en.rian.ru...

reply to post by CTPAX

---

I spent namy hours in study of Russia's nuclear sub fleet. when public access was granted of one of their secret northern bases I was appalled at the inability of the methods of maintanance and true capabilities of their subs. I watched a film of them in the process of handling weapons and total lack of concern with what they were doing. Just like their fleet of aircraft that rolled out, junk.. their subs fall in the same catigory. sure they pose a sugnificant threat if you can keep them afloat. Their big and I know we can follow them witout much difficulty. Their not as evident as an elephant bleeding profusly in the snow, but not far off. I doubt India using one will not be much of a threat. The threat does lie with who they put on the triggers. It's been a while for me but I have the greayest confidence in our abilities to keep them in our cross hairs.

Thanks for the post. Do you have any more sites for info on the Akula II sub and how the sea trials went?

On the outside, THAT is an absolutely slick-looking piece of machinery! I've always loved Russian military equipment. The MiG-25, Typhoon submarines, T-72 tank Su-25, Mi-24 Hinds, Mi-28 Havoc helicopters; tough looking, robust war horses (but not up to spec. when compared to American counterparts). I tend to agree with Anonymous, but you need to remember. The Russians do things differently and don't care if its "fancy".

This sub reminds me of an Alfa class on steroids! In fact, it looks sleeker. Any word on the maximum underwater speed?

The way the world's economy is going, I doubt they'll build too many. I was appalled to learn that they don't even have Typhoons in the water any more!

Flagged and Starred, OP!

[edit on 28-10-2008 by CreeWolf]

reply to post by Anonymous ATS

---

To think that some people post such drivel under specific nicks; at least some have the self respec to stay truly anonymous when they take indefensible positions. When you ( as a weapons inspector in the Bush/Clinton era) wish to do more than to share your opinion i would be most interest to look at your sources given how the USN still fails (today) to consistently track 1960's era nuclear submarines.

Stellar

And they said the cold war was over....

If it was i think i see snow comin!!!!

reply to post by StellarX

---

The most effective way to track a submarine is another submarine but I don't believe a boat from any Navy could consistently track another boat - especially a diesel one.
Passive sonar - no good unless at close range.
Active sonar - never used apart from a last ditch, pre-attack ranging solution.
Tonal tracking - the only way to successfully track another boat nowadays but a quick change of course and a reactor shift by the target and your solutions toast.

Aircraft are only effective if you have a recent datum of the last known position of the boat and anyone ever having been involved in a Naval ASW exercise know that the submarine always has to give a telltale sign of its whereabouts before endex just to give the surface fleet some form of reward for their fruitless effort.

So to sum up - it's not the USN's or any other navy's fault for their finding it hard to locate or track an enemy submarine - its just that submarines were designed to be quiet and untrackable - and they are.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by vonspurter]

[edit on 28-10-2008 by vonspurter]

The most effective way to track a submarine is from a submerged listening post be that a submarine, Sonobuoy or surface ship deployed array with similar function. As to tracking diesel's it's as i understand just very much harder in coastal conditions where these types will normally be operated.



You can use active sonar if you have multiple platforms that can exchange targeting information but as you said this normally exposes at least the active platform.



I thought tonal 'tracking' was just a mean by which to best interpret sonar data to identify specific platforms or even specific boats...



If all your ASW frigates/'multipurpose' destroyers deploy multiple ASW helicopters you can obviously make torpedo or short range cruise missile attacks a very dangerous affair hence the Soviet reliance on long range cruise missiles fired from both submarines and cruise missile submarines. As your indicate the USN have long shown itself to be quite vulnerable to the submarine threat resulting on a massive reliance in crisis times ( Cuban missile crisis, Korea, Gulf war) on NATO ASW assets ( Dutch,Canadian, United Kingdom) which where not only sometimes more numerous but apparently better equipped and employed as well. Why the USN refused to concentrate on properly protecting itself from the several hundred Soviet submarines deployed by the mid 80's is obviously any one's guess. As for mine countermeasure ships things are far worse and the source of the great majority of USN ship losses since the second world war. So much for basics.



I wouldn't go quite so far as the ASW assets of other NATO members have in various exercises and crisis times demonstrated higher readiness and operational capabilities in part illustrating that the threat could have been substantially reduced.

