PDA

View Full Version : Russian Navy : News & Discussion



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Austin
17th September 2005, 18:19
Russia’s New Navy Chief Vows To Stay the Course
By LYUBOV PRONINA, MOSCOW (DefenseNews)

Russia’s Navy will stay the course focusing on strategic nuclear forces while also boosting its rescue capabilities, the force’s new chief told reporters Sept. 5.

“The five-year fleet development program is being completed now, and we have worked out a new plan that will soon be signed by the defense minister,” Adm. Vladimir Masorin said at his first press conference. “Development of the strategic navy remains the main priority for us and a large sum of the naval budget goes toward that.”

Masorin, 58, was appointed Navy commander in chief Sept. 4 following the sacking of longtime forces leader Adm. Vladimir Kuroyedov. Masorin was deputy Navy chief.

Kuroyedov became naval chief in 1997, and his tenure was rife with turmoil.

Under his watch, the Navy made international headlines with a number of embarrassing and deadly accidents, including the explosion aboard the nuclear submarine Kursk, which sank and claimed the lives of the 118-man crew. In August 2003, nine members of a 10-man submarine crew died when their vessel sank in the Barents Sea on the way to a scrap yard.

Also under Kuroyedov’s leadership, the Navy failed to advance plans to buy new battle ships, despite growing state defense allocations. Kuroyedov also got entangled in the battle for export contracts between Russian firms. Last month’s sinking of the AS-28 rescue mini-sub in the Pacific — and the way it was handled by the Navy — was seen by many as the last straw.

“One thing is clear: To continue in the condition that we are in now and do nothing is simply not possible,” Masorin said Sept. 5. “I have been given the task of stopping the Navy from shaking public opinion.”

Masorin lambasted the service’s top brass for “deception” following the AS-28 sinking. He said the Navy now lacks the funds to buy underwater rescue vessels of the type Britain sent to help Russia save the mini-sub. Russian-made vessels will be upgraded and re-equipped, he said.

Austin
17th September 2005, 18:20
Russia to Expand Baltic Submarine Fleet
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, MOSCOW (DefenseNews)

Russia’s navy plans to expand its Baltic Sea submarine flotilla from three to as many as nine combat submarines by 2007, the Baltic Fleet’s commander told Interfax-AVN news agency Sept. 15.

”A submarine brigade with between six and nine Project 677 Lada submarines will be formed over the next two years,” Admiral Vladimir Valuyev said.

The expansion follows a cut-back in the number of submarines operated by the Baltic Fleet after the Soviet Union’s 1991 collapse, the admiral noted.

Of the three subs currently in the fleet, two are in a state of permanent combat readiness.

The fourth generation Project 677 Lada submarine can carry up to 18 torpedoes and evade detection by radar. It has a surface speed of 10 knots and travels at 21 knots underwater.

The 67-metre (221-foot) long vessel weighs 1,765 tons and can remain underwater for 45 days.

The announcement follows a round of sackings and disciplinary measures at the top of Russia’s navy over its performance during the near-fatal snaring of a mini-submarine with seven crew under the Pacific Ocean last month.

Austin
17th September 2005, 18:29
BATHYSCAPHE BUILT FOR A FOREIGN CUSTOMER (http://www.milparade.com/page.php?word=201&type=1&t_sid=21282624624329659e9c1ef)

The Saint Petersburg-based Baltiysky Zavod Shipyard has completed the construction of a manned deep-diving vehicle intended for a foreign customer. The vehicle can dive to a depth of down to 7 thousand meters and is designed to carry out research in the Pacific Ocean and explore natural resources on the sea bottom.

http://www.milparade.com/pic/batiskaf.gif

The bathyscaphe is 8 m long and 3 m wide. Its crew consists of three men: a commander and two researchers. The vehicle comprises a habitable compartment, a load-carrying structure, ballast tanks and auxiliary compartments. The habitable compartment features a titanium-made sphere with a diameter of 2.1 m and up to 114 mm-thick walls. The bathyscaphe development has allowed the Baltiysky Zavod Shipyard’s production subdivisions to accumulate a good experience in building such vehicles. According to the RIA Novosti press agency, Russia’s Defense Ministry and Baltiysky Zavod are currently negotiating the issue of building a deep-diving vehicle for the Russian Navy.

Austin
17th September 2005, 18:33
First Series Production of Lada Begins (http://www.ckb-rubin.ru/eng/news/280705.htm)

Prior to the celebration of the Russian Federation Navy Day in the workshop of FSUE "Admiral Shipyards" the ceremony of laying the first series production non-nuclear submarine of project 677 for Russian Navy took place. The submarine got the name "Kronshtadt" .

http://www.ckb-rubin.ru/eng/news/img/280705/12.jpg

On behalf of SOE CDB ME "Rubin" the memorial certificate of laying the submarine was signed by I.D.Spassky and Yu.N.Kormilitsin.

dionis
21st September 2005, 17:52
What we really need to know is the status of the 2 Borey Class Subs, the Severodvinsk SSN, and the remaining Kirovs (i think Ushakov is dead, but there are 2 more in dock).

Also, which new frigates/destroyers is the navy buying? And corvettes? (I doubt they are making any more cruisers or kirovs in the future)...

