5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine

Russia has experience in nuclear submarine construction so i expect Husky at early 2020s

Isos wrote:......
Selling 2 of them to India doesn't mean russia won't get 2. It only means they will produce two more. They already lease them the best available akula, so the market for nuclear subs exists.

Russia won't give them domestic version but an export one. They already sell state of art s-400 to a nato country, why not nuclear subs to india ?

If Russia is capable of building 2 extra subs then those 2 subs must go to Russian Navy. No and, if or but.

Besides, they don't even know if India will drop military orders from Russia under US pressure and y'all think that Russia should be building nuke subs for them?

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:......
Selling 2 of them to India doesn't mean russia won't get 2. It only means they will produce two more. They already lease them the best available akula, so the market for nuclear subs exists.

Russia won't give them domestic version but an export one. They already sell state of art s-400 to a nato country, why not nuclear subs to india ?

If Russia is capable of building 2 extra subs then those 2 subs must go to Russian Navy. No and, if or but.

Besides, they don't even know if India will drop military orders from Russia under US pressure and y'all think that Russia should be building nuke subs for them?

If india pay for two sub they go to india. I'm not saying they should give them 2 sub from russian inventory for free ...

Isos wrote:......

If india pay for two sub they go to india. I'm not saying they should give them 2 sub from russian inventory for free ...

Russia needs submarines more than they need indian cash

There are plenty of tanks, planes and AA systems​ that Indians can buy, subs are taken

GunshipDemocracy wrote:..........
https://iz.ru/753092/dmitrii-boltenkov/podvodnyi-modulnyi-drednout

"expert " fantasy?

More like ''expert'' bullshit. Just look at this:

....Husky boats will receive new "wet" torpedo tubes, in which water will be used to launch ammunition, and torpedoes or other types of weapons can be fired from a depth of up to 1 km....

...this is indicated by the possible depth of submerging the submarine to 1 km and its service life....

And what is stopping the enemy from blowing that submarine at the depth of 1km? I don't see the problem with sending a torpedo at that depth at the fraction of the cost it takes to build a submarine.

Back to missile/ship issue. One is infinitely cheaper than other.


And this:

....Boats will apply a wide range of both underwater uninhabited autonomous vehicles and unmanned aerial vehicles.....

UAVs on submarine? Don't the have bigger issues to solve? They are barely building current versions. Do they even know what subs are supposed to be used for?


It's like bullshit competition over there.

1km depth in a situation where they can't even build enough subs that can't even go half that depth.

Virginia-class goes just 240m deep but that doesn't stop USA from using them effectively because priority is lowering noise not going deeper.

And best of all they can build them by the shitload. Simply because they do not indulge in delirious obsolete fantasies.

PapaDragon wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:..........
https://iz.ru/753092/dmitrii-boltenkov/podvodnyi-modulnyi-drednout

"expert " fantasy?

More like ''expert'' bullshit. Just look at this:

....Husky boats will receive new "wet" torpedo tubes, in which water will be used to launch ammunition, and torpedoes or other types of weapons can be fired from a depth of up to 1 km....

...this is indicated by the possible depth of submerging the submarine to 1 km and its service life....

And what is stopping the enemy from blowing that submarine at the depth of 1km? I don't see the problem with sending a torpedo at that depth at the fraction of the cost it takes to build a submarine.

Back to missile/ship issue. One is infinitely cheaper than other.


And this:

....Boats will apply a wide range of both underwater uninhabited autonomous vehicles and unmanned aerial vehicles.....

UAVs on submarine? Don't the have bigger issues to solve? They are barely building current versions. Do they even know what subs are supposed to be used for?


It's like bullshit competition over there.

1km depth in a situation where they can't even build enough subs that can't even go half that depth.

Virginia-class goes just 240m deep but that doesn't stop USA from using them effectively because priority is lowering noise not going deeper.

And best of all they can build them by the shitload. Simply because they do not indulge in delirious obsolete fantasies.

Papa,

I have explained the importance of diving depth before. Let me explain one more time with an example.

One of the most important sources of noise from a submarine is "cavitation" from the propeller(s).
Cavitation noise decreases as the submarine dives deeper.

A rough example:
-If a submarine is doing 30 knots at 50m depth, the whole ocean is going to hear it.
-At 500m depth, the same submarine can do 30 knots and be virtually silent.

