Soviet subs tactics

[alex1122]

Hi guys,

I have some questions and i hope some of you can answer them.
The soviet subs usually use a lot the active sonar, sometimes even before i have them on my passive sonar. But isn't it risky? They are exposing their location, most of the time too far to find me. Is that the normal tactic for their sub?

Thanks,
Alex

[Delgard]

I don't know that it is a continuous use. But, a sub out forward in support of a convoy or a capital vessel (picket duty) would be quicker to light up, I'd think.

I got the impression that western boats were 10-15% quieter, so if the Capt. has a feeling...

[caine007]

It's pretty much your only tactic if you're in an old noisy boat with inferior sonar which goes for a lot of Soviet subs. You'll find however that the more modern, quieter subs like the Kilo's tend to stay very quiet indeed.

It's also a reasonable tactic to use if you're pretty sure something is out there that's detected you but you haven't detected it.

[Shadow]

It doesn't seem to be working very well for the Soviets, but personally I've used similar tactics driving a Skipjack in '68.

Sometimes the passive just doesn't cut it, particularly when fighting other submarines (especially those damned diesels), and you want to daringly bait the enemy to fire at you and reveal its general position. Then you literally charge at them, getting out of the torp's way and closing the distance with the attacker.

You have to be very careful, though: if you're pinging around and the enemy happens to be lurking in your baffles, you won't realize they've fired at you until the fish is breathing down your neck. Sometimes even too late for any meaningful evasion to take place. That cost me the USS Scamp.

[Shadriss]

In the era that we're talking about (the 80s) the US had a significant acoustic advantage over the Soviets (until John Walker happened... scumbag). The VICTORS/DELTAS were noisy platforms, and US boats would routinely track them from well beyond 20 Kyds on passives alone.

The Russians always suspected it, and John Walker confirmed it for them. The average Soviet skipper assumed that, if he made contact with a US boat, he had already been tracked for several hours or even days.

With that kind of disadvantage, there is no way a Soviet boat would go active as much as these boats do in the game. The surface pukes? Sure. But not the subs. They had enough disadvantages to work with that going active and making it even harder to stay undetected (the true goal of any submarine) would have been a non-starter.

In game terms, however, it makes sure you don't steer in a random direction and never make contact.

[alex1122]

Thanks guys for the answers,

I got your point but from my point of view, if a Soviet submarines begin to use the active sonar from the begining, this takes away the atmosphere that a submarine game, for me, must have: the hunter-prey atmosphere.
The enemy submarine immediately reveals itself using the active sonar and the battle is reduced then to shoot a torpedo (which usually centers and sinks the enemy) and avoids the torpedoes coming, if there is one. I've noticed that often they don't shoot back. I think, correct me if i'm wrong, that if an undetected submarine shoots at you, and you only detected the incoming torpedo, you can fire a torpedo on the bearing of the incoming one. They often don't do it. or maybe they can use their active sonar once the hear the incoming torp, to detect the us sub.

[Delgard]

I was thinking to define the possible missions that can be considered. Not to argue in any way.

I wonder that if a capital warship, which includes some submarines would be forward escorted. Say a missile boat, cruise or ballistic, when leaving port, an escort would go forward to clear the area of threat forces, ie. US subs. Especially if the capital ship had a disadvantage against the US sub.

With such a disadvantage and the Soviet Commander/Skipper, in open waters commanding a group, had any inkling that a US sub was present, would they want to have a forward element go active to level the playing field?

Kind of an experienced submariner question about tactics of 30-40 years ago.

The next question, "is that modelled"?.

[Kapitan]

Soviet tactics differed throughout the years, the Soviet and now Russian navies have been based around the submarine even back to the 30's what you find it that while the Soviets led the field in some aspects technologically speaking they are some what behind and that's even today.

50's and 60's were more about power projection the first class of submarine launch in 1957 the November class were on paper superior to Nautilus in many respects, the K3 and her sisters could out run and out dive the Nautilus with ease after all Nautilus was a conventionally hulled vessel where as the K3 adopted a cigar shape hull.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4238/35540447111_186fe7d1ca.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/W9A5Hv)K3 (https://flic.kr/p/W9A5Hv) by Blair shaw (https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/), on Flickr

This is the actual K3 Leninsky Komsomol the first nuclear powered submarine for the soviet union

What set them apart was what made that fight particularly interesting, while the Soviet boat can out run and out dive the Nautilus she herself had a far superior sensor kit which meant she heard the opponent coming long before she herself was detected with that in mind it does mean that right there even with speed and depth the Nautilus had some advantage.

What we see in the Soviet navy between the early 50's right to mid 70's is a concept of open ocean engagement and by around 76 the Soviets realised that despite the numbers they would loose in this realm to the better equipped NATO forces.

When you look at Soviet boats specifically the 1st and 2nd generations they are somewhat clumsy looking the Echo lived up to its name that was one noisy boat for sure, but it had a weapon that was not yet placed fully onto western vessels and that was the cruise missile.

A scout vessel would go ahead this would be an older boat normally a diesel like a whiskey or Zulu class and act as a radar picket for a fleet (we saw this in 1961 during operation Okean)

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/758/21900015852_6ccb4a0104_n.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/zneiJd)IMG_0268 (https://flic.kr/p/zneiJd) by Blair shaw (https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/), on Flickr

This is a Zulu IV class SSK and she is the only one left in existence the scout vessels would have been modified much like the Whiskey Canvas bag types we saw in the early 1960's

The scouts would highlight the incoming targets normally a carrier group and the Echo and Juliette would fire their missiles at a distance (normally the SS-N-3c Shaddock) and run away.

Today we saw the progression first from the Echo to the Charlie classes and to the present day the Massive Oscar II which has 24 SS-N-19 Shipwreck missiles, they will be progressed most likely by a SSGN version of the Yasen class armed with SS-N-26 Oniks

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5704/24123410315_56bdd1d7ef_n.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/CKGMrv)Oscar II SSGN (https://flic.kr/p/CKGMrv) by Blair shaw (https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/), on Flickr

As you can see this is one huge submarine and the square hatches you see are for the Missiles side mounted in pairs like a Slava has


The West did learn a lot about Russian made weapons in the 60's especially when the SS-N-2 Stynx missile hit and sunk the Israeli destroyer Elait it did accelerate western adoption of anti ship and anti air weapons its also led us to the anti missile missile systems we see today including the Phalanx, Goal keeper and AK130's

The first and second generation of submarines had inferior sensors so the drill was to for a barrier search ahead of any surface unit and use active sonar to drive away any NATO submarines, the Soviets were aware that there was a gap and they were trying to close it this is a big reason why you see so many different types of ASW units in the Soviet and now Russian navies it also shows you the importance they place on the submarine not only developing them and going all out to do so but also the anti submarine weapons that they deploy.

Come the 1980's a lot of the submarines from the 50's and earlier in some cases are obsolete the Russians knew they could not compete platform for platform so realised that the only way was by a tactic called sea denial.

As we can see today the Russian navy has few major surface platforms with a handful of large Cruisers and Destroyers and one single heavy aviation cruiser (Kuznetsov) again the Emphasis is on ASW we see that the Sovrenemmy which is a primary ASuW AAW platform some of which have been retired early yet the tandem unit the ones they operate along side for ASW purposes the Udaloys have not, We also see the Grisha Krivack classes all alive and well yet others like the Kresta and Kara's have long since been deleted.

We look to current builds and find that the Admiral Gorshkov, Neutashimmyy, and Buryan M are all mainly ASW ships.

The Soviet navy come late 70's started to realise that their submarines were not up to the task and retreated into a Bastion concept and by this time they have the platforms and weapons to be able to do so.

If you look at the earlier Yankee class the missile has a range of only around 1200-1600 miles it means that the submarine must run the GIUK and SOSUS gauntlet in order to deploy likely attracting the attention of a following NATO submarine, with the Advent of the Delta III and its very advanced version the Delta IV

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5667/22071520155_ba5b561e93_n.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/zCoiYX)Delta IV SSBN (https://flic.kr/p/zCoiYX) by Blair shaw (https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/), on Flickr

This is K84 Ekateringburg at Zapadnya Litsa on the Kola Peninsular


coupled with the Typhoons we then see a shift chance no more do we see open ocean deployments because weapons like the SS-N-20 and SS-N-23 can hit mainland america from their bases and thus eliminated the need for them to go to sea.

They found a new home under the ice and the noise the ice makes helps mask the ambient noise in some cases a submarine makes so it was a no brainier for the Soviets the design of the Typhoon reflects this greatly missiles forward and a very heavily reinforced sail which can puncture through 3 meter thick ice

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1588/24638001719_bdb580323a_n.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Dxbcx6)Delta IV SSBN in the Arctic ice (https://flic.kr/p/Dxbcx6) by Blair shaw (https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/), on Flickr

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1662/24912333021_b0d2a1c667_n.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/DXqdF8)Delta IV SSBN in the Arctic ice (https://flic.kr/p/DXqdF8) by Blair shaw (https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/), on Flickr

This gives you some idea just how thick the Delta IV can break through

Now being under the ice means you have a few advantages but also some disadvantages, the Americans deploy the MK48 ADCAP torpedo and yes it is a brilliant weapon and a weapon the Russian do want to get hold of it is fully capable under ice to counter this the Russians prefer to stay outside the range of the MK48 and thus use the SS-N-16 Stallion which is similar to ASROC however you cannot fire it under the ice so in this field for me personally the American MK48 and the British Stingray have all the advantage.

Dispite being twin screwed both Typhoons and Delta IV's are said to be very quiet not quite to the level of the Ohio or Vanguard but almost there thanks to the above mentioned John Walker.

With the theft of the secrets the Russians called a halt to the Victor II production and developed the Victor III and later the Victor IV (heavily modified Victor III)

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5724/23495179174_a1ab2b9b12_n.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BNbWd7)Victor IV ssn (https://flic.kr/p/BNbWd7) by Blair shaw (https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/), on Flickr

B414 Danill Moskoviskky pulling into port she is one of the later Victor IV and still in commission

The Victor III / IV and first batch of Akula's are en par in the realm of noise making as the 688i that a qu]antum leap, what walker also did is give them the keys to better their sonar systems, and we see this with the advent of the MGK-503 coupled with the Skat 3 (later Skat 3M and today it is the Barracuda M) towed sonar array which meant they had almost the same ability as western boats for passive detection, the only thing they lacked is a waterfall display system which does mean they are still disadvantaged.

Later boats with the help of Toshiba (who gave the Russians plans for new screw designs and tools to build them) from the late 70's would be rendered quieter with the new propellers and later Pump jets which we see on the Project 877V Kilo class Alrosa

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm190/SubHunter611/alrosa%204_zps9xdy4f6m.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/user/SubHunter611/media/alrosa%204_zps9xdy4f6m.jpg.html)

Borrowed this from the net to explain the point this is Alrosa in Dry Dock in the Black sea showing her Pumpjet quite nicely

But in all cases the shift is clear the current Batch coming along such as Borei class use this technology, as does the American Seawolf Virigina classes the British Trafalgar and Astute so the Russians are still there just not in the numbers.

In the 80's Things did change Gorshkov died and a lot of boats such as the earlier first generation submarines were paid off grossly overdue in many cases, the Russians never really grasped the concept in the way the Americans do their whole ethos is based around sea denial and all the designs even today reflect this.

The tactics used have gone head over heels since the 60's but the primary use for the Russian fleet is to stop Amphibious landings and Submarine insertion it is also to protect the Nuclear Missile submarines hence why the Project 971 Akulas were hurried through production even in bankruptcy in the late 90's.

That said the role changed in the early 80's from one of open ocean offensiveness to close to home defensiveness after the realisation they couldn't match the west platform to platform.

The tactics employed such as crazy ivan are not needed any more given that the towed array is present on nearly all their current submarines and that goes for the 80's too a lot of boats did get retrofitted and in fact HMS Conqueror and Later HMS Splendid did retrieve two towed sonar arrays the Conks from some Polish Trawlers the Splendid from the back of a typhoon.

When i get more time i can call out some books i have that detail using drawings the tactics used by the Soviets not just in the 50's and 60's but also up to the 80's.

[Delgard]

Thank-you, good write-up. Yeah, between Toshiba and John Walker, it was a leap forward.

