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's new nuclear attack submarine starts sea trials

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   
I just wanna say that I don't know much about Putin or Russia. But, I just thought I'd comment on a strange dream that I had last week.

The setting took place at night when I saw giant nuclear mushroom clouds spawning in the distance from both directions, almost like it was black and white straight out of an old training video. All I could remember was trying to fiddle around with a camera so I could take pictures of what I was seeing and at the same time, the name "Putin" kept ringing in my ears. Also, I remember seeing the Eiffel tower explode in a fiery ball too.

Really wanted to let that out as I'd probably keep forgetting. This was the strangest dream I had in a long time and I've had quite a few of those!




posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow
I definitely agree with the statements about mistakes/equipment failures happening in every navy, lets not forget the loss of the USS Thresher in 1963. I just hope the Russians learn from their mistakes the way the U.S. Navy did with the creation of the Subsafe program and intensive quality assurance.


That incident was over 20 years ago. It's the only "close call" of an American sub since Scorpion and Thresher that I'm aware of. Any sub is susceptible to accidents, but I trust the design and material condition of US and Western European nuclear submarines over Russian and Chinese boats.

They've improved ten fold, but an RC division chief once told me some old Soviet SSNs had a primary coolant loop routed through the crew's mess.



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by Shadow
I definitely agree with the statements about mistakes/equipment failures happening in every navy, lets not forget the loss of the USS Thresher in 1963. I just hope the Russians learn from their mistakes the way the U.S. Navy did with the creation of the Subsafe program and intensive quality assurance.


That incident was over 20 years ago. It's the only "close call" of an American sub since Scorpion and Thresher that I'm aware of. Any sub is susceptible to accidents, but I trust the design and material condition of US and Western European nuclear submarines over Russian and Chinese boats.

They've improved ten fold, but an RC division chief once told me some old Soviet SSNs had a primary coolant loop routed through the crew's mess.
If you punch up "U.S. Sub acciendts" on Yahoo/Google you'll be shocked how many U.S. sub accidents have happend over the last 40 years.



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by 121200
 



If you punch up "U.S. Sub accidents" on Yahoo/Google you'll be shocked how many U.S. sub accidents have happend over the last 40 years.


Not me. I know something about the turnover rates for people..also how the boats are built. A little about operations. I have also seen several boats come in for repairs or to be scrapped/decommissioned.

Keep in mind also the type of environment in which these boats are operating...have been operating for over 40 years. It is not surprising to me at all...about accidents ...considering the nature of the work and the environment in which they must operate. What surprises me is that there are not more accidents.

Schaden,


They've improved ten fold, but an RC division chief once told me some old Soviet SSNs had a primary coolant loop routed through the crew's mess.


Not bright..not bright at all. They must have been unsuccessfully trying to design 75 feet of primary coolant piping into 5 feet of compartment space.

I've heard the stories about the Russians early reactor designs too. About why their radiation/contamination counts were so much higher than were ours.

I also know that the USS Nautilus was a prototype boat. A real nightmare to keep running in certain areas...nuclear and non nuclear. A Lot of these design problems were solved/improved on later boats. Quantum leaps in design and technology were to come out of the failures and lessons learned on the USS Nautilus and later boats. The learning curve continues unto this very day.

Fair winds sailor,

Orangetom



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 121200If you punch up "U.S. Sub acciendts" on Yahoo/Google you'll be shocked how many U.S. sub accidents have happend over the last 40 years.


I think you must be referring to accidental collisions. My point was the safety, design and material condition of US and Western submarines is superior. Aside from Houston, which I mentioned, there have not been any serious reactor accidents, flooding, or torpedo explosions caused by material or design deficiencies, that cost or almost cost a nuclear powered boat, to my knowledge, since the 1960s.

While the Russians just lost 20 people in this accident, they lost an Oscar II only a few years ago, and there were a couple more major accidents in the not so distant past, K-219, K-278 etc.. The Chinese lost an entire boat and its crew back around 2002-2003.

Now a US sailor was just killed on USS Nebraska a few months ago, but it was not the fault of the sub's design or material condition. Same goes with USS San Francisco, bad navigation practice led to it hitting an uncharted sea mount, tragically ending someone's life.

Since the Thresher and Scorpion incidents, there have been some fires/flooding on diesel boats like Bonefish and Dolphin, but for overall safety and accidents, I'd trust a western nuclear sub over a Russian/Chinese boat.



[edit on 28-11-2008 by Schaden]



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   

The deaths of 20 people on board the Russian nuclear submarine the Nerpa were caused by a crew member entering the wrong data into a temperature sensor, the Kommersant paper said on Monday.


en.rian.ru...


