Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Project 971: Akula class

    Share

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  Austin on Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:21 am

    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 Very Happy

    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 Laughing ....just those wherein western design lagged largely behind Soviets Rolling Eyes


    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.


    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 733
    Points : 916
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:30 pm


    again let me add here most of these are estimates and actual performance will be seen when she goes on her patrol and we will hear more on it from ONI or Western press
    .


    I highly doubt (it is more a certainty) that them will be a reliable source on the subject in question . Austin in the same book of N. Polmar ,which i have read some years too, one of the most intellectually honest western analyst and author in the sector, is reported what was the real opinions of western analysts and US Navy officials on the true capabilities of the fourth generation of Russian submarines,(also in those same hours in full production ,in versions significantly more advanced and including ,obviously, technical solutions much more advanced than those available in middle of '90 years).


    At the very end of the chapter on the fourth generation nuclear submarines it leave with that statement :

    "It should be noted that in CANDID and PRIVATE discussions with Western intelligence officials, submarine commanders and technical analysts as well as with Soviet submarine designers, there has been a strong indication that Soviet fourth generation undersea craft would have achieved performance equal or superior to most aspect of theirs US counterparts "

    Like you can see exist a very substantial difference between what those same persons can say on the real capabilities of theirs potential enemies in open speech or publications and what, instead, them are ready to concede in candid ,private discussion on the same subject (and that is almost a "law" in the West where ,to the exact contrary of Russian tradition, overselling its own military or technological capabilities while at the same time bashing those of its main competitors is almost a duty esteemed central in the information war.


    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

    Not precisely, while representing surely a significant boost for non acoustic related capabilities for US standards (increase which lead to enormous making problems and prohibitive costs ,forcing to the successive acceptance of the scaled down.... acoustic centric... Virginia class) Sea Wolf since its prototype design fallen way short of its not acoustic related requirements ,from pag 308


    "The primary emphasis in design what came to be called SS-N-21 was quieting the longtime quest of the US submarine community.......While the SS-N21 was in the preliminary design stage, the Deputy CNO for Submarine Warfare, Vice Admiral Nils R. (Ron) Thunmann convened a group of submarine officiers and engineers to help determine the characteristics of the SS-N21. Known as Group Tango (the phonetic word for the T in Thunmann) ,this all-Navy classified study group adressed seven characteristics : 1) Speed, 2) Depth, 3)Torpedo Tubes, 4)Weapons Load, 5) Artic capability, 6)Radiated Noise 7) Sonar Effectiveness . Group tango established "goals" for the SS-N21 which were believed to be realistic and attainable. According to Navy sources the SS-N21 would meet only three of the seven goals : Artic capability ,radiated noise and sonar effectiveness "

    Like you can see also the Us Navy's submarine with the best not acoustic related capabilities (anyhow a golden plated exception ,impossble to mass produce) fallen shorts of almost its requirements except those related to acoustics .


    But, if you allow ,i want to return to the question of all the other critical parameters and systems of a submarine . Take into examination one of them ,weapon systems at example ; here we don't talk of a metric difference (as for debates about the level of radiated noise of an improved Akula class and an improved Los Angeles class or against an Akula II or between a Graney and a Virginia ) here we talk of entire categories of weapons (and with them whole tactical and strategic possibilities) completely lacking in western arsenals .

    Image that: An Improved Los Angeles class, in the Pacific Ocean, receive a possible Victor III contact at 17 km of distance North -North West beam aspect descending rout ,another Los Angeles class follow this Improved Los Angeles at 38 Km behind while a Sea Wolf is in a position about 83 km to the East . Questin : What them can do ? Response :Almost nothing ,except for the original Improved Los Angeles to take the enormous risk to follow the original contact track before lose it (because in not peace times the chances to incur in a PMK-1 self propelled mine delivered by the Victor III -another weapon without corresponding in western arsenals) or a possible shooting trap with an "Impostor" or an engagement quickly degrading in a active sonar range engagement where you would have almost zero chance of surviving against the enemy supercavitating Shkval-M would be very high.

    At inverted sides : a Victor or an Akula could employ its active sonar (or even an RG-28) and pass the data to any of the other Akula or Victors (placed in the same positions of the other Los Angeles class and Sea Wolf of the previous example) and evade in all safety from area leaving the salvo of SS-N-15 /16 shoot from large stand-off ranges by those allied submarines destroy the enemy submarine(s).

    As easily understandable ,those type of weapons ,for theirs ranges and or very high speed and or impossibility to defend against, bring true game changing capabilities against highly time-sensitive targets such as nuclear submarines .




    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  Austin on Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:16 pm

    Mindstorm , I hope you understand that though Norman Polmar is a very respected Western expert on matters of under sea warfare he also has an audience to which he address and that audience is US Intelligence Community , US Congress and US Navy.

    He regularly comes before congress when there is a classified/Closed and non-classified/open discussion on USN submarine capabilities and challenges. I know this since i have read few of the Congress Committee reports where his views were documented.

    He sometimes has the tendency to exaggerate Soviet/Russian submarine capabilities to suite his audience and make sure that Congress gives the necessary funds that USN needs or asks for by exaggerating Soviet/Russian submarine threats.

    So its good to look at Norman Polmar views and write up as respectable Western views do not take his views as absolute Gospel truth.

    And he has claimed on Akula in the same book that with Akula-2 SSN at Slow Speed it was quiter then improved LA class but over all improved LA class has superior to most Akula class.

