Why are SSBNs so Quiet?

[Neutrino 123]

SSBN are reportedly very quiet, but why is this so? It seems to me in a basic analysis that they really shouldn’t be much quieter then SSNs of similar technology (though all sources say they are, so I would of course expect this to be true).

SSBNs have similar propulsion to SSNs, but they have a lower maximum speed. Approximately speaking, this implies similar machinery to the SSNs (this seems to be the case on cutaways I’ve seen, too…), but since the SSBNs are larger, they need more power to get the same speed, and thus, the machinery would generate more noise for the same effect. Presumably, this would be somewhat mitigated by additional quieting equipment. However, the storage space for the large missiles should limit the amount of space available for other things such as this, especially since the SSBNs usually have a larger crew and a fairly good torpedo armament, too.

In addition, the water noise flow that accounts for a portion of the BB noise (I am not sure how much, but this is something I would like to know…) would be significantly greater in the SSBNs.

…so, when considering the above, why are the SSBNs much quieter? Can they really fit enough quieting equipment to do this? If this is efficient, why not add similar equipment to the SSNs?

[Amizaur]

From what I know, the first boomers were SSNs with additional hull sections, they were as noisy as first SSNs or even more. But later they become specialised constructions. SSN have to be fast, somewhat maneuverable, have large torpedo armament, many sensors, it needs ALL those things. When 688 class was constructed, high speed had same, or maybe even higher priority as stealth. We can guess that if the requirement was not 35 but only 25 or 30kts, they could be even quieter.
Now they are in 2/3 filled with reactor and machinery, rest with armament, and people are packed in corners that left ;-)
SSBNs don't need speed and some other things, they need only one - quietness. They needs it to be able perform their task, and their task is to be undeteced. So they are build with this requirement in mind, specialised in that. Don't need very powerfull propulsion, they are larger but don't need to be fast. The shape is much more hydrodynamic than in first constructions.
And... in fact they are not that quiet :-). Most of them isn't. From all boomers, Russian ones are more noisy than same generation SSNs. Both Typhoon and Delta IV are more noisy than Akulas. Don't know about British boomers, if they are better than Trafalgars. The one and most famous quiet boomer is Ohio, and it was probably only one similar in quietness to best SSNs, at least untill le Thriomphant appeared, it is supposedly very quiet too. And it have to be, it's his main and only task. With improvements in sonars, noisy SSBN would simply not be able to perform his task good enaugh, or at all...

[Kapitan]

russian SSBN's are not as quiet because there getting old but also because the russian navy says they spend along time in area that cover noise one can only guess this is the artic ocean well its obvious the typhoon was specificaly designed to oparate under ice.

the new borey class is roumerd to be quieter than ohio but no one knows as of yet.

the british SSBN's are even quieter than the ohio's they trail pump jet propulsors and stay at around 5 knots most of the time (ramius can you confirm this please).

the trfalgar are very quiet also as quiet as seawolf in some cases and the new astute is supposidly as quiet as virginia.

the le triomphant is noisey a tad noiseyer than the deltas (french SSBN tech is behind) so they relativly ewasy to track and the XIA of china is about as quiet as a november class of the 1960's

[OKO]

the le triomphant is noisey a tad noiseyer than the deltas (french SSBN tech is behind) so they relativly ewasy to track

this is not only wrong but also a stupid answer
you better don't talk about thing you don't know about
because you REALLY don't know anything about the latest and most stealth generation of SSBN made in the world (because it's just the latest...), called the triomphant.
You just confuse older generation with the new one.
Once more, update you links, you are 25 years late Kapitain ...


to improve your culture =>
http://www.netmarine.net/bat/smarins/triompha/caracter.htm

[Kapitan]

what one is what le tromphant or le inflexible ? i cant think what ones the new one and secondly if there anything like the rubis class then they are noisey

i know enought to get me by i know french submarines are noiseyer than most, british subs are only quiet because of american help hence thats why our SSBN's carry the trident rather than our own ype of missile like the french

if you read france is a little behind becaue it went the long way round

and the le triomphant is supposed to be the new one i know they still have at least one le inflexible about so probly thats what im confused over

as for stupid answer all answers can be stupid just takes brains to work it out some thing you obviously didnt quite catch oh well better luck next time

[Kapitan]

as for france having the latest build SSBN dream on the russians bough out there new one bigging of the year and its in service and conducting combat patrols

[OKO]

I think you better really dig a bit before saying stupid and false things, Kapitain ...
You look like a young naive guy, thinking he know better than every other people, when you have big HOLE of knowledge in some aspects.
Be honnest : you don't know anything about french submarine performance, so stop staying stupid things about it, and start to inform yourself.


thanks

[Kapitan]

:rotfl: OKO i have read things thats all i know i agree i have the whole and its mainly over french and chinease and pars of the american submarines but as it goes i do remember reading on many occasions from people like norman polmar stateing the french navy is under funded itself.

france isnt a bad navy there fleet is old but there building new as is every navy all the time.

as for rusty SSBN's there the best kept item in the whole inventory 17 SSBN's are active withing russia come this time next year three will pay off but the new build is not even a year old and there is already another three in some form of construction

my answers are from other people not realy myself my personal view of the french well not going to say here but they do need to have a major review of thier fleet oh and build new ships something they doing now yes.

janes has even said the french are behind britian and america by 3 years that not a big gap but big enough

[Stewy]

Oko, I don't mean to get into this flame war, because I really respect the French SSBNs, but I wanted to ask (quite innocently and respectfully) why does France still maintain SSBNs?

