Submarine Tactics

[Nautilus]

I thought I kick off a discussion on submarine operation and tactics in general. I hope this is the right forum and the title is sufficiently close. :)

Russian and Chinese subs are often described as nosier than their western counterparts. The way I understand it, SSK's generate quite a bit of noise when running on diesel engine but comparatively little noise when running on batteries. Since there are no cooling pumps (?) that have to run permanently like on SSN's, I assume SSK's can be totally silent while holding a position right?

So would it be save to say, that SSK's generate noise proportionally to the speed they are traveling at (on batteries that is)?

[Francois]

I thought I kick off a discussion on submarine operation and tactics in general. I hope this is the right forum and the title is sufficiently close. :)

Russian and Chinese subs are often described as nosier than their western counterparts. The way I understand it, SSK's generate quite a bit of noise when running on diesel engine but comparatively little noise when running on batteries. Since there are no cooling pumps (?) that have to run permanently like on SSN's, I assume SSK's can be totally silent while holding a position right?

So would it be save to say, that SSK's generate noise proportionally to the speed they are traveling at (on batteries that is)?

First, you have to understand that to propel a sub, whatever the power plant, you have to make noise. All the work is on reducing this noise.
SSks, when running on batteries, are quite silent. But a nuke at slow speed usually (at least on all western designs) does'nt need too use its pumps. The circulation is done naturally. So it can be very quiet too.

The SSK have to compromise between, while running on batteries, speed and time. As the comsumption (Amps per hour) draw the batteries out the more you pump on it.

And finally, if I understood your question, a submarine staying on the ground with all systems off is just quiet. No noise emitted. Just a sitting hull.

[gf0012-aust]

a submarine staying on the ground with all systems off is just quiet. No noise emitted. Just a sitting hull.

a sitting hull is still detectable (depending on which country is doing the searching and hunting)

acoustic transmission is just one element of sub detection - I suspect that Francois is giving you a sanitised overview.. ;)

[Francois]

a sitting hull is still detectable (depending on which country is doing the searching and hunting)

acoustic transmission is just one element of sub detection.
Yes, Gary, you are right, a hull can be detected even without moving, but the hunter has to go active... And it is rather not good.
And I know few ways to avoid to be detected this way also... or just confuse the hunter!

[gf0012-aust]

Yes, Gary, you are right, a hull can be detected even without moving, but the hunter has to go active... And it is rather not good.
And I know few ways to avoid to be detected this way also... or just confuse the hunter!

Generally speaking you're right, but again, depending on which country we are talking about, there are ways to find a sleeper without going active.

There are 4-5 countries that have alternative passive detection systems capable of finding "sea bed sleepers"

[Nautilus]

Ok... so would it be save to assume that a (well maintained) Kilo class sub can achieve the same level level of silency at a lower speed compared to a modern western SSK?

Also... I've been reading some other threads here over the last couple of days and I believe somewhere it was mentioned that a larger sub is harder to detect than a smaller one? This would have to be in regards to passive sensors as a large sub has more surface area for a active sonar to detect. I still don't quite understand the principle of this?!

[gf0012-aust]

Ok... so would it be save to assume that a (well maintained) Kilo class sub can achieve the same level level of silency at a lower speed compared to a modern western SSK?

In my experience - no. The latest Kilos that India has just received still has lousy old generation propellers. IMV, they've compromised capability by not spending a fraction more money. bad penny pinching

Also... I've been reading some other threads here over the last couple of days and I believe somewhere it was mentioned that a larger sub is harder to detect than a smaller one? This would have to be in regards to passive sensors as a large sub has more surface area for a active sonar to detect. I still don't quite understand the principle of this?!

A sub is a transducer, at an acoustic level, the bigger it is, the easier it is to manage noise and vibration. It's a contradiction of the physical low observability principles that would apply to surface vessels, or combat aircraft. The medium is different, hence NV issues and detection methods are almost opposite.

Larger subs like the Collins Class also have the appropriate mass to include fixed flank arrays - that means that they are incredibly capable of long range broad detection - far more so than 95-99% (IMO) of all other existing subs.

Smaller subs are designed for different roles, they are not fleet assests, fundamentally they are coastal and/or littoral assets. each role has advantages and disadvantages according to the owning navies doctrine.

[Nautilus]

Was this the motivation to build the Collins class larger or does more have to do with the need for range given that Australia in on the Pacific?

How useful are larger SSK's in littoral areas? Are the at risk to run aground? Sorry if these questions seem silly...

Can anyone recommend a good book on submarines (and other warships)? I've been looking at "Combat Fleets.." but the price is just a tad steep ;)

[gf0012-aust]

Was this the motivation to build the Collins class larger or does more have to do with the need for range given that Australia in on the Pacific?

Aust is responsible for 1/9th of the worlds major oceans/waterways - so we have a large backyard to manage. Bear in mind that these were designed at the arse end of the cold war, so there was a vision of using them as "fleet assist" units as well as lone rangers. They have very high tempo rates (days available on station) so add the numbers up and you can start to work out what they were designed to do.

How useful are larger SSK's in littoral areas?

Very useful, plus add in the fact that apart from new detection systems being available, they're also going to be armed with the Mk48 Blk 70, designed specifically for the littorals.

Are the at risk to run aground?

any poor bugger can run aground, look at the poor pom who hit the only big rock off of WA. Stuff happens.


Can anyone recommend a good book on submarines (and other warships)? I've been looking at "Combat Fleets.." but the price is just a tad steep ;)

Bakers is actually one of my favourites, but you can pick up Janes Naval etc for less than $90 USD if you're prepared to get a version thats 5 years old.
I personally prefer Bakers over Janes, but they both have pluses and minuses I guess

[Francois]

Gary, I was trying to comply to the internet-mean-knowledge, and not to give tricks away.
Big subs also have the advantage that, as any ship, the bigger the fatsrer. It is a naval rule since boats are sailing the seas. Plus, you have more room for silencing devices.

I remenber that Waller sunk few boats in Rimpac 2000 in 70m waters.
That is not deep (shallow) near Hawaii.

[gf0012-aust]

Gary, I was trying to comply to the internet-mean-knowledge, and not to give tricks away.
Big subs also have the advantage that, as any ship, the bigger the fatsrer. It is a naval rule since boats are sailing the seas. Plus, you have more room for silencing devices.

I remenber that Waller sunk few boats in Rimpac 2000 in 70m waters.
That is not deep (shallow) near Hawaii.

