Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Dima
    Dima

    Posts : 1063
    Points : 1076
    Join date : 2012-03-22

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Dima on Sun May 03, 2015 10:57 pm

    mack8 wrote:Nice info, thanks Dima.

    Interesting how the apparent construction of the Virginias seems sharply reduced once the four module block assembly is introduced. It indeed only can be reasonably explained by building those blocks well in advance of the official keel laying (assembling those blocks basically) imo.
    Yes that's how it is and the reason why they are able to complete it at a seemingly very fast pace. But in reality it is not 2 years, more like 4yrs per sub from the first metal cut. But its a very healthy thing.

    As for the russian subs, do we know if the Yasen and Borey use modular construction?
    Yes it could be. We have seen it for 11356, 677 etc. But the degree of modular construction vary. Russian yards as seen are using bare hull sections and later on fitting it out where as we saw the Brits with mostly fitted out sections for QE class a/c carrier.

    Regardless, i think it is fair to say that the situation in regards to the SSN/SSBN construction is greatly improving compared to the disastrous period of the nineties and early 2000s, and should keep to unless some major mess-up, it may well be that the plan for 8 of each by 2020 will not be met, but probably by say 2021-2022 would be realistic (is there anything that does
    not suffer delays these days?), that still being  a huge improvement for the Navy, especially the nuclear deterrent, no matter how you look at it.
    Funding is the single factor, its beyond the yards control and are completely helpless in this regard.

    Would be interesting what the long term plans for the 2030 horizon are, would they eventually build 14 Borey/Borey-M (we can expected improvements imo) to match the americans' Ohio numbers, plus something like 2 dozen Yasen/Yasen-M, or once the initial 8 of each are completed they will be replaced by new designs? Any info on that front?
    Lets hope they complete the current figures of 8 and 10. What could succeed is hard to predict.
    Personally I would love to see the 885 getting continued to replace the entire lot of 945 and 971... but if there is no option to fund it what can we say...

    Oh and how about the SSKs, there should be six pr.636 plus two improved pr.677 (plus the only Lada in the initial form that was not accepted)  by 2020 is that correct? (i did of course some reading on the subject but would be nice to confirm from russian sources)
    Six 636.6 are on their way and the lone 677 is likely to be fitted with the AIP by 2017 and plans are for the rest of 677 to come online with this AIP as standard. So if everything goes alright there should be no less than 3-4 of Lada/Kalina by 2020. Lets hope it goes our way.
    mack8
    mack8

    Posts : 953
    Points : 1009
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  mack8 on Sun May 03, 2015 11:35 pm

    Thanks again for input Dima.

    Six 636.6 are on their way and the lone 677 is likely to be fitted with the AIP by 2017 and plans are for the rest of 677 to come online with this AIP as standard. So if everything goes alright there should be no less than 3-4 of Lada/Kalina by 2020. Lets hope it goes our way.

    Well, for what its worth i'm reading in wiki (not exactly the best or most up to date source i know) that at least initially six of these AIP equipped Lada/Kalinas are planned.
    Kimppis
    Kimppis

    Posts : 617
    Points : 617
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty Russian Nuclear Submarine Force

    Post  Kimppis on Tue May 05, 2015 7:36 pm

    Are there any plans to strengthen Baltic Fleet's submarine force? According to Wikipedia they currently have only 2 (or is it actually 1?). Shouldn't they build some improved Kilos or Ladas for the fleet after they finish with the Black Sea?

    And TR1, how does this look:

    Russian submarine fleet in the future:

    18 SSN
    24 SSK
    8 SSBN

    = 50 submarines

    Northern and Pacific Fleets: 9 SSN, 6 SSK, 4 SSBN, each
    Baltic and Black Sea Fleets: 6 SSK, each
    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 654
    Points : 753
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty Double Hulled vs Single Hulled Submarines

    Post  jhelb on Sat May 23, 2015 4:29 pm

    Akula, Typhoon, Borei are all double hulled whereas major US subs like Ohio Class and Los Angeles class are single hulled.

