Project 885: Yasen class

ali.a.r wrote:

Cute. The "noise" axis has no unit specified. Is "dwp" the unit of noise used in this cartoon? By the way "dwp" is a unit of noise that stands for deciwikipedia. wrote:

Austin wrote:Hmm Yes I saw that later but range of missile tested to not mentioned

CaptainPakistan wrote:Are there any estimates on the YASEN accoustic signature when compared to the LA Class? Is it comparable?

ARKHANGELSK, December 27, /ITAR-TASS/. The Sevmash defence shipyard did not confirm media reports saying that the Yasen-class nuclear submarine Severodvinsk (Project 885) would be transferred to the Navy on December 30.

In November, the shipyard said that the submarine had completed the contractor’s sea trials commenced in 2011 and started state trials preceding the transfer to the Navy.

By that time, the submarine had made 14 sea voyages lasting more than 222 days, sailed tens of thousands of nautical miles, and performed over a hundred of dives and emersions. The contractor’s trials confirmed the craft’s excellent performance characteristics. “The Severodvinsk is the most advanced and the quietest domestic submarine,” Sevmash specialists say.

Sevmash is building seven new Yasen-class multirole nuclear submarines, which are to be handed over to the Navy by 2020.

Last year, the Severodvinsk fired the newest supersonic cruise missile five times. The submerged submarine fired the newest supersonic cruise missile at a surface target from the White Sea in five successive successful launches of a new cruise supersonic missile conducted as part of the Kalibr rocket system tests.

The fourth generation nuclear-powered submarine Severodvinsk started mooring trials at the Sevmash shipyard in 2010.

The Project 885 submarine was designed by the Malakhit design bureau in St. Petersburg. The Sevmash shipyard launched the project in 1993. The protracted period of construction was caused by economic difficulties, and also by the need to design a new architecture of the hull and armaments.

Russia intends to produce six more vessels of this type. In July 2009, Sevmash started building a second Project 885 submarine named Kazan.

The Severodvinsk is the first in the Graney class (Yasen in Russian classification) of nuclear powered attack submarines. A source in the Russian Defence Ministry told Itar-Tass earlier that at least six submarines of the Graney class would be built within the next eight years. Construction of the second submarine in the series, the Kazan, started in July 2009.

Vessels of the Graney class will be the most silent submarines in the world. They will have a maximum speed of 16 knots surfaced and 31 knots submerged. They will be 119 metres long, 13.5 metres wide and 9.4 metres high.

According to Russia's Naval Doctrine, submarines of this class will become the main multirole nuclear vehicles in the Navy.

Think about it: 50% of the population of the USSR was lost, tens of thouands of Russia's best minds fled for America, Europe, and Israel. The whole military production process was fractured by subcontractors beig located in places like Ukraine. I am sure western governments were rubbing their hands together in glee thinkig Russia as a mlitary competitor was finished. Somehow this was not the case.

calripson wrote:For anyone who lived in Russia in the 1990s and saw the decline and mass exodus of young skilled scientists, engineers, and mathematicians it is simply astonishing that Russia retained enough skilled people to rebound and to contine to engineer and produce cutting edge military technology. Think about it: 50% of the population of the USSR was lost, tens of thouands of Russia's best minds fled for America, Europe, and Israel. The whole military production process was fractured by subcontractors beig located in places like Ukraine. I am sure western governments were rubbing their hands together in glee thinkig Russia as a mlitary competitor was finished. Somehow this was not the case.

US Scientists Are Leaving The Country And Taking The Innovation Economy With Them

Federal funding cuts, and the insidious damage caused just since March by federal budget sequestration, have forced nearly one in five U.S. scientists to consider moving overseas to continue their research.

While that immediate threat of a brain drain is alarming enough, it’s the long-term effects of sagging federal research funding that pose the greatest threat to our very survival. The cause-and-effect is simple: If Congress continues to refuse to fund the future, the decline of America’s much-touted “innovation economy” will accelerate fatally.

“Research labs are to the national scientific enterprise what small businesses are to the American economy,” notes a new report — Unlimited Potential, Vanishing Opportunity – released this month by a coalition of 16 science organizations. “Individual labs, funded by federal grants for research, employ young scientists and make the discoveries that tech companies capitalize on.”

The impact of taxpayer funding for basic research cannot be overstated. Federal funding launched both the Internet and the global positioning satellites that have become key to so many of today’s tech innovations. Federal funding underwrote the invention of vaccines, helped to sequence the human genome and set the pace for biomedical research that saves lives today. According to the Unlimited Potential report, tax-funded research later commercialized by American companies lead to a 1 percent drop in annual cancer deaths, saving the U.S. half a trillion dollars in healthcare costs every year. The information technology sector — born almost exclusively from federally-funded research — contributes one trillion dollars annually to the U.S. gross domestic product.


While the report’s findings are newsworthy — I summarize them in a breakout section below — it is the long-term significance of American’s increasingly anti-science behaviors that disturbe me most. Once a nation of dreamers exploring the moon, we’ve become a nation of naysayers denying the superlative science behind vaccinations and climate change alike.

Why are we doing this to ourselves? Since World War II, we Americans have prided ourselves on leading the way into the future, powering the best and the brightest toward the frontiers of science and technology.

We call ourselves innovators. We believe that with time and effort, no problem is beyond resolution. We accept failure as a natural consequence of pushing forward, knowing that it brings us one step closer to success.