Either way in my lay opinion you are correct in suggesting that undersea combat and tracking is in fact far from simplistic and that superior quiting in NATO assets may not have contributed much considering just how hard it is to find each other in the first place. If you have anything to add or references you would like me to look at you can post here or send them by U2U

Thanks

Stellar

[edit on 29-10-2008 by StellarX]

Partially agree - the SOSUS network on the Greenland Iceland UK Gap is very effective, however a ship deployed array can only be just as effective if it forms a barrier where an enemy submarine is expected to transit - such as the entrance to the Gulf or Adriatic seas.




Tonal tracking is tracking a specific frequency which emanates from every nuclear reactor. Every reactor has a different frequency and by tracking the slight increase or decrease in this frequency it is possible to compile a solution - the problem being that an enemy submarines 'base frequency' is not known (ish) therefore it's very difficult to accomplish but can be used at great distances. A reactor shift is a trick a submarine can perform to alter its frequency - this throws a solution way out but this is only done if they suspect they are being tracked. Diesel submarines are harder to track not because they operate in shallow waters - they can operate there yes where nuclear boats can't but that's more to do with the water beneath the hull requirement for the latter. A submerged diesel boat uses batteries which are silent in operation as opposed to the many coolant pumps, compressors etc. in a nuclear boat. A diesel is nigh on impossible to pick up let alone track.

I was a submariner on UK SSN's and SSBN's. The USN are weak on ASW. They tend to concentrate more on above water warfare which is what they're grand role is I believe anyway - the UK's primary role is ASW so it's just as well we're good at it.

Some Info... from warfare.ru...
D. (tons): 7,900-9,100 tons Submerged
7,900-12,770 tons Submerged
Speed (kts): 20 knots surfaced
28-35 knots submerged
Dimensions (m): 108.0 meters long
111.7 meters long
13.5 meters beam
9.6 meters draft
M./Engine: 1 190 MW OK-650B pressurized water nuclear reactor
1 OK-7 steam turbine 43,000 shp
2 OK-2 Turbogenerators rated at 2,000kw
1 7 bladed propeller
Depth: 1,475 feet Maximum Safe Depth
1,804 feet Never-Exceed Depth
1,970-2,160 feet Crush depth
Endurance: 4,500 full power hours
80 days stores edurance
100 days stores edurance - Akula II
Man./Crew: 51-62 [25 officers / 26 enlisted]
63 [31 officers / 32 enlisted] - Akula II
Armament: Missile-torpedo weapons 4 x 650 mm tubes, 4 x 533 mm tubes Cruise missiles (SLCM) 12 Granat land attack missiles Anti-ship missiles and torpedoes torpedoes 28 Stallion and Starfish missiles, Mk 40 torpedoes Antisubmarine missile and torpedoes in a range of variants Air defence missiles Strela portable missile, 18 missiles
Equipment: Chiblis Surface Search Radar
Medvyedista-945 Navigation system
Molniya-M Satellite communications
MGK-80 Underwater communications
Tsunami, Kiparis, Anis, Sintez and Kora Communications antennas Paravan Towed VLF Antenna Vspletsk Combat direction system
Sonars
MGK-503-M Skat active/passive suite Akula flank arrays
Pelamida towed array MG-70 mine detection sonar
Countermeasures
Bukhta ESM/ECM 2 MG-74 Korund noise simulation decoys (torpedo-sized)
MT-70 Sonar intercept receiver
Nikhrom-M IFF

reply to post by CTPAX

---

CTPAX,

Interesting photos you have posted here.

When clicking on the link....warfare.ru... the fourth photo down from the top. The boat on land outside of the building. Do you notice anything unusual or strange about that photo?? Just curious here.

How about you vonspurter?? Having been on numerous boats..and most likely when at least one of them was drydocked...do you notice anything unusual about that particular photo??

Thanks,
Orangetom

Can't see anything unusual apart from it looks like a scale model when compared to the trees in the foreground! That is probably the perspective of the photograph but structurally it looks normal - why do you think it's strange?

As i understand arrays can and are deployed for regular ASW operations that does not require choke points. My earlier comment about submerged locators should have included a mention of the SOSUS network but since it's very common knowledge.....



