Submarine Warfare: U.S. vs Russia

GarryB wrote:40 percent kill probability

AMRAAMS with 40 percent what? As far as i know the C-7 Versions have a 95% Probability of Hit value without ECM interference and Fighter Agility and Maneuvers taken into account?

GarryB wrote:New fighters with 20kW output AESA radars

Russians don't have an Aircraft that comes factory mass produced with AESA yet though? Even the Su-35s still comes with the IBRIS PESAs from the factory? (I know some have been Retrofitted with the Byelka on the field)

GarryB wrote:as the MiG-29B export models they have seen before

But the one they got their hands on was the MiG 29S (Project 9.13s) with some samples of R-77s? which was quite formidable at that time....

AMRAAMS with 40 percent what? As far as i know the C-7 Versions have a 95% Probability of Hit value without ECM interference and Fighter Agility and Maneuvers taken into account?

No. US would tell just about their successfull shot not the one that missed. According to some Serbian member, serb pilots manage to evade 10 shoot of amramm easily with mig-29 that were just piece of metal without any electronics good enough to use it.

Russians don't have an Aircraft that comes factory mass produced with AESA yet though? Even the Su-35s still comes with the IBRIS PESAs from the factory? (I know some have been Retrofitted with the Byelka on the field)

They have ground based and sea based jamming equipement that can just jam all the X band that missiles use to guide themselves so that no one would found anything in the air. Moreover they have jaming pods that are very good at jaming missiles. Raw power is good but if you don't have the proccessing units with it it's not enough. Mig-25 radar by the way have 400 kilowatt output (compare to 20 KW of Irbis). If you use it as the antenna of a jaming system... That would burn anything at 100km.

AMRAAMS with 40 percent what? As far as i know the C-7 Versions have a 95% Probability of Hit value without ECM interference and Fighter Agility and Maneuvers taken into account?

Not interested in marketing information or sales info... just actual combat results... which is about 40% or worse against targets not aware they were under attack most of the time and without the electronic equipment to defend themselves.

Russians don't have an Aircraft that comes factory mass produced with AESA yet though? Even the Su-35s still comes with the IBRIS PESAs from the factory? (I know some have been Retrofitted with the Byelka on the field)

BARS already manages 20kWs of power, and the MiG-35 and PAK FA will have AESA radars as standard... likely resulting in the Su-35 getting the same pretty quickly.

But the one they got their hands on was the MiG 29S (Project 9.13s) with some samples of R-77s? which was quite formidable at that time....

the ones they actually trained against were old model MiG-29Bs of the former East German Air Force.

AFAIK they have not even trained against R-27E model missiles because the first model MiGs couldn't fire them.

Did a Russian Built SSK 'Sink' a USN SSN?
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/did-russian-built-stealth-submarine-sink-navy-nuclear-attack-24567
The Virginias may not be quieter then the Kilos & Yuans, but the new Russian SSKs may be even quieter than the Kilos. They could even escort noisy Oskars. In transit, divers can hook up electric/towing cables so both can run & stay deep limited only by their food stocks!

Tsavo Lion wrote:Did a Russian Built SSK 'Sink' a USN SSN?
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/did-russian-built-stealth-submarine-sink-navy-nuclear-attack-24567
The Virginias may not be quieter then the Kilos & Yuans, but the new Russian SSKs may be even quieter than the Kilos. They could even escort noisy Oskars. In transit, divers can hook up electric/towing cables so both can run & stay deep limited only by their food stocks!

Old article. In shallow waters SSK are far better than SSN.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Did a Russian Built SSK 'Sink' a USN SSN?
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/did-russian-built-stealth-submarine-sink-navy-nuclear-attack-24567
The Virginias may not be quieter then the Kilos & Yuans, but the new Russian SSKs may be even quieter than the Kilos. They could even escort noisy Oskars. In transit, divers can hook up electric/towing cables so both can run & stay deep limited only by their food stocks!

