Submarine Warfare: U.S. vs Russia

Hahahahaahaha... that is funny... that would be an interesting parade to watch... handless US sailors and one armed Soviet Tankers... (the autoloading mechanism in Soviet tanks were always removing limbs according to western experts).

Active sonar has to be used by everyone to detect very quiet boats... including the US military as new boats on both sides can be detected with passive sonar at useful distances.

GarryB wrote:Hahahahaahaha... that is funny... that would be an interesting parade to watch... handless US sailors and one armed Soviet Tankers... (the autoloading mechanism in Soviet tanks were always removing limbs according to western experts).

Active sonar has to be used by everyone to detect very quiet boats... including the US military as new boats on both sides can be detected with passive sonar at useful distances.

Indeed it would be....  

As of now, all i can see are that Soviet subs were noisier than US subs hence why US sub doctrine (which is at this point public and i have acquaintances who worked as Sub Sonar operators back then) is Mostly passive....  
this was the case before the Toshiba (And some European Company) Scandal which led to the soviets being able to finally develop their 7 bladed Propellers which improved Acoustics (as seen on NATO Codename Akula Subs)....  
I think from what i can find, Soviet subs can finally reach Noise levels of "Concern" to the USN after the Schuka-B (Akula II) subs....

What's your take on that?

You can search for the story of a South Korean corvette destroyed by North Korean sub. The corvette was in an ASW execice with it's Active sonar On. At the end it was destroyed by the submarine. There were US ships out there if I'm not wrong.

As of now, all i can see are that Soviet subs were noisier than US subs hence why US sub doctrine (which is at this point public and i have acquaintances who worked as Sub Sonar operators back then) is Mostly passive....  
this was the case before the Toshiba (And some European Company) Scandal which led to the soviets being able to finally develop their 7 bladed Propellers which improved Acoustics (as seen on NATO Codename Akula Subs)....  

It's not the only parameter for noise. It improved the noise but Soviet and russian did lot of works to make them less noisy. You can compare on pictures that the materials used for their construction and the construction of older sub are totaly different.

There are tactics too. I've read somewhere (from a Soviet amiral or sailor I don't remember) that soviet subs could follow while being undetected US carrier by being behind them and having the same speed, because US sonar couldn't "see" such a target.

Sovet submarines, immediatly after the start of the anti ship missile "era", started to carry lot of them. So they needed to have high speed to fire and get the f*ck from their position. Stealth was not as important as in US because at 100-200 km from the US ships it couldn't be located, and since they were supposed to be 600m under the sea, P-3 wouldn't spot them any time soon. While they would spot carriers at much longer ranges and lunch missiles from 120km for P-120 and 500km+ for Oscar's P-700, much more now.

You can also search for "type 45 destroyer noise"... The most modern UK ship can be heard 200 km far away today by even civilian sonars.

Isos wrote:You can search for the story of a South Korean corvette destroyed by North Korean sub. The corvette was in an ASW execice with it's Active sonar On. At the end it was destroyed by the submarine. There were US ships out there if I'm not wrong.  

The sinking of that sub is hotly disputed and even the Russians say after sending Russian Navy Sub Experts that it was NOT sunk by a North Korean Sub. (I'm pretty sure even the Russians doubt a 1965 Submarine could somehow elude the combined power of multiple Sonar Systems (Hull, Helicopter Dipped, and towed))

Source: http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/432230.html
http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/ISSUE/75/432232.html
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/Russian-probe-undercuts-Cheonan-sinking-theory/article16241986.ece

However, North Korean defectors state otherwise {that NK did infact sink that SK corvette}.....

Isos wrote:There are tactics too. I've read somewhere (from a Soviet amiral or sailor I don't remember) that soviet subs could follow while being undetected US carrier by being behind them and having the same speed, because US sonar couldn't "see" such a target.

I've seen this too....   Most likely by Sailors operating subs from Post the introduction of Schuka-B class subs?     I highly doubt November-class Subs could trail US CVBGs without getting spotted....

Isos wrote:You can compare on pictures that the materials used for their construction and the construction of older sub are totaly different.

Oh yeah... Definitely....  
the Alfa class subs was the first soviet sub to use a titanium hull was it?   At that point, i heard that the soviets gave up for a moment on stealth but instead wanted speed as the idea was to throw an active torp towards the direction of a US Sub and hope it hits while turning around to outrun ADCAPs right?   40+ knots underwater can definitely outrun a torpedo in the right situations.....
but Alfas were very noisy i heard because of its build for speed.....

Isos wrote:Sovet submarines, immediatly after the start of the anti ship missile "era", started to carry lot of them. So they needed to have high speed to fire and get the f*ck from their position. Stealth was not as important as in US because at 100-200 km from the US ships it couldn't be located, and since they were supposed to be 600m under the sea, P-3 wouldn't spot them any time soon. While they would spot carriers at much longer ranges and lunch missiles from 120km for P-120 and 500km+ for Oscar's P-700, much more now.

For the sake of the discussions which is sonar, lets keep it to Soviet SSNs or SSKs instead of SSGNs as they fulfill a different role at that time period. (I.e an Oscar I class is supposedly noisier than dedicated SSKs like the Akula II Class [NATO Report names]) so, ability to carry AShMs is pointless here since you can't attack a submerged Ohio with Granit Missiles....

I understand the reason why the russians has a lot of SSGNs but I want to know the progress of Soviet Sonar and Acoustic Performances      
But yeah...  I can see with your reason that the soviets probably didn't focus on Stealth but do you have a document to support that claim?  I want to see it for documentation (And i could use it for my essay references)

Isos wrote:You can also search for "type 45 destroyer noise"... The most modern UK ship can be heard 200 km far away today by even civilian sonars.

I don't need to search anything because Any surface Naval vessel of any type of sort will be regarded as the noisiest to sonars at any situation....
Its even stated on online Publicly released USN sonar Operations manual by the Federation of American Scientists....



This is an example of how close one must be to be detected by Sonar....    Helicopters with dipping sonar being the closest because you are effectively blind of whats going on in the air when submerged at 400 feet and Surface Vessels being the easiest to detect at long distances....

Also because ships are inherently noisy anyways, Both USN and Soviet/Russian Navy Ships often use active sonar anyways.....
its the USN Subs that are very hesitant on using Active in the Mid Cold war....
Don't know about now but from what i heard of USN sailors say, they still are very conservative in use of their actives....

Rowdyhorse4 wrote:
However, North Korean defectors state otherwise {that NK did infact sink that SK corvette}.....

Lets be honest. NK defectors will say whatever their SK handlers TELL THEM TO SAY. If you choose to defect, you have absolutely no bargaining position. It's not as if you can go back......

I think it's pretty clear that the Cheonan was NOT sunk by a NK boat. Friendly fire incident maybe, or possibly hit by their own magnetic/rising mine? It hard to say, but there is ZERO chance that it was unk by that dilapidated old torpedo that they claim they dredged up... that thing was ancient, and clearly not the offending weapon. Its a measure of US/SK arrogance that they felt that they could get away with such a fraudulent "investigation". It was so corrupt and shameless taht I heard that the Australians refused to sign onto the findings (which is incredible given that we are such a bunch of c_ck-sucking cucks when its comes to obeying the septics)...

Big_Gazza wrote:

Rowdyhorse4 wrote:
However, North Korean defectors state otherwise {that NK did infact sink that SK corvette}.....

Lets be honest.  NK defectors will say whatever their SK handlers TELL THEM TO SAY.  If you choose to defect, you have absolutely no bargaining position.  It's not as if you can go back......

