Submarine Warfare: U.S. vs Russia

I feel it necessary to point out that if we are talking about real world, the whole net centric concept still has huge questions about its viability. Especially in something as complex as submarine operations. Keep in mind even the old USSR realized important of satelite cooperation with subs, and invested heavily in this.

TR1 wrote:I feel it necessary to point out that if we are talking about real world, the whole net centric concept still has huge questions about its viability. Especially in something as complex as submarine operations. Keep in mind even the old USSR realized important of satelite cooperation with subs, and invested heavily in this.

I hope you realise that Netcentric warfare does not mean just satellite co-operation with subs ..its far far bigger then that.

And in real world no system is perfect but US has intvested in this for nearly 15 years now and have a head start and lead in Netcentricity of the system and its quite a viable system in real time ....even Russian Navy is investing in this now and even IN has started investing in this before the RuN.

Check some primer on netcentric warfare for USN submarine

Submarines in Network Centric Warfare

The Art of the Possible: Communication at Speed and Depth

Austin before continue i want to render absolutely clear that i DON'T intend this debate as a sort of "fight" against you ; rather, to the contrary i consider it an interesting exchange of points of view with an intelligent and highly educated interlocutor.

"I hope you understand all those 80-40-50 km figure you have pulled out from god knows where does not work in real world using Passive Sonars and against very silent submarine like Sea Wolf ..... you are simply assuming MAD , Sonobouys , ASW aircraft , satellites etc will be all available to Russian submarine."

Austin i don't assume absolutely nothing even less any type of "extra" assets ion favor of the Russian submarines ; to the opposite i have described a situation (moreover extremely common in reality ) not only with very few assets involved (a tiny barrier of some typical modern ASW sensors with theirs satellite or low frequency sonar relay and obviously ....the submarines), a very brief window of detection of the submarine in transition and the same, precise, identical, symmetric situation for both the Russian and the US-built submarines ,but have also openly and strongly "cheated" in favor of the US submarines only to show that absolutely NOTHING can replace the lack of offensive/defensive systems allowing an unit to defeat its enemy in space-temporal coordinates totally out of reach for unit devoid of them .

Netcentric is at the heart of USN Submarine today and Russian Navy is now waking up to Net Centric Warfare concept

If you have examined with attention the typical operational events described in my previous example ,you will realize that all the net-centric capabilities of this world will not offer to the crew of this SSN-21 even only a single chance to engage the enemy Improved Akula detected by the sonobuoy’s, MAD or thermo-differential sensor barrier , neither provide to it a single chance for prevent its engagement by part of the Akula from wide stand-off range ,moreover enjoying fully the surprise element, at inverted sides.
But i want to continue even farther from this point up to its "root".


Austin have you ever stopped for one hour in your live at reason WHY in the Western military community and in western publications on literally any subjects , from military doctrine ,tactical structure, up to single system design or CONOPS, are strangely sold as central or “decisive” just those capabilities or systems linked to information flow management, electronic integration, data processing etc..etc... ?
(offering ,moreover, as subliminal validation of the truthfulness of that thesis ....the operational results meanly obtained against enemy some hundreds of times inferiors and attacked in coalition enjoying very crushing numerical advantage)

Very Simple : because those concepts, capabilities or systems was just those linked to the technological segments of primacy of the West over URSS .

Wanting to remain in the area of this thread we can say that admit that a submarine with a significant depth advantage enjoy enormous tactical , detection and survivability advantages over one with a much lower depth limit would be devastating for western operators of the sector and theirs adherence to the doctrine (above all because the chances to modify the situation would be very slim ,in fact you well know obtaining, in areas outside those of your traditional know-how, scientific breakthroughs in the so called metric or “hard” parameters is very very very difficult ; much more than similar improvements in soft parameters like software at example).

Assert that a submarine significantly faster is much more survivable ,difficult and resource-intensive to engage ,strategically dynamic and tactically versatile in confrontation with one slower would be equally inadmissible .
Admit that a submarine with entire class of offensive and defensive weapons and systems completely lacking in western submarines would enjoy crushing advantages in a direct conventional conflict would be equally inacceptable .

And so on with hull strength , reserve buoyancy, hydrodynamics , long range communication, engine density and nominal power, system redundancy , automation etc..etc…

With a sportive metaphor we could say that the question is like of two different volley squads : the first is from a nation that has pointed all on tactic ,position on the court ,capability to communicate between its players, the second instead has pointed all in developing players capable to jump higher and longer than its opponent, move faster on the court , having better reflexes , shot stronger than its opponent etc….etc… the nation of the first squad claim that its approach is more efficient because in the past has won a pair of contests against some amateurish squads employing the second philosophy composed by sixty-year-old players , not eating since some weeks and playing 28 against 6 …clear the concept ?