Given the current climate in France, and the world - who are France's nuclear enemies?

[Kapitan]

i spose you could say the same for britain but its kinda clear but i rekon i can give a rough bearing

franch maintain SSBN's becaue its part of the EU and allie of britain and europe if the need to go to war arrises france has its own WMD to protect itself rather than relying on britian or america to do it for them

am i right ? correct me if im wrong

[Molon Labe]

SSBN are reportedly very quiet, but why is this so? It seems to me in a basic analysis that they really shouldn’t be much quieter then SSNs of similar technology (though all sources say they are, so I would of course expect this to be true).

SSBNs have similar propulsion to SSNs, but they have a lower maximum speed. Approximately speaking, this implies similar machinery to the SSNs (this seems to be the case on cutaways I’ve seen, too…), but since the SSBNs are larger, they need more power to get the same speed, and thus, the machinery would generate more noise for the same effect. Presumably, this would be somewhat mitigated by additional quieting equipment. However, the storage space for the large missiles should limit the amount of space available for other things such as this, especially since the SSBNs usually have a larger crew and a fairly good torpedo armament, too.

In addition, the water noise flow that accounts for a portion of the BB noise (I am not sure how much, but this is something I would like to know…) would be significantly greater in the SSBNs.

…so, when considering the above, why are the SSBNs much quieter? Can they really fit enough quieting equipment to do this? If this is efficient, why not add similar equipment to the SSNs?

I tend to agree that SSBNs will be very close in noise level to SSNs of the same tech level. All the quieting technology that can go into the boomer would have gone into the fast attack. The main reason the SSBN is reputed to be impossible to locate is because, unlike the SSN, it doesn't go looking for trouble. It just finds a huge piece of ocean and crawls at very low speed. You won't find her unless you run her over.

An SSN, on the other hand, has to transit all over the place to complete its tasking, and will often have tasking in such areas that are have military significance.

[Kapitan]

yeah thats true i didnt see rhode island till i smashed right into her

[OKO]

:rotfl: OKO i have read things thats all i know i agree i have the whole and its mainly over french and chinease and pars of the american submarines but as it goes i do remember reading on many occasions from people like norman polmar stateing the french navy is under funded itself.


one more thing you don't know about :
under funded for SURFACED ship only
SSN AND SSBN are national priority and ALWAYS HAD along the years the appropriate funds, whatever the political side or budget problem
one more thing you better dig to understand better the real situation, then to understand better what you are talking about ...



france isnt a bad navy there fleet is old but there building new as is every navy all the time.


except, at ANY TIME, for SSBN, so you made again a bad statment based on your lack of knowledge on this subject.


as for rusty SSBN's there the best kept item in the whole inventory 17 SSBN's are active withing russia come this time next year three will pay off but the new build is not even a year old and there is already another three in some form of construction

my answers are from other people not realy myself my personal view of the french well not going to say here but they do need to have a major review of thier fleet oh and build new ships something they doing now yes.


you could talk about it if you knew what you talk about, Kapitain.
You showed me you just don't ...

approximation and generalization won't learn you much about this subject



janes has even said the french are behind britian and america by 3 years that not a big gap but big enough


talking about SSN yes, until barracuda class comes.
concerning SSBN, well just think what you want to think
french one have 3 hulls for each motorised engine, a turbo pump for propulsion, and the most advanced embarqued technology.
Ballistic missiles are less powerfull fewer and have less range than US one (also UK, because UK rely on US for them ... opposite to french who have the entire tech under there control)
but we don't talk about missiles here, but stealth.
And anyway, only one of these SSBN can eradicate 90% of United States or Russian towns, so ...
I personnally think there are now dinosaurus from the end of the cold war.

And when you read the paper, the french one is the stealthy one.
Of course, boat are not made in paper, but your 'easy' assertion just show you are partial and bad informed.

[OKO]

Oko, I don't mean to get into this flame war, because I really respect the French SSBNs, but I wanted to ask (quite innocently and respectfully) why does France still maintain SSBNs?

Given the current climate in France, and the world - who are France's nuclear enemies?

This is an excellent question
Why ANY country maintain SSBNs ...
Isn't it a useless weapon now ?
Isn't it a DANGEROUS useless risk ?
Without SSBN, you can't have a nuclear holocaust for any reasons, just because there is no SSBN ....
But with SSBN, whatever the security you can use, you still have a risk something goes bad, for whatever reason (i don't want to mention or evaluate each of them ....)

Whatever you do, there is ALWAYS a risk as long as these dinosaurus survive.

You said, stewy, why does France maintain SSBN
why US, Russian, Chinese and UK still maintain them ...

because they was the fleuron of their navies ?
Because they just don't know what to do with them, and their crew ?
because these 5 countries are the 5 permanent members of the NATO security consil, and so think they have legitimity to do that ....... ?

the bad aspect of conserving these dinosaurus is they give legitimate revendication to growing nation for acquiring the military nuke : why them (older owner) and why not me.

But I also know our democracy, in west europe, were built without soviet invasion, mainly thanks to nuke dissuasion.

France was the latest to built SSBN at this date.
and our actual generation will work for the next 30 years.
I think this money could have been better used since the end of the cold war.

