Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Share

    navyfield
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 211
    Points : 168
    Join date : 2013-05-27

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  navyfield on Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:00 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    Stealthflanker wrote:
    navyfield wrote:wasnt there a kilo with a pumpjet ,and in bsf, why new kilos dont have a pumpjet, its lack is a major drawback..!

    and why the F every diesel-electric sub out there still use conventional propeller ?

    Being silent is sure nice BUT don't you ever think of clogging whenever the sub operate in coastal area ? Where the sea bed might be shallow.

    Or perhaps loss of propulsive efficiency ?
    Yeah, pump jets aren't without problems.... They are less efficient at lower speeds, which is a problem as diesels aren't known to be very fast... As Stealth said, they can be clogged with just about anything, and that problem gets much worse at the shallow depths the Kilos will operate... - Aka, they aren't any good for diesel powered subs! Most importantly, and this make you a hypocrite Navy, is that pump jets are much more complex and expensive. Which just happens to be your main argument *against AIP*!

    That being said, pump jets can be worth while on larger subs and ships.
    oh please its just a simple shroud ,its nothing super mechanicaly complex ,however 2 propellers are used.

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  Stealthflanker on Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:04 pm

    navyfield wrote:
    oh please its just a simple shroud ,its nothing super mechanicaly complex ,however 2 propellers are used.

    What the fuck you are talking about ? Pumpjet design have a book on its own, separated from propellers.

    Seriously. You seem don't bother to use your brain eh ? What a waste.

    navyfield
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 211
    Points : 168
    Join date : 2013-05-27

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  navyfield on Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:12 pm

    the book?? its a chapter and its about formulas mostly and pumping power crossection kavitation reduction.... is most cases chapter is called -shrouded propeller not the english-pumpjet.
    ahahaha new low ,....

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  Stealthflanker on Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:18 pm

    navyfield wrote:the book?? its a chapter and its about formulas mostly and pumping power crossection kavitation reduction.... is most cases chapter is called -shrouded propeller not the english-pumpjet.
    ahahaha new low ,....



    Good God... you're not only liar, but stupid and troller as well.

    navyfield
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 211
    Points : 168
    Join date : 2013-05-27

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  navyfield on Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:19 pm

    yeah , indonesia is sure known for its education...i can see why Razz

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  TR1 on Fri Sep 26, 2014 7:51 pm

    Oh my sides. He thinks it is just as simple as putting a shroud on.

    Bahahaha. Compare the 941 "shroud" and the Alrosa pumpjet. Very different.

    And the Alrosa constantly has issues. And they have built many many Kilos since, and none have pumpjet.
    HMMMM.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  GarryB on Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:09 am

    Yes, those damn idiot Russians... they build one Kilo Class sub and fit it with a pump jet for testing and after about 24 years of operational use with that one Kilo with a pump jet they don't actually make any other Kilo class or improved Kilo class subs with pump jets... what is the lesson here... maybe after making a pump jet in 1990 they have forgotten how to do it?

    Or maybe Navyfield is just being an ass.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Project 877EKM / Project 636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sat Sep 27, 2014 5:04 pm

    navyfield wrote:yeah , indonesia is sure known for its education...i can see why Razz

    I have yet to see anything educated from you.


    _________________
    The true value of life knows only the paratrooper. For he is more likely to look death in the eye.  -- Vasily Margelov

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  Mike E on Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:26 am

    navyfield wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    Stealthflanker wrote:
    navyfield wrote:wasnt there a kilo with a pumpjet ,and in bsf, why new kilos dont have a pumpjet, its lack is a major drawback..!

    and why the F every diesel-electric sub out there still use conventional propeller ?

    Being silent is sure nice BUT don't you ever think of clogging whenever the sub operate in coastal area ? Where the sea bed might be shallow.