However, former Navy officers have told the paper they doubt that Grobov was solely to blame as it is impossible for one person to activate the system, which is protected from unauthorized activation by multiple levels of confirmation.


Sounds like they are trying to lay all the blame on one guy, when in reality, the shipyard probably screwed up the installation/construction of the fire system



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I don't know the maximum speed of the latest Russian submarine, but the Alpha was reputed to be capable of 60 knots. But thats nothing. Navel Intelligence discovered in the the 1980's a Russian torpedo design called "Skua" or Squal. It was rocket powered. No I'm not kidding. A probe was projected from the nose to generate an air bubble threw supercavitaion. The torpedo was then moving through the air, at several hundred miles an hour. It was no surprise very loud. Then again a target sub could never get out of way.



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Skval was came out in 1995 not the 80's

[edit on 28-11-2008 by 121200]



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by 121200
Skval was came out in 1995 not the 80's

[edit on 28-11-2008 by 121200]


The device was known to Naval Intelligence by rhe end of the 1980's, but I don't know when it went into service.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I've heard that the navies of the world or at least the us navy have enato ways to travel deceptively fast around the world if they need to. but I'm assuming other top notch navies utilize tech that can make the boats and ships go much faster than they claim too.

I was talking to one sailor who was on an aircraft carrier. said he went to bed one night near new york state. woke up the next morning (a few hours later, maybe 12 max) in florida. didn't think a carrier could move that fast. I've also heard thats there are ways to reduce drag along the hull of a ship or boat to make the things go faster.

could be massive exaggerations but who knows.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   
BASSPLYR,

I dont find it exaggerated at all.

The basic hull design of an aircraft carrier below the waterline is the hull design of the USS United States..the ocean liner. Designed by William Francis Gibbs. A relatively clean hull design even when compared even to most ocean liners today.

The USS United States also had four shafts and four large wheels or propellors. Most ocean liners I have ever seen have only two.
The hull design of the USS United States is very clean below the waterline.

You can see the basics of it here in these photos from one of the USS United States sites. Notice the clean hull below he waterline. Also the four wheels. Officially this record has never been broken ...this ship still holds the records...Officially.

click on the various photos to get them to blow up for close views...especially below the waterline and notice how clean the hull desgn actually is.

www.ss-united-states.net...

Quite a achievement back then. Also remember that the USS United States...though carried in most of the public press as an ocean liner...was actually designed with rapid high volume troop transport in mind. She was a warship..a ship of the line. She could be quickly converted to wartime use. When I first began work here ..some of the olde timers getting ready to retire ..some of them went out on her for sea trials. They told me that when they opened her up on trial runs... she left every ship out there ...behind..even the Navy ships. Very clean hull and massive powerful engines.

I've done this kind of shafting work as shown in some of the photos ..and removed and installed these types of propellors in drydocks...hard hard work. Can be tricky and dangerous too.

Enjoy the photos,
Orangetom

[edit on 4-12-2008 by orangetom1999]



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 12:26 AM
link   
didn't know about the uss united states, thanks for bringing it up. checked out the link. that is a sleek hull. the rudder especially.

I'm guessing with modern navies that use clean hull designs like that can ge their boats to go even faster than the uss united states. God knows how much power those engines can have delivered to them and how many improvements over the decades there could be to the engines themselves. I guessing way more efficient and powerful engines. Tons more power in terms of fuel/power source -nuclear reactors n all. ANd since I haven't got a clue maybe some sort of transmission or gears to turn the screws even faster than the the engine normally could. all speculation.

Maybe they even have a way to reduce drag by other means than just the hull design and use an additional power source for that and other systems. it would make sense to me but then again I am speculating and I really don't know crap about these sort of things.

thanks for the links again orangetom!



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by BASSPLYR
 


BASSPLYR,

Yes...hull design is just as important as the choice of power plant used for turning the screws. Hull design follows and extends to the purpose of the design of any boat or ship.

Want to see another clean hull design blended to functionality. Check out the USS Cole in these photos as she is being piggybacked back to the USA for repairs down at Pascagoula, Mississippi.

www.cargolaw.com...

