Project 885: Yasen class #2

I am sorry, I expected to see same engineering knowledge.

So, the submarines are pressure vessels, and they have unifomral stress level in the wall.

It means the strength of the hull defined by the weakest part of it.

So, thez falsifyed report was about the cold temperature resistance of the hull material.

It means that if the Virginia has to surface to
1. due to emergency
2. to launch tomahawk
3. to communicate

Or during underwater arctic manouvre, it
1. hit bottom of an icesheet
2. has to float itself pressud against the icesheet above

then the part of the hull can be damaged due to the subparr quality, and that could destroy the whole ship.
It techincally needs only a small patch, but most likelly way more parts built from that material. The USA hasn't got too many suplier for submarine parts.

Most likelly one or two company shipping the steel.

This kind of issue doing nothing else, just restrict the Virgnias to get close to the Russian shores. Minor details : D

The operatinal change most likelly nothing else just a restriction of the affected boats to operate only in warm waters.

And again, the only reason why the USA havent got loss of life submarine accident is sheer luck.

That they haven't got in the manned space program, maybe that has less stringenth safety requirements and less rigous culture than with the submarines : )

Singular_Transform wrote:
Wow, the drill sergant did a very good job at the USA military on you : )


So, let star:
https://news.yahoo.com/feds-company-provided-subpar-steel-203534466.html
"For decades, the Navy’s leading supplier of high-strength steel for submarines provided subpar metal because one of the company’s longtime employees falsified lab results — putting sailors at greater risk in the event of collisions or other impacts, federal prosecutors said in court filings Monday."

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/06/15/feds-say-company-provided-subpar-steel-for-us-navy-subs/
"The criminal complaint said investigators were able to compare internal company records with test results that Thomas certified. The analysis showed that she fabricated the results of 240 productions of steel, representing nearly half of the high-yield steel Bradken produced for Navy submarines — often toughness tests conducted at negative-100 degrees Fahrenheit, the complaint said."

And finally, a Virginia as surfacing throught the ice:
https://www.military.com/video/forces/navy/virginia-class-sub-surfaces-arctic/3398996706001

USA submarine went into underwater mountain, sheer luck to have one front ballast tank left to surface :
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a24158/uss-san-francisco-mountain-incident/

Collision with another USA naval ship , tower severly damaged :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hartford_and_USS_New_Orleans_collision

Any more groundless claim from you ?

you are very time consuming, your posts are typical Gish gallops, throwing around mountains of low quality , groundless informations.

Tabloids they are.....these investigations/trials happen in top secret mode and behind closed doors and anything you see is usually gossip or someone trying to make some money on internet/media or feeler to get funding. It is really common sense....I guess US detterrence is voided and everyone can rest in peace on this forum

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Additional US submarines go through trails to ensure they are up to operational standards before they are commissioned. There was no problem found with any Sub during these standard procedures all navies do. That alone shows there is no problem with the subs.

Yes, we know the US Navy ensures all its boats are up to standards before they are commissioned. Like they did with the Ford supercarrier.

lancelot wrote:
Yes, we know the US Navy ensures all its boats are up to standards before they are commissioned. Like they did with the Ford supercarrier.

Ya, you have a perfect record by not having anything or doing anything new.

ApparentlyI see US shills claiming that having more crew is actually a good thing due to better damage control with fires and broken equipment and they claim half of the virginia's crew is actually redundant and it can easily operate without it. Sounds fishy

Among western military publications and submariner reports, it seems like all western submarine designers and operators scoff at the idea of active sonar and think its suicide to use it because the submarine will get detected immediately and get return fire.

I read that soviet submarines up to the victor III mainly relied on using active sonar because NATO subs were so much quieter, but even after soviet subs became quieter there seems to be still a large emphasis on using active sonar(westerners use this example to prove western tactical and technological superiority, while soviets were bumbling fools that only discovered that their subs are useless too late). For example, NATO submarines have no anti-submarine missiles like the viyuga or metel because it is assumed that submarines are undetectable by passive sonar at large distances, and using active sonar is suicide.

What is the current empahisis on active sonar in russian subs? It seems posters here scoff at the idea of using passive sonar, but there hasn't been discussion why.

On one hand, even if a nuclear submarine is not the quetest, at the right depth and speed it can be undetectable by passive sonar unless only at a few kilimeters away. Diesel electric submarines are even harder to detect, even if theyre obsolete like the original kilos. This may warrant the use of active sonars when an SSN is trying to destroy the SSK and the SSN to use superior speed and countermeasures. Ive read that in modern times, the ocean has more noise pollution from commercial shipping than during the cold war, and SSNs are so quiet now that they're quieter than the background noise even at very short ranges.


I think it all depends if active sonar or passive sonar is superior on these things:

1.How effective are anechoic tiles at absorbing active sonar?
2. Can active sonar transmissions be detected that easily?
3. Can active sonar detect NATO submarines at meaningful ranges(like say 40km)
4. How effective are russian torpedo countermeasures once NATO subs lock on the active sonar transmission and fire homing torpedos

Scoffers are usually idiots.