[jmr]

I'm really surprised John Walker didn't get the death penalty. Toshiba-Kongsberg and the Walker spy ring were huge boons for the Soviet navy.

[Kapitan]

I'm really surprised John Walker didn't get the death penalty. Toshiba-Kongsberg and the Walker spy ring were huge boons for the Soviet navy.

Because he likely did a plea bargain dont forget his son who was on a carrier was also spying and he worked in cryptography :O

The damage they did to the UK and USA is immense a lot of technology used in the USA is shared between the UK and USA so it also affected the Royal Navy too

[shipkiller1]

In the era that we're talking about (the 80s) the US had a significant acoustic advantage over the Soviets (until John Walker happened... scumbag). The VICTORS/DELTAS were noisy platforms, and US boats would routinely track them from well beyond 20 Kyds on passives alone.

The Russians always suspected it, and John Walker confirmed it for them. The average Soviet skipper assumed that, if he made contact with a US boat, he had already been tracked for several hours or even days.

With that kind of disadvantage, there is no way a Soviet boat would go active as much as these boats do in the game. The surface pukes? Sure. But not the subs. They had enough disadvantages to work with that going active and making it even harder to stay undetected (the true goal of any submarine) would have been a non-starter.

In game terms, however, it makes sure you don't steer in a random direction and never make contact.

Spoken like a true boomer sailor... :D
I made twelve deployments up north and yes, they really might employ active. Especially during a baffle clear...
Now though, with better sensors afforded to them, no so much.

But as you know, active is not the 'God like' sensor most people think it is...


FTCS(SS/SW)
1980-2004

Oh, I was also qualified Sonar Sup....

[The Bandit]

Because he likely did a plea bargain dont forget his son who was on a carrier was also spying and he worked in cryptography :O

The damage they did to the UK and USA is immense a lot of technology used in the USA is shared between the UK and USA so it also affected the Royal Navy too

There are two sides to it though, not trying to stick up for old Johnny Walker Red but I remember on a documentary. Older Russian guy (possibly an Admiral) talked about how astounding it was to learn, on one hand how superior and radical the advantage was that the Americans had in terms of technology, and on the other hand the realization despite these advantages they had not decided to wage war from their position of strength which went against all Soviet propaganda of the west being hell-bent on the destruction of the Soviet Union and is people, no matter what.

The whole gist of it was, being so plugged into what the US Navy was saying / doing / thinking (thanks to Walker of course) convinced some of these Soviet higher-up types that these Americans, in fact, were not so eager to begin a third-world war, because had they been they would have already!

IIRC the program had something to do with the context of Able Archer 83, I'll have to dig through the DVR and see if I can find it again.

[caine007]

Awesome post Kapitan, thanks.

I've always been curious if the super-cavitating Shkval torpedo was a tactical game changer or not. Any thoughts?

At first I was like, "This thing is instant death" but after thinking about it a bit it seems like it's almost a step backwards having no real control or guidance?

300km/h is pretty nuts though and I guess it's not that hard guessing where a Supercarrier will be in the next few minutes but hitting a sub seems harder.

[denis_469]

Hi guys,

I have some questions and i hope some of you can answer them.
The soviet subs usually use a lot the active sonar, sometimes even before i have them on my passive sonar. But isn't it risky? They are exposing their location, most of the time too far to find me. Is that the normal tactic for their sub?

Thanks,
Alex

Active mode for range detection for launch A/S missile "Viyuga". In elderly time our subs can not have range for launch a/s missile in passive mode and need 1 -2 ping for range. For torpedoes not need use sonar in active mode. About "Viyuga" you can read: http://sovpl.forum24.ru/?1-4-20-00000083-000-0-0#003 It is soviet analog US a/s missile "Subroc".

[FPSchazly]

Awesome post Kapitan, thanks.

I've always been curious if the super-cavitating Shkval torpedo was a tactical game changer or not. Any thoughts?

At first I was like, "This thing is instant death" but after thinking about it a bit it seems like it's almost a step backwards having no real control or guidance?

300km/h is pretty nuts though and I guess it's not that hard guessing where a Supercarrier will be in the next few minutes but hitting a sub seems harder.

I definitely get the impression it's meant as a hard kill counter-measure (with or without nuclear weapons) or you strap a nuke to it, which makes it easier to hit a submarine. I've also seen someone mention that, with a nuclear warhead, it's meant to take out a boomer that is about to launch its missiles.

[609_Avatar]

Wow, Kapitan, that was quite the informative post! Thank you very much for sharing all that, great reading and very helpful. S! sir!

[Kapitan]

Awesome post Kapitan, thanks.

I've always been curious if the super-cavitating Shkval torpedo was a tactical game changer or not. Any thoughts?

At first I was like, "This thing is instant death" but after thinking about it a bit it seems like it's almost a step backwards having no real control or guidance?

300km/h is pretty nuts though and I guess it's not that hard guessing where a Supercarrier will be in the next few minutes but hitting a sub seems harder.


The VA-111 is designed for a specific purpose to carry a nuclear warhead to the centre of a carrier group and detonate, it doesnt need to make contact with any hull or even be near by to cause huge effect.

The Skhval (VA-111) is a very impressive weapon and until recently the only one of its type in the world, the Chinese have copied it as have the Iranians and the Germans also tried it out.

While the Torpedo is extremely fast giving a submarine or a ship little to no chance of evasive manoeuvres it does have a drawback a big one, it has limited range and it is a big weapon.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm190/SubHunter611/va111_zpsnf4gd4sz.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/user/SubHunter611/media/va111_zpsnf4gd4sz.jpg.html)

Now bear in mind this is 1970's technology the range of the first generation Skhval which is a straight running torpedo and cannot be direct once launched it has a range of only 5-6nm and a nuclear blast of 20kt would affect the firing submarine yet a conventional warhead if it was to far away from target would do little.

Skhval 2 the more up to date version which came about in the mid 1990's offers up a guidance system with a vectored thrust possibility as yet not confirmed this means it does have some guidance system on board which may explain its wieght increase from 2.6tons to just over 3tons.
Skhval 2 also has a better range but still not anywhere near a conventional torpedo like the MK48 or Stingray although its speed is still there, the range of the Skhval 2 is estimated by the west to be between 12 and 15nm.
less advanced versions are for sale on the open market hence why China and Iran have shown interest.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm190/SubHunter611/nose%20cone_zpsmckpdkae.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/user/SubHunter611/media/nose%20cone_zpsmckpdkae.jpg.html)

The nose cone is movable and creates a bubble of gas in which the torpedo flies through thus it has been stated that it does have a guidance system in place, plus its seen to have movable fins too.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm190/SubHunter611/back%20end_zpsn1pglecc.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/user/SubHunter611/media/back%20end_zpsn1pglecc.jpg.html)

The back end also lends to speculation that it is in fact guided, look at the 5 o clock position there is what looks like a multi pin socket for wire guidance which again leads us to review that this could be steerable.

To be honest the technology is not mature enough i dont think to be of real value it is a show weapon the reality is the conventional torpedoes like the MK48's have much longer legs plus they are coupled with a very very good sensor systems for data collection and analysis the chances of getting the Russian boat close enough to fire one of these at a western submarine is slim.

however against an unsuspecting CVBG in some where like the Persian Gulf this would be extremely effective especially if nuclear tipped or sent by a conventional submarine sitting on the bottom in a littoral area (and yes project 636 Kilo can fire these).

[Ansgar Burkhard]

The VA-111 is designed for a specific purpose to carry a nuclear warhead to the centre of a carrier group and detonate, it doesnt need to make contact with any hull or even be near by to cause huge effect.

The Skhval (VA-111) is a very impressive weapon and until recently the only one of its type in the world, the Chinese have copied it as have the Iranians and the Germans also tried it out.

While the Torpedo is extremely fast giving a submarine or a ship little to no chance of evasive manoeuvres it does have a drawback a big one, it has limited range and it is a big weapon.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm190/SubHunter611/va111_zpsnf4gd4sz.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/user/SubHunter611/media/va111_zpsnf4gd4sz.jpg.html)

Now bear in mind this is 1970's technology the range of the first generation Skhval which is a straight running torpedo and cannot be direct once launched it has a range of only 5-6nm and a nuclear blast of 20kt would affect the firing submarine yet a conventional warhead if it was to far away from target would do little.

Skhval 2 the more up to date version which came about in the mid 1990's offers up a guidance system with a vectored thrust possibility as yet not confirmed this means it does have some guidance system on board which may explain its wieght increase from 2.6tons to just over 3tons.
Skhval 2 also has a better range but still not anywhere near a conventional torpedo like the MK48 or Stingray although its speed is still there, the range of the Skhval 2 is estimated by the west to be between 12 and 15nm.
less advanced versions are for sale on the open market hence why China and Iran have shown interest.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm190/SubHunter611/nose%20cone_zpsmckpdkae.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/user/SubHunter611/media/nose%20cone_zpsmckpdkae.jpg.html)

The nose cone is movable and creates a bubble of gas in which the torpedo flies through thus it has been stated that it does have a guidance system in place, plus its seen to have movable fins too.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm190/SubHunter611/back%20end_zpsn1pglecc.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/user/SubHunter611/media/back%20end_zpsn1pglecc.jpg.html)

The back end also lends to speculation that it is in fact guided, look at the 5 o clock position there is what looks like a multi pin socket for wire guidance which again leads us to review that this could be steerable.

To be honest the technology is not mature enough i dont think to be of real value it is a show weapon the reality is the conventional torpedoes like the MK48's have much longer legs plus they are coupled with a very very good sensor systems for data collection and analysis the chances of getting the Russian boat close enough to fire one of these at a western submarine is slim.

however against an unsuspecting CVBG in some where like the Persian Gulf this would be extremely effective especially if nuclear tipped or sent by a conventional submarine sitting on the bottom in a littoral area (and yes project 636 Kilo can fire these).


Or launched by a swarm of fast attack boats in the persian gulf against a carrier battlegroup.

[Kapitan]

Currently the only type of submarine in the Persian gulf that can fire these weapons are the Kilo's its unlikely they would volley fire as not all the torpedo tubes are set up for such a weapon

Currently Iran has only 3 Kilos of the non improved type 877

[Shadriss]

Spoken like a true boomer sailor... :D
I made twelve deployments up north and yes, they really might employ active. Especially during a baffle clear...
Now though, with better sensors afforded to them, no so much.

But as you know, active is not the 'God like' sensor most people think it is...


FTCS(SS/SW)
1980-2004

Oh, I was also qualified Sonar Sup....

Oh, I did a little Fast boat time, Senior. Granted no deployments, but I got to see a little of the other side. Your point about using active for baffle clears is well made, but that certainly isn't what's going on in game terms here, which is the original question I think. And you are certainly right about the limitations of active as well - not remotely the god-like sensor games make it out to be. In another time and place, I would lament about the misinformation at length, but yeah...

As to Kapitan's post, yes, a nice write-up. The OSCAR won't be vanishing anytime soon, but at least initial replacement units are making it's way into the fleet in the form of the SEVERODVINSK SSGN. Not many in service, and they are some... interesting boats, shall we say... but they are capable. The TYPHOONs are all but out of service and have been for some time, so that fleet aspect is basically being covered by the DELTA IIIs and IVs, though they've got help coming in the form of the DOLGORUKY SSBN that's hit the fleet in the last few years as well. AKULA II isn't going anywhere anytime soon either... it's still the best attack boat they have, and they have been concentrating more on the strategic mission than ever before, so it's not likely to change soon.

They're still behind, but the gap gets closer all the time.

[Kapitan]

Oh, I did a little Fast boat time, Senior. Granted no deployments, but I got to see a little of the other side. Your point about using active for baffle clears is well made, but that certainly isn't what's going on in game terms here, which is the original question I think. And you are certainly right about the limitations of active as well - not remotely the god-like sensor games make it out to be. In another time and place, I would lament about the misinformation at length, but yeah...

As to Kapitan's post, yes, a nice write-up. The OSCAR won't be vanishing anytime soon, but at least initial replacement units are making it's way into the fleet in the form of the SEVERODVINSK SSGN. Not many in service, and they are some... interesting boats, shall we say... but they are capable. The TYPHOONs are all but out of service and have been for some time, so that fleet aspect is basically being covered by the DELTA IIIs and IVs, though they've got help coming in the form of the DOLGORUKY SSBN that's hit the fleet in the last few years as well. AKULA II isn't going anywhere anytime soon either... it's still the best attack boat they have, and they have been concentrating more on the strategic mission than ever before, so it's not likely to change soon.

