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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   
The Chinese already have at laest one SSBN that they built with Russian assistance.




posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Yeah.. well there are claims that the 'assistance' came from the US also, esp in the development of the Trident SLBMs in the early 1990s.
Cox Report..



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton
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.


This is meant to prove what ? The Argentinian ship was the General Belgrano a WWII era cruiser
Hardly what you'd call a tough target. It was so easy to sink that the Brit submarine used antiquated WWII Mk37 torpedos to sink it.

Most training missions are harder than that action. lol.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Yeah.. well there are claims that the 'assistance' came from the US also, esp in the development of the Trident SLBMs in the early 1990s.
Cox Report..


Assistance for what ? The Trident was operational in the early 1990's, it wasn't in development.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton
They've probably run around at high speeds, making a lot of noise and giving their positions away and using active sonar.


Pardon my ignorance but doesn't the same apply to all submarines?


China and india will have trouble with conventional submarines also?



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Yeah.. well there are claims that the 'assistance' came from the US also, esp in the development of the Trident SLBMs in the early 1990s.
Cox Report..


Assistance for what ? The Trident was operational in the early 1990's, it wasn't in development.


This is what I meant:

not willfull assitance..


Cox Report findings



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Lanton
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.


This is meant to prove what ? The Argentinian ship was the General Belgrano a WWII era cruiser
Hardly what you'd call a tough target. It was so easy to sink that the Brit submarine used antiquated WWII Mk37 torpedos to sink it.

Most training missions are harder than that action. lol.

Well it's a fact that the Brits are the only ones to have fired torps in anger and sunk a ship with them, right? I'm guessing most of the Chinese and Indian sub crews have only participated in one or, at the most, two training ops. Plus the quality of that training would've been far below, in quality, that of the training that US and British sub crews are put through.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by Lanton
They've probably run around at high speeds, making a lot of noise and giving their positions away and using active sonar.


Pardon my ignorance but doesn't the same apply to all submarines?


China and india will have trouble with conventional submarines also?

Yep, should've made myself clearer.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Well IMO you shouldn't just discount the training IN and PLAN submariners get.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Well IMO you shouldn't just discount the training IN and PLAN submariners get.

I'm not 'discounting' the training that the Indians and Chinese give their sub crews; i'm merely pointing out that the quality of their training's probably far below that of the qaulity of sub crew training in the US or UK.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   
hmmm..
I tend to disagree..
Especially since you've excluded the russians from your list of "good submariners" and the very crux of this thread now is abt Russian SSNs sneaking up on USN subs..



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
hmmm..
I tend to disagree..
Especially since you've excluded the russians from your list of "good submariners" and the very crux of this thread now is abt Russian SSNs sneaking up on USN subs..

It's one thing to have the type of training given to US and Brit crews...it's entirely another to be in a position to utilise that training on top of the line subs fielded by the Americans and Brits.

The Soviets, and now the Russians, always had quality-issues with the development of sonar and sub weapons's systems.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   
While alot of this information is classified concering sound and sound hiding techniques...what is known is that during the John Walker spy scandal...it came out that many classified tech manuals/informations were made available to the Soviets detailing how American Submarines are made quiet. The Soviets undoubtedly copied this technology and its applications as they began noticably quieting thier boats. This became knowny very quickly..the reduction in sound levels on Soviet submarines ..but at first it was not tied to a security leak. Only after John Walkers wife turned him in did it our people become aware of the extent of how much and what type of information was leaked on quiet features of our boats. As I recall both John Walker and his son were involved in this spying.This story can be found in books on the Walker spy scandal...some of this probably on the web.
Combine this security leak with the Japanese selling the Russians a computer milling machine to make the modern multibladed propellors of submarines and the programs to do so...you have a giant quantum leap in technology which the Soviets did not have prior to these events.

As to the Alkuas being all that quiet ..it depends on what type of 688 boat they were tracking as the series of boats changed during the production runs..from the early 688s to the later 688I series..significant improvements during the run of the series. You can also find this information in certain books. You will however have to read somewhat between the lines as there is not much there without actual hands on knowlege..sorry but I wont provide this to fill in the gaps. Suffice it to say that this technology like the technology in your automobiles on current production runs ..is changing..constantly. The technology does not stand still..for anyone!!
There is one fact or facet of this technology I will tell you ..and this will be a problem for the Russians as it is definitely a problem for the US Navy and still is.. This fact is simply costs. The costs of good sound dampening/reducingTechnology is very expensive. This is one fact the US Navy nor the Russians can hide from the public.
Do you folks remember that super duper fast spy plane ..the SR 71 Blackbird??? This plane was so fast ...during its tenure with the US Military nothing world wide was ever able to catch up with it.....No other nation ever had anything in its class..it had the field pretty much to itself. The only thing that ever caught up to the SR 71 Blackbird..was a budget cut.
Remember this when you folks praise all this high technology or who has the biggest or baddest one.
Budgets make things happen..

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bozorgh
I like to congradulate my Russian Comrades into building such a powerfull and beautifull sub, perhaps in the future Iran-Russia will work on more military projects together.


I believe the Iranians are working on the total annihilation of Israel with nuclear weapons, that the kind of thing you had in mind ?



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Thats besides the point.
The training and proficiency level PLAN/IN sailors cannot be commented on unless one has sound info or hearsay even.
Speculations/assumptions/presumptions are not in vogue on ATS..







 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join