India, Russia & Advanced Nuclear Subs

[doggychow14]

yes the links have not been updated for some time. but global security has proven itself to be a reliable source.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

Ummm......no! Globalsecurity is the last place you wanna look if you want to find anything unbiased and credible. Many of their article contains errors and biased opinion. For example, they would use the term "invincible" to describe a weapon system which made many people doubt their professionalism. If you want less biased articles on weapon systems, try these:

http://www.army-technology.com

http://www.airforce-technology.com

http://www.naval-technology.com

http://www.kanwa.com (nice place for news and info, but don't believe everything kanwa says)

Currently we are building our own data base for weapons, so you don't have to go look anywhere else for info.

 

[adsH]

As for indian financing of Severodvinsk: I seriously doubt that Russia would allow a foreign country that much influence over its new top-of-the-line sub. Granted, Russia is rather short on money, however IMO at least the top priority projects are excluded from foreign influence due to concerns of national security and the new SSN surely belong to them.

Turin were not talking about a normal sate here!! Russia is or was bankrupt afew years ago. its Military production machines was stalled in a matter of speaking. they have no money to spend on there national defense article production.

Isn't it better to have something being developed and produced rather then Have nothing. the longer they wait for there Economic recovery the more chances are they would loose the capability to manufacture the key items that they are good at. India is there "big ticket", its fairly loyal and all it asks in return is cheaper rated equipments and R&D involvement.

 

[doggychow14]

global security may not use the best choices of words, however their specs, for the most part, are fairly accurate. even if russia was short of money they wouldn't let another country risk the export market.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

global security may not use the best choices of words, however their specs, for the most part, are fairly accurate. even if russia was short of money they wouldn't let another country risk the export market.

Specs in there are far from accurate, I clearly remembers they posted the range of BrahMos to 400km when it's less than 300. The problems are that they don't edit their article and their tendency to predict. While they make a good source of info, they are not all that trust worthy.

Ok back to the topic
I have doubts whether the sub will be as capable as Indian claims her to be. After all, this is the first time the Indians try to construct SSN on their own, although with asistance from Russian and Iraelis, it's no easy task. It will probably has the capability of Sierra Class.

 

[doggychow14]

doesn't the sierra class have similar performance to the LA class? this would also be a bit big of jump.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

The upgraded Sierra class is a little superior to early Los Angeles class in terms of non-acoustic detection system, integrated acoustic countermeasures system and deeper operational depth. Even with upgrades it is still noisier than the LA. I was referring to was the early Sierra class back in the late 1970's.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The upgraded Sierra class is a little superior to early Los Angeles class in terms of non-acoustic detection system, integrated acoustic countermeasures system and deeper operational depth. Even with upgrades it is still noisier than the LA. I was referring to was the early Sierra class back in the late 1970's.

Nope, current Sierras are noisier than an LA at specific db levels at a specific depth - and those depths are tactical ones. I would not be rating a Sierra as having a superior signature at all.

They are certainly noisier than the current US platforms.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

I never said Sierra were quieter than LA, I said the non-acoustic detection system, integrated acoustic countermeasures system and deeper operational depth is superior to LA and nothing else. LA still has the upper hand against all rusky SSN, with the possible exception of Akula II.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I never said Sierra were quieter than LA, I said the non-acoustic detection system, integrated acoustic countermeasures system and deeper operational depth is superior to LA and nothing else. LA still has the upper hand against all rusky SSN, with the possible exception of Akula II.

I won't comment on anything but the integrated acoustic countermeasures system. The US vessels are superior in that respect. They're also in the process of making a quantum leap again WRT to signature management - definitely superior to any non US nuke - including the Rubis.

 

[dabrownguy]

Heres a good question. Is it possible to take a out dated carrier and give it a total refit so it can carry like a hundred cruise missiles,Sams and Ballistic missiles? Instead of carring large aircrafts it could carry missiles to attack. Imagine a carrier launchin 20 cruise missiles at once. Wouldn't that be effective. It could also be used to carry troops.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Heres a good question. Is it possible to take a out dated carrier and give it a total refit so it can carry like a hundred cruise missiles,Sams and Ballistic missiles? Instead of carring large aircrafts it could carry missiles to attack. Imagine a carrier launchin 20 cruise missiles at once. Wouldn't that be effective. It could also be used to carry troops.

The USN was going to use that concept in the "Arsenal Ship". The idea was dropped recently as being less useful than other solutions.

Interestingly enough, the pennant numbers would have continued on from the last of the Missouri Class battleships.

The SSGN is more survivable and flexible. It can launch 184 cruise missiles.

 

[Soldier]

The upgraded Sierra class is a little superior to early Los Angeles class in terms of non-acoustic detection system, integrated acoustic countermeasures system and deeper operational depth. Even with upgrades it is still noisier than the LA. I was referring to was the early Sierra class back in the late 1970's.

Nope, current Sierras are noisier than an LA at specific db levels at a specific depth - and those depths are tactical ones. I would not be rating a Sierra as having a superior signature at all.

They are certainly noisier than the current US platforms.

How can one sub be noisier then a specific dB levels at a specific depth? :roll I had been working with dB's since last 15 years now and this whole statement does not make any sense. If it is noisier, it has more dB...and the rule of physics is that if dB is higher, no matter what depth you go to or how much shallow waters you are in, it will always be having more dB of noise level. Saying that specific dB level at specific depth does not even make any sense.
GF, you are missing something here...