Wanshan
22nd September 2005, 17:20
There will be project 20380/82 corvettes plus new destroyers (likely along the lines of improved Udaloy 2). Eventually also additional carrier.

Terran
22nd September 2005, 17:43
I'll believe the aircraft carrier bit when I see it.

RSM55
24th September 2005, 15:20
There will be project 20380/82 corvettes plus new destroyers (likely along the lines of improved Udaloy 2). Eventually also additional carrier.

Improved Udaloy 2? :confused: If you think about Novik, she's dead and buried (well, actually she will serve as a training/test ship). 20380 is a lame duck, over-corvette and under-frigate, with too much firepower and not enough range and C3ISR capability and she's facing a lot of criticism from the Navy itself. Likely that the project will thouroughly change after the first line unit (Uran replaced by Onyx and the like).
Aircraft carrier development is scheduled to start in 2015 - imagine when such a project will leave the dry dock.
Emphasis is on the Borey and Severodvinsk SSBN/SSNs series, and the modernisation of Akulas (both I and II) and restauration of the second Sierra. Borey is scheduled for 2006, 2007 being more likely since 2006 is deemed "the year of the Air Force" and since Bulava is not ready yet.
There are plans to resurrect at least one derelict cruiser of the Kirov series, Peter t. G. remaining quite active.

Austin
24th September 2005, 18:05
Severodvinsk is suppose to hit waters by 2006 , Also we could see 4-6 more Amurs as series production has started.
Also a new Destroyer replacing the Sov , it would be similar to the USN Aeiges Destroyer, Things are looking Brighter & Better for the Russian navy.

RSM55
24th September 2005, 23:16
Severodvinsk is suppose to hit waters by 2006 , Also we could see 4-6 more Amurs as series production has started.
Also a new Destroyer replacing the Sov , it would be similar to the USN Aeiges Destroyer, Things are looking Brighter & Better for the Russian navy.

Agree with last proposition, but the new destroyer project is in no way similar to the Aegis-fitted types (what do you refer to by this exactly? Burke? Tico? the Japanese ones?), except the phased-array feature, which can be hardly considered as a all-new thing for the Russian navy. The Amur production line is to start yet, but official plans are to launch at least 8 subs in the coming 5 years. Let's be optimists.

Austin
25th September 2005, 00:49
RSM55 I agree , with what you have said , By Aegis I mean the 4 Sided Phased arrar radar , NAFO had carried this report , I just hope these PAR are the Active Ones similar to SPY-3.

What kind of Upgrade will the Akula Go through , Also whats is the status of Typhoon SSBN in the RuN ,How many of them are in Active service.Even they have gone through major upgrade recently.

Russia Plans to have 3 Borei before 2010.

Pit
25th September 2005, 03:45
RSM55 have you heard anything about two "Akula-I" upgraded during the 90s-till-today?

I have heard the Tigr receieved upgrades...or it was just a refit?

Did they introduced new towed array sonar like Gepard?

BTW, did you appear to know the name and origin of this new TA?

Thanks

RSM55
25th September 2005, 13:52
2 Austin:
Well, nothing is really known about the RN future destroyer requirements, it's even more difficult to obtain info about them than about project 20380. However, with more or less confidence, it has been reported that the RuNavy has chosen IBM PLM-solutions based environment for project design (with CATIAv5/DELVIA as system testing progs. - probably the Russian analogues to be exact), which were incidentally chosen by Northrop for its DD(X) programme: that should give a hint about the complexity of the gimmick.
The targeting and nav. systems are said to be based around a new iteration of the Fregat/Podberezovik systems, with a kind of "AESA" feature. It remains unclear wether an "improved Voskhod" (i.e. better than the already 3-dimensional MR-600) will be developed for surface search or whether the new sensor will take over that particular role as well.
As of now, the operational Akulas (I and II) number probably 13 units. Pantera (K-317) is being slightly upgraded now in Severodvinsk (but she's considered operational as well). One should refrain anyway from using the "Akula I/II" terminology, since it is absolutely not consistent with the Russian one: there is only Shuka-B and the boats built in Severodvinsk can be considered as improved compared to the early (Komsomosk-buit) hulls. The Russians sometimes call the "improved Akula" Bars, since it is the name of the first sub built in Severodvinsk. The major upgrade programme in the coming years involves new sensors and comms suites, on the Gepard level, Gepard herself being an improved version of the already improved Vepr.
Concerning the Typhoons, 3 are effectively in active service (Severstal, Arkhangelsk and Dmitri Donskoy). No. 712 and 713 are to be scrapped in SevMash. Dmitri Donskoy has been modified to test-fire and then carry the new Bulava 30 missile, she's likely to stay in service for some time.

2 Pit:
for the Akula upgrades cf. above,
Tigr was apparently only refitted, although some sources suggest a new (Gepard-type) TA and sensors.
There are no consistent (and unclassified) sources about the origin and the classification of the the new TA. It is rumoured that the TA is absolutely new, and is also to be used on the Borey and Severodvinsk subs.

Pit
25th September 2005, 21:02
Hello.

Thanks first to RSM55 for answering my doubts.

As I writte in the title, I'm intersted in the russian perspective regarding the influence that the Multiaxis Milling Machine the Russians bught to Toshiba during the mid-80s had in the research/construction of improved submarine design's propellors if any...