    Or perhaps loss of propulsive efficiency ?
    Yeah, pump jets aren't without problems.... They are less efficient at lower speeds, which is a problem as diesels aren't known to be very fast... As Stealth said, they can be clogged with just about anything, and that problem gets much worse at the shallow depths the Kilos will operate... - Aka, they aren't any good for diesel powered subs! Most importantly, and this make you a hypocrite Navy, is that pump jets are much more complex and expensive. Which just happens to be your main argument *against AIP*!

    That being said, pump jets can be worth while on larger subs and ships.
    oh please its just a simple shroud ,its nothing super mechanicaly complex ,however 2 propellers are used.
    Oh, you think I don't know that? I *clearly* pointed out to you that they have their own problems, and that they are more complex (the steering mechanism) yet here you are contradicting yourself! They are only worth while on a few types of vessels, and the fact that their is only *one* Kilo with a pump-jets should tell you that they don't want em'. The Borei will have them, but the Yasen won't.... - This admittedly confuses me as the Yasen should be the quieter of the two, correct? (Not to you Navy)

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 28, 2014 1:05 am

    Any specific technology will have advantages and disadvantages.

    For instance a turbofan engine offers high thrust with fuel economy, while a turboprop engine offers fuel economy at subsonic speeds.

    If the plane needs to be supersonic for part of its mission then you wont fit turboprop engines... that is just obvious.

    Pumpjets will clearly be best at specific speeds... look at the propellers on the Akula class, they have ring shrouds to reduce blade tip cavitation...





    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  Mike E on Sun Sep 28, 2014 2:48 am

    Those those ring shrouds make me think.... Aren't propellers very similar to fans (obviously in terms of propulsion) when it comes to aerospace/marine engineering? - As in, new technology is fans could have a similar advantage if used in propellers...


    If so, than there are a bunch of ideas that should be implemented...


    Blades that can flex (which reduce noise in fans) could (?) be used to improve the flow of water and pressure around the blades, possibly reducing cavitation and increasing efficiency... (They don't flex a lot, just to the right extent, but I doubt it would help.)


    Having "shark skin" textures implemented on the blades, as they are already used on hulls should also increase efficiency.


    Or connected blades could help as well (NB-eloop).

     - Pump-jets are great, but they don't belong on diesel subs.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  Mike E on Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:51 am

    Here is a good file on detecting the Kilo via a SSN; http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA479975

    Crazy to think that subs could be a couple miles away from each other, and have no clue that they are there!

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:10 am

    Mike E wrote:Here is a good file on detecting the Kilo via a SSN; http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA479975

    Crazy to think that subs could be a couple miles away from each other, and have no clue that they are there!

    British and French nuclear submarine collision 'as serious as sinking of Kursk'

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  Mike E on Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:22 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Here is a good file on detecting the Kilo via a SSN; http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA479975

    Crazy to think that subs could be a couple miles away from each other, and have no clue that they are there!

    British and French nuclear submarine collision 'as serious as sinking of Kursk'
    Pretty crazy! Makes me wonder why countries don't put more attention on submarines, rather than something like a useless Zumwalt.... To think that a single nuclear sub could sink an entire carrier convoy...

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:20 am

    Those those ring shrouds make me think.... Aren't propellers very similar to fans (obviously in terms of propulsion) when it comes to aerospace/marine engineering? - As in, new technology is fans could have a similar advantage if used in propellers...

    While there are similarities there are a lot of differences too.

    First of all the obvious is that blades in water need to be very strong because water does not compress and to move it takes a lot of energy... though when you get it moving it generates a powerful thrust.

    In air the air is much thinner and lighter, be to fly you need reduced weight because weight on an aircraft is bad. On a ship or sub is its totally unimportant.

    On an aircraft an array of fans all in front of each other is more efficient as the front fans accelerate the air back into a tube, the next fan blades can assume the air is already travelling fast and in a fairly uniform flow so they can be angled to accelerate the air even faster etc etc... after 4-5 sets of fan blades you can bend the tube so it gets narrow, which will compress the air dramatically, which will heat it... fuel can be added to heat it further and it can then expand the tube and blow the air out the back... moving fast and hot.