They're still behind, but the gap gets closer all the time.


The last Oscar was launched in 1996 K-150 Tomsk she is due for mid life refit and slated for upgrade to Project 949AM which is deleting the SS-N-19 missiles for Land attack missiles, We should see these submarines still about into the late 2020's atleast.
On another foot note to the Oscar the Belogorad which is a heavily modified and Lengthened submarine (now the longest in the world) launched this year she too was originally an Oscar II and will be around probably beyond 2035.

Typhoons only one is active TK208 but that should be going into layup this year or early next year they may keep it on but it all depends on the funds TK17 & TK20 have been in layup sine 2004 and wont return to service TK210 TK13 TK202 have already been cut up.
The Delta III and IV are being replaced by the Borei's and its likely the last Delta III will be gone by 2020 with the delta IV not far behind by 2025, so far only 12 Bories are slated for completion (replacing 14 boats)

The 4 modified Victor III (Victor IV) and early Akula's (Project 971) are slated to be replaced with the 12 Yasens that are on order, while the Akula Improved versions and Sierra's are slated to continue on into the 2020's, so far no replacement is announced and no commitment to further 6 Yasens options are on the drawing board

[The Bandit]

The last Oscar was launched in 1996 K-150 Tomsk she is due for mid life refit and slated for upgrade to Project 949AM which is deleting the SS-N-19 missiles for Land attack missiles, We should see these submarines still about into the late 2020's atleast.
On another foot note to the Oscar the Belogorad which is a heavily modified and Lengthened submarine (now the longest in the world) launched this year she too was originally an Oscar II and will be around probably beyond 2035.

Typhoons only one is active TK208 but that should be going into layup this year or early next year they may keep it on but it all depends on the funds TK17 & TK20 have been in layup sine 2004 and wont return to service TK210 TK13 TK202 have already been cut up.
The Delta III and IV are being replaced by the Borei's and its likely the last Delta III will be gone by 2020 with the delta IV not far behind by 2025, so far only 12 Bories are slated for completion (replacing 14 boats)

The 4 modified Victor III (Victor IV) and early Akula's (Project 971) are slated to be replaced with the 12 Yasens that are on order, while the Akula Improved versions and Sierra's are slated to continue on into the 2020's, so far no replacement is announced and no commitment to further 6 Yasens options are on the drawing board

If I'm not mistaken the only Typhoon left was just for Bulava missile testing and no longer has any strategic role. They made some noise a few years earlier about dragging the other two out of moth-balls but that was before all of these sanctions and the like, can only imagine what a nightmare getting something like that which has been sitting around for 10+ years sea-worthy and operational again, just as well off to build something new.

[Kapitan]

If I'm not mistaken the only Typhoon left was just for Bulava missile testing and no longer has any strategic role. They made some noise a few years earlier about dragging the other two out of moth-balls but that was before all of these sanctions and the like, can only imagine what a nightmare getting something like that which has been sitting around for 10+ years sea-worthy and operational again, just as well off to build something new.

TK17 and TK20 have been de-fueled and in layup since 2004 they are slated for scrap and will not return to service TK17 is on the list to go in .

TK208 is not only a test platform she is fully capable of conducting a deterrent patrol and does as buluva missile are now fully operational and installed in the Borei class

They are building new rather than recommissioning old units in fact TK208 is the oldest of all typhoons dating from 1977 while TK20 Severstal is the youngest coming into service 1989.

It is unlikely the typhoons that are laid up will ever return to sea they would cost too much the same goes for the 4th and likely the 3rd Kirov cruisers too.

As for the current sanctions it hasn't affected Russia as massively as the west hoped the IMF is still forecasting growth.

[Shadriss]

Just for reference, the Borei talked about above is the same as the DOLGORUKIY class I mentioned - one is the "local" name, and the other is the NATO designation. For example, the TYPHOON is the NATO designation... the Russian designation is Akula (Russian for 'shark').

So yeah - 1 TYPHOON has been used as a test bed platform as mentioned, two others are scrapped, and the remaining one has been powering local towns for a decade or so. She's essentially welded to the pier, and won't be going anywhere any time soon.

[ollie1983]

Impressive write ups and historical perspectives.

The Sovs knew full well their submarines were not up to par, hence their reliance on ground based strategic weapons which the West largely neglected.

The same was true of aviation. NATO made no real push for SAM/AAA capabilities because they had fleets of fighters and AEW and tankers for these as well.

Much of the vaunted Russian hordes was myth, perpetrated by the need to keep the Cold war going which did wonders for defence spending. In reality the country was half broke.

[Kapitan]

Dont write off the Soviets so quickly, in certain areas they were and in some cases still are more advanced than the west.

They remain the only country ever to serially produce a large military submarine not once but twice with two other experimental boats.


https://farm1.staticflickr.com/301/19841206340_f38760db76_m.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/weinou)https://farm1.staticflickr.com/396/20021402252_1049bb8ee8_m.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/wvdVmy)

Project 705 Lira (7 built) NATO Code name Alfa initially rated to 900 meters, later on cracks were found in the hull which meant they were restricted to 450 meters, these submarines could sustain 42 knots with a burst speed of 45 knots for a short period, their main draw back was their 5 bladed screw and they made more noise than a Metallica concert.

The next type of titanium submarine was the Project 945 & 945A class (2 Barracuda and 2 Kondor class or NATO code name Sierra I & II) they look similar to the Project 971 Akula's but are much heavier their weapons are the same similar speed profiles and acoustic dampening and here is the difference while the steel hull of the Akula allows for diving to around 550 meters the Titanium hull of the sierra's allow it to go much deeper 850 meters.
How strong is that hull? why not ask the 1992 crew of the K-276 Kastroma, while submerged the Kastroma collided with the Los Angeles class submarine USS Baton Rouge SSN 689 the damage to the Baton rouge was deemed so severe the vessel was deemed uneconomical to repair and scrapped, the Kastroma suffered Minor damage to her sail and now wears a kill star.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm190/SubHunter611/kastroma2_zpslmgaj2k3.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/user/SubHunter611/media/kastroma2_zpslmgaj2k3.jpg.html)
http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm190/SubHunter611/Kastroma_zpscdcuq84z.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/user/SubHunter611/media/Kastroma_zpscdcuq84z.jpg.html)
http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm190/SubHunter611/kastroma%204_zpsu40nbog6.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/user/SubHunter611/media/kastroma%204_zpsu40nbog6.jpg.html)

Other titanium boats include the lone Project 661 Anchar whc=ich holds the worlds fastest sustained under water speed record at 44.7 knots this is her back end just prior to her scrapping.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm190/SubHunter611/papa%20back%20end2_zpsvbxg0fgd.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/user/SubHunter611/media/papa%20back%20end2_zpsvbxg0fgd.jpg.html)

And probably the most famous yet ill fated the Lone Project 685 Plavnik or NATO Code named Mike class, which still holds the world record for deepest diving military submarine at 1020 meters, in 1989 she would catch fire in the Norwegian sea and sink with the loss of 42 of her crew.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm190/SubHunter611/mike3_zpsrc8b3gxw.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/user/SubHunter611/media/mike3_zpsrc8b3gxw.jpg.html)http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm190/SubHunter611/mike4_zpsqmaqp9jc.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/user/SubHunter611/media/mike4_zpsqmaqp9jc.jpg.html)http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm190/SubHunter611/mike_zps6hbektzw.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/user/SubHunter611/media/mike_zps6hbektzw.jpg.html)

Before you say it the USN has the seawolf class SSN yes i know it can dive to over 600 meters, however she isn't made of titanium she is made of HY130 steel unlike the 688's, Virginia' Trafalgar Swifsures and Astutes which are made of HY80 steel

What about weapons then? well as above the Russians have the only working and usable rocket powered torpedo proving the technology is Workable, the initial launch in 1977 shows that they were somewhat ahead for their time whats more the torpedo was updated in the mid 90's
http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm190/SubHunter611/va111_zpsnf4gd4sz.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/user/SubHunter611/media/va111_zpsnf4gd4sz.jpg.html)

Want to know another thing that is used to this day by of all people NASA ?

The NK33 rocket engines and variants of it used a closed system saving alot of fuel plus giving more power in a smaller motor, created in the 1960's ! it was deemed by NASA after a very large expenditure that the system was un workable and unsafe.
Variants of that NK33 engine now power the Atlas and Antares rockets they have also powered a lot of other ones too, it is also likely that a variant will be used in the Ariane 6 rocket for the ESA.
This particular engine group is also fitted to nearly every single type of ballistic missile in the Russian arsenal, whats more variants power the vintage 1957 designed R7 Semyorka rocket which even to this day is used not only by the Russian's but also but crews heading to the ISS Since 2011 when the shuttle programme ended in the USA this old girl plus her vostok capsule also of 50's vintage is currently the only way to the ISS from Baikanor Kazakhstan


Also it is worth while to note this last piece il give you, in 1999 over Sarajevo the F117A Night hawk stealth jet was shot down by a ground based SAM system called S-125 Neva / Prechora which was a derivative of the SA-2 Guidline that in 1962 took down Garry Powers U2 in Russia and Rudolf Andersons U2 in Cuba, a vintage missile system.

Brace yourself for the following picture.......

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/282/31652577563_3349cd37cf.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Qe2JxV)Chernobyl 2017 (https://flic.kr/p/Qe2JxV) by Blair shaw (https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/), on Flickr

This is myself standing in front of one of the largest over the horizon radar arrays, this array is located near the Chernobyl nuclear power plant the array dubbed Chernobyl 2 was able to send a signal around the earth, much to the annoyance of every ham radio operator in western Europe, this array code named steel yard proved that radio waves could bounce around the ionosphere and stratosphere which led the way to the Phased array radars we see today at places like RAF Flying Dales in Yorkshire, again the Russians proved it could work it was improved upon massively by the west specifically the USA and developed greatly and today you have systems such as Aegis and Sampson because of this development.

[JhonSilver]

myth, perpetrated by the need to keep the Cold war going

The maritime strategy of the USSR, developed by the mid-sixties, was actually formulated as follows:
the flot of the USSR should, in any variants of conflict development, to destroy terrestrial objects on the territory of the enemy and inflict a paralleling impact on the marine nuclear power component for prevention of a nuclear strike across the USSR.
the main form of combat operations was the application of missile and nuclear missile strikes.


The first day of the 1968 campaign should look like this - the melted wreckage of the submarine against the background of a megaton nuclear explosion over the Holy-Loch base

There were no interceptions of NATO convoys. Because the war should be over in 2 weeks. And the first convoy would not come until three weeks later.


-------------
So that Tom Clancy was, to put it mildly, fantasizing

[denis_469]

Project 705 Lira (7 built) NATO Code name Alfa initially rated to 900 meters, later on cracks were found in the hull which meant they were restricted to 450 meters, these submarines could sustain 42 knots with a burst speed of 45 knots for a short period, their main draw back was their 5 bladed screw and they made more noise than a Metallica concert.

You not right. Depth limit was 700 meters or 2297 feet. Maximal speed was 41 knots. And subs was silence like Kilo submarine. What you write about noisy was special. In few orders submarine must very nisy so covert other submarines go. After receive order submarine 705 project go in depth few then 100 meters an start flank speed. Start very noisy and US SOSUS system can not detect other submarines with less noisy. But in normal Alfa subs was silence like Kilo class so use electric motors.

The next type of titanium submarine was the Project 945 & 945A class (2 Barracuda and 2 Kondor class or NATO code name Sierra I & II) they look similar to the Project 971 Akula's but are much heavier their weapons are the same similar speed profiles and acoustic dampening and here is the difference while the steel hull of the Akula allows for diving to around 550 meters the Titanium hull of the sierra's allow it to go much deeper 850 meters.
How strong is that hull? why not ask the 1992 crew of the K-276 Kastroma, while submerged the Kastroma collided with the Los Angeles class submarine USS Baton Rouge SSN 689 the damage to the Baton rouge was deemed so severe the vessel was deemed uneconomical to repair and scrapped, the Kastroma suffered Minor damage to her sail and now wears a kill star.
So it is submarines now so depth diving is secret.

