Project 677: Lada/Amur(export) class submarine

As much of a success as the Kilo was both in Soviet/Russian service and as an export product let's not exaggerate its capabilities in the current threat environment.

It is vastly better than any SSK the USN has....

It is still a capable class and it kept upgraded. If you read the article above about the Lada you would read about the various technologies they upgraded and replaced, and many of these new systems and technologies were put on Kilo upgrades too.

A Kilo now is not the same as a Kilo in the 1980s.

The Lada at least is once again competitive. If you compare it specwise it is roughly analogous to the Spanish S-80 Plus submarine.

I am impressed you have expert knowledge on both types to the level where you can honestly compare...

Looking forward to seeing an indepth comparison.

Which is a much more recent design.

Albania is making a new submarine, does that become the worlds best because it is the most recent?

But these submarines still need more modern battery storage and perhaps AIP to be more competitive in the export market.

The problem with AIP is not the batteries, it is the lack of power the AIP systems generate... whether they are Stirling engines or hydrogen fuel cells, they have to generate enough power to operate all the systems on the sub so it is fully operational while charging the batteries and it seems that is not the case... they charge the batteries much slower than diesel engines do and while they are charging over that extended time the sub is submerged but is otherwise bloody useless.

Which is why the next Japanese sub after their amazing revolutionary first in the world AIP powered decent sub got rid of the AIP equipment and replaces it all with extra Lithium Ion batteries.

I wouldn't say AIP is useless for Russia either. Imagine if you could move submarines at will by transiting between the Northern and Pacific fleets under the ice at any time of the year. Wouldn't that have some military value?

Perhaps you have not been reading all the threads, but in some threads they mention sea bed based equipment with power generation capacity with a nuclear energy source. Having those dotted along the arctic would allow Russian SSKs to dock and recharge silently on the sea floor probably very very quickly without needing to surface. The potential for a nuclear powered charging sub that could rendezvous with an SSK to charge that up is not crazy either... one charging sub operating with a dozen SSKs anywhere on the planet would be interesting.

But for coastal self protection roles Russian SSKs wont need to spend a month submerged at a time, that is simply not necessary... and if it was needed they have plenty of SSGNs to perform that role if they did.

In terms of hull design the Lada is also behind the German subs. I mean just look at them. The Germans use composites in the upper structure for example. Which means they should be way less radar visible when surfaced.

Umm... what are you talking about?

Lada class subs would snorkel to recharge its batteries... why would it surface fully? Divers can get in and out through the torpedo tubes... standard practise on an SSK... the only time you would surface would be to launch or recover an inflatable boat with divers on it, but Russia has its own specific subs for that sort of game...

Just looking at them didn't help them much in being non-operational for years.
There was a moment in 2018 when NONE (ZERO) of Bundesmarine 212As was operational.
NONE.

It makes sense though... when was the last lynch mob attack by the west based around SSKs?

The US has their own subs for that sort of thing so sending SSKs would most likely get in the way of their latest crusade to steal ... oops... liberate oil from countries that don't deserve it.

So with regard to reliability they will just stick with 636 to pump numbers, and then gradually introduce Lada

It think the fundamental fact is that the improved kilos are in serial production, so if you say Lada is now the new sub and all sub making facilities will now make ladas and nothing else once orders have been completed for older types then you are going to get a huge gap because all those dockyards that made Kilos in serial production are going to have to learn to make ladas which will be different and until they have made one it wont be serial production for them so surprises and problems can occur... of course once they have all made a lada or two it should not be a problem to make them at the rate of the Kilos as long as the subcontractors for all the new systems and components can keep up.

The Germans found in WWII when you cancel the tank in mass production and you switch to a new tank then there is a gap when you get no tanks at all while production of the new tank gets going and a newer bigger more expensive tank was never going to be built at the same rate as the smaller lighter tank it replaced... though in this case the new sub is lighter but not cheaper.

Just because the German government doesn't bother to pay for parts and maintenance doesn't mean the submarines aren't good.

I understand what you are trying to say but a poorly supported submarine is no good operationally... it is ironic that they spent the money on them that they did to get that capability but in trying to save money by not fully supporting them and keeping them operational and at a good performance level they are essentially pissing away all the money that was spent to design and build the damn things in the first place.

The entire programme has been wasted because of cost cutting... because really Germany never really needed Submarines anyway.

I suspect the same will happen with Australias new SSNs in 20 years time if they ever actually make any... it is all really a smoke screen to get US SSN bases in Australia... for which the Aussie taxpayer is paying ten times more than they were going to be paying for the French subs... which, if anything, could at least patrol Australian waters looking for Chinese and Russian subs. Their SSNs will most likely be ordered by the US to operate around China to put pressure on them for this or that very good reason, which will actually result in China sending subs to operate near Australia in response... which America and the UK and Aussie governments will claim is all the proof they needed that they had to buy those SSNs in the first place.