    That is a basic description of a turbojet engine.

    With a shaft down the centre you can attach the blades just after the fuel is added in the hot section to the front blades so as you add fuel and the blades in the hot section move faster the front blades move faster too sucking in more air and increasing the thrust of the engine as you throttle up.

    After burner injects fuel into the exhaust further adding heat and thrust.

    A turbo fan basically has a turbo jet at its core, but if you greatly increase the width of the tube at the front along with the fans and design it so that where the tube narrows for the hot section where the fuel is added there is an outer tube that bypasses the hot section, so cold air sucked in by the front fans is split... a small amount going through the narrow hot section and the rest going around the outside of the hot section. the difference is that you are moving a much larger mass of air. The extra air is colder to which can reduce the IR signature of the exhaust gas in normal cruise mode.

    the most important thing however is that at the exhaust there is hot turbo jet air moving fast with lots of energy and there is also a much larger mass of slower moving bypass air which hasn't had fuel burnt in it so it is much more oxygen rich, so when you put on the afterburner the fuel burns much more efficiently and you can add more fuel and generate more thrust with a turbo fan engine.

    On a boeing however the bypass air is enormous and the small turbojet is just there to drive the big fans at the front so most of the thrust is from the big fans.

    I should note that when I call bypass air cold, I mean in the sense that it is no where near as hot as the air going through the turbo jet... it would still burn you as it is highly compressed in the process of going through the engine...

    On submarines... particularly on SSBNs the main focus is in dealing with blade tip cavitation and blocking any noise it might create.

    Blades that can flex (which reduce noise in fans) could (?) be used to improve the flow of water and pressure around the blades, possibly reducing cavitation and increasing efficiency... (They don't flex a lot, just to the right extent, but I doubt it would help.)

    Movable blades... whether they flex or are variable pitch seem to be very rare in submarine design... the strength needed along with very specific speed regimes... plus the need to reverse as well as go forward seem to dictate very very precisely designed and cut big heavy metal propellers.

    I am no expert in sub prop design.

    Having "shark skin" textures implemented on the blades, as they are already used on hulls should also increase efficiency.

    The speeds that propellers move while the vessel is moving suggests rough skins might increase cavitation rather than decrease it... remember cavitation not only generates underwater noise, it also leads to physical damage to the blades.

    Crazy to think that subs could be a couple miles away from each other, and have no clue that they are there!

    So basically this is the US Navy admitting that it can't effectively detect the current SSKs that Russia builds for export with passive means and it has to use active sonar for effective detection.

    Active sonar would be fine against one Kilo trying to penetrate US waters, but in the middle of the ocean or near Russia where there might be hundreds of ears listening out for subs just how well will active sonar work in spotting SSKs?

    The obvious answer is that they would have to operate assuming SSKs are around and undetected and get on with their mission because if they actively ping to look they are dead.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  Mike E on Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:42 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Those those ring shrouds make me think.... Aren't propellers very similar to fans (obviously in terms of propulsion) when it comes to aerospace/marine engineering? - As in, new technology is fans could have a similar advantage if used in propellers...

    While there are similarities there are a lot of differences too.

    First of all the obvious is that blades in water need to be very strong because water does not compress and to move it takes a lot of energy... though when you get it moving it generates a powerful thrust.

    In air the air is much thinner and lighter, be to fly you need reduced weight because weight on an aircraft is bad. On a ship or sub is its totally unimportant.

    On an aircraft an array of fans all in front of each other is more efficient as the front fans accelerate the air back into a tube, the next fan blades can assume the air is already travelling fast and in a fairly uniform flow so they can be angled to accelerate the air even faster etc etc... after 4-5 sets of fan blades you can bend the tube so it gets narrow, which will compress the air dramatically, which will heat it... fuel can be added to heat it further and it can then expand the tube and blow the air out the back... moving fast and hot.