In the same way of the improvement in quietness in the past, achieved moreover in a very short time, the implementation of net-centric capabilities , for Russian submarines, represent merely an integration of theirs already outstanding “hard” capabilities .

What will be much more improbable ,instead, will be to see ,in a brief time window , western built submarines increase substantially in : hull resiliency ,nominal speed , depth limit, engine density, integrated defensive/tactical systems, double hull construction, automation and the development and integration of active self propelled rocket mines, supercavitating torpedo, long range supersonic anti-ship and land attack missiles and long range supersonic ASW missiles ( …..is much more simple to teach to outstanding volley players good game’s tactics and communication than teach to others to jump higher , respond better, be capable of shots more powerful , increase reflexes etc...


I want to end the response on this subject pointing out that a lot of operative practices and principles that several persons put in the area pertaining to what is now-days called "netcentric" warfare has nothing to do with it but ,instead with Joint Operations, an area that just in naval doctrine Soviets had pioneered .
Some years ago i have read a book very interesting on the subject (in English moreover) that expended some dozen of pages on Soviet joint operations in ASW .
The title if my memory don’t deceive me should be “Tactics of Soviet Union Navy” or something similar , if you can Austin read it ; you will quickly realize that sensor data integration coming from very different ASW platforms is a very old concept that already Soviets had even pioneered ,in sum nothing new under the Sun .

This means a Corvette fitted with Redut could launch a 400km range SAM at a target it has no chance of detecting itself, but can receieve data about the target from a platform located closer to the target to allow the interception to take place.

Yes GarryB , and also here you will notice that the focus is the eventual employment of an outstanding "hard" capability ( the 400 km capable SAM) outside its particular operational niche.

More often than not those type of capability's expansion are linked merely to mono-lineary system's function sequences


In the example i had produced ,at example, the unique factor necessary for the capability's exploitation offered by a parametrically superior "hard" system (such as an ASW missile with 3,7 times the maximum range and over 18 times the speed of the best ASW weapon available to the opponent) was a very brief detection "contact" with a very small barrier of sonobuoys , MAD sensors, thermodifferential detectors etc...don't allowing ,to the contrary ,to submerines equiped only with torpedo systems any change to carry out an engagement.


In plain Cold War all whas in need for a pair of Oscar class to literally obliterate an entire Carrier Battle Group (likely with a very wide overkill edge) and from over 600 km of distance (therefore completely at safe) was a single , 2-3 seconds long, coded pulse from RORSAT/EORSAT (another system without corresponding in the West).
Anyone remember the famous response of the Admiral Hyman Rickover to a question of the Sen. Robert Taft on what analysts had computed as the average operative live expected for the US Navy's carrier battle group forces in an hypothetical full scale war against the Soviets ; the response was : " From ours studies, about two days " ,but suddenly after it stressed (at reason) that Carriers battle Groups were, by far, the primary adn most effcient mean for US military influence's extension around the world and that modify naval doctrine and system requirements only to for a scenario wherein ICBM related MAD was almost the unique element coming into play, would have been profoundly wrong.

Mindstorm wrote:Austin before continue i want to render absolutely clear that i DON'T intend this debate as a sort of "fight" against you ; rather, to the contrary i consider it an interesting exchange of points of view with an intelligent and highly educated interlocutor.

Ofcourse not I never take any forum debate as fight but a way to exchange information and learn from it and share our my own thought.

I dont say here that i am proclaiming a Gospel Truth but what i have read learnt and understood so far and submarine has been my favourite topic

I also know we are dwelling into an area which is so highly classified by all sides and our discussion might just be a case of Blind Mans Bluff

Austin i don't assume absolutely nothing even less any type of "extra" assets ion favor of the Russian submarines ; to the opposite i have described a situation (moreover extremely common in reality ) not only with very few assets involved (a tiny barrier of some typical modern ASW sensors with theirs satellite or low frequency sonar relay and obviously ....the submarines), a very brief window of detection of the submarine in transition and the same, precise, identical, symmetric situation for both the Russian and the US-built submarines ,but have also openly and strongly "cheated" in favor of the US submarines only to show that absolutely NOTHING can replace the lack of offensive/defensive systems allowing an unit to defeat its enemy in space-temporal coordinates totally out of reach for unit devoid of them .

I really dont think those Barrier , Sesors , LF sonar etc will come into play for Russia unless she is dealing with American SSN in its own backyard. Out there in the Pacific , Atlantic or East/West Coast ....Russia submarine will have to fight it out alone without any support from its own surface ship and dealing with NATO/US surface asset , MPA and Submarine/ASW asset all combined into one.

All those Satellite based submarine detection system makes me more doubtful on how it works and even if it does what are the false positive that such system can throw and one can go into a wild goose hunt based on such false positive specially when in those area you might lack other layered sensors to verify such satellite based detection system.