I missed the subtlety of your message.. ;)

IIRC Sheehan evaded a concentrated attack by a dedicated DTF and a flight of Orions ex Guam, and she was within the 12 mile limit in a test area - that close to shore is not normal and can be decidedly uncomfortable for the pursued...

They still didn't find them

[Nautilus]

How much of a difference do thermal layers make under water? If a sub went to 200-300m depth, would it significantly harder to detect it than say at 30m from the same distance?

[Nautilus]

Bakers is actually one of my favourites, but you can pick up Janes Naval etc for less than $90 USD if you're prepared to get a version thats 5 years old.
I personally prefer Bakers over Janes, but they both have pluses and minuses I guess

Good to know that it is a good book but still a bit too expensive for my taste. I can't write it off as a business expense ;)

What other books are worthwile (lets say in the price range under $100)? I am particularly interested in submarines, sub warfare and tactics but also in warship design in general. Recommendations highly appreciated :)

[gf0012-aust]

How much of a difference do thermal layers make under water? If a sub went to 200-300m depth, would it significantly harder to detect it than say at 30m from the same distance?

30m is more or less a death wish under combat conditions. anything in the sky with a beedy eye would have a good chance of seeing you - unless the water you were in was a variation of the Yarra - then you'd never be found. ;)

[Pendekar]

the rule is, the deeper the sub go, the safer it is. higher pressure deep underwater will prevent cavitation noise and that mean the sub can travel at fairly high speed with minimal risk of detection, plus better sonar performance.

i've read somewhere that Russian kilos was called a "black hole" by NATO personals for it's capability to "disappear".

Generally speaking you're right, but again, depending on which country we are talking about, there are ways to find a sleeper without going active.

There are 4-5 countries that have alternative passive detection systems capable of finding "sea bed sleepers"

how is it done? can u be more specific? i heard about the blue Laser onboard the RORSAT that was suppose to penetrate deep underwater. is this what u mean? or maybe a MAD type sensor? or maybe a new USN active sonar system that cause some environmental fiasco few years ago and claimed to be able to detect a sub 300 miles away?

i'm well aware of how a broadband sonar search work, but i'm not quite understand about narrowband. how was it searching for dicreet frequencies fare any better then searching in wide spectrum?

[gf0012-aust]

the rule is, the deeper the sub go, the safer it is.

Not true

higher pressure deep underwater will prevent cavitation noise and that mean the sub can travel at fairly high speed with minimal risk of detection, plus better sonar performance.

Not true

i've read somewhere that Russian kilos was called a "black hole" by NATO personals for it's capability to "disappear".

It was in reference to a quantum leap that the russians made in noise management of their prev generation of subs. It was relatively true then (thanks mainly to Toshiba) , it is certainly not as true now. There are any number of subs that are quieter than a Russiam Kilo (export Kilos are a different beast altogether)

how is it done? can u be more specific? i heard about the blue Laser onboard the RORSAT that was suppose to penetrate deep underwater. is this what u mean? or maybe a MAD type sensor? or maybe a new USN active sonar system that cause some environmental fiasco few years ago and claimed to be able to detect a sub 300 miles away?

There is nothing in the public domain about current systems.

i'm well aware of how a broadband sonar search work, but i'm not quite understand about narrowband. how was it searching for dicreet frequencies fare any better then searching in wide spectrum?

I didn't say broadband, I referred to a flank array system allowing broader capability.

[Francois]

Nautilus, there are loads of books talking about tactics and sub history.
I will recommend you to search in Amazon.com and read the comments from readers.

Pendekar, the dynamics of sound propagation in the water is nothing like a given simple equation.
You can, at the same time, not hear a contact at few yards from you (see Ehime maru tragedy), and get a contact at 1000 nm.

Deeper doesn't mean safer either. And thermal layer never lay at the same depth. Sometime you can have several layers, and sometime none.
The submarine has to study its environment in a hourly basis. Nothing is given herebelow.

You see, Gary, you made raise eyebrows and questions... :rolleyes:

Blue lasers in Rorsat is still sci-fi too. Sounds like DiMercurio hehehe!!

[gf0012-aust]

Pendekar, the dynamics of sound propagation in the water is nothing like a given simple equation.
You can, at the same time, not hear a contact at few yards from you (see Ehime maru tragedy), and get a contact at 1000 nm.

Agree, you can record a sounding charge going off at literally 3000 miles, but then not hear a fish fart 150ft away. Water is an odd medium with lots of variables.

You see, Gary, you made raise eyebrows and questions... :rolleyes:

oh well, at least web is smiling as he'd getting more site hits!

Blue lasers in Rorsat is still sci-fi too. Sounds like DiMercurio hehehe!!

it's bad enough trying to generate approp length for the new generation DVD's - let alone send them 90,000m miles through space and then penetrate water at maximum interrogative depth. ;)

[Francois]

i've read somewhere that Russian kilos was called a "black hole" by NATO personals for it's capability to "disappear".

Pekendar, I have never seen any NATO document stating that.
This is pure fiction (i.e. Patrick Robinson), and Kilos are not the quietest subs around, from far.
Though the Pr636 have been improved in this area (redesign of the propelled, added accoustic devices, and all), but they kept the same motors then 877s. And these motors were already too weak and not flexible at the time.
Plus, the redesign of the propellers have them quieter, but the gain is lower.

Less power egal less flexibility.
471s and O-class have the best weight/power ratio in the world ! (for SSKs of course).:coffee

[Nautilus]

Yeah... in fact I went to Amazon last night and ordered a number of books. Looking forward to reading them soon. :D

I read that the Kilo's are equipped with AA missiles, presumably to shoot down choppers searching. Seems like an interesting capability - how come no such system is used on western subs?

Doesn't the effiiciency of a sub largely depend on its crew? How do countries like Russia, China, Iran, India and Pakistan stack up in terms of training of their submarine force?

[Francois]

I read that the Kilo's are equipped with AA missiles, presumably to shoot down choppers searching. Seems like an interesting capability - how come no such system is used on western subs?

Because it is a little anti-doctrine for a sub to use AAMs.
This being said, the strella mounted on the Kilos are just manpads, in the sail.
So the sub has to surface and have a guy ready in the sail to shoot.
During this time, it is a sitting duck...