Those are two very interesting statements, or maybe hypothesis: that a new SSK class could possibly be less quieter the the previous, and that a SSK with its few hours endurance at medium speed could escort a SSGN with its unlimited endurance.

Who is seriously believing or even proposing such kind of madness?

Peŕrier wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:Did a Russian Built SSK 'Sink' a USN SSN?
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/did-russian-built-stealth-submarine-sink-navy-nuclear-attack-24567
The Virginias may not be quieter then the Kilos & Yuans, but the new Russian SSKs may be even quieter than the Kilos. They could even escort noisy Oskars. In transit, divers can hook up electric/towing cables so both can run & stay deep limited only by their food stocks!

Those are two very interesting statements, or maybe hypothesis: that a new SSK class could possibly be less quieter the the previous, and that a SSK with its few hours endurance at medium speed could escort a SSGN with its unlimited endurance.

Who is seriously believing or even proposing such kind of madness?

He is saying that the Oscar will tow the SSK during transit with cables which is not really good because it will need to push its engines at max and produce much more noise.

Isos wrote:
He is saying that the Oscar will tow the SSK during transit with cables which is not really good because it will need to push its engines at max and produce much more noise.

+1

Peŕrier wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:Did a Russian Built SSK 'Sink' a USN SSN?
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/did-russian-built-stealth-submarine-sink-navy-nuclear-attack-24567
The Virginias may not be quieter then the Kilos & Yuans, but the new Russian SSKs may be even quieter than the Kilos. They could even escort noisy Oskars. In transit, divers can hook up electric/towing cables so both can run & stay deep limited only by their food stocks!

Those are two very interesting statements, or maybe hypothesis: that a new SSK class could possibly be less quieter the the previous, and that a SSK with its few hours endurance at medium speed could escort a SSGN with its unlimited endurance.
Who is seriously believing or even proposing such kind of madness?

Do some research before posting replies. See the underlined sentence; the Virginia class is SSN, not an SSK. If not towed by SSGNs, SSKs could go slower under their own power/snorkel & stop for recharging via an electric cable. With AIP or hybrid NP plant discussed earlier that may not even be so essencial.
We don't know the circumstances of that "sinking"- whether it was in the littoral or deep open ocean. Some littoral areas, incl. around India, have continental shelf with deep waters starting just a few dozen miles off shore. https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-continental-shelf-along-the-western-coast-of-India-look-broader-than-the-Eastern-continental-shelf

He is saying that the Oscar will tow the SSK during transit with cables which is not really good because it will need to push its engines at max and produce much more noise.

Why do you think that it would need to operate its engines at max?

I would say the greater problem would be when you get to where you are going... when towing a car someone in the towed car has to be there to apply the breaks for when the towing vehicle slows down for whatever reason... like a red light... with no breaks on the towed sub if the towing sub slows down it might find it gets rammed by the towed vessel...

Of course if the towing tether has a power cable the towing sub could transfer electrical power to the towed vessel so it could operate its electrical propulsion to assist in forward speed and also to stop it when needed too... the two nuclear power plants in the SSGN could easily provide plenty of amps.

GarryB wrote:

He is saying that the Oscar will tow the SSK during transit with cables which is not really good because it will need to push its engines at max and produce much more noise.

Why do you think that it would need to operate its engines at max?

I would say the greater problem would be when you get to where you are going... when towing a car someone in the towed car has to be there to apply the breaks for when the towing vehicle slows down for whatever reason... like a red light... with no breaks on the towed sub if the towing sub slows down it might find it gets rammed by the towed vessel...

Of course if the towing tether has a power cable the towing sub could transfer electrical power to the towed vessel so it could operate its electrical propulsion to assist in forward speed and also to stop it when needed too... the two nuclear power plants in the SSGN could easily provide plenty of amps.

Maybe not max but it will need to push them so they will produce more noise I assume.