I understand Russians are well trained submariners and are professionals and can hold their own against any thing from NATO/US as Operation Atrina proved it.

Unfortunately for Russia the decade of 90's and 2000 has been a bad time with very little coming from yards all we got was Akula and some improved Akula ......no new class of SSN every came out and what ever came out was in very small numbers.

US on the other hand consolidated its asset building two class of 4th Gen submarine and netcentric capability and much more.

That period is not building and funding has come to bite as one Russian ex Admiral had said we lost lot of R&D capability in this area in areas of acoustic.

Coming back to the original topic of detection ,I can bet from all that i have read an Akula-2 in most favourable condition will detect a sea wolf in few 10 km at best and its Passive Sonar which is the primary means of detection is inferior to Sea Wolf/Virginia Spherical Sonar.

So the first look and first fire advantage will always be with Sea Wolf unless the sub commander tactically screws up or the SOKS system has some ways which is much better then passive sonar.

My personal thinking of SOKS is its like an Aid in Sensor to the main Passive Sonar and not a substitute to it . Much like IRST is to Radar ....Do you have any thing on SOKS ?

As far as SS-N-16 goes i have my doubt that system will be any effective against modern submarine whose detection will be in few 10's of km in favourable condition , so the stand off advantage is of little use unless ofcourse you are dealing with obsolete submarine of Chinese type or you want to hit a CBG and its surface asset.

I am more of the school of thought that a advanced Torpedo will play a vital role in the future and i think Russia should invest more there , SS-N-16 or Klub ASW are good aid in tool for anti-submarine task but as sub commander i wont bet my life on it.

Mindstorm , I am aware the Soviets had some kind of netcentric capability and they were developing it but the one we see now are quite different due to Revolutionary In Military Affairs and development in Communication and Computers.

Sigma is one step in the right direction and in the next 15-20 years i see Russian Navy will catch up with US on Netcentricity if they are funded well in that period.

Couple of question to Mindstorm , TR1

1 ) How capable is Delta 4 in evading USN SSN hunting it , has it ever been trailed by US Navy SSN on patrol ?

2 ) Do Delta 4 only patrol in Arctic or do they patrol beyond that , this is based on recent statement that Borie will go on global patrol in neutral waters ,which is i think different from Bastion patrol/Arctic patrol ?

3 ) Any idea remotely how SOKS work

4 ) Any more information on the new Fizik-2 torpedo ?

Austin wrote:Coming back to the original topic of detection ,I can bet from all that i have read an Akula-2 in most favourable condition will detect a sea wolf in few 10 km at best and its Passive Sonar which is the primary means of detection is inferior to Sea Wolf/Virginia Spherical Sonar.

Where did you get that info about 10km?
Why do you think just because Sea Wolf has spherical sonar has better target detectin?
Why do you think US has so much better sonar system in general than Russian ones?

Austin wrote:Mindstorm , I am aware the Soviets had some kind of netcentric capability and they were developing it but the one we see now are quite different due to Revolutionary In Military Affairs and development in Communication and Computers.

Sigma is one step in the right direction and in the next 15-20 years i see Russian Navy will catch up with US on Netcentricity if they are funded well in that period.

Tell me please, what is that US netcentricity has that Russian has not, and whats there to catch?

Austin wrote:Couple of question to Mindstorm , TR1

1 ) How capable is Delta 4 in evading USN SSN hunting it , has it ever been trailed by US Navy SSN on patrol ?

2 ) Do Delta 4 only patrol in Arctic or do they patrol beyond that , this is based on recent statement that Borie will go on global patrol in neutral waters ,which is i think different from Bastion patrol/Arctic patrol ?

3 ) Any idea remotely how SOKS work

4 ) Any more information on the new Fizik-2 torpedo ?

You are asking some classified stuff Austin .

However, just some incidents to show the kind of ranges involved in submarine tracking, and what can happen if it goes wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Grayling_%28SSN-646%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_incident_off_Kildin_island
http://www.armscontrol.ru/subs/collisions/db080693.htm#prof

Also is funny how blatant the American subs were with hostile and dangerous operations, from reading American sources you would think their subs were White Knights protecting the oceans from evil communist rust buckets. And this is coming from an American citizen .

Intersting read:
http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/pdf/4_2miasnikov.pdf

I really dont think those Barrier , Sesors , LF sonar etc will come into play for Russia unless she is dealing with American SSN in its own backyard. Out there in the Pacific , Atlantic or East/West Coast ....Russia submarine will have to fight it out alone without any support from its own surface ship and dealing with NATO/US surface asset , MPA and Submarine/ASW asset all combined into one.

Russia has no sea lanes of communications to protect or defend.