I think it's pretty clear that the Cheonan was NOT sunk by a NK boat.  Friendly fire incident maybe, or possibly hit by their own magnetic/rising mine?  It hard to say, but there is ZERO chance that it was unk by that dilapidated old torpedo that they claim they dredged up...  that thing was ancient, and clearly not the offending weapon.  Its a measure of US/SK arrogance that they felt that they could get away with such a fraudulent "investigation".   It was so corrupt and shameless taht I heard that the Australians refused to sign onto the findings (which is incredible given that we are such a bunch of c_ck-sucking cucks when its comes to obeying the septics)...

Even so, they were with an active sonar searching for evrything under the sea, yet they didn't saw it coming. So their sonar couldn't find the NK torpedo or the WW2 Mine or the Friendly fire and escape.


@Rowdyhorse4 I don't think you will find anything about Russian or US military sonar. That's even more classified than radars. However today most scientist of every developed countries can make something at least good. Russians have 70 years of experience building their own sonars so they are very good.

Another exemple is the Indian Kilo class which, during an exercice, achieve a lock on a Los Angoles class and could lunch its torpedo against it. Indian Kilo are older than Chinese or Russian which have an upgraded sonar.

They also have a spherical sonar for their Yassen. That's a new technology so we can assume they put money on research and dev.

They also have the Paket NK which was designed to hit enemy torpedo. You have to have a very good sonar for that.

They also detected a diesel sub in mediteranean when the Kuznetsov went their for Syrian deployement. 20km against a diesel sub is excellent.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37928222

In the 1970s there was a significant difference in noise levels of Soviet and US subs, but after the Soviets started focussing on reducing noise levels the differences have dramatically reduced... to the point where the Russian subs are as quiet as western subs.

More importantly noise is not constant noise... tactics can be used to minimise detection potential like using layers of salinity in the sea and of course operating at different speeds.

A sub having to catch up on prey will need to make more noise than a sub in position waiting for targets to approach.

Using mines means the enemy might never get within 100km of the sub that sank them... and long range missiles and torpedoes can result in the same.

The Russians are currently introducing a C4IR system for their navy for surface, subsurface, and aircraft, land and space based assets to share information and communication, so even with no sonar detection of a target a sub might know where enemy assets are.

The sonar fitted to the Lada class subs were able to track targets at hundreds of kms range... admittedly surface non stealthy targets, but they had very good sonar for a conventional sub.

BTW the Alphas were intended as a high speed interceptor type attack sub, but they weren't the fastest Soviet Subs.

There is a report of an Alpha moving under a NATO anti sub group at speeds the NATO group commander admits there would be little the NATO force could do to take out the Alpha.

The Papa class was the real speed record holder with a proven 44.5knt speed. Could not maintain it however and was very noisy.

Of course in my opinion a new Oscar with UKSK launch bins makes rather more sense... with Mach 8 Zircon anti ship missiles who cares about 40 knt subs?

Isos wrote:Another exemple is the Indian Kilo class which, during an exercice, achieve a lock on a Los Angoles class and could lunch its torpedo against it.

I actually want to see a source for that... It definitely be an interesting read... The Kilos looks to be amazing Diesel Electric subs... Shame that the Ladas had to be delayed due to Issues and expenses but its ok... Improved Kilos are good enough for now anyways.....

Isos wrote:They also have the Paket NK which was designed to hit enemy torpedo. You have to have a very good sonar for that.

I know that there are Anti-Torpedo Torpedoes made for the Paket-NKs.... the M-15 Anti Torpedo Torpedo was it? But the MTT ASW 324mm Torpedo could also target torpedoes so... Not sure the what's the difference between both...
I would want to see a live test of the Paket NK intercepting torpedoes since even though Targeting torpedoes is now possible, A rule of thumb is that the Probability to hit a torpedo is half the Probability to hit a submarine.
(From what i could research, the M-15 is an older variant torp for the Paket system and that the MTT ASW is a newer version that was made a few years after the M-15)

GarryB wrote:More importantly noise is not constant noise... tactics can be used to minimise detection potential like using layers of salinity in the sea and of course operating at different speeds.

Oh yes, Definitely... I can see that since i play dangerous waters and Cold Waters... Thermocline Layers, Speed differences, Cavitation, Ambient Noise and your Sub's Acoustics are all important... But like for sake of comparison, the conditions of speed, Ambient noise and Depth for all subs are the same as a control variable....

GarryB wrote:A sub having to catch up on prey will need to make more noise than a sub in position waiting for targets to approach.

As far as i know, the moment a Torp gets launched AND detected by the other sub, All Stealth protocols get ditched and the subs starts moving at higher speeds (Either to run or chase).... If you are the sub being targeted, you'd snap a torpedo with short activation range towards the incoming torpedo in hopes that it would pick up the aggressor sub and go defensive... Well people usually do that in sub sims.... Running away at deep depths to avoid cavitation and such as well...

GarryB wrote:There is a report of an Alpha moving under a NATO anti sub group at speeds the NATO group commander admits there would be little the NATO force could do to take out the Alpha.

I need the time stamp of that report because as far as i know, the Introduction of the Alfas was troubling for NATO as regardless of the Alfa's Noise levels (Which i heard at 250 feet and its 5 bladed props, cavitates at 3 knots?!), No NATO torpedo could effectively catch up with an alfa running away at 43 knots within its practical range... This was solved with the Faster introduction of the Heavy weight Mk 48 ADCAP torpedoes supposedly (38 KM range at 55 knots)...

GarryB wrote:Of course in my opinion a new Oscar with UKSK launch bins makes rather more sense... with Mach 8 Zircon anti ship missiles who cares about 40 knt subs?

Who cares about noise if you're going to be doing Area Denial to NATO SBGs with Missile barrages from ranges of 200KM+ lol... But Russia needs more Oscar 949AMs or other subs if they're going to be an effective AD weapons as having only one OSCAR instead of a wolfpack would make them easy picking for flying P-8 Poseidons (or any NATO ASW in fact).... With the introduction of the Mk 48 Mod 7s, 40 knots is pointless anyways if you're still noisy....

Of course, US SSK/SSNs (Submarine Hunters Killers) will still be an issue to the Oscars tho.... Hence i wonder if the Yasen-Ms are TRULY effective submarine Hunter killers against Contemporary US Hunters.... I guess only time will tell (Hopefully not lol since it would mean WW3)

On another note... Are/have the Oscars going to be equipped/been equipped with the new UGST Fizik Torpedoes or will they still retain the older SAET-80s or TEST-71s?

But like for sake of comparison, the conditions of speed, Ambient noise and Depth for all subs are the same as a control variable....

Both forces will always share the same battlefield, but there have been plenty of cases where a superior force has been defeated because it simply could not use the battlefield as efficiently or as effectively as the enemy could or did.

As far as i know, the moment a Torp gets launched AND detected by the other sub, All Stealth protocols get ditched and the subs starts moving at higher speeds (Either to run or chase)....

Is that in a computer game where the only danger is the other player?

Is that protocol for all navies... the big powerful navies like the US that will likely outnumber most opponents... and also small navies with maybe one or two subs in their operational fleet... sounds a little wasteful... one torpedo and then suicide... and if it wasn't suicide why act stealthy in the first place?

If subs could trade fire power with enemy fleets and survive they would not spend so much time trying to remain hidden.

But Russia needs more Oscar 949AMs or other subs if they're going to be an effective AD weapons as having only one OSCAR instead of a wolfpack would make them easy picking for flying P-8 Poseidons (or any NATO ASW in fact).... With the introduction of the Mk 48 Mod 7s, 40 knots is pointless anyways if you're still noisy....

You talk about bare numbers... noise levels and top speeds...

The Russian military is in the process of introducing the active radar homing S-350 missile system on land and soon also at sea... also to include the Morfei IIR short range missile that will also be used as an air to air short range missile and CIWS missile for the navy... both missiles would be suitable for a sub surface launch with lock on after launch capability.