    That is a basic description of a turbojet engine.

    With a shaft down the centre you can attach the blades just after the fuel is added in the hot section to the front blades so as you add fuel and the blades in the hot section move faster the front blades move faster too sucking in more air and increasing the thrust of the engine as you throttle up.

    After burner injects fuel into the exhaust further adding heat and thrust.

    A turbo fan basically has a turbo jet at its core, but if you greatly increase the width of the tube at the front along with the fans and design it so that where the tube narrows for the hot section where the fuel is added there is an outer tube that bypasses the hot section, so cold air sucked in by the front fans is split... a small amount going through the narrow hot section and the rest going around the outside of the hot section. the difference is that you are moving a much larger mass of air. The extra air is colder to which can reduce the IR signature of the exhaust gas in normal cruise mode.

    the most important thing however is that at the exhaust there is hot turbo jet air moving fast with lots of energy and there is also a much larger mass of slower moving bypass air which hasn't had fuel burnt in it so it is much more oxygen rich, so when you put on the afterburner the fuel burns much more efficiently and you can add more fuel and generate more thrust with a turbo fan engine.

    On a boeing however the bypass air is enormous and the small turbojet is just there to drive the big fans at the front so most of the thrust is from the big fans.

    I should note that when I call bypass air cold, I mean in the sense that it is no where near as hot as the air going through the turbo jet... it would still burn you as it is highly compressed in the process of going through the engine...

    On submarines... particularly on SSBNs the main focus is in dealing with blade tip cavitation and blocking any noise it might create.

    Blades that can flex (which reduce noise in fans) could (?) be used to improve the flow of water and pressure around the blades, possibly reducing cavitation and increasing efficiency... (They don't flex a lot, just to the right extent, but I doubt it would help.)

    Movable blades... whether they flex or are variable pitch seem to be very rare in submarine design... the strength needed along with very specific speed regimes... plus the need to reverse as well as go forward seem to dictate very very precisely designed and cut big heavy metal propellers.

    I am no expert in sub prop design.

    Having "shark skin" textures implemented on the blades, as they are already used on hulls should also increase efficiency.

    The speeds that propellers move while the vessel is moving suggests rough skins might increase cavitation rather than decrease it... remember cavitation not only generates underwater noise, it also leads to physical damage to the blades.

    Crazy to think that subs could be a couple miles away from each other, and have no clue that they are there!

    So basically this is the US Navy admitting that it can't effectively detect the current SSKs that Russia builds for export with passive means and it has to use active sonar for effective detection.

    Active sonar would be fine against one Kilo trying to penetrate US waters, but in the middle of the ocean or near Russia where there might be hundreds of ears listening out for subs just how well will active sonar work in spotting SSKs?

    The obvious answer is that they would have to operate assuming SSKs are around and undetected and get on with their mission because if they actively ping to look they are dead.
    I'll start with... Thanks for replying in such a "large and informative manner".

    I guess that makes sense, faster speed on the blades would produce higher cavitation...

    That middle part is...  Off Topic Which I assume you know.

    "Blade tip cavitation" is where the connected blade (NB e-loop) design would come it. - When used on a fan, that design creates less "vortexes" and unwanted air movement, leading me to believe that it would help reduce cavitation. Less unwanted water movements should me less unwanted pressure-movement and hence, should produce less cavitation.... 

    "So basically this is the US Navy admitting that it can't effectively detect the current SSKs that Russia builds for export with passive means and it has to use active sonar for effective detection."


     - Yep! You know that their screwed when they admit that they admit that they can't attack a modern SSK (3 "thats", 3 "theys", and 1 "their" not bad!!!)!


