Super Fast Navy Sub In Development

[Grand Danois]

Nations that have well funded mil research programmes don't need to flash their R&D in public (and exaggerate the potential) in order to attract outside funding.

This means that, despite the openness, more is hidden in the West, both in relative and absolute terms.


Deployment is not an absolute measure of capability. For example the US went over the supercav torps and decided it offered no or little value.

The Soviets decided a nuclear armed supercav torp had value as a last ditch defensive measure. Hence its deployment.

Technologies are deployed as a function of a comprehensive requirement, which gives the context of the choices made.

 

[dioditto]

so what? because you haven't seen it doesn't mean a thing - and with no disrespect, there are (for example) some 7 different weapons projects currently underway in Australia (alone) that are not in the public domain - and they won't be for obvious reasons.

In 2000-2001 I was personally involved with a privately funded weapons project for ballistic weapons recoil management. I was the Operations Manager. Part of that project involved liaison with a gentleman in the US who was working on and had successfully trialled a cavitating round.

His development swung off work done by a US Naval Weapons Scientist in the mid 1960's. That Scientist is regarded as the pre-eminent US expert on UDT - and he is still contracted by the USG even though he has retired.

RickUSN will probably be familiar with him (as in the NAVSEA Scientist).

Not all news about weapons capability and technology hits Google.

The US is well ahead of the Russians and were working on cav torpedoes in the mid 60's.

Great! this is a great way to win an argument.

"I know what I know, but I can't tell you what I know, so I win the argument!"

Terrific! you certainly convinced me!

"Hey, tell you what, I know Russians have an TOP SECRET INVISIBLE SUPER WEAPON! It's top secret, and it's totally invisible, and totally undetectable!! And it beats the shit out of the lousy western weapons! and I know it's far better than any of the American/Australian/French/British/NATO alliance combined! But I can't prove it to you because it's top secret!"

 

[dioditto]

Nations that have well funded mil research programmes don't need to flash their R&D in public (and exaggerate the potential) in order to attract outside funding.

This means that, despite the openness, more is hidden in the West, both in relative and absolute terms.

Again, do you work for the Russian? ....: HOW DO YOU KNOW they are not hiding even more? LOL.

And the funding for military research does equates to the quality of the research. You could throw a lot of money in and not get a better deal out of it. There are many examples of this (Space shuttles vs Buran, B1 vs Blackjack, Mir vs Skylab) just to name a few.

Deployment is not an absolute measure of capability. For example the US went over the supercav torps and decided it offered no or little value.

The Soviets decided a nuclear armed supercav torp had value as a last ditch defensive measure. Hence its deployment.

Technologies are deployed as a function of a comprehensive requirement, which gives the context of the choices made.

Yes, ofcourse, but the choice made means that the Russians had worked at the problem far more than the american, having a WORKING DEPLOYED WEAPON means that it has gone through numerous QA testing, bug fix, and refinement.

This is like.. the Chinese start saying their J-XX stealth fighter is far superior than the F-22... ON PAPER. (and have nothing to show for it. Would you believe them? LOL.

 

[Ths]

Well dioditto:

There are some indications:
1. US submarine manning levels have not declined what it should have due to information technology. What are the superfleous crewmen doing?
2. The US is introducing new subs.
3. The sorry state of the Russian subfleet does not indicate a funding level that will support extensive research.

I've never seen these arguments as a matter of winning: I'm here to get wiser. For me there is nothing in it for me if You are convinced or not - that is your concern.
Your presetation of facts and reasoning is what makes me wiser, also my presentation of facts and reasoning allows me to check my perception of the world.
This is of particular importance discussing submarines as the by definition are elusive.

 

[Grand Danois]

Again, do you work for the Russian? ....: HOW DO YOU KNOW they are not hiding even more? LOL.

You didn't respond to what I said.

And the funding for military research does equates to the quality of the research. You could throw a lot of money in and not get a better deal out of it. There are many examples of this (Space shuttles vs Buran, B1 vs Blackjack, Mir vs Skylab) just to name a few.

If you got 10x (or even 100x, dependent on method) the budget, there is room for at lot of trial and error.

Yes, ofcourse, but the choice made means that the Russians had worked at the problem far more than the american, having a WORKING DEPLOYED WEAPON means that it has gone through numerous QA testing, bug fix, and refinement.

IMV the Shkval as a deployed weapon is a waste of effort. Poor quality of research (by your definition).

This is like.. the Chinese start saying their J-XX stealth fighter is far superior than the F-22... ON PAPER. (and have nothing to show for it. Would you believe them? LOL.