[Kapitan]

to date russian SSBN's

1) TK208 dmitri donoskoy
2) TK17
3) TK 20 severstol

4) K-496
5) K-506
6) K-211
7) K-223
8) K-180
9) K-433
10) K-129



11) K-407 Novomoskovsk
12) K-84 Yekaterinburg
13) K-64
14) K-114 Tula
15) K-117 Bryansk
16) K-18 Karelia

17) borey

as you can see 17 names and pennants now look up the list i can say the middle lot will all be gone by 2010 replaced by borey class which will number 12 hulls that is whats in service with the russian fleet

when i was saying french navy being underfunded i was meaning the surface fleet i do give them a hand because they have built the worlds smallest front line attack submarine.
as regards to the SSBN's i think they have two class in service cause they await a full hand over am i right (according to navy news)

and yes i knew the SSBN's are high priority for france i spent a week with a french family who showed me the area where you can see ships and submarines in france (long drive dont recomend it)

building a navy can be on paper or out in the yard when britain launched vanguard class 3 months after the last one came down the line plans were made to replace them in 2014 (apparently again navy news) fleets are forever undergoing changes be it minor changes like decor or major overhauls always changing hence why i said that

as like france russia is a submarine navy not surface ship navy they rely heavily on submarines there SSBN's are the best kept submarines in the fleet that is why when conscripts sign to the navy they always want to be assigned to a SSBN rather than SSN because of the better maintinance

third part i was asking a question are they rebuilding part of the fleet i know they got lafayette frigates but what else they building most of the ships are from the 70's and 80's and getting real old even my books dateing back to the 70's shows ships that are still in commission

3 hulls each motorised engine huh dont understand last part

[Kapitan]

say in 25 years time france pays off all its SSBN's and a rouge state in africa starts building nuclear missiles and weapons and the people building those weapons hate the french and thier allies for something they done in the past (britain and france had collonies in africa)

so this is pay back time and they would nuke france but heres the catch.

not wanting to be totaly destroyed them selves if france had SSBN's and nuclear weapons it disuades them guys from launching its the power of dissuasion

today as anyother day its the same no one knows who there enamiy is going to be in 5 10 100 years

[OKO]

3 hulls each motorised engine huh dont understand last part

each motor is mounted on silent block, real separate hull from the second hull, surrounding the submarine
and there is another hull sourounding this
this make 3 noise separation for each noisy device
world record

[Kapitan]

ahhh i see now yes like the triple hulled dolpijn class i dont know much about the new SSBN's but the old ones are noisey (as they all are with age) thats what i was kinda quoting on

[OKO]

say in 25 years time france pays off all its SSBN's and a rouge state in africa starts building nuclear missiles and weapons and the people building those weapons hate the french and thier allies for something they done in the past (britain and france had collonies in africa)

so this is pay back time and they would nuke france but heres the catch.

not wanting to be totaly destroyed them selves if france had SSBN's and nuclear weapons it disuades them guys from launching its the power of dissuasion

today as anyother day its the same no one knows who there enamiy is going to be in 5 10 100 years


you are also a dinosaurus
your strategy principle are totally outdated, you live in the old world, Kapitain

fast projection forces is the key today, nuclear dissuasion is just obsolete from end of cold war.

[Kapitan]

from 1946 to 2005 not one single nuclear divice has been dropped on an enamy and there were plenty of excuses and oppotunities

the only people who dont care about them are terrorists cause they play hide and seek binladen example but many established countrys like iran and north korea wont nuke america or any allies because they know its total annilation for them so what does stop them ?

certainly not a strongly worded letter from the president / prime minister is it

[OKO]

ahhh i see now yes like the triple hulled dolpijn class i dont know much about the new SSBN's but the old ones are noisey (as they all are with age) thats what i was kinda quoting on

it's not the dolphin class !!
it's the SNLE-NG
sous marin nucleaire lanceur d'engin de nouvelle génération

the silent block came from an industrial research
First, they was designated for special very heavy truck, very smooth to absorbate roads hole.
But they was so sophisticated and so expensive research was stopped ... and military start to be interested about it.
Some funny story about ...

[Kapitan]

oh my life no i was meaning on par which means kinda similar to not exact copy dear me acctualy forget explaining this one i got a few better things to do than argue a pointless point

and second part

i can unserstand that one just

[OKO]

established countrys like iran and north korea wont nuke america or any allies because they know its total annilation for them so what does stop them ?

the only really threatening country today, technically speaking, is China

north corea don't have capable vector (only 6000km)
Iran don't have nuclear bomb, and only have small vectors (3000km)
only China, with SSBN, can do a nuclear attack on western countries.

..... what for ??
there is no threat whit China at this time (except for the taiwan problem, but no nuclear threat for this)


at this time, the real military power is the projection capability
the capability to send a big armee, far and fast.
Only US could do this worldwide.

but after them, there is plenty of countries able to do that, smaller way.

France start to understood that recently (...... ) but with professionnalisme (no conscription now in France), thing go faster and better.

I still wait for a real european armee, far more credible than the sum of all actual disparate european armees.
not to make the war but to be sure peace will prevail.

