Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Share

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2542
    Points : 2675
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  kvs on Sat Aug 01, 2015 8:59 pm

    Ah the Toshiba myth. That's right Soviet engineers could never create NC machinery that could produce the metal part
    geometry needed. Even though the USSR had world leading understanding of the science and applied mathematics of
    fluid boundary layers and turbulence. The USSR could make a world leading propeller design, but couldn't produce it.
    What a retarded joke.

    Anyone who spends any time thinking about this "insurmountable" problem would realize it is the usual NATO quasi-racist
    propaganda. They could produce the right geometry by hand if they had to, down to 0.1 mm. It's not like they needed 10 million propellers
    per month. This trope is the same one as the "Soviet ICBMs were not accurate". More pap for uneducated saps who don't
    know what laser gyroscopes are and what determines the accuracy of a missile (hint: it ain't much besides the gyroscopes, missiles
    aren't sailing ships where the crew performance with the sails and astrolabe matters). The USSR had good solid state ring laser
    gyroscopes as of 1970 (glass-ceramic).

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 151
    Points : 187
    Join date : 2015-07-17

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Sat Aug 01, 2015 9:30 pm

    kvs wrote:Ah the Toshiba myth.   That's right Soviet engineers could never create NC machinery that could produce the metal part
    geometry needed.   Even though the USSR had world leading understanding of the science and applied mathematics of
    fluid boundary layers and turbulence.   The USSR could make a world leading propeller design, but couldn't produce it.
    What a retarded joke.

    I am sorry if it hurt your pride to hear that USSR was lagging in 5-axis machining tools.

    It is, however, the truth and milling machines were indeed purchased.

    I don't see anything particularly bad about this. The only ones who should be butthurt about it would be Americans who missed the whole deal.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 02, 2015 11:56 am

    The Granat cruise missile would not be much use against enemy ships though... it had no terminal guidance and was a nuke only weapon with a CEP that was way to big for a conventional warhead to be effective.

    This limits their use to global nuclear war...

    As opposed to the Granit SS-N-19 Shipwreck which would be devastating in the anti ship role... even against a big one.

    Regarding the Toshiba purchase that improved propeller production... it is like anything... Israel and the US spend a lot of money developing UAVs and surprise surprise they have good UAVs... the Soviet Union and Russia give lip service to UAVs and have some primitive systems, but nothing special...

    The Japanese have the technology because they spent the money and took the time to develop it... no magic.


    _________________
    “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

    archangelski
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 336
    Points : 359
    Join date : 2015-04-25

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  archangelski on Sun Aug 02, 2015 12:10 pm

    artjomh wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:These classes of submarines were primarily designed for ASW during the cold war

    But can they also be used for torpedo attacks against surface warships ? I know they carried ASW missiles which were not effective against surface warships

    How effective were they against an average western Frigate/destroyer in the 80s

    I think you have it slightly backwards.

    First generation nukes (November) were used primarily for against surface ships, while the second generation onwards were designed also with anti-submarine capability.

    ASW was much much harder than ASuW in 1950's, so all submarines before Victor could do ASuW, but not ASW.

    Because anti-submarine capabilities of surface ships increased significantly during the 60's, it was not considered very realistic that a torpedo attack would be able to penetrate a SAG's defensive screen. So, submarines naturally evolved for longer range using cruise missile which eventually created the SSGN/SSN split.

    A pre-Victor 3 nuke getting into torpedo distance of a SAG is still pretty unrealistic due to introduction of ASROC and layered scouting capabilities.

    Victor III was revolutionary for the Soviet Navy both in terms of quieting (thanks, Toshiba!), but also because it was the first Soviet SSN to carry long-range anti-ship missiles (Granat), while all SSN prior to it only carried torpedoes and rocket-torpedoes like Starfish/Vyuga. This has tremendously increased their ASuW capability.

    All attack submarines since Victor III (except Alfa) were also able to carry a large arsenal of long-range anti-ship missiles and would participate in a PAD (Protoviavianosnaya diviziya), a counter-carrier division, a type of ad hoc SSGN/SSN ship formation that would be used for war-type surge.

    Hi artjomh, happy to see your posts here.
    For Project 671 RTM Shchuka class (Victor III), the S-10 Granat (SS-N-21) is, as far as I know, only a strategic cruise missile for land based targets attack. Do you have info about an antiship version ?
    The Project 971 Shchuka-B (Akula) class have the 3M-54 Klub (SS-N-27) antiship missile launch capabilities.