Other titanium boats include the lone Project 661 Anchar whc=ich holds the worlds fastest sustained under water speed record at 44.7 knots this is her back end just prior to her scrapping.

Papa depth was 400 meters or 1312 feet.

[The Bandit]

From what I've read the Baton Rogue incident is often overblown in terms of the damage that the boat actually suffered. She wasn't immediately decommissioned and if any repairs were deferred it was just as likely due to the peace dividend as much as anything else. Two other early 688s were decommed at the same time as Baton Rogue (Omaha and Cinncinati), they hadn't been involved in collisions, its just that they were considered surplus and the Navy had decided not to spend the $$ to refuel them.

From what I recall, the collision between USS ?Grayling or Greenling? and an Echo II was quite a bit worse (the US captain feared that the Soviets sunk) but both boats survived and were put back in service.

For all the flak they get about being second rate, even without taking titanium into account, as far as metallurgy goes the Soviets were ahead pretty much from the time the Foxtrot hit the water, with the Victor class being built out of steel that exceeds HY100 (Seawolf was HY100 by the way, not HY130 which is what the CONFORM design from the 70s was supposed to be made from) and this was in the late 60s! Their double-hull designs were typically stronger, with more reserve buoyancy and greater resistance to damage (most designs could survive the loss of one full compartment and associated ballast tanks) so they did have a lot going for them.

While the argument has been made that the Soviet boats are quieter than given credit for (so maybe they weren't as far behind in this area as often said) I don't think any argument can be made for how much they lagged behind in the electronics department and I do agree with the notion that for probably the entire Cold War the Americans had the upper hand (better electronics / sonar and superior silencing techniques) but the "inferior" Soviet foe was not to be taken lightly.

The other thing that I will say, which is kind of ironic when you compare the backgrounds of the respective countries, looking at what they had to work with, I think the Russians were more creative with their submarine designs, mainly because they had to be. They were aware of their weaknesses / disadvantages and tried to work around them as best they could, coming up with many innovative designs in the process.

[Kapitan]

You not right. Depth limit was 700 meters or 2297 feet. Maximal speed was 41 knots. And subs was silence like Kilo submarine. What you write about noisy was special. In few orders submarine must very nisy so covert other submarines go. After receive order submarine 705 project go in depth few then 100 meters an start flank speed. Start very noisy and US SOSUS system can not detect other submarines with less noisy. But in normal Alfa subs was silence like Kilo class so use electric motors.


So it is submarines now so depth diving is secret.



Papa depth was 400 meters or 1312 feet.


The 900m limit on the Alfa is varied many sources say 700m some say 900m some say 800m what is know is that they have been tracked and recorded at speeds of 42 knots by not only by the USN but also the RN and French navies, it was also confirmed by SOSUS in the 70's, as for thier loudness alot of western submariners and SOSUS operators will tell you they were very loud and it is a known fact revealed by Dr John Craven that an alfa coming off the North Cape at high speed was picked up at a SOSUS listening station in Bermuda.

The point with the Papa was to re enforce the notion that they have built multiple classes of titanium hulled submarines.

The Sierra class is very well known and documented to have the ability to dive to around 850 meters a lot of the depths were worked out by calculation (in the Project 705 case) but others like the Sierra the west have recorded their diving capabilities, the Sierra information that is current lists this not just in western sources but also Russian sources the Sierra is extremely well built.

[denis_469]

The Bandit - you not true. In this year (2017) first commander first submarine project 671RT (Victor II NATO) say, that him submarine have range detection in US Ohio submarine more then 100 cables (more than 10 miles). And US submarine use masking device like surface cargo ship in this range.
But really situation is secret and I himself know what write submarine commanders in Internet.

[denis_469]

The 900m limit on the Alfa is varied many sources say 700m some say 900m some say 800m what is know is that they have been tracked and recorded at speeds of 42 knots by not only by the USN but also the RN and French navies, it was also confirmed by SOSUS in the 70's, as for thier loudness alot of western submariners and SOSUS operators will tell you they were very loud and it is a known fact revealed by Dr John Craven that an alfa coming off the North Cape at high speed was picked up at a SOSUS listening station in Bermuda.

The point with the Papa was to re enforce the notion that they have built multiple classes of titanium hulled submarines.

The Sierra class is very well known and documented to have the ability to dive to around 850 meters a lot of the depths were worked out by calculation (in the Project 705 case) but others like the Sierra the west have recorded their diving capabilities, the Sierra information that is current lists this not just in western sources but also Russian sources the Sierra is extremely well built.

About Alfa you need understand that 700 meters is safe depth, but 900 meters is crush depth. About speed - all may be. During WWII one German submarine type VIIC write, that in Gibraltar transfer was speed 11 knots. So may be and 42 knots.

[FPSchazly]

How strong is that hull? why not ask the 1992 crew of the K-276 Kastroma, while submerged the Kastroma collided with the Los Angeles class submarine USS Baton Rouge SSN 689 the damage to the Baton rouge was deemed so severe the vessel was deemed uneconomical to repair and scrapped, the Kastroma suffered Minor damage to her sail and now wears a kill star.

To be fair, the Sierra took its damage in the sail, which is outside the pressure hull. Sails are also reinforced for ice penetration. Also, titanium has about the same strength as steel; its advantage is its lower density, so for the same weight you can get twice the thickness of hull, for example.

Before you say it the USN has the seawolf class SSN yes i know it can dive to over 600 meters, however she isn't made of titanium she is made of HY130 steel unlike the 688's, Virginia' Trafalgar Swifsures and Astutes which are made of HY80 steel.

I thought the Virginia was made of HY80 as well, but I've seen that the Seawolves are made of HY100 and the Virginias of HY120 (for any who don't know, this means yield strength of 120,000 psi).
http://www.aticourses.com/blog/index.php/2011/07/19/uss-virginia-ssn-774a-new-steel-shark-at-sea/

In all this discussion of American vs Russian submarines, it seems like the Russian submarines were much more of science projects. As in, the Americans found a design they liked and kept making subs like that while the Russians kept experimenting. Whether this is because they couldn't make up their minds on a sub design or wanted to keep improving/exploring is something I can't comment on.

[Kapitan]

From what I've read the Baton Rogue incident is often overblown in terms of the damage that the boat actually suffered. She wasn't immediately decommissioned and if any repairs were deferred it was just as likely due to the peace dividend as much as anything else. Two other early 688s were decommed at the same time as Baton Rogue (Omaha and Cinncinati), they hadn't been involved in collisions, its just that they were considered surplus and the Navy had decided not to spend the $$ to refuel them.

From what I recall, the collision between USS ?Grayling or Greenling? and an Echo II was quite a bit worse (the US captain feared that the Soviets sunk) but both boats survived and were put back in service.

For all the flak they get about being second rate, even without taking titanium into account, as far as metallurgy goes the Soviets were ahead pretty much from the time the Foxtrot hit the water, with the Victor class being built out of steel that exceeds HY100 (Seawolf was HY100 by the way, not HY130 which is what the CONFORM design from the 70s was supposed to be made from) and this was in the late 60s! Their double-hull designs were typically stronger, with more reserve buoyancy and greater resistance to damage (most designs could survive the loss of one full compartment and associated ballast tanks) so they did have a lot going for them.

While the argument has been made that the Soviet boats are quieter than given credit for (so maybe they weren't as far behind in this area as often said) I don't think any argument can be made for how much they lagged behind in the electronics department and I do agree with the notion that for probably the entire Cold War the Americans had the upper hand (better electronics / sonar and superior silencing techniques) but the "inferior" Soviet foe was not to be taken lightly.

The other thing that I will say, which is kind of ironic when you compare the backgrounds of the respective countries, looking at what they had to work with, I think the Russians were more creative with their submarine designs, mainly because they had to be. They were aware of their weaknesses / disadvantages and tried to work around them as best they could, coming up with many innovative designs in the process.


USS Greyling collided with the Delta IV class submarine K407 under the command of Captain 1st Rank Sergey Bulgarkov

USS Tautog Collided with the Echo II class submarine K108 in the 1970's the K108 under the command of Captain Boris Bogdasaryan spoke of the incident in the 90's and it featured in Blind mans Bluff, the Tautog sail was left with a permanent 2 degree angle.

The Alfa sail design was a mistake the designer didn't mean to blend it as such but it worked very well, what is more these submarines were highly automated as a lot are in the Russian fleet, the Akula only has around 50-60 crew where as the 688 has between 115-130

[Kapitan]

About Alfa you need understand that 700 meters is safe depth, but 900 meters is crush depth. About speed - all may be. During WWII one German submarine type VIIC write, that in Gibraltar transfer was speed 11 knots. So may be and 42 knots.

Indeed crush depth for these boats was deep but we do know not only did they retire early most in the early 80's they also had some issues with hull cracking which was published by the Russians in 1995.

[denis_469]

Indeed crush depth for these boats was deep but we do know not only did they retire early most in the early 80's they also had some issues with hull cracking which was published by the Russians in 1995.

Hull cracking was say that scrapped submarine. Say, that submarine have cracking hulls and delete this submarine.

[Kapitan]

To be fair, the Sierra took its damage in the sail, which is outside the pressure hull. Sails are also reinforced for ice penetration. Also, titanium has about the same strength as steel; its advantage is its lower density, so for the same weight you can get twice the thickness of hull, for example.



I thought the Virginia was made of HY80 as well, but I've seen that the Seawolves are made of HY100 and the Virginias of HY120 (for any who don't know, this means yield strength of 120,000 psi).
http://www.aticourses.com/blog/index.php/2011/07/19/uss-virginia-ssn-774a-new-steel-shark-at-sea/

In all this discussion of American vs Russian submarines, it seems like the Russian submarines were much more of science projects. As in, the Americans found a design they liked and kept making subs like that while the Russians kept experimenting. Whether this is because they couldn't make up their minds on a sub design or wanted to keep improving/exploring is something I can't comment on.

In fairness yes the Kastroma took a light hit but if you look at the damage to the San fransisco it makes you wonder just how much damage did baton rouge suffer?

I am aware of the HY ratings i did read the Virginia is built along similar lines to the Astute in terms of steel used and pre fabrication methods following on from the Seawolf.

I gathered from many sources that the reason for seawolfs expense wasn't all down to the kit inside it was the hull and many sources pointed to HY130 being used but HY100 is still expensive, as for the Virginias using HY120 this could mean a deeper diving submarine?

[denis_469]

Kapitan - US Virginia have HY-80 steel:
"Depth: 800+ feet (operational)
approx. 1200 feet (safe depth)
approx. 1800 feet (crash depth)"

[Kapitan]

Hull cracking was say that scrapped submarine. Say, that submarine have cracking hulls and delete this submarine.

Hull cracking has been found not just in Russian boats but also British ones, so its not new.

[Kapitan]

Kapitan - US Virginia have HY-80 steel:
"Depth: 800+ feet (operational)
approx. 1200 feet (safe depth)
approx. 1800 feet (crash depth)"

Which ties in with the costing figures for each boat yet the price of steel has decreased,

[shipkiller1]

Kapitan - US Virginia have HY-80 steel:
"Depth: 800+ feet (operational)
approx. 1200 feet (safe depth)
approx. 1800 feet (crash depth)"


HY-80 has not been used in a long time.. 774 class does not use HY-80.

[denis_469]

HY-80 has not been used in a long time.. 774 class does not use HY-80.

I write data for "SSN-787". May be other steel use, but diving depth this.

[FPSchazly]

In fairness yes the Kastroma took a light hit but if you look at the damage to the San fransisco it makes you wonder just how much damage did baton rouge suffer?

The San Francisco damage was immense. That, too, was also outside of the pressure hull, though. Or, at least a bulk of it was. The sonar dome is outside the pressure hull. "Small scrapes", as Wikipedia describes it, on the pressure hull could be much deadlier (or more crippling) to an LA than the front-end collision on the San Francisco.

I am aware of the HY ratings i did read the Virginia is built along similar lines to the Astute in terms of steel used and pre fabrication methods following on from the Seawolf.

I gathered from many sources that the reason for seawolfs expense wasn't all down to the kit inside it was the hull and many sources pointed to HY130 being used but HY100 is still expensive, as for the Virginias using HY120 this could mean a deeper diving submarine?