They can choose to send subs to the Atlantic or the Pacific if they choose to, but have no pressing need to do so.

The job most Akulas and other SSNs and SSKs will be performing in WWIII will be to protect Russian ports and Russian SSBNs...

In such knife fights they have all sorts of antenna arrays on the sea bed listening and tracking....

Viktor wrote:Where did you get that info about 10km?

Reading through lot of document on submarine quiteness specially 4th gen , I dont mean under 10 km but i mean few 10 km under very favourable condition.

Under not so favourable condition it would be under 10 km or so.

And under exteremely unfavourable condition Passive sonar may not be able to detect at all.

If you look at the incident where a Sierra and LA collided , its one example of non-favourable condition and both subs couldnt detect each other and collided.

Why do you think just because Sea Wolf has spherical sonar has better target detectin?

The Speherical sonar picture of sea wolf i have seen has much larger array , covers most of the frontal part of sub and has a much better and larger FOV , Akula on the other had has cylindrical sonar.

Why do you think US has so much better sonar system in general than Russian ones?

Because of the advantage the US industry in Digital signal processing and electronics

Now with the availability of such system via COTS , Russia should catch up there.

[quote="Austin"]Mindstorm , I am aware the Soviets had some kind of netcent

Tell me please, what is that US netcentricity has that Russian has not, and whats there to catch?

Check the few pages on this thread i have posted Netcentric in US submarine warfare.

TR1 wrote:

Austin wrote:Couple of question to Mindstorm , TR1

1 ) How capable is Delta 4 in evading USN SSN hunting it , has it ever been trailed by US Navy SSN on patrol ?

2 ) Do Delta 4 only patrol in Arctic or do they patrol beyond that , this is based on recent statement that Borie will go on global patrol in neutral waters ,which is i think different from Bastion patrol/Arctic patrol ?

3 ) Any idea remotely how SOKS work

4 ) Any more information on the new Fizik-2 torpedo ?

You are asking some classified stuff Austin .

However, just some incidents to show the kind of ranges involved in submarine tracking, and what can happen if it goes wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Grayling_%28SSN-646%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_incident_off_Kildin_island
http://www.armscontrol.ru/subs/collisions/db080693.htm#prof

Also is funny how blatant the American subs were with hostile and dangerous operations, from reading American sources you would think their subs were White Knights protecting the oceans from evil communist rust buckets. And this is coming from an American citizen .

Intersting read:
http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/pdf/4_2miasnikov.pdf

Thanks TR1 , I have read most of these before.

The most interesting incident is Delta 4 colliding with Sturgeon-class which is a pre LA class SSN.

And Delta 4 was a very modern SSBN in early 90's and still its passive sensor could not detect the Sturgeon and vice verse.

Its true USN Submarine has been very aggressive in trailing Russian SSBN on patrol and would not level a single opportunity to do so , It is believed that atleast one USN SSN or UK SSN is always along the Russian coast to keep tab of Russian SSBN and it can be more then one.

I just wonder how would a Russian SSBN fleet today compromising of Delta 4 would match up against Sea Wolf and Virginia SSN which are like 2 Gen ahead of Sturgeon class.

Hopefully the Borei SSBN gives it self a resonable acoustic leverage that it could avoid or detect a trailing USN 4th Gen SSN.

I am sure USN will be waiting for Borei to start her first SSBN patrol some time this June and would like to record her signature and trail her

An SSBN doesn't need to patrol... it can stay in it harbour and still perform its mission...

Equally who is to say there is no Russian SSN trailing the SSBN looking for foreign SSNs trying to pick up a Russian SSBN... an opportunity to get a Seawolfs signature?

GarryB wrote:An SSBN doesn't need to patrol... it can stay in it harbour and still perform its mission...

If all that is they would do with SSBN , they are better of building ICBM in hardened silos.

A SSBN in harbour are hardly least vulnerable targets.

Equally who is to say there is no Russian SSN trailing the SSBN looking for foreign SSNs trying to pick up a Russian SSBN... an opportunity to get a Seawolfs signature?

May be but in the past 15 years i have yet come come across a single report of Russian SSN able to detect/track a Sea Wolf .on the contrary there are many reports of US LA getting tracked by Akula

The US Navy has just a handfull of modern subs (SeaWolves and Virginias). The bulk of their fleet is made up of the old LAs and Ohios which are around 25 years old. Of course the Navy will not tell the public about the limitations (like diving depth) that are currently imposed on some of the older rustbuckets.

The Russians/Soviets(secretive as they are)don't talk about what NATO subs they tracked etc. for obvious reasons. But it is well known that they did that commonly.

As for the US tracking ability, I remembered a true event which involved a US SSN colliding with an Echo II class, The Americans reported that the Soviet sub was conclusively heard by sonar to have sunk. After the cold war, it emerged that the Echo was just damaged and returned to port without trouble....by the way the Captain of the Echo was Armenian.