An Oscar has enormous gaps between its two hulls (inner and outer) with plenty of space for noise dampening material... 40 knts gets you places fast and if you get a tail then slowing down temporarily to eject a noise decoy for that torpedo to destroy is not that big a deal... or for that matter an anti torpedo weapon...

On another note... Are/have the Oscars going to be equipped/been equipped with the new UGST Fizik Torpedoes or will they still retain the older SAET-80s or TEST-71s?

I would expect old weapons to be replaced by new weapons on all vessels in Russian service... they are designed to operate from the same weapon tubes so there is no benefit to keeping old weapons in service when replacement systems are in production.

GarryB wrote:Is that protocol for all navies... the big powerful navies like the US that will likely outnumber most opponents...

Doubt what i said is the protocols since i'm not part of the navy....   though i know these games have a hefty number of veterans playing them since these are still Simulators with Data collected from various organizations....  

GarrvB wrote:one torpedo and then suicide... and if it wasn't suicide why act stealthy in the first place?

The problem is that usually the moment you launch a torpedo, the enemy would snap an active torpedo towards the general direction of where your torpedo come from hence why at that point, staying quiet would be pointless as if the enemy launched a torpedo with a good seeker...  you will be tracked...    NOW in real life, i have NO idea on how it would go but i'd assume that if an enemy ADCAP has got active lock on your sub, you might as well drop a counter torpedo in hopes that your active torp would pick up the aggressor...      I doubt the crew of a US sub would sit still in 5 knots if a Fizik-1 Torpedo was heading towards them at 50 knots actively pinging that US Sub...

GarryB wrote:The Russian military is in the process of introducing the active radar homing S-350 missile system on land and soon also at sea... also to include the Morfei IIR short range missile that will also be used as an air to air short range missile and CIWS missile for the navy... both missiles would be suitable for a sub surface launch with lock on after launch capability.

Well...  Contemporary Russians Subs are already equipped with Iglas and the older Strelas anyways (Which has led to some funny moments in my game...  a player controlled Seahawk and Orion failed to track my Improved Kilo despite dropping a crap ton of sonobouys at different depths above me and receiving from what they told me 3 MAD pings and dropping passive torps which still failed to acquire me....   the moment the torps ran out, i surfaced from below the layer and somehow shot BOTH down with the Kilo's strela-3 MANPADs despite the huge risk of getting hit by an Anti Tank missile)...  

I guess if the russians deem it worth to upgrade them but i have yet to see plans to strap S-350s onto Subs...  I'd reckon they'd just equip them with the new Verbas MANPADs for now...    Though surfacing a sub also exposes them to AShM attacks (From nearby NATO DDs or SSKs/SSNs if available) or Anti Tank Strikes (US ASW aircraft carry AGM-56 Mavericks as part of their ASW loadout to hit surfaced subs according to FAS so even with an S-350 module, getting the track direction of ASW aircraft would be a hindrance as you can't track them underwater and the time to surface and engage them is enough for a missile launch from ASW aircraft that are already possibly tracking you anyways)....

I guess the conclusion here is that, the Russian navy won't send their Oscars on solo missions that doesn't stay in the range of Surface ship support like US subs or sometimes Soviet subs....
I can the see Yasens taking this role better than the Oscars despite their lower Guided missile ready stores...  

(A viable tactic i use in another game was sneaking the Yasens closer to NATO CBGs (30 NM or 55 kilometers usually) while at the same time still far enough to avoid detection and stay out of range of Torpedoes before releasing the P-800s...  Less Reaction time and less room for second launches if the first barrage of SM-2s/SM-6s missed...  Especially when the time for the P-800s to start zigzag from launch became shortened as well)
Maybe a viable tactic IRL as well for the quieter Russian Subs instead of launching from 200+ Km?

Doubt what i said is the protocols since i'm not part of the navy.... though i know these games have a hefty number of veterans playing them since these are still Simulators with Data collected from various organizations....

At the end of the day they are games, and sometimes when the enemy does not know what they are doing they can be rushed by a more experienced player.

I jumped on the head of opposition players in Counterstrike and shot down at their heads with pistols and usually killed most of my opponents... hardly something that would work in the real world...

In the game they never looked up...

And anyway a couple of close range shots to the head were lethal very quickly.

The problem is that usually the moment you launch a torpedo, the enemy would snap an active torpedo towards the general direction of where your torpedo come from hence why at that point, staying quiet would be pointless as if the enemy launched a torpedo with a good seeker... you will be tracked...

So a torpedo wasted everytime a captor mine is launched?

Staying quiet and launching noise making decoys to get the active homing missile to go passive, or an anti torpedo to destroy the incoming torpedo at a safe distance are two immediate actions.

ADCAP has got active lock on your sub, you might as well drop a counter torpedo in hopes that your active torp would pick up the aggressor...

Drop one salinity layer and break the lock... or never be locked in the first place.

Fire from within a group of civilian commercial vessels and then sneak away.

I doubt the crew of a US sub would sit still in 5 knots if a Fizik-1 Torpedo was heading towards them at 50 knots actively pinging that US Sub...

At 5 knts they can hear the incoming threat and deploy decoys/jammers and torpedoes to intercept the threat... turning and accelerating to high speed makes them blind and no safer...

I guess if the russians deem it worth to upgrade them but i have yet to see plans to strap S-350s onto Subs... I'd reckon they'd just equip them with the new Verbas MANPADs for now...

New Russian subs are multipurpose vessels... surfacing is a no no for anything but a conventional sub... a diver could surface and launch a Verba. A Morfei or S-350 could be launched underwater like a cruise missile or SSBN.

Morfei and S-350 have lock on after launch capability so don't need a lock before launch.

(A viable tactic i use in another game was sneaking the Yasens closer to NATO CBGs (30 NM or 55 kilometers usually) while at the sa

The plan often included a few subs sneaking in close and firing torpedoes so that when the ships turned to minimise their flank size to the torpedoes supersonic missiles pop over the horizon and a few seconds later start hitting ships...

The Backfires will fire Kh-22Ms flying at 40,000m altitude at mach 3 to dive down on the carriers a few seconds after the first weapons hit...

The flight path of missiles don't deviate that much to shorten range by a huge amount.

If you have ever fired a gun at a moving target you know you have to lead the target if you want to hit it... the faster your target the more you have to lead.

A target moving at mach 3 needs almost a 1km lead because one second before impact it will be almost 1,000m away... a turn of a degree swings the interception point several hundreds of metres one way or the other... even if it immediately then turns back the other way the interception missile will have to be directed hundreds of metres to one side and then hundreds of metres back the other way to ensure interception... very very hard. The target missile does not signal it is going to turn or by how much it is going to turn so the interception system has to carefully track the target and work out shifts of interception point in real time in four dimensions...

(note interception is a 4D problem... if you can get your interceptor missile (A) at the same x and y and z coordinate at the same time t then you have an interception but your target (B) can manouver without warning and so in that instant before interception the target might turn 10 degrees and shift the interception point 200 metres... is your interceptor in a position to move that distance in the one second before interception?

A target moving at mach 3 needs almost a 1km lead because one second before impact it will be almost 1,000m away... a turn of a degree swings the interception point several hundreds of metres one way or the other... even if it immediately then turns back the other way the interception missile will have to be directed hundreds of metres to one side and then hundreds of metres back the other way to ensure interception... very very hard. The target missile does not signal it is going to turn or by how much it is going to turn so the interception system has to carefully track the target and work out shifts of interception point in real time in four dimensions...

