Project 877/636: Kilo class SSK

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.

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!)

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.

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..

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

I guess you're right, but still, what torpedo has 600km range?  In order to launch torpedos you need to be in a favorable position to the target. Unfortunately todays submarines cannot go more than 10kn/h near the battlegroup without being detected, so in effect it can't outrun and reposition itself if its behind the carrier.

BTW whats so special about wake homing torpedos? Why can't you just throw around lots of soap bubbles all around surface as a decoy against them?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:I guess you're right, but still, what torpedo has 600km range?  In order to launch torpedos you need to be in a favorable position to the target. Unfortunately todays submarines cannot go more than 10kn/h near the battlegroup without being detected, so in effect it can't outrun and reposition itself if its behind the carrier.

BTW whats so special about wake homing torpedos? Why can't you just throw around lots of soap bubbles all around surface as a decoy against them?

None, but that isn't the point... The idea is that AShM's and torpedoes could be used in tandem to create an almost unstoppable offensive. As I've stated many times, Western ships have less defense against torpedoes than they do AShM's.

I guess you're right, but still, what torpedo has 600km range?

They have what the west call captor mines, which are torpedoes designed to sit on the sea bed and wait for passing vessels. The listen to the sound signature and if they hear one of interest like an enemy SSN or SSBN they activate launching the torpedo at the target. These can be layed around the enemies main military ports with a 1 month, 6 month or 1 year delay before they activate...

But you are right in that no torpedo is perfect just like all missiles are not perfect or imperfect.

In order to launch torpedos you need to be in a favorable position to the target. Unfortunately todays submarines cannot go more than 10kn/h near the battlegroup without being detected, so in effect it can't outrun and reposition itself if its behind the carrier.

You are quite right, but coastal SSK are very quiet... the US Navy can only detect them with active sonar and still only within a certain range... plenty of opportunities there...

BTW whats so special about wake homing torpedos? Why can't you just throw around lots of soap bubbles all around surface as a decoy against them?

Because Soap Bubbles don't have wakes...

None, but that isn't the point... The idea is that AShM's and torpedoes could be used in tandem to create an almost unstoppable offensive. As I've stated many times, Western ships have less defense against torpedoes than they do AShM's.

The Soviets planned for Torpedo attacks to take place after the first barrage of anti ship missiles. taking advantage of the Chaos created by the first wave the SSNs slip in close to launch their torpedoes which would start arriving about the same time as the second wave of anti ship missiles.

The result is some ships hit by the first anti ship missiles can be sunk by the follow up torpedoes, while ships manouving to avoid the anti ship missiles can make themselves vulnerable to the Torpedoes... any ships hit by the torpedoes will become very vulnerable to the second wave of Anti Ship Missiles.

Don't think of one or the other... they don't replace each other, they compliment each other.

In a matter of several hours two new improvede Kilo subs will be layed down for Russian BSF

Submarines "Novgorod" and "Kolpino" lay in St. Petersburg

Should be a nice improvement...

I'd like to see AIP with these new boats.

Would be a major boost in underwater performance.

Vladikavkaz almost armed and ready to go

Tests of non-nuclear submarine "Vladikavkaz" held modernization will begin in January

Does anyone have any good references to the differences between Project 636.0 and 636.3?

kvs wrote:Does anyone have any good references to the differences between Project 636.0 and 636.3?

Mostly much better acoustic quitening and better sonar performance and improved C&C system

Other than that carries the Klub with range of 1500-2500 km range

636.3 argubly the best kilo out there without the degrading that comes with export model 636