    And what he says about Yasen class is based on his conversation and what he thinks could be the case but the proof of pudding is in its eating , so Yasen being equal to ,superior or inferior to Sea Wolf or Virginia is yet to be seen , as Yasen is still in trials.

    So lets not get worked up too much by claims and counter claims ....in couple of years we will know in general terms where does Yasen stands to US 4th Gen submarine in acoustics quitening.

    But from the many congress hearings i have read , USN expects Russian 4th Gen submarine catching up with USN 4th gen sub in acoustics , it might be equal or near equal to Virginia/Sea Wolf is what they expect.

    I would say if Malachite manages to achieve that then its very impressive and respectable , getting to US Acoustic level would be a very impressive achievement for Russian Navy which has always been on the loosing side of acoustic silencing game since the first Nuclear submarine Nautilus sailed the ocean and US managed to achieve those feat after spending many hundred billion dollar in over many decades.

    One should also not ignore UK SSN like Astute and French SSN Baracuda which along with Virginia and Sea Wolf works together in co-ordination and share data on Russian Submarine and is a potential enemy for Russian Navy.

    As far as your claim of weapons goes , it all depends if Russian Sonar has the ability to detect LA at those ranges where it can use the SS-N-16 like weapon .......if Russian Submarine tries to go active then it has it own down fall like being hunted by NATO/US Surface Fleet or by ASW Helicopter which might be in the area , Active Sonar does not gurantee that you will see the enemy submarine at long ranges as there are many factor than can affect sonar performance like water condition , converging zone , temperature,depth , salinity and others.

    But what active sonar will gurantee is you will disclose your position to the many enemy asset in the area and the hunter could get hunted .....one of the rare reason that submarine in very rarest situation uses active sonar.


    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 733
    Points : 916
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:04 am



    He sometimes has the tendency to exaggerate Soviet/Russian submarine capabilities to suite his audience and make sure that Congress gives the necessary funds that USN needs or asks for by exaggerating Soviet/Russian submarine threats.


    But it hasn't absolutely any need to do a similar thing in first person ,if we consider that it has, supposedly, as its great friend, no less than the....Chief Executive Officer of the Russian Northern Submarine Fleet Force, Capt of First rank Alexei Poteshkin, who fight with all its strength to aid the poor N. Polmar at gain some funds from the US Congress Very Happy Very Happy .
    The last time the Cpt. Alexei Poteshkin came to the point to release a similar assertion only to aid its old friend to receive some money from the Congress ; when someone say the true friendship... Laughing Laughing

    "State trials of the submarine will be held this year. Hopefully, upon their results Severodvinsk will be recognized the most advanced and silent submarine in the world"



    As far as your claim of weapons goes , it all depends if Russian Sonar has the ability to detect LA at those ranges where it can use the SS-N-16 like weapon


    Austin maybe mine examples has been not enough clear ...i try to formulate one in a way more clear.



    Conventional conflict.

    - Atlantic Ocean. An Improved Akula transit near a group of sonobuoys ,a net of MAD sensors or a sea-floor thermo-differential detectors ,a momentary contact is established ; an Improved Los Angeles class is at 38 Km of distance and a Sea Wolf at 85 km from the contact point ; this Improved Akula is completely safe , some minutes and the contact is lost .... a very common occurrence in reality.

    - Atlantic Ocean. A Sea Wolf transit near a group of sonobuoys, a net of MAD sensors or a sea-floor thermo-differential detectors ,a momentary contact is established ; a Victor III class is present a 38 Km of distance and an Improved Akula at 85 km from the contact point ; this Sea Wolf is dead and without any chance to respond in any way to the attack , some minutes and a new wreckage is added to ocean floor.


    Weapons like RPK-2 ,RPK-6 , RPK-7 or Klub, in substance, allow to widely spread allied submarines to cover each the others, engaging enemy submarines in close ranges with one of the submarines of the group from a remote position and at supersonic speed (therefore don't allowing them any chance to evade) , the allied submarine in the area of the enemy unities, moreover, enjoy the crushing advantage to don't have any need to conduct the engagement in first person ,it can quietly evade from the area (possibly employing some MG-74s and releasing some PMK-1s in the area as a departure gift) ; the allied submarine in question can also employ safely its active sonar (or also an RG-28 to give to enemy submarines a position for the supposed active sonar's pulse totally deceiving), in fact if the enemy submarine(s) is discovered at close range it enjoy the enormous advantage conceded by its supercavitating torpedos , allowing the reliable destruction of enemy unities and the destruction of the wire guidance of theirs torpedo even before theirs torpedo would cover 1/4 of the distance ,if the enemy is at longer range it pass theirs position to the allied unities (both surface ships or submarines) evading from the area at full speed gaining deepness.

    Western submarines lack completely similar systems and with them any of the up-cited capabilities.

    Is clear now Austin ?

    What i find totally absurd is that those type of elements, capable to generate enormous differences in the exchange ratio between submarines equipped with similar offensive and defensive systems and others completely devoid of them ,are attentively "forgotten" in almost any western publication.....and it is not a chance.


    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:32 am

    Austin in A. C.Pavlov's book "the Russian Navy in Russian" 1990-1991 unfortunately in Russian about Akukla and Victor class:
    it says more info proving that Mindstorm is on the right track..