(note interception is a 4D problem... if you can get your interceptor missile (A) at the same x and y and z coordinate at the same time t then you have an interception but your target (B) can manouver without warning and so in that instant before interception the target might turn 10 degrees and shift the interception point 200 metres... is your interceptor in a position to move that distance in the one second before interception?

That's a common tactic to defeat air to air or surface to air missiles. You make the missile guess an interception point at your left so it goes at its right then you go right it goes all left and so on ... At the end it needs to go more than its max range while being lunched from max range ( if 80km head on max range, and it goes left and right many times, the distance will be like 120 km) so at the end it has no more energy while still being at 20 km from you.

GarryB wrote:At the end of the day they are games, and sometimes when the enemy does not know what they are doing they can be rushed by a more experienced player.

I jumped on the head of opposition players in Counterstrike and shot down at their heads with pistols and usually killed most of my opponents... hardly something that would work in the real world...

In the game they never looked up...

And anyway a couple of close range shots to the head were lethal very quickly.

True...  
Games in the end of the day are games but at the same time this is no counter strike...
the Mechanics of the game was made under guidance of experts from Mil analysis organizations as part of the developers attempt to make it as realistic as possible...  I mean there is a reason why this is considered to be a good Sim game...
And the "Veteran Player" i play with in Co-op are friends of mine who used to work in the USN, one of them as a sonar operator in a sub so...   Yeah....   I mean take it with a grain of salt but its not to the absurdity of Counter strike...

GarryB wrote:So a torpedo wasted everytime a captor mine is launched?

Staying quiet and launching noise making decoys to get the active homing missile to go passive, or an anti torpedo to destroy the incoming torpedo at a safe distance are two immediate actions.

I'm pretty sure the soviets/Russians know the acoustic signature of a Captor mine so they can differentiate targets and see what is Actively targeting them and what is not.

I mean you can stay still but do not forget that the Designers of these torpedoes made the seekers with Decoys (Passive, Noisemakers, Not sure about using active decoy torpedoes) in mind hence most modern torpedoes (ADCAPs, SAET-80s, Fizik, etc) have some sort of re-attack logic so its highly NOT recommended to just stay in the vicinity of a decoy, besides, if the enemy has already tracked you (Discovered and triangulated you), staying silent would be pointless... it be better to quickly relocate, break track and then stay silent....  



Not to mention, most trained Sonar operators of competent Navies isn't going to be fooled by passive decoys...    Active maybe but it depends on the operator's wits...  this is why from what i heard, you'd prefer to not break the wire of your torpedo as you can Command Guide your torpedo through the decoys if applicable but not easy to do that either....  

GarryB wrote:Drop one salinity layer and break the lock...

Assuming there is a thermocline for one...  and the usual ranges of torpedo activation from your sub isn't large enough for an effective shadow zone to appear to break lock so....    I mean hopefully you'd break it but i doubt the chances of breaking lock would be high....

GarryB wrote:or never be locked in the first place.

Fire from within a group of civilian commercial vessels and then sneak away.

Hah. That would be the ideal situation for any sub now would it? XD     Complete an operation (Stalk or Sink a HVT) and escape without detection?   Seems like something Improved Kilos could do after seeing its capabilities...  Those subs could cause massive trouble for NATO Surface Battle groups and if they get tipped off that one is in the area...  You can sure as hell get them to high alert status real quick and maybe Keep them there too to increase their stress (With the occasional one or two missiles from Tu-22s to keep them from having any rest)...  Would be interesting harassment....

I doubt NATO would allow civilian vessels anywhere within a 50 KM radius of the battle groups in War time conditions (Especially after Russia made Club Missiles hidden in Civilian containers)....

GarryB wrote:a diver could surface and launch a Verba.

A diver?  Interesting food for thought...  But then you'd need someway to waterproof the Verba...  Carry it to the surface...  and have the diver who's floating only from his chest (With his PCB) upwards hold the system and track...   Firing it would be an issue as well because the angle of the launcher would put the ass of the Tube in the water no?      

GarryB wrote: A Morfei or S-350 could be launched underwater like a cruise missile or SSBN.

Morfei and S-350 have lock on after launch capability so don't need a lock before launch.

Underwater launched SAM systems? I mean it could work but LOAL systems normally rely on cuing from a helmet mounted sight (Aircraft) or onboard sensors like radar or FLIR (Any other weapon platforms), and use a simple strapdown inertial guidance system to know where to look after launch. So the Sub must know the general direction of the ASW aircraft relative to itself...   Not something you can track without going to Periscope depth and deploying the radar mast (whilst Underwater because Underwater SAM so no need to surface) so you'd still be very vulnerable to Depth charge attacks or Torpedo attacks if the timing is bad (the aircraft so happen to be heading your direction when you reach Periscope depth or something, it becomes a question of who tracks and launches first)...   seems like it would still be a gamble....      

I'm not that well versed in LOAL yet though...  I assume its similar to Bearing only launch capability like the S-300s where you just toss a missile to a general direction and altitude and hope its active sensor pics up something?  or is it launching the missile, THEN give it tracking data (Like the F-35, SM-6 [LOAL-CEC capability combination] combination?      

Also would like to see a report about the S-350 and Morfei having LOAL.. Would be nice to have it documented for future essays...   (And isn't the S-350/Morfei still under going tests? Do the Russians even have CEC capabilities presently on their air defense weapon systems? I presume CEC is available for the Kalibre and Onyx with the Sigma BMS)

GarryB wrote:The plan often included a few subs sneaking in close and firing torpedoes so that when the ships turned to minimise their flank size to the torpedoes supersonic missiles pop over the horizon and a few seconds later start hitting ships...

The Backfires will fire Kh-22Ms flying at 40,000m altitude at mach 3 to dive down on the carriers a few seconds after the first weapons hit...

The flight path of missiles don't deviate that much to shorten range by a huge amount.

If you have ever fired a gun at a moving target you know you have to lead the target if you want to hit it... the faster your target the more you have to lead.

A target moving at mach 3 needs almost a 1km lead because one second before impact it will be almost 1,000m away... a turn of a degree swings the interception point several hundreds of metres one way or the other... even if it immediately then turns back the other way the interception missile will have to be directed hundreds of metres to one side and then hundreds of metres back the other way to ensure interception... very very hard. The target missile does not signal it is going to turn or by how much it is going to turn so the interception system has to carefully track the target and work out shifts of interception point in real time in four dimensions...

(note interception is a 4D problem... if you can get your interceptor missile (A) at the same x and y and z coordinate at the same time t then you have an interception but your target (B) can manouver without warning and so in that instant before interception the target might turn 10 degrees and shift the interception point 200 metres... is your interceptor in a position to move that distance in the one second before interception?

Again, interesting to read. that would be a viable tactic. (I'm pretty sure the RuN has their own doctrines and tactics but coming up or assuming with one in the forum seems like fun now and again) I heard from other forums that a good assumption to make is that an interceptor's Probability of a hit (For an SM-6 against Sub sonic Maneuvering targets is 90+%) against a P-800 on its terminal zig-zag phase is effectively Halfed (Half of its base so for an SM-6 against the P-800 terminal would have a PoH of 45+ %)....   But this is all theoretical with basic calculations using PUBLIC non classified data...  Practically it would depend entirely on conditions and situation (interceptor can have higher PoH or Lower practically)...

Isos wrote:That's a common tactic to defeat air to air or surface to air missiles. You make the missile guess an interception point at your left so it goes at its right then you go right it goes all left and so on ... At the end it needs to go more than its max range while being lunched from max range ( if 80km head on max range, and it goes left and right many times, the distance will be like 120 km) so at the end it has no more energy while still being at 20 km from you.

