Werewolf wrote:WW2 Tiger tank propaganda and US Iraq war Abrams propaganda to what you just said.
Do you have any reasons to believe that the AN/BQQ-10(V4) sonar processing system ; WLR-10 threat warning system and WLR-8(V) surveillance receiver are not top of their class ?
What are their Russian analogues ?
Being Top of their class and being somehow magical "IMMUNE" like you said, is a big difference.
Russia has the best PVO that does not mean that all their systems are immune against all kind of threats, even tho it was designed to cover each other, and one person who would watch only russian PVO technology but no foreign and not the technology that is used to destroy SAMs, being onesided and ignorant such a person could possibly think that russian PVO is immune against all attacks, but that does not mean its true.
You either should choose your words more wisely and that avoid to clearify yourself or avoid using hardlines at all.
Werewolf wrote: WW2 Tiger tank propaganda and US Iraq war Abrams propaganda to what you just said.
When Tiger crews believed own propaganda which were aimed at Soviet Union that Tiger tank is indestructible and than drove into battle without formation and were shot to pieces.
Or a video of an Abrams tank crew that was interviewed by a reporter right before they were heading out for mission, after they were getting order to head out, the crew stopped the interview, commander and gunner put on headphones from their old CD Walkmans, one smiled into camera and said " heavy metal" and they drove away.
I would be scared to have to serve with such loose,undisciplined and plain dangerously stupid people.
Honestly speaking, i say the Abrams is more akin to the King Tiger rather than its Tiger predecessor.
As for the Abrams crew, i seem to remember one documentary where the Abrams crew constantly played/hosted rock songs in the background of there comms to the surrounding units/squads even during combat, talk about arrogance.
Werewolf wrote:Being Top of their class and being somehow magical "IMMUNE" like you said, is a big difference.
Triangulation of any radio transmissions by a submarine is a sure way for sub-hunters to learn the submarine's location. But these type of technologies have not matured enough in any country to locate the Ohio class submarines. So if they cannot be detected , obviously they are immune from being hit .
Ergo , by the time they are detected the Ohio can easily fire the MK 48 Mod 7 which has advanced counter-countermeasure capabilities .
Will the RPK 8 be able to intercept it , I do not know but the MK 48 Mod 7 was certainly enhanced keeping the RBU 6000 in mind .
Werewolf wrote:Being Top of their class and being somehow magical "IMMUNE" like you said, is a big difference.
Triangulation of any radio transmissions by a submarine is a sure way for sub-hunters to learn the submarine's location. But these type of technologies have not matured enough in any country to locate the Ohio class submarines. So if they cannot be detected , obviously they are immune from being hit .
Ergo , by the time they are detected the Ohio can easily fire the MK 48 Mod 7 which has advanced counter-countermeasure capabilities .
Will the RPK 8 be able to intercept it , I do not know but the MK 48 Mod 7 was certainly enhanced keeping the RBU 6000 in mind .
The Ohio class submarines are anything but stealthy.No offense but the Ohio class is one of the crappiest Submarines US navy have.. you are speaking about technology from the 70's dude and that came to service in the the start of the 80's. . that is submarines with about 35 years in service .
and is original ICBM missiles Trident I ,already expired ,became a dinosaur and now they using the soon to be outdated Trident II with 25 years in service. Ohios are more than 30 years old submarines dude.. how can you boast about such submarine technology when is totally obsolete tech by any today standard. For sure any nuke is dangerous weather is launched by north korea or US.. but if you are looking for something state of the art.. look no futher than the newest Russian Borei Class when it comes to nukes subs.. commissioned in 2013.. albeit its ICBM missiles had some problems ,they are fixing it.. but still in comparison with 30 years old Trident missiles.. the Bulavas 2014 missiles are head and shoulders above what American have. Even the Chief of Staff of US army ,when he talk about RUssian nuclear forces ,last week his words was Impressive. In other words..superior to anything they have.