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  Austin on Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:16 am

    Mindstorm wrote:
    But it hasn't absolutely any need to do a similar thing in first person ,if we consider that it has, supposedly, as its great friend, no less than the....Chief Executive Officer of the Russian Northern Submarine Fleet Force, Capt of First rank Alexei Poteshkin, who fight with all its strength to aid the poor N. Polmar at gain some funds from the US Congress Very Happy Very Happy .
    The last time the Cpt. Alexei Poteshkin came to the point to release a similar assertion only to aid its old friend to receive some money from the Congress ; when someone say the true friendship... Laughing Laughing

    I hope you understand the way funding works for USN program where Congress has the power to fund it or veto it ....a credible enemy is required for USN to justify its funding.

    So Congress takes a broad view from USN , Experts in the field , Independent Consultant to arrive at a conclusion or provide a direction where development needs to happen and funding needed.

    Norman Polmar is one of the key personalities consulted and i have read quite a few reports where either USN capabilities are exaggarated or in other cases Russian Submarine capabilities.

    Here are some of the Congress Report that you will enjoy reading.

    91098: Navy Attack Submarine Programs: Issues for Congress

    New Attack Submarine

    Statements by Norman Polmar

    Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

    Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress



    "State trials of the submarine will be held this year. Hopefully, upon their results Severodvinsk will be recognized the most advanced and silent submarine in the world"


    Fair Enough .....the trial has yet to be completed and when she hits the water we will come to know in few years if she achieved her goals as most silent submarine.

    Dont confuse Statement of Intent as Statement of Fact.


    -
    Atlantic Ocean. A Sea Wolf transit near a group of sonobuoys, a net of MAD sensors or a sea-floor thermo-differential detectors ,a momentary contact is established ; a Victor III class is present a 38 Km of distance and an Improved Akula at 85 km from the contact point ; this Sea Wolf is dead and without any chance to respond in any way to the attack , some minutes and a new wreckage is added to ocean floor.

    Mindstorm you do realise the submarine is a moving target that can actually move in 3 Dimension in Ocean ......lets say the Akula fires SS-N-16 or Klub , its actually a rocket propelled torpedo, once torpedo hits the water she will go in an active search at the target.

    Now since Sea Wolf is a moving target the submarine may not be there where the torpedo may be searching for , if she is there and if an active sonar search is initiated , Sea Wolf will immediately employ decoys and began evasive manouveres , its not hard to defeat a Torpedo that is independent and not guided by wire and relies on active sonar.

    Active sonar performance against Rubber Tiles are reduced as well , So there is no gurantee that the Klub or SS-N-16 will hit the Submarine at those long distance and even weapons have their own probability of kill.

    Those weapons like SS-N-16 and Klub or SS-N-15 are effective against surface ships which will find it hard to evade the active autonomous torpedoes.

    The most effective weapons against Submarine are Wire Guided Torpedoes like UGST-M ,Mk-48 ADCAP,Black Shark etc that are wire guided and are autonomous in the last few km and can take care of moving targets like Submarine are different depth. The ability to maintain control till the last moment for these torpedoes from submarine wire guidance means they are less vulnerable to enemy submarine decoys , countermeasures ,speed , manouveribility etc .


    Shkval is just a suicide weapon deployed at last moment , either to break enemy submarine/Torpedo lock or to unnerve them with a high speed non-guided weapon approaching them , giving Akula few seconds to escape.


    Western submarines lack completely similar systems and with them any of the up-cited capabilities.

    Western submarine scores on acoustic which is better silencing , better long range torpedoes , much capable passive sonar due to advantage in signal processing and they too have decoys.

    Infact Russian Torpedo development has remained by and large static in 2 decades and its only with Fizik 2 they are moving to new torpedo.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  Austin on Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:49 am

    Here is Akula recently being used to trails UK SSBN on Deterrent Patrol but it seems UK got wind of it and took adequate measures.

    Russian subs stalk Trident in echo of Cold War

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 733
    Points : 916
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:56 pm

    Mindstorm you do realise the submarine is a moving target that can actually move in 3 Dimension in Ocean ......lets say the Akula fires SS-N-16 or Klub , its actually a rocket propelled torpedo, once torpedo hits the water she will go in an active search at the target.

    Now since Sea Wolf is a moving target the submarine may not be there where the torpedo may be searching for , if she is there and if an active sonar search is initiated ,


    Of course i realize that any submarine is a moving target and highly time-sensitive target and is just this one of the reasons for the enormous advantages offered by a weapon like an RPK-7 "Ветер" .

    Maybe adding some numbers will render the previous example even more clear also on this point .

    Let put that the momentary tracking of the enemy submarine ,(through group of sonobuoys, MAD sensors ,sea-floor thermo-differential detectors ,space based IR/wake pattern processing assets etc...etc..)previously described in mine example would last 7 minutes ,ok ?

    Now , take into examination the most distant Russian submarine in my example : the Improved Akula at 85 km far from the SS-N21 ,ok ?

    This Improved Akula manage to shot its salvo of three or four RPK-7 ,let put, 1:30 minutes (in reality the operation would require no more than 40-50 seconds but i want to “stretch” the figures at maximum adding some handicaps resulting from unexpected difficulties, validation problems or crew inefficiencies to render all even more persuading ) ,.






    The rocket propulsion start and the missile go on at ,let put, Mach 1 (also here , RPK-7 is ,obviously, significantly faster than that , but i want to take a lower figure for the reason previously explained) .
    This salvo of RPK-7 will employ, at this speed , 250 seconds ,or 4 minutes and 10 seconds to reach the position of Sea Wolf , therefore 5 minutes and 40 seconds in total from the first contact to the delivery of the three /four UMGT-1 torpedo on the enemy submarine exact position.