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 151
    Points : 187
    Join date : 2015-07-17

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Sun Aug 02, 2015 9:39 pm

    archangelski wrote:Hi artjomh, happy to see your posts here.
    For Project 671 RTM Shchuka class (Victor III), the S-10 Granat (SS-N-21) is, as far as I know, only a strategic cruise missile for land based targets attack. Do you have info about an antiship version ?
    The Project 971 Shchuka-B (Akula) class have the 3M-54 Klub (SS-N-27) antiship missile launch capabilities.

    Oh my, I just realized how much I brainfarted there. Please ignore, Granat of course only has inertial navigation... I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote "anti-ship". Thank you for noticing this, so people don't get misinformed.

    And no, no 3M54 on 971 yet..

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sun Aug 02, 2015 10:29 pm

    kvs wrote:Ah the Toshiba myth.   That's right Soviet engineers could never create NC machinery that could produce the metal part
    geometry needed.   Even though the USSR had world leading understanding of the science and applied mathematics of
    fluid boundary layers and turbulence.   The USSR could make a world leading propeller design, but couldn't produce it.
    What a retarded joke.  

    Anyone who spends any time thinking about this "insurmountable" problem would realize it is the usual NATO quasi-racist
    propaganda.
       They could produce the right geometry by hand if they had to, down to 0.1 mm.   It's not like they needed 10 million propellers
    per month.   This trope is the same one as the "Soviet ICBMs were not accurate".  More pap for uneducated saps who don't
    know what
    laser gyroscopes are and what determines the accuracy of a missile (hint: it ain't much besides the gyroscopes, missiles
    aren't sailing ships where the crew performance with the sails and astrolabe matters).   The USSR had good solid state ring laser
    gyroscopes as of 1970 (glass-ceramic).  

    +1 for the bold part.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 03, 2015 1:43 pm

    Knowing how fusion works does not mean we have fusion reactors yet...

    High precision tools don't just fall from the sky, and a garage C&C machine just wont cut it... pun intended for a 10,000 ton sub.

    Of course they had tools to make propellers, but just like the US didn't have the computer processing power to calculate curves for their stealth aircraft in the 1970s what makes anyone think that the USSR automatically had computer controlled cutting machines able to make enormous propellers perfectly smooth and within a fraction of a mm of the design shape?


    _________________
    “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

    archangelski
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 336
    Points : 359
    Join date : 2015-04-25

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  archangelski on Mon Aug 03, 2015 6:57 pm

    artjomh wrote:

    Oh my, I just realized how much I brainfarted there. Please ignore, Granat of course only has inertial navigation... I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote "anti-ship". Thank you for noticing this, so people don't get misinformed.

    And no, no 3M54 on 971 yet..

    I may have misspoken, but you are right : capabilities (like i've written) only (not yet operationally used).

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2542
    Points : 2675
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  kvs on Wed Aug 05, 2015 12:01 am

    GarryB wrote:Knowing how fusion works does not mean we have fusion reactors yet...

    High precision tools don't just fall from the sky, and a garage C&C machine just wont cut it... pun intended for a 10,000 ton sub.

    Of course they had tools to make propellers, but just like the US didn't have the computer processing power to calculate curves for their stealth aircraft in the 1970s what makes anyone think that the USSR automatically had computer controlled cutting machines able to make enormous propellers perfectly smooth and within a fraction of a mm of the design shape?

    You are confusing many different problems and coming to the wrong conclusion. Designing the shape of the F-117 required
    high resolution 3D fluid dynamics simulations since the faceted shape required by the initial concept for stealth significantly deteriorated
    and stability. The cavitation noise of a submarine propeller is a problem amenable to asymptotic perturbation expansions
    and revolves around the characteristics of the boundary layer flow. It is simply a different problem from the F-117 flight
    characteristics.

    Also, the USSR had sufficiently powerful computer systems during the 1970s to actually do fluid dynamical simulations using
    the Navier-Stokes equations. And the know-how on the applied math front meant that they could come up with approximations
    to the governing equations in the boundary layer and use them in their model code. They did not need to run the equivalent of
    climate GCMs at high resolution to model the flow around the propeller blades. They could even reduce the dimensionality of the
    problem from 3D to 2D using the right coordinate system and slicing the hydrofoil.

    And how was some Toshiba NC machine supposed to solve any of the above problems? By definition it requires a part design
    a priori. My statement was rather clear, once you know the shape you can build the part without NC machinery. Complex
    parts were built long before NC tools. Toshiba "solved the USSR's sub noise problem" is a ludicrous fairy tale.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 05, 2015 6:40 am

    You are confusing many different problems and coming to the wrong conclusion. Designing the shape of the F-117 required
    high resolution 3D fluid dynamics simulations since the faceted shape required by the initial concept for stealth significantly deteriorated
    and stability

    The design of the F-117 was optimised for stealth which meant specific precise shape design... the computers of the 1970s couldn't cope with the enormous number of data points from a smooth curve surface, so the designs were made up of flat faceted polygons... like early computer games drew aircraft in flight simulators in polygons. the more polygons the more realistic shape but you would need millions of polygons to create smooth curves and they simply did not have such detailed models, so the computer model had flat faceted polygons and the final aircraft had the same.

