Mindstorm wrote:GarryB the book from which it has been taken refer to '90 years estimations by part of ....US Navy and ,obviously, here the degree of bias expected is not different than that expected examining a chart produced by EADS including the characteristics of one of its products and some linked....supposedly....to products of its main competitors
What would is much more interesting is to note how that "mindset" ,strongly present in western publications , has as effect to concentrate all the attention and debates on the quietness parameter (ex : if a particular Soviets or Russian submarine have achieved, in a certain year ,a particular level of quietness inferior ,comparable or superior than a particular western submarine ) in this way preventing anyone to note that exist several dozen of different cardinal parameters ,some of them even more decisive in acquiring a greater exchange ratio or a better operational efficiency in a great scale war ,completely obscured by that very "selective" treatment and that those great quantity of parameters are...strangely ....just those wherein western design lagged largely behind Soviets
At this point someone could ask to itself ,only for formulate some easy samples : how much submarines are required to engage an enemy submarine enjoying a substantial speed advantage over them ; or how much times is increased the search area for ASW units (both sea or air based) sent in the area to investigate a possible sonobuoy contact with a similar fast submarine ,how that diminish of several dozen of times the chance of a successful interception and multiply of an equal measure the resources and the assets necessary for the task ; or how much decrease the engagement footprint of enemy torpedos against a similar submarine following an evasion rout (and what type of weapons become totally incapable to engage a similar submarine at particular deepness ); or how is easier for similar faster submarine to achieve local superior concentration in respect to slower opponents ; or how is easy for a similar submarine to reach a particular strategic point of interest ,carry out its mission, and eveade even before opponent's submarines/ASW units can arrive in the place.
I could go on for days and have taken into examination only the speed parameter.
We can,now, take into examination a submarine attempting to shadow or chasing to engage an enemy submarine and try to argue what wouldhappen if the latter is capable to release ,almost at will, a vehicle ,programmable on the fly (such as an MG-74),capable to mimic exactly the acoustic track of the submarine's propulsion at its regime at the instant of the release while contextually moving at very low speed long a tangential trajectory to obtain an easy shoot on any submarine eventually chasing it ,or it could ,to the contrary, continue long its original rout increasing momentarily the speed at maximum to cover completely the release contemporaneously of an MG-74 simulating a false slowdown and an U-turn and a PMK-1 self propelled mine , or ,even worse release, a pair of MG-74 with different programs covering the release of both an PMK-1 self propelled mine and a self propelled RG-28 capable to simulate perfectly a coded pulse of the active sonar of the carrying submarine...also here the possible combinations ,one more deadly and deceiving of the previous are almost infinites.
Anyone can easily realize also as,in war times,the surving chances of a chasing/engaging submarine against an enemy submarine equiped with similar systems (without any corresponding in the acoustic centric western designs) would be very very slim .
What happen if we take into account that a submarine ,even in a condition of heavy numerical disadvantage in a particualr area could quietly employg its active sonar (against which the quieting measures implemented in a submarine design have zero value) knowing that a single allied submarine ,completely safe at 100-120 km from the enemy ,receiving the target coordinates through MGK-80 or Molniya-M, could engage all of them at supersonic speed with a salvo of RPK-7 and obtain theirs destruction much before the first torpedo would even be at half way toward the original submarine....or it could be simply another trap employing the MG-74 and the RG-28 (practically those enemy submarines would never know,after this active sonar contact if a salvo of "Stallions" is already in fly toward them ,it is a trap for lure them in a PMK-1 infested area or in a shot position where the enemy could dispatch them quickly with supercavitating torpedos or even a bait to waste precious ASW aircraft and ship for the control a completely empty area.
All what said until now represent only a minimal fraction of the enormous operational advantages and solutions offered by merely two of those non-acoustic capabilities where Soviets/Russians enjoy a very wide primacy .
Mindstorm what what you mention are true to a great extent but please remember American and by that extent Western submarine put too much money time and effort on Acoustic Quitening becuase they came from School of thought "Noise is Every Thing"
So lead by Adm Rickover who is considered as father of Nuclear Submarine program they focussed on one single parameter which is how to reduce noise and sacrificed Speed , Depth , Hydrodynamic , Materials and other areas of development.
And that has been the case with all submarine SSN development till late model LA.
Till they found out Soviets were ahead in other areas and Soviet were catching up in quitening and then the 2nd phase of SSN development started.
2nd Stage SSN development started with Sea Wolf class with no rickover ghost hanging concentrated on much improved acoustics , sensors/sonars improvement , depth , speed and much greater weapon payload.
Sea Wolf class submarine and by its extension Virginia class has higher silent tactical speed , reportedly some where between 20 - 25 knots she remains silent enough to search a wide area without compromising speed ( it was refereed as higher tactical search speed ) , earlier the Improved LA could do that slower speed at ~ 6 - 8 knots and with less performing sensor.
Sea Wolf also carried 50 Torpedo which means it did not need reload for long and could effectively hunt under the arctic Russian SSBN on partol or atleast that was the idea.
Sonar performance also improved for 4th Gen SSN ( seawolf/virginia ) with US already having an edge in areas for Signal Processing and Spherical Sonar , the other area of improvement is operational depth of 500 - 600 m compared to 300 m for Improved LA class due to better use of Materials/Steel ( HY 120 )
So Higher Silent Speed , Greater Depth , Greater Speed ( Sea wolf did more then 45 knots in a trial close to 50 knots infact ) and much better sonar and sensor performance were the hall mark of 4th Gen SSN development , yes they also used pumpjet propulsion over 7 blade skewed propeller.
Yasen infact still retains Skewed Prop and has not moved to pumpjet while Borei has pumpjet.
Virginia has lower performance in Weapons Payload and lower Top Speed , but has similar silent tactical speed as sea wolf , plus the Sonars/Sensors and 3 Towed Array Sonar and even Wide Aperture Sonar on side.
Yasen is the first to have Spherical Sonar , Hopefully they have caught up with sonar performance with the West though i doubt , hopefully acoustic quitening equal if not better then US 4th Gen SSN.
Yasen lacks the Side Looking Wide Aperture Sonar but it has Flank Array like Akula.
Firepower wise Yasen is superior to Virginia and Sea Wolf and hopefully Russian have improved on Depth which for Akula was still very respectable 600 m and top speed.
I would personally be happy if Yasen catches with acoustic quitening of most modern USN 4th Gen Submarine and Sonar/Sensors performance similar to US submarine. Hopefully its much improved non-acoustic quitening which Russians lead gives its an advantage over US submarine in silent search and tracking.
Hopefully the modern Torpedoes like Fizik-2 and Onisk/Calbir is good enough to take care of USN CBG.
Again its a very tall ask but hopefully Malachite will be able to match up with its western peers.