    Practically in spite we have taken into examination a very brief tracking time window for the Sea Wolf and in spite we have put a lot of handicaps and retards over the enemy engaging platforms and its weapons this SSN-21 has not even only one chance to exit from this small enemy ASW detector’s area before having four UMGT-1 engaging it .


    -At that we can add that ,to the contrary of a torpedo this SSN-21 will become eventually aware to be under attack only the instant that the first UMGT-1 touch the water surface just over it and that ,at cause of the much lower reserve buoyancy , significantly lower hull’s material strength and lack of a double hull its chances to survive are incomparably lower than a Russian submarine in its same class .

    Now take into examination the opposite situation ,but don’t consider the Sea Wolf at 85 Km of distance from the sensor area where the Improved Akula of the example has been detected but the Improved Los Angeles class at only 38 Km.

    Now image that this Improved Los Angeles class would be capable to deliver the latest version of its MK-48 ADCAP……instantaneously , literally at zero seconds from the contact , this MK-48 ADCAP in 7 minutes cover at its maximum speed (not its average) 11,8 km ,practically not even one third of the required range before the contact with the Improved Akula will be definitely lost.

    Practically in spite,in this scenario , we have taken into examination an US submarine at only 38 km of distance (instead of the 85km in the example with the Russian submarine ) and have conceded to it totally irrational “bonus” , don’t exist even only one chance that the Improved Akula could be engaged before the contact with it will be lost ..and without put in the equation the possibility for the Akula to eventually employ its MG-74s to even “use” a similar sensor area at its own advantage .

    Like you can see the fact that submarines are time-sensitive targets (and even more with submarines with significantly higher speed and depth limits) put a very big premium on the type of technologies and design solutions implemented in Soviet/Russian submarines.

    Now i must go, but if i will get a bit of time, will continue at return from work.


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  Austin on Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:56 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:Maybe adding some numbers will render the previous example even more clear also on this point .

    Let put that the momentary tracking of the enemy submarine ,(through group of sonobuoys, MAD sensors ,sea-floor thermo-differential detectors ,space based IR/wake pattern processing assets etc...etc..)previously described in mine example would last 7 minutes ,ok ?

    Now , take into examination the most distant Russian submarine in my example : the Improved Akula at 85 km far from the SS-N21

    My Dear Friend Mindstorm , I hope you understand all those 80-40-50 km figure you have pulled out from god knows where does not work in real world using Passive Sonars and against very silent submarine like Sea Wolf ..... you are simply assuming MAD , Sonobouys , ASW aircraft , satellites etc will be all available to Russian submarine.

    In real world a Sea Wolf or Akula will be operating alone or at best in pair with other Akula to hunt NATO or US submarine , Please remember US Navy 4th Gen Submarine like Sea Wolf or Virginia are highly Net Centric with C4I3 systems and have a far far superior capability to communicate with other assets of USN like Satellite , Surface Ship and Submarine then any Russian Submarine will have now or will have it in a decade.

    Netcentric is at the heart of USN Submarine today and Russian Navy is now waking up to Net Centric Warfare concept Very Happy

    So in real world in absent of any asset to assist Sub Hunting to either side , both submarine will be using Passive Sonar and in case of Akula Passive Sonar and at best SOKS to detect each other.

    I would still bet USN any day will have better ability to assist its Submarine on hunting role then Russian Navy could do it today.

    In a scenario where both submarine uses passive means of detection in favourible condition lets assume its favourable a Akula-2 will detect Sea Wolf in under single digit Km say 9-10 km while in the same condition a Sea Wolf powerful Passive Sonar will be able to detect the less acoustic capable Akula-2 much further and earlier.

    Chances are a Sea Wolf will be putting in a ADCAP torpedo earlier in water against a Akula then a Akula will be able to put a UGST against Sea Wolf.

    Please remember Sea Wolf is acoustically far quiter then Akula-2 and has much better and capable Spherical Sonar , such sonar is only coming with yasen in Russian Navy.

    Bottom line is in a favourable scenerio a Sea Wolf will be able to beat a Akula more number of times then vice verse.

    In a unfavourable an Akula and Sea Wolf will detect each other on single digit Km and here to Sea Wolf more capable passive sonar holds the edge.

    Now the only grey area is SOKS , no one knows how SOKS works in real world and how capable it is , if its a revolutionary detection system then may be and i say may be Akula can detect Sea Wolf earlier and then she can use her torpedoes much earlier.

    But in all scenario the SS-N-16 will never be used , SS-N-16 is useful against Noisy Submarine of earlier generation or against Surface Ships that generates noise which can be heard many many Km away by modern Passive Sonar and then you can use the standoff advantage of such weapon to good effect.

    You can easily bet a Akula commander will use his best wire guided torpedo as it provides best ability to evade modern decoys and can keep track of moving target or target that knows its under attack and can do evasive manouver to defeat the torpedoes , using combination of depth , speed ,hard manouvering and decoys.

    Ofcourse lets say by stretch of imagination using Voodoo magic a Akula does detect a Sea Wolf at 80-100 km then the best use of SS-N-16 is to use it if it has tactical nukes. In this way a Sea Wolf wont be able to evade it and the submarine can just fire two SS-N-16 with say 10Kt Nukes at sea wolf and then get out as fast as possible it can.