    By the time they were designing the B-2 and F-22 computer processing power had improved dramatically and curved shapes could be processed using what we called ray tracing... except instead of ray tracing light it ray traced radar waves to determine the radar view of the aircraft.

    Obviously another aspect was precision in construction... I rather doubt they would have been able to produce aircraft with the curves to the accuracy required to actually make them stealthy when they made the F-117 either.

    The cavitation noise of a submarine propeller is a problem amenable to asymptotic perturbation expansions
    and revolves around the characteristics of the boundary layer flow. It is simply a different problem from the F-117 flight
    characteristics.

    Actually exactly the same... the difference being with the F-117 they were looking at drag and lift from the air flow so the damn thing would actually fly, while with propellers the key was ensuring a smooth water flow without separation and cavitation which in addition to making noise can actually cause serious damage to the propeller.

    Also, the USSR had sufficiently powerful computer systems during the 1970s to actually do fluid dynamical simulations using
    the Navier-Stokes equations. And the know-how on the applied math front meant that they could come up with approximations
    to the governing equations in the boundary layer and use them in their model code. They did not need to run the equivalent of
    climate GCMs at high resolution to model the flow around the propeller blades. They could even reduce the dimensionality of the
    problem from 3D to 2D using the right coordinate system and slicing the hydrofoil.

    All perfectly true, but if you don't have the machine tool with the level of precision to make that exact shape in 3 dimensions then it means nothing at all.

    And how was some Toshiba NC machine supposed to solve any of the above problems? By definition it requires a part design
    a priori. My statement was rather clear, once you know the shape you can build the part without NC machinery. Complex
    parts were built long before NC tools. Toshiba "solved the USSR's sub noise problem" is a ludicrous fairy tale.

    Making the calculations is not the same as being able to machine the product.

    In the case of stealth the Americans knew full well what they wanted as a result but had to guess and model and test and then guess again and model and test which was an incredibly slow expensive way to do things. then they came across a paper by a Soviet citizen that developed the mathematics model needed to test using numbers and angles. this meant you could create computer models and test thousands of them per night and then produce prototypes of the most promising designs which can then be tested.

    Having a machine that will create the propeller they could design for the Russians was like having the maths to rapidly prototype and test for stealth for the US.

    Or if you like the Japanese selling a machine to the Soviets for sub propellers was like the Soviets selling the Titanium to the US to make the SR-71 and all the other products they produced in titanium.


    _________________
    “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

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Austin on Wed Aug 05, 2015 12:05 pm

    Found SmoothieX2 after a long time , He now runs a blog , He is ex Russian Navy and has good knowledge on Russian Submarine , So you can ask any questions you have in the blog and I have requested him to join RMF

    http://smoothiex12.blogspot.in/2015/07/russias-navy-day.html#comment-2174771999

    Check comment section for some questions answered

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Wed Aug 05, 2015 12:55 pm


    Russia inevitably will come (back) to global naval Sea Denial force (highly modified, of course) as USSR was during Gorshkov tenure.

    Austin wrote:Found SmoothieX2 after a long time , He now runs a blog , He is ex Russian Navy and has good knowledge on Russian Submarine , So you can ask any questions you have in the blog and I have requested him to join RMF

    http://smoothiex12.blogspot.in/2015/07/russias-navy-day.html#comment-2174771999

    Check comment section for some questions answered


    I had a brief conversation with this guy on National interest article related to usa navy.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2542
    Points : 2675
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  kvs on Fri Aug 07, 2015 4:30 am

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/07/17/soviets-score-silent-success-in-undersea-race-with-us/4e31f082-6e5a-4c55-bf30-92f797314789/


    Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger and other administration officials are blaming Japan and Norway for allowing their high-tech companies to ship to the Soviet Union the technology needed to manufacture smooth, quiet submarine propellers.

    But those explanations are only the latest chapters of a long book, according to antisubmarine warfare (ASW) specialists inside and outside the government. "Quieting submarines is a laborious process of doing a lot of little things," one veteran ASW specialist said.