Doesn't the effiiciency of a sub largely depend on its crew? How do countries like Russia, China, Iran, India and Pakistan stack up in terms of training of their submarine force?
Exactly, depends a lot on its crew.
Crew, systems, platform... it is a whole lot.
Russia are lacking because of lack of funds. During cold war, they mainly used conscripts in their subs (except management, of course), and it is not very good.
The others are missing training time, training with other navies, lack of funds, and lots of problems due to poor maintenance and all.

[Awang se]

I read that the Kilo's are equipped with AA missiles, presumably to shoot down choppers searching. Seems like an interesting capability - how come no such system is used on western subs?

in order to launch a SAM, the sub need to at least to surface part of it sail. but it's not like the sub can go from 300 feet to surface in a blink of an eye. it is a slow approach to the surface. usually when the sub reach the depth of 100 feet, it is almost likely that the aircraft have already acquire the sub visualy, provided they don't already track the sub. at 60 feet, the sub already found itself on the receiving end of an ASW torp. either they go back to the depth and evade the torp, or they can keep ascending and hope they can shoot back at the plane before the torp get them first.

[Awang se]

I didn't say broadband, I referred to a flank array system allowing broader capability

in deep ocean, i prefer towed array for long range tonal detection. it's much more sensitive and less troubled by the flow noise on ship body. Flank array is good but only at very low speed (i think the best speed is around 3 knots). higher then 5 knots, the array is quite useless.

[gf0012-aust]

in order to launch a SAM, the sub need to at least to surface part of it sail. but it's not like the sub can go from 300 feet to surface in a blink of an eye. it is a slow approach to the surface. usually when the sub reach the depth of 100 feet, it is almost likely that the aircraft have already acquire the sub visualy, provided they don't already track the sub. at 60 feet, the sub already found itself on the receiving end of an ASW torp. either they go back to the depth and evade the torp, or they can keep ascending and hope they can shoot back at the plane before the torp get them first.

No, not necessarily true. The new SAM's are able to launched underwater. They can either be forced out under pressure or swim out in specialised sabot.

[Francois]

No, not necessarily true. The new SAM's are able to launched underwater. They can either be forced out under pressure or swim out in specialised sabot.
But, Gary, he was refering to the Kilo's Grails missiles, in the casing in the sail.
Last I heard about them, was said they do not go to sea with them anyway.

[gf0012-aust]

But, Gary, he was refering to the Kilo's Grails missiles, in the casing in the sail.
Last I heard about them, was said they do not go to sea with them anyway.

my bad, I misread Awang-se's post and thought he was referring to subs in general using SAMs.

I was under the distinct impression that the majority of large subs carried a short SAM component of MANPADs. (not ideal, but better than zilch!)

A semi-surface sail launch isn't exactly the best way to go about your business - I think it died in the bum as a useful idea some time ago, although there are indications that the Chinese are trying to resurrect the idea again.

[Francois]

my bad, I misread Awang-se's post and thought he was referring to subs in general using SAMs.

I was under the distinct impression that the majority of large subs carried a short SAM component of MANPADs. (not ideal, but better than zilch!).

From my personal experience, they may be carried, but it is a really sledom occurence. On spec ops or if the sub has to make some portcall in a "red" listed place.

A semi-surface sail launch isn't exactly the best way to go about your business - I think it died in the bum as a useful idea some time ago, although there are indications that the Chinese are trying to resurrect the idea again.
Yes, I heard that too. Hence my topic about having an S-300 in a Xia on another forum (at least it would be useful at something, uh?).
I don't like useless assets! :D

[Nautilus]

I believe the Germans are looking at developing a AAM which can be launched while submerged for the U212 follow on class.

I wonder how such a missile would aquire its target given that the precise location of a chopper can't be determined from underwater unless it is dipping its sonar. If it simply locks onto the first heatsource (if it can even find one) then there is the danger of shooting down a neutral or allied plane/chopper.

[Francois]

I believe the Germans are looking at developing a AAM which can be launched while submerged for the U212 follow on class.
Everybody has one system to show (just go on DCN, HDW sites, you will see).
Now, sonme concept are presently taken at sea, but it is not available to public knowledge.

I wonder how such a missile would aquire its target given that the precise location of a chopper can't be determined from underwater unless it is dipping its sonar. If it simply locks onto the first heatsource (if it can even find one) then there is the danger of shooting down a neutral or allied plane/chopper.
You can not find this kind of information online or in mass-media, Naut.
This being said, the physics down on earth (and underwater) are the same for us all, so...

[Pendekar]

the targeting system is the problem here. i assume the trageting system (radar, laser...) can be mast mounted on submarine sail. and that mean going to periscope depth, a pleasant approach in peacetime, but a suicidal undertaking with the ASW aircraft buzing above.

[Francois]

Reason why you don't need to surface anymore.
Acquisition is done by other means. There are restrictions on the depth, but it is not that close to surface.

[Awang se]

there's plenty of techniques to acquire a target for sub launch AAM whithout going to periscope depth, and the targeting system doesn't have to be on the launch platform. modern AAM don't require a lock before launch, they just need cuing and they'll acquire the target after they break out of water.

[Nautilus]

That doesn't address the risk of shooting down a friendly or neutral who is simply passing by in the same area.

Targetting system not on the sub? Kinda only leaves satellites. In my understanding subs need to float a transponder to the surfact to communicate with satellites which kinda negates the whole purpose of a stealthy missile launch from deep below.

If there were surface assets nearby able to track a hostile anti-sub chopper than there wouldn't be much point shooting the missile from the sub.

[gf0012-aust]

That doesn't address the risk of shooting down a friendly or neutral who is simply passing by in the same area.

Targetting system not on the sub? Kinda only leaves satellites. In my understanding subs need to float a transponder to the surfact to communicate with satellites which kinda negates the whole purpose of a stealthy missile launch from deep below.

If there were surface assets nearby able to track a hostile anti-sub chopper than there wouldn't be much point shooting the missile from the sub.

There are systems that have been trialled in things such as Silent Hammer. You're not going to find much info on the internet though.

there's also (in the case of the USN) using technology solutions provided by ForceNET etc...

[Awang se]

In my understanding subs need to float a transponder to the surfact to communicate with satellites

well, a stealthy design laser comm buoy with wire connection to the sub. i have formulated several method on how to use it, but it's rather complicated to explain it in here. but i can tell you the transmission time is minimal and by the time the canister goes to the surface, the sub can cut the wire and clear datum. besides, laser transmission is narrow and directional and the chance for enemy ESM to pickup the transmission is very small.