The Photos of her on the back of this transport ship. What they don't show you much of is the wheels. They are quite oversized for this type of ship and also the wheels are variable pitch propellers. This means that for a given number of turns they can adjust the efficiency of the propellers. This is also a gas turbine powered ship. Burns JP5 fuel ...just like an F14 or F18 aircraft.
What you don't see clearly in these photos is that they had to cut holes in the deck of this transport for the propellers to clear as they are so oversized/large for this type of ship. This type of ship with this clean hull design can flat move out when needed. Not much for Miles Per Gallon so to speak but she will move out. They are designed to keep up with the carriers.
You can tell she is sitting low to the deck of the transport because the bow with the oversized sonar dome is sitting at an angle. The dome is actually below the deck level. This is to lower the center of gravity of the whole ship in case of rough seas. Good idea if at all possible.
Ferrying this ship back to the USA like this must have cost a bundle..and then some.

None the less...you can see what clean hull design can do.

I don't find the nuclear submarine hull design by the OP all that clean when compared to this FFG or the United States...or even a 688 boat.. To move out she must have a grossly overpowered reactor and also turbine/reduction gear set up.

Just my opinion...but one cannot be absolutely sure unless one goes aboard. Also the wheel in the photograph is not that large. Hence I asked if it was the wheel intended for underway operations.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Those wheels are pretty big for the boat. I dig it. that thing can probably haul hiney when it needs to, sure looks like it can.

THe damage done to the ship is actually pretty impressive. Much bigger than it looked in the news. the damage below the water line was much more extensive than I thought. Says great things about the toughness of that ship though, the people who designed it, the people who built and maintained her, and the sailors on the scene that helped keep her afloat. she can certainly take a heavy hit and keep on ticking.

The hull and keel and her is pretty darned sexy IMHO. very fast, streamlined and sleek.



posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
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



Many variables determine that. The fact is they don't struggle to track 60s era subs or any other sub for that matter. Once they have the tonals on record, it's just a matter of being in the right position. They can tell you the name of the sub and its Captain (I jest) by listening to the individual props. EVERY single one gives a different sound.

[edit on 13-12-2008 by IntelCane]



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   
I argue that modern US and UK boats can pretty much hear anything in the ocean period if they want to.

I bet they have ways of using active sonar almost constantly if they wanted and still never be heard. And I bet their sonar can easily see just about anything that's underwater in the ocean.

I'm speculating that when subs do hit uncharted undersea mounts that they weren't using their certain sonar/sensor systems at full usage at the time.

Tracking soviet/russian subs is probably not too difficult. stalking them consitantly is probably where the hard work is.



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
I argue that modern US and UK boats can pretty much hear anything in the ocean period if they want to.

I bet they have ways of using active sonar almost constantly if they wanted and still never be heard. And I bet their sonar can easily see just about anything that's underwater in the ocean.

I'm speculating that when subs do hit uncharted undersea mounts that they weren't using their certain sonar/sensor systems at full usage at the time.

Tracking soviet/russian subs is probably not too difficult. stalking them consitantly is probably where the hard work is.
Things have changed Rus subs have sunk C.B.G. Numerous times in training exersices, that goes to show how quiet they are.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
I've also heard thats there are ways to reduce drag along the hull of a ship or boat to make the things go faster.



Liquid polymer or microbubble injection into the boundary layer will both reduce the drag on a ship. polymer injection in particular has been studied since the 60's put has never been put into commercial or military use. The US was looking to put a bubble injection system onto a small boat to test it sometime soon, but have not heard anything recently (There was a presentation on the topic at the last seawater drag reduction conference in Busan, 2005). Other techniques to look out for are advanced low drag coatings (using similar techniques to that of the LZR swimsuits that are causing a big fuss in the swimming world), boundary layer manipulation is being studied too with either passive or active systems. This sort of technology is at the lab stage at the moment and has a number of significant problems before it is put aboard ships (things like the effect of biofouling). The ONR is heavily investing in it's future developement.

P.A.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
yeah I've been hearing rumors about active boundry layer manipulation, and that it requires some decent amount of electricity but is well worth it.



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by IntelCane
Many variables determine that. The fact is they don't struggle to track 60s era subs or any other sub for that matter.


Right, and the NSA can listen to your conversations no matter where you go. Who believes that everything tracks 1960 era submarines or is it just presumed that it's American subs infallible American technology at work?


Once they have the tonals on record, it's just a matter of being in the right position.


And by 'right position' i presume you mean a position from which you can track them. Did you intend to say something with this statement or is circular arguments/statements the best i can hope for here?


They can tell you the name of the sub and its Captain (I jest) by listening to the individual props. EVERY single one gives a different sound.


Yes, it's funny when this is believed by a ignorant public who thinks they are 'protected' by technology which can achieve all this. If these technologies are as reliable as IFF technologies in NATO and the US ground and air forces the Russians and Chinese don't have much to worry about.

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join