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 03:18 AM
link   
As I've said before, they're already planning to sell 2 akula II Proj(971) I think, to the IN..

The latest on this development was back in Sept 05' I think:

IN Sub Fleet



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 03:49 AM
link   
I have to tell you guys the Russia was launched totally in secret not as you imaged every action Russia made you all know.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by emile
I have to tell you guys the Russia was launched totally in secret not as you imaged every action Russia made you all know.


i apologise if im being ignorant but could somebody explain to me what emile was trying to say. I think that she is trying to say that maybe the russian sub was launched in secret and that not everything the russians do is seen by the us spys/sattilites. But im really not sure.



]Originally posted by Brende
There was a 688 out there, just not very close.


Do you mean that the sub being followed was a 688 or there was a 688 following the akula following the us sub?

Justin



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Yeah, that's exactly what Emile meant. They already built and launched the new sub, but not everything is seen or published in the papers.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Emile as n Emilie?
I always thought this Emile was a he!



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3

]Originally posted by Brende
There was a 688 out there, just not very close.


Do you mean that the sub being followed was a 688 or there was a 688 following the akula following the us sub?

Justin


There 688 was there, did a quick search, then departed the immediate area, after reporting no contacts. After calling out no contacts, it went into a barrier search, to keep anyone from coming in. It just didn't see the Akula.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Yeah, that's exactly what Emile meant. They already built and launched the new sub, but not everything is seen or published in the papers.

And how would you know? If they launched it in such secrecy that the mainstream media's not heard about the launch, then how come you know about it?



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   
I didn't say that's what happened or that I knew if it DID happen. I was translating for Emile, because I'm used to talking to him and knew what he meant.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I didn't say that's what happened or that I knew if it DID happen. I was translating for Emile, because I'm used to talking to him and knew what he meant.

My bad, sorry. So how come Emile 'knows' about it?



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brende

There 688 was there, did a quick search, then departed the immediate area, after reporting no contacts. After calling out no contacts, it went into a barrier search, to keep anyone from coming in. It just didn't see the Akula.


Then the akula must have been very quiet because my understanding of a 688 is that they are sub hunters.

Does anyone know if this is a common occurance or if it is the exception to the rule.

Justin



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3

Originally posted by Brende

There 688 was there, did a quick search, then departed the immediate area, after reporting no contacts. After calling out no contacts, it went into a barrier search, to keep anyone from coming in. It just didn't see the Akula.


Then the akula must have been very quiet because my understanding of a 688 is that they are sub hunters.

Does anyone know if this is a common occurance or if it is the exception to the rule.

Justin

If this incident did in fact take place, and it was a case of the Akula having slid into the 688's wake, then the Akula could well have avoided being detected by the 688 for the simple reason that the 688's prop wash would've masked the Akula's own sounds. The 688's do have towed-arrays, but no hull integrated aft sonar arrays.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton
If this incident did in fact take place, and it was a case of the Akula having slid into the 688's wake, then the Akula could well have avoided being detected by the 688 for the simple reason that the 688's prop wash would've masked the Akula's own sounds. The 688's do have towed-arrays, but no hull integrated aft sonar arrays.


my understanding of the towed array is that it is far enough behind a submarine so as to not be affected by its own engine noise. As i said before 688's were nuclear hunter killers so they should be awesome at detecting other subs.

Brende you said that you are an active duty submariner. Do you know if this is common or if it is the exception to the rule.

Justin



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3

Originally posted by Lanton
If this incident did in fact take place, and it was a case of the Akula having slid into the 688's wake, then the Akula could well have avoided being detected by the 688 for the simple reason that the 688's prop wash would've masked the Akula's own sounds. The 688's do have towed-arrays, but no hull integrated aft sonar arrays.


my understanding of the towed array is that it is far enough behind a submarine so as to not be affected by its own engine noise. As i said before 688's were nuclear hunter killers so they should be awesome at detecting other subs.

Brende you said that you are an active duty submariner. Do you know if this is common or if it is the exception to the rule.

Justin

Yes, that's true, but you wouldn't have a towed array reeled out and running constantly, would you? You'd have to slow down, reel out the array and keep your ears open.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton
Yes, that's true, but you wouldn't have a towed array reeled out and running constantly, would you? You'd have to slow down, reel out the array and keep your ears open.


But this 688 was looking for an enemy sub so it would have had its towed array out, would have been going slowly and would have had its ears open.

Justin



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3

Originally posted by Lanton
Yes, that's true, but you wouldn't have a towed array reeled out and running constantly, would you? You'd have to slow down, reel out the array and keep your ears open.


But this 688 was looking for an enemy sub so it would have had its towed array out, would have been going slowly and would have had its ears open.

Justin

So what, the 688 was sortied with orders to look for a Russian sub, or it was just patrolling and picked up something on hull sonar then reeled out the towed array?

The story alleges that an Akula successfully stalked a 688, right? Well if that's the case, then the 688 obviously didn't pick anything up on the towed array.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
As I've said before, they're already planning to sell 2 akula II Proj(971) I think, to the IN..


Sorry I'm late responding. I read you on the Akulas, but what I'm curious about is whether or not they may decide to sell off a couple of Victor IVs or Typhoons since they've got a few new SSBNs coming into service.

An SSBN or SSGN in the wrong hands would scare me a little more than an SSN because of the aramament. I'm not really a Naval buff though, so correct me if my concerns are misguided.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Originally posted by Daedalus3
As I've said before, they're already planning to sell 2 akula II Proj(971) I think, to the IN..


Sorry I'm late responding. I read you on the Akulas, but what I'm curious about is whether or not they may decide to sell off a couple of Victor IVs or Typhoons since they've got a few new SSBNs coming into service.

An SSBN or SSGN in the wrong hands would scare me a little more than an SSN because of the aramament. I'm not really a Naval buff though, so correct me if my concerns are misguided.

Ill-trained and inexperienced Chinese or Inidian sub crews, operating Typhoons or Victor IVs, would do their service more harm than good. They've probably run around at high speeds, making a lot of noise and giving their positions away and using active sonar. That's why the British and US sub services are the most potent sub forces in the world; they've got sophisticated boats at their disposal and the best trained and experienced sub crews in the world. Don't forget, that the Brits are the only ones to have fired torps in anger and sunk a ship with them; and that was back in the Falklands in '83.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Well I ain't no buff either!

Anyhow, the Chinese don't need any SSGN/SSBN stuff from the Russians the already have the know-how to build their own.
About SSNs I'm not too sure.

Also selling off SSGNs/SSBNs would constitute a breach of many international treaties like the MTCR, NPT etc. etc. so thats out of the question.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join