I suspect that the "Improved Akulas" from Severodinsk, could be benfited from this equipment, and also the 945A "Barrakuda" SSN called Sierra-II in NATO.

RSM-55 or any other member, what's your opinion?.

Regards
Pit :D

RSM55
26th September 2005, 11:02
As I writte in the title, I'm intersted in the russian perspective regarding the influence that the Multiaxis Milling Machine the Russians bught to Toshiba during the mid-80s had in the research/construction of improved submarine design's propellors if any...

I suspect that the "Improved Akulas" from Severodinsk, could be benfited from this equipment, and also the 945A "Barrakuda" SSN called Sierra-II in NATO.
Pit :D

You can imagine that this aspect is met with mixed feelings by most Russian commentators. While not denying the fact the Toshiba supplied such a machine to the (then) Leningrad yards, they emphasise that
1) the scandal occured almost 20 years ago (1987 to be exact),
2) the sudden and tremendous improvement in noise level reduction was not at all sudden and not tremendous and is the MMM is therefore not to be credited for all the apparent noise level reduction,
3) the "smoothing" of sub screws as a result of the MMM use is only one factor out of many. The sub type that mainly benefited from that was the Victor III RTM(K) version, and significant noise reduction was achieved not only thanks to Toshiba but mainly through design improvement (among others: brand-new anechoic coating and the choice of 2 tandem, 4-blade screws in lieu of a single, 8-blade one).

What's definitely true is that older Soviet milling machines were certainly not as good as Western ones, and the Leningrad yards were glad to get something better than their usual Almaz milling machines with Bulgarian electronics. It's one of the strangest discrepancies of the Soviet legacy: while retaining state-of-the-art material science on the R&D level (from metallic alloys to nanotechnologies), Russian heavy machinery construction is still in its infancy viewn from a technological level (which is quite amazing if one considers the huge number of soviet/russian enterprises that feature a "-mash-" morpheme in their name).

While the Toshiba machine might have seriously improved the performance of later Victor III versions (as stated above), one should seriously doubt claims that this represented a kind of "paradigm shift" for the Soviet/Russian submarine fleet (or plainly: fleet, as submarines aren't the only ships to use screws :) ). The noise reduction observed in the Akula (Shuka-B) and Sierra (Barracuda) series can only marginally result from better screw shape. And anyway, Russia has now the possibility to purchase almost all the heavy machinery it needs (and has effectively done so, be it by upgrading its own products to Western standards or simply bying it off-the-shelf in Germany and Switzerland). Almost all of this kind of tech is dual-use, and would hardly be subject to any control as has effectively been the case during the Cold War. Therefore, one cannot state with confidence that later Akulas (or Barracudas) have benefited from the Toshiba MMM (regardless of what the Times wrote about Gepard). AFAIK, the machine in question died and was partly cannibalised a long time ago anyway.

Pit
26th September 2005, 14:38
RSM55:

Your response was absolutely awesome and much more than I expected!!!

I will answer in lenght in a time

Pit

RSM55
26th September 2005, 15:13
RSM55:

Your response was absolutely awesome and much more than I expected!!!

I will answer in lenght in a time

Pit

Thanx a lot, and as soviet pioneers used to put it, "ever ready!" :D

Pit
26th September 2005, 15:20
RMS55 some doubts:

1) Did pr671RTM(K) included new screws and propeller system than 671RTM? (Victor-III)
2) What was the name of the non-acoustic sensors of the 671RTMK series (were used by good effect during Aport Operation to track US SSBNs), I have "Kolos" from a west source and "SOKS" from deespstorm.ru...anything regarding the history of these sensors?
3) Is there a command and control system called "Viking" in 671RTMK?
4) There was any problem with the Pelamida/Python towed array of the Victor-III?, I read in western sources something related to materials deficences...
5) Did any soviet submarine of the 971 or 945 proekt class have any non-acoustic sensor for detecting subs or countermeasures sensors?

Hope you can help me!

Blackcat
26th September 2005, 15:47
There will be project 20380/82 corvettes plus new destroyers (likely along the lines of improved Udaloy 2). Eventually also additional carrier.
Well, the new destroyers to me don look like went along the Udaloy-II designs ..... some pic of the improved Udaloy-II from the IMDS 2005, which has been posted earlier too ...

Down below is the new 'frigate' that is said to be under construction/to begin construction and will lilely come out after 3 years. Putting some drawing for the said 'frigate' Project 22350, the original one was posted by Igorr at BR.

Other pic was the speculated capablity of the project-22350 'frigate' by me and posted in some other forum a few months back. Some believe that its actually a frigate and is the next batch of Talwar class (throughly modernised) for Indian Navy to come from Russia. (the contract had 3 as option) And my speculation abt the same has been that, its actually a sucessor to the Udaloy-II class of destroyer with a very good set of offensive & defensive weapons. Its based on this 'destroyer profile' and the apparent structures at the stern (i cud as well be wrong) that i made the below stren config and the likely weapons 'load' that i showcased in the drawing.

My speculation of Project-22350s size and armaments rests on the size comparison of the main gun turret, the stern, 16-cell VLS on the modersinsed Udaloy-II, among others. While some say its a follow-on design of the Talwar class ship, considering the main gun is actually a modernised A-190E.