 

[gf0012-aust]

How can one sub be noisier then a specific dB levels at a specific depth? :roll I had been working with dB's since last 15 years now and this whole statement does not make any sense. If it is noisier, it has more dB...and the rule of physics is that if dB is higher, no matter what depth you go to or how much shallow waters you are in, it will always be having more dB of noise level. Saying that specific dB level at specific depth does not even make any sense.
GF, you are missing something here...

Untrue, there are differences in the way that a sub acts as a transducer at different layers. That variation can be as much as a 20db variable throught the operational diving range of the sub.

There is also the issue of the waters that the sub operates in. Issues such as density etc impact upon the amount of transduction that can occur.

Are you working with db at a sub warfare level or at a music level?

check yr PM

 

[Soldier]

How can one sub be noisier then a specific dB levels at a specific depth? :roll I had been working with dB's since last 15 years now and this whole statement does not make any sense. If it is noisier, it has more dB...and the rule of physics is that if dB is higher, no matter what depth you go to or how much shallow waters you are in, it will always be having more dB of noise level. Saying that specific dB level at specific depth does not even make any sense.
GF, you are missing something here...

Untrue, there are differences in the way that a sub acts as a transducer at different layers. That variation can be as much as a 20db variable throught the operational diving range of the sub.

There is also the issue of the waters that the sub operates in. Issues such as density etc impact upon the amount of transduction that can occur.

Are you working with db at a sub warfare level or at a music level?

check yr PM

I stand as to what I said. One sub can and will have various dB level at different depths, but saying that sub-A will have less noise then sub-B on a certain dB at a certain depth is absolutly wrong. Noise of a sub-A, if is more then sub-B in 1000 ft depth, will still be more in 5000 feet depth. If the sub has noise cancellation technology built in, it will work regardless of depth without much noise.

I work with dB's on a spectrum and Noise cancellation test equipment made by Dolby & Bose Labs. Dolby is the big contributor to American or friendly nations when it comes to noise cancellation devices including some real hightech equipment. They are the biggest contributors in US, don't know about other countries though.

As to working with sound, be it in entertainment industry or subwarfare..the characterstics of sound never changes. Any hightech device with the right interface can measure soundwave regardless. Sound does not change its behaviour and characterstics always remain the same.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I stand as to what I said. One sub can and will have various dB level at different depths, but saying that sub-A will have less noise then sub-B on a certain dB at a certain depth is absolutly wrong. Noise of a sub-A, if is more then sub-B in 1000 ft depth, will still be more in 5000 feet depth. If the sub has noise cancellation technology built in, it will work regardless of depth without much noise.

I work with dB's on a spectrum and Noise cancellation test equipment made by Dolby & Bose Labs. Dolby is the big contributor to American or friendly nations when it comes to noise cancellation devices including ideas. They are the biggest contributors in US, don't know about other countries though.

No, you're dealing with noise in a different manner. Check yr PM. The US doesn't have this technology. It's been developed and finessed by Australia

 

[Soldier]

I stand as to what I said. One sub can and will have various dB level at different depths, but saying that sub-A will have less noise then sub-B on a certain dB at a certain depth is absolutly wrong. Noise of a sub-A, if is more then sub-B in 1000 ft depth, will still be more in 5000 feet depth. If the sub has noise cancellation technology built in, it will work regardless of depth without much noise.

I work with dB's on a spectrum and Noise cancellation test equipment made by Dolby & Bose Labs. Dolby is the big contributor to American or friendly nations when it comes to noise cancellation devices including ideas. They are the biggest contributors in US, don't know about other countries though.

No, you're dealing with noise in a different manner. Check yr PM. The US doesn't have this technology. It's been developed and finessed by Australia

I replied your PM. US had for very long noise cancellation technology and so did many other countries. But they work on the same fundamental rule, which I told you in the PM. Care to paste some more in-depth information about the technology or if that is not possible then only the fundamental on as how it works as I would really like to dwell in what Australia came up with?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I replied your PM. US had for very long noise cancellation technology and so did many other countries. But they work on the same fundamental rule, which I told you in the PM.

Yes, Prev technology solutions work on the same principles, This does not. Hence why the interest in it. A sub is comprised of many different components, sometimes up to 25 different metal types are used in its construction. The construction, materials used etc... the depth operated at, size of the vessel, behaviour of the metal at different depths all makes a huge difference (in detection technology). Think about it. A sub can be identified at 300m by the way that it moves, drifts and the way that it acts as a transmitter and a reflector. Once you get a lock on it's profile, you can start to even determine which way it is pointing.

Care to paste some more in-depth information about the technology or if that is not possible then only the fundamental on as how it works as I would really like to dwell in what Australia came up with?

No. Not possible. It's a military use technology only and is not in the public domain. All I can say is that it works and is the fundamental reason why I have regular food on my table. If the tech didn't work then my company wouldn't survive.

It is dealing with NV, and harmonics in a completely different manner.

 

[Awang se]

Maybe this thing is quiter and more capable then 688 or maybe 688(I). Hell, even the Akula II is quiter then 688(I). But i don't know much about seawolf. I heard they stop after two was build and plan instead on new small of a kind SSN called Virginia, am i right?

 

[XEROX]

What will be the primary weapons (SLCM) used for the ATV armament,

the submarine will have VLS tubes capable of firing multiple weapons!!

Is it BrahMos, PopEye, or the Sagarika - all possibly nuclear tipped :?