    Do Double Hulled Submarines provide some advantage/s over Single Hulled Submarines?
    RTN
    RTN

    Posts : 213
    Points : 192
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  RTN on Sat May 23, 2015 4:37 pm

    jhelb wrote:
    Akula, Typhoon, Borei are all double hulled whereas major US subs like Ohio Class and Los Angeles class are single hulled.

    Do Double Hulled Submarines provide some advantage/s over Single Hulled Submarines?

    The US never opted for the double-hulled design coz it's more efficient/beneficial to not put in all that cost and effort when the same results can still be achieved if your technological acumen is high enough.The US always opted for single hull designs with a modular internal layout that allows for rapid and efficient damage control. Whereas the Soviet Union went for an alternative route by having much simpler internal layouts (easier for mass production) protected by a double wrapped hull.

    The downside to the Soviet practice (at least from the US perspective) is that if you opt for a double hulled design made of Titanium without too much compartmentalization then if your sub takes on water it's going to sink like a brick past it's crush depth before damage control can correct the flooding, especially in situations where the hull might be sufficiently damaged enough (let's say from an engagement) where the ballast tanks are non-responsive. There could also be an issue in terms of hull integrity if the Titanium itself gets too brittle and cracks from the typically cold waters of the North Atlantic.
    Stealthflanker
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 872
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 31
    Location : Indonesia

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sat May 23, 2015 4:52 pm

    The Russians opt for double hull because it can provide higher probability to surfacing in event of disaster due to its ROB (Reserve of Buoyancy). This capability become very important during early days of Russian nuclear subs where damaged submarine can still surface and the concern related to sea-mine danger. Typical Russian submarine like Kilo have ROB of 32% the largest is Akula-941 with ROB of over 45-50%

    Americans abandoned double hull concept and opt for single hull due to hydrodynamic reason, the single hull submarine has smaller wetted area thus took less power to propel itself underwater. This however accompanied by smaller Reserve of Buoyancy in order of only 10-15% (Recent US boat however like Seawolf have ROB of 20%) Which would mean should the pressure hull punctured or ballast tank loss, the sub is in grave danger of not be able to return to surface.

    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 23
    Location : Roanapur

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sat May 23, 2015 5:28 pm

    RTN wrote:
    The US never opted for the double-hulled design coz it's more efficient/beneficial to not put in all that cost and effort when the same results can still be achieved if your technological acumen is high enough.The US always opted for single hull designs with a modular internal layout that allows for rapid and efficient damage control. Whereas the Soviet Union went for an alternative route by having much simpler internal layouts (easier for mass production) protected by a double wrapped hull.
    says who... ofc. they'll say their practice is the correct one. and btw the pressure hulls are compartmentalized too.
    RTN wrote:
    The downside to the Soviet practice (at least from the US perspective) is that if you opt for a double hulled design made of Titanium without too much compartmentalization then if your sub takes on water it's going to sink like a brick past it's crush depth before damage control can correct the flooding, especially in situations where the hull might be sufficiently damaged enough (let's say from an engagement) where the ballast tanks are non-responsive. There could also be an issue in terms of hull integrity if the Titanium itself gets too brittle and cracks from the typically cold waters of the North Atlantic.
    the same can be said of murican subs. cause thats what happens when you get holed. and pray tell why is murican compartmentalization better than the Russian/ Soviet one- because im looking at a cross section of an Akula and a Ohio and I see that Akula's smaller pressure hull houses smaller rooms and only about 2 per hull section, if it gets hit from one side the other pressure hull is almost unscathed so you end up with a lot less flooded compartments.

    not that many subs use titanium- and the titanium hulls were OK- no problems after the first one, in fact they are noises about reusing some hulls for new subs. and the brittleness issue in cold waters is obvious BS - these things operate in very, very cold waters and are expected to dive really deep at the same time, and they did.