Here is an interesting discussion i had with SmoothieX12 on mp.net , He had served in Russian SSBN and had graduated from Naval institute at time of USSR.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?185135-Russian-subs-stalk-UK-SSBN-in-echo-of-Cold-War-*/page7

Note read 7 ,8 ,9 ,10 pages as it throws interesting light on ASW in general

1 ) How capable is Delta 4 in evading USN SSN hunting it , has it ever been trailed by US Navy SSN on patrol ?

If all that is they would do with SSBN , they are better of building ICBM in hardened silos.

A SSBN in harbour are hardly least vulnerable targets.

Austin if submarine related technology and operations are areas of your interest ,you should be aware that vast majority of Russian SSBNs ,today ,DON'T stay never in harbours.
Them simply patrol in zones of Russian Main Naval Control (that incidentally are also those offering ,by far, the most advantageous screening capabilities from passive acoustic detection), exploiting that since end of '70 years SLBM can destroy any target in the USA and Rurope from those very highly protected and surveilled naval "Sanctuaries".
Several times has been proved ,just by Delta IV SSBNs - that is at today also the only submarine at world at having demonstrated the capability to launch in a single salvo all its ballistic missiles -, that Russian submarines are capable to launch theirs submarine launched intercontinental ballistic missiles catching NATO forces in the area completely by surprise (validating in this way the concept that ,if those successful launchs would be directed toward USA/Europe, an efficient "first strike option" would be accomplished efficiently).
The last of those instances was two year and half ago.


http://www.armybase.us/2009/07/russia-outwitted-u-s-strategic-defenses-with-missile-test/


The reason for that is ,as you well know, purely technical (in those region the constant surface winds ,high difference in middle layer currentflux direction and thermal state ,high differences in salinity gradient and entropic ice-induced sound diffraction render passive acoustic detection very very difficult) .

In 1995 (in the time of maximum crisis for Russian Navy) Eugene Miasnikov produced a study called "Future of Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces : Discussions and Arguments"


http://old.nasledie.ru/voenpol/14_20/article.php?art=2


It had taken into examination what was the chances, for the ,at the time, most advanced submarine NATO sonar (that mounted on Improved Los Angeles) to detect some of the Russian submarines of the times at different distances, coming to the point to conceding also to US submarines several irrational enormous advantages (sea perfectly calm , Russian ASW forces not operating at all in theirs zone of maximum control, Russian submarine don't attempting to evade, Russian submarine don't employing any anti detection countermeasure or employing self propelled decoys, neither counter-attacking engaging NATO submarine etc..etc...),it point out also that

"we cannot ignore the fact that ,the enemy's SSNs will be located in a "hostile" environment where superior ASW forces will be fighting against them".


The results are in the table i have reported down (note 1 represent 100% of chances ),with Model A and B representing advantageous and not advantageous factor for passive acoustic detection.


Model A (personale note: very favorable conditions for sound propagation: Open Ocean , near surface sound channels ,no wind)


Submarine------Type----------------Distance
--------------------------------------50km----30km----10 km

pr. 667 A-----(Yankee)------0.12-----0.95------1
pr. 667 B-----(Delta I)-------0.05-----0.54------1
pr. 667 BDR-(Delta III)----0----------0.15------0.95
pr. 667BDRM(Delta IV)---0----------0.08------0.45
pr. 971---------(Akula)--------0----------0-----------0.03


Model B (personal note: not favorable conditions for sound propagation - Artic environment/Shallow water/wind such as near Russia Barent Sea)


pr. 667 A----(Yankee)-------0.03------0.15-----1
pr. 667 B----(Delta)----------0-----------0.05-----0.93
pr. 667 BDR--(Delta III)---0-----------0----------0.55
pr. 667 BDRM-(Delta IV)-0-----------0----------0.08
pr. 971--------(Akula)---------0-----------0----------0

Like you can see the chance of detection of relatively modern Russian submarines are very very low even in ideal conditions in area near to Russia (even only first version of Akula result almost impossible to track in those regions) and this offer also an easy explanation on the incapability of NATO forces to discover Delta-IV position before intercontinental ballistic missile launch.
E. Miasnikov continue pointing out also that :

" But, as result from our findings, the question of whose submarine is better is not important, if the levels of noise of Strategic Submarine is below a defined value. The maximum operational range of a submarine's sonar systems in this case is not limited by theirs level of technology , as was previously, but by the ocean's natural noise ,which is impossible to escape from."