Another config (speculative) that u guys can see is the 'enlarged' version of the basic Project-22350, which was based on enhancing the combat potential of the 'basic' design by plugging in a 'module' thus almost doubling the weapons load at aft ...

.

Blackcat
26th September 2005, 15:57
And here are some news articles related to the new 'frigate', Project-22350 ---- first one posted by Igorr and second one the same fron NY times


RUSSIA TO GET NEW BATTLESHIPS (http://en.rian.ru/russia/20050524/40405698.html)

12:13 | 24/ 05/ 2005

MOSCOW, May 24 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's Navy is set to acquire 10 to 20 new battleships by 2015 that will set it back 5 to 10 billion rubles per frigate, Biznes, a business daily, reported.

The keels of a new frigate and a new large amphibious landing ship will be laid July 31 on Navy Day, said Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov, commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy.

The new Mk 22350 multi-role and long-range frigate will conduct anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations, hitting other naval targets. It will take three or four years to complete one frigate, if this project gets regular appropriations.

"Most likely, this project will feature engineering solutions that were used to build Mk 11356 frigates for the Indian Navy," Konstantin Makiyenko, deputy director of the Center for Analyzing Strategies and Technologies, said.

"This is, in fact, a large destroyer that is called a 'frigate' for political reasons," Mikhail Barabanov, scientific editor of Arms Exports magazine, said.

Experts have some misgivings about the July 31 deadline because a contract is usually awarded after a tender, but as of yet, no tender has been laid out.

According to the navy's Kuroyedov, the keel of a new large amphibious-landing ship will be finished before the year is out. That ship will displace 8,000 to 9,000 tons.

"The Russian Navy still has two amphibious landing ships that are unfit for action," Barabanov said. "It will take at least five billion rubles to build this ship."

If the tender is completed and the contract signed, these will be the first new ships for the navy since the year the Soviet Union collapsed, a navy source said.

"Not a single warship has been designed and built for the Russian Navy since 1991," he said, adding that the state has now started setting aside money.

The Russian military ship building industry's recovery has positively influenced armed exports.

"Naval hardware sales will account for 50% of Russian arms-export volumes, or more than $2.5 billion this year," Rosoboronexport head Sergei Chemezov said.
Russia to Get New Battleships (http://nyjtimes.com/Stories/2005/RussiaToGetNewBattleships.htm)



Improved Udaloy 2? If you think about Novik, she's dead and buried (well, actually she will serve as a training/test ship). he was mentioning the model showcased at IMDS 2005, if am not wrong .... and not the Project 12441 Novik.

do u think this cud be the next ship for China after the Sovermennys? ..... it may or may not happen, but if the Project-22350 is not a ship in the class of Udaloy-II, then this cud be the one replacing the Udaloy-II else, i don see the Russian navy filling their inventory with a stop-gap design like this when the far better 22350 is just around the corner ... But one thing that i wud not like to see go with these ships to PLAN is ofcourse, the Yakhont ....


20380 is a lame duck, over-corvette and under-frigate, with too much firepower and not enough range and C3ISR capability and she's facing a lot of criticism from the Navy itself. Likely that the project will thouroughly change after the first line unit (Uran replaced by Onyx and the like). I got to differ, with 4,000nm and a good load of offensive weapons, its the right ship to take care of the Russian home waters and can also give the bigges added firepower. These with their 8 x Yakhont (might become standard replacing the Urans), its more than enough to secure the Northern, Baltic and Black sea and pound many times, the likes of Norwy, Ukraine & Gerogia and other kids of America in the region, including any 'reinforcing forces' from outside, if they try to interfere way too much into Russian national interests. I find these chap very perfect in that role and myself as an Indian wud like these class of ships to make up the 'inner circle' and for small opponents (western side & eastern side) freeing the biggies for open ocean.

Indian Navy's P-28 (ASW, AAW, AShW) is said to be based on these guys and would be complementing & replacing the P-25/P-25A class of pocket destroyers. P-25A fully deseve the name of "Pocket destroyers" as they have the punch of the much bigger and heavier Delhi class of destroyers, with the P-28 likely to carry forward the title of 'pocket destroyers' even further.


Aircraft carrier development is scheduled to start in 2015 - imagine when such a project will leave the dry dock. was it not to start after 2010 and get into service after 2015??....


Emphasis is on the Borey and Severodvinsk SSBN/SSNs series, and the modernisation of Akulas (both I and II) and restauration of the second Sierra. whats the status of the 3 Sierras?? ....though i believe they will be eventually upgraded to make it 'in-line' with its successor Akulas, anyone got upgraded??....


There are plans to resurrect at least one derelict cruiser of the Kirov series, Peter t. G. remaining quite active. Now thats something that i've been looking forward to --- seeing the Ushakov being resurrected to be the Flag Bearer of the Pacific Fleet. Hope all of them will be resurrected into their ultimate avataar to see 2 each of them in Pacific & Northern Fleet, though the most likely config wud be (as is now) to have 3 in Northern Fleet (its always good to have as many slicers as u can have in that area) and one in the Pacific Fleet.