    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 4865
    Points : 4988
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  kvs on Sun May 24, 2015 2:44 am

    Another benefit of the double hull is the structure is more stiff and there is less "flopping" of the hull as it moves
    from the water. This dynamic deformation is small but still and issue for longevity.

    It seems to me the US approach is not driven by infinite IQ but by cost savings. Everything in the USA
    and the rest of NATO and 1st world friends is grossly overpriced due to legalized corruption. Why would
    the price of one Soryu class diesel-electric submarine from Japan be the same as six Project 636.3 submarines?
    There is no feature on the Soryu that could account for a 500% markup. The price of the Soryu is typical
    and not an anomaly.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22321
    Points : 22865
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 24, 2015 12:05 pm

    Do Double Hulled Submarines provide some advantage/s over Single Hulled Submarines?

    A double hull adds weight and bulk, and therefore also cost in terms of making them and operating them because they are not as light or as small as they could be.

    On the other hand a double hull creates a lot of internal volume that can be used for reducing sound, and for safety... in the Kursk the main armament of 24 Granit AShMs was stored outside the main hull which kept them safe... if they had exploded there would have not been very much left at all.

    In terms of battle damage they should improve the survivability of the sub with regard to external threats like collision or torpedoes or mines.


    The US never opted for the double-hulled design coz it's more efficient/beneficial to not put in all that cost and effort when the same results can still be achieved if your technological acumen is high enough.

    If you are trying to say all the benefits of a double hull design can be implimented on a single hull vessel using high technology and design... then no.

    The US always opted for single hull designs with a modular internal layout that allows for rapid and efficient damage control. Whereas the Soviet Union went for an alternative route by having much simpler internal layouts (easier for mass production) protected by a double wrapped hull.

    Hahahaha... yeah... the soviets had swing doors, and no compartmentalisation at all in their subs... they were all open plan like a New York Apartment...  Rolling Eyes 

    Soviet and Russian sub design included compartmentalisation and firewalls etc etc and all the safety design features used in American and British and French subs.

    he downside to the Soviet practice (at least from the US perspective) is that if you opt for a double hulled design made of Titanium without too much compartmentalization then if your sub takes on water it's going to sink like a brick past it's crush depth before damage control can correct the flooding, especially in situations where the hull might be sufficiently damaged enough (let's say from an engagement) where the ballast tanks are non-responsive.

    I don't know where you get this information from... first of all Titanium is stronger than steel but rather lighter than steel, so making a sub out of titanium like the Soviets did makes it LIGHTER and more buoyant than similar foreign subs made of much heavier but weaker steel.

    Double hulled subs have MORE compartmentalisation... not less.

    Any subs where the ballast tanks are not responsive and are taking on water are in the shit... ballast tanks determine whether you go up or down... of course the compressed air stored on board to blow the tanks in an emergency will have several fail safe mechanisms and are unlikely to all fail unless something very catastrophic has happened... like in the case of the Kursk where the torpedos in the torpedo room exploded.

    There could also be an issue in terms of hull integrity if the Titanium itself gets too brittle and cracks from the typically cold waters of the North Atlantic.

    Hahahaha... the air in the northern fleet main pier can get to temperatures well below minus 30 degrees... where in the north atlantic does the water get anywhere near that cold?

    Funny really because that same material is used in space in much colder and much higher temperatures... it is very difficult to wield properly, but it is used because of its strength and resistance to high and low temperatures.

    not that many subs use titanium- and the titanium hulls were OK- no problems after the first one, in fact they are noises about reusing some hulls for new subs. and the brittleness issue in cold waters is obvious BS - these things operate in very, very cold waters and are expected to dive really deep at the same time, and they did.