Well, the Seawolf also has a significantly larger beam. The circumference of the Seawolf hull is nearly 40% longer than for the Virginia and the Seawolf isn't too much shorter, so the Seawolf has more steel. (A rough calculation gives approximately 10% more steel assuming constant hull thickness between Seawolf and Virginia. I'm not sure that's a valid assumption if the Seawolf can dive deeper than the Virginia, though).

For a crude example, if the Virginia hull thickness is the same as the LA, that would mean a greater diving depth. If they wanted the same diving depth as HY80 on the LA, however, they could use a thinner wall made of HY120. However, the Virginia weighs a lot more so I'm not sure about the thinner part. It's probably a combination of slightly thinner but still a somewhat greater diving depth.

[Kapitan]

The San Francisco damage was immense. That, too, was also outside of the pressure hull, though. Or, at least a bulk of it was. The sonar dome is outside the pressure hull. "Small scrapes", as Wikipedia describes it, on the pressure hull could be much deadlier (or more crippling) to an LA than the front-end collision on the San Francisco.



Well, the Seawolf also has a significantly larger beam. The circumference of the Seawolf hull is nearly 40% longer than for the Virginia and the Seawolf isn't too much shorter, so the Seawolf has more steel. (A rough calculation gives approximately 10% more steel assuming constant hull thickness between Seawolf and Virginia. I'm not sure that's a valid assumption if the Seawolf can dive deeper than the Virginia, though).

For a crude example, if the Virginia hull thickness is the same as the LA, that would mean a greater diving depth. If they wanted the same diving depth as HY80 on the LA, however, they could use a thinner wall made of HY120. However, the Virginia weighs a lot more so I'm not sure about the thinner part. It's probably a combination of slightly thinner but still a somewhat greater diving depth.

I did see pictures of the San Francisco its bow was eventually cut off and replaced with an older laid up 688 that's what i heard not sure on the truth of it, but yes the damage was immense to say the least only pictures i've ever seen with that much damage came from the Kursk in 2000

As for the HY ratings i understand the pressure ratings but in terms of thickness relation to strength thats where i get lost, given the state of technology today i would assume that HY 120 steel is some what cheaper today than back in the 70's and 80's when the 688's were coming online, i do know the hull cost for seawolf was extremely expensive again that was a cost forecast taken from 1997 so again thats taken from the time.

[denis_469]

I'm not sure that's a valid assumption if the Seawolf can dive deeper than the Virginia, though.

Yes, SSN-21 have this depth:
"Depth: 800+ feet (operational)
approx. 1600 feet (safe depth)
approx. 2250 feet (crash depth)"
And building with HY-100 steel, like 2 LA class submarines. But this steel (HY-100) have many cracks and boats rarely seen in sea. Except SSN-23.

[The Bandit]

In fairness yes the Kastroma took a light hit but if you look at the damage to the San fransisco it makes you wonder just how much damage did baton rouge suffer?

I am aware of the HY ratings i did read the Virginia is built along similar lines to the Astute in terms of steel used and pre fabrication methods following on from the Seawolf.

I gathered from many sources that the reason for seawolfs expense wasn't all down to the kit inside it was the hull and many sources pointed to HY130 being used but HY100 is still expensive, as for the Virginias using HY120 this could mean a deeper diving submarine?

Yep, as far as San Francisco goes, again I think that some of the other factors at play were the reactor. She had just been refueled (plus they had USS Honolulu to get parts from), I'd be willing to guess if she was due for a refueling she'd have most certainly been retired. That's also what I read written on USS Miami, more than likely she would have been repaired if they had a retired sub that they could have sourced some of the parts from, but as the only other 688s to be retired are all older (pre-688I) this was impossible. The other thing I think I remember getting from this is that it certainly wouldn't have been impossible to repair Miami but it was just too expensive, especially if you're paying for it with money that's coming out of your construction budget and setting back one of your new Virginia boats.

On the HY100 front, it depends on what you consider cost but its not really down to the expense of manufacturing the steel (which probably isn't cheap or easy, but as far as I know I haven't heard of any massive quality issues), its the difficulty to work with it when you are talking about welds and what not. I'm not going to claim to know all about the science around it but even HY80 has not been easy to work with and has had lots of issues over the years.

I think it was Greyback or Growler, one of those Regulus boats and it had all kinds of problems. Even before this, one of the Skates (Seadragon?) which used the same type of HTS / HY42 that the later war-built boats used, had all kinds of improper welds in the 50s. This has happened on quite a few occasions, even with some of the 688Is (I think it was Charlotte or Hampton, one of the ones that was involved in a collision and had damage to the sail, when it was inspected it was found that quite a bit of the welds were incorrect/ out of spec and had to be re-done).

The reason I bring all this up is because the Seawolf, while under construction around 1993 or so suffered from massive issues with the welding of HY100, to the point that almost all of what had already been done had to be re-worked, adding probably almost a year to construction time.

HY-80 has not been used in a long time.. 774 class does not use HY-80.

Best I know, the last 688Is were still HY-80, so mid 90s but a few of the later ones had some sections made of HY100 just as a feasibility / practicality test.

[FPSchazly]

As for the HY ratings i understand the pressure ratings but in terms of thickness relation to strength thats where i get lost, given the state of technology today i would assume that HY 120 steel is some what cheaper today than back in the 70's and 80's when the 688's were coming online, i do know the hull cost for seawolf was extremely expensive again that was a cost forecast taken from 1997 so again thats taken from the time.

So in terms of pressure vessels, which submarines are, there are two factors at play: geometry and material properties. Thickness is a property of the geometry and Strength is a property of the material. Beam of the submarine and thickness of the hull play into the stress the pressure hull experiences from a geometrical standpoint (in addition to bulkheads). It's different analyzing internal pressure vessels (like spray paint cans or beer cans) versus external pressure vessels (like submarines), but for internal pressure vessels, a larger beam results in more stress and a thicker wall results in less stress in the design.

So now that you know the stress the submarine will experience, you have to pick a material with a sufficient Strength to handle that stress, but stress in a design doesn't depend on the material. In terms of material properties, a stronger material can take more stress. For HY120 vs HY80, it's fair to say that HY120 is 50% stronger than HY80.

So, HY120 has a strength of 120,000 psi. Say, for example, that a submarine at a certain depth is experiencing 60,000 psi in its hull. The HY120 has sufficient strength to not fail because of that stress level.

[ollie1983]

This Russian fanboy stance doesn't wash.

The Alfa class were very noisy. The fact they could dive deep and had a high top speed, yeah and? You don't think NATO could build a submarine out of titanium if they wanted to?

OTH radar- has serious limitations. Go and research about it. It's resolution is rather poor to say the least. Of use only for early warning, the Americans had them too.

Don't get wrapped around the axle with what steel or materials subs are made of. Silence is the key driver.

The USSR was broke. Defence spending was what made the Cold war so prolonged. And don't start down the nuclear war line because it's an irrelevance. Both sides had the throw weight to smash each other and still do.

[shipkiller1]

I did see pictures of the San Francisco its bow was eventually cut off and replaced with an older laid up 688 that's what i heard not sure on the truth of it, but yes the damage was immense to say the least only pictures i've ever seen with that much damage came from the Kursk in 2000.

It is a fallacy that the bow was cut off and replaced. Sections were removed and replaced. The pressure hull had MAJOR damage. It was a miracle that we did not lose the boat.

I was standing on the pier in Guam when they limped back in....

[shipkiller1]

It is sterile conjuncture on the properties of HY-80 vs. HY-100 or any other material.

Using Titanium as the hull material has some serious drawbacks.. The US experimented with this material and decided to stay with steel. Plus, the USSR had/has a much greater supply of the raw ore than the US did...

Every country that designs and builds submarines has their own philosophies on the design and construction. All boats have their strengths and weakness's.

[shipkiller1]

The US Navy experimented with putting a 5-bladed screw on a 688. Fast as an Alpha, and as noisy... Pulled the dam thing off rather quickly.

Fast forward 20 years and now you have Seawolf (SSN-21 class). As quiet at 20 knots as a 688i is at 5 knots... and faster than a 688. How much, I will not say.

I know it makes your patriotic bones rattle (no matter what country you are from) to say you have the fastest or deepest diving etc.. but in all practicalities it is just bravado... having the deepest diving has very little tactical value (there is an exception to that). Speed does, but if you are noisy as ox cart, it really does not matter anyway either...

[caine007]

I work with a lot of Russians. They have some weird ways of solving problems that make you scratch your head but in the end they're very effective. As a whole is their tech better? No of course not, their budgets don't even come close but I would write them off at your peril.

[Shadriss]

I did see pictures of the San Francisco its bow was eventually cut off and replaced with an older laid up 688 that's what i heard not sure on the truth of it, but yes the damage was immense to say the least only pictures i've ever seen with that much damage came from the Kursk in 2000

Yep, as far as San Francisco goes, again I think that some of the other factors at play were the reactor. She had just been refueled (plus they had USS Honolulu to get parts from), I'd be willing to guess if she was due for a refueling she'd have most certainly been retired. That's also what I read written on USS Miami, more than likely she would have been repaired if they had a retired sub that they could have sourced some of the parts from, but as the only other 688s to be retired are all older (pre-688I) this was impossible.

WRT the SAN FRANCISCO, her entire forward compartment WAS removed and replaced by the forward compartment of the USS HONOLULU (In the fleet, she is often referred to as either the HONOFRISCO or the SANALULU). Shipkiller may have been on the pier in Guam when she got back, but I was in Bremerton when they did the work - it was a rather big deal for the area, to say the least.

WRT the MIAMI, she was originally going to be repaired. However, as the initial clearing of damage revealed even more damage, and cost estimates continued to spiral upward, the decision was made that it wasn't cost effective - it got to the point where a new sub was going to be cheaper. MIAMI was already in Portsmoth Naval Shipyard up in Maine, and they don't keep mothballed ships up there, so that MAY have factored in as well, but that wasn't the read the sub fleet had at the time.

The Alfa class were very noisy. The fact they could dive deep and had a high top speed, yeah and? You don't think NATO could build a submarine out of titanium if they wanted to?

ALFAs were loud... comparable to the NAUTILUS when she launched in the 50's. Her prop was only part of it - her reactor was the bigger problem. Go take a look at that thing... it was amazing, I'll admit that, but the problems in how it was designed and implemented made it less than stellar for submarine use. And, of course, there is the problem of her nuclear shielding. What nuclear shielding, you ask? Exactly...

It is a fallacy that the bow was cut off and replaced. Sections were removed and replaced. The pressure hull had MAJOR damage. It was a miracle that we did not lose the boat.

I was standing on the pier in Guam when they limped back in....

Sorry, Senior. Not a fallacy. I was in Kittery at PNSY when the collision happened, but I went to IMFPACNORWEST shortly afterward, and that project was a big one. I never was involved in it directly, but I talked to a lot of people who were.

The US Navy experimented with putting a 5-bladed screw on a 688. Fast as an Alpha, and as noisy... Pulled the damn thing off rather quickly.

Fast forward 20 years and now you have Seawolf (SSN-21 class). As quiet at 20 knots as a 688i is at 5 knots... and faster than a 688. How much, I will not say.

To amplify this, and augment a few other comments, the Russians were very diverse in their submarines, yes... and for good reason. As I pointed out way back, they knew that their ability to tactically engage the US in ASW was not good. They knew we were quieter and had better sensors, but until ol' Johnny Walker came along, they didn't know why... so they experimented. There is a reason that the VICTOR II class had 4-, 5-, 6-, and eventually tandem 4-bladed props. If they could think of a thing, they tried it, jus to see if it would work. Sometimes it did, other times, not so much. That said, hats off to them for trying... even if it did take a traitor to show them the way to do business.

[denis_469]

This Russian fanboy stance doesn't wash.

The Alfa class were very noisy. The fact they could dive deep and had a high top speed, yeah and? You don't think NATO could build a submarine out of titanium if they wanted to?

OTH radar- has serious limitations. Go and research about it. It's resolution is rather poor to say the least. Of use only for early warning, the Americans had them too.

Don't get wrapped around the axle with what steel or materials subs are made of. Silence is the key driver.

The USSR was broke. Defence spending was what made the Cold war so prolonged. And don't start down the nuclear war line because it's an irrelevance. Both sides had the throw weight to smash each other and still do.