And if we go through the ship thats coming Indo-Russian joint exercise, INDRA-2005, we'll see that two of the ships - The current Flag Ship of Pacific Fleet - Varyag & Admiral Tributs (Udaloy-I class ASW destroyer) was considerd not to return to service, with the Udaloy-I being written off by western naval analysts as she had suffered two accidents relating to onboard fire (1991 & 1995, source hazegray) and not been in operation for long.

So its that the Russians have put in their best to resurrect these two ships. And if thats the case, I'll keep my optimism to see another 6 Sovermennys & 3 Udaloy-I to be resurrected as well. Also to note is that these chaps are to reaim in international waters for nearly/over 2 months and that will also show as to how good the conditions of these ships are.


Agree with last proposition, but the new destroyer project is in no way similar to the Aegis-fitted types (what do you refer to by this exactly? Burke?
well see my speculative pics ( above posts) and u may or maynot agree with me, but then my speculation might as well be near to the real stuff or it cud be way off the mark ....

.

Blackcat
26th September 2005, 16:00
The Amur production line is to start yet, but official plans are to launch at least 8 subs in the coming 5 years. Let's be optimists. X psting a reply for this one from my post on another forum ----


I've made a list of Project-677 Lada/Amur-1650 submarines that have entered service/under construction/future construction. The below list have been filed taking info from Igorr's post in Project-75 thread.

- Ship Name (Class/Naval Service/Status & comments)

- Sankt Petersburg (Lada; Russian Navy; entered service)
- Amur-1650 (Amur-1650; Indian Navy, most likely; reported 30% complete, induction in 1-2 yrs?)
- Kronstadt (Lada; Russian Navy; reportedly work started/to start soon)
- Petrozavodsk (Lada; Russian Navy; work to start after 'Kronstadt')


Concerning the Typhoons, 3 are effectively in active service (Severstal, Arkhangelsk and Dmitri Donskoy). No. 712 and 713 are to be scrapped in SevMash. Dmitri Donskoy has been modified to test-fire and then carry the new Bulava 30 missile, she's likely to stay in service for some time.
So they dropped the idea of converion as siad by CDB-ME Rubin? ...... and no chance of retaining them in service? .... have the scrapping begun or have already finished, if not whats level of stripping have the 3 Typhoons underwent?


RSM55 I agree , with what you have said , By Aegis I mean the 4 Sided Phased arrar radar , NAFO had carried this report , I just hope these PAR are the Active Ones similar to SPY-3. Anyone over here identify this radr showed at IMDS 2005 .... is it any way the MR-700M AESA radar mentioned as the one to find its place on aircraft carier Gorshkov?

If not, anyone got any pic or brouchure of the AESA variant?

Blackcat
26th September 2005, 16:08
and the new large landing ship, Project-11711. Pic from Igorr

RSM55
26th September 2005, 16:50
RMS55 some doubts:

1) Did pr671RTM(K) included new screws and propeller system than 671RTM? (Victor-III)
2) What was the name of the non-acoustic sensors of the 671RTMK series (were used by good effect during Aport Operation to track US SSBNs), I have "Kolos" from a west source and "SOKS" from deespstorm.ru...anything regarding the history of these sensors?
3) Is there a command and control system called "Viking" in 671RTMK?
4) There was any problem with the Pelamida/Python towed array of the Victor-III?, I read in western sources something related to materials deficences...
5) Did any soviet submarine of the 971 or 945 proekt class have any non-acoustic sensor for detecting subs or countermeasures sensors?

Hope you can help me!

1) No, actually the new (tandem-screw, 2x4 blades) propellers were already chosen as the main system during the construction of the first RTM batch. And the first sub to use the noise-reducing experimental tandem scheme was actually the first 671RT (K-387 built in Gorki at the Krasnoe Sormovo yard and modified in Leningrad Admiralterskyie yards)!
2) It is sometimes said that the "K" in RTMK was added to the subs that received SOKS (not Kolos). That's only partly true: some "clean" 671 became 617K after being fitted with SOKS while some 617RT modified along the same line didn't receive any appendix at all. On top of that, K-502 (Commander: Cpt1r Smetanin) was a RTMK without SOKS but with a very characteristic bulbous appendix on the foredeck right after the fairing (6m long, 1,5m wide/high) hiding an experimental "Granat" launch pad and the experimental "Akatsia" targeting C3 system (using the same hardware as the "Omnibus" overall C3 suite but having a "battle post" of its own, namely BTch-2 while OMNIBUS was located in BTch-7).So much for consistency! :o
(Some sources suggest that the K stands for "Krylataya raketa", i.e. cruise missile, i.e. Granat in that case, but it's highly speculative).

SOKS is a very sensitive (for its time) "keel-water wake detection system" (Sistema Obnarujenia Kilvaternovo Sleda) derived from the first Soviet torpedo-mounted systems. During Operation Aport the K-147 (a "clean" 671 fitted with the SOKS and the experimental MNK-100) managed to follow a Lafayette-class (probably Simon Bolivar) SSN for more than 6 days (other sources say it was a Los A. SSN, but it's hard to believe). The point is: you can't detect anything just with the SOKS, you need (passive) acoustics as well (because of basic physics) and the whole thing's name is MNK-100: the wake of a sub changes the density of the water, filling it with microscopic bubbles. This effect can last for hours and hours, so you need to go through a complex process of measuring these parameters when they're still detectable through acoustic (passive) and hydrooptical means (as it seems that trying to detect this effect by measuring the relative salinity values has not proved reliable).