I'd understand if its a missile cruising at Mach 3 but against SAM? I'm assuming you're talking tactic used by Fighter pilots in defensive right?   but i heard the newer AIM-120Cs/Ds and R-77-1s/77M have significantly higher G limits hence maneuvering Jets would have little effect on their missile evasion?

I'd understand if its a missile cruising at Mach 3 but against SAM? I'm assuming you're talking tactic used by Fighter pilots in defensive right? but i heard the newer AIM-120Cs/Ds and R-77-1s/77M have significantly higher G limits hence maneuvering Jets would have little effect on their missile evasion?

Yes for defence against missiles.

Not really they have longer ranges but that has more to do with physics than the missile. Both of them burn their rocket fuel quicly and then goes in a kinematic mode (i.e without power). The only one that goes all the way powered is the Meteor. But it is also affected by this as it uses fuel too.

Submarines would probably use this same tactic as torpedoes are limited in range by their speed. Most of them will have shorter range than marketing says if they goes all the way at full speed. If they go at eco speed for max range then the sub can zig zag so that they try to intercept it and lose all the energy in their batteries.

A solution for this are the Kalibr equiped with torpedo. They reach the target at mach 0.9 in a matter of seconds and then the torpedo goes at full speed in the last 1 km. You can't outrun this. If you can't jam it either it will hit your subs.

The point I was making is that it is a game and cannot actually be real... most information about Subs is top secret... every ones subs...

Data is only estimated and real systems are assumed.

I remember when the west found out the T-62s gun was a smooth bore and they went on an on about how such a weapon would be inaccurate to the point of being useless... yet today smooth bore tank guns are standard...

The main tank killing rounds a tank gun fires do not benefit from spin stabilisation... APFSDS rounds need fins because they are too long and narrow to spin stabilise (for the same reason a dart and an arrow use feather stabilisers rather than spin stabilisation), while HEAT rounds lose penetration performance if spun rapidly...

I'm pretty sure the soviets/Russians know the acoustic signature of a Captor mine so they can differentiate targets and see what is Actively targeting them and what is not.

Sorry, what?

When they get an active ping how do they tell what has pinged them?

Are you saying Captor mines have a sonar with a unique ping sound signal that is different from any other sonar?

I mean you can stay still but do not forget that the Designers of these torpedoes made the seekers with Decoys (Passive, Noisemakers, Not sure about using active decoy torpedoes) in mind hence most modern torpedoes (ADCAPs, SAET-80s, Fizik, etc) have some sort of re-attack logic so its highly NOT recommended to just stay in the vicinity of a decoy, besides, if the enemy has already tracked you (Discovered and triangulated you), staying silent would be pointless... it be better to quickly relocate, break track and then stay silent....

Ask the crew of the Stingray about reattack logic for torpedoes... but most don't arm if they turn more than 180 degrees... it is a safety feature.

Are you trying to say that the best way to hide from an active sonar equipped torpedo is to make noise and move?

The enemy has not already tracked you... in the scenario we were talking about they detected a torpedo launch... like I said before it would make more sense to sit just above a salinity layer and launch a torpedo and then drop a few hundred metres below one or more salinity layers while sending initial commands to the torpedo you just launched (via command wire)... then very slowly turn and leave the area listening for results and threats... the target you just launched a torpedo at is not the only threat in the ocean...

Not to mention, most trained Sonar operators of competent Navies isn't going to be fooled by passive decoys... Active maybe but it depends on the operator's wits... this is why from what i heard, you'd prefer to not break the wire of your torpedo as you can Command Guide your torpedo through the decoys if applicable but not easy to do that either....

But how can they take such care with their attack... should they not be trying to evade the torpedo you fired at them in the first place?

Why is it they can ignore your weapon but you have to immediately run and hide from theirs?

Assuming there is a thermocline for one... and the usual ranges of torpedo activation from your sub isn't large enough for an effective shadow zone to appear to break lock so.... I mean hopefully you'd break it but i doubt the chances of breaking lock would be high....

Assuming what, you think it would be an accident that I would launch a torpedo at you and whoops, hey there is a salinity layer for me to hide behind here... or a Taiwanese fishing boat, or large container ship. It is called tactics and planning... things you do before initiating an attack.

I doubt NATO would allow civilian vessels anywhere within a 50 KM radius of the battle groups in War time conditions (Especially after Russia made Club Missiles hidden in Civilian containers)....

Some locations they likely will, like in the Falklands war there was an exclusion zone, but sometimes main trade routes might not make that an option.

But then you'd need someway to waterproof the Verba...

Most similar naval weapons are at least salt protected... making them water proof would not be that big a deal... once on the surface pop the end cap off the end and point at the target and launch. The diver already has a mask.

A floating platform the size of an office desk could have a hemispherical IIR sensor with a staring focal array already used on aircraft to detect missile launches to detect heat sources in the air above the water. This could easily be used to launch missiles.

The Soviets had a mine that used an acoustic sensor that was mounted in trees at the end of NATO runways... as long as the noise of the aircraft got louder and louder the system would do nothing... when it started to get quieter the missile was launched at the air target... it used SA-14 missiles.

Imagine the aircraft was a bomber taking off with a nuclear bomb on board...

A more sophisticated model for naval use would be easy.

The platform could be a powered UUV.

Self contained with sensors and missiles, or just sensors with the missiles being launched from the sub.

Not something you can track without going to Periscope depth and deploying the radar mast (whilst Underwater because Underwater SAM so no need to surface) so you'd still be very vulnerable to Depth charge attacks or Torpedo attacks if the timing is bad (the aircraft so happen to be heading your direction when you reach Periscope depth or something, it becomes a question of who tracks and launches first)... seems like it would still be a gamble....

An unmanned underwater vehicle could be released and surface hundreds or thousands of metres away from the sub it operates from passing data about the air situation back to the sub to release ordinance as needed.

I'm not that well versed in LOAL yet though... I assume its similar to Bearing only launch capability like the S-300s where you just toss a missile to a general direction and altitude and hope its active sensor pics up something? or is it launching the missile, THEN give it tracking data (Like the F-35, SM-6 [LOAL-CEC capability combination] combination?

My understanding of the Morfei is that it will have an IIR seeker and a two way datalink so it can be launched from inside a weapon bay without seeing the target before launch.

It can be launched from a 5th gen fighter or a bomber, and will fly via autopilot in a specific direction where the target is expected to be (via the stealth fighter or bombers own sensors, or self defence suite in the case of anti missile use) The IIR sensor will examine the target and compare its view with an onboard 3D database of IR signatures and acquire the target and engage it. The two way datalink allows it to change targets if a more critical target is detected...

Also would like to see a report about the S-350 and Morfei having LOAL..

S-350 are ARH and simply don't have the radar apeture size to lock on before launch... especially considering they are vertical launched meaning unless the target is directly above the missile battery the chances of a lock on before launch are pretty slim.

As mentioned the Morfei are intended for internal weapon bay use in fighters and new generation bombers as a short range self defence weapon (including against SAMs and AAMs).

Do the Russians even have CEC capabilities presently on their air defense weapon systems?

Hahahahahahaha... you are a really funny guy... thanks for the giggles...

Or are you serious?

MiG-31 launched R-37 missile at target 300km distant that it cannot detect because it is not yet fitted with the Zaslon-M radar. Target detected and tracked by Su-30M with target data used for launch and interception in 1990s.

Tu-95 and Ka-25 variant aircraft used to guide very large anti ship missiles with flight ranges beyond the horizon...

Yes, the Russians have CEC capabilities for all sorts of weapon systems.

I'd understand if its a missile cruising at Mach 3 but against SAM? I'm assuming you're talking tactic used by Fighter pilots in defensive right? but i heard the newer AIM-120Cs/Ds and R-77-1s/77M have significantly higher G limits hence maneuvering Jets would have little effect on their missile evasion?