:haha: Noisy.... 1991 year: "After the reconnaissance of the SF data, the commander of the diesel boat, Captain 3rd Rank AP Ushakov, 4 Squadrons, Pl Plv SF, told me that he had discovered a foreign boat with a long-range contact with the terminal complex from a distance of as much as 60 miles. And I watched her for more than 3 days."
Detection range 60 miles against US submarine LA class. Ushakov submarine was "B-471". Detection was made during transfer from Black sea to Northern sea.

[denis_469]

And more about noisy:
"We left for the Barents Sea. They worked with a nuclear-powered ship and a diesel submarine. According to the nuclear-powered vessel, the detection distance was 315 cable, along the diesel boat - 147, which was five times the standard.
And then a complete triumph! And quite unexpected. When Mogilnikov gave the order to float up to recharge the battery, Ritsa suddenly gave the bearing to ... an American nuclear submarine that was following our nuclear submarine.
About how it was, I learned from the first mouth - from the very Yuri Mogilnikov. We have known him for about thirty years - since the first meeting in the service in Egyptian Alexandria. A straightforward and uncompromising man, Mogilnikov never shook his heart, as he did not curl, telling about this episode:
- I took it from a distance of almost 400 cable!"
Las Angeles submarine detection range 400 cables (40 miles), our nuclear submarine was 667A (Yankee NATO) - detection range is 315 cables (31,5 miles), diesel submarine was 641 (Foxtrot NATO) - detection range was 147 cables (14,7 miles).
It was "K-517" 671RT (Victor II NATO). December 1985 year.

[JhonSilver]

I would like to hear an opinion on the group activities of russian submarines.
This seems rather unrealistic since it makes it difficult to classify a target under conditions of unstable contact and can be fatal.

Whether there were similarities of wolfpacks in reality?

[Kapitan]

This Russian fanboy stance doesn't wash.

The Alfa class were very noisy. The fact they could dive deep and had a high top speed, yeah and? You don't think NATO could build a submarine out of titanium if they wanted to?

OTH radar- has serious limitations. Go and research about it. It's resolution is rather poor to say the least. Of use only for early warning, the Americans had them too.

Don't get wrapped around the axle with what steel or materials subs are made of. Silence is the key driver.

The USSR was broke. Defence spending was what made the Cold war so prolonged. And don't start down the nuclear war line because it's an irrelevance. Both sides had the throw weight to smash each other and still do.


I wouldnt call myself a "fanboy" however i have been in and around most of the Russian fleet for the last 20 years and in my time i have met with big names in the Russian fleets including Admiral Chernavin and Igor Kurdin

The USSR went broke for many reason unsustainable defence spending was one big problem something that was being addressed but too late plus Gorbachev also made his own political mistakes which Yeltsin made his gains.

i'm well aware of the limitations of OTH radars especially the Duga 1 it could detect launches from the USA but not much else but that's all it really needed to do anyway, the technology developed so fast that by the time the thing was built better systems existed and trace the linear history phased array is a development of this, as i said RAF Flying dales in Yorkshire is a phased array OTH radar system it is almost identical to what the Americans use at home.

as for the material a submarine is made from or how fast it goes yes i agree its not always something that matters however it mattered enough that both the USN and RN spent billions to counter the perceived threat with the development of the MK48 ADCAP and Spearfish torpedoes i think that speaks volumes on the threat they perceived, and founded correctly.

If the Mike class went into serial production and was (and yes it was tested) to have the ability to fire a weapon below 850m at a western vessel dont you think you too would want a weapon to counter that threat? the torpedoes of the day couldn't.

The MK48 ADCAP is one of if not the best anti ship/submarine torpedo to date it far exceeds anything the Russians have including VA-111 Skhval, i know for certain i would rather choose the 48 than any other weapon other than spearfish or the now defunct tigerfish.
in 20 years i have probably spent around 7 in Russia and at least 3 of those in the far north.

As for the west building a submarine out of titanium that was deemed by the governments as too costly and unworkable the Russians did have and still do have better gas welding techniques, so much so a lot of titanium parts for a lot of items comes made from Russia, the west is very good with steel however Russia has always been better than us with titanium.

When it comes down to it Russia excels at heavy industry where as the west excels at the service industry and manufacturing.

There's a saying " the west make everything like Swiss watches where as the Russians go at it with a hacksaw and a hand file"
Which i find true to be honest we in the west like fancy things the Russian's just want it to be practical if you look at the F86 its like a sleek sports car compared to the Mig 15 which looks like a tractor.

Russia lags behind in a lot of areas it wasn't until the late 90's waterfall displays started being put into submarines the west had them back in the 70's although i will say a lot of the Russian stuff does use windows (dont think its XP though)

[Kapitan]

I would like to hear an opinion on the group activities of russian submarines.
This seems rather unrealistic since it makes it difficult to classify a target under conditions of unstable contact and can be fatal.

Whether there were similarities of wolfpacks in reality?

Okean 61 and 77 and later on in 84 operation atrina saw the use of "wolf packs"

the western boats could classify each individual boat and also separate them out too so wasn't a massive issue the diesels especially Foxtrot Romeo Whiskey were noisy for SSK standards as they were multi screwed vessels

[shipkiller1]

I wouldnt call myself a "fanboy" however i have been in and around most of the Russian fleet for the last 20 years and in my time i have met with big names in the Russian fleets including Admiral Chernavin and Igor Kurdin

The USSR went broke for many reason unsustainable defence spending was one big problem something that was being addressed but too late plus Gorbachev also made his own political mistakes which Yeltsin made his gains.

i'm well aware of the limitations of OTH radars especially the Duga 1 it could detect launches from the USA but not much else but that's all it really needed to do anyway, the technology developed so fast that by the time the thing was built better systems existed and trace the linear history phased array is a development of this, as i said RAF Flying dales in Yorkshire is a phased array OTH radar system it is almost identical to what the Americans use at home.

as for the material a submarine is made from or how fast it goes yes i agree its not always something that matters however it mattered enough that both the USN and RN spent billions to counter the perceived threat with the development of the MK48 ADCAP and Spearfish torpedoes i think that speaks volumes on the threat they perceived, and founded correctly.

If the Mike class went into serial production and was (and yes it was tested) to have the ability to fire a weapon below 850m at a western vessel dont you think you too would want a weapon to counter that threat? the torpedoes of the day couldn't.

The MK48 ADCAP is one of if not the best anti ship/submarine torpedo to date it far exceeds anything the Russians have including VA-111 Skhval, i know for certain i would rather choose the 48 than any other weapon other than spearfish or the now defunct tigerfish.
in 20 years i have probably spent around 7 in Russia and at least 3 of those in the far north.

As for the west building a submarine out of titanium that was deemed by the governments as too costly and unworkable the Russians did have and still do have better gas welding techniques, so much so a lot of titanium parts for a lot of items comes made from Russia, the west is very good with steel however Russia has always been better than us with titanium.

When it comes down to it Russia excels at heavy industry where as the west excels at the service industry and manufacturing.

There's a saying " the west make everything like Swiss watches where as the Russians go at it with a hacksaw and a hand file"
Which i find true to be honest we in the west like fancy things the Russian's just want it to be practical if you look at the F86 its like a sleek sports car compared to the Mig 15 which looks like a tractor.

Russia lags behind in a lot of areas it wasn't until the late 90's waterfall displays started being put into submarines the west had them back in the 70's although i will say a lot of the Russian stuff does use windows (dont think its XP though)

This is not a bad synopsis..

Back in the late 80's and early 90's, as a semi-senior sailor, sometimes we would get new guys who thought the Soviets were stupid and we were going to wipe the floor with them... I had to dispel that notion quickly.

I would tell them that "if you think they are stupid, you are going to die....
Yes, some of their hardware was crap, but some was awesome... Same as in the US and NATO.. "

Militaries are by design conservative organizations. All the fancy new stuff needs to be proven before it is fielded.

If I met a Russian submarine sailor in a bar, I would not start a fight, but by him a beer...

[Shadriss]

Submarines Once, Submarines Twice, eh, Senior?

Totally agree with Shipkiller. Regardless of the flag flown over the hull, a submariner is a submariner. I was in the fleet when the KURSK went down, and the Bangor area held a Bell-Ringing for their crew within days of the event. I shudder to think about the crew aboard her, or the ones aboard the two Indian KILOs that all but exploded next to the pier; they get the same emotions I get for those on the SAN FRANCISCO, the HARTFORD, the NEWPORT NEWS or any other US sub that has ever been in an incident.

Kapitan, if I gave the impression I thought everything US was better than everything Russian, I will apologize for that, cause it certainly wasn't my intention. As you say - there are things that both sides excelled at. I had a Chief who said that had there been a war, it would have been Quality vs Quantity... and that Quantity has a Quality of it's own. I'm just as glad it never got to that point.

[denis_469]

Kapitan - I use only real data from first hand. And write about few. Can say, that US Mark-48 Mod.7 CBASS is elderly torpedo in reality, but in USA not know now about, so not know data about modern Russian torpedoes. I can say, that it good, so if war starting US submarines would be easy sunk. British Spearfish torpedo is outdate now. UK wish buy US Mk-48 torpedoes, but can not made this. For replace Spearfish.
Soviet unguided torpedoes VA-111 Shkval now not use, so we have more modern guided rocket torpedoes like Shkval.
If you read data about torpedoes before 1989 year, so can read, that Mk-48 not supertorpedo, but ordinary torpedo in world. Soviet and Russian secret regime about modern torpedoes good, and in west not know real data about moder our weapons. Few days ago in Russia say, that in service Fizik-2 torpedo now. What you know about?:haha:

May be you know data about other modern Russian torpedoes? No. You not know about. But think, that elderly US Mk-48 and outdate UK Spearfish torpedoes best. It is very very good! Excellent. Continue think so and more! When war start our victory would be easy.

[PL_Harpoon]

I think there is a huge difference in what the public knows and believes and what military ops really think.

Generally, you always want your citizens to believe that you have the best hardware while in reality you always worry about the capabilities of "the other side".

[The Bandit]

I think there is a huge difference in what the public knows and believes and what military ops really think.

Generally, you always want your citizens to believe that you have the best hardware while in reality you always worry about the capabilities of "the other side".

Well to take that further, even when they have the advantage any military has a vested interest in hyping up what the other side has in order to maximize its own funds, and keep your citizens thinking that they have the best.

[Kapitan]

Submarines Once, Submarines Twice, eh, Senior?

Kapitan, if I gave the impression I thought everything US was better than everything Russian, I will apologize for that, cause it certainly wasn't my intention. As you say - there are things that both sides excelled at. I had a Chief who said that had there been a war, it would have been Quality vs Quantity... and that Quantity has a Quality of it's own. I'm just as glad it never got to that point.


Quite the opposite we each have our respective opinions however i have a unique position that i have seen it from both sides, i have been on many Russian boats i have also been on British American French German Italian and Egyptian boats as well as others, in fact back in February i was at the Yokasuka naval base Japan on board some of the JDMSF and USN warships including the new Soryu class, i flew in from South Korea after visiting the new RFA Tide Spring prior to her departure for the UK (sadly didn't get a ride home)

I have the privilege of working with mainly navies but also armies and air forces across the world i currently work in Logistics basically i am a glorified Transport manager / Truck driver ! but the company i work for Works for the M.O.D and we do supply lube oils to vessels my whole trip to Seoul was to ensure the correct fittings had been placed on a 6in diameter pipe so that a road tanker could couple in and pump lube oil into the engine room (something that could have been done in Devon port but hey i aint complaining)
The reason i ended up in Yokasuka was similar reasons but to ensure Japanese and American warships could refuel from our RFA's (which you guys have been doing since what the 40's? and yes another pointless exercise)

The company i work for we transport a lot of the sensitive equipment from sites across the whole of the EU it can range from fuel oils to weapons and electronics so it does mean i am up close and personal with a lot of the equipment, back in 2011 i had to double man a truck down to Gibraltar with new "stores" i helped the crew bring it on board and for my efforts i got a ride home on HMS Tireless.

I left school at 16 and went from 2003-2006 in the merchant navy on board a roll on roll off freighter (first ship) my first trip was to Um Qasr with an assortment of equipment from helicopters to tents i then spent time changing ships mainly RO RO but also an oil tanker before being put on as full crew and then being made redundant when the line was bought out.