    Assuming that a Yasen is quieter than a Kilo, but not as quiet as an Improved-Kilo.... - It could just surface behind the horizon, launch their entire payload against a US carrier convoy (One carrier plus a couple destroyers, one or two cruisers, and support ships and a couple submarines), and simply turn around running without any chance of interception (assuming that the missiles are supersonic (Onyx + anti-sub Klub), the carrier shouldn't have enough time to launch their ASW aircraft - the SH-60)! - Sounds easy, but would it be in practice?

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 993
    Points : 1148
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Wed Oct 01, 2014 7:53 pm

    I really, really hope the russian 636s  can also launch klubs, since the lada is effed up in construction delays.

    Torpedoes will never be as effective against carriers as missiles.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  Mike E on Wed Oct 01, 2014 9:44 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:I really, really hope the russian 636s  can also launch klubs, since the lada is effed up in construction delays.

    Torpedoes will never be as effective against carriers as missiles.
    They can... 8 maximum I believe.

    You'd be surprised... Missiles are great, but US carriers have more anti-missile defense than anti-torpedo defense, and a single torpedo blast could taker her' to the bottom (explosive+ship+ship= bye bye!)

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 993
    Points : 1148
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:11 pm

    A P-3 or seahawk or sonobouy will detect all russian submarines far before they reach torpedo launch range. The situation is even worse for US submarines, especially when their missiles are also anemic.

    Besides torpedo nuclear warheads aren't as effective as missiles's.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  Mike E on Thu Oct 02, 2014 1:49 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:A P-3 or seahawk or sonobouy will detect all russian submarines far before they reach torpedo launch range. The situation is even worse for US submarines, especially when their missiles are also anemic.

    Besides torpedo nuclear warheads aren't as effective as missiles's.
    No, they won't... They only have so many, and they aren't constantly launched. In fact, no US ASW aircraft supports them anymore (I believe)... - Same thing with the Seahawk, it won't always be in the air. Even if it is, there is no guarantee of detection. - They use dipping sonar, which isn't the best nor most advanced system available. - They'd have a heck of trouble going up against an improved Kilo, Lada, or even the regular Kilo! - The idea was launching missile first, and leaving the torpedoes to "clean up duty" etc.

    Never said they wouldn't use missiles, just that they have more defense against them. - Not like it is effective..

    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 510
    Points : 534
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  Big_Gazza on Thu Oct 02, 2014 5:10 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:A P-3 or seahawk or sonobouy will detect all russian submarines far before they reach torpedo launch range. The situation is even worse for US submarines, especially when their missiles are also anemic.

    Besides torpedo nuclear warheads aren't as effective as missiles's.

    Not true.  Modern torps that detonate beneath a ships keel are capable of gutting a supercarrier with a SINGLE strike.  The mass of water surrounding the warhead acts like a bottle and focuses the blast towards the point of least resistance, ie the ships hull.  The blast is directed upwards and through the guts of the vessel rather than in all directions as in a detonation in air.  Given that many of the vital stores are located below the waterline (ammo, jet fuel etc) such damage can be catastrophic.

    Check out some of the public domain footage of torp test against derelict vessels.  A destroyer-sized ship is literally chopped in half by the blast, whereas a missile with comparable warhead yield might blast a big chunk of superstructure to smoking ruin, but the vessel is unlikely to sink unless damage control parties lose control of the resulting fires.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLrKOOXcOhM
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV8MF-440xg (same as above but different angles)

    The target was the decommissioned HMAS Torrens, a 2700 ton destroyer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVQB5bXmQpM

    The target was the decommissioned USNS Kilauea, a 12,000 ton (empty) ammunition tender.

    Both sunk by a Mark 48 torp with a 295 kg warhead, but Russian Type 53 family would be equally as destructive.