Why do you think there is a difference for fighter planes and SAMs?

A fighter plane can burn fuel and manouver to a better interception point, but at the end of the day they need to get their missile to hit the threat and they do that by getting their aircraft to the best possible interception point ready to launch a missile... if the incoming threat turns they might find they are not in a good position to launch a missile to intercept.

For a SAM the situation is much much worse because you want to intercept the target as far from your ship as you can, so it wont be close to your ship... meaning the SAM you send up has likely already burned up its fuel and is just manouvering without power... getting it to change position uses up energy that cannot be replaced... a SAM has small control surfaces only effective at high speed... burn up energy and it stalls and falls.

GarryB wrote:Are you saying Captor mines have a sonar with a unique ping sound signal that is different from any other sonar?

yeah...  probably not mines but i know the soviets has got a database of the acoustic signature of most underwater weapons employed by the USN hence they can determine what torpedo was launched at them (Either a Mk 48, Mk 37 or a Mk 46)     Mines....    I wouldn't be surprised if there was a way for them to determine if a mine is present or not and what type it is...   not from the mine's pinging ofcourse....

GarryB wrote:Are you trying to say that the best way to hide from an active sonar equipped torpedo is to make noise and move?

What i'm saying is that you'd try to get away from the Torpedoes re-acquisition zone and it doesn't matter if you dropped a decoy or whatever, that torpedo is going be turning 360 degrees in an attempt to find another target and you will be re acquired again...  if not have a second torpedo be launched your way when the attacking sub launches a second torpedo because they noticed that their initial torpedo had missed or failed to acquire.

You're assuming that there will be a salinity layer but what if there isn't a salinity layer?  or what if the thermocline is really high up?  or what if the Thermocline is weak hence the shadow zone is too far to be utilized properly?   what if the enemy has a towed array under the thermocline to help correct the submarine course?    

Modern torpedoes can last a very long time after launch and Submarine vs Submarine scenarios are usually not that far of each other....      Against ships, you'd stay still and silent but i'm talking SSK vs SSK here....
Most of the time from what i heard people talk to me about, Submarines engaging Subs aren't at 50 km Range kiting each other's Torpedo ranges....    You won't pick up a seawolf from 50 Km range and you won't passively pick up an Akula at 50 Km as well....    

GarryB wrote:But how can they take such care with their attack... should they not be trying to evade the torpedo you fired at them in the first place?

Why is it they can ignore your weapon but you have to immediately run and hide from theirs?

I never said they don't care about the enemy weapon systems...    You just have something in the back of your mind saying that you wouldn't want your own torpedo to acquire you....    which is possible taking in the acquisition range of US torpedoes....  No info on Russian ones but i heard the older SAETs had a similar acquisition range of a Mk48...  just shorter by a few kilometers....    

GarryB wrote:Some locations they likely will, like in the Falklands war there was an exclusion zone, but sometimes main trade routes might not make that an option.

"

That is true.... though if the CSTO and NATO did go into a hot war, considering the scale would be significantly larger than the falklands, i'd reckon civilian shipping would decrease a lot....   especially when there is a possibility that Soviet/Russian Subs could be released to run to the atlantic and impede supply for NATO troops from the US...   (Assuming it doesn't go nuclear yet)

GarryB wrote:MiG-31 launched R-37 missile at target 300km distant that it cannot detect because it is not yet fitted with the Zaslon-M radar. Target detected and tracked by Su-30M with target data used for launch and interception in 1990s.

Tu-95 and Ka-25 variant aircraft used to guide very large anti ship missiles with flight ranges beyond the horizon...

Yes, the Russians have CEC capabilities for all sorts of weapon systems.

Ah sorry, My bad....    yeah i forgotten about that  

I was thinking more of like what NATOfags kept on preaching on how the F-35 could command launch an SM-6 to hit a target in its range and act as airborne AWACS (which makes the plane significantly more expensive).....

Of course the Russians can't command launch a S-400 battery or a S-300FM from a Su-35 (Wouldn't this also break line of command?) BUT its targeting data can be shared with ground control which can launch the missile.....  

This is still CEC....    

GarryB wrote:Why do you think there is a difference for fighter planes and SAMs?

not Fighters and Sams...  i think there is a difference when a SAM's target is a Supersonic Missile and a Fighter jet....      Unless you're talking about the difference between engaging airborne targets with Fighter planes and SAM systems?


(Also RIP Soviet Navy Chemical Safety Officer, Michael Levchenkov.... Your stories of the Soviet Navy will be missed.... not related to this topic but felt like writing it....)

What i'm saying is that you'd try to get away from the Torpedoes re-acquisition zone and it doesn't matter if you dropped a decoy or whatever, that torpedo is going be turning 360 degrees in an attempt to find another target and you will be re acquired again...

Most torpedoes don't turn 180 degrees otherwise there is a risk if they don't find their actual target they might turn and detect the sub that launched them and sink the sub that fired the torpedo.

After firing their first torpedo they would be listening for a hit to confirm a kill... if your anti torpedo torpedo hits their torpedo there will be an explosion, but they will know you are there and that you are destroying their torpedoes... the next sound might be a vertical launch of a 91RE1 missile from 50km distant... followed a minute or two later by a splash and the sound of a homing torpedo less than 1km away closing fast...

if not have a second torpedo be launched your way when the attacking sub launches a second torpedo because they noticed that their initial torpedo had missed or failed to acquire.

That second torpedo would take minutes to get to the target area... in the mean time the target has left the area.

You're assuming that there will be a salinity layer but what if there isn't a salinity layer? or what if the thermocline is really high up? or what if the Thermocline is weak hence the shadow zone is too far to be utilized properly? what if the enemy has a towed array under the thermocline to help correct the submarine course?

I am not assuming anything... the scenario is that I attack a sub and the attacked sub uses the noise of my attack to launch an attack on me. I am hardly going to sit in the open and fire a torpedo at a sub if there is no where for me to go just after I fire the torpedo... that is just bad tactics...

I would find a thermal layer or two and sit above them to fire the attacking torpedo and then duck down under the thermal layer and sail off at a tangent to my previous course to make attacking me much much harder... what I am not going to do is sit near the surface and run fast and make lots of noise for all the bad guys in the local area to track me easily.

Most of the time from what i heard people talk to me about, Submarines engaging Subs aren't at 50 km Range kiting each other's Torpedo ranges.... You won't pick up a seawolf from 50 Km range and you won't passively pick up an Akula at 50 Km as well....

Your scenario suggests when they attack they then run hard... if they are running hard after a torpedo attack then you will pick them up at 50km... the torpedoes they launch will alone give away their position.

The target they are firing at will detect them from fairly short range but that information can be sent via Sigma to other vessels in the area so 40km away another Russian sub can launch a 91E1 or 91E2 for a mach 2.5 torpedo surprise...

I was thinking more of like what NATOfags kept on preaching on how the F-35 could command launch an SM-6 to hit a target in its range and act as airborne AWACS (which makes the plane significantly more expensive).....
Of course the Russians can't command launch a S-400 battery or a S-300FM from a Su-35 (Wouldn't this also break line of command?) BUT its targeting data can be shared with ground control which can launch the missile.....

Yawn... The new A-100s will be able to direct both SAMs and long range AAMs too.

In the 1970s the Ground control intercept system the PVO operated meant a PVO MiG-23 could take off and fly to the optimum intercept position and fire its weapons under ground control directly commanding the aircraft via its autopilot.

The Aerospace Defence forces of Russia have tied in the 6,000km plus range ABM over the horizon radar stations they have all around their country with the SAM batteries that defend that country, so an S-400 battery could track and SR-71 when it takes off from Japan or South Korea or Pakistan and engage it as soon as it gets within missile range...