I am aware of what the Russians field having stood at Severodisk and seen the loading of weapons, i have been able to go onboard many submarines including the Akula (Project 971 boat) also a couple of Kilo's a Delta IV Victor III and Oscar II having seen the weapons i know who id have money on in terms of weapons ability.

The Russians have always been brash and it has worked for them in some cases they really do come up with outlandish ideas and yet make them work! no other country has a sauna and swimming pool in a submarine! no other country has a rocket torpedo and no other country holds the records for speed and depth.
What they lack in technology they make up for either in numbers or by brute force.

The West always have made thing pin point accurate where as the Russian make it practical the AK47 is a good example of that machined imperfect even their aircraft are the same, i remember back in 2013 when i went to Kubinka and saw all the trash laying around and said to one officer that two weeks prior i was at RAF / USAF Lakenheath and every where was clinically clean, he just came back to me and said our machines are built for war not too look good and in war it doesn't matter if your airfield is clean or not because war will be a big mess.

hate to say it but he has a point

and the man who said Quantity has a quality of its own is none other than dear Vladimir Lenin.



JMSDF Soryu class submarine doesnt look to bad
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/313/32616009600_25aecf84d8.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/RGazk7)Yokasuka Naval Base (https://flic.kr/p/RGazk7) by Blair shaw (https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/), on Flickr

[denis_469]

Kapitan - I can not say, that was in many foreign submarines. One only - France Rubis class what was in Severomorsk, but was in near all type Russian subs Northern fleet. And talk with commanders boats.

I know, that western propaganda not say real situation, but not worry. So in 2005 year US submarine attack our submarine in Pacific ocean. And missed torpedo. US "Mk-48 mod.6" can not hit our submarine. You not know about real torpedo data, but I have data about more then 30700 submarine attacks. Incude US attack 2005 year. Our submarine have not order for return firing, so US submarine survive. But it is was not more.

If you really have sources in US submarine force so easy can veryfied my words. And can say what US submarine attack and range and that US "Mk-48 mod.6" missed.

And I not worry about NATO torpedoes. I know about. And know their real data. And wait answer about US submarine what made attack, range attack and... confirmed missed torpedo. It is real data for torpedoes.

[The Bandit]

Kapitan - I can not say, that was in many foreign submarines. One only - France Rubis class what was in Severomorsk, but was in near all type Russian subs Northern fleet. And talk with commanders boats.

I know, that western propaganda not say real situation, but not worry. So in 2005 year US submarine attack our submarine in Pacific ocean. And missed torpedo. US "Mk-48 mod.6" can not hit our submarine. You not know about real torpedo data, but I have data about more then 30700 submarine attacks. Incude US attack 2005 year. Our submarine have not order for return firing, so US submarine survive. But it is was not more.

If you really have sources in US submarine force so easy can veryfied my words. And can say what US submarine attack and range and that US "Mk-48 mod.6" missed.

And I not worry about NATO torpedoes. I know about. And know their real data. And wait answer about US submarine what made attack, range attack and... confirmed missed torpedo. It is real data for torpedoes.

Sorry dude but you've crossed over into "SAP AND IMPURIFY ALL OF OUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS!" territory.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2409/2124653125_50dd88c60a.jpg

[denis_469]

Sorry dude but you've crossed over into "SAP AND IMPURIFY ALL OF OUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS!" territory.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2409/2124653125_50dd88c60a.jpg

I simple say, that know about. And nothing more not say :) And wait, when Kapitan confirmed this :)
About US problem - it is US problem and not my. :)

Now understand, that I LOL about what say US and western members this talks? :)

[shipkiller1]

So in 2005 year US submarine attack our submarine in Pacific ocean. And missed torpedo. US "Mk-48 mod.6" can not hit our submarine. You not know about real torpedo data, but I have data about more then 30700 submarine attacks. Incude US attack 2005 year. Our submarine have not order for return firing, so US submarine survive.

Please enlighten us on the 2005 US Submarine attack on a Russian submarine????

[denis_469]

Please enlighten us on the 2005 US Submarine attack on a Russian submarine????

Who is supposed to - they know. The rest is too early to know the details. I just said that I should not go by ears.

[FPSchazly]

Yeah, you're gonna need a better source than "trust me".

[denis_469]

Yeah, you're gonna need a better source than "trust me".

I hope, that Kapitan write detail in this topic. :)

[max-peck]

but I have data about more then 30700 submarine attacks

Over thirty thousand torpedo attacks?
Really?

Or is this a typo denis_469?

Really - this is a genuine question
Is it really over 30,000?

[The Bandit]

I simple say, that know about. And nothing more not say :) And wait, when Kapitan confirmed this :)
About US problem - it is US problem and not my. :)

Now understand, that I LOL about what say US and western members this talks? :)

Keep this up and you're going to have to answer to the Coca-Cola company
http://content8.flixster.com/question/42/63/51/4263510_std.jpg

[denis_469]

Over thirty thousand torpedo attacks?
Really?

Or is this a typo denis_469?

Really - this is a genuine question
Is it really over 30,000?

When I last counted was 30737 attacks. But in was in January this year. Now may be more or less. So find new attacks and find double write and delete doubles. Not only torpedo, but and gun. And other like kingstones and fire.

[max-peck]

Excellent. Continue think so and more! When war start our victory would be easy.

I am pretty sure none of us here on this forum are wanting to start a war, or have one.

When I last counted was 30737 attacks. But in was in January this year. Now may be more or less. So find new attacks and find double write and delete doubles. Not only torpedo, but and gun. And other like kingstones and fire.

Now I am very interested Denis :up:

Could you please clarify something :hmmm:

Does this mean 30,000 attacks by Russian Boats on Western Boats?
Does this mean 30,000 attacks by Western Boats on Russian Boats?

Why have I not seen this in the news?

Maybe I am misunderstanding you?
Does this mean 30,000 simulated attacks in a wargame or simulator?

Or do you mean you have data on 30,000 torpedo attacks from history?

I am honestly curious about this Denis, as this is something I do not have any knowledge of

[denis_469]

I am pretty sure none of us here on this forum are wanting to start a war, or have one.

You not know history. Every century wild west attack Russia. Now 21 century and wild west not aatck Russia yet. So it must be in future.



Now I am very interested Denis :up:

Could you please clarify something :hmmm:

Does this mean 30,000 attacks by Russian Boats on Western Boats?
Does this mean 30,000 attacks by Western Boats on Russian Boats?

Why have I not seen this in the news?

Maybe I am misunderstanding you?
Does this mean 30,000 simulated attacks in a wargame or simulator?

Or do you mean you have data on 30,000 torpedo attacks from history?

I am honestly curious about this Denis, as this is something I do not have any knowledge of

I mean, that it was 30000 attack in history. From start war patrols.

And you all right understand, but start stupid specially. I understand, that wild west not wish poorest himself weaps, so read in this topic for LOL only.

[The Bandit]

You not know history. Every century wild west attack Russia. Now 21 century and wild west not aatck Russia yet. So it must be in future.




I mean, that it was 30000 attack in history. From start war patrols.

And you all right understand, but start stupid specially. I understand, that wild west not wish poorest himself weaps, so read in this topic for LOL only.

For the record
https://thecorvidreview.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/strangelove.jpg?w=656

[JhonSilver]

Okean 61 and 77 and later on in 84 operation atrina saw the use of "wolf packs"

the western boats could classify each individual boat and also separate them out too so wasn't a massive issue the diesels ... ???

The pack does not go around a bunch. Between submarines is maintained the value of the distance. It's not about what problems with the recognition of the enemy for the american submarine - but the fact that finding a nearby second Soviet submarine extremely complicates the classification - that in battle fatal.
In a radius of 10,000 meters there can not be a second submarine, especially at high noise levels
-------
sorry bad english

[shipkiller1]

???

but the fact that finding a nearby second Soviet submarine extremely complicates the classification - that in battle fatal.
In a radius of 10,000 meters there can not be a second submarine, especially at high noise levels
-------
sorry bad english

Sorry, no it does not....

[Shadriss]

Sorry, no it does not....

Agreed, for a great many reasons I can't talk about here.

As for the supposed attack in 2005... riiiiiiight. :haha:

[JhonSilver]

Agreed, for a great many reasons I can't talk about here. So many disadvantages:

1. The submarines do not exchange target designation underwater - two boats do not have the advantage of finding an enemy over one

2. The presence of a nearby allied submarine for both imposes restrictions on the use of weapons, while for the enemy increases the probability of hitting

3. Each new underwater contact in wartime is the default enemy. Thus, with a temporary loss of contact with the ally, there is a risk of identification error.

4. The number of targets that can hit one submarine is sufficient to destroy any surface target, the presence of a second submarine for an attack of the same purpose will not increase the effectiveness.
(This does not concern the attack of the CVBG)

5. Boats located at one point can be bypassed, including dispersing the group target. Boats distributed in the veil are much more difficult to get around.
-----------------
Any advantages?
-----------------
Benefits are when accompanied SSBN. But to attack convoy ??

[shipkiller1]

So many disadvantages:

1. The submarines do not exchange target designation underwater - two boats do not have the advantage of finding an enemy over one

2. The presence of a nearby allied submarine for both imposes restrictions on the use of weapons, while for the enemy increases the probability of hitting

3. Each new underwater contact in wartime is the default enemy. Thus, with a temporary loss of contact with the ally, there is a risk of identification error.

4. The number of targets that can hit one submarine is sufficient to destroy any surface target, the presence of a second submarine for an attack of the same purpose will not increase the effectiveness.
(This does not concern the attack of the CVBG)

5. Boats located at one point can be bypassed, including dispersing the group target. Boats distributed in the veil are much more difficult to get around.
-----------------
Any advantages?
-----------------
Benefits are when accompanied SSBN. But to attack convoy ??

This is not a criticism, but I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

[JhonSilver]

... I am not sure what you are trying to say here.
Is Google translator so bad?

[Kapitan]

???

The pack does not go around a bunch. Between submarines is maintained the value of the distance. It's not about what problems with the recognition of the enemy for the american submarine - but the fact that finding a nearby second Soviet submarine extremely complicates the classification - that in battle fatal.
In a radius of 10,000 meters there can not be a second submarine, especially at high noise levels
-------
sorry bad english



There is a lot of evidence from past Soviet war games that diesels would hunt together in a group normally of 3 to 5 submarines, the exercises i mentioned were the known occasions for large scale deployment in such a configuration spacing would be around 5 miles to 10 miles apart close enough for mutual assistance far enough not to get under each others way.

Sonar both west and east is advanced enough to be able to single out specific targets even when bunched together close, the fact a submarine can hide in the cavitation of another ships screw and still monitor a potential target is testament to the system in hand, Type 2070 of the Royal Navy has the ability to listen and classify over 100 targets simultaneously with a range of 1000 miles (official release) (yes just think on that ;) )


Now Denis 1st off any attack Russian to American or vice versa which leads to the loss of an asset if a formal declaration of war under international law (re pearl harbour)

2nd the MK48 and Stingray torpedoes are not designed to hit the hull they are designed to go beneath it and create a gas bubble which effectively breaks the vessels spine.
HMAS Farncombe which in 1999 sank the Frigate HMAS Torrens during a sinkex demonstrates my point in case your wondering it is also the load up screen of sub command but here is the link to show you that is goes underneath the hull.

https://youtu.be/c--fP017Xoc

In case you want an explanation this video is from the Royal Australian Navy giving you a description and a Video of a 2004 Sinkex where HMAS Farncombe sinks the USNS Kilauea.

https://youtu.be/BhjHBOVY83s


The notion of 30,000 attacks in history is non-sensicle given the Russian fleet in its entirely hasn't had more than 2,500 boats. what do you count as an attack?

Further more i was speaking with Igor Kurdin (Former Captain of a Delta IV) yesterday he confirmed that the standing orders for Russian boats are the same as the American or British which i will tell you is Fire if Fired upon, i can assure you had a western boat launched any weapon aimed at any Russian boat then it is certain the Russian boat will fire back.