When it comes to attack stealth submarines you have the Yasen class , competition of the Americans Virginia and seawolf class. and here is a little better for US navy..in comparisons to their ohios that is, their Seawolf and Virginias only have 10-15 years in service but they use obsolete weapons ,like tomahawks with 30 years of service.. only useful against third world countries ,compare that with the Yasen class with supersonic state of the art Club missiles,that albeit the metal hull of Severodvinsk was laid down in the 90s ,the electronics and weapons are modern.. The Second submarine in the series Kazan will be 100% everything cutting edge ,everything brand new and will be commissioned in 2015. Most US navy is seriously over estimated. I hear from time to time how their Subs are detected and chased in the mediterranean by Russia subs. Last time they had one in the black sea when the conflict began in Ukraine.
Compare the yasen 600 meters test depth vs the 240 m of the virginia class. compare the yasen 32x Universal Cruise missiles Land/anti-ship/anti-submarine Kalibr supersonic missiles from 700km anti-ship version up to 3600km land attack plus 10 torpedos.vs the Virginia class 12x very old subsonic tomahawks with half the range and performance. and about 30 torpedos with a limited 50km range. Yasen wins in technology ,stealthiness ,SOnar ,weapons ,and submarine performance. NATO have nothing like this..
Those cruise missiles will be universal for every new Submarine,warship made. Basically Russia can snipe with torpedos or cruise missiles as far as 700km away..and attack land from farther away. No Nato warship or submarine will know what hit them.. You can read what Pentagon defense experts thinks about Russian missiles in the video..
Once the OHIO class subs have powered up their batteries, the submarines can sail to the bottom of coastal waters and remain undetected for days .Hunting for quiet OHIO class submarines in the shallow waters of the littorals is akin to trying to identify the sound of a single car engine in the din of a major city .
What batteries?
A huge nuke sub like an Ohio class would be dead in shallow waters... it would not go any where near coastal waters except when returning to base.
There are variations in the underwater topography, with sand bars, coral reefs and channels. Different depths of water and changing salinity and temperatures alter how sounds propagate. Marine life and merchant shipping also complicate the search by generating ambient noise.
Which is exactly why no Ohio would go there... the water is too shallow for thermal layers to hide the presence of the sub... it would be a sitting duck... all SSBNs would be.
The reactor itself is designed to operate for a total of 33 years without refuelling, providing a significant advantage over other submarines that are forced to refuel.
refuelling time is largely irrelevant... no nuke sub has to refuel while on a mission and mission length is limited by onboard food storage and supply... having a fuel supply for 5 years is no disadvantage compared with 33 or 133 years in operational terms.
They rely on pump-jet propulsors for quiet operation, and they also reduce the risk of cavitation, which can cause damage to components.
They are lumbering huge vessels that would struggle in shallow coastal waters...
The AN/BQQ-10(V4) sonar processing system is the most advanced system in it's class in the world . This coupled with the WLR-10 threat warning system and the WLR-8(V) surveillance receiver makes the OHIO class submarines immune to hostile enemy actions .
Hahaha... so their weak point is clearly their vulnerability to friendly enemy actions...
There is no such thing as immune. And give us a detailed description of the equivalent systems on board French, British, Japanese, and Russian submarines detailing why these old American sets are superior...
Do you have any reasons to believe that the AN/BQQ-10(V4) sonar processing system ; WLR-10 threat warning system and WLR-8(V) surveillance receiver are not top of their class ?
What are their Russian analogues ?
You are the one making the claim... you should be telling us.
Honestly speaking, i say the Abrams is more akin to the King Tiger rather than its Tiger predecessor.
Tiger or King Tiger... do they just drive forward through minefields convinced of their invincibility... that is what immune means...
GarryB wrote:And give us a detailed description of the equivalent systems on board French, British, Japanese, and Russian submarines detailing why these old American sets are superior...
That's precisely my point GarryB . I would have named them had they existed. The European analogues do not exist .
Do Russian analogues exist ? You probably will know better.
Akulas now reportedly have sound levels equal to or lower than U.S. Los Angeles and possibly the future Virginia-class submarines. It does not represent a particularly severe challenge for the U.S. Navy. "It's meaningless, because they don't have the money to fully operate them and they have so few of them,
U.S. Navy still outclasses Russia in anti-submarine warfare (ASW), enabling it to better locate and track Russian subs.