That is because there are absolute and known factors that constrain what the aircraft is able to do. It is no analogy.

 

[dioditto]

You didn't respond to what I said.

I think I have. You cannot compare "secretiveness" as quantity of comparison. Nations with even less budget do not show what they have. It's like I show you nothing vs I show you NOTHING AT ALL.

If you got 10x (or even 100x, dependent on method) the budget, there is room for at lot of trial and error.

Depends, and that budget could be wasted

IMV the Shkval as a deployed weapon is a waste of effort. Poor quality of research (by your definition).

No, my definition is a comparison of working weapon vs a theory on paper. Americans may have quality research, but so far, they have nothing to show for it.

That is because there are absolute and known factors that constrain what the aircraft is able to do. It is no analogy.

You are not answering my question - And what are these "absolute and known factors" you are talking about?

 

[Grand Danois]

I think I have. You cannot compare "secretiveness" as quantity of comparison. Nations with even less budget do not show what they have. It's like I show you nothing vs I show you NOTHING AT ALL.

The Russians have been looking for foreign funding for most projects the past two decades. Despite the newfound oil wealth they still have to go external for funding of the PAK-FA. If your budget is small then there are limits to your R&D, black programmes etc.

Absolute budgets matter.

You can also read into what the general and dual-use industrial and science base is capable of. If a lot of reengineered imported technology.

Ability in sectors outside of defense matter.

No, my definition is a comparison of working weapon vs a theory on paper. Americans may have quality research, but so far, they have nothing to show for it.

That is your definition. If the level of capability a deployed weapon like Shkval takes you nowhere, then I would consider a latent capability more important. And as you can see, developing supercav projectiles is the application of one such.

You are not answering my question - And what are these "absolute and known factors" you are talking about?

My bad. I read it as J-10, not J-XX. The answer to that is above.

The absolute and known factors refer to the J-10.

 

[dioditto]

The Russians have been looking for foreign funding for most projects the past two decades. Despite the newfound oil wealth they still have to go external for funding of the PAK-FA. If your budget is small then there are limits to your R&D, black programmes etc.

Absolute budgets matter.

You can also read into what the general and dual-use industrial and science base is capable of. If a lot of reengineered imported technology.

Ability in sectors outside of defense matter.

I don't think that's "provable" in any way. You may speculate on military black budget from the OUTSET, but that does not mean you can get an accurate guage of it. There are countless military analysts trying to guess when or how much the North Korean (or Iranian) are upto with their secret nuclear program, so far, none have been proven right. (an even earlier attempt on "guessing" the Chinese nuclear program back in 60s, also ends with the western intelligence "surprised" at the development - meaning, they had no idea at all. And they still don't - nobody knows exactly how many nukes the Chinese have)

That is your definition. If the level of capability a deployed weapon like Shkval takes you nowhere, then I would consider a latent capability more important. And as you can see, developing supercav projectiles is the application of one such.

Perhaps. But I would bet on a guy who has done his work first (and continues to refine it), than a guy who speculate on it and not making anything. Face it, you cannot leapfrog someone who has put a lot of practial work and developed an END PRODUCT vs someone who only have it in the lab. Put it this way....Are you trying to tell me that North Korea, Iran are going to LEAPFROG the US in nuclear warhead design? LOL.

 

[Grand Danois]

I don't think that's "provable" in any way. You may speculate on military black budget from the OUTSET, but that does not mean you can get an accurate guage of it. There are countless military analysts trying to guess when or how much the North Korean (or Iranian) are upto with their secret nuclear program, so far, none have been proven right. (an even earlier attempt on "guessing" the Chinese nuclear program back in 60s, also ends with the western intelligence "surprised" at the development - meaning, they had no idea at all. And they still don't - nobody knows exactly how many nukes the Chinese have)

That is minutae. You're right that the possibility of error is relatively large on estimates when dealing with elements. But the error is small for a nations R&D effort as a whole.

And how does the given examples constitute anything earthshattering? Nothing new is developed...

Perhaps. But I would bet on a guy who has done his work first (and continues to refine it), than a guy who speculate on it and not making anything. Face it, you cannot leapfrog someone who has put a lot of practial work and developed an END PRODUCT vs someone who only have it in the lab. Put it this way....Are you trying to tell me that North Korea, Iran are going to LEAPFROG the US in nuclear warhead design? LOL.

So if, say the PRC, had done continous research on rubberband slingshot technology and deployed it for intercontinental nuke delivery use, they would have an advantage in delivery systems?

That is not the case. Slingshots are a poor delivery method of nukes.