As far as i am aware that is largely a engineering issues as proper specifications and engineering quality is going to ensure that the same model submarine produced at the same shipyard by the same people in the same year is going to sound the same for all practically purposes. Basically i can understand that basic direction and range finding might be accomplished by this means but that general acoustic noises are rather more noticeable for tracking and targetting. 'Tonal tracking' seems like a catch phrase that just isn't of much practical use which may explain the fact that i have never heard regularly information gathering being descriped as such



You will have to track a given submarine and be somehow able to not only record a massive volume of information but also be able to eventually transfer it in useable form to other ships....



Shades of James Bond.... If one suspects they are being tracked in peacetime the last thing you do is change your performance parameters so the enemy can record even more useful data.



Nuclear submarines can operate in exactly the same waters as Diesel last i checked the problem mainly being that they are worth three of four diesel boats and just more prone to detection from aircraft and other surface assets. In the same way you don't send aircraft carriers within artillery range you don't send nuclear submarines to do the job of a patrol ASW patrol boat worth a few million dollars.



I know.... That being said as far as i am aware all the attack submarines currently in US service can switch off their coolant pumps ( Or at least reduce their acticity to very low silent levels) if they are operating at typical stalking speeds. In coastal situations the larger size and displacement ( acoustic signature) of SSN's are in my knowledge a rather more significant danger than acoustic noise resulting from coolant pumps.



So it's supposedly said by those in the know when they are in the USN and have the guts to admit it.



Well the USSR concentrate on below water warfare so you can only wonder who the USN were inteding to fight. It makes as much sense of the UK to concentrate on ASW warfare as it does for the USN and it's striking that they would allow themselves to to become so reliant on allies...

They really don't seem to learn from anything but their own mistakes and then not very fast either.

Stellar

So every car that is made to the same specification with the same parts break down at the same time with the same problem because they were made to the same design?

Please don't argue the toss about tonal tracking as you clearly do not know what it is - ask a control room submariner.

Been there, seen it, wore several T Shirts. I have nothing to gain by arguing over sub technology - I know my stuff because for the first years of my Naval career I was a submariner - the second half I was an Air Traffic Control Officer which when deployed at sea meant I was in charge of the tactical control of ASW aircraft such as P3 Orions, Nimrod and numerous allied rotary wing.
So my knowledge of boats is that of having served in a tactical position on many, and also of being the actual sub hunter. Everything I have said is FACT. If you don't agree then you are mistaken.

End of chat. Have a nice day

I was under the impression nuke boats can run on batteries as well? They can already maintain a stationary position, even in the littorals, especially the Virginia class.

Von Spurt,

The problem I have with that photo of the submarine just outside the building on the concrete skid is that it is just that ...out of the water on a concrete skid.

There appear to be no facilities hooked up to it. There are no significant labor platforms..no obvious air or electrical hook ups...Air manifolds..temporary lights etc. Not even any temporary ventilation hook ups...tubes blowing ventilation. All these are things needed at a repair facility or a construction shipyard for building or maintaining a boat...or surface ship.

I also don't see any sea water hookups such as one would need for cooling of certain systems if one has had a reactor which has gone critical. Usually such a system would enter on one side of the boat and discharge on the other...is ..an auxiliary system. To my limited knowledge once you initially go critical in a reactor...you need people to maintain and monitor it 24/7. You don't slack on this.
Obviously this photo is in the spring or fall.

I don't see any cranes on that facility..but we don't actually see the whole length of the concrete pad on which the boat is sitting. Nor of course do we see the other side ...of the boat ..or hook ups on that side.
I don't see any cherry pickers..scissor lifts or even portable cranes..like a Grove or such. This boat appears to be in storage....in lay up..or perhaps a mock up...training mock up

Also the wheel is uncovered. This appears to be a small wheel for the size of this boat...causing me to ask what are the number of turns needed to get this boat really moving verses cavitation at a given depth. Or is this an actual wheel..used on an operational boat..or one just there for fit up.

West point....



Shhhhhhh!!!! Think quiet!! Not everyone is supposed to know this. Most peoples even here stateside are supposed to think the Hunt for Red October is all there is to know about boats.!!! Shhh...think quiet!!
Thank you!!!

Speaking of movies...though it is somewhat dated...in the technology given...The European made movie.. "Das Boot..The Boat" is one of the best submarine movies I have ever seen. Even the guys on the LA class boats back then agreed. I enjoyed this move far better than Red October...even better than Crimson Tide.

StellarX,

You will have to track a given submarine and be somehow able to not only record a massive volume of information but also be able to eventually transfer it in usable form to other ships....

Not a problem. Not an issue.