    US too has similar rocked propelled torpedo like ASROC but decided against using in submarine or developed similar weapon becuse of its limited potential against a submarine , both in long range positive detection of targets and the ability to the torpedo to reach and search and find a submarine , find it and then go active autonomously at the target. its near impossible to that with submarine.

    Hence NATO/US thrust has been to keep developing long range torpedoes and more advanced variant of it with Variable Speed propulsion , Advanced Navigation and Guidance , Dual Mode Active/Passive Guidance , Intelligent Algorithim to evade decoys and Autonomous capabililty during the last few Km at the target.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  TR1 on Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:37 pm

    I feel it necessary to point out that if we are talking about real world, the whole net centric concept still has huge questions about its viability. Especially in something as complex as submarine operations. Keep in mind even the old USSR realized important of satelite cooperation with subs, and invested heavily in this.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  Austin on Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:08 am

    TR1 wrote:I feel it necessary to point out that if we are talking about real world, the whole net centric concept still has huge questions about its viability. Especially in something as complex as submarine operations. Keep in mind even the old USSR realized important of satelite cooperation with subs, and invested heavily in this.

    I hope you realise that Netcentric warfare does not mean just satellite co-operation with subs ..its far far bigger then that.

    And in real world no system is perfect but US has intvested in this for nearly 15 years now and have a head start and lead in Netcentricity of the system and its quite a viable system in real time ....even Russian Navy is investing in this now and even IN has started investing in this before the RuN.

    Check some primer on netcentric warfare for USN submarine

    Submarines in Network Centric Warfare

    The Art of the Possible: Communication at Speed and Depth

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15445
    Points : 16152
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:14 am

    The Russian navy is far ahead of the Russian Army and Air Force.

    Austin... perhaps you should learn a bit about the Sigma system?

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 733
    Points : 916
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:44 am

    Austin before continue i want to render absolutely clear that i DON'T intend this debate as a sort of "fight" against you ; rather, to the contrary i consider it an interesting exchange of points of view with an intelligent and highly educated interlocutor.


    "I hope you understand all those 80-40-50 km figure you have pulled out from god knows where does not work in real world using Passive Sonars and against very silent submarine like Sea Wolf ..... you are simply assuming MAD , Sonobouys , ASW aircraft , satellites etc will be all available to Russian submarine."


    Austin i don't assume absolutely nothing even less any type of "extra" assets ion favor of the Russian submarines ; to the opposite i have described a situation (moreover extremely common in reality ) not only with very few assets involved (a tiny barrier of some typical modern ASW sensors with theirs satellite or low frequency sonar relay and obviously ....the submarines), a very brief window of detection of the submarine in transition and the same, precise, identical, symmetric situation for both the Russian and the US-built submarines ,but have also openly and strongly "cheated" in favor of the US submarines only to show that absolutely NOTHING can replace the lack of offensive/defensive systems allowing an unit to defeat its enemy in space-temporal coordinates totally out of reach for unit devoid of them .


    Netcentric is at the heart of USN Submarine today and Russian Navy is now waking up to Net Centric Warfare concept

    If you have examined with attention the typical operational events described in my previous example ,you will realize that all the net-centric capabilities of this world will not offer to the crew of this SSN-21 even only a single chance to engage the enemy Improved Akula detected by the sonobuoy’s, MAD or thermo-differential sensor barrier , neither provide to it a single chance for prevent its engagement by part of the Akula from wide stand-off range ,moreover enjoying fully the surprise element, at inverted sides.
    But i want to continue even farther from this point up to its "root".


    Austin have you ever stopped for one hour in your live at reason WHY in the Western military community and in western publications on literally any subjects , from military doctrine ,tactical structure, up to single system design or CONOPS, are strangely sold as central or “decisive” just those capabilities or systems linked to information flow management, electronic integration, data processing etc..etc... ?
    (offering ,moreover, as subliminal validation of the truthfulness of that thesis ....the operational results meanly obtained against enemy some hundreds of times inferiors and attacked in coalition enjoying very crushing numerical advantage)

    Very Simple : because those concepts, capabilities or systems was just those linked to the technological segments of primacy of the West over URSS .

    Wanting to remain in the area of this thread we can say that admit that a submarine with a significant depth advantage enjoy enormous tactical , detection and survivability advantages over one with a much lower depth limit would be devastating for western operators of the sector and theirs adherence to the doctrine (above all because the chances to modify the situation would be very slim ,in fact you well know obtaining, in areas outside those of your traditional know-how, scientific breakthroughs in the so called metric or “hard” parameters is very very very difficult ; much more than similar improvements in soft parameters like software at example).

    Assert that a submarine significantly faster is much more survivable ,difficult and resource-intensive to engage ,strategically dynamic and tactically versatile in confrontation with one slower would be equally inadmissible .
    Admit that a submarine with entire class of offensive and defensive weapons and systems completely lacking in western submarines would enjoy crushing advantages in a direct conventional conflict would be equally inacceptable .

    And so on with hull strength , reserve buoyancy, hydrodynamics , long range communication, engine density and nominal power, system redundancy , automation etc..etc…

    With a sportive metaphor we could say that the question is like of two different volley squads : the first is from a nation that has pointed all on tactic ,position on the court ,capability to communicate between its players, the second instead has pointed all in developing players capable to jump higher and longer than its opponent, move faster on the court , having better reflexes , shot stronger than its opponent etc….etc… the nation of the first squad claim that its approach is more efficient because in the past has won a pair of contests against some amateurish squads employing the second philosophy composed by sixty-year-old players , not eating since some weeks and playing 28 against 6 …clear the concept ?


