SSKs

[DarthAmerica]

As to air dropping a unmanned submarine vehicle,the platform would have to be robust enough to withstand the drop,plus ifyou want it to lay dormant robust enough to withstand its enviroment.The technical challenges I fear would be large and therefore expensive.Put your pc in a waterproof bag,drop it and then try and get it to activate itself a month later.I think you will get my point.

Now this I flat out disagree with. They drop robots onto other planets regularly now! Plus I've seen some of the things that get dropped from jets onto the ground. Robustnest is not an issue. I'd be more conscerned with the quality of the sensors and C4ISR footprint with a small platform that wasnt tethered to a mothership.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think he referred to GW1, I don't remember seeing the Falklands mentioned, though it's late and I'm geting tired...

Yes, you're correct. I suspect that I was suffering from the same disease at the time. Huge brain phart on my part.

Mea Culpa Kapitain.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I disagree with that, the RN definitely took the threat of Argentine SSKs seriously. In fact from memory it was factoring in this threat that was a large part of the UK actions around the Falklands. And from memory a few anti sub torps were dropped by anti sub patrols.

I have read this from multiple sources over the years, but someone with more knowledge might want to comment?

I'm with you on this. All of the histories incl that by Sandy Woodward show that the poms were more than a little concerned about where the argie subs were.

it caused them to mount a serious intel effort to track them down and also caused them to change fleet disposition whilst the hunt was on.

 

[rossfrb_1]

I'm with you on this. All of the histories incl that by Sandy Woodward show that the poms were more than a little concerned about where the argie subs were.

it caused them to mount a serious intel effort to track them down and also caused them to change fleet disposition whilst the hunt was on.

I vaguely remember a story of an Argentine sub unsuccessfully attempting to torpedo a British ship, failing because the torps failed to detonate! A quick google could only find one reference to anything like that
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/asw.htm
"...In 1982, the terror of the submarine threat was re-emphasized as an old Argentine submarine built during World War II successfully evaded determined and well-equipped British ASW forces during the Falkland Islands War. The Argentine submarine-launched torpedo attacks were unsuccessful due to the antiquity of the 1940's vintage weapons. Conversely, the threat posed by British submarines and aircraft severely restricted the Argentine Navy to the safety of the South American coast. From either perspective, the submarine threat and the ASW capabilities of each fleet were primary factors in the final outcome...."

Which makes me wonder whether it happened at all.

rb

 

[Darrel_topgun]

SSKs vs. SSNs

SSKs and SSNs are both submarines, the only difference they have is that a SSK is a Diesel-Electric powered submarine while a SSN is a Nuclear-powered submarine. The advantage of SSKs is that they can sit still dead on the water producing the least amount of acoustic signature, it can even run silently than most SSNs using its diesel batteries. There is nothing to worry about your power source going critical level using diesel-electric generators. SSNs are somewhat better in the long-run since they can stay longer underwater for an extended period of time than a SSKs who has to frequently surface and charge its diesel batteries, the only problem with SSNs is you need to keep and maintain the circulation of reactor coolant within the reactor to prevent it from going critical and produce coolant noise. The Chinese has a decent collection of SSKs, it is believed that it has atleast 62 Romeo-class SSKs and half of these is still in service with both the active and reserve forces. Communist China's very first SSN or nuclear-powered submarine is the Han-class attack submarine, a total of 5 of these have been built but immediately stopped after it was discovered that these class of SSN have high levels of internal radiation. According to intelligence reports, the first 3 of its class namely: 401, 402, 403 carried both straight-running and as well as new russian homing variety but the 2 last SSNs are armed with "Eagle Strike" or known as the Ying-ji1 and Ying-ji2 sea-skimming missiles, the only problem is they still need to surface to fire those missiles and all submariners knew all to well that a surfaced submarine is an easy target. As far as all standards are concerned, the Americans have the most advanced nuclear submarines in the world, the American Los Angeles class is a fearsome adversary, attacking it is already a tantamount to suicide. These American SSN is the quietest of all submarines making it a intimidating apparition in the sea. The American Ohio-class missile submarine is also worthy of recognition, it is the quietest missile submarine in the world. hwell

 

[RubiconNZ]

Yawn

SSKs and SSNs are both submarines, the only difference they have is that a SSK is a Diesel-Electric powered submarine while a SSN is a Nuclear-powered submarine. The advantage of SSKs is that they can sit still dead on the water producing the least amount of acoustic signature, it can even run silently than most SSNs using its diesel batteries. There is nothing to worry about your power source going critical level using diesel-electric generators. SSNs are somewhat better in the long-run since they can stay longer underwater for an extended period of time than a SSKs who has to frequently surface and charge its diesel batteries, the only problem with SSNs is you need to keep and maintain the circulation of reactor coolant within the reactor to prevent it from going critical and produce coolant noise. The Chinese has a decent collection of SSKs, it is believed that it has atleast 62 Romeo-class SSKs and half of these is still in service with both the active and reserve forces. Communist China's very first SSN or nuclear-powered submarine is the Han-class attack submarine, a total of 5 of these have been built but immediately stopped after it was discovered that these class of SSN have high levels of internal radiation. According to intelligence reports, the first 3 of its class namely: 401, 402, 403 carried both straight-running and as well as new russian homing variety but the 2 last SSNs are armed with "Eagle Strike" or known as the Ying-ji1 and Ying-ji2 sea-skimming missiles, the only problem is they still need to surface to fire those missiles and all submariners knew all to well that a surfaced submarine is an easy target. As far as all standards are concerned, the Americans have the most advanced nuclear submarines in the world, the American Los Angeles class is a fearsome adversary, attacking it is already a tantamount to suicide. These American SSN is the quietest of all submarines making it a intimidating apparition in the sea. The American Ohio-class missile submarine is also worthy of recognition, it is the quietest missile submarine in the world. hwell

