norwegians respond to russian naval activity

[kilo]

Norway has said it will send its subs to investigate recent Russian naval activity off their coast.

http://www.barentsobserver.com/index.php?id=563966&cat=58932&xforceredir=1&noredir=1

Do you think the Norwegian Ula class subs which are rumored to be noisy will be able to track the Russian subs undetected?

 

[Rossiman]

No, i highly doubt that the Norwegians Ula class sub, would be able to track any Russian sub. Ya it might be able to pick it up on radar, but the Russian's will see the Ula long before it sees them. The Ula is loud/and its sonar sends out large pulses.

Also, the Norwegians should rethink sending subs out, it wouldn't surprise me if the Russkies feel threated to sink it.

Well, hope i helped clear something up.
Rossiman

 

[Todjaeger]

No, i highly doubt that the Norwegians Ula class sub, would be able to track any Russian sub. Ya it might be able to pick it up on radar, but the Russian's will see the Ula long before it sees them. The Ula is loud/and its radar sends out large pulses.

Also, the Norwegians should rethink sending subs out, it wouldn't surprise me if the Russkies feel threated to sink it.

Well, hope i helped clear something up.
Rossiman

Umm, when you mention radar, you mean sonar, right? AFAIK most of the detection work with subs is done via sonar. Radar only works when they are surfaced (both searching and detected vessels) or if in shallow water with a snorkel or periscope above the surface.

As for the Russians taking a shot at a Norweigan sub, unless the sub in question was inside Russian home waters, it would be very ill advised. To do so could be considered an act of war, which could then lead to NATO being called in. At it's present strength, Russia would not be able to deal with NATO. Since Russia is supposed to be entering a period of rebuilding and re-arming, hostile or overly agressive actions would be precipitous. Also, how long could a Norweigan Ula actually keep up with a Russian SSN, if it could track it. Not long I would expect. The Ula IIRC was intended more to defend against Russian (Soviet) subs entering areas of interest/control to NATO.

As for the Ula being a noisy class, no idea. Is this something anyone could answer?

-Cheers

 

[kilo]

Well i don't think Russia wants to run away. Russia wouldn't waste fuel on something seeing as they're so desperate for funding. They must be trying to find something or gather some intelligence so I don't think they'll sprint home as soon as they detect an ula.

 

[Galrahn]

Well i don't think Russia wants to run away. Russia wouldn't waste fuel on something seeing as they're so desperate for funding. They must be trying to find something or gather some intelligence so I don't think they'll sprint home as soon as they detect an ula.

Get with the times dude, Russia isn't desperate for funding, they are desperate for modernization.

They have set aside money for training in the budget, but they do not have money for deployments. I blogged on this event again tonight, it was reported earlier this month the Адмирал флота Советского Союза Кузнецов was conducting flight deck operations, and reported this morning the Norwegian's are monitoring increased submarine activity off their northern coast.

BTW, the Ula may not be the most modern, but they have very well trained crews. I'd give them a better than average chance of taking even the most modern Russian navy ships and subs a lesson in silence.

 

[Rossiman]

Get with the times dude, Russia isn't desperate for funding, they are desperate for modernization.

They have set aside money for training in the budget, but they do not have money for deployments. I blogged on this event again tonight, it was reported earlier this month the Адмирал флота Советского Союза Кузнецов was conducting flight deck operations, and reported this morning the Norwegian's are monitoring increased submarine activity off their northern coast.

BTW, the Ula may not be the most modern, but they have very well trained crews. I'd give them a better than average chance of taking even the most modern Russian navy ships and subs a lesson in silence.

The Ula's has alright crews. I would not call Norwegian Ula's crew "Top Chief". The Ula is a very loud sub. The "sonar" are very poor compared to the newer 21st century subs. And it's diesel/electric powered. The Russian sub fleet would eat it alive.

Yes, Russia is remodernizing there force, smallly but surly. In a decade Russia should once again be a "superpower."

 

[kato]

The Ula's has alright crews. I would not call Norwegian Ula's crew "Top Chief". The Ula is a very loud sub. The radars are very poor compared to the newer 21st century subs. And it's diesel/electric powered. The Russian sub fleet would eat it alive.