It mention also the enormous problems to engage a fast submarine employing torpedo ;practically even the more advanced will have a chance to effectively reach an enemy submarine carrying out eveasiuve measures only at very close range mainly because the closing velocity would become the difference between torpedo and submarine's speed .
At those reduced ranges (often significantly less than 10 km for modern submarines as result from this study and the scientific literature of the sector) the engagement would be resolved well within reach of active sonar systems - capable to detect an hostile submarine in spite of any level of quieting at 20-25 km of distance- and of several others not-acoustic tracking systems , therefore ,in an open conflict scenario ,enromous advantages would be given to submarines capable to destroy enemy unities much faster than the enemy torpedo's time of engagement (such as supercavitating torpedo) to prevent to those enemy submarines to provide positional updates to theirs torpedo or ,instead , to those capable to evade quickly from the area while transfering the coordinates of the enemy submarines to allied surface and submarines placed at great stand-off ranges and equiped with weapons (such as ASW supersonic missiles) capable to engage them in a very short time and safely.

I can add that all those elements concur also to validate the concept of the very fast progressive obsolescence's process of classical passive acoustic tracking systems and the perfect grounding of a not acoustic centered approach.


Last note : The English title of the book i had mentioned in the previous response is " Soviet Naval Tactics" by Milan Vego , give to it a look .


Best regards.

Mindstorm wrote:Austin if submarine related technology and operations are areas of your interest ,you should be aware that vast majority of Russian SSBNs ,today ,DON'T stay never in harbours.
Them simply patrol in zones of Russian Main Naval Control (that incidentally are also those offering ,by far, the most advantageous screening capabilities from passive acoustic detection), exploiting that since end of '70 years SLBM can destroy any target in the USA and Rurope from those very highly protected and surveilled naval "Sanctuaries".

Mindstorm , I am aware of the so called Bastion Strategy adopted by Soviets since 70's to patrol SSBN in safe protected zones and in the security of arctic.

I was just responding to Garry that a SSBN on harbour is not good as its vulnerable even though it can fire its missile.

Several times has been proved ,just by Delta IV SSBNs - that is at today also the only submarine at world at having demonstrated the capability to launch in a single salvo all its ballistic missiles -, that Russian submarines are capable to launch theirs submarine launched intercontinental ballistic missiles catching NATO forces in the area completely by surprise (validating in this way the concept that ,if those successful launchs would be directed toward USA/Europe, an efficient "first strike option" would be accomplished efficiently).
The last of those instances was two year and half ago.


http://www.armybase.us/2009/07/russia-outwitted-u-s-strategic-defenses-with-missile-test/

I dont dispute that Delta 4 if required can do its job and with new Liner SLBM it gets better.

The launch of SLBM was a bolt from blue for US intel and their SSN on patrol could not detect it.

But please note this launch was done in peace time , had there been a crisis then US/NATO would have adopted a surge strategy and would have greatly increased its SSN fleet along Russian waters.

What works well in peace time may prove to be difficult during crisis.

The reason for that is ,as you well know, purely technical (in those region the constant surface winds ,high difference in middle layer currentflux direction and thermal state ,high differences in salinity gradient and entropic ice-induced sound diffraction render passive acoustic detection very very difficult) .

I agree , the arctic represent the best bet for Russian SSBN survivability compared to any other areas of the ocean in the world besides the factor that you have mentioned , the other factor is no possibility to use Air Borne ASW asset due to coverage of ice so you cant drop sonobouys , very less possibility to use Surface ASW ship as they are covered with ice and would be vulnerable to Russian anti-ship missile in those areas , Employing communication is also difficult in all areas as ice would prevent in doing that.

The only asset NATO/US can employ at arctic to hunt Russia SSBN is Submarine using Passive Acoustic , there too the issue you have mentioned above and constant drifting ice can degrade Passive Sonar performance exponentially.

In 1995 (in the time of maximum crisis for Russian Navy) Eugene Miasnikov produced a study called "Future of Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces : Discussions and Arguments"


http://old.nasledie.ru/voenpol/14_20/article.php?art=2

I have read Eugene Miasnikov report before and though its a good reference as far as trends goes and can tell you in a nice way the enormity if the challanges involved in tracking Russian SSBN.

It also makes a lot of assumption with respect to passive detection of Russian SSBN using passive sonar of US SSN etc he will have no access to US SSN Passive sonar performance and how it works in different acoustic/climatic condition and if the assumption is not accurate the end conclusion is not accurate.

Plus he wrong concludes that Russian Typhoon SSBN is quiter then Delta 4 , now from recentpast statements of Russian Navy personal , we can confidently say that Delta 4 is the most silent SSBN and its better then Russian Typhoon , it also has the most accurate of Russian SLBM.

Also the report does not take into account USN 4th Gen SSN like Sea Wolf or Virginia whose numbers are increasing and will replace the LA , US may deploy their best SSN asset like Sea Wolf and Virginia in the arctic to hunt Russian SSBN in patrol while may keep its LA to protect its CBG and other assets.