[Francois]

well, a stealthy design laser comm buoy with wire connection to the sub. i have formulated several method on how to use it, but it's rather complicated to explain it in here. but i can tell you the transmission time is minimal and by the time the canister goes to the surface, the sub can cut the wire and clear datum. besides, laser transmission is narrow and directional and the chance for enemy ESM to pickup the transmission is very small.
Why not a laser to shoot down the plane from 350ft below :confused: !!
It will only be a last chance weapon, because it is anti-doctrine of submarine assets.
Already, the launch of cruise missiles are not really loved by submariners, as they are being pointed at by the long smoke trail...
When you know they sometime can't hear a fishing boat just above...

[Nautilus]

There are systems that have been trialled in things such as Silent Hammer. You're not going to find much info on the internet though.

there's also (in the case of the USN) using technology solutions provided by ForceNET etc...

So tell us about it - what is Silent Hammer and ForceNET?

Francois... I don't think lasers penetrate water very well. Plus the chopper isn't necessarily directly over the sub but could be 8km away dipping its sonar.

[Francois]

Francois... I don't think lasers penetrate water very well. Plus the chopper isn't necessarily directly over the sub but could be 8km away dipping its sonar.
I was sarcastic, Naut...
Blue-green lasers are still SF.

[umair]

Thank you guys for reminding me why I gave up researching on submarines(too much info to digest, the thread gave me intellectual gas)!
Aircraft all the way.
On a more serious note, how good were those missile torps developed by the Soviets for their sub fleets? I don't remember the designations but they were a whole family, one I recall was called the Stallion.

[Elite Brain]

Anyone know the diving depth of the Collins class? That is one fine piece of machinery . Was Lockheed Martin upgrading the weapons systems for the Aussies? i forget.

[knightrider4]

That would be classified information perhaps someone on the forum may know ball park figures. Raytheon is responsible for the RCS all I know it is a deriative of the CCS Mk2 used on some 688I's and Virginia SSN's. It will make a potent platform even more capable.

[Pendekar]

Thank you guys for reminding me why I gave up researching on submarines(too much info to digest, the thread gave me intellectual gas)!
Aircraft all the way.
On a more serious note, how good were those missile torps developed by the Soviets for their sub fleets? I don't remember the designations but they were a whole family, one I recall was called the Stallion.

AFAIK stallion is a SUBROC type weapons. It's a sub launch ASW missile.

[Francois]

That would be classified information perhaps someone on the forum may know ball park figures. Raytheon is responsible for the RCS all I know it is a deriative of the CCS Mk2 used on some 688I's and Virginia SSN's. It will make a potent platform even more capable.

Yes, but first, any information related to the limits of any kind of military asset is highly classified.
Let's say it is given at 300m.

And the CDS to be implemented into the 471 class subs are indeed derivatives from CCS Mk2 as noted before.
Please note that RC never managed to meet USN's requirements regarding data-fusion. Ans RAN's is a again step above.
Also, the CCS was designed for nuke boats, therefore, is very demanding in elec power. Even 471 class is having a huge provision with her Jeumont generators, it is not a nuke.

Beside this, I know that concurrent CDS (Thales and STN Atlas) are better as far as the spec I saw. BTW, Thales is bidding on STN Atlas, for sale from BAe.

[Nautilus]

Afaik the max depth for the Collins class was 300m. However, some time ago there was an incident involving faulty valves which nearly sunk on of the subs at max depth and since then the safe max diving depth has been revised ;)

[Francois]

Afaik the max depth for the Collins class was 300m. However, some time ago there was an incident involving faulty valves which nearly sunk on of the subs at max depth and since then the safe max diving depth has been revised ;)
Knowing the material used for the 471 class, I doubt 300m is max depth...
This being said, a lot of parameters are more important then the max or crush depth to a certain extand.

[Salman78]

Russian and Chinese subs are often described as nosier than their western counterparts. The way I understand it, SSK's generate quite a bit of noise when running on diesel engine but comparatively little noise when running on batteries. Since there are no cooling pumps (?) that have to run permanently like on SSN's, I assume SSK's can be totally silent while holding a position right?

So would it be save to say, that SSK's generate noise proportionally to the speed they are traveling at (on batteries that is)?

SSK's are quieter then SSN's even when SSN's are running on batter power with reactor shut down. Reactor pumps never really stop moving and make enough noise to be picked up by a moderate sonar.

[gf0012-aust]

Afaik the max depth for the Collins class was 300m. However, some time ago there was an incident involving faulty valves which nearly sunk on of the subs at max depth and since then the safe max diving depth has been revised ;)

Max depth of the Collins has never been published. Any numerical quotes are speculation.

As for the incident, AFAIK it went beyond the notional "papered" max depth. Thank goodness for redundant specs. Those blokes deserved a long holiday after that event...

[gf0012-aust]

SSK's are quieter then SSN's even when SSN's are running on batter power with reactor shut down. Reactor pumps never really stop moving and make enough noise to be picked up by a moderate sonar.

Thats generally true, the exception to the rule being the current French and especially the new US nukes.

[Francois]

SSK's are quieter then SSN's even when SSN's are running on batter power with reactor shut down. Reactor pumps never really stop moving and make enough noise to be picked up by a moderate sonar.

Well, I don't agree.
First, you don't turn off a nuke. This is Internet legend.
Second, the pumps do not have to turn all the time. At slow speed, at least for western nuke designs (US, FR, UK), the pumps are not needing to be on, the coolant is circulating via natural circulation (how poor my English!).

SSK are not so quieter either, well, depends which one you are talking about.
The difference is not on a 10 scale level between later SSKs and current SSNs.

For max depth, you are talking crush? max op depth? max safe depth?
I mean, it doesn't mean much just like that.
Anyway, the answer is ****m. Classified.

[KGB]

Were the soviet era submarines sitting ducks?

Reading Tom Clancy's books and watching those discovery channel shows seem to suggest that the western submarines so outclassed the soviets in silencing and detection that the latter shoudln't have bothered. However in the book "Rising Tide", the soviet sub drivers interviewed clearly felt that they were a credible threat. Is the US navy just giving out propoganda or was the soviet's sonar so bad that they didn't even realize they were being tracked?

[gf0012-aust]

Were the soviet era submarines sitting ducks?