Scientific discovery has pulled us forward as a nation. Our brightest minds have found new ways to show us how our bodies and our world work; these discoveries point our innovators toward life-changing devices and medical treatments; those innovations build entirely new industry sectors within a thriving economy; and as everyone’s quality of life improves, we can continue to fund new discoveries for generations to come.

But we are moving dangerously close today to stalling that conveyor belt of innovation just when we most need it. The primary culprit? Politics.

Science, by its very nature, doesn’t fit a “liberal” or “conservative” mold. Science asks questions and metes out answers with varying degrees of certainty. Science acknowledges that some conditions are found together — are co-related — but then goes a step further to determine whether one of those conditions has contributed to causing the other. Correlation does not equal causation — it’s an early mantra for budding scientific minds.

And yet, somehow, politicians have decided that personal beliefs should take priority over scientific discovery. In these circles, climate science has become the 21st century’s snake oil. Vaccination schedules for children are treated as if they are government indoctrination plans. Even the push for better access to higher education is viewed as elitist intellectualism intended primarily to push a liberal political agenda.

Science has endured such slings and arrows in the past. But political opposition has not previously plucked at science’s pursestrings with such zeal. We are being told that America’s ongoing debt and deficit issues must take priority over investing in our future. Even politicians who claim to support so-called STEM education — science, technology, engineering and mathematics — turn a blind eye to the catastrophe that is unfolding on their watch.

Sequestration, which has chopped away at research programs blindly, may be the easiest direction to point a finger of blame. But equally pernicious is our growing problem with college debt. We want the next generation to go into science and technology, but we the people do little to support their efforts to do just that. We compel students to load themselves up with soul-crushing debt to pursue their innovative dreams, and then we slash away at the research grants that would help them re-pay that debt. It’s little wonder that would-be scientists are more inclined to join the forces of Wall Street than they are to search in vain for science-related employment.

We’ve heard politicians flailing about for the next “moon shot” project that will lead the way toward a rebirth of innovation. Case in point: President Barack Obama has called for a $300 million annual budget for a decade to map the human brain.

But our needs as a nation go far beyond glitzy, big-science headlines. We need to nurture the “what-if” questions that scientists working behind the scenes ask every day. Innovation does not come with shrieks of “eureka!” and piles of gold. It comes one quiet observation at a time over the course of years, often even decades.

Corporate America, with its eye trained closely on the quarterly bottom line, cannot and will not fund the type of careful, measured science required to keep our economy healthy. Scientific discovery requires a funding infrastructure that’s beyond the capacity of any one company, or even a corporate coalition. Science is up to us as a people. That’s a lesson Congress needs to learn before it’s too late.

The report Unlimited Opportunity, Vanishing Potential was based on answers to an online survey completed in June and July by 3,700 scientists from a variety of disciplines who are working in all 50 states as well as in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

“The data shows that deep cuts to federal investments in research are tearing at the fabric of the nation’s scientific enterprise and have a minimal impact on overcoming our national debt and deficit problems,” said Benjamin Corb, public affairs director for the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, which spearheaded creation of the report.

The numbers are jaw-dropping. Accounting for inflation, federal funding for science has lost 20 percent in purchasing power in just the last three years. And while the U.S. still invests more real dollars in research than any other country, it is the only one of the top 10 research-supporting countries to cut its investment as a percentage of GDP since 2011. More than two-thirds of scientists reported receiving less grant money now than in 2010, despite 80 percent of them  noting that they spend more time now writing grant proposals than they did then. Only 2 percent of the researchers’ home organizations provided any funding to make up for the lost grants.

As a result, nearly half of the scientists — 46 percent — have laid off researchers or plan to do so in the near future. Fifty-five percent know a colleague who has lost a job or expects to soon. And 85 percent of the scientists surveyed believe that federal funding cuts have cleared the way for global competitors to catch up with and even surpass the U.S. in the race toward discovery.

While the overall data collected for the report is devastating enough, anecdotes shared by individual scientists who took the survey are stunning.

A faculty biologist in Nebraska reports losing a federal grant despite having preliminary data “that is truly transformative” and could generate billions of dollars in economic stimulus through sustainable energy.

A biologist in New Jersey warns that his lab’s “promising novel therapeutics for a neurological/neuropsychiatric disorder” won’t move beyond the preclinical phase without federal support.

“I have just laid off my technician and will lose my postdoc in six months,” reported a professor at George Mason University in Virginia. “My Ph.D. students need funds to finish their degrees, and now they are working in the lab without pay. The lab may have to be closed (if I don’t) move it to China.”

“Cutting our research while offshore spending exceeds ours (will) abdicate leadership permanently,” noted an associate professor from the University of Minnesota. “This type of error is not reversible, and we will need to resign ourselves as a nation to the consequences.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetraedupree/2013/09/25/us-scientists-are-leaving-the-country-and-taking-the-innovation-economy-with-them/

collegeboy16 wrote:Hmm, why is yasen considered quiter than boreiwhe it has conventional turbine blades and not pumpjet?

Viktor wrote:In several hours of time, Russian Navy will get new class of powerful nuclear attack submarine: project 885       

Headache submarine project "Ash" will be transferred to the fleet

TheArmenian wrote:

Viktor wrote:In several hours of time, Russian Navy will get new class of powerful nuclear attack submarine: project 885       

Headache submarine project "Ash" will be transferred to the fleet

And it did:

http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/45593/

Viktor wrote:In several hours of time, Russian Navy will get new class of powerful nuclear attack submarine: project 885       

Headache submarine project "Ash" will be transferred to the fleet