[Kapitan]

im sure it will britian has a fair army not big by any means but it does go far i mean we have bases in the bahamas bermuda falklands assension some places in the pacific some in europe so its a veriaty like america.

as for france they just keeping out of the pollitical tension and that can be a good thing for them i mean no one wants to fight some one elses war do they

[OKO]

Why SSBN are so quiet

that was the question
my opinion is : that's what they were made for
Their job is to stay undetected until they received the vector to target.
That's one of the reason there is no interest at all to include a drivable SSBN in DW (except to play the turkey ...)
:gulp:

SSBN are now often older than SSN, so they are often noisy than them.
Ships take the same advantage of the technology, depending on the year (improvment are sooo speed) of development, test, and production !
sometimes, some hardware improve a lot from original specification before the ship is commissioned.
sometimes not, and one hardware is far more expensive and less effective than prevision ...

but someone explain me (ingeneer on this business) that the longer the ship, the less the noise generated everything else equal.
so, with equal technology, a SSBN and a SSN commissioned the same year, with the same time for development and same time for test, the SSBN should be quieter (because larger).
What ? 2 sub developed, tested and commissioned at the same times never occurs ?
damn ... this make things more complicated :damn:

:-j

[TLAM Strike]

say in 25 years time france pays off all its SSBN's and a rouge state in africa starts building nuclear missiles and weapons and the people building those weapons hate the french and thier allies for something they done in the past (britain and france had collonies in africa)

so this is pay back time and they would nuke france but heres the catch.

not wanting to be totaly destroyed them selves if france had SSBN's and nuclear weapons it disuades them guys from launching its the power of dissuasion

today as anyother day its the same no one knows who there enamiy is going to be in 5 10 100 years


you are also a dinosaurus
your strategy principle are totally outdated, you live in the old world, Kapitain

fast projection forces is the key today, nuclear dissuasion is just obsolete from end of cold war.

So you’re advocating using nuclear weapons in conventional war? You’re the one whose living in the old world then, your thinking just like some of the people who were planning Operation Olympic or some of the strategists in the beginning of the cold war. If this is how the French think I’m glad the US has all those missile subs! One of our Ohios can wipe your nation off the face of the Earth and have rockets left over if you even contemplate using nukes to settle a dispute with us.

Saying that deterrence is obsolete is like saying the rifle is obsolete. If your enemy or potential enemy has nukes they won’t risk using them on you for fear of retaliation in kind. Look at the nations that are pursuing nuclear weapons? Iran and North Korea. Why do they want them? Equality with the west!

[Kapitan]

thank god relief some one understands

[OKO]

So you’re advocating using nuclear weapons in conventional war?

are you crazy ?
or militarist ?
I reject the use of the nuclear power on the battle field
as I reject the use of uranium ammunition

edit :
but I don't reject the military dissuasion

it's not because I say I judge obsolete the strategical dissuasion that I like the tactical use ...
all, your discuss around this prove you maybe want me to think like this
but I'm not.
you can keep your fear with you, and forget the France NEVER was ONCE in history the ennemy of US.
And Helped US in some crutial occasions for your own history also.

But this times, lots of fear in the heart of american people.
know your real ennemy, and know your friends

[Dr.Sid]

Hey .. I guess you are idealising conventional weapons a bit .. in general, there is no difference between nuclear and normal weapons. Nuclear are just stronger. Both kills and both kills well.

[OKO]

Hey .. I guess you are idealising conventional weapons a bit .. in general, there is no difference between nuclear and normal weapons. Nuclear are just stronger. Both kills and both kills well.

you certainly must be joking ...
If you don't make a difference beetween conventionnal weapon and nuclear weapon you really need to take a look to Hiroshima pictures or downloading small film on internet, like Ivy Mike (9 Mt, first hydrogen device ~1958)
you will see the difference.

If not, consult a doctor (maybe just an optician).

[TLAM Strike]

are you crazy ? Yes :-j
or militarist ? No
I reject the use of the nuclear power on the battle field
as I reject the use of uranium ammunition Good. Me too.

it's not because I say I judge obsolete the strategical dissuasion that I like the tactical use ...
all, your discuss around this prove you maybe want me to think like this
but I'm not. The thing your not seeing is just because something is old it dosn't mean you throw it away.


you can keep your fear with you, and forget the France NEVER was ONCE in history the ennemy of US. Your forgeting 'The French and Indian war". :know:

But this times, lots of fear in the heart of american people.
know your real ennemy, and know your friends Your not getting all 'Denzel Washington' on me are you. :rotfl:

[Dr.Sid]

All I wanna say is that conventional weapons are not OK .. no weapon is. I would not care if I'll be killed by 'the bomb' or a 7mm bullet.

[OKO]

Your not getting all 'Denzel Washington' on me are you. :rotfl:

I just see you revendicate the nuclear dissuasion at this time.
Bad way to start to think how to bannish this kind of weapon from inventory, after the battlefield ...
The real ennemy I was talking about was ... you

[OKO]

All I wanna say is that conventional weapons are not OK .. no weapon is. I would not care if I'll be killed by 'the bomb' or a 7mm bullet.

that's for sure
but a 7mm bullet won't kill 2 million people in a row

[TLAM Strike]

Hey .. I guess you are idealising conventional weapons a bit .. in general, there is no difference between nuclear and normal weapons. Nuclear are just stronger. Both kills and both kills well.To steal a line from Col. Jack O’Neal; [The bomb] is a weapon of terror: it's made to intimidate the enemy. [A gun] is a weapon of war: it's made to kill the enemy.

[TLAM Strike]

Your not getting all 'Denzel Washington' on me are you. :rotfl:

I just see you revendicate the nuclear dissuasion at this time.
Bad way to start to think how to bannish this kind of weapon from inventory, after the battlefield ...
The real ennemy I was talking about was ... you I don't want to banish nuclear "weapons". Nuclear explosives are just a tool like any other. You can use them to protect your self, you can use them for the common good, or you can use them to massacre entire groups of people.

[OKO]

I don't want to banish nuclear "weapons". Nuclear explosives are just a tool like any other. You can use them to protect your self, you can use them for the common good, or you can use them to massacre entire groups of people.

And, of course, you feel the only one legitimate to use them
And Iranian people ?