Reading Tom Clancy's books and watching those discovery channel shows seem to suggest that the western submarines so outclassed the soviets in silencing and detection that the latter shoudln't have bothered. However in the book "Rising Tide", the soviet sub drivers interviewed clearly felt that they were a credible threat. Is the US navy just giving out propoganda or was the soviet's sonar so bad that they didn't even realize they were being tracked?

If you've read Rising Tide, then you'll understand quite clearly that the Russians had their main communications cable tapped for over 30 years. As soon as they left their Northern Ports, the USN was picking up data and traffic. They knew where they were going to etc...

The classic example is the Cuban Crisis, 5 subs armed with nukes, and 4 were intercepted within 3-4 days of the ASW killer groups going active - in fact they followed them all the way through the Atlantic.

The Russians would always have managed to sink "something" - but their own expectations were that they would be lucky to get 1/10th of all US Carrier Groups - and that was with enormous fleet/land based air support.

For those who think that Russian subs were technological marvels - then the list of russian sub accidents and losses is somewhat sobering - they were invariably more dangerous to themselves than the americans.

The nuke sub that they leased to India for example sank twice prior to handing over and was considered a jinxed boat. it was carved up as soon as India sent it back at the end of the lease.

[aaaditya]

If you've read Rising Tide, then you'll understand quite clearly that the Russians had their main communications cable tapped for over 30 years. As soon as they left their Northern Ports, the USN was picking up data and traffic. They knew where they were going to etc...

The classic example is the Cuban Crisis, 5 subs armed with nukes, and 4 were intercepted within 3-4 days of the ASW killer groups going active - in fact they followed them all the way through the Atlantic.

The Russians would always have managed to sink "something" - but their own expectations were that they would be lucky to get 1/10th of all US Carrier Groups - and that was with enormous fleet/land based air support.

For those who think that Russian subs were technological marvels - then the list of russian sub accidents and losses is somewhat sobering - they were invariably more dangerous to themselves than the americans.

The nuke sub that they leased to India for example sank twice prior to handing over and was considered a jinxed boat. it was carved up as soon as India sent it back at the end of the lease.

it also suffered from a host of other problems linked to its reactors ,including radiation leak which killed atleast one indian sailor(though most of the accidents i believe were as a result of inadequate training for the indian sailors),but i believe most of the drawbacks have been rectified with the newer akula and the project885 class of vessels.:coffee

[Nautilus]

I am reading a book called "Cold War Submarines". It states that whilst US subamrines always had an edge, later Soviet nukes improved significantly in terms of noise.

I believe that the double hulls gave the Soviet boats an edge in terms of survivability,

[gf0012-aust]

I am reading a book called "Cold War Submarines". It states that whilst US subamrines always had an edge, later Soviet nukes improved significantly in terms of noise.

I believe that the double hulls gave the Soviet boats an edge in terms of survivability,

Thats the book by Polmar? The Russians managed to make significant leaps after they successfully espionaged the Toshiba technology.

IMHO, the Akulas were never as good and "cracked up" as the urban mythology goes though. The Oscars and the Sierras were far more important IMV.

[Francois]

I am reading a book called "Cold War Submarines". It states that whilst US subamrines always had an edge, later Soviet nukes improved significantly in terms of noise.

I believe that the double hulls gave the Soviet boats an edge in terms of survivability,
In fact, the double hull design (inherent of all russian designs actually), are a sign (and this was confirmed by several russian engineers) that they didn't trust their design, neither their crew. So they tried to find extra ways for survavibility.

Why do you think western designs all gave up this idea?
They prefer to work on better hull materials.
These Kilos are underpowered, and they were obliged to put tremendous nuke plants to power their SSN/SSBNs.

Gary, the Toshiba illegal transfer arrived too late to change anything!
It is rather the Walkers' bad behavior to recall.

[stephen weist]

I think the canadian navy is using a new tactic that may make it more difficult to protect a carrier. from what I can gather, the sub approaches on the surface emmiting huge clouds of smoke and then sends the crew over under the cover of the smoke screen. when enough crew are taken on board the carrier, they quickly take over the ship.

[Berserk Fury]

So far one of the quietest subs is a Kilo if it's running on it's battery.
A good tactic would be to maneuver upstream/upcurrent and then cut all engines and drift within the CBG's ASW net and then fire a nuke torpedo which is a frightening thought though I am no expert at this matter so if I am wrong, please correct me.

[gf0012-aust]

So far one of the quietest subs is a Kilo if it's running on it's battery.

Not anymore, and not for about 6 years. I can think of at least 6-7 other conventionals that are superior to the Kilo at an acoustic level


A good tactic would be to maneuver upstream/upcurrent and then cut all engines and drift within the CBG's ASW net and then fire a nuke torpedo which is a frightening thought though I am no expert at this matter so if I am wrong, please correct me.

The Russians abandoned nuke torpedoes as a bad idea. They first loaded them during the Cuban Crisis.

You do realise that the ASW net and fleet footprint in a war footing is "rather" large? It's certainly bigger (by a considerable margin) than the effects of any nuke weapon aimed at the Carrier.

[hovercraft]

when we compare agosta 90b, kilo and scorpion class subs, which is more silent and deadliest sub?

[gf0012-aust]

In my view, and based on what I know of each platform

1st Scorpene
2nd Modified Agosta 90
3rd Russian Kilo
4th Export Kilo
5th Unmodified Agosta 90

and no, I'm not going to go into specifics. ;)

[Francois]

Daphnees were rated higher then the first Kilos too.
I am tired of the "DiMercurio Syndrome"!

[gf0012-aust]

Daphnees were rated higher then the first Kilos too.
I am tired of the "DiMercurio Syndrome"!

patience my son! ;)

[Francois]

Ok dad...

[Berserk Fury]

My bad.
Haven't looked into sub warfare in a long time xP

[stephen weist]

You do not need any fancy hardware to get at a US carrier, a daring canadian killed a carrier with a old Oberon class(even kept the scope pictures to prove it). It depends on crew skill.

[gf0012-aust]

You do not need any fancy hardware to get at a US carrier, a daring canadian killed a carrier with a old Oberon class(even kept the scope pictures to prove it). It depends on crew skill.

Thats very true, but the Oberon was regarded (right up until the first Kilo was floated) as probably the best conventional in the world for its time. In some respects they are still acoustically superior to a some of the current kit still in service in some navies.