Every time some western "expert" starts yapping about Russia, they start spewing an unbounded number of assumptions and self-serving ones.

Active sonar can be made useful if it is hard to tie back to the source in a trivial fashion. This means using a spectrum of frequencies and
bouncing off, for example, the thermocline. Much like short wave EM bounces off the ionosphere. No US sub will have the ability to
trace this active sonar back to a tiny enough location to allow it to strike back. It will mostly be able to tell what direction the signal
is coming from, but even that is not trivial since we are not dealing with WWII type sonar.

The US could do the same thing if it wasn't infested with scoffers.

GarryB wrote:Active sonar transmissions are detected easily... the quality and sensitivity of listening equipment on a modern submarine are amazing and with computer processing are even more astounding.

Contradicts

This means using a spectrum of frequencies and
bouncing off, for example, the thermocline. Much like short wave EM bounces off the ionosphere. No US sub will have the ability to
trace this active sonar back to a tiny enough location to allow it to strike back. It will mostly be able to tell what direction the signal
is coming from, but even that is not trivial since we are not dealing with WWII type sonar.

I wonder why there is so little in depth discussion about active sonar physics and abilities. I know its classified, but there is more info about OTH, AESA transmissions, or EW transmissions which are equally classified. Its usually just "passive good, active bad".


Is there any info on how well modern anechoic tiles absorb active sonar?

basic operation of radars/sonars.

A 10km range active sonar with the same capability level passive sonar can be detected from 100km range.


Means the commander has to be above 99% confidence to have the enemy submarine in the active sonar range to use it.


It is more usefull for torpedoes, they will start to ping the enemy, and the main sonar can get the precise position of it.

Means the second torpedo will have higher chance to hit the enemy.

Reason why the Russian subs has 8 tube.

Nuclear submarine of project 885M "Novosibirsk" will go to sea trials at sea at the end of June

source

MOSCOW, May 28. / TASS /. The first serial nuclear submarine (nuclear submarine) of project 885M cipher "Yasen-M" "Novosibirsk" will enter the factory sea trials (ZHI) at the end of June. This was reported to TASS on Friday by a source in the military-industrial complex.

"The submarine" Novosibirsk "will go to ZHI at the end of June this year," he said. According to him, then state tests will follow, during which the submarine will fire Onyx and Caliber-PL missiles. The transfer of the boat to the Navy is planned at the end of 2021.

PapaDragon wrote:They are finally on a roll, do you know how long it took to get to here?

They should be laying down more of these ASAP otherwise they will be back to square one  

Agreed, though I should temper that with pointing out just how difficult and expensive it is to perfect the manufacturing infrastructure, human resources and the supply chain to manufacture a serial line of cutting edge SSGNs.  The US had confidently predicted that Russia would simply be incapable of doing this, yet here we are, and they are now producing the most advanced and capable boats on the planet (i don't think any serious observer doubts that 885Ms are superior to the Seawolf & Virginia classes).  

I don't doubt that further contracts will be signed once the assembly halls become vacant as more 885Ms are launched.  The only question really is whether they build more Yasens or start to lay down the next-gen Huskies (assuming the navy knows what it wants in the new boats).

Personally i think Russia should aim for 10 Pr.885M as an absolute minimum (ie at least another two) for 5x units for both the NF and PF, plus the original Pr.855 K-360.  I'd be happier with 16+1 however

PapaDragon wrote:
They need to keep building Yasens for as long as possible

Leave Huskies for later, if they start from scratch again now they will just waste another decade

And like I said they finally got production speed sorted out, don't waste those gains

I agree.

It isn't like the other shipyards can't build them either. Expanding production to the other shipyards through sharing of resources and documents. But it is silly how they are all part of United ship building corporation, they all act as seperate entities fighting for contracts.

The final assembly is less important, than the manufacturing capability of the components.

Example the Kuz, Borei and Yassen has issues due to the steam turbine manufacturer.

The suplier base needed improvement, not the final assembly capacity.

Singular_Transform wrote:The final assembly is less important, than the manufacturing capability of the components.

Example the Kuz, Borei and Yassen has issues due to the steam turbine manufacturer.

The suplier base needed improvement, not the final assembly capacity.

Except when it comes to America where they have partly lost the ability to do welding on submarine hulls.

Singular_Transform wrote:

And again, the only reason why the USA havent got loss of life submarine accident is sheer luck.

That they haven't got in the manned space program, maybe that has less stringenth safety requirements and less rigous culture than with the submarines : )

Never heard of USS Thresher or USS Scorpion?

PapaDragon wrote:

mnztr wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

And again, the only reason why the USA havent got loss of life submarine accident is sheer luck....

Never heard of USS Thresher or USS Scorpion?

Those happened back when Elvis was still around

Like the last Soviet / Russian loss of life space accident.