    Actually the first all titanium subs were the Alphas... and one didn't last long in service at all and it was claimed in the west it was because of wielding problems.... it was actually its reactor... which was declared impossible in the west....
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:35 pm

    The Future is Now: Russian Navy to Modernize Ten Nuclear Submarines


    continuation from your press note

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20150621/1023668919.html

    Russian Naval Forces plan to upgrade ten nuclear submarines with the newest armament and ship systems.
    Russian Naval Forces plan to upgrade ten nuclear submarines, said the Navy Commander Viktor Chirkov during the ceremony in honor of the top graduates of naval institutes in St. Petersburg.

    “The modernization is planned for about ten nuclear submarines of project 971 and 949 at the factory of ‘Zvezdochka’ in Severodvinsk and the factory ‘Zvezdochka’ in the Primorskiy Krai region. It is a thorough modernization, upon completion we will have almost new submarines with the newest armament and ship systems,” elaborated Chirkov as reported by RIA Novosti.

    He further added that these nuclear submarines have the capacity for complete modernization. As the technology gets updated and new missiles and torpedoes are released, the modernized submarines will be able to fit the new weapons easily.

    So we got stop gap - modernize what we can and go through teething pains with control systems and weaponry. then we can add add supa-dupa V gen hull and et voila!

    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13873
    Points : 14368
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:36 am

    Russian Strategic Sub Groups to ‘Be Constantly Updated’ – Navy Commander

    According to Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief, Russian nuclear strategic submarine groups in the north of the country and on the far-eastern Kamchatka Peninsula will be regularly updated.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Russian nuclear strategic submarine groups in the north of the country and on the far-eastern Kamchatka Peninsula will be regularly updated, Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief, Adm. Viktor Chirkov said Friday.

    "Groupings of strategic submarines in the North and in Kamchatka will be constantly updated, so we would be able to meet the ambitious criteria required by the rapid development of science and technology," Chirkov said.

    Russian submarine building technologies are unique, and will help maintain proper levels of strategic nuclear force development, he added.

    Last week, Chirkov said Russia’s nuclear submarines could guarantee security threat deterrence aimed at the country.

    Since early 2014, the Russian Navy has doubled its submarine patrols, according to Chirkov.

    Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian submarine fleet was in crisis. Since then, Russia has been modernizing and developing strategic and tactical submarines.

    Russia is currently undergoing a $325-billion rearmament program for a 70-percent modernization increase in its military's weaponry by 2020.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150626/1023889188.html#ixzz3eFXBmdyW
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:20 am

    George1 wrote:Russian Strategic Sub Groups to ‘Be Constantly Updated’ – Navy Commander

    Russia is currently undergoing a $325-billion rearmament program for a 70-percent modernization increase in its military's weaponry by 2020.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150626/1023889188.html#ixzz3eFXBmdyW


    I wonder why they never provide real worth of this plan. 90% or so is produced in Russia so PPP works here fine. Then we got almost $700bln
    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:11 pm

    Russia develops new submarine stealth technology

    The innovative technology developed by the St. Petersburg-based Krylov State Research Center (KGNTS) will significantly improve stealth characteristics of Russian submarines against sonar detecting sets, chief of the KGNTS hull strength department Valery Shaposhnikov told TASS on Wednesday on the first day of the 7th International Maritime Defence Show (IMDS-2015).

    “We have developed the corresponding technology and frameworks for submarine equipment and made them from composite materials,” Shaposhnikov said. According to the scientist, the innovations are currently undergoing tests and “to date, we have considerably advanced.”

    “Our innovations make submarines undetectable by underwater detection devices,” he said. The enemy’s sonar will not be able to get a reflected hydro-acoustic signal from the submarine as the composite material is very acoustically transparent .

    Sounds Interesting . so russian subs stealth tech is moving ahead of usa's or still trailing ? Suspect
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13873
    Points : 14368
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:42 am

    Russia's Cutting Edge Submarine Fleet to Receive 'Aircraft Carrier Killer'

    Russia plans to expand its nascent high-end submarine fleet with two new fifth generation nuclear-powered watercraft, known only as an "aircraft carrier killer" and an "underwater interceptor" at the moment.