Again: sonar, not radar. How many "newer 21st century subs" are there? Because, in case you don't realize it, there isn't a single class in service right now anywhere that was designed after 2000.

Anyway. No. The Type 210 (Ula) is definitely not a "very loud sub". They're supposed to be particularly quiet in fact, even for a diesel.

 

[martitrmartitr]

1. The russian sub operations is not viewed as something threatening to Norway. It is normal for a great power to conduct these kinds of operations, and with russian economic and military power on the rise it was expected. Same with strategic bomber flights.

2. The russian subs would ofcourse not fire on norwegian vessels. Thats just plain stupid. The Norwegian-Russian relations are very good, with StatoilHydro now participating in the development the Sthockman field.

3. Norway will continue to intercept russian bombers and subs who are getting close to our territorial waters. The main way to track the subs are using our P-3 aircraft.

4. The ULA is a very quiet design, but have experience some problems with engine noise. Hopefully fixed. The have done very well on exercises.
A SSK would not be ideal for shadowing a SSN.
ULA is designed for invasion defence, sinking Ropuchas

 

[kato]

4. The ULA is a very quiet design, but have experience some problems with engine noise. Hopefully fixed. The have done very well on exercises.

I'd presume they'd at the latest have fixed that during the current MLU (during which they also get new ECM and sonars). Most of them ran through "minor modernization" in 2004-2005 iirc.

 

[Galrahn]

I'd presume they'd at the latest have fixed that during the current MLU (during which they also get new ECM and sonars). Most of them ran through "minor modernization" in 2004-2005 iirc.

Sortof, the modernizations were for improving crewing conditions for long deployments and warmer climates, the tech mods weren't major advances rather upgrades and tweaks.

Rossiman I know for fact they are very well trained crews and the Ula is a very, very good submarine. The sonars are excellent quality for that region, and have only been known to have 'issues' due to conditions in the Med, where some of the deployments were focused over the past few years, and those 'issues' were mostly caused by environmental factors that had nothing to do with technical quality, and they were fixed in modernization.

Where does this 'loud sub' idea come from, in Neptune Warrior exercises the Ula have proven time and time again over the years to be formidable opponents against any contenders.

 

[Rossiman]

Again: sonar, not radar. How many "newer 21st century subs" are there? Because, in case you don't realize it, there isn't a single class in service right now anywhere that was designed after 2000.

Anyway. No. The Type 210 (Ula) is definitely not a "very loud sub". They're supposed to be particularly quiet in fact, even for a diesel.

I meant sonar yes, i hardly participate in navy discussions. Sorry for that, i will fix it. What i have read/heard from first hand experiences, is that the sonar is very poor, compared to more modern subs. And i know for a fact that it is loud, first hand accounts have told me that.

Does anyone know if they plan to upgrade the Ula?

 

[alexsa]

I meant sonar yes, i hardly participate in navy discussions. Sorry for that, i will fix it. What i have read/heard from first hand experiences, is that the sonar is very poor, compared to more modern subs. And i know for a fact that it is loud, first hand accounts have told me that.

Does anyone know if they plan to upgrade the Ula?

In all your posts you suggest the Ula is a pretty poor boat (noisy with poor systems) with 'alright' crews! Big claim, can you back it up with evidence and with details of the first hand accounts?
This sort of information is not normally bandied about and I have doubts that a senior in hihg school (regardless of your studies) would be personnally involved or have the clearances to be copied in on details of the operational assessments of these boats. I doubt they would be upgraded to reamin is service until 2020 is they were as loud as your 'source' or opinion would have thme be.

Given your radar - sonar confusions you should understand me being sketical about the veracity of your statements.

 

[Rossiman]

In all your posts you suggest the Ula is a pretty poor boat (noisy with poor systems) with 'alright' crews! Big claim, can you back it up with evidence or is this your opinion?

Given your radar - sonar confusions you should understand me being sketical about the veracity of your statements.

I Understand you being skeptical. I will give you the source in a private message.