    The Soviets have been doing that at the same time that they dared to go beyond the technologies pushed by the late admiral Hyman G. Rickover, the dictator of U.S. submarine design for three decades, the specialist said. As a result, he said, in addition to better propellers, Soviet boats today incorporate advances in power plants, metallurgy, hull shapes, low-friction coatings and a broad range of quieting techniques.
    "The stuff the Soviets got from Toshiba and Kongsberg helped them manufacture smooth, precisely shaped propeller blades," said another ASW specialist and former Navy submariner. "But somebody had to design those propellers and do the engineering . . . the real breakthroughs the Soviets made to make their propellers quiet, not the milling by Toshiba's machines."

    Interesting how the bleating of NATO politicians has established the Toshiba myth. But at the time experts were pointing out the
    BS aspect of these hysterical claims. And the US media still had some objectivity unlike today.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:10 am

    US ASW skills are poor.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Austin on Sat Aug 08, 2015 10:44 am

    Nice Video on Typhoon SSBN

    Secret Russian Sub Mission Invisible


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Austin on Sat Aug 08, 2015 10:46 am

    In the video the Submarine Commander says , Typhoon is a very silent SSBN and most silent in the world but AFAIK even in Russian/Soviet navy the Delta 4 was more silent then typhoon.

    The commander also says NATO submarine stand out at the mouth of the sea when the Russian SSBN comes out they tail it , How do the Russian Sub manage to evade it if a SSN starts to tail from the start ?

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2542
    Points : 2675
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  kvs on Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:02 pm

    Austin wrote:In the video the Submarine Commander says , Typhoon is a very silent SSBN and most silent in the world but AFAIK even in Russian/Soviet navy the Delta 4 was more silent then typhoon.

    The commander also says NATO submarine stand out at the mouth of the sea when the Russian SSBN comes out they tail it , How do the Russian Sub manage to evade it if a SSN starts to tail from the start ?

    Both claims are total rubbish. Think about the NATO claim and how ludicrous it is. Does NATO know the detailed schedule of Russian
    submarine operations. And Russia supposedly has no means of detection of NATO subs near its bases? Yeah, right.

    The Typhoon is an overly huge monstrosity that would be noisier than other Soviet models simply due to its size. Fixing the screw cavitation
    problem does not fix the resonant cavity aspect of submarines. Larger hulls also deform more and this has an acoustic signature as well. And
    of course having two screws is noisier than having one.

    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

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

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sat Aug 08, 2015 4:12 pm

    kvs wrote:
    Austin wrote:In the video the Submarine Commander says , Typhoon is a very silent SSBN and most silent in the world but AFAIK even in Russian/Soviet navy the Delta 4 was more silent then typhoon.

    The commander also says NATO submarine stand out at the mouth of the sea when the Russian SSBN comes out they tail it , How do the Russian Sub manage to evade it if a SSN starts to tail from the start ?

    Both claims are total rubbish.   Think about the NATO claim and how ludicrous it is.    Does NATO know the detailed schedule of Russian
    submarine operations.    And Russia supposedly has no means of detection of NATO subs near its bases?   Yeah, right.

    The Typhoon is an overly huge monstrosity that would be noisier than other Soviet models simply due to its size.   Fixing the screw cavitation
    problem does not fix the resonant cavity aspect of submarines.   Larger hulls also deform more and this has an acoustic signature as well.   And
    of course having two screws is noisier than having one.

    On the other hand, the Typhoon has a pair of pressure hulls within an overall secondary hull, so has a significant capacity for acoustic-deadening technologies to mask the transmitted sounds from internal machinery and crew activities. Given that the outer hull is not a pressure-bearing structure, I presume that the space between the hulls is pressure balanced so it wouldn't tend to deform, and therefore wouldn't generate noise. Can't say much about hydrodynamic noise signature, but they were well streamlined boats so i can't imagine they generate much more noise than a more "conventional" SSBN hullform.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Austin on Sat Aug 08, 2015 4:47 pm


    Both claims are total rubbish.   Think about the NATO claim and how ludicrous it is.    Does NATO know the detailed schedule of Russian
    submarine operations.    And Russia supposedly has no means of detection of NATO subs near its bases?   Yeah, right.

    I think NATO employs intel vessel and its not unkown fact that SSN track or atleast try to track SSBN and russian captain says that so.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Austin on Sat Aug 08, 2015 5:49 pm

    http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.in/2013/12/chinas-anti-access-strategy-submarine.html

    To provide a point of reference, the following acoustic signatures are from "Chinese Evaluations of the U.S. Navy Submarine Force" and "CHINA’S FUTURE NUCLEAR SUBMARINE FORCE"

    Ocean background noise - 90 decibels
    Seawolf-class - 95 decibels
    Virginia-class - 95 decibels
    636 Kilo class - 105 decibels
    Akula-class - 110 decibels
    Type 093 - 110 decibels
    Type 094 - 120 decibels

    Even Russian sources put Akula at 110db , SL discrete frequencies in 5-200 Hz spectrum
    (dB relative to 1 Pa at 1m)

    http://www.armscontrol.ru/subs/snf/snf03221.htm

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Sat Aug 08, 2015 6:36 pm

    [quote="Austin
    I think NATO employs intel vessel and its not unkown fact that SSN track or atleast try to track SSBN and russian captain says that so.[/quote]


    Trying to track and keeping track are two different words .