There's been any number of subs that have killed carriers in DUCT, a few of those have been genuine, quite a few have been "assisted". But in general terms proficiency and training is more useful than shiny bits of gear.

[Awang se]

You do not need any fancy hardware to get at a US carrier

kind of hard to believe, considering how far America goes to protect it's carriers.

[Berserk Fury]

lol
Interesting....
though it also depends on weather conditions etc.
Less quieter subs could also have nailed a carrier.

[stephen weist]

I think if I were go go after a carrier battle group it would be estenial to have realistic goals. firstly, the ultimate goal is to prevent the carrier from launching strikes at my country, secondly would be to sink or cripple it. give me 2 to 6 conventional oberons/uphoulders, armed with harpoons and mk48 torps. mast mounted stingers would be nice to deal with the helos. then go for the escorts, with enough of them gone the carrier would have to retire from the area. if you use 4 of your boats to take on the escorts you could ambush the carrier with the remaining two as it retires.

[Berserk Fury]

2-6 subs.
CBG's also have subs of their own... at least one.
Plus a few Aegis ships along with ASW frigates/destroyers/corvettes and ASW helos from the carrier itself.
The way I see it, the only way to get to the carrier is to sneak under the defenses, not blow a hole through it.
The moment your subs open fire, you'll give your position away.
Plus, most ships of the CBG. including the carrier, have CIWS which might be able to cut the number of direct harpoon hits by 1/2 along with the towed decoy for the carrier... it'd be pretty hard to score a hit on the carrier if the CBG is already expecting an attack or if it's under attack.

[stephen weist]

to defeat the carrier you dont have to directly attack it, all you have to do is prvent it from performing its mission. the group has limited asw assets available and by taking these away I doubt if a carrier would stay in the area too long. with 13 carriers operating the available asw platforms are spread very thin and would take sometime to shuffle.

[Berserk Fury]

But the ASW assets aren't that limited.
It's decent enough to take out a few subs.
To keep a carrier you have to prevent it from performing its mission.
How? by preventing it from launching planes.
So, in order to scare the carrier off, you have to make the subs known to the CBG which would just call in more subs to supplement the CGB.

[gf0012-aust]

Not so sure where some of you are working out your ASW screen numbers from - but I don't think it's based on a CSF config for the last 30 years. ;)

there are 11 x CSF's available. Basing the numbers on the smallest of the CSF's gives you a typical config.

Carrier + 4-6 ASW helos
1 x Tico (min) Air Warfare
2 x Air Warfare and GP skimmers (Usually AB's) + 2-4 ASW helos
2 x ASW (DDG/FFG's) + 2-4 x ASW Helos
Min of 1 nuke sub - usually 2.

Each ASW asset has access to it's on TASS derivative

Bear in mind that this is not the 7th Fleet (Pacific) which is considerably bigger and has more forces on tap + has access to a greater pool of reserve respondents like nukes, FFG/DDG's ASW, AWD and AirWarfare.

Assuming that half the helos are up, the subs are doing their guard work and the ships are in a normal disposition - then its going to take an overwhelming force to persistently breech the screen.

Thats not even looking at the issue that the USN may well profile ASW strike groups like they did in the Cold War days. The Soviets were far from confident of breaching the CSF in a period where they had far greater capability to bring persistence and saturation to the table. No other current non US navy is anywhere near the capability of the Soviet Unions anti-shipping model.

I would think anyone attempting to breech mulitple CSF's formed up into an Uber Task Group (a variation of the TF58 mentality) is going to find it very very difficult. Apart from the fact that Whiteman would have their homeports on their targetting list - and the fact that the current test trials using JDAMs etc is showing that the USAF can standoff and strike enemy assets well before they close on a CSF.

CSF's don't act like a fishing fleet, so I think maybe some people have this vision that the CSF is layed out like a D Day photo opp - they're not by a long shot. The layered zones of engagement and protection are significant and large (and are not going to appear in a public forum)

[stephen weist]

If the layered defence is so great than why do determined sub commanders consistently get inside. the inside man can sit and wait untill a well executed mass harpoon attack is underway and then throw several fish into the carriers side. yes the escorts can be replaced but that takes time.

[Berserk Fury]

Missle attacks don't work well and neither do torpedoes.
Carriers have CIWS and towed torpedo decoys.
Plus, Aegis destroyers and Tico's can shoot down missiles.
It's obviously plausible for a sub to get through despite the odds though getting out would be even harder unless all other ASW elements are destroyed.

[gf0012-aust]

If the layered defence is so great than why do determined sub commanders consistently get inside. the inside man can sit and wait untill a well executed mass harpoon attack is underway and then throw several fish into the carriers side. yes the escorts can be replaced but that takes time.

There are a couple of critical elelments that need to be covered off to be able to prosecute successfully though.

1) demonstration or capability to launch simultaneous and saturated attacks - and which current US enemy has even the remotest of similar capability to the old Soviet Union? No one - not even Russia who does have the missile technology and some platforms to get in close, The Chinese (as the contemp example) aren't anywhere near being able to mount an airborne maritime strike to the required levels

2) It assumes that the USN is willing to put a CSF within maritime strike range before sanitising the area so that they maintain air if not theatre dominance - which they've never been prepared to relinquish in the past - so why would they now?

3) It assumes that the OPFOR has sufficient and speedy resources to construct a "meeting engagement" of their choosing in both time and place and where they have the numbers. Again, to do that in volume against a CSF on a war footing is not the same as lining up for a RIMPAC or Talisman exercise. Against a Task Force the multiplication makes it significantly harder

I'm not suggesting that its impossible, as there are enough examples to show that a determined sub driver can get in close and score a hit. But, then you have to also work out whether the exercise was geared for training and experience (much like DACT) or things like whether it was an assisted shot etc...

The USN has made it pretty clear in sub warfare conferences that I've attended in the last few years that they've lost the same skillset edge that they had compred to the cold war days, principlally due to the fact that they threat matrix changed and they didn't see a compelling need to maintain that capability. Evewrything thats been coming out in the last two years (that I've seen anyway) suggests that ASW is big and large and back on the table.

It's also pertinent to remember that the estimates were that it would take approx 4+ ADCAP sized torpedoes to kill the carrier. That means that whoever is underwater and attacks has really got to get their act together to get in quickly and strike. Again in wartime footings, I think that its going to be commensurately harder - especially if they don't have the luxury of combining with other force elements to keep the CSF busy. (refer to 1, 2 and 3)

[KGB]

Weren't the OSCAR /Anteus class subs primarily designed to take engage carrier groups? I guess this reflected a asymmetric war mentality on the part of the soviets. Do you think this was an effective way to use their resources?