 

[swerve]

In all your posts you suggest the Ula is a pretty poor boat (noisy with poor systems) with 'alright' crews! Big claim, can you back it up with evidence and with details of the first hand accounts?
This sort of information is not normally bandied about and I have doubts that a senior in hihg school (regardless of your studies) would be personnally involved or have the clearances to be copied in on details of the operational assessments of these boats. I doubt they would be upgraded to reamin is service until 2020 is they were as loud as your 'source' or opinion would have thme be.

Given your radar - sonar confusions you should understand me being sketical about the veracity of your statements.

Alexsa, this particular schoolboy has been banned from at least one other forum for his behaviour. Among his transgressions was registering two separate identities - one in the name of Aussie Digger (!). I suggest you assume he's an attention-seeking fantasist (as I suspect you already believe) & ignore him.

 

[kilo]

Where does this 'loud sub' idea come from

My source was "The Encyclopedia of Warships" published in 2006 by Thunder Press.

 

[Rossiman]

Alexsa, this particular schoolboy has been banned from at least one other forum for his behaviour. Among his transgressions was registering two separate identities - one in the name of Aussie Digger (!). I suggest you assume he's an attention-seeking fantasist (as I suspect you already believe) & ignore him.

That has nothing to do with anything. I already explained myself to you on the other thread. No need to publice this, it has nothing to do with me on defencetalk.com or any other site. Also Swerve you have seen some of the threads i have done on Tank-nets. I put lots of work into them/tanks-galore thread.

 

[Rossiman]

My source was "The Encyclopedia of Warships" published in 2006 by Thunder Press.

I have read that book. Janes warships is good to, simodefence had a thread on the ula.

 

[kato]

What i have read/heard from first hand experiences, is that the sonar is very poor, compared to more modern subs. And i know for a fact that it is loud, first hand accounts have told me that.

• attack sonar - (German) Atlas Elektronik CSU 83; medium frequency active/passive
• flank sonar - (French) Thompson Sintra; low frequency passive; piezoelectric polymer antennas

The CSU 83 is the standard sonar suite for German diesel submarines exported throughout the world; in particular it's used in the Type 209 derivatives and other subs used by: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Denmark (the upgraded Type 207 and A14), Ecuador, India, Greece, Peru, South Korea and Sweden (Vastergotland).

It is superior (the successor) to the outdated CSU-3 used in older Argentinian, Chilean, Colombian, Indonesian, Turkish and Venuzuelan Type 209 derivatives as well as Egyptian modified Romeos.

Noticeably, Brazil still ordered the CSU 83 for the Tikuna class, with Tikuna commissioned in 2005.

The direct successor to CSU 83 is CSU 90, which has so far been installed in: German and Italian Type 212A, the latest Israeli subs, the upgraded four Greek Type 209/1100, the new South-African Type 209/1200 and the Swedish Gotlands.

According to Jane's Fighting Ships 2004/2005, the French flank sonar due to its design "reduces flow-noise" btw. I've yet to find a statement anywhere which DUUX version this flank sonar is btw.

On an international scale, the Ulas still compete pretty well as far as sonar outfit goes. Sure, not in the same class as a Type 212A, but you can't really expect that from a 20-year-old design. It has the sonar outfit available and common at its time.

Oh, and yes, they're about to be upgraded (full MLU).

 

[alexsa]

Alexsa, this particular schoolboy has been banned from at least one other forum for his behaviour. Among his transgressions was registering two separate identities - one in the name of Aussie Digger (!). I suggest you assume he's an attention-seeking fantasist (as I suspect you already believe) & ignore him.

Noted, thanks. I still don't have the PM he promised either.

 

[Rossiman]

On an international scale, the Ulas still compete pretty well as far as sonar outfit goes. Sure, not in the same class as a Type 212A, but you can't really expect that from a 20-year-old design. It has the sonar outfit available and common at its time.

Oh, and yes, they're about to be upgraded (full MLU).

That's what i am getting at. Versus 21st century subs it is outclassed. What does the upgrade include, and what are they upgrading?