    In the same way of the improvement in quietness in the past, achieved moreover in a very short time, the implementation of net-centric capabilities , for Russian submarines, represent merely an integration of theirs already outstanding “hard” capabilities .

    What will be much more improbable ,instead, will be to see ,in a brief time window , western built submarines increase substantially in : hull resiliency ,nominal speed , depth limit, engine density, integrated defensive/tactical systems, double hull construction, automation and the development and integration of active self propelled rocket mines, supercavitating torpedo, long range supersonic anti-ship and land attack missiles and long range supersonic ASW missiles ( …..is much more simple to teach to outstanding volley players good game’s tactics and communication than teach to others to jump higher , respond better, be capable of shots more powerful , increase reflexes etc...


    I want to end the response on this subject pointing out that a lot of operative practices and principles that several persons put in the area pertaining to what is now-days called "netcentric" warfare has nothing to do with it but ,instead with Joint Operations, an area that just in naval doctrine Soviets had pioneered .
    Some years ago i have read a book very interesting on the subject (in English moreover) that expended some dozen of pages on Soviet joint operations in ASW .
    The title if my memory don’t deceive me should be “Tactics of Soviet Union Navy” or something similar , if you can Austin read it ; you will quickly realize that sensor data integration coming from very different ASW platforms is a very old concept that already Soviets had even pioneered ,in sum nothing new under the Sun Very Happy Very Happy .



    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15445
    Points : 16152
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:58 am





    1 - Commander's automated workstation (ARM)
    1a - Helmsman's workstation
    1b - Watch officer's ARM
    2 - Navigator's ARM
    3 - Database unit
    4 - BCh-7 commander's ARM
    5 - AD chief's ARM
    6 - Data exchange unit
    7 - ASW/radio awereness operator's ARM
    8 - BCh-7 plotter ARM
    9 - Close air and surface control unit
    11 - Aircraft combat control operator's ARM
    12 - System control operator's ARM
    13 - Radar link unit
    14 - Electrical system units

    To explain what is BCh-7: In the Russian Navy, an individual ship's TO&E is divided into Battle Stations (BCh) and Battle Services (Sl). Each BCh and Sl can also be divided into divisions, groups, sections, watches and so on.

    Battle Stations:

    BCh-1: navigation
    BCh-2: missile-artillery
    BCh-3: mine-torpedo
    BCh-4: communications
    BCh-5: propulsion
    BCh-6: aviation
    BCh-7: radar control

    Battle Services:

    Sl-H: NBC protection
    Sl-M: medical
    Sl-S: supply

    *******************************************************************************
    Every ship will get this system from carrier down to Corvette.
    Even the Buyan gunboat for the Caspian Sea Flotilla has Sigma... though it is the Domestic version rather than the export system.

    It is a battle management and communications system that combines data from multiple sources to form an air/sea/underwater picture of the space around the various vessels.

    This means a Corvette fitted with Redut could launch a 400km range SAM at a target it has no chance of detecting itself, but can receieve data about the target from a platform located closer to the target to allow the interception to take place.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 733
    Points : 916
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:32 pm



    This means a Corvette fitted with Redut could launch a 400km range SAM at a target it has no chance of detecting itself, but can receieve data about the target from a platform located closer to the target to allow the interception to take place.


    Yes GarryB , and also here you will notice that the focus is the eventual employment of an outstanding "hard" capability ( the 400 km capable SAM) outside its particular operational niche.

    More often than not those type of capability's expansion are linked merely to mono-lineary system's function sequences


    In the example i had produced ,at example, the unique factor necessary for the capability's exploitation offered by a parametrically superior "hard" system (such as an ASW missile with 3,7 times the maximum range and over 18 times the speed of the best ASW weapon available to the opponent) was a very brief detection "contact" with a very small barrier of sonobuoys , MAD sensors, thermodifferential detectors etc...don't allowing ,to the contrary ,to submerines equiped only with torpedo systems any change to carry out an engagement.


    In plain Cold War all whas in need for a pair of Oscar class to literally obliterate an entire Carrier Battle Group (likely with a very wide overkill edge) and from over 600 km of distance (therefore completely at safe) was a single , 2-3 seconds long, coded pulse from RORSAT/EORSAT (another system without corresponding in the West).
    Anyone remember the famous response of the Admiral Hyman Rickover to a question of the Sen. Robert Taft on what analysts had computed as the average operative live expected for the US Navy's carrier battle group forces in an hypothetical full scale war against the Soviets ; the response was : " From ours studies, about two days " ,but suddenly after it stressed (at reason) that Carriers battle Groups were, by far, the primary adn most effcient mean for US military influence's extension around the world and that modify naval doctrine and system requirements only to for a scenario wherein ICBM related MAD was almost the unique element coming into play, would have been profoundly wrong.





    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  Austin on Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:13 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:Austin before continue i want to render absolutely clear that i DON'T intend this debate as a sort of "fight" against you ; rather, to the contrary i consider it an interesting exchange of points of view with an intelligent and highly educated interlocutor.

    Ofcourse not I never take any forum debate as fight but a way to exchange information and learn from it and share our my own thought.