In 1962 independent authority was given to commanders Igor Savitsky, Nikolai Shumkov, Ryurik Ketov, and Alexi Dubivko to fire without permission from Moscow nuclear tipped torpedoes if they were threatened by the USA thank god no one lost their cool because on the Foxtrot class B-59 (under the command of Ryurik Ketov) the boat had been forced to surface Vasili Arkipov (who technically out ranked the Captain but was 2nd in command) refused to agree to the order to fire the weapon (it required a unanimous decision between Captain 2nd in command and Political officer) Thus preventing the USS Blandy under the command of Charles Rosier) from being incinerated.

Technically speaking The USA committed a war crime it was only wording that saved it, the crime being blockading a country they were not at war with which is against international laws, what saved the USA was Robert McNamara advising Kennedy not to use the word "blockade" but use the word "Quarantine" instead.



I'm sorry but i cannot believe or Justify your 30000 claim or the 2005 attack no boat has been unaccounted for in 2005.

As for Data links they do exist and you can contact submarines while underwater both Russian and Western, i don't think i can go much further with this without treading on some toes here.

And finally as for the 30,000 claim i am struggling to find 3 credible losses due to foul play, and i have been through the books only real suspicious one would be the K129 Golf class that went down in the pacific ocean and was later part of Azorian and Project Jennifer.

[shipkiller1]

The Aussy officer was only partially correct.

What the torpedo does is....

When the warhead detonates, it creates the first pressure wave. You see this in the first video as the puff of smoke out of the stack...

Now the expanding pressure wave leaves a vacuum bubble. Once the pressure wave expands to a point where sea pressure overcomes the pressure of the bubble, the water attempts to fill the vacuum, violently. When this happens (this is hard to explain) the in-rushing water that is coming in from all sides since the vacuum bubble is a sphere, has so much energy, it sort of passes through itself (this is what is hard to visualize), releasing more energy.... This second pressure wave is amplified and produces the more energetic second explosion you see, breaking the keel.

[PL_Harpoon]

The Aussy officer was only partially correct.

What the torpedo does is....

When the warhead detonates, it creates the first pressure wave. You see this in the first video as the puff of smoke out of the stack...

Now the expanding pressure wave leaves a vacuum bubble. Once the pressure wave expands to a point where sea pressure overcomes the pressure of the bubble, the water attempts to fill the vacuum, violently. When this happens (this is hard to explain) the in-rushing water that is coming in from all sides since the vacuum bubble is a sphere, has so much energy, it sort of passes through itself (this is what is hard to visualize), releasing more energy.... This second pressure wave is amplified and produces the more energetic second explosion you see, breaking the keel.


Actually, unless I'm wrong you can see all this in this video:

https://youtu.be/E5rGFZWQfzk

and then from the surface at 4:44 where you can clearly see both waves.

[JhonSilver]

...from past Soviet war games that diesels would hunt together in a group normally of 3 to 5 submarines,....spacing would be around 5 miles to 10 miles apart
Oh Thank you very much!
Those. Tactics of group action was used by diesel boats (a legacy of the World War 2)
- obviously unjustified for nuclear submarines.

So left it in 1968 campain.

a submarine can hide in the cavitation of another ships screw and still monitor a potential target

the ability to listen and classify over 100 targets simultaneously
This applies to surface ships.

----------------------------
----------------------------

It is likely that the torpedo Uset-80 is overpowered. By 1984, problems with homing in difficult conditions had not been solved on it.

And Set-65 have differents homing systems in 1968 and 1984.

[Kapitan]

Oh Thank you very much!
Those. Tactics of group action was used by diesel boats (a legacy of the World War 2)
- obviously unjustified for nuclear submarines.

So left it in 1968 campain.


This applies to surface ships.

----------------------------
----------------------------

It is likely that the torpedo Uset-80 is overpowered. By 1984, problems with homing in difficult conditions had not been solved on it.

And Set-65 have differents homing systems in 1968 and 1984.

These tactics were still being used in 84 with atrina and okean 86 so not still 68 im afraid, in fact the stance was still used in 2000 in baltic exercises.

as for cavitation yes they can however modern sensors can now tell the difference.

[ikalugin]

Heh, missed this thread. My 50 cents would be that it appears that our estimed US comrades do not understand the logic of the Soviet submarine development.

Not only is the effect of spy rings over estimated, the driving requirements behind the developments are poorly understood, for example why and when did Soviets switch to rafting? Why Alfas were small, fast SSNs? Why didn't Soviets deploy more weapons on SSBNs? etc.

[LeopardDriver]

Heh, missed this thread. My 50 cents would be that it appears that our estimed US comrades do not understand the logic of the Soviet submarine development.

Not only is the effect of spy rings over estimated, the driving requirements behind the developments are poorly understood, for example why and when did Soviets switch to rafting? Why Alfas were small, fast SSNs? Why didn't Soviets deploy more weapons on SSBNs? etc.

So what are your answers to the questions raised?

[ikalugin]

I do not wish to spoil all the fun :)

[Kapitan]

I do not wish to spoil all the fun :)

As far as im led to believe Alfa was meant to be a sort of interceptor submarine here is a boat with a huge power out put from a powerful reactor in a small light wieght hull with minimal crew the idea being they would dart out of port and chase down any enemy submarines.

But please do answer the questions you raise leads to endless possibilities

[JhonSilver]

US comrades do not understand the logic of the Soviet submarine development.
There is no logic here. It's Russians. They are all crazy.

For example - soviet subs in the game several times make suicide dive when running from me.

---------
Atrina - is no group action. Subs spread over Atlantic with absolut different goal.

-----
sorry bad english

[ikalugin]

As far as im led to believe Alfa was meant to be a sort of interceptor submarine here is a boat with a huge power out put from a powerful reactor in a small light wieght hull with minimal crew the idea being they would dart out of port and chase down any enemy submarines.

But please do answer the questions you raise leads to endless possibilities
In case of Alfa, it is basically a product of MIC inertia.

The original concept indeed was to create an interceptor submarine with minimal displacement (titanium hull, automation) and maximum speed (high energy density) as a part of the system (with fixed sensors, ships and C3ISR submarines) to combat then short ranged SLBM platforms. As such stealth was not the chief concern, speed (both in transit and in combat), manueverability were.

However due to the growth of the SLBM range the original requirement for Alfa dissappeared, the C3ISR submarine project, after several iterations made birth.... to Akula class (Akula class was originally developed as a subset of that project, the project itself was never completed into metal but desighn elements went into Akula and 4th gen desighns ie Yasen).

[TigerDude]

Wow. I'll go back to the beginning.

Russian doctrine of active use was to go active at detection of US sub because the assumption was that the US sub already had them. Getting a quick range is not a bad thing at that point. Randomly going active in the middle of the ocean? Probably not. There was a case of a Russian sub tracking one of our ssbn's for an extended time using active, and there were countermeasure methods put in place to prevent it in the future.

US doctrine was the first sub to go active was the first sub to die. It's a laser beam to your location.

US sub battle was assumed to be either very close combat where you find an enemy ship close aboard or a long range approach where they find you only when you shoot. I highly doubt that Russian doctrine was anything close to it. Go active, match bearing rate if you have one, shoot.


On the titanium thing, a significant part of this is that titanium has a finite fatigue life. With steel, you can design so that you can stress it infinitely and it never fails. Titanium does not have this point, so each stress of the hull lessens its life. US subsafe procedures are to go to test depth basically every time out. Those titanium subs wouldn't last doing that. Same principle applies to soviet titanium fighters. There are many on the market at the airframe hour limit for the fatigue reason.

[ikalugin]

Peacetime/wartime difference.

Ie when was the first time Soviet crews were authorised to use self propelled imitators? How did it affect NATO ASW efforts?

The thing is, US never had a need to develop titanium hull construction, because requirements to dive extra deep (~1000m+ dive depth in case of Mike and various special purpose hulls) or to cut down on displacement (Alfas, Sierras, Kedr-T) were not there, nor was there MIC inertia to warrant further titanium manufacture (Kedr-T, to lesser extend Sierras).

Overall titanium's problem is not fatigue but it's price and how hard it is to use (machining, welding, etc).

[Capt Jack Harkness]

On the titanium thing, a significant part of this is that titanium has a finite fatigue life. With steel, you can design so that you can stress it infinitely and it never fails. Titanium does not have this point, so each stress of the hull lessens its life. US subsafe procedures are to go to test depth basically every time out. Those titanium subs wouldn't last doing that. Same principle applies to soviet titanium fighters. There are many on the market at the airframe hour limit for the fatigue reason.
I thought it was aluminum that has a finite fatigue life... Our fighter planes have a flight hour limit because a lot of the load is carried by aluminum (thus the reason why peace time G limits are lower than war time). Also, titanium is routinely used as a lighter alternative to steel for connecting rods in high performance cars and motorcycles that need to last the life of the vehicle whereas aluminum is unheard of outside drag racing (where short part lifespans are expected).

But getting back on topic...

[TigerDude]

You are right, Jack. Not sure why I had that in my mind.

Bad gouge.

[Shadriss]

I thought it was aluminum that has a finite fatigue life... Our fighter planes have a flight hour limit because a lot of the load is carried by aluminum (thus the reason why peace time G limits are lower than war time). Also, titanium is routinely used as a lighter alternative to steel for connecting rods in high performance cars and motorcycles that need to last the life of the vehicle whereas aluminum is unheard of outside drag racing (where short part lifespans are expected).

But getting back on topic...

You are right, Jack. Not sure why I had that in my mind.

Bad gouge.

Not entirely, Tiger... you were close. It's not fatigue life - it's how titanium reacts to the compression forced on it by sea pressure as an over-time situation. IE, over time when at depth, the deeper it goes the more fragile it becomes, hence the reason the ALFA kept having to reduce it's operating depths.

At least, assuming I've been given good gouge myself.

[ikalugin]

Alfas were never deep divers to begin with.

Now the special purpose hulls (ie Paltus) are an another story.

[Delgard]

I understood 0nly one Paltus (Northern Fleet)

???

[ikalugin]

I understood 0nly one Paltus (Northern Fleet)

???
We operate several titanium special purpose submarines. Paltus was used as an example, some open sources state 4 in service.

The running joke is that if this keeps up GUGI would have more assets than the Navy.

[banryu79]

This Russian fanboy stance doesn't wash.

The Alfa class were very noisy. The fact they could dive deep and had a high top speed, yeah and? You don't think NATO could build a submarine out of titanium if they wanted to?

Actually they couldn't.

Iteresting lecture here:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol52no3/unravelling-a-cold-war-mystery.html

(Sorry, I know I'm replying to a very old post, but the link contains very interesting info about the weldings of titanium and a fascinating story about it).

[shipkiller1]

The reason we (the West) never built one it not because we couldn't, it was because there was no reason to, tactically, and because we did not have access to enough titanium.



As I have said here before, having the ability to dive deep is of very limited value. Generally, based on 90% of the water in the world you are going to evade an incoming weapon shallow.



Being able to go really fast has some uses, mainly for weapon evasion, but due to the Alpha's radiated noise levels at anything above 10kts, it just makes it easier to track.



Back in the last 80's, the US Navy put a five bladed screw on the USS Groton. She did 41kts, but was noisy as hell.

[banryu79]

The reason we (the West) never built one it not because we couldn't, it was because there was no reason to, tactically, and because we did not have access to enough titanium.

Yes, I understand, I assume that if building titanium hull was in fact a priority (all other factors considered) the US would have found the means to do so.

I should have been more careful in wording my post, but I was in a haste, my intent was not to affirm that the US could never do it EVEN IF THEY WANTED, but that at that time it was considered so difficult (extremly diffcult from their point of view and out of their area of "expertise") that they failed to believe the Russian were just doing that.


As I have said here before, having the ability to dive deep is of very limited value. Generally, based on 90% of the water in the world you are going to evade an incoming weapon shallow.



Being able to go really fast has some uses, mainly for weapon evasion, but due to the Alpha's radiated noise levels at anything above 10kts, it just makes it easier to track.



Back in the last 80's, the US Navy put a five bladed screw on the USS Groton. She did 41kts, but was noisy as hell.
Also thank you for this info.

In any case I hope the link provided can give to the interested reader a good story to taste ;)

P.S.: English is not my mother tongue, sorry for mistake or if I'm not clear.

[steel shark]

Peace is Many Voices arguing

i think ill wait for the audio book of this to come out then listen to it.

their is some really good information in this thread sub wise.