How does that translate in practice? Again let me use a rough example in USA v/s Russia modes of operations.
-Virginias tactics are to hunt at low speeds, they will use their max speed in emergency escape and run away situations.
-Yasens use high speed to quickly arrive within striking range of their assigned target (carrier group or other), they need to dive deep to travel at high speed while remaining silent.

And here is another reason why diving depth is important:
-Sonar performance is affected by sea water temperature.
-The ocean temperature is not uniform, there are layers of water at different temperatures.
-The deeper a sub can dive, the more it can use the various temperature layers to hide from enemy sonar.

There are several other reasons why a Navy would want to make its subs go deeper.
The Russians (and Soviets before them) are not making Titanium hulls just to be cool. They paid "an arm and a leg" (Titanium is expensive) to build Titanium hulled subs because they can go deeper. Titanium is also far more difficult to work with (welding for example) and requires more work-hours and specially trained people.
The Americans on the other hand attach less importance to maximum diving depth.
Russian and American submarine tactics and modes of operation are different. Hence, direct comparison of Russian sub X versus American sub Y is not very relevant.

Got it now?

But Yasens already dive deep enough to get the job done, that's all I'm saying.

Instead of switching to another long time to build model they should at least make an effort to stabilize SSN fleet numbers​.

I already asked before but nobody answered: is current SSN fleet in any condition to hold the fort until they start receiving new subs? Oscars aside (they are SSGNs anyway) whole thing looks like a zoo and not getting any younger.

Add to that 5 year gap (at least) between last Yasen and first Husky and it's not looking good at all.

Well, "to hold the fort", SSKs/SSNs already in the fleet & being build/modernized will be enough; by the time new LHAs/LHDs  &/ CVNs r built, if ever, there'll be few more Yasens &/ older modernized/modified SSNs/SSGNs/Delta SSBNs in SSN/GN roles & perhaps a few new SSNs. Oscars noises could be reduced, given SSK escorts, & fill in for SSNs if need be. Also, those UUVs could shadow/interdict CSGs from great depths & attack them w/o ever being detected, so SSNs/SSGNs r not needed as much. Getting new SSNs isn't not as high a priority now.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

1) The magical 1000 has something with hydrography too. Like mezzo-sphere for radars AFAIK Harder to trace. For some reason Poseidon drone is also 1000m...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Seawater

The speed of sound in water the slowest at 1km, means every noise emitted in the ocean will oscillate around that level in a plane .

So, if something is in the sofar channel then the noise of it never reach the surface( apart from the area above it) .

Means if you want to do long range detection then you have to be in the sofar channel, and if you want to avoid it then you have to be there as well : )

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

SSNs/SSGNs r not needed as much. Getting new SSNs isn't as high a priority now.

oh yes they are and always be. Older subs will be withdrawn from service in 10-15 years. it is not much time to build new to be honest.

If they were such a priority, more Yasens would be built now instead of Boreys. Some older subs can be kept in service longer than 15 years. They know what they need to do now better than us!

Tsavo Lion wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

SSNs/SSGNs r not needed as much. Getting new SSNs isn't as high a priority now.

oh yes they are and always be. Older subs will be withdrawn from service in 10-15 years. it is not much time to build new to be honest.

If they were such a priority, more Yasens would be built now instead of Boreys. Some older subs can be kept in service longer than 15 years. They know what they need to do now better than us!

Yes, they scarified three near completion akulas to make the boreis.

With the Indian Akula there are four new,modern attack submarine given up for goodwill and for three SLBM platform

TheArmenian wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:..........
https://iz.ru/753092/dmitrii-boltenkov/podvodnyi-modulnyi-drednout

"expert " fantasy?

More like ''expert'' bullshit. Just look at this:

....Husky boats will receive new "wet" torpedo tubes, in which water will be used to launch ammunition, and torpedoes or other types of weapons can be fired from a depth of up to 1 km....

...this is indicated by the possible depth of submerging the submarine to 1 km and its service life....

And what is stopping the enemy from blowing that submarine at the depth of 1km? I don't see the problem with sending a torpedo at that depth at the fraction of the cost it takes to build a submarine.

Back to missile/ship issue. One is infinitely cheaper than other.


And this:

....Boats will apply a wide range of both underwater uninhabited autonomous vehicles and unmanned aerial vehicles.....

UAVs on submarine? Don't the have bigger issues to solve? They are barely building current versions. Do they even know what subs are supposed to be used for?


It's like bullshit competition over there.

1km depth in a situation where they can't even build enough subs that can't even go half that depth.