ASW is not simply dueling submarines. It includes aircraft, and helicopters operating from destroyers, where the United States continues to have a significant lead. And it's the computers and communications that sort of ties all of that together .
max steel wrote:Akulas now reportedly have sound levels equal to or lower than U.S. Los Angeles and possibly the future Virginia-class submarines. It does not represent a particularly severe challenge for the U.S. Navy. "It's meaningless, because they don't have the money to fully operate them and they have so few of them,
U.S. Navy still outclasses Russia in anti-submarine warfare (ASW), enabling it to better locate and track Russian subs.
ASW is not simply dueling submarines. It includes aircraft, and helicopters operating from destroyers, where the United States continues to have a significant lead. And it's the computers and communications that sort of ties all of that together .
US ASW capabilities rely on their detection assets being able to operate in a non-threatening environment. Its more geared to detecting SSN/SSGN preying on shipping routes or HATO surface groups, but Russia simply isn't faced with the same requirements, so has no need to such advanced and extensive capabilities.
In contrast, Russia's primary role for its navy will be (a) protecting her coastal areas and denying HATO its amphibious landing capabilities (b) protecting SSBN in their bastions. In both scenarios', the contested areas will be well within Russian onshore force projection zones and any HATO ASW assets will need to function in EXTREME threat environments. Its no point having the worlds best subsea detection electronics and unparalled processing power if the air/sea detection assets cannot survive long enough to sweep the contested areas.
max steel wrote:Akulas now reportedly have sound levels equal to or lower than U.S. Los Angeles and possibly the future Virginia-class submarines. It does not represent a particularly severe challenge for the U.S. Navy. "It's meaningless, because they don't have the money to fully operate them and they have so few of them,
U.S. Navy still outclasses Russia in anti-submarine warfare (ASW), enabling it to better locate and track Russian subs.
ASW is not simply dueling submarines. It includes aircraft, and helicopters operating from destroyers, where the United States continues to have a significant lead. And it's the computers and communications that sort of ties all of that together .
US ASW capabilities rely on their detection assets being able to operate in a non-threatening environment. Its more geared to detecting SSN/SSGN preying on shipping routes or HATO surface groups, but Russia simply isn't faced with the same requirements, so has no need to such advanced and extensive capabilities.
In contrast, Russia's primary role for its navy will be (a) protecting her coastal areas and denying HATO its amphibious landing capabilities (b) protecting SSBN in their bastions. In both scenarios', the contested areas will be well within Russian onshore force projection zones and any HATO ASW assets will need to function in EXTREME threat environments. Its no point having the worlds best subsea detection electronics and unparalled processing power if the air/sea detection assets cannot survive long enough to sweep the contested areas.
But how will Russia protect its subs from us asw those who are targetting US cities ? Same goes for Russia how they will neutralize those usa subs targetting russia with IRBMs and Tridents because usa subs were targetting cities military bases with nuclear IRBM capable SSBNs since 1960 and was operating 3 new SSBNs during the Cuban missile crisis and at least one of them was within range of Moscow during that entire period. They had moscow in cold but they didnt fire .
And in the 1960's soviets had boomers off the coast of Hawaii.
The problem is, you will always have trouble hunting for boomers and in the end, one will always be capable of launching its weapons before being taken down. Russias concern isnt taking down the US boomer but to have theirs protected to be able to use its arsenal. Either or, if a single boomer lets off its weapons, it is game over for humanity.
Russian boomers can strike far into US within its own waters due to range of ballistic missiles. So more ssgns to provide protection for the boomers is fine. But even then, look at the ranges of improved kilo, add in the duration of time it can stay afloat, 45 days. I bet that is standard and can possibly stay afloat for longer depending how they save their fuel. Maybe or maybe not. But newer vessels may stay under water longer. Point is, they have the distance and endurance to protect a boomer to be within firibg range of a major city or infrastructure for the boomers. SSGN's are fine if you have boomers operating all over for long periods of time, which Russia will still have but not in as big of numbers. Only sub they will have nuclear in numbers are boomers and those are end game weapons.
max steel wrote:Akulas now reportedly have sound levels equal to or lower than U.S. Los Angeles and possibly the future Virginia-class submarines. It does not represent a particularly severe challenge for the U.S. Navy. "It's meaningless, because they don't have the money to fully operate them and they have so few of them,
U.S. Navy still outclasses Russia in anti-submarine warfare (ASW), enabling it to better locate and track Russian subs.