    [quote="Austin"]

    http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.in/2013/12/chinas-anti-access-strategy-submarine.html

    To provide a point of reference, the following acoustic signatures are from "Chinese Evaluations of the U.S. Navy Submarine Force" and "CHINA’S FUTURE NUCLEAR SUBMARINE FORCE"

    Ocean background noise - 90 decibels
    Seawolf-class - 95 decibels
    Virginia-class - 95 decibels
    636 Kilo class - 105 decibels
    Akula-class - 110 decibels
    Type 093 - 110 decibels
    Type 094 - 120 decibels



    what are his credentials ?

    From blog

    Matt : The views expressed on American Innovation are entirely my own and do not represent anyone else.



    Last edited by max steel on Sun Aug 09, 2015 6:11 pm; edited 1 time in total

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2542
    Points : 2675
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  kvs on Sun Aug 09, 2015 2:37 am

    Austin wrote:http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.in/2013/12/chinas-anti-access-strategy-submarine.html

    To provide a point of reference, the following acoustic signatures are from "Chinese Evaluations of the U.S. Navy Submarine Force" and "CHINA’S FUTURE NUCLEAR SUBMARINE FORCE"

    Ocean background noise - 90 decibels
    Seawolf-class - 95 decibels
    Virginia-class - 95 decibels
    636 Kilo class - 105 decibels
    Akula-class - 110 decibels
    Type 093 - 110 decibels
    Type 094 - 120 decibels

    Even Russian sources put Akula at 110db , SL discrete frequencies in 5-200 Hz spectrum
    (dB relative to 1 Pa at 1m)

    http://www.armscontrol.ru/subs/snf/snf03221.htm

    Ocean background noise of 90 db has got to be some sort of a joke.    The normal background is under 70 db.
    (www.usna.edu/Users/physics/ejtuchol/documents/SP411/Chapter11.pdf).

    The claim that the 636 Kilo is 105 db vs 95 for a Virginia class is yet another example of BS spawned by some
    sort of inadequacy syndrome.   This spam of numbers reminds me of the yapping about stealth.   Supposedly
    the F-22 has the radar cross section of a pea.   The question is what radar frequency and what angle of incidence.  
    Without answering these questions the claim is empty.    The same goes for these noise figures.   Apples and
    oranges comparisons without any credibility.    When the 636 is running on batteries it is significantly quieter
    than the larger Virginia *nuclear* submarine.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Mike E on Sun Aug 09, 2015 3:57 am

    Akula's running on the low-speed propulsors would be quieter as well... Claims like these are baseless to say the very least. 

    Akula-2 is said to be significantly quieter than the improved-LA, and as such it can't be far off from the Virginia. Don't forget that dB numbers are not "fluid" and the actual noise level varies dramatically over a small number of units. 

    This list would put the Virginia at under 1/2 the loudness of an Akula, which is doubtful.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 09, 2015 12:20 pm

    The Typhoon is actually a very quiet submarine... its enormous size means plenty of space for sound reduction measures... and of course being an SSBN it does not need to actually go anywhere at speed so it does not need to move at all greatly reducing the amount of noise it has to make.


    To provide a point of reference, the following acoustic signatures are from "Chinese Evaluations of the U.S. Navy Submarine Force" and "CHINA’S FUTURE NUCLEAR SUBMARINE FORCE"

    Those figures are useless without further information... are they top speed signatures, at rest signatures, low speed signatures?

    A Kilo operating on electric drive at low speed (3-4knts) would make almost no noise.

    Also ambient noise in the ocean depends on the place and time... whale song will change the ambient noise levels dramatically.

    A busy shipping lane will also mask the noise of a hunting Kilo.... and more importantly there are half a dozen types of Kilo out there... which one are they talking about?

    Do they know there is a difference... I suspect they don't because they are just pulling these numbers out of their 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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 09, 2015 12:22 pm

    Also isn't sound a log scale so the 15 Db difference between Akula and Virginia make the Virginia 150 times quieter?

    BS.


    _________________
    “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: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:30 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 7:30 pm