Shades of James Bond.... If one suspects they are being tracked in peacetime the last thing you do is change your performance parameters so the enemy can record even more useful data.

Peacetime???? What is that??? I don't think it occurs to people but when you are in a vessel in which the modus operandi is stealth...you are under war rules and methods when ever you submerge...hence..."Think Quiet." This is very different from a surface ship.
Somehow I don't think they are running around with empty torpedo tubes...unless of course certain maintenance is being done.

As to changing performance parameters...you do understand that the methods of the chameleon are very very effective?? Right up to the moment the chameleon decides to strike!!! That is all I am going to say about that.

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom

No, clearly not. The opinion i tried to get across is that i would be very surprised if the reactors of the same class of boats ( provided similar maintenance and operational standards) where so widely different that useful tracking data could be derived at distances that exceeded the acoustic signature. If in your experience/knowledge that isn't the case you could just say so...



I have met far too many pretentious folk ( people who 'know things' from 'personal experience' having learnt it ' in the army/navy/special forces) for me to respect judgements or opinions based solely on that. If you expect me to give you more respect than civil conversation demands it wont be accomplished by telling me how you supposedly gained your knowledge.

I apologise for the inconvenience of you not being recognized , in this instance, by your uniform and or bearing.



That experience should provide you with more than sufficient knowledge, maturity and good nature to 'educate me' without resorting to derision and insults. I mean i don't really mind that sort of thing if i become better informed by such discussions but i don't see how it helps you....



Possibly and even probably but to suggest that they are because your saying them is missing the point of this website and civil education discussion in general.



Well whatever you lack it's not in confidence and or presumed authority! Since i were in almost complete agreement beside for disagreeing about the utility of tonal 'tracking' ( identify in my lay knowledge) i don't see why you felt the need to fly off the handle.

Either way i appreciate the fact that you managed to keep your calm so long talking as you were with ignorant old me.....

Since i am boringly reliant on online information, no James Bond here, ( and books but hard to cite those in any specific fashion) this is what i basically intended with my disagreement.



Since i know that you do in fact want to say more ( now that i have prostrated myself sufficiently) i will be humbly waiting....

Stellar

Hi 'Tom'.



I didn't know if it was the case or not and since the USAF lacks much in the way of real time data linking i didn't expect the USN to do much better . Either way the commonality of US hunter subs ( once again possibly a bit presumptious) should allow this data to be relatively easily transfered back in port. Anything you can or will say is as always appreciated.



Not to be snippy but if that was the case there wouldn't be different levels of readiness in surface in submerged vessals. There is no way peak efficiency can or is maintained at all hours and at all times. Certainly one does not attempt to compromise security but i would like to insist that there is a fact quite a difference between peacetime operational standards and what is deemed acceptable in times of high tension or war.

Will you in peacetime compromise your data gathering capabilities to gain information that is clearly not critical for current survival? I hope that makes my original intent with that statement clearer...



Well i would expect that such munitions are best maintained outside of torpedo tubes and the wear and tear associated with man/machine handling these weapons between tubes and inspection workspaces. I don't want to suggest that this is world war two era weapons ( S-300 types are delivered as sealed units good for firing without inspection for many years) so you could probably enlighten me as to if or how many torpedoes/cruise missiles are kept in tubes during regular peacetime deployments.



Sure but if the primary method of detection is acoustic how much does it help if you can change your metabolic ( if you will) rate? Just wondering as while i have my suspicions that's not something i can advertise as remotely approaching fact.




Well i think i know what your getting at but the ambusher can destroy his cover very effectively when he tries to shift position and or mode of 'stealth' if you will. Change is something you notice just about faster than anything else ( Orange jumpsuit lying prone in gras as compared to orange jumpsuit running and or trying to look around by raising his head) when your working against background noise and if you feel that your ambush has been uncovered isn't it best to either attack or flee ( both of which would reveal your position) than to try to stay by changing what supposedly work to cover your presence in the first place?

So knowing that i am probably missing something i can but hope that you ( or your agreements) will allow you to correct or inform me.

Thanks.

Stellar

reply to post by orangetom1999

---

Well if you ask me.. I'd say that they messed up with the picture.. Don't think that 4th picture is 971 akula /ii class. It looks like earlier version maybe even a diesel sub...

My apologies, it seemed like common sense at the time. However I agree, Hunt for Red October was quite amusing.