    I dont say here that i am proclaiming a Gospel Truth but what i have read learnt and understood so far and submarine has been my favourite topic Smile

    I also know we are dwelling into an area which is so highly classified by all sides and our discussion might just be a case of Blind Mans Bluff Laughing

    Austin i don't assume absolutely nothing even less any type of "extra" assets ion favor of the Russian submarines ; to the opposite i have described a situation (moreover extremely common in reality ) not only with very few assets involved (a tiny barrier of some typical modern ASW sensors with theirs satellite or low frequency sonar relay and obviously ....the submarines), a very brief window of detection of the submarine in transition and the same, precise, identical, symmetric situation for both the Russian and the US-built submarines ,but have also openly and strongly "cheated" in favor of the US submarines only to show that absolutely NOTHING can replace the lack of offensive/defensive systems allowing an unit to defeat its enemy in space-temporal coordinates totally out of reach for unit devoid of them .

    I really dont think those Barrier , Sesors , LF sonar etc will come into play for Russia unless she is dealing with American SSN in its own backyard. Out there in the Pacific , Atlantic or East/West Coast ....Russia submarine will have to fight it out alone without any support from its own surface ship and dealing with NATO/US surface asset , MPA and Submarine/ASW asset all combined into one.

    All those Satellite based submarine detection system makes me more doubtful on how it works and even if it does what are the false positive that such system can throw and one can go into a wild goose hunt based on such false positive specially when in those area you might lack other layered sensors to verify such satellite based detection system.

    I understand Russians are well trained submariners and are professionals and can hold their own against any thing from NATO/US as Operation Atrina proved it.

    Unfortunately for Russia the decade of 90's and 2000 has been a bad time with very little coming from yards all we got was Akula and some improved Akula ......no new class of SSN every came out and what ever came out was in very small numbers.

    US on the other hand consolidated its asset building two class of 4th Gen submarine and netcentric capability and much more.

    That period is not building and funding has come to bite as one Russian ex Admiral had said we lost lot of R&D capability in this area in areas of acoustic.

    Coming back to the original topic of detection ,I can bet from all that i have read an Akula-2 in most favourable condition will detect a sea wolf in few 10 km at best and its Passive Sonar which is the primary means of detection is inferior to Sea Wolf/Virginia Spherical Sonar.

    So the first look and first fire advantage will always be with Sea Wolf unless the sub commander tactically screws up or the SOKS system has some ways which is much better then passive sonar.

    My personal thinking of SOKS is its like an Aid in Sensor to the main Passive Sonar and not a substitute to it . Much like IRST is to Radar ....Do you have any thing on SOKS ?

    As far as SS-N-16 goes i have my doubt that system will be any effective against modern submarine whose detection will be in few 10's of km in favourable condition , so the stand off advantage is of little use unless ofcourse you are dealing with obsolete submarine of Chinese type or you want to hit a CBG and its surface asset.

    I am more of the school of thought that a advanced Torpedo will play a vital role in the future and i think Russia should invest more there , SS-N-16 or Klub ASW are good aid in tool for anti-submarine task but as sub commander i wont bet my life on it.

    Mindstorm , I am aware the Soviets had some kind of netcentric capability and they were developing it but the one we see now are quite different due to Revolutionary In Military Affairs and development in Communication and Computers.

    Sigma is one step in the right direction and in the next 15-20 years i see Russian Navy will catch up with US on Netcentricity if they are funded well in that period.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  Austin on Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:31 pm

    GarryB wrote:Austin... perhaps you should learn a bit about the Sigma system?

    I am aware of it for a long time , I believe a variant of it will be on our Groshkov carrier Vikramaditya

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  Austin on Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:59 pm

    Couple of question to Mindstorm , TR1

    1 ) How capable is Delta 4 in evading USN SSN hunting it , has it ever been trailed by US Navy SSN on patrol ?

    2 ) Do Delta 4 only patrol in Arctic or do they patrol beyond that , this is based on recent statement that Borie will go on global patrol in neutral waters ,which is i think different from Bastion patrol/Arctic patrol ?

    3 ) Any idea remotely how SOKS work Laughing

    4 ) Any more information on the new Fizik-2 torpedo ?

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5627
    Points : 6280
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  Viktor on Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:21 pm

    Austin wrote:Coming back to the original topic of detection ,I can bet from all that i have read an Akula-2 in most favourable condition will detect a sea wolf in few 10 km at best and its Passive Sonar which is the primary means of detection is inferior to Sea Wolf/Virginia Spherical Sonar.

    Where did you get that info about 10km?
    Why do you think just because Sea Wolf has spherical sonar has better target detectin?
    Why do you think US has so much better sonar system in general than Russian ones?


    Austin wrote:Mindstorm , I am aware the Soviets had some kind of netcentric capability and they were developing it but the one we see now are quite different due to Revolutionary In Military Affairs and development in Communication and Computers.

    Sigma is one step in the right direction and in the next 15-20 years i see Russian Navy will catch up with US on Netcentricity if they are funded well in that period.

    Tell me please, what is that US netcentricity has that Russian has not, and whats there to catch?


    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  TR1 on Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:35 pm

    Austin wrote:Couple of question to Mindstorm , TR1

    1 ) How capable is Delta 4 in evading USN SSN hunting it , has it ever been trailed by US Navy SSN on patrol ?

    2 ) Do Delta 4 only patrol in Arctic or do they patrol beyond that , this is based on recent statement that Borie will go on global patrol in neutral waters ,which is i think different from Bastion patrol/Arctic patrol ?

    3 ) Any idea remotely how SOKS work Laughing

    4 ) Any more information on the new Fizik-2 torpedo ?

    You are asking some classified stuff Austin Wink.