I cant see any reason for towing a SSK... just ridiculus.
Btw we can read that they have resumed construction of the two remaining Lada subs, so whats the big differencess from St Petersburg? Will they have AIP? I would certainly think so, the russian navy has been 20 years behind with this...

runaway wrote:I cant see any reason for towing a SSK... just ridiculus.
Btw we can read that they have resumed construction of the two remaining Lada subs, so whats the big differencess from St Petersburg? Will they have AIP? I would certainly think so, the russian navy has been 20 years behind with this...

Author is "expert" form National Interest. What would you expect? As for AIP. Well Russians wanted another way, instead of expensive German or loud Swedish approaches gone way safer and easier in terms of infrastructure.

True that project was under financed but I'd presume AIP wlll be installed in Kalinas

Will they have AIP? I would certainly think so, the russian navy has been 20 years behind with this...

Like in every field where things are not going super fast... they are having problems because what they are trying to do is brand new and ground breaking... if speed of production was the most important thing they could have an all new fleet of brand new ships and subs that would not look out of place in 1985.

The AIP they are developing uses diesel fuel as the catalyst.

Big deal you say.

Well actually it is a huge deal.

First of all it generates more power than your average hydrogen power cell.

Second one of the biggest problems with introducing a new technology is the cost of upgrading the infrastructure everywhere it will operate...

Having a super new hydrogen fuel cell technology would be nice but the cost of upgrading all the Russian ports to allow them to actually use the technology is not so flash... not to mention most ports around the world wont have such facilities either so most of the time it will operate without its AIP actually working or will have to work out a way of delivering fuel at sea... a new capability that is not the same as delivering fossil based fuels.

Just the same as developing the super new Zircon hypersonic missile... if they had done it in the 1980s it would not have been that much of a big deal because it would take a while for them to make enough new ships able to carry it.

Today however with an AIP that uses diesel they can operate from pretty much most current domestic and international ports.

Equally with UKSK launchers once the Zircon is in service it can be widely deployed immediately.

The problem for the Russian Navy is that they have two new driving design paradymes... modularity, which should allow for the full standardisation of their new and upgraded ships and subs, and multirole, which means instead of building 15 anti ship destroyers and 15 anti sub destroyers, they can make 25 vessels able to perform either or both roles... roles they can change when it comes time to load the UKSK bins.

T-44 want bad tank either  so why Soviet MoD did not produce thousands of it?

Not sure how it applies to Lada but arguably they did.
The problem with T-44 is that it only had an 85mm gun & that wasn't enough by the end of WWII when it was coming into service (several hundred were in service prior to Berlin but not sent to the front due to not wanting to complicate logistics).
They tried upgrading to 100mm gun but wasn't satisfactory because the tank was just not big enough -> bigger version specifically sized for 100mm was the T-54/T-55 the most produced tank ever.

The AIP they are developing uses diesel fuel as the catalyst.

Diesel as fuel not as catalyst.
Diesel as fuel has the logistic advantages you cite yes but is harder to develop.

Hydrogen fuel cell reaction is 2* H2 + catalyst + O2 -> 2* H2O + electricity + heat + catalyst.
You can rely on both the H2 & O2 to be very high purity due to the nature of fuel production.

For diesel its something like C12H24 + catalyst + 24* O2 -> 12* H2O + 12* CO2 + electricity + heat + catalyst.
But diesel isn't pure C12H24, its a range of different lengths & includes various contaminants like Sulfur that will complicate the reaction, leave behind bits of crap &/or react with the catalyst in bad ways.
So its not a surprise they are having a hard time making it practical for powering a sub.
If they get it to work really well it'll be a big breakthrough though.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Author is "expert" form National Interest. What would you expect? As for AIP. Well Russians wanted another way, instead of expensive German or loud Swedish approaches gone way safer and easier in terms of infrastructure.

True that project was under financed  but I'd presume AIP wlll be installed in Kalinas

Loud Swedish approach?

Sweden’s submarine force is relatively tiny, just five boats make up the entire inventory, but those five vessels are extremely stealthy and lethal, especially their three Gotland Class diesel-electric submarines. Entering service in the mid 1990s, the 1600 ton displacement Gotland Class was the first operational Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) submarines in the world, which gave them the previously unprecedented operational ability (for non-nuclear submarines at least) to stay submerged for weeks at a time.