    Both submarines are currently under development.

    The "aircraft carrier killer" equipped with cruise missiles will be used for defeating coastal and surface targets, specifically aircraft carriers, the head of Russia's United Shipbuilding Corporation's state defense order department Anatoly Shlemov told Lenta.ru last week.

    The "underwater interceptor" will be tasked with protecting groups of ballistic missile carrying subs and fighting against enemy submarines.
    Both submarines will be based on the same class but different in armaments and purposes.

    The project run by the Malakhit marine engineering design bureau is part of a large-scale $350 billion military modernization program that Russia is implementing. The program is scheduled to be completed by 2020.

    Earlier in June, the commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Viktor Chirkov, confirmed that Russia's Sevmash shipbuilding company was constructing a fifth-generation nuclear-powered submarine.

    "We need low-noise, fast-maneuvering submarines with the highest level of stealthiness and equipped with powerful weapons," he said.

    The Russian Navy currently has 60 submarines, about 10 of which are nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, and more than 30 are multipurpose nuclear submarines, with the rest being diesel and special purpose vessels.

    By 2020, the Russian Navy is expected to operate a total of eight state-of-the-art Borei-class submarines and seven Yasen-class nuclear-powered attack submarines.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150707/1024313247.html#ixzz3fCGhMvdr
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 6656
    Points : 6723
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  JohninMK on Tue Jul 07, 2015 1:01 pm

    New test system for submarine sounds

    Powerful sonar capable of “hearing” fourth generation nuclear submarines lurking in the deep will undergo trials at Russia’s Northern Fleet before the end of this year.

    The transmitter/receiver unit of the Batareya (Battery) sonar will be lowered to around 300 meters into the water 30 kilometers from the White Sea coast to pick up submarine sounds and send the date up via a fiber optic cable, said Sergei Tsygankov, one of the new sonar’s designers. “We went for exactly this method of data transmission because not a single Western country now knows how to pick up information traveling through an underwater fiber optic cable,” Sergei added.

    Another thing that makes the new sonar so special is that it can single out submarine noise from that of marine creatures, waves, stones, etc.. “Modern submarines are often more silent than the natural soundscape. Still, the Americans prefer to “listen in” during a dead calm, while the Batareya sonar will do the job under any condition,” Sergei Tsygankov emphasized.

    Rather than pick up the sounds made by “enemy” subs, the Batareya was designed to test the sound signature of Russia’s own submarines. “This new sonar will give our submarine builders a chance to single out the noisier elements of their craft to make a submarine as quite as possible,” Sergei Tsygankov said
    .

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150707/1024315790.html#ixzz3fCb5285r
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13873
    Points : 14368
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Tue Jul 07, 2015 1:23 pm

    George1 wrote:
    The "aircraft carrier killer" equipped with cruise missiles will be used for defeating coastal and surface targets, specifically aircraft carriers, the head of Russia's United Shipbuilding Corporation's state defense order department Anatoly Shlemov told Lenta.ru last week.

    The "underwater interceptor" will be tasked with protecting groups of ballistic missile carrying subs and fighting against enemy submarines.
    Both submarines will be based on the same class but different in armaments and purposes.

    so they work on a lighter project than Yasen class
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 4865
    Points : 4988
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty 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
    artjomh

    Posts : 150
    Points : 184
    Join date : 2015-07-17

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty 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
    GarryB

    Posts : 22321
    Points : 22865
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty 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.
    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1929
    Points : 2040
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty 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
    GarryB

    Posts : 22321
    Points : 22865
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty 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?
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7439
    Points : 7836
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty 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
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty 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.
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7439
    Points : 7836
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty 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
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty 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

    Sponsored content

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:20 pm