    However, just some incidents to show the kind of ranges involved in submarine tracking, and what can happen if it goes wrong:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Grayling_%28SSN-646%29
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_incident_off_Kildin_island
    http://www.armscontrol.ru/subs/collisions/db080693.htm#prof

    Also is funny how blatant the American subs were with hostile and dangerous operations, from reading American sources you would think their subs were White Knights protecting the oceans from evil communist rust buckets. And this is coming from an American citizen Wink .

    Intersting read:
    http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/pdf/4_2miasnikov.pdf

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15445
    Points : 16152
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:55 am

    I really dont think those Barrier , Sesors , LF sonar etc will come into play for Russia unless she is dealing with American SSN in its own backyard. Out there in the Pacific , Atlantic or East/West Coast ....Russia submarine will have to fight it out alone without any support from its own surface ship and dealing with NATO/US surface asset , MPA and Submarine/ASW asset all combined into one.

    Russia has no sea lanes of communications to protect or defend.

    They can choose to send subs to the Atlantic or the Pacific if they choose to, but have no pressing need to do so.

    The job most Akulas and other SSNs and SSKs will be performing in WWIII will be to protect Russian ports and Russian SSBNs...

    In such knife fights they have all sorts of antenna arrays on the sea bed listening and tracking....

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  Austin on Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:35 am

    Viktor wrote:Where did you get that info about 10km?

    Reading through lot of document on submarine quiteness specially 4th gen , I dont mean under 10 km but i mean few 10 km under very favourable condition.

    Under not so favourable condition it would be under 10 km or so.

    And under exteremely unfavourable condition Passive sonar may not be able to detect at all.

    If you look at the incident where a Sierra and LA collided , its one example of non-favourable condition and both subs couldnt detect each other and collided.

    Why do you think just because Sea Wolf has spherical sonar has better target detectin?

    The Speherical sonar picture of sea wolf i have seen has much larger array , covers most of the frontal part of sub and has a much better and larger FOV , Akula on the other had has cylindrical sonar.

    Why do you think US has so much better sonar system in general than Russian ones?

    Because of the advantage the US industry in Digital signal processing and electronics

    Now with the availability of such system via COTS , Russia should catch up there.

    [quote="Austin"]Mindstorm , I am aware the Soviets had some kind of netcent



    Tell me please, what is that US netcentricity has that Russian has not, and whats there to catch?


    Check the few pages on this thread i have posted Netcentric in US submarine warfare.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  Austin on Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:14 am

    TR1 wrote:
    Austin wrote:Couple of question to Mindstorm , TR1

    1 ) How capable is Delta 4 in evading USN SSN hunting it , has it ever been trailed by US Navy SSN on patrol ?

    2 ) Do Delta 4 only patrol in Arctic or do they patrol beyond that , this is based on recent statement that Borie will go on global patrol in neutral waters ,which is i think different from Bastion patrol/Arctic patrol ?

    3 ) Any idea remotely how SOKS work Laughing

    4 ) Any more information on the new Fizik-2 torpedo ?

    You are asking some classified stuff Austin Wink.

    However, just some incidents to show the kind of ranges involved in submarine tracking, and what can happen if it goes wrong:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Grayling_%28SSN-646%29
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_incident_off_Kildin_island
    http://www.armscontrol.ru/subs/collisions/db080693.htm#prof

    Also is funny how blatant the American subs were with hostile and dangerous operations, from reading American sources you would think their subs were White Knights protecting the oceans from evil communist rust buckets. And this is coming from an American citizen Wink .

    Intersting read:
    http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/pdf/4_2miasnikov.pdf

    Thanks TR1 , I have read most of these before.

    The most interesting incident is Delta 4 colliding with Sturgeon-class which is a pre LA class SSN.

    And Delta 4 was a very modern SSBN in early 90's and still its passive sensor could not detect the Sturgeon and vice verse.

    Its true USN Submarine has been very aggressive in trailing Russian SSBN on patrol and would not level a single opportunity to do so , It is believed that atleast one USN SSN or UK SSN is always along the Russian coast to keep tab of Russian SSBN and it can be more then one.

    I just wonder how would a Russian SSBN fleet today compromising of Delta 4 would match up against Sea Wolf and Virginia SSN which are like 2 Gen ahead of Sturgeon class.

    Hopefully the Borei SSBN gives it self a resonable acoustic leverage that it could avoid or detect a trailing USN 4th Gen SSN.

    I am sure USN will be waiting for Borei to start her first SSBN patrol some time this June and would like to record her signature and trail her Smile

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15445
    Points : 16152
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:28 am

    An SSBN doesn't need to patrol... it can stay in it harbour and still perform its mission...

    Equally who is to say there is no Russian SSN trailing the SSBN looking for foreign SSNs trying to pick up a Russian SSBN... an opportunity to get a Seawolfs signature?

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  Austin on Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:59 am

    GarryB wrote:An SSBN doesn't need to patrol... it can stay in it harbour and still perform its mission...

    If all that is they would do with SSBN , they are better of building ICBM in hardened silos.

    A SSBN in harbour are hardly least vulnerable targets.

    Equally who is to say there is no Russian SSN trailing the SSBN looking for foreign SSNs trying to pick up a Russian SSBN... an opportunity to get a Seawolfs signature?

    May be but in the past 15 years i have yet come come across a single report of Russian SSN able to detect/track a Sea Wolf .on the contrary there are many reports of US LA getting tracked by Akula

    Sponsored content

    Re: Project 971: Akula class

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 10:32 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:32 am