Submarine Tactics

[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.