Europe wants to have an additional 600 F-35s. Adding the EF and older F 16 is a staggering number on paper. I wonder what percentage of this will be suitable for warfare?

At something like 80K pounds stirling per flight hour to operate, I would say buy as many as you can't afford... borrow money to get more than you want... the operational costs will ground the aircraft, which means pilots and ground crew wont get the hours on the aircraft to keep their accreditation and they really will be grounded.

No one has mentioned that both British Aircraft carriers are stuck in port with problems and are unable to join HATO exercises that are the biggest since the 1980s we are told...

None of it matters if they don't even bother having a proper parts stockpile. Or ordering new parts. The idea of zero stocks and supply on demand is just pure cancer.

Consistent though isn't it? Don't renew all those ten year gas supply contracts and just buy on the spot price market... what idiot thought of that?

The amazing supply system that was supposed to be developed for the F-35 to share spare parts and support across the users and the parts makers was cancelled as being too complex to work... the system that was going to make support simpler and easier and CHEAPER... no wonder they cancelled it.

GarryB wrote:Consistent though isn't it? Don't renew all those ten year gas supply contracts and just buy on the spot price market... what idiot thought of that?

Lobbyists funded by privately-owned energy trading groups...

US & EU have the very best regulatory systems that money can buy

A correction:Type 212 submarines were NOT for export.
Type 214 was developed for export instead as the 212A has requirements peculiar to Germany (X shaped rudders) and Italy (their own constructive standards , way higher than the NATO ones) that made them too expensive for foreign markets.
New version 212CD for Germany and Norway would be a completely different, much larger submarine (Italy ordered others Type 212A instead).

submarine to fire the cruise missiles while submerged accurately. But the hull and electronics are still mostly obsolete. It is a 1970s design.

Obsolete in what context. We look at how powerful HATO is on land, how amazing are they at sea?

I would not make such jokes about the Spanish shipbuilding industry.

What I said had nothing to do with the Spanish shipbuilding industry, and everything to do with someone mistaking terms advanced and obsolete and effective with recent.

They are pretty capable at making surface ships and have exported more than a few to Australia, Norway, Turkey, etc. They had issues with their submarine program, but Spain was actually one the original pioneers in sub design. Before they built the S-80 Plus they used to build the Agosta with the French. The S-80 Plus was kind of a disaster initially, as the first submarine designed by themselves recently, and they had to get help from the US to fix mistakes in the design. But what else is new.

In Albania they have had sticks and stones for millions of years... their technology level in most things is amazing. Their most recent attempts at gas cookers was a bit problematic but recent imports from Ukraine showed them how to do it right and they never looked back.

I have nothing against Spain, what do you have against Albania?

The Japanese initially used Stirling Engine AIP. Based on an engine licensed from Sweden I think. The Chinese also supposedly use this engine in their Type 039 subs. The main issue is the engines are kind of bulky and take up a lot of internal space. You also have to maintain them. The Japanese basically decided it was more cost effective to use lithium-ion batteries in their use case. I am not a big fan of Stirling Engine AIP either.

They also said it lacked the power for the sub to actually be useful and charge the batteries at the same time and it took much longer to charge the batteries than diesels running in snorkel mode. Diesels will charge the batteries fully in 4 to 6 hours depending on the sub and the batteries and the diesels... and it seems the AIP the Japanese were using took much much longer... 5-6 times longer, during which the sub was not able to operate normally or the charging time took even longer.

It meant the AIP sub could remain submerged but was essentially useless for a day or so while charging, so they replaced all the AIP stuff with more batteries.

An AIP might remain submerged for its entire mission but every week and a half it was useless for a couple of days while it recharged its batteries, so for a month long voyage of operation it might be useless for three days 1 and 1/2 weeks apart. Compared with that, new Lithium Ion batteries allowed 2-3 weeks without charging so 4-6 hours maybe twice in a month the sub was snorkeling and the rest of the time submerged and quiet.

As for the Lada being a new design, they already basically built two of them, and another two are under construction. Production might be slower initially than for the Kilo, but there is no point in further delaying its full serial production I think. It is not like they started building these yesterday.

As per the article above they took all the technology they normally put in SSKs and upgraded it... the Sonar was massively upgraded from what is normally fitted to a SSK and its ability to be quiet is markedly increased.

It is not an accident that the US Navy now trains with active sonar pings to hunt for subs now.... they used to boast how amazing their sonar was and how loud the Soviet subs were... not any longer.

Wow. In the video with autotranslate it said with power savings they have doubled the range of the lada. Impressive. If this is the case I can see why Russians dispensed with AIP.

A move to improved batteries will help performance too.

AIP gives a huge advantage to SSK but when you have nuclear subs you don't want to invest in expensive AIP tech.

I can't say I agree.

If the AIP is so underpowered that it takes 20 plus hours to fully recharge the batteries while operating life support systems and only creeping around at minimal speeds and unable to operate all the electronics on the sub then it allows the sub to remain submerged for longer but creates periods where the sub is actually largely ineffectual.

In comparison, being able to move to protected areas and going to snorkel depth and charging the batteries in 3-4 hours... while admittedly making noise seems rather more useful.

Remember SSKs are normally used in friendly home waters so an SSK could come alongside a ship with its engines running and raise its snorkel on one side of the hull of the ship or the other an run its diesel engines and charge its batteries... the engine noise and diesel fumes and smoke will be disguised by the ship it is sitting next to that also has its diesel engines running and making noise with neither vessel moving.

Sub captains are not idiots... it might even come close to the surface between two ships sitting close together with the snorkel between them...

With extra batteries of new types that are smaller and lighter and hold more charge it might only need to recharge once per mission... it would start the mission fully charged and then operate for two weeks and then charge again and then operate for another two weeks and then its one month operational voyage is over and return to base for a break while another sub takes your place.

Perhaps running the AIP while using the batteries to boost running speed or sonar power etc might be useful...

Isos wrote:AIP gives a huge advantage to SSK but when you have nuclear subs you don't want to invest in expensive AIP tech.

AIP subs with conventional power are quieter then Nuclear subs, and considering Russia likes to maintain a fleet of conventional powered subs, AIP tech makes sense for that purpose. On a Nuclear boat sure not so much

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Isos wrote:AIP gives a huge advantage to SSK but when you have nuclear subs you don't want to invest in expensive AIP tech.

AIP subs with conventional power are quieter then Nuclear subs, and considering Russia likes to maintain a fleet of conventional powered subs, AIP tech makes sense for that purpose. On a Nuclear boat sure not so much

Not so much for russian. For long deployement they have nuclear subs and for shorter border controls they have Kilos.

AIP subs are not needed for them.

If they can get a hydrogen fuel cell to run on diesel or other hydrocarbon fuels then that would be a way to boost performance and it would eliminate the huge hydrogen tanks needed for the fuel cell.

Fuel cells are relatively compact and using diesel engine fuel means it would be rather better and easier to operate in any port in the world that operates ships because their fuel infrastructure will already accommodate diesel fuelling.

The comments I have read about their fuel cell that can run on hydrocarbons is that it is rather more powerful than your average hydrogen fuel cells which would also make it rather more useful, but it is certainly taking a while.

Russia has nuke powered subs and diesel electrics... fuel cell subs is something a country with SSKs might want to make them more like a nuclear powered sub in terms of performance in staying underwater, whereas such systems would be meaningless to the US that does not operate non nuclear subs.

For Russia, which operates both it is interesting and could be an amazingly exotic technology... currently cars and buses and trains and all sorts of vehicles use hydrocarbons and the fuel networks are in place and operating normally, but burning hydrocarbons releases carbon into the atmosphere so we are trying to stop that.

This hydrocarbon powered AIP could be amazing because putting that in your car essentially turns your car into an electric car but nothing else changes... you keep getting fuel at the fuel station... but if does not matter at all why type of petrol or diesel you put in the tank.

The fuel is not burned so the carbon is not released into the air, it would be a solid carbon deposit that could either be flushed out or excreted.

Solid carbon... especially pure carbon is a valuable commodity that can be used to make carbon fibre or carbon nanotubes and many other products and every time you run your car you will be getting some more... possibly in the form of small cubes.

The point is that all those fuel stations everywhere so you don't run out of fuel remain useful and in case of a longer trip you can put fuel in containers and extend the range of your vehicle. You could put a small number of batteries in the vehicle for short trips if you want and charge them up while using the fuel cell to drive around, or perhaps listen to the radio or run the heater or lights without starting the fuel cell engine...

It is technically an engine because it uses a fuel, but with no combustion it is more like a battery, or maybe you could say it relies on a chemical transition so perhaps it is a rocket that generates energy without generating thrust.

An kilo with AIP would be quieter then a kilo without iso. That is the point

That´s a gaming chair. 

An kilo with AIP would be quieter then a kilo without iso. That is the point

Actually not really, an AIP takes up a lot of space and requires both hydrogen tanks and oxygen tanks to operate properly, which are risky things to put on any submarine.

For the added weight and reduced internal volume you essentially lose function for a day or two while charging, rather than making a bit of noise for a few hours and operating at snorkel depth for the procedure.

Operating a snorkel depth also means you can vent the sub and replace the two week old air with fresh air too.

You can also raise passive sensor equipment from radar to radio to look for threats in the area and you can use the periscope to observe local shipping and air traffic.

It looks like the very first "commander cockpit" in the business lads.
It is called "ARMK" - avtomatizirovany rabochiy mies't komandira.

Not just the chair but the screens in front of it is a huge step up from normal captain positions.

I would suspect the view from periscopes and periscopic antenna including radar and EW types can be displayed directly for the captain to see with his own eyes... day or night.

Imagine the VR equivalent using digital underwater maps showing the position of the sub in relation to the terrain around the sub based on a digital map and populated with traffic captured by the various sonar and other sensors on the sub... you wont have to try to picture things in your head any more...