ASW is not simply dueling submarines. It includes aircraft, and helicopters operating from destroyers, where the United States continues to have a significant lead. And it's the computers and communications that sort of ties all of that together .
US ASW capabilities rely on their detection assets being able to operate in a non-threatening environment. Its more geared to detecting SSN/SSGN preying on shipping routes or HATO surface groups, but Russia simply isn't faced with the same requirements, so has no need to such advanced and extensive capabilities.
In contrast, Russia's primary role for its navy will be (a) protecting her coastal areas and denying HATO its amphibious landing capabilities (b) protecting SSBN in their bastions. In both scenarios', the contested areas will be well within Russian onshore force projection zones and any HATO ASW assets will need to function in EXTREME threat environments. Its no point having the worlds best subsea detection electronics and unparalled processing power if the air/sea detection assets cannot survive long enough to sweep the contested areas.
But how will Russia protect its subs from us asw those who are targetting US cities ? Same goes for Russia how they will neutralize those usa subs targetting russia with IRBMs and Tridents because usa subs were targetting cities military bases with nuclear IRBM capable SSBNs since 1960 and was operating 3 new SSBNs during the Cuban missile crisis and at least one of them was within range of Moscow during that entire period. They had moscow in cold but they didnt fire .
You assume that Russia needs to target US SSBNs. My point is that attempting to locate, track and shadow US boomers through the vast expanses of the Pacific and Atlantic firing zones is simply folly. No amount of resources thrown into such a venture can hope to prevent all US boomers from getting its missile salvo away, and if you cannot stop them all, don't bother trying.
Russias challenge is to protect her own counterforce deterrent from US interdiction, and the bastion concept is designed for just this purpose. Concentrate your boomers in a heavily protected area like the Sea of Okhotsk, and concentrate your defences. SSNs/SSKs and airborne ASW guard against foray by US SSNs, while air force assets enforce air and surface superiority over the region and prevent HATO ASW aircraft and ships from operating. Bulava and Sineva has enough range to strike anywhere in the US continent from Okhotsk, so there is no need to risk SSBNs in open ocean where distance from Russia mainland and ease of accessibility to US forces would greatly decrease their survivability.
Security of the Okhotsk bastion would be enhanced in times of high tension by a public and explicit policy that the presence of HATO submarine forces in the bastion will be considered to be an attack on Russias deterrent capabilities, and would be immediately met with the use of nuclear ASW weapons to remove the offending boats. There must be ZERO tolerance of HATO positioning for a quick kill against counterforce assets. Such action would speak loudly of planning for imminent first strike and immediate and resolute action would be essential. Nothing signals to the HATO warmongers about the error of their actions like a 10kT nuclear depth charge vapourising a Seawolf SSN within 5 minutes of entering Russian waters......
Finally, another consideration is the rapidly developing strategic alliance between Russia and China. I can foresee the possibility in a joint-Bastion policy where BOTH China and Russia concentrate the bulk of their boomers in Okhotsk, and BOTH countries defensive area-denial capabilities are used to project a deep and multi-layered defence screen. This would be a GAME CHANGER and would result in a huge improvement in survivability of both nations counterforce assets.
In the video the Submarine Commander says , Typhoon is a very silent SSBN and most silent in the world but AFAIK even in Russian/Soviet navy the Delta 4 was more silent then typhoon.
The commander also says NATO submarine stand out at the mouth of the sea when the Russian SSBN comes out they tail it , How do the Russian Sub manage to evade it if a SSN starts to tail from the start ?
Austin wrote:In the video the Submarine Commander says , Typhoon is a very silent SSBN and most silent in the world but AFAIK even in Russian/Soviet navy the Delta 4 was more silent then typhoon.
The commander also says NATO submarine stand out at the mouth of the sea when the Russian SSBN comes out they tail it , How do the Russian Sub manage to evade it if a SSN starts to tail from the start ?
Both claims are total rubbish. Think about the NATO claim and how ludicrous it is. Does NATO know the detailed schedule of Russian submarine operations. And Russia supposedly has no means of detection of NATO subs near its bases? Yeah, right.