As long as some could think they could legitimately have the power over others, others will legitimatly try to take this power themself.
If it is illegitimate to have this power, nobody have, and nobody can have it legitimately.
and the climb is over

[TLAM Strike]

If the Iranians were to use them to dig mines to propel spacecraft good for them but that’s NOT what they intend to use them for. They intend for them to kill Americans. If anyone builds Nuclear weapons with the intention of using them to kill Americans I say we better have some to kill them right back. If someone wants to build them to better humanity, I hope we help.

[OKO]

If anyone builds Nuclear weapons with the intention of using them to kill Americans

here is the deal :
no one have the right to do that

If US or any other country have this right, everyone have the right.
Imagine you are an iranian, what could you think of what you, as american, just said ?
"He think he have the right but I have the right also".

And I agree with him, even if I don't like consequences

The fact to kill the right to anyone solve the problem
After it's just a question of police
and technology can make it.

[TLAM Strike]

All I wanna say is that conventional weapons are not OK .. no weapon is. I would not care if I'll be killed by 'the bomb' or a 7mm bullet.

that's for sure
but a 7mm bullet won't kill 2 million people in a row A 7mm bullet traveling at a significant fraction of .c impacting a major city could kill lots of people. Not millions but a lot. :hmm: Its how you use it that matters.

[TLAM Strike]

If anyone builds Nuclear weapons with the intention of using them to kill Americans

here is the deal :
no one have the right to do that

If US or any other country have this right, everyone have the right.
Imagine you are an iranian, what could you think of what you, as american, just said ?
He think he have the right but I have the right also.

And I agree with him, even if I don't like consequences

The fact to kill the right to anyone solve the problem
After it's just a question of police
and technology can make it. Yes we built nuclear weapons with the intention of killing people but we kept building them to protect our selves. The leaders of nations like North Korea and Iran do want to go around killing people either by direct action or be the result of action (or inaction) and should be denied all weapons.

We have the right to build them to protect our selves or better our selves. Others do have that right if they remain transparent about their use.

[OKO]

We have the right to build them to protect our selves or better our selves. Others do have that right if they remain transparent about their use.

so, one day, it won't be 2 tower but entire new york eradiqued by a portable nuke because your phylosophy allowed them to improve their capabilities in this domain instead of stopping it.

If NATO say NO to nuke, money spent in this business could be re oriented for surpervision of the respect of this decision.
I'm sure LOTS money will be saved, and the world will be saved also.

If any country have the right to develop nuclear weapon, it will be a probelm very soon.
It's easy to understand.

[TLAM Strike]

We have the right to build them to protect our selves or better our selves. Others do have that right if they remain transparent about their use.

so, one day, it won't be 2 tower but entire new york eradiqued by a portable nuke because your phylosophy allowed them to improve their capabilities in this domain instead of stopping it. Or the outer solar system is colonized thanks to space craft propelled by Orion Drives. As I said if they remain transparent about nuclear development and use I don't have a problem with other nations doing it, since we know what they are doing and can say stop and make them if they create them with the intent to kill.

If NATO say NO to nuke, money spent in this business could be re oriented for surpervision of the respect of this decision.
I'm sure LOTS money will be saved, and the world will be saved also. The world might be "Saved" but humanity would be doomed. The power of an atomic explosion is a power to be harnessed like the wind or sunlight. It can be used for good or evil.

If any country have the right to develop nuclear weapon, it will be a probelm very soon.
It's easy to understand. I didn't say any country has a right to. I said only the ones who develop them for peaceful use and remain transparent about their development should have them. Currently only the US, UK, France and Russia are the only ones who come close to this standard.

[Bellman]

Err, um, coughs politely - but even SSBNs are very quiet

It pains the Rosbifs greatly to see both those they 'love to hate' and
those they 'hate to love' at each others throats.

Can you end the duel ? - honour is satisfied.................................you both winged each other ! :cool: :up: :rock:

C'est fini - the shows over bud. (Hows that !!) ;) :lol:

[Kapitan]

right the SSBN is quieter because its role is to remain undetected unlike the SSN it doesnt use speed as its main feature where the SSN will go at 30 knots to cover say 100 miles the SSBN will quite happily stay at 5 knots

SSBN's avoid the limelight they avoid everything and everyone including thier own ships and submarines no one bar a hand ful of people on board knows where the submarine is and that does include the president

the role of the SSBN is to remain undetected and hidden so poodleing along at 6 knots its more than acceptable because it makes less noise than an SSN

the SSN's role is to attack the SSBN's role is to defend

the SSBN will avoid contact with everything and will not fire unless fired apon as it trys to remain stealthy

SSBN is designed to dissapear the SSN is also designed to do this but its also designed to pop up and give the enamy a shock something the SSBN isnt designed to do

SSBN's use they key items that is quietness silence and the uniqueness of the crew to thier main advantages

SSN's use speed agression and weapons as thier main advantages can you see the diffrence ?

END

[Bellman]

I wonder how realistic it is when we have missions with a SSN acting as an escort to a SSBN ?

Surely not when they are covert ?

[TLAM Strike]

Well SSNs aren’t a close escort but they do defend the areas SSBNs operate in.