3) Yes and no. RTM(K) were the first subs in the Sov.Union to receive an integrated battle information system (BIUS), and the first was called "Viking". It was afterwards completely (and very painfully) replaced by the more advanced "Omnibus".

4) Problems arose mainly from the difficulty of towing back the array in the bulbous canopy of the Ruza system. Skat (all systems) is said to have been highly reliable.

5) Yep, both Akula and Sierra have non-acoustic sensors. Strangely enough, the acoustic suite of the Sierra is less efficient than the Akula's (Skat-KS with analogue processing) but this is probably compensated by greater operational depth. Countermeasures are still classified for all subs (they have been used during "Aport" and "Atrina" ops though), however, it is possible that the experimental, 300m/sec 2nd stage submarine rocket APR-3M can also be launched individually and not only with the first stage, as a "last chance to cut-the-wires" means.

RSM55
26th September 2005, 17:10
Very quick answer to all (have to go, sorry):
First of all, thanx for answering and a few points:
1) please remember that the project number 22350 is not official yet
2) the tentative drawings shown by Blackcat above give a certain idea of it. However, both Northern yards AND Balttechnoprom conduct studies that feature outriggers and trimaran-shaped hulls.
3) I DO NOT hate the 22380, she's fairly pretty and fair, I just question her necessity in times where there is no yet a clear definition of what the Fleet wants (a Visby-ski or a super-corvette) and seriously doubt her C3ISAR. XX-2 version is quite OK
4). Udaloys and Sovs are likely to be held alive till they reach the end of the tether and the new "frigate" replaces them.
5) Ushakov will raise from the ashes and joint Peter, but the rest is definitely dead.
6) 1 Typhoon is already being cut in pieces, the fate of 2 others is sealed...but this being Russia, everything is possible. If Borey has problems they'll quickly convert them in Bulava carriers.

RSM55
26th September 2005, 17:33
Just an appendix for a subject I've only overflown before:


RMS55 some doubts:
4) There was any problem with the Pelamida/Python towed array of the

to be exact, the problem with the array was that at speeds lower than 10 knots, the flow around the hydrodynamic fairing bulb became consistent with the 671 tandem blade succion zone, so when the array was towed back into the fairing it curved gently just before the aperture above the max. degree level allowed. Therefore the sub had either to accelerate and let the flow around the bulb negate the succion zone or to follow a complex sinusoidal tragectory (rudders up-wait-trail back / rudder amidships - stop trailing / rudders down and again) with all the inconveniences that such procedures entail (cavitation noises, elevated waterflow and wake and inevitable hull expansion clanks in the second scenario).

Pit
26th September 2005, 17:45
You're a machine RSM55 :D

Happy to have you in the forum!!!

Thanks a lot for all

Pit

Austin
27th September 2005, 01:48
RSM55 that was fantastic , Good to read stuff posted by you.

Blackcat , Thanks for that good piece of info , The follow on 3 Talwar is almost a done deal. The 4 Faced Phased Array radar on the ship can you identify those what are they active or passive and whats their designation ???

Also RSM55 whats the status of Severodvinsk SSN , do you have any information on the technical aspects of this sub.

RSM55
27th September 2005, 12:31
Thanks a lot Pit & Austin, great to have such grateful readers.

There is a lot of conflicting info about the pr. 885 (Yasen) status, she seems to be even more secret than the Borey: no one knows for sure how many hulls are being constructed right now (numbers range from 1 - Severodvinsk itself - to 3). Official sources say that in 2004, Borey was 30% ready and Severodvinsk 85% (!), while emphasising that SevMash got in trouble getting the steam turbines and other propulsive apparatus from the Kaluga plant on time. In 2005, the financing was 1,5 times higher than 2004. So it seems probable that the new SSN will closely follow, if not precede, the Borey sometime around 2006-2007. Remember that 955 and 885 share a common layout and a lot of common systems, so a problem with one project will be echoed at the other.
Other sources suggest an altogether different source of problems: the integration of the all-new (and enormous) frontal sonar sphere. It has been suggested that the Yankee sub modified by Rubin in the 90's (Yankee POD, aka Akson-2 aka pr. 09780 aka Kasan) has been designed to test exactly this equipment. As she was very often observed in active service in the last 4 years, it has been suggested that the sonar system still needs refinement. Another special-purpose sub whose activity goes in parallel with the construction progress of the Borey/Yasen is the 667AN Orenburg, whose official purpose is geophysical mapping. No idea how this could be connected with the 885/955 projects.
From open sources, it remains difficult to say what kind of armament (and in what quantity) the Severodvinsk will carry. Some mention 24 Onyx/Yakhont missiles in VLCon, but that could be seriously put in doubt: Yakhont's calibre is 650 mm, so it could even be launched from "fat" TT, and for unknown reasons the Russians decided to put them in VLS and classify the actual numbers carried. Some have even suggested that each launch tube could actually fit 3 Yakhonts inside... no idea why the Navy doesn't want to disclose the actual numbers. But that's a hot topic anyway: just to give you some food for thought: the Barracudas more or less officially carry 40 missiles (all in all), the 971 (Bars iteration) officially carries a much smaller warload while sporting a 1,5 times bigger displacement... Add to this that the Granat is a bit thinner but definitely longer than the Yakhont (because of the booster stage) and you've got quite a bizzare picture...
PS: the VLS for the 885 has been tested on the pr. 06704 (modified 670M, B-452) successfully and has been cleared for integration.
PPS: after the Russians and the US agreed to remove all tactinukes from their subs, the Granat and Shkval missiles had to be put in store. As a result, the Barracudas were supposed to lose their "cruiser" status and the letter K in their code (which was replaced by a plain B and was met with fierce resistance by the submariners who are, as we all know, a conservative folk...). But the Akulas didn't lose it. Add this detail to the picture above and it becomes even more shadowy...