GarryB wrote:I am hardly going to sit in the open and fire a torpedo at a sub if there is no where for me to go just after I fire the torpedo... that is just bad tactics...

Sometimes, you don't have the luxury of having a strong Thermocline or even a thermocline at all....    

GarryB wrote:I would find a thermal layer or two and sit above them to fire the attacking torpedo and then duck down under the thermal layer and sail off at a tangent to my previous course to make attacking me much much harder...

I've checked the case of thermoclines again with my acquaintances...    Theoretically yes, you'd do that but practically is not all ways the case...  Many factors from Strength of the layer (Or even existance of the layer) to the position of the layer and the enemy....          

Also I'd like to see a document or evidence stating that torpedoes don't search 360 degrees for documentation sake.....

GarryB wrote: what I am not going to do is sit near the surface and run fast and make lots of noise for all the bad guys in the local area to track me easily.

Most subs go to a deeper depth to prevent cavitation and make high speed escape quieter.....     Which is one of the reason why modern US subs employ Pump jet propulsion...   Significantly higher speeds before cavitation begins, increased agility and allows highers speeds with less noise....    and nobody said you're going to running away for most of the battle....    it allows you to scoot, re position and rig your submarine for silent running again...  throw an active decoy in so the enemy has to pick one of the two signatures going at opposite directions.....            

GarryB wrote:Your scenario suggests when they attack they then run hard...

then let me correct myself...  They run yes but not in a dumb manner cavitating all over the place at shallow depths.....          
they dive to deeper depths and re position themselves after rigging for silent running again....  

GarryB wrote:if they are running hard after a torpedo attack then you will pick them up at 50km

But thats not the case if the engagement ranges was 10-5 km no? (Maybe even less?)

GarryB wrote:The target they are firing at will detect them from fairly short range but that information can be sent via Sigma to other vessels in the area

No Support platforms or ships in this scenario...   just one on one...  

GarryB wrote:91E1 or 91E2 for a mach 2.5 torpedo surprise

Thats the rocket...  Not torpedo....    Such systems like the SS-N-14 or the RPK-2 are actually scary to go against....     You'd think you're safe but a torpedo drops on your head or 1 KM away from you suddenly....  

I doubt there is a mach 2.5 torpedo lol....   thats 7 times faster than a Shkval SuperCav torpedo....

GarryB wrote:
Yawn... The new A-100s will be able to direct both SAMs and long range AAMs too.

In the 1970s the Ground control intercept system the PVO operated meant a PVO MiG-23 could take off and fly to the optimum intercept position and fire its weapons under ground control directly commanding the aircraft via its autopilot.

The Aerospace Defence forces of Russia have tied in the 6,000km plus range ABM over the horizon radar stations they have all around their country with the SAM batteries that defend that country, so an S-400 battery could track and SR-71 when it takes off from Japan or South Korea or Pakistan and engage it as soon as it gets within missile range...

Would like to see the A-100s in syria....      It would be a nice baptism of fire.....  

Will russia even have a need for a stealth AWACS platform the size of an F-35?  Probably not

Torpedo's sonar can pick up a sub at 1.5 KM maximum (with a probability of kill similar to air to air missiles). A good commander can out run or out turn them easily if they are fired at max range because they produce much more noise than a sub. Most torpedoes can go at 70 km/h with a max range of 50 KM (less if max speed), that means they need 20-30 min to reach the target.

91E1 or 91E2 will reach its target at 50 km in 1 min and it will be at 1 km or less from the target. Impossible to outrun and lunching coutermesure will be hard because when it reachs the water it is silent and search its target. Once it founds the target it goes at full speed on it (maybe needs 2 min to reach it). The on-board computer knows that a sub can't move too far from its initial position in 2 min so it will be very hard to jam it.

Want to know a funny story that i heard?

There is a boomer base in Georgia and an Naval Air force base 40 miles as the crow flies from it...
The americans know that The Russians would always try to poke the Americans there and one time where the Russians were successful, they added insult to injury....

it was some time in the 90s, A Ohio SSBN left port on patrol and a Akula II who was waiting for it at the door tailed it to record its patrolling areas. It was never discovered during patrol but how the americans knew about it was what it did next....

At the end of the patrol, the Akula went to PD depth or Surfaced, Deployed Radar, ESM, Radio masts and what not immediately began radiating every sort of electromagnetic emission possible. It was immediately picked up by the AFB, immediately identified as an Akula II and panicked the entire base including the Boomers....    Every asset available except boomers was deployed immediately to intercept, P3 Orions, Frigates, Destroyers, Hunter Killer Subs like the seawolf..
But there was nothing they could do XD

The Akula was slowly chugging its way back to russia in international waters, my friend suspected they were probably laughing their asses off on the ruckus they caused XD

They were only caught (Intentionally) at the end so probably the Akula monitored the Boomber base for like Months...

Sometimes, you don't have the luxury of having a strong Thermocline or even a thermocline at all....

You choose when to attack and when to not attack.

Part of the formula is based on risk and threat and the situation.

Is the target about to attack friendly forces?

Are there lots of enemy forces nearby... are there lots of friendly forces nearby.

Are you in enemy waters, friendly waters, or middle of nowhere.

Deep water or shallow water... torpedoes don't have to run straight... you can curve them around an island so the target will have no idea where you are even if you do launch a torpedo at them.

Third party assets need to be considered too... sea bed sensor arrays and other vessels that listen and don't attack themselves.

Also I'd like to see a document or evidence stating that torpedoes don't search 360 degrees for documentation sake.....

Ummm.. basic commonsence... you have admitted that subs will only detect each other at close range using active sonar... you manage to detect an enemy sub 5km away and launch a torpedo... for what ever reason the torpedo misses and comes around... a torpedo moving at 30-50knts can't just turn 180 degrees in a small area so after it turns how are you going to suggest it determines that the two targets in front of it are now valid... the sub that launched the torpedo and the old target... I believe that game is called Russian roulette is it not?

What if the target was an Alpha and when it detected the torpedo launch it accelerated to near top speed and rushed past the sub that just launched the torpedo so when the torpedo turns the closest target is the sub that launched the torpedo?

Ask your expert friends about the Stingray and what likely happened to it...

(hint... nobody actually knows but it is suspected a torpedo malfunctioned and they ejected it... as is standard procedure... and it reactivated and run a big long curve around and sank them...)

then let me correct myself... They run yes but not in a dumb manner cavitating all over the place at shallow depths.....
they dive to deeper depths and re position themselves after rigging for silent running again....

Well look above to the first quote in this post... what if there are no deeper depths where the incident takes place?

But thats not the case if the engagement ranges was 10-5 km no? (Maybe even less?)

If you detected them in the first place then you must be close... running faster means making more noise meaning they will be able to track your movements more easily than before they fired.

In this day and age you can assume that the range you can detect them they can detect you too.

No Support platforms or ships in this scenario... just one on one...

So completely unrealistic artificial scenario?

Thats the rocket... Not torpedo.... Such systems like the SS-N-14 or the RPK-2 are actually scary to go against.... You'd think you're safe but a torpedo drops on your head or 1 KM away from you suddenly....

I doubt there is a mach 2.5 torpedo lol.... thats 7 times faster than a Shkval SuperCav torpedo...

The 91E1 and 91E2 are operational weapons and are part of the Club family of weapons.
The 91E1 is fired from standard torpedo tubes and is 8m long and has a range of 50km at mach 2.5.

The 91E2 is a shorter 6.5m long weapon fired from the UKSK vertical launch systems being fitted to new surface and subsurface vessels in the Russian fleet and also retrofitted to some upgraded vessels. It has a range of 40km and a ballistic flight speed of Mach 2.