Oh, and Kockums’ AIP system is virtually silent, even in comparison to multi-billion dollar nuclear powered boats that still have to pump high-volumes coolant to their reactors.

Sweden Has A Sub That's So Deadly The US Navy Hired It To Play Bad Guy and the Gotland managed to sneak in and "sink" the CV several times.

So DONT call the swedish AIP loud!

Loud Swedish approach?

I think its a belief that the Stirling Engine is loud.
I'm not sure it is.
It burns fuel outside the cylinder constantly & probably very quietly, the cylinder going back & forward is going to be a source of noise but less so than an internal combustion engine since its fairly low pressure & doesn't have an explosion at one end of the cycle.

hoom wrote:

Loud Swedish approach?

I think its a belief that the Stirling Engine is loud.
I'm not sure it is.
It burns fuel outside the cylinder constantly & probably very quietly, the cylinder going back & forward is going to be a source of noise but less so than an internal combustion engine since its fairly low pressure & doesn't have an explosion at one end of the cycle.

There is no combustion with a sterling engine, it only works with pressure differentials, therefore making it noiseless.

Stirling engines are extremly quiet. Not sure who and where told you its loud. Very crude stirling engines built basically in highschool workshops developed 59 decibels of noise at 1m of distance. Compared to diesels that is like vacoom

The swedish approach through the Sterling engine doesn't suffer fron noise levels.

It's main problem is thermal dissipation, followed by chemical waste into the seawater.

Both are minor issues, but still the fuel cells do not suffer such problems, and they are today the most discrete solution available.

It could be worth noting that amongst MPAs is getting popular to have UV scanner, to monitor and identify pollution's spots amidst the sea.

It could be too early to infere that an ASW patrol aircraft could spot and track down the chemical trail leaved behind by a running Sterling engine, still it could become a reality in the future, maybe a near future.

Until a Sterling engine equipped SSK operates in friendly waters it should not be a big issue, but whenever it would be tasked to operate in contested or hostile waters, it could prove itself a weak point.

There is no combustion with a sterling engine, it only works with pressure differentials, therefore making it noiseless.

Standard version of a stirling engine you have an external flame heating one end.

Peŕrier wrote:The swedish approach through the Sterling engine doesn't suffer fron noise levels.

It's main problem is thermal dissipation, followed by chemical waste into the seawater.

a) Stirling engines still have to be warmed by external source - and warming up form batteries makes no sense since you got to feed electric motors. Thus you need actual chemical heaters (you burn something - if hydrogen then it can blow)

b) You still have moving parts in engine itself (not only electrical ones) so it is not that silent.

c) toque / power output regulation is fairly cumbersome and sudden speeding up slowing is problematic

last but not least

d) did anybody see Stirling powered AIP sub working on more than 200 meters? I did some research and in case of stirling AIP for olielr they say 50-100m max, national interest 160-200 m


For some strange reason Japanese Navy replaced Stirlings in last batch of Soryuo subs by Li-on batteries. Isnt it?

Peŕrier wrote:
the fuel cells do not suffer such problems, and they are today the most discrete solution available

Hmm you need to have
a) port infrastructure with liquid oxygen hydrogen storage

b) you carry hydrogen on sub...




Russian AIP is meant to be: expensive infrastructure independent (you need only to tank diesel fuel) . It has on board diesel fuel reformer . I.e. an installation to "on fly" modify diesel into hydrogen for cells. Littel risk of explosion and much cheaper if implemented. We need to wait untill it will be properly financed though.

Maximum depths are about 200m. Test depth for most subs using stirling engines is 150m. Pressure is the limiting factor.

The United States scared of Russian "killers of submarines"
https://vz.ru/news/2018/8/1/935204.print.html

IMO, they can be used against SSG/BNs & a few of them can gang up even on a CVN. The USN will need to establish its own submarine bastions in the Gulf of Alaska & the Canadian Arctic- Baffin/Hudson Bay & Davis Stait!