    Imagine such a hit directly beneath one of the reactors of a Nimitz class carrier.  Even if the ship didn't sink she would need to be abandoned due to reactor breach.

    coolieno99
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 136
    Points : 159
    Join date : 2010-08-25

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  coolieno99 on Thu Oct 02, 2014 6:45 am

    A single Type 65 torpedo with 450kg conventional warhead can sink an aircraft carrier. It can also be armed with 20kt nuclear warhead.

    http://weaponsystems.net/weapon.php?weapon=HH14%20-%20Type%2065

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  Mike E on Thu Oct 02, 2014 8:08 am

    coolieno99 wrote:A single Type 65 torpedo with 450kg conventional warhead can sink an aircraft carrier. It can also be armed with 20kt nuclear warhead.

    http://weaponsystems.net/weapon.php?weapon=HH14%20-%20Type%2065
    Yep, I'd be willing to say that a single Type 65 has a better chance of completely destroying a ship than a subsonic AShM.

    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 510
    Points : 534
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  Big_Gazza on Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:38 am

    coolieno99 wrote:A single Type 65 torpedo with 450kg conventional warhead can sink an aircraft carrier. It can also be armed with 20kt nuclear warhead.

    http://weaponsystems.net/weapon.php?weapon=HH14%20-%20Type%2065

    Agreed, but 553mm torps are carried by any submarine, incl SSBNs and non-nuclear, so any sub can potentially be a carrier killer. Advanced torps (especially the wake-sensing heavies) are the USNs nightmare Smile

    Given the development of drone technology, I wonder how long it will be until autonomous kamikaze submersible drones are developed. I can imagine a drone mini-sub/torpedo hybrid with an RTG & batteries for essential electronics and low speed ultra-quiet patrol (intermittent operation depending on battery capacity) and literally years of endurance, and high-energy liquid-fuelled turbine propulsion (hypergolics?) for use in battle conditions to generate high speeds for attack and out maneuvering active defense.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 02, 2014 1:28 pm

    Torpedoes will never be as effective against carriers as missiles.

    Making holes in the bottom of ships has always been an effective way of sinking them.

    Anti ship missiles let fire into the top of them, which is also very effective.

    A P-3 or seahawk or sonobouy will detect all russian submarines far before they reach torpedo launch range. The situation is even worse for US submarines, especially when their missiles are also anemic.

    So all submarines are useless... yet they keep making them...

    What if those subs are sent to ambush those carriers that are on their way to a deployment and are moving at 30+ knots and have not deployed their anti sub aircraft?

    Besides torpedo nuclear warheads aren't as effective as missiles's.

    Really?

    A 650mm torpedo with a 100km range with a 20KT warhead able to wipe out an entire battle group including any sub within 16km is not as effective as a missile.

    Not true. Modern torps that detonate beneath a ships keel are capable of gutting a supercarrier with a SINGLE strike. The mass of water surrounding the warhead acts like a bottle and focuses the blast towards the point of least resistance, ie the ships hull. The blast is directed upwards and through the guts of the vessel rather than in all directions as in a detonation in air. Given that many of the vital stores are located below the waterline (ammo, jet fuel etc) such damage can be catastrophic.

    Very close... actually it is just a standard HE charge that like any HE charge creates an enormous amount of gas very rapidly.

    When detonated directly below a ship the HE charge creates and enormous air bubble, which as it rises tries to lift the hull of the vessel. As you can see on any dry dock a ship or sub needs lots of supports spread equally along its length. If you were to try to pick it up in one place... whether by crane or HE bubble from underneath, the section being lifted would rise but the weight of the rest of the vessel would hold each end down which would result in a vessel with a broken back ripped in half which sinks rapidly.

    This works only on surfaced vessels... a sub under water isn't lifted by a large air bubble underneath it because the water above the sub pushes it down, so the air bubble will flow around the sub and up to the surface... some of the explosion might push in some of the hull but wont break the vessels back like a ship on the surface.... many western anti sub torpedos for this reason use a shaped charge to penetrate the outer layer to the inner layer in the hope that water pressure will do the rest.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:03 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 11, 2016 9:03 am