The Typhoon is an overly huge monstrosity that would be noisier than other Soviet models simply due to its size. Fixing the screw cavitation problem does not fix the resonant cavity aspect of submarines. Larger hulls also deform more and this has an acoustic signature as well. And of course having two screws is noisier than having one.
Austin wrote:In the video the Submarine Commander says , Typhoon is a very silent SSBN and most silent in the world but AFAIK even in Russian/Soviet navy the Delta 4 was more silent then typhoon.
The commander also says NATO submarine stand out at the mouth of the sea when the Russian SSBN comes out they tail it , How do the Russian Sub manage to evade it if a SSN starts to tail from the start ?
Both claims are total rubbish. Think about the NATO claim and how ludicrous it is. Does NATO know the detailed schedule of Russian submarine operations. And Russia supposedly has no means of detection of NATO subs near its bases? Yeah, right.
The Typhoon is an overly huge monstrosity that would be noisier than other Soviet models simply due to its size. Fixing the screw cavitation problem does not fix the resonant cavity aspect of submarines. Larger hulls also deform more and this has an acoustic signature as well. And of course having two screws is noisier than having one.
On the other hand, the Typhoon has a pair of pressure hulls within an overall secondary hull, so has a significant capacity for acoustic-deadening technologies to mask the transmitted sounds from internal machinery and crew activities. Given that the outer hull is not a pressure-bearing structure, I presume that the space between the hulls is pressure balanced so it wouldn't tend to deform, and therefore wouldn't generate noise. Can't say much about hydrodynamic noise signature, but they were well streamlined boats so i can't imagine they generate much more noise than a more "conventional" SSBN hullform.
Both claims are total rubbish. Think about the NATO claim and how ludicrous it is. Does NATO know the detailed schedule of Russian submarine operations. And Russia supposedly has no means of detection of NATO subs near its bases? Yeah, right.
I think NATO employs intel vessel and its not unkown fact that SSN track or atleast try to track SSBN and russian captain says that so.
Yes there is a Soviet system called MGK-608. I think was nothing like the coverage of SOSUS, mainly concentrated around the SSBN Bastions & was one of the things that atrophied with the fall of USSR.
They are deploying a newer M version now. And they offer an Export version too http://concern-agat.ru/en/production/hydroacoustics-hydroacoustic-equipment/mgk-608e-passive-stationary-sonar-system
franco wrote:I have seen this unit mentioned, 989th underwater observation center, military unit #40162 (Belushya Guba). Not sure of use or if it actually exists.
Just like how NATO was VERY secretive with their SOSUS.... I'm guessing the Russians are just as secretive....
hoom wrote:Yes there is a Soviet system called MGK-608. I think was nothing like the coverage of SOSUS, mainly concentrated around the SSBN Bastions & was one of the things that atrophied with the fall of USSR.
They are deploying a newer M version now. And they offer an Export version too http://concern-agat.ru/en/production/hydroacoustics-hydroacoustic-equipment/mgk-608e-passive-stationary-sonar-system
Well i know the soviets have a Stationary Passive Sonar System but i was wondering if they had them deployed at mass numbers forming webs and stuff or not? Like actual data instead of rumors....
After playing a few hours in the new game called Cold Waters (Its a really good Simplified Sub Sim game and i HIGHLY recommend it)
I'm actually curious of the state of Passive/Active sonar systems in the USSR back then and the current state of Russian Sonar Tech....
From what i get, Back in the USSR Era, the Soviets were behind in Passive Sonar tech (Active Sonar works fine from what i got).... Some might say that this is BS but seeing people say that the Soviet Doctrine in Sonar was more liberal than the west in use of active sonar must mean that it is indeed inferior back then (It improved with the akula i heard but no concrete evidence from what i got)......
Where the soviets would try to actively sniff out "Ghost" US SSNs/SSKs like the Los Angeles class with active (because they know that if they spotted the LA SSN in passive, the LA would have had a firing solution rigged up for them already hence heavy use of Active sonar), the US sub COs would cut off the hands of any sailor that touches that Active sonar button...
Anyone got docs on Soviet Sub warfare Doctrine and Documents?
Also does the modern Russian navy still rely on this or have they gotten better at Sonar tech already? (can they track the new Virginia class subs that is supposedly the Quietest sub in the world currently [running in Ultra Silent mode])
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
sepheronx