RSM55
27th September 2005, 16:46
(INTERFAX-AVN).
"27 sept 2005: today a Bulava 30 SSBN was launched from the White Sea towards Kamtchatka. All systems worked properly. It was the first live launch of the Bulava. The SSBN started from a modified Typhoon (Dmitri Donskoy) submarine, under the command of Cpt 1st rank Arkadi Romanov. The missile is intended for the Borey-class (project 955) submarines. Ministry of Defense officials stated that the programme is funded at 100% at that the first ship of the class, the Yuri Dolgoruki, will be operational in 2006. A second ship of the Borey-class, the Alexander Nevski, will follow in 2007. Bulava will further be modified into a unique common system for both the Navy and the RVSN. The GlavKom of the Russian Navy, Adm. Masorin, thanked the crew for "its professionalism".

Seems that one has had good reasons to remain an optimist. :)

PS: according to Dygalo (the Navy's press officer), the sub launched the missile while submerged ( :eek: quite confident for a 1st test!). Launch time: 17:22 Moscow time (which means that they've informed the media even before the warhead reached Kamtchatka: someone got quite euphoric over there :D ).

Wanshan
27th September 2005, 17:59
Well, the new destroyers to me don look like went along the Udaloy-II designs ..... some pic of the improved Udaloy-II from the IMDS 2005, which has been posted earlier too ...

Down below is the new 'frigate' that is said to be under construction/to begin construction and will lilely come out after 3 years. Putting some drawing for the said 'frigate' Project 22350, the original one was posted by Igorr at BR.

Other pic was the speculated capablity of the project-22350 'frigate' by me and posted in some other forum a few months back. Some believe that its actually a frigate and is the next batch of Talwar class (throughly modernised) for Indian Navy to come from Russia. (the contract had 3 as option) And my speculation abt the same has been that, its actually a sucessor to the Udaloy-II class of destroyer with a very good set of offensive & defensive weapons. Its based on this 'destroyer profile' and the apparent structures at the stern (i cud as well be wrong) that i made the below stren config and the likely weapons 'load' that i showcased in the drawing.

My speculation of Project-22350s size and armaments rests on the size comparison of the main gun turret, the stern, 16-cell VLS on the modersinsed Udaloy-II, among others. While some say its a follow-on design of the Talwar class ship, considering the main gun is actually a modernised A-190E.

Another config (speculative) that u guys can see is the 'enlarged' version of the basic Project-22350, which was based on enhancing the combat potential of the 'basic' design by plugging in a 'module' thus almost doubling the weapons load at aft ...

.
I've seen these drawings, also as compared to existing ships. Big ship, more a destroyer than a frigate (8k-9k displacement). Considering looks of project 20380, I wouldn't be surprised if this is what's building, with Udaloy III as back up/fall-back/export option. Problem is we've no picture of the ships building. So it could be either.

Austin
27th September 2005, 18:08
This is great news , I think it would require 3 more launches to get Initial Operational Clearence , So Late 2006 seems to be achievable , I think the only hinderance for it was the Bulava.

Since Bulava is based on Topol-M , Much of the missiles System and Subsystem has been throughly tested and Operational. The Russians claims that Borei would be the most silent SSBN when launched compared to any other operational SSBN or any thing there on drawing board :D .

Its heartening to know that Russia's N-Submarine fleet reamins Top Of The Line inspite of difficulties faced through out the past decades.

So does Bulava carries a single warhead with lots of decoys like Topol-M or is it a MIRV'ed missile, Any news on its range ???.

RSM55 thanks for the info you have provided , After reading the information on Severodvinsk that you have provided , It seems like very little is know about it , It should have neen operational by now , It would be very interesting to know if Sev or for that matter even Borei would have a convetional 7 Blade Skewed Prop or Pump Jet Propulsion.

Also it would be interesting to see if Severodvinsk has been designed for Litorral warfare and Special Force Ops like the US Virginia SSN or for Blue Water Operation like the Sea Wolf class.

Any information on that would be interesting

Trident
27th September 2005, 22:03
A pump-jet would make a lot of sense for Borey atleast. I also hope that they manage to make the launch tube fairings somewhat more hydrodynamical than some of those (speculative?) models show. Would be cool if Bulava carried the hypersonic glide vehicle that has reportedly been tested in recent years.

My guess is that Severodvinsk will be a blue water sub along the lines of the Seawolf, unlike the US Russia still has excellent (and compact) SSKs to fill the litoral requirement.

dionis
28th September 2005, 17:34
I doubt the Seawolf can really best the upgraded Akulas...