[Kapitan]

yes thats what some of my missions were defending SSBN's but i never acctualy knew where the SSBN was only a rough area (about 300 miles x 300 miles) so big area to get lost in

ive only trail an SSBN three times once i smashed into one and the second time was kinda sucsessful and third was 100% sucsess

the SSBN i smashed into was an america ohio called rhode island and the second one i tracked was also an ohio unknown one

the third was a chinease xia so i could stan off about 3 miles so that wasnt to much of a problem

[Bellman]

:) Just thinking about mission design possibilities for SSN escort of a SSBN.
But if I think of power projection over large 'support' areas this wont translate to a scale suitable for DW.
So perhaps, although unrealistic, for gameplay I am stuck with closer-in escort.
Maybe this is a natural for an under-ice setting.

Perhaps a damaged Red SSBN limping home through straits with Ak/s escorting and Kilo/s in waiting
near the home port pursued by Blue FFG and sub/s. :hmm:

[Kapitan]

tis possible but an FFG against a force of say 4 submarines well that would be deemd suicide

it would be better if subs do all the persuing but in saying that the harbours are constantly patroled so the chance of getting a blue sub in is minimal

a while back K114 tula smashed into a berg while on a mission under ice a small fleet was assembled to bring her home this included an udaloy destroyer a krivack two grisha 3 nanchuka 2 victor 3 submarines a kilo and akula

and that was to bring one submarine home so the notion of getting in firing range of a crippled SSBN returning to port could well be a one way mission but it has to be tried

bellman give it a go and id like to try it out :up:

[zma]

From a realistic standpoint, perhaps a noisy SSBN (such as Xia) would benefit from an SSN escort? I mean, if you don't have an advantage in stealth, you might as well have a friend close, right?

[compressioncut]

SSBNs are physically quieter because the hardware necessary to quiet machinery is quite large. There's simply not enough room in an SSN for all the decoupling technology used in SSBNs. That's the main reason the Rubis/AMYTHYSTE class is generally louder than the much larger LA/Trafalgar/Akula. The Han also shares the same problem, in addition to its overall low-tech.


Well SSNs aren’t a close escort but they do defend the areas SSBNs operate in.

Sure they do, but not continually. If you detect more than one LA and there's no carrier in the area, you can be pretty sure there's an Ohio there, too. That's about the point that the Americans get a little uptight and tell you that you're restricted from tail ops.

[Bellman]

Yes I rather saw the FFG as part of a full Blue group pusuing a Red escort group and the relevant action beeing
a sideshow in an ice channel (charnel !)

I have already designed two scenarios featuring different aspects of these situations - neither of which
fully satisfies me. I shall combine the best (?) of each and hope to produce an interesting challenge.

So the clash of the titans (above) has lit a creative spark..............................I hope. ;)

[PeriscopeDepth]

Compressioncut, could you comment on how loud modern SSKs are compared to modern SSNs assuming both are at lower speeds?

Thanks, I understand if you can't. :)

[Kapitan]

from one of the guys here told me that the german 212 and 214 diesels are quieter than any modern US navy nuke wether thats true i dont know

[OKO]

from one of the guys here told me that the german 212 and 214 diesels are quieter than any modern US navy nuke wether thats true i dont know


modern Diesel electric are ALWAYS quieter than SSN
from a long time now, certainly even before you born.
And that's why there is lots of discussion about this new kind of threat in western HQ.
Even a KILO make less noise than a "modern" nuke, even it's an old diesel/electric plateform now.
And these diesel electrics are really cheaper than nuke.
So, at this time, the main question of nuke owner is : how to counter the proliferation of modernised diesel/electric, so difficult to detect and so efficient for their missions.
With AIP system, these diesel can now stay under water, without snorkeling for weeks, making them nearly indetectable (detectable only with active sonars).

Main constructors and sellers of diesel/electrics are now Germany and France.
India just confirm they bought 6 French Scorpene this week (to counter the Agosta sold -or produced under licence- to pakistan ... by France ...), Chili has receive their first Scorpene 1 month ago.

With time, there is lots of new diesel plateform, far more efficient than previous generation, coming at sea.
"The sub of the poor countries" is becoming now a big part in naval strategy

[compressioncut]

Compressioncut, could you comment on how loud modern SSKs are compared to modern SSNs assuming both are at lower speeds?

Thanks, I understand if you can't. :)

A modern SSK would be much quieter at low speed than an SSN, generally speaking. It has no need of constantly running, noisy equipment like a nuc (reactors and associated gear). They also do not have the complicated mechanical drivetrains of the nucs - it's a propeller pretty much directly attached to an electric motor, without any big, noisy reduction gearing and whatnot. Also, due to their size, hull resonance sources are much less likely.

I have no idea how much quieter the new gen (T212/214, Scorpene) SSKs will be than the current crop.


With time, there is lots of new diesel plateform, far more efficient than previous generation, coming at sea.
"The sub of the poor countries" is becoming now a big part in naval strategy

Yes, that is why the US leased the Swedish Gotland, and why every sim- and actual ASW exercise over the past few years has been versus an SSK. Even when an LA is participating, it's normally as a "sim-Kilo." I can't recall the least time I saw a "sim-Akula" or "sim-Oscar."

That said, supposedly, modern SSKs are still quite detectable via advanced arrays like the TB-29D, in a dual-stream setup as on some SURTASS ships.

And not all AIP systems are that quiet, even though they obviously do increase underwater endurance. Stirling and closed cycle diesel are quite noisy, as I recall. I don't remember what MESMA is forecast to be, but the German fuel cell setup is definitely silent.

[Kapitan]

if and when i can get some info on the new lada i could start posting but that is a big big if and i mean big

[Amizaur]

modern Diesel electric are ALWAYS quieter than SSN
from a long time now, certainly even before you born.
And that's why there is lots of discussion about this new kind of threat in western HQ.
Even a KILO make less noise than a "modern" nuke, even it's an old diesel/electric plateform now.