[gf0012-aust]

Weren't the OSCAR /Anteus class subs primarily designed to take engage carrier groups? I guess this reflected a asymmetric war mentality on the part of the soviets. well, the russians have historically always been innovative wrt submarines. Their very first subs were american - and had been rejected by the USN as a useful design. the russians were quite happy with them though

Do you think this was an effective way to use their resources?nope, I think there were better ways to go if you wanted to fight assymetrically.

[KAPITAIN]

After being abord Akula's victor's and many other class submarines and backing up what USN analysts have said the conclusion is the russian navy has now got submarines quieter than USN main fleet submarines.

Project 971 bars known to us as Akula is quieter than the current 688i submarines of the USN, and now the newer submarines or project 971 known as Akula II are even quieter.

The new project 885 yasen according to USN officals is almost as quiet as seawolf class submarines, the new borey class is quieter than the ohio's and the new lada amur class is the 2nd quietest submarine in the world.
(Conventional and AIP submarines are quieter than nukes)

How do you find a submarine? simple all you do is use whats called narrowband sonar, it has a range of around 30 miles at most and can pick up any submarine including seawolf and type 214 subs.

As for lasers in space is a load of bull theres not even a laser capible of burning a nuke out of the sky and this has been going on since the kennedy days back in the 60's.

A typhoon SSBN can carry 200 nuclear war heads if these lasers existed thier capacity to stop all 200 well i strongly doubt especialy as it would be not just one submarine launching but probably five or six as russia still has 16 submarines capible of carrying nuclear missiles. so try around 1000 warheads no lasers will stop that.

[gf0012-aust]

After being abord Akula's victor's and many other class submarines and backing up what USN analysts have said the conclusion is the russian navy has now got submarines quieter than USN main fleet submarines.

Project 971 bars known to us as Akula is quieter than the current 688i submarines of the USN, and now the newer submarines or project 971 known as Akula II are even quieter.

The new project 885 yasen according to USN officals is almost as quiet as seawolf class submarines, the new borey class is quieter than the ohio's and


I actually work in signature management for subs - so I am quite familiar with what the acoustic levels are for a variety of subs.

I can tell you quite clearly, and unequivocably that some of the statements about submarine quietness in the public arena is unmitigated rubbish.

Case in point - I know of at least 5 different sub types that are quieter than the Amur.

If the Russians are getting excited about being as quiet as a 688I then they're talking about a sub that is an order of magnitude noisier than some current subs and yet is quieter by considerable margin of approx 95% of the rest of the worlds sub types. Its acoustic difference between it and the other 95% is an order of magnitude.

How do you find a submarine? simple all you do is use whats called narrowband sonar, it has a range of around 30 miles at most and can pick up any submarine including seawolf and type 214 subs.

Sorry, thats absolute rubbish. I can assure you that in real world scenarios thats not even remotely the case.

If you think sub detection is easy, then I can think of 2 companies where you'll get a job overnight (not incl mine). Its a significantly complex undertaking - and technology available even in the last 18months is a generation ahead of prev benchmarks.

The reason why a lot of the comments made in the public arena are almost worthless is because there are a variety of detection processes that aren't even detailed in any public documents.

the new lada amur class is the 2nd quietest submarine in the world.

That is just blatant nonsense. There are at least 5 subs that are quieter - and I'm talking about dble digit decible margins.

[KAPITAIN]

All what ive said is from the USN, when the lada amur class was built ths is where i quote from it was the second quietest submarine.

It obviously is not now (lada class started in 1997 and suspended) infact i too can think of many submarines that take ahead of lada.

Of corse the USN wont declassify submarine achostic data, but declassified information including the walker spy ring indicates that project 971 and its advancements are quieter than the 688i, even stated in janes and other defence reviews including norman friedman and norman polmar both international defence analysts working for the USN.

Russians long ago got over being excited about being as quiet as the 688i the SSN 21 only came to light in 1997 and now russia is playing catch up with the new generation submarines they are now trying to match virginia WHICH I MIGHT ADD THEY ARE ABOUT 7 YEARS BEHIND

Do you know how long it takes to find the sub classify it wash it threw your sonar computers you should , its not done in minuets.

The ambient noise of the sea masks many submarines achostic signature (if not all) making detection by broad band sonar near impossible that is why ew use Narrow band, and yes we can pick up submarines at 30 miles incredibly faint but you still can.


Scorpene, type 212, type 214, are all more modern submarines that the lada and all are quieter.

[gf0012-aust]

All what ive said is from the USN, when the lada amur class was built ths is where i quote from it was the second quietest submarine.

please don;t tell me that you're using Norman Polmar for data integrity claims here - he has as much credibility as Tom Clancy

It obviously is not now (lada class started in 1997 and suspended) infact i too can think of many submarines that take ahead of lada.

I was actually being cautious if not generous. There are actually a few more subs that are quieter, but its inapprop to comment

Of corse the USN wont declassify submarine achostic data,


Nobody release real data into the public domain. even the walker data is coloured.

but declassified information including the walker spy ring indicates that project 971 and its advancements are quieter than the 688i, even stated in janes and other defence reviews including norman friedman and norman polmar both international defence analysts working for the USN.


Polmar is an author. If you're talking his relevance within the community, then I can give you an example. I have not seen his data or his contributions in any UDT Conferences or Sub Warfare Conferences I've attended in the last 6 years.


Do you know how long it takes to find the sub classify it wash it threw your sonar computers you should , its not done in minuets.

actually, it can, and it does happen more than you suspect.

The ambient noise of the sea masks many submarines achostic signature (if not all) making detection by broad band sonar near impossible that is why ew use Narrow band, and yes we can pick up submarines at 30 miles incredibly faint but you still can.

Well, I'll just have to disagree with you here. There are other methods involved, but talking about the success of narrow bands is not one of them.

[KAPITAIN]

you have more experiance in sonar and achostics than that of I, i admit im a bit out of my depth my speciality is not that of sonar of achostics its just general parameters of submarines.

But there is a question i want to ask.

Do you use waterfall soanr display screens? on the collins class that is

[gf0012-aust]

Do you use waterfall soanr display screens? on the collins class that is

Actual internal systems are never discussed in detail in open forums. Nobody does it - in any navy.