Confronting a 4th Gen SSN will be enormously more challenging for Delta 4 or even Borei SSBN compared to LA.

How ever I agree that Passive Sonar has reached its limit and Non-Acoustic sensor is the key areas of research for future , USN is even thinking of ways to employ active sonar using UUV and other assets for future.

But please note this launch was done in peace time , had there been a crisis then US/NATO would have adopted a surge strategy and would have greatly increased its SSN fleet along Russian waters.

What works well in peace time may prove to be difficult during crisis.

Yes Austin that is surely true ,but we must consider that both Russia and USA take always into consideration a surprise " first strile" scenario.

Practically if that day the order would have been to conduct a real surprise opening thermonuclear attack , 320 highly startegic targets in USA, Europe and ...known positions of NATO nuclear submarines in open sea, would have been attacked with a 100 Kt RV ; followed ,very likely, by much more numerous and powerful land based ICBMs RV.

A simialr very dangerous "beheading" scenario is always taken into account by both Russian and American analysts and..... for good reasons.

Plus he wrong concludes that Russian Typhoon SSBN is quiter then Delta 4 , now from recentpast statements of Russian Navy personal , we can confidently say that Delta 4 is the most silent SSBN and its better then Russian Typhoon

Austin can you point out in what study it sustain that Typhoon SSBN is quiter then Delta 4 ?
In at least two works i have read from it (one is reported down here), E. Miasnikov sustain that Delta IV is more quiet than Thyphoon.


http://www.armscontrol.ru/subs/snf/snf03221.htm


I are interested to read some of its earlier (i suppose) eximations on niose level of SSBNs , have you a link or the title of the book ? Thanks

Mindstorm wrote:Yes Austin that is surely true ,but we must consider that both Russia and USA take always into consideration a surprise " first strile" scenario.

Practically if that day the order would have been to conduct a real surprise opening thermonuclear attack , 320 highly startegic targets in USA, Europe and ...known positions of NATO nuclear submarines in open sea, would have been attacked with a 100 Kt RV ; followed ,very likely, by much more numerous and powerful land based ICBMs RV.

A simialr very dangerous "beheading" scenario is always taken into account by both Russian and American analysts and..... for good reasons.

Well most analyst believe there wont be any pre-emptive or bolt from blue strike in a nuclear scenario , the problem will gradually grow causing international crises and only at the end it would lead to nuclear fight scenario .....giving time for each other to upgrade their asset.

Some thing similar to cuban missile crises where crises grew to Defcon 2 but gradually.

Austin can you point out in what study it sustain that Typhoon SSBN is quiter then Delta 4 ?
In at least two works i have read from it (one is reported down here), E. Miasnikov sustain that Delta IV is more quiet than Thyphoon.

Sorry my bad i got confused with the statement of Akula being 10db lower then Delta 4 and took that Akula for Typhoon

http://www.armscontrol.ru/subs/snf/snf03221.htm

Thats interesting , I do hope with the above report is a aprox judgement of noise level of submarine and Akula is rated at 100 - 90 db and classified as quite submarine.

I have seen this report before and i think the report was made in 95-98 period so the Akula in question is probably Akula-1 or at best Akula-2

I have read Gepard is a very unique among Akula with improvements over Nose Quitening and Sonar Performance at top speed ( I read in Janes Akula-2/Gepard sonar does not wash out till it reaches 25 knots and this capability was so far only existed with Sea Wolf class )

A wash out means here Passive Sonar is completely blind due to speed and is not useful.

From what i understand Gepard has this unique ability like Sea Wolf to do a fast search at targets without compromising its speed , at least its passive sonar will be usable at 20-25 knots.

Also when Gepard was commisioned in 2001 its designer said she was the quitest submarine in the world and at that time Sea Wolf was operational , So it wont be suprising at certain tactical speed Gepard could be as quite or more quiter then sea wolf.

Ok here is the interview with the General Designer of Malachite on Gepard , The whole interview is interesting.

http://www.wps.ru/en/pp/kursk/2001/10/16/1.html

Captain Pavel Nychko, a representative of the Defense Ministry, said, "There are no submarines which can compete with the Gepard in the world's oceans."

I just hope with Yasen they move to another threshold on quitening and other areas.

I have also read the Lada submarine have quiteness which is comparable or lower to sea wolf.

I are interested to read some of its earlier (i suppose) eximations on niose level of SSBNs , have you a link or the title of the book ? Thanks

Actually what i am stating is what I have learnt reading over period of 10 years or so when I got interested in topic , I did have lot of links but couple of computer crashes and I lost them all

Although many of the links that you and TR1 post now remind me of my old times and I see i have read those some times.