Whats your point you have been asked my moderators and other froum members state your opinion, at the moment all you do is state mindless facts, maybe you do it on purpose just to annoy every one. Please state your opinion rather than writing mindless facts that a trained monkey knows:sleepy2

 

[contedicavour]

I vaguely remember a story of an Argentine sub unsuccessfully attempting to torpedo a British ship, failing because the torps failed to detonate! A quick google could only find one reference to anything like that
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/asw.htm
"...In 1982, the terror of the submarine threat was re-emphasized as an old Argentine submarine built during World War II successfully evaded determined and well-equipped British ASW forces during the Falkland Islands War. The Argentine submarine-launched torpedo attacks were unsuccessful due to the antiquity of the 1940's vintage weapons. Conversely, the threat posed by British submarines and aircraft severely restricted the Argentine Navy to the safety of the South American coast. From either perspective, the submarine threat and the ASW capabilities of each fleet were primary factors in the final outcome...."

Which makes me wonder whether it happened at all.

rb

Ok I probably underestimated the efforts the Royal Navy put in place to block the 2 modern Argentinian SSKs and the obsolete WW2 subs. However, with hindsight, and also using the article mentioned above from the web, the RN could safely run its operations with only a "normal" ASW screen around. A fleet with only 2 modern subs is useless unless the subs are brand new and the personnel's training is outstanding.

cheers

 

[isthvan]

I vaguely remember a story of an Argentine sub unsuccessfully attempting to torpedo a British ship, failing because the torps failed to detonate! A quick google could only find one reference to anything like that
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/asw.htm
"...In 1982, the terror of the submarine threat was re-emphasized as an old Argentine submarine built during World War II successfully evaded determined and well-equipped British ASW forces during the Falkland Islands War. The Argentine submarine-launched torpedo attacks were unsuccessful due to the antiquity of the 1940's vintage weapons. Conversely, the threat posed by British submarines and aircraft severely restricted the Argentine Navy to the safety of the South American coast. From either perspective, the submarine threat and the ASW capabilities of each fleet were primary factors in the final outcome...."

Which makes me wonder whether it happened at all.

rb

It was not ww2 sub but Type 209 San Luis. It managed to elude British frigates and the antisubmarine carriers. The San Luis maneuvered into torpedo range of the British fleet and launched three torpedoes, although all three shots were unsuccessful because problems whit poor maintenance before war ( if I remember correctly guidance system did not work)…

 

[contedicavour]

It was not ww2 sub but Type 209 San Luis. It managed to elude British frigates and the antisubmarine carriers. The San Luis maneuvered into torpedo range of the British fleet and launched three torpedoes, although all three shots were unsuccessful because problems whit poor maintenance before war ( if I remember correctly guidance system did not work)…

Yes, you're right; back then the Type 209 - 1200 ton was an advanced SSK, although it was poorly equipped (Mk 37 torpedoes if i remember correctly, though I could be mistaken) and poorly maintained. Besides, and this is my point all along the last threads, Argentina only had 2 !!

cheers

 

[Whiskyjack]

Yes, you're right; back then the Type 209 - 1200 ton was an advanced SSK, although it was poorly equipped (Mk 37 torpedoes if i remember correctly, though I could be mistaken) and poorly maintained. Besides, and this is my point all along the last threads, Argentina only had 2 !!

cheers

I think we are making a mistake here, they only had two? So what. Argintina was the agressor, it therefore was able to prepare it's forces to the timescale required. It could make sure there was laways one on deployment around the Falklands and perhaps two for periods of time. No military planner would assume that there was no threat just beacuse a country only had two SSKs!

A similar situation can be seen in the East Timor deployment in 1999 where a Indonesian sub was shadowing convoys. That was taken as a serious threat.

 

[Supe]

A similar situation can be seen in the East Timor deployment in 1999 where a Indonesian sub was shadowing convoys. That was taken as a serious threat.

What was the Australian response to that?

 

[gf0012-aust]

What was the Australian response to that?

not so sure that they did in fact deploy - as it had no effect on RAN/UN ship movements.

OTOH it was made very clear and "in the clear" that Collins were in the area.

None of their major assets were deployed except those required to evacuate their troops.