[KAPITAIN]

Understood its understandable as well russian's are not so open either.

[gf0012-aust]

Understood its understandable as well russian's are not so open either.

Thats why countries invest in HUMINT, SIGINT, EW, ELINT, COMINT, sonar and arrays (plus a few other tidbits thrown in for good measure)!

[KAPITAIN]

Are there any book's on submarine tactic's of the cold war? be an intresting read to see whats what

[Rich]

Tom Clancy wrote one called "Submarine". But the best one was probably "Blind Mans Bluff". I have both and recomend each.

[KAPITAIN]

Thanks

[zoolander]

I heard the Sea Wolf is more quet than a early generation kilo

Is this true?

if it is dam i would not want to mess with that

[gf0012-aust]

I heard the Sea Wolf is more quet than a early generation kilo

Is this true?

if it is dam i would not want to mess with that

There are about 5-7 subs IMV quieter than a Kilo.

As for the Seawolf. In 2004 I attended the UDT in Hawai'i. CINCPAC made an open comment that both Seawolf and Virginia were quieter at 20+knots than a 688I at dockside.

That comment has now been printed in both Proceedings and the NSL journals.

[KAPITAIN]

Well for sure it is the quietest nuclear submarine, but in general conventional submarines are alot quieter.

What many dont see is that Kilo is now what 20 years old and the oldest of the SSN 21's are not even half that age so there is a big big gap there.

The german type 212 and 214 are said to be thee quietest submarines in the world, if GF012 knows anything about them (i dont expect him to post anything about achostic just wether he thinks they are or arnt)

[gf0012-aust]

The german type 212 and 214 are said to be thee quietest submarines in the world, if GF012 knows anything about them (i dont expect him to post anything about achostic just wether he thinks they are or arnt)

I'll qualify things by stating that they are amongts the quietest production platforms in the world.

There are really two types of production (ignoring whether they are conventional or nuclear) - factory and modified post production.

Some of the quietest submarines in the world are modified post production.

[Rich]

Quiet is subjective. The Diesels may be quiet but they still make plenty of noise when they snorkel. And to remain quiet they cant maneuver much, or at much speed, which translates into their being weapons of littoral warfare and/or choke points.

Also USN SSBNs and SSNs have very powerful detection capabilities, and are backed by a vast network of same. A diesel, even an advanced one, is basically only quieter when its stopped, or moving at slow speeds. At higher speeds its not only louder then a USN SSN but it depletes its power faster , which means it has to resurface sooner. In blue water there is nothing that can stand against the USN submarine force. The simple fact is that on balance any diesel cant compete with a Seawolf.

However.........when looking at the big picture? I think advanced diesel submarines in the hands of the enemy, with capable crews manning them???? Are a problem! In shallow water, or in choke points where we have to "come to them"? I believe they are a problem. A chicken crap Navy like Iran would happily sacrifice all their submarines to take out a major capitol USN warship.

[KAPITAIN]

Your forgetting now that most conventional submarines run on whats called air independant prepulsion which is quieter than a normal diesel and doesnt need to surface for week's.

The gulf is a choke point its shallow, not far wide so its vunreble to land based ASM missiles and sit your subs on the seabed and you have a bigger problem, the USN submarines are mainly designed for blue water not brown this is reflected in the size of the submarine 360 feet compaired to a diesel of what 200feet.

Also SONAR doesnt work to well in shallow waters you cant realy use towed array it drag on the bottom and the noise from other ships is tremendous (even though they have filters).

Im not going to quote on SONAR GF012 will know whats what on that score.

As for a kilo, well its a quiet platform and the one thing the USN does fear the most are the conventional submarines, since only a few months ago the atlantic fleet has its backside wiped by a single swedish gotland class submarine (almost bought the admirals to tears!).

The kilo class is old but effective it can engauge multiple targets at once, and with 6 bow tubes that is not a problem.
Armed with 53-65KE torpedos which can sink frigates and destroyers and a few to sink something bigger it makes them a formidable force one that america's navy is scared of.

The USN leased a swedish gotalnd SSK and its crew for trails, what happend? to put it mildly the admirals lost alot of confidence in thier ASW tactics simply because this tiny submarine out did them every time hence why they bought it over in the first place, however newer tactics have been put in place so im sure its not going to happen again.

But we will have to wait and see.

[Rich]

"""Your forgetting now that most conventional submarines run on whats called air independant prepulsion which is quieter than a normal diesel and doesnt need to surface for week's."""

Most? I was understanding that very few have AIP currently. Either way, and under the right conditions, we could have a problem with diesel subs.

[KAPITAIN]

Type 212 and 214 have AIP, all swedish submarines have AIP, new russian amur has AIP, french scorpene can be fitted with AIP, there was even a design where the kilo could be fitted with AIP.

Diesel electric is starting to be phased out give it 20 or 30 years there wont be Diesel electric any more. thats my belief.

[Rich]

OK, "20 to 30 years from now" and your statement will be true. While the advanced diesels are a threat its important to remember that there is no "free lunch" with them. True in shallow water they can be effective but it also has a tradeoff. They are more vulnerable to MAD detection in shallow water and they probably wont have a cold layer to hide under which makes them more vulnerable to sonar.

Even with AIP they will have to maneuver and once they do that they will make noise. Especially trying to keep up with a CBG.

[gf0012-aust]

Most? I was understanding that very few have AIP currently. Either way, and under the right conditions, we could have a problem with diesel subs.

Less than 5% of current conventionals have AIP.

The RAN had space for AIP in the Collins but the tests showed no significant advantage for its inclusion - so future vessels never had it fitted. The AIP evaluation module is sitting on a crate in the corner of the sub building site.

Personally, I think the AIP issue has been over hyped - it all depends on the mission approach and doctrine style of the subforce.

Collins was initially designed to act as a supportive fleet submarine - and its predecessors regularly ran ops into eastern russia during the cold war. (that info was only released under the 30 year rule in Jan 2006). So range (which is demonstrably further on Collins) is a moot point. Similarly so on a sub like the Oyashios which can challenge a nuke in absolute dive terms.

I think the confusion in public forum debates lies in the fact that sometimes people try to relate the warfighting doctrine of a nuke to a conventional when they are very very different. eg A conv sub driver trying to chase a nuke is just not doing their job properly - as thats not the game.

[KAPITAIN]

My personal thought was that the conventionals just sat and waited, the nukes did the running.