Latent vs deployed. Deploy it when it affords a useful capability.

 

[dioditto]

That is minutae. You're right that the possibility of error is relatively large on estimates when dealing with elements. But the error is small for a nations R&D effort as a whole.

And how does the given examples constitute anything earthshattering? Nothing new is developed...

You just agreed to my point

So if, say the PRC, had done continous research on rubberband slingshot technology and deployed it for intercontinental nuke delivery use, they would have an advantage in delivery systems?

That is not the case. Slingshots are a poor delivery method of nukes.

Latent vs deployed. Deploy it when it affords a useful capability.

That is not the same comparison. Americans are not developing something radically different, or heading in a different field of research. They are researching cavitation technologies for their application, which Russians already had decades of research AND working model. You are trying argue orange to apple, but reality is really apple to apple, except americans don't even have the apple yet.

 

[Grand Danois]

You just agreed to my point

Nope. Pointed out your perspective is wrong. Estimates are dependent on the size of the object being measured vs the measure itself. It is difficult to measure the diameter of a pinhead with a classroom ruler in a meaningful way. But the same ruler applies well when you measure an apple.

Skhvals are "old tech" in US terms. It is covered ground and not new. That includes the torp application.

If it doesn't provide a meaningful weapon, then don't develop it. Just like an intercontinental slingshot.

That is not the same comparison. Americans are not developing something radically different, or heading in a different field of research. They are researching cavitation technologies for their application, which Russians already had decades of research AND working model. You are trying argue orange to apple, but reality is really apple to apple, except americans don't even have the apple yet.

Cav technologies are used in a number of areas eg rod penetrators. The absence of a deployed torp tells you nothing.

The Russians have decades of experience with a specific system.

In principle, of course something radical new could pop up. But so far everybody else are using their R&D replicating deployed US capabilities ie catching up with known benchmarks. Because foreign govts has less or far less than a tenth of the budget.

Deployed vs latent has been covered.

 

[Grand Danois]

Upkeep and Highball were declassified in 1974 as part of the 30 year OSA release.

There are some technologies that have been double extended under OSA. ie they have been deemed classified until 2034 (ie 3rd extension).

Some australian data is classified for 99 years even though the nominal release is at 30 years.

Off topic but re declassification of WWII material. I'm flagging this one.

http://virtual.finland.fi/stt/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=14343&group=General

 

[eckherl]

gee, if I'm getting that predictable I better change my approach...:nutkick

My other pet peeve is quoting internet sources for ballistic armour stats - none of the stats I've seen quoted for anti-tank weapons and armour penetration remotely resembles data I've seen on some of our own proximity tests or data thats been provided by some of our allies who have been "disassembling" in their own "sandpits" - so again, I tend to switch off and go read a book rather than comment and get frustrated.

publicly "released" data is so off the mark sometimes its not funny.

Hey come on now - some of it can be quite amusing.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Great! this is a great way to win an argument.

"I know what I know, but I can't tell you what I know, so I win the argument!"

Terrific! you certainly convinced me!

"Hey, tell you what, I know Russians have an TOP SECRET INVISIBLE SUPER WEAPON! It's top secret, and it's totally invisible, and totally undetectable!! And it beats the shit out of the lousy western weapons! and I know it's far better than any of the American/Australian/French/British/NATO alliance combined! But I can't prove it to you because it's top secret!"

actually, I don't need to convince you of anything. You're welcome to believe what you want and who you want. I also don't need to "win" an argument. If you need to "win" then I am quite happy for you to dismiss all that I've commented on and go home feeling like a "winner".

I am quite comfortable with sitting with my perspective based on what I know and have no compunction at all to validate it just because you're in disagreement.

Its interesting to me that the response by some who have no background in weapons projects is that if you can't validate it in public via internet sources, then you have no foundation for credibility.

I guess I'll let you continue to be the subject matter expert as you obviously have a better insight than some of us.

Congrats - you're the "winner" of the debate.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Jesus, cool it mate. You are just full of it. :

Thats a great way to demonstrate maturity. Fortunately for you I don't need to establish my credibility as I work in an acoustic and signature management climate - so I do have a reasonable idea of what has and has not been achieved.

If you don't like the answers, then tough. Arguing in circles to cement your position is more indicative of the weakness of your argument than anything else.

The fact that you still don't understand that not all weaps technologies are in the public domain is somewhat illuminating.

At the 2004 UDT Conf over 17 discrete active systems were reviewed - only 2 were in the public domain. By your logic 15 of them are vaporware as you don't see any Internet evidence. By your debating style, the fact that white paper and green papers were issued to delegates doesn't count as they're not in the public domain(?) - so therefore aren't valid as they're not up for public chatter

Congratulations - you're in an unimpeachable position of subject authority.