I will agree completly that they ARE quieter at stop. But not neccesarily ALWAYS quieter when running. Of course, when you put proportionally same amount of money and same technical level into SSN and SSK - the SSK will be quieter ! But not every SSK is on the same technical level as modern SSNs. For example Type-212 boat may be as quiet as Seawolf (if this was design goal!) and at stop probably even quieter with no doubt from me. But not a Kilo. From available data (and Kilos are quite old now) whe know that when running, they are on about same level of noise that Akula class. Of course they become much quieter than Akula at full stop. But again Akula is not most recent quietness standard... Kilo Improved at 3kts are said to be quieter than 688I. At full stop probably quieter still (sad we can't simulate this in DW).
But Seawolf is said to be about 10dB quieter than 688I. So are SSKs always quieter or not ? I think - they usually are. If build for proportionally same money and technical level, they are quieter.

But in case of Seawolf we maybe ask ourselves a question - so there is an SSK boat for few dozens million $ - it's very quiet. It's quieter than SSNs, even though less expensive. Probably as quiet or quieter when slow, and really quieter at stop.

But then - if you spend $ 13 BILLIONS !!!! :o - could you for this money design an SSN (for $ 4.4 Billions for a piece) as quiet as best SSK ?? :-) IMO it's possible :-)

Is the Seawolf cost-effective ? I think no :-) But it is real. And can it be as quiet as best current SSKs running at 3kts ? I think that for THAT money - it can :) Of course those best current SSKs, if somone spend few billions $ on them ;) could be quieter at full stop :)

[Orm]

OKO, I could say that Kapitain is in some way right about French SSN and SSBN noise level. Amethyste/Rubis –class subs have had always a very bad reputation, as they are quite noisy and slow (25 knots, not very fast for SSN). But, as for the new Triomphant-class SSBN, it got a serious boost in underwater technology and indeed is very quiet. The same seems to be for the new Barracuda-class SSN that will be somewhat a “European Virginia”.
One thing more, as a French and as a former sailor, I have always think that French military ships were not up-to-date compared with other European and North American navies. For example, the lack of CIWS onboard makes them very vulnerable to SSM and the new Aster missile is still on development. Also, we know how expansive and inappropriate (too slow, too short, not very liable…) was the commission of the Charles de Gaulle carrier.
At least the new Mistral command and control ship was just commissioned and seems to look “modern” and very useful for this age of conflict.

[Ghost Dog]

submarines are always some form of compromise. you balance what you need with what you'd like.

SSKs for example are better suited to defensive, coastal and shallow water operations. thier lack of range, small size and therefore limited weapon loadout means they need to stick closer to the homeland. Thier quietness makes them worthwhile.

SSNs are a bit on the flipside. Countries with more global foreign policy aspirations require submarines that can get to trouble spots fast, stay on station a long time during a developing crisis and carry more weapons for extended combat operations. nuc boats, maybe a bit 'louder', but its thier operational capabilities that attract the buyer countries like France, UK, USA and Russia.

[Kapitan]

india also has two new akula boats (one deliverd one under way)

before these two akula boats was the charlie class boats now india has always been on at pakistan about kasmir and vice versa whats stopping pakistan now is the fact india has nuke boats and pakistan old obsolete daphne boats.

india only wants to be dominant in the indian ocean which it is her forign policy only calls for defence rather than attack so the need for a SSBN is zero at the moment.

the SSK submarines india has do short close to home patrols the nukes are on extended patrol ie travel far and wide

this is the advantage of a nuke over diesel

[OKO]

OKO, I could say that Kapitain is in some way right about French SSN and SSBN noise level. Amethyste/Rubis –class subs have had always a very bad reputation, as they are quite noisy and slow (25 knots, not very fast for SSN). But, as for the new Triomphant-class SSBN, it got a serious boost in underwater technology and indeed is very quiet. The same seems to be for the new Barracuda-class SSN that will be somewhat a “European Virginia”.
One thing more, as a French and as a former sailor, I have always think that French military ships were not up-to-date compared with other European and North American navies. For example, the lack of CIWS onboard makes them very vulnerable to SSM and the new Aster missile is still on development. Also, we know how expansive and inappropriate (too slow, too short, not very liable…) was the commission of the Charles de Gaulle carrier.
At least the new Mistral command and control ship was just commissioned and seems to look “modern” and very useful for this age of conflict.


As I mentionned, there is no lack of funds for submarines, but, for sure, our navy need a real update.
With professionalisme, the face of our army is changing.
But change takes time.
In 2012, we will have one of the most modern armee in the world (now, armee is not the first place where the gouvernment take money to pay off other items...).
Not in quantity, but in quality.
With a real force projection capability, far from the US one, but we are 67 millions french, not 260 millions, and our defense budget is 1/3 to the one of the united states per resident ...
this give you a budget of 1/12 of the US one in defense ...
You just can't compare.

french forces now center the interest on high quality equipment, to the detriment of the quantity.

we have the best tank ever made -the most recent also- (but also the most expensive), we have now a very good plane (rafale) able to do by himself all missions of the different older planes we had, with really greater efficiency.

For navy, the new BPCs, like the Mistral, will give us a real projection capability
With the Charles de Gaulle (and the next carrier build with english), the BPCs ( http://www.defense.gouv.fr/sites/marine/decouverte/materiels/batiments_de_combat/bpc_type_mistral/mistral/ ... couldn't find something in english about it ...) and other vessels, we will have a real projection tool, comparable to the english one, and certainly (except if the russian budget for armee increase by X5 next 5 years, that is quite unlikely ...) best than the russian one.