They decided that launching torpedoes through the air to the target was much quieter and less likely to be detected and of course much faster and easier and cheaper.

The Yasen will have both UKSK tubes and of course torpedo tubes so could carry both weapons if necessary.

Newer models of Shval have wire guidance and greatly increased range and some say terminal guidance, but their problem is of course speed.

Underwater sound travels four times faster than it does in air so mach 1 in water is 1.6km per second... a mach 2 underwater weapon would be very fast indeed.

Will russia even have a need for a stealth AWACS platform the size of an F-35? Probably not

Stealth is very useful in any field... not being seen or detected is a very valuable thing for all military units... the problem is when it costs so much you can't afford to buy enough to make them useful, and of course when it makes your aircraft less capable to fight when the brown stuff hits the swirling blades...

When push comes to shove most modern fighter aircraft will have jammers and laser based anti missile systems enough to prevent radar guided and IR guided weapons from being very effective against them... that means it will come down to a turning fight with cannon again and without being disrespectful a MiG-35 with eleven missile pylons and a cannon and an Su-35 with twelve missile pylons and a cannon look to be much better off than an F-22 and an F-35 with their small internal weapons capacity and cannon.

The MiG-29 in the early 1980s used laser rangefinding and the IRST and radar to track a gun target in a dogfight where the computer continuously calculated the impact point of the shells... the pilot selects the target and pulls the trigger and when the computer calculates a hit it fires the gun.

Tests with manouvering targets resulted in 5-7 round bursts being fired with computer controlled bursts with most rounds actually hitting the target and the targets being destroyed in tests.

The designers said if they knew the system was going to be so effective they would have reduced the ammo capacity to 100 rounds (from 150 rounds).

This was reported in the west but largely ignored by the western media as BS. I wonder how costly that might have been if the cold war had not ended and the west did not get to fly against MiG-29s and practise new tactics before they met some in actual combat.

Want to know a funny story that i heard?

Interesting story... some of these are really amusing.

I remember a story about an American sub deep in Soviet waters near a Soviet base... trying to get in close and have a look around... the locals detected its presence and surrounded it and the american captain was expecting depth charges and captivity and all the bullshit that the cold war required. Instead he received a message from the Soviet commander to say thanks for the practise and please leave the area.

https://fas.org/irp/program/collect/lfa.htm

What do you think of this program by the US?
Threat to Russian Sub Fleets or not?

GarryB wrote:So completely unrealistic artificial scenario?

Well this is a one on one case or comparison.... Real life, the RuN wouldn't sail to the middle of the atlantic to Engage a USN fleet while the USN will probably try to secure the Russian Coasts.... RuN ships will always be within the range of Russian AFBs....

GarryB wrote:Well look above to the first quote in this post... what if there are no deeper depths where the incident takes place?

GarryB wrote:If you detected them in the first place then you must be close... running faster means making more noise meaning they will be able to track your movements more easily than before they fired.

In this day and age you can assume that the range you can detect them they can detect you too.

I guess nowadays it comes to the case on who can detect who first and get to a firing position first.... What ISOS said is right but at the ranges Subs engage each other, i doubt you'd outrun an ADCAP or Fizik running at 50 knots (ADCAPs for sure since it was designed to counter Alfas)

GarryB wrote:When push comes to shove most modern fighter aircraft will have jammers and laser based anti missile systems enough to prevent radar guided and IR guided weapons from being very effective against them... that means it will come down to a turning fight with cannon again and without being disrespectful a MiG-35 with eleven missile pylons and a cannon and an Su-35 with twelve missile pylons and a cannon look to be much better off than an F-22 and an F-35 with their small internal weapons capacity and cannon.

What do you think of the F16.net arguments of "WVR combat is obselete nowadays and BVR scenarios enabled by systems like the AIM-120D which out performs the R-77-1 (early 2000 models i think is what spec they are using)"
Sounds to me like they didn't think of the use of ECM in combat.

GarryB wrote:The MiG-29 in the early 1980s used laser rangefinding and the IRST and radar to track a gun target in a dogfight where the computer continuously calculated the impact point of the shells... the pilot selects the target and pulls the trigger and when the computer calculates a hit it fires the gun.

Tests with manouvering targets resulted in 5-7 round bursts being fired with computer controlled bursts with most rounds actually hitting the target and the targets being destroyed in tests.

The designers said if they knew the system was going to be so effective they would have reduced the ammo capacity to 100 rounds (from 150 rounds).

This was reported in the west but largely ignored by the western media as BS. I wonder how costly that might have been if the cold war had not ended and the west did not get to fly against MiG-29s and practise new tactics before they met some in actual combat.

A shame that the MiG 29s got compromised because of the fall of the soviet union.....

GarryB wrote:Interesting story... some of these are really amusing.

Back in the days when low frequency Sonars were not widely implemented and was about to be used...
My friend got creeped by LFA pings he heard....
He was like "What the bloody fuck is that? Some new sonar Ivan got?"
apparently the navy didn't inform many sonar operators that aren't high enough ranked that Exxon Mobile or whatever oil company Ocean Floor Survey teams has begun using Low Frequency Active for oil hunting....

GarryB wrote:Ask your expert friends about the Stingray and what likely happened to it...

You mean USS Scorpion?

Well Some even theorized that the USS Scorpion was detected by a soviet sub in soviet waters and sunk in a stand off....

They just follow the USN official report....

What do you think of this program by the US?
Threat to Russian Sub Fleets or not?

Great way to kill whales and other sea creatures, and a sign that current and previous systems are no longer good enough to get the job done any more... so smells of desperation to me.

Well this is a one on one case or comparison.... Real life, the RuN wouldn't sail to the middle of the atlantic to Engage a USN fleet while the USN will probably try to secure the Russian Coasts.... RuN ships will always be within the range of Russian AFBs....

So likely never to actually happen... so what is the point?

I guess nowadays it comes to the case on who can detect who first and get to a firing position first.... What ISOS said is right but at the ranges Subs engage each other, i doubt you'd outrun an ADCAP or Fizik running at 50 knots (ADCAPs for sure since it was designed to counter Alfas)

Which is why the Americans are afraid... the Soviets were always a little behind in detection performance and making their subs quiet so they made them fast a drawing their weapons... No ship could outrun an Exocet missile but that does not mean ships are vulnerable to them... plenty of ships in the Falklands survived Exocet attacks simply by using decoys and jamming... the ships that were in trouble were the civilian ships like the Atlantic Conveyer, which didn't have such things.

What do you think of the F16.net arguments of "WVR combat is obselete nowadays and BVR scenarios enabled by systems like the AIM-120D which out performs the R-77-1 (early 2000 models i think is what spec they are using)"
Sounds to me like they didn't think of the use of ECM in combat.

I think they should look hard at the 40 percent kill probability of AMRAAM against fighter aircraft so poorly equipped most of the time they didn't know they were under attack, and ask what chance such weapons would have against well equipped +4 and 5th gen fighters.

New fighters with 20kW output AESA radars that could focus a very powerful beam of energy into the small seeker fitted to an AAM and render it blind, or jam it and make it ineffective.

A shame that the MiG 29s got compromised because of the fall of the soviet union.....

It is actually not as bad as it seems... the west widely underestimates the MiG now and if they were to come up against a real Russian fully equipped MiG I am sure they will be surprised because even an SMT model is not the same as the MiG-29B export models they have seen before.

You mean USS Scorpion?

Yes.

Well Some even theorized that the USS Scorpion was detected by a soviet sub in soviet waters and sunk in a stand off....

Very unlikely... and less embarrassing than saying it might have shot itself by accident... even if that is the most likely cause.