Virginia-class goes just 240m deep but that doesn't stop USA from using them effectively because priority is lowering noise not going deeper.

And best of all they can build them by the shitload. Simply because they do not indulge in delirious obsolete fantasies.

Papa,

I have explained the importance of diving depth before. Let me explain one more time with an example.

One of the most important sources of noise from a submarine is "cavitation" from the propeller(s).
Cavitation noise decreases as the submarine dives deeper.

A rough example:
-If a submarine is doing 30 knots at 50m depth, the whole ocean is going to hear it.
-At 500m depth, the same submarine can do 30 knots and be virtually silent.

How does that translate in practice? Again let me use a rough example in USA v/s Russia modes of operations.
-Virginias tactics are to hunt at low speeds, they will use their max speed in emergency escape and run away situations.
-Yasens use high speed to quickly arrive within striking range of their assigned target (carrier group or other), they need to dive deep to travel at high speed while remaining silent.

And here is another reason why diving depth is important:
-Sonar performance is affected by sea water temperature.
-The ocean temperature is not uniform, there are layers of water at different temperatures.
-The deeper a sub can dive, the more it can use the various temperature layers to hide from enemy sonar.

There are several other reasons why a Navy would want to make its subs go deeper.
The Russians (and Soviets before them) are not making Titanium hulls just to be cool. They paid "an arm and a leg" (Titanium is expensive) to build Titanium hulled subs because they can go deeper. Titanium is also far more difficult to work with (welding for example) and requires more work-hours and specially trained people.
The Americans on the other hand attach less importance to maximum diving depth.
Russian and American submarine tactics and modes of operation are different. Hence, direct comparison of Russian sub X versus American sub Y is not very relevant.

Got it now?

Wow I didnt know water depth had such a sound impact. I thought it was minor. However, currently there are no Russian subs capable of going below 400m. Are 200-300m enough to mask sound signature without having to always be in a thermoclyne.


BTW I have extreme doubts that active sonars will be useful for subs since using them is suicide because it makes the sub easily detected.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Wow I didnt know water depth had such a sound impact. I thought it was minor. However, currently there are no Russian subs capable of going below 400m. Are 200-300m enough to mask sound signature without having to always be in a thermoclyne.


BTW I have extreme doubts that active sonars will be useful for subs since using them is suicide because it makes the sub easily detected.

400m is more likely the Virginia test deep.

The Russian ones can dive deeper.

If you put a Virginia and Jassen against each other, a passive sonar is nearly useless. Even under perfect conditions they could only hear each other at a few hundred metres. In the end both would have to use their active sonar to fire torpedos.

Hole wrote:If you put a Virginia and Jassen against each other, a passive sonar is nearly useless. Even under perfect conditions they could only hear each other at a few hundred metres. In the end both would have to use their active sonar to fire torpedos.

Still preferable to being detected km away. Its better to escape unseen and destroy surface ships and leave sub hunting to aircraft and frigates.

Komsomolets is no more.

To you Komissar: in a fighter jet, you wouldn´t use your radar to fire on a enemy jet because you would reveal yourself to ESM systems? No. Same goes for subs. In a peer-to-peer fight they have to use their active sonar. That´s why it is there in the first place. You will be ready to fire a torpedo, use the sonar to get the clear position of your enemy, fire and get out.

Don't forget the Proj 954 & 954A Sierra/Barracuda-Condor. Their maximum depth was at least 600m.

Big_Gazza wrote:Don't forget the Proj 954 & 954A Sierra/Barracuda-Condor. Their maximum depth was at least 600m.

So is for Yasen

Just buld more of those in the 5 year gap until they switch to Husky

PapaDragon wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:Don't forget the Proj 954 & 954A Sierra/Barracuda-Condor.  Their maximum depth was at least 600m.  

So is for Yasen

Just buld more of those in the 5 year gap until they switch to Husky

For increase in diving depth you need new hull materials, e.g. Titanium. Russians gave up building of new subs with Ti hulls, as the increase in cost was immense. However, Ti hulls are not prone to corrosion, so they have practically unlimited lifespan.
Newest AS torpedoes have increased depth of action, down to 1000m, but depth affects speed and manoeuvrability.

Russian subs are well known for their increased diving depth, compared to western subs. But, you must know how to use benefits of deep diving and hydroacoustic parameters of the layers of seawater.
Also, we must know the difference between maximum working depth, maximum permissible depth in war and crushing depth. These are different things! Security factor should be no less than 1,5 between maximum operational depth and crushing depth.