 

[eckherl]

Thats a great way to demonstrate maturity. Fortunately for you I don't need to establish my credibility as I work in an acoustic and signature management climate - so I do have a reasonable idea of what has and has not been achieved.

If you don't like the answers, then tough. Arguing in circles to cement your position is more indicative of the weakness of your argument than anything else.

The fact that you still don't understand that not all weaps technologies are in the public domain is somewhat illuminating.

At the 2004 UDT Conf over 17 discrete active systems were reviewed - only 2 were in the public domain. By your logic 15 of them are vaporware as you don't see any Internet evidence. By your debating style, the fact that white paper and green papers were issued to delegates doesn't count as they're not in the public domain(?) - so therefore aren't valid as they're not up for public chatter

Congratulations - you're in an unimpeachable position of subject authority.

I have a full appreciation as to what you are saying, people would freak out if they knew what type of technology is out there or what we a experimenting with. Some of the people cannot relate to this nor can we expect them to, for them please be a little patient. Some of us really do enjoy your posts and input on different topics that are out there.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I have a full appreciation as to what you are saying, people would freak out if they knew what type of technology is out there or what we a experimenting with. Some of the people cannot relate to this nor can we expect them to, for them please be a little patient. Some of us really do enjoy your posts and input on different topics that are out there.

Military technology history is replete with examples of technologies being developed and deployed with the other side and even allies being clueless about it.

eg:

• for 20+ years not even the US knew that the UK had developed nuke sea mines
• for 29 years the US had no idea that the Soviets had deployed 5 nuclear torpedoes during the Cuban Crisis and that the drivers were cleared for autonomous release. They were regarded by the sub drivers as suicide weapons and needed ideal enemy placement to have worked.
• for 29 years the Russians had no idea that the USN had tracked all of their subs from their Northern Bases all the way to Cuba - they had no idea that the ASW task Forces were also cleared to sink them if they opened their doors
• full capability of weapons systems is never released until they are deemed absolutely obsolescent. some of the ballistic armour specs of the M60's are still classified even though there is an "abundance of information on the net". eg Metalstorm has compartmentalised specs released for Patent validation - but the core data is not available for release and/or available.
• The USAF had used Stealth aircraft on active missions and had them in an active squadron for almost 12 years before they were released to the public. They're now about to retire that first generation stealth platform after being in service for 25 years. For almost half of its active service life nobody knew about it.

Evidence of presence is not always evidence of capability. eg: China has been offering electronically managed harbour protection systems for sale, they're touted as world class products - thats challenged by the fact that they recently contracted a Scottish company to provide and integrate a UK array system for harbour protection and security.

 

[icelord]

And how does the given examples constitute anything earthshattering? Nothing new is developed...

That we know of...

Ok, so there are some knowns, and some unknowns, i'm not going into all of that sentence, anyway, we're off topic
Does Europe in any way have a R&D on this? or are they doing a wait see or We just don't know/need to know, and i'll be happy with the latter.

My other pet peeve is quoting internet sources for ballistic armour stats - none of the stats I've seen quoted for anti-tank weapons and armour penetration remotely resembles data I've seen on some of our own proximity tests or data thats been provided by some of our allies who have been "disassembling" in their own "sandpits" - so again, I tend to switch off and go read a book rather than comment and get frustrated.

If you don't know, just make Sh*t up, simple

 

[Grand Danois]

dioditto already mentioned the Barracuda.

http://www.diehl-bgt-defence.de/index.php?id=550&L=1

http://www.morgenwelt.de/609.1.html

 

[dioditto]

actually, I don't need to convince you of anything. You're welcome to believe what you want and who you want. I also don't need to "win" an argument. If you need to "win" then I am quite happy for you to dismiss all that I've commented on and go home feeling like a "winner".

I am quite comfortable with sitting with my perspective based on what I know and have no compunction at all to validate it just because you're in disagreement.

Its interesting to me that the response by some who have no background in weapons projects is that if you can't validate it in public via internet sources, then you have no foundation for credibility.

I guess I'll let you continue to be the subject matter expert as you obviously have a better insight than some of us.

Congrats - you're the "winner" of the debate.

I merely pointing out the flaw in your arguments, as you seem to know "EVERYTHING" from your onesided perspective. And you have not answer my question, do you work for the Russian? If not, why the hell can you assume one is superior than others? It is dangerous to totally underestimate your potential enemy.