Another strange thing of the french armee :
we sold fregate "horizon" to taiwan.
Fregate Horizon is the first warship (not transport ship) ever made with stealth design.
You can easily say it's the most modern fregate ever made.
But, as there was lots of budget problem for armee last years, the french ones are under equipped, when the taiwan ones are fully equipped .....
So we sold best hardware than we were able to make for us, here ...

But there was a real wake up on the armee problem, and now, this budget is not the first to cut into.
So we can hope in 2012, we will have a real good navy tool.

Concerning the Charles de Gaulle, this was our first nuclear surface vessel.
After lots of incidents, due to this new concept (we are the third natio to build this kind of vessel after United States and Russia), I can assure you the Charles de Gaulle is now 100% operationnal and fonctionnal
Some FA18 and US E2-C were landing on it recently during military exercice.
we still have to few modern planes on it (only some rafale at this time), but each years, the CVN receive some new, and will be completed full of rafale in the next 5 or 7 years.

I could say : not so bad for an average country like France.
Even if our navy was in really deep trouble last times, you will see a big change in the next years.

[TLAM Strike]

Fregate Horizon is the first warship (not transport ship) ever made with stealth design. I thought our USS Holland was first true stealth warship. :smug: :rotfl:

JK

[OKO]

Fregate Horizon is the first warship (not transport ship) ever made with stealth design. I thought our USS Holland was first true stealth warship. :smug: :rotfl:

JK

oopss and the first french stealth fregate was the La Fayette and not Horizon ..........

the next one, the FREMM is really the next century fregate =>

http://www.dcn.fr/us/produits/fregate.html

isn't it a beautifull ship also ?

we will have 17 of them from 2008.

From 2012, french navy will be much more modern than today.
You can say it's not that difficult ... :lol:
but next generation ship coming in the near future will greatly change the face of our navy.

for the USS Holland, I think you joke at me, but as I don't know this boat, I can't laught with you :roll:
can you show me something about it please ?

[PeriscopeDepth]

USS Holland was the first US submarine, OKO. :)

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-h/ss1.htm

[TLAM Strike]

for the USS Holland, I think you joke at me, but as I don't know this boat, I can't laught with you :roll:
can you show me something about it please ? The USS Holland was the US Navy’s first modern submarine bult around 1900. There was an ad by General Dynamics that was run in USNI's Proceedings (A magazine about Naval Warfare) that said "The original Stealth Fighter" and it had a picture of a submarine.

There was also "There is no (line drawing of a sub)-stitute" (Substitute, get it?) and "Every commander should bring a concealed weapon... A submarine".

:-j

[Orm]

To OKO,

I am not saying that our navy is obsolete but until now, most of the ships are commonly looked as under armed – even the La Fayette – like you said sold to Taiwan but with American weaponry.

[Deathblow]

SSBN are reportedly very quiet, but why is this so? It seems to me in a basic analysis that they really shouldn’t be much quieter then SSNs of similar technology (though all sources say they are, so I would of course expect this to be true).

SSBNs have similar propulsion to SSNs, but they have a lower maximum speed. Approximately speaking, this implies similar machinery to the SSNs (this seems to be the case on cutaways I’ve seen, too…), but since the SSBNs are larger, they need more power to get the same speed, and thus, the machinery would generate more noise for the same effect. Presumably, this would be somewhat mitigated by additional quieting equipment. However, the storage space for the large missiles should limit the amount of space available for other things such as this, especially since the SSBNs usually have a larger crew and a fairly good torpedo armament, too.

In addition, the water noise flow that accounts for a portion of the BB noise (I am not sure how much, but this is something I would like to know…) would be significantly greater in the SSBNs.

…so, when considering the above, why are the SSBNs much quieter? Can they really fit enough quieting equipment to do this? If this is efficient, why not add similar equipment to the SSNs?

This is a long dead topic, and rightfully so because it basically degraded into a flame war... but I found some interesting comments that address the original questoin and wanted to share. Why are SSBN's quiet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_circulation

Apparently the Ohio is quieter than the LA because its reactor, the S8G, maintains a natural circulation mode (reactor cooling without pumps) for a good fraction of the ships power. It does so by the geometrical arrangement of the reactor, steamflows, and turbines as well as coolant ducts that minimize flow resistance, and remove the pumps from the waterflow when not in use. This might also mean that when the pumps *are* turned on, they are not optimally arranged and peak cooling power (and thus reactor power) is not optimal.

On the other hand the LAs S6G reactor, according to the article, cannot operate in natural circulation mode (NCM) for very long if at all, needing its pumps at all times, probably because less geometrical freedom for the neccesary flow arrangements and the decision to use space for optimal pump placement for sprinting.

:hmm: If we were to carry this idea forward a bit more.... we might even surmise that the reason the SW has such a larger hull diameter than the LA was to allow the geometrical freedom needed for a significant natural circulating mode, without sacrificing peak cooling power; its hull is even wider than the hull of the Ohio... enough room for both a good NCM for quiet and optimal coolant pumps for sprints.

We might also surmise that the VA's smaller size maintains its NCM ability of the SW, but looses some of the peak cooling power, so its peak reactor ouput (and thus peak speed) is slower than the SW though its "silence level" is maintained.

Or course there are the other quiet methods incorporated into the various systems as well and this is all spectculation of course but seems to fit reasonably well :hmm: :yep: