Indian Akula II attack submarine

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Ask any Navy man, but especially one with dolphins, about John Walker. You'll hear terms you've never even imagined before.




posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I gotta agree with schaden,

The akula series are no match for a seawolf or virginia or astute. And I also agree that a late model 688 could best the new akulas too.

Always a pleasure to see orangetoms considerable input on this topic.



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
This paragraph from FAS.org (Link) may help shed some light on Akula II's:


The Project 971A Akula II incorporated an improved double layer silencing system for the power train. According to Russian sources, this variant had noise emissions that were roughly the level of a basic Los Angeles and that of the Improved Los Angeles at slow speeds. At medium or high speeds the Improved Los Angeles design retains an acoustic advantage according to Russian sources. The Project 971 uses advanced sound insulation techniques that may not withstand Russian service conditions, and it may actually be noiser than earlier designs using more basic quieting technologies if poorly built or improperly maintained. The Project 971 is said by Russian sources to be at a distinct disadvantage in sensors, with a sonar suite that is roughly one-third as sensitive as the Los Angeles, able to track only two targets simultaneously (as opposed to the multiple target tracking capabilities of the American system).



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by BASSPLYR
 


and again your just dismissing out of hand anything thats not got the stamp `made in america` on it - theres no one in teh western world who has been on an akula II so quite honestly its all *educated* guess work - but guessing is what it comes down to.



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by oxillini
 


Yeah that John Walker spy incident pretty much put the Russians almost on par with Americans. The scythe like blade or screw pretty much helped the Russians along with other quieting technolgies, particulary the nuclear reactor and pumps to circulate the water. I shudder to think about the next Akula like submarine with a pump-jet propulsor. Hence why the Seawolf and Virginias keep the pump-jet shrouded with tarp to cover its secret. The French however seem to be just showing it off. I can tell you that I know exactly what it looks like inside the shroud because of what the Frenchies showed. It wouldn't surprise me that the Russians were able to build the their own pump jet based on what they saw on the French Triomphant submarine.

[edit on 1-8-2008 by deltaboy]



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


You think the Akula boat is riding high because of its double hull causing it to maintain high buoyancy?



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Disregard.

[edit on 1-8-2008 by oxillini]



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


She's most likely not carrying weapons (to be fitted with Klub missiles per news articles available) or possibly the combat systems electronics.



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

The scythe like blade or screw pretty much helped the Russians along with other quieting technolgies, particulary the nuclear reactor and pumps to circulate the water.


The effects of what he disclosed in regards to propulsion, the engine room and reactor compartment are still being felt to this day in the 688's.



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


erm orange - Akula`s are nuke boats......


i would think this would be the INS Chakra , which india paid $2billion for the completion of both Akula-II`s and for the training of the crew for them

given they use Propulsor for silent running these are mean little babies


I am trying to think this through Harlequin. Where from do you get this that these boats have propulsors on them?? This is a new one to me.

The reason I say this is that a propulsor shroud for a sizable propellor is a very heavy weight on the rear end of a boat. It would require reballasting or relocating other equipment to put more weight foreward..or the boat would ride very nose light....or up noticably in the nose.
Seems to me that the Russians ten to favor long tapered shafting in the stern twoards their wheels or propellors.
Nonetheless...a propulsor shroud on a full sized submarine screw is a very heavy arrangement that far back on the hull.
Looks like the Russians also favor retractable bow planes up foreward.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by Schaden

Akula II blows away the Shang class. Global security estimates the new Chinese SSN is comparable to a Victor III.


And thats why its a little presumptuous to make such statements, since there so little factual info on these boats on the net; unless of course people with 'other' sources of info share their knowledge


It's not presumptuous, Global security made that estimate based on open sources from ONI and others. Their last SSN, the Han class, was a POS. You think the Chinese Navy could make a leap from building 1950s/1960s technology subs to something as advanced as an Akula II with nothing in between ? I doubt it. Nuclear subs are some of the most complex pieces of machinery on the planet. Going from the Han to Victor III level of capability is a major step for them.


Originally posted by deltaboy
Yeah that John Walker spy incident pretty much put the Russians almost on par with Americans. The scythe like blade or screw pretty much helped the Russians along with other quieting technolgies, particulary the nuclear reactor and pumps to circulate the water.


Walker compromised many crypto systems, allowing the Soviets to decode a lot of high level military comms. I'm not sure exactly what submarine engineering secrets he sold them. But you can thank Toshiba corporation for revealing the proprietary method for manufacturing bronze alloy submarine screws, thus rendering most of the oldest SOSUS arrays impotent against the latest (at the time of around the mid 1980s) Soviet subs.


[edit on 1-8-2008 by Schaden]



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Schaden
 



But you can thank Toshiba corporation for revealing the proprietary method for manufacturing bronze alloy submarine screws, thus rendering most of the oldest SOSUS arrays impotent against the latest (at the time of around the mid 1980s) Soviet subs.


Yeah...I remember that too. When told of it at work I was astonished. It had to do with Toshiba Corporation selling the Russians a specialized milling machine used with certain programs to cut this type of wheel/screw.
We were all like " What the H....!!"

The US State Department did the same kind of stupidity in the late 1960s with a specialized ball bearing grinding machine to cut precision miinature ball bearings for inertial navigation gyros.systems...made by Bryant Chuck and Grinder company in Springfield, New Hampshire. They declared them "Non Strategic Equipment" and authorized the sale of 125 of these machines to the Soviets. This allowed the Soviets to miniaturize thier inetrial navigation gyroscopes in their missle warheads and procuce miniature individual sets for Multiple Independent Re Entry Vehicles. MIRVs in their ICBM missles.
Very smart move on the part of the US State Department. Makes one wonder for whom the State department actually works ...same with Toshiba.

You can find this type of information in

National Suicide...Millitary Aid to the Soviet Union By Anthony Sutton.

Seems like we are still in the buisness of arming and building our enemys...only later to be fighting them with arms invented and developed by ourselves.

Orangetom



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden


It's not presumptuous, Global security made that estimate based on open sources from ONI and others. Their last SSN, the Han class, was a POS. You think the Chinese Navy could make a leap from building 1950s/1960s technology subs to something as advanced as an Akula II with nothing in between ? I doubt it. Nuclear subs are some of the most complex pieces of machinery on the planet. Going from the Han to Victor III level of capability is a major step for them.



Major steps are irrelevant unless they bear true operational fruit. If not, they can be glorified as technology demonstrators and discarded without any operational relevance.

I think many things, but one thing I've figured is when it comes to sensitive military equipment, they amount of farce on the net is quite large. Reasons range from armchair enthusiasts/patriots to intentional layered deception.
And I honestly believe that this phenomenon takes the cake when it comes to submarines, especially nuclear vessels.

Also, just because the previous operational version of a class exudes 50s-60s vintage does not automatically mean that the successor will not be better than.. say an 80s version. That is the essence of bridging the technology gap, which China has become quite adept at.
Also, I'm sure that the global security experts use more than mere chronological extrapolation to determine capabilities of future classes of military vessels; however what they publish and what they withhold is altogether a different matter.

Just to point out examples of perceivable technological leaps in the Chinese scheme of things:

1) J-10 and associated technologies (weapons suites, avionics, radar, flight envelope) and the last indigenous version can be tagged as the J-8(or JF-17). Note this was developed under severe technological sanctions.

2) Something more closer to home : Yuan class SSKs (hull design, noise reduction/cancellation techniques, AIP possibly). This the next step after teh Ming and Song class vessels, which are truely of 1970s vintage, and again under sanctions post 1989.

Now I'm not saying that the Shang class is superior to the Akula II or anything else. All I'm saying is that they operationalized it in an environment in which it needs to hold its own, ans so I'm sure they've done their homework. And far as how much of this homework has been done to bridge the tech gap; only few bodies can answer that question besides the Chinese themselves: The JMSDF and USN PACCOM ASW depts to name a few..



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
That Submarine is defintely located in Russia not India


you mean that picture was taken in Russia and not India.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by oxillini
The improvements to Akula II are allegedly based largely upon information the Soviets and Russians obtained from Robert Hanssen.

Note that India is actually leasing, not purchasing 2 of these from Russia.


Again, for all practical purposes, this lease, is a purchase.
Currently the lease duration stands for 7 years, with options to extend or buy.

India's indigenous nuclear submarine program currently (even though reactor miniturazation progress has jumped leaps and bound in the last 5 years) will not be produce vessels in quantity and quality to fulfill the strategic needs of the IN in next decade (5 SSNs is the apparent requirement).
Thus IMHO these akula(s?) will be eventually absorbed into the IN(serve in the IN for 10-20 years).

Also it is interesting to note that the first nuclear leased sub that the IN operated (INS Chakra again) between 1988-91 was only returned to the then newly formed Russian federation due to immense American pressure on the l Gorbachev govt. The situation is considerably different now.

Finally due to MCTR restrictions, the Indian leased version will not operate missiles with ranges greater than 300km.

Though a tad outdated; this give a good summary of events:
www.wmdinsights.com...

[edit on 2-8-2008 by Daedalus3]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 



I see your point about uncertainty, but there is nothing we have to conclude Global Security's estimate was presumptuous. I believe their equation to a Victor III is a sound estimate based off information available in the public domain to expert military analysts. We don't need classified tonal information or under hull shots to make an informed guess about its capabilities.

The J-10 is an impressive piece of homegrown Chinese aerospace technology. But the unique industrial/engineering requirements are not comparable IMO. Simply put, it's a lot harder to design and build a nuclear submarine than a jet fighter.

Your comment about "operationalized it in an environment in which it needs to hold its own" doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying they wouldn't have built it if it was that far behind state of the art SSN tech? Why did they bother with the Han or Xia ? The USS Nautilus could sink those junkers.


I find it highly dubious the Chinese went from a Han to anything in the realm of an Akula II or even Los Angeles class boat. The engineering behind US submarine propulsion plant, noise quieting, sonar and combat system technology took decades and tens of billions of dollars to evolve.

Even with an unlimited budget, I don't think it's possible they could make such a huge leap from one generation of submarine to the next. If employed properly, a submarine with the noise signature and capabilities of a Victor III can still be deadly against a surface Navy. I don't believe Global Security, nor I, have downplayed the Shang's ability.


[edit on 2-8-2008 by Schaden]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden

Are you saying they wouldn't have built it if it was that far behind state of the art SSN tech? Why did they bother with the Han or Xia ? The USS Nautilus could sink those junkers.




Quite.. there's no point building a vessel that cannot compare to its competitors. It does not have to be an exact match nor does it have to be overwhelmingly superior (everyone doesn't have the luxury employed by the American military design board).
The Han and Xia were technological stepping stones, the first of the nuclear kind for the Chinese.
You comment about the Nautilus just proves what you're trying to downplay and not.
The Chinese do not have nuclear submarine experience that began yesterday.

Let me turn this around a bit and ask you another question:
How would you rate the Seawolf/Virginia/LA class boats against the Barracuda and Astute class vessels?



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 04:45 AM
link   
heres one for everyone:

what will happen to the unfinished K-329 Belgorod? as she stands - russia don`t want her - so india could be in a ripe position to get themselves an SSGN for bargain price.

oranage - i have seen that the akula`s have 2 retractable `crawl speed` fullly electric propulsors - now these can be used for ultra silent running - or could possibly be maneuvering

but why fit them for anything other that silent running at crawl rate?



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
there's no point building a vessel that cannot compare to its competitors.


With regards to China, I don't follow that reasoning. Mao asked Russia for help building nuclear subs and was denied. He vowed they'd get them even if it took 10,000 years. We're talking about a communist totalitarian state. They wanted a nuclear submarine for "bragging rights" no matter how crappy they were. Look at us, we can make them too, we have "arrived".

The fact they'd get creamed in a sub on sub encounter vs a foreign Navy doesn't mean they're useless. No matter how bad, they'd have some military value.
Say a war broke out with Japan, they'd be useful against merchant shipping.

Same goes for the Shang. Just because it's outclassed against the US/UK sub fleet, or even an Indian operated Akula II, doesn't mean it's not worth building.


Originally posted by Daedalus3
The Han and Xia were technological stepping stones, the first of the nuclear kind for the Chinese.
You comment about the Nautilus just proves what you're trying to downplay and not.
The Chinese do not have nuclear submarine experience that began yesterday.



The Han and Xia class subs were utter failures. High radiation, barely seaworthy, noisey as hell. I doubt they ever stayed at sea longer than a month at a time. Being so unreliable negates one of the major advantages to nuclear propulsion: endurance.

Seriously, the Nautilus's 1950s era sonar and weapons systems are most likely outclassed. But I would not be surprised if it was quieter and harder to track than the first Chinese subs. The Han might sink itself, or break down and need to surface and return to port, at which point it's a sitting duck.

I know the Nautilus was capable of reaching the East China Sea, after all it went to the North Pole, and other American nuke subs of the era like USS Triton circumnavigated the globe submerged. But I'm not sure a Han SSN would make it across the Pacific to California and back.



Originally posted by Daedalus3Let me turn this around a bit and ask you another question:
How would you rate the Seawolf/Virginia/LA class boats against the Barracuda and Astute class vessels?


In terms of what ? I think the Astute class will be a great asset. Overall I'd say it will definitely exceed all the LA boats' capabilities. Its sonar and weapons systems are probably just as good as Seawolf or Virginia class. A lot of the same contractors supply both Navies.

Barracuda I don't know much about other than it is smaller and probably not designed with the same mission flexibility as an American/British SSN. In terms of silence and combat sensors, it's got to be at least as good as the last of the 688s, probably better. How close it comes to Seawolf or Virginia I don't know.


Originally posted by Harlequin
i have seen that the akula`s have 2 retractable `crawl speed` fullly electric propulsors - now these can be used for ultra silent running - or could possibly be maneuvering

but why fit them for anything other that silent running at crawl rate?


I'd guess they're for maneuvering. Not submerged operations, but for moving to and away from a pier.



[edit on 2-8-2008 by Schaden]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
The US State Department did the same kind of stupidity in the late 1960s with a specialized ball bearing grinding machine to cut precision miinature ball bearings for inertial navigation gyros.systems...made by Bryant Chuck and Grinder company in Springfield, New Hampshire. They declared them "Non Strategic Equipment" and authorized the sale of 125 of these machines to the Soviets. This allowed the Soviets to miniaturize thier inetrial navigation gyroscopes in their missle warheads and procuce miniature individual sets for Multiple Independent Re Entry Vehicles. MIRVs in their ICBM missles.
Very smart move on the part of the US State Department. Makes one wonder for whom the State department actually works ...same with Toshiba.

You can find this type of information in

National Suicide...Millitary Aid to the Soviet Union By Anthony Sutton.

Seems like we are still in the buisness of arming and building our enemys...only later to be fighting them with arms invented and developed by ourselves.

Orangetom


Amazing story. I hadn't heard that one. I don't think we've learned our lesson. Remember Clinton authorizing the sale of secret satellite technology?
Anything to make a buck right ?





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join