Plus a lot of interesting information of non-classfied nature can be obtained in US Congress report if you have the time and patience to dig those.

As far as book goes I have Norman Polmar book on Russia and US submarine and The Rising Tide.

If you have good books to recommend in english on this subject specially Russian Submarine let me know.

Thankfully we have got back the era where new projects are being built and this decade we will see Yasen and Improved Yasen , Borei and Improved Borei and Lada clas and improved Kilo.

I guess that will keep the Intelligence Community Busy and so will be people like us who are interested in this topic.

Just recollects in my mind Sea Wolf SSN is rated at 80 db at SL, 1 kHz , I also read that men of north have found Sea Wolf to be a harder target to keep track off.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?212191-9th-Virginia-class-SSN-delivered-a-year-ahead-of-Schedule&p=6164728&viewfull=1#post6164728

A good example of why MP.net is a joke, and the expertise levels of "western sub fans".

LOL! This guy knows more about Severodvinsk than Russian navy.

I replied to him but didnt want to pursue further.

Most of the rumours of yasen is spread with respect to old ONI reports released in early 90's that compared Yasen broad band sound with Sea Wolf and rated it higher in broad band sound. This one



Yasen has since then gone through atleast 2 design changes and the Yasen-M is 4+ class SSGN.

I am told by some one who served in Russian Navy that the Akula can hold against any thing out there in its own territorial waters.

Yasen gives Russian Navy a big assymetric advantage in Blue Seas of Pacific and Atlantic and can take on USN CBG

If you read the book by Norman Polmar , when he showed ONI estimates to Russian Submarine Designer he laughed looking at it and said to him why do you think we will not get better than that

Norman Polmar concludes that Russian 4th Gen Subs will beat US submarine on Noise Level and exceeds its quiteness.

But I should add one thing here submarine warfare is far more than quiteness and quiteness is just one critical of the 4-5 parameter at tactical level to compare two subs ......this whole myth of quiteness being every thing was created by US navy and its media because thats the only advantage they held for long , while Soviet Russian submarine were superior in Depth , Speed , Weapons , Nonacoustic sensors and Hydrodynamics.

I am sure when US comes to know yasen is better in quiteness , they would turn back and say quiteness is not every thing

Yeah, don't waste your time.

gems like :

"Akula-II at or below tactical speed is potentially quieter than a 688(i) at or below tactical speed, but her sonar is absolutely terrible compared to that of the American boat."
"A Seawolf at its tactical speed is quieter than Severodvinsk at 10 knots, if she slows down the advantage only grows, and worse news for the Russian skipper is that his sonar is a few generations behind."

-betray a person who probably read cold war era American (or British, whatever) literature, and though with great relief that in the 1980s the F-16 could handle any SOviet fighter thrown at it.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?212191-9th-Virginia-class-SSN-delivered-a-year-ahead-of-Schedule&p=6164728&viewfull=1#post6164728

A good example of why MP.net is a joke, and the expertise levels of "western sub fans".

LOL! This guy knows more about Severodvinsk than Russian navy.

Just went to that link and had a short read and I was a little surprised at you Austin...

artjomh , those db figures are from real world but those are just estimates ...just read up on Noise of Submarine on FAS and you will get more info.

To be honest the only opinion in that thread I have any respect for is Artjomh.

Artjomh to the Soviet and Russian Navy is like SOC to US intelligence... and for the same reasons.

Arjtomh is good no doubt but he is not infallible.

He can be more courteous if he think he knows more than the rest rather then bombarding with unkind words.

On the topic , you have to read lot of open source material available like those presented in US congress and from know unbaised author like Norman Polmar etc and then draw your own conclusion.

The Severodvinsk hasn't been in the water all that long and her improved sister ships have not even hit the water yet, yet the US is giving performance information out like they know more than the Russian Navy does.

It is nothing personal... I don't believe US information about how stealthy an F-22 really is or how stealthy they think the PAK FA might be either.

Artjomh is certainly not infallible... no one is... not even me.

But even when I don't agree with his opinions I still respect them... as with Vlad and SOC and Jonesy from Keypublishing. They served and have an idea of what they are talking about from personal experience...

I am told by some one who served in Russian Navy that the Akula can hold against any thing out there in its own territorial waters.

If you listen to this person... why don't you listen to Artjomh?

On the topic , you have to read lot of open source material available like those presented in US congress and from know unbaised author like Norman Polmar etc and then draw your own conclusion.

The Americans are perfectly happy to lie when it suits them.

Look at the WMD debacle with Iraq as an example of using information and "estimates" that suited their agenda.

Added to that the very strong US believe in its technical superiority and US strong propaganda and I really don't rate the information coming from the US. They will likely happily manipulate the evidence one way or the other to suit their current needs so I will not put much trust in the figures and charts they release.