I was in Darwin at the time and it was like watching the Manly Ferries in peak hour. Nobody was avoiding the area. The only ship I recall that didn;t deploy in theatre was a Portuguese frigate, but everyone else (incl reflagged UN vessels) went straight over as soon as they had loaded up.

 

[contedicavour]

I think we are making a mistake here, they only had two? So what. Argintina was the agressor, it therefore was able to prepare it's forces to the timescale required. It could make sure there was laways one on deployment around the Falklands and perhaps two for periods of time. No military planner would assume that there was no threat just beacuse a country only had two SSKs!

A similar situation can be seen in the East Timor deployment in 1999 where a Indonesian sub was shadowing convoys. That was taken as a serious threat.

I beg to differ on Argentina. The military government back then had bet that the UK would not send the Navy to defend the Falklands. They were in deep political trouble at home and were just looking for an easy win to stir up nationalism and make their people forget the rest.
Argentina sent conscripts to the Falklands, not their best army units. Their military were very suprised indeed when the Royal Navy showed up with all that was left in the RN inventory.
Don't forget the RN had just retired the old Ark Royal, their last real aircraft carrier. Harriers weren't taken seriously back then.
If Argentina wanted to prepare, they would have waited 1-2 years to receive more new German-built SSKs, the MEKO escorts, etc, while the RN would have disitegrated further by selling the Invincible to Australia. If the Falklands war had erupted in 1984, the RN would not have been able to retake the islands.

cheers

 

[Whiskyjack]

I beg to differ on Argentina. The military government back then had bet that the UK would not send the Navy to defend the Falklands. They were in deep political trouble at home and were just looking for an easy win to stir up nationalism and make their people forget the rest.
Argentina sent conscripts to the Falklands, not their best army units. Their military were very suprised indeed when the Royal Navy showed up with all that was left in the RN inventory.
Don't forget the RN had just retired the old Ark Royal, their last real aircraft carrier. Harriers weren't taken seriously back then.
If Argentina wanted to prepare, they would have waited 1-2 years to receive more new German-built SSKs, the MEKO escorts, etc, while the RN would have disitegrated further by selling the Invincible to Australia. If the Falklands war had erupted in 1984, the RN would not have been able to retake the islands.

cheers

Yes I think though that you are taking me to literally.

Argentina had time to make sure the two modern SSKs they had were able to deploy over a 6-9 month period, to operate against the British Task force that went down. If they had ordered more (I think they had two on order at the time?) They would have had to receive them and work them up, so 1-2 years is optimistic. And as you have said the military govt would have needed to have those years, which I highly doubt.

So you have to look at what Argentina could have done in the time frame it operated in.

 

[Whiskyjack]

not so sure that they did in fact deploy - as it had no effect on RAN/UN ship movements.

OTOH it was made very clear and "in the clear" that Collins were in the area.

None of their major assets were deployed except those required to evacuate their troops.

I was in Darwin at the time and it was like watching the Manly Ferries in peak hour. Nobody was avoiding the area. The only ship I recall that didn;t deploy in theatre was a Portuguese frigate, but everyone else (incl reflagged UN vessels) went straight over as soon as they had loaded up.

My recollection is that the HMNZS Canturbury was tracked by an Indonesian SSK while escorting a convoy accross to ET.

 

[gf0012-aust]

My recollection is that the HMNZS Canturbury was tracked by an Indonesian SSK while escorting a convoy accross to ET.

was that very early in proceedings? I'm pretty sure that those in the Indon navy that weren't involved with evac were homeported after it was "leaked" that a pair of Collins were trawling.

 

[Whiskyjack]

was that very early in proceedings? I'm pretty sure that those in the Indon navy that weren't involved with evac were homeported after it was "leaked" that a pair of Collins were trawling.

In the first couple of days when everything was still a bit up in the air over how the indon military was going to act.

 

[Akula540]

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

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

As gf made the same claim about Amur later also in connection with Lada, it is safe to assume that Lada falls under the same rank.

Now that seems quite odd. Either the gap between 5 and 4(and 3,2,1) is so wide that even ten years of development, that went from Improved Kilo to Lada, couldn't make a meaningful difference on silencing level. Or those statements are erroneous.

 

[agc33e]

I suppose this is a good place to paste this link on the submarine s80, its an interview in english to the boss of navantia and s80:

http://www.navantia.es/irj/go/km/do...Navantia es noticia PDFs/navantiastypes80.pdf

And this one in spanish with equipment info:
http://www.infodefensa.com/noticias/docs/S-80Monografia.pdf

Cheers.

 

[gf0012-aust]

As gf made the same claim about Amur later also in connection with Lada, it is safe to assume that Lada falls under the same rank.

Now that seems quite odd. Either the gap between 5 and 4(and 3,2,1) is so wide that even ten years of development, that went from Improved Kilo to Lada, couldn't make a meaningful difference on silencing level. Or those statements are erroneous.

It gets down to "which "Kilo" or Lada.

If you seriously think that the Indian Kilos are quiet, then have another look at their backend - it is common knowledge within the UDT community.

Geez, even the russians I've seen at various UDT events in germany and italy have stated the same.