Pit
2nd October 2005, 19:23
Hello Guys!

RSM55 I have some questions regarding your always intersted comments:


2) the sudden and tremendous improvement in noise level reduction was not at all sudden and not tremendous and is the MMM is therefore not to be credited for all the apparent noise level reduction,

A question regarding noise level reduction techniques in Soviet Submarines. Wich was the first submarine that used the active noise cancellation technique?. I have reports that both, 971 "Schuka-B" since first series and 667BRDM introduced it. No idea if 945/945A used it. Now, accord to an article writed by a 1st Rank Captain some time ago at "Red Star" Jurnal, talking about "Sankt Petesburg" 677 Lada SSK, this technique "only now" could be used due to extenous needs in computer processing that were not in service then...What's the true regarding ANC?...it was improved since them?.

Which advances do you think were the main bosters to noise level reductions in Soviet subs since 671RT?... I know 671RT (Victor-II) introduced rafting techniques for noise reduction of the main machenry systems. You mentioned 671RTM used 2 tandem 4-blade screws (but I have what seems a pic of a 671RTM with a typical 8-blade screw, in fact the Victor-III that participated in the "TASS" actions out of American Coasts in 1984 (the affaire in wich a Victor-III get caught in a Towed Array Sensor of an american Frigate under tests). I'm pretty sure the pic I saw was an 8-blade screw and not a tandem one...If I pass you the picture could you help me?.

Anechoic tiles (wich Soviet submarine did introduced it?) was a main factor regarding active-sonar reduction levels, but noise-level reductions?. I know because Soviet Nuke Boats like 671RTM uses two-hull arrangements, they used to use anechoic tiles in the outer hull (against active sonar) and in the inner hull (against sound from the submarine's machinery). Was this arrangement efective?. Did 671RTM introduced it?. I have some information (pretty basic one) regarding new generation anechoic tiles used in 971 "Schuka-B", in that they were 2 and half inches of thickness...anything similar for 671RTM? (as you could see I'm very intersted in this sub family (671xx) I'm doing an essay about them.

Accord to a non-secret chart of the US Navy late-80s-early 90s about broad-band noise levels of both american and soviet/russian sub (you could find it at FAS.org per example) they comment on TWO Victor-III clasess. One Victor-III and "an Improved Victor-III". Improved Victor-III is clasiffied as having lower noise-levels that "Akula" (basic one)...

Now I would guess this was "guess-stimation", but an Improved Victor-III should be 671RTMK from Leningrad Yards, that benefited from Toshiba MMM for improved screws. Were 671RTMK better in noise-levels than basic 671RTM?. I think I could infere something like that from your message, thanks to improved screws. Curious that 945/945A/971 used (still?) soviet designed MMM for milling screws and were far better than 671RTMK in this field!...anything that you could add to this?...

About Nuclear Reactors, Norman Polmar's book "Cold War Submarines Design", said that Nuclear reactor for 945 used "natural circulation" while at low speeds (5-to-6 knots) making no use of pumps. Now, did 971 used also this technique?...was natural circulation reactores further pursued by Soviet Designers or introduced in any other Soviet/Russina Nuke boat?...

And now (IMHO my most important question to you), is...WHAT impulsed the soviet Navy and designers to pursue such ambitious noise-reduction-levels programs since 1975(or so) when 945 and 971 plus 671RTM were developed?....what was the "detonant" that made the Soviets to consider so-seriously the noise levels of their subs, and what allowed them to improve so much in so much little time?...people talk about John Walker espionage ring (this was trully fatal to the US Navy without any doubt), other people talks (wrongly as you named) about Toshiba 9-axis MMM...I have some "information" that Soviet Navy Glakvom was not that intersted in knowing how bad were the sound-levels of their boats and how good were those of the americans in the late-60s-early-70s (have you readen Rising Tide?, its mentioned there with some Intell-gathering activities examples...). While I could see (and we have proves of this) that quality controls improved a lot (vastly a lot) since the second generation Soviet nuke boats (Victor, Delta, etc) over the very problematic first generation boats (HEN family accord western nomenclature), was this process as far-reaching to allow the extraordinary improvements of the 945/971 combo in noise-reduction levels?

Hope you can help me on this, if you need quotes to the Rising Tide book, told me out.


What's definitely true is that older Soviet milling machines were certainly not as good as Western ones, and the Leningrad yards were glad to get something better than their usual Almaz milling machines with Bulgarian electronics. It's one of the strangest discrepancies of the Soviet legacy: while retaining state-of-the-art material science on the R&D level (from metallic alloys to nanotechnologies), Russian heavy machinery construction is still in its infancy viewn from a technological level (which is quite amazing if one considers the huge number of soviet/russian enterprises that feature a "-mash-" morpheme in their name).

Yes. Polmar mentioned in the above-volume a conclusion assesment that was pursued when Nikita Khruschev asked "why could we not develop a faulty-free industrial basis to copy such a hardware as Sidewinder missile but the americans could do it" (not exact phrase thorugh), mentioning that main problem of Soviet Industry was the second-rate Industrial basis that result of the surviving german's invation to the Soviet Union. This could never fully develop in the comunist system due to lack of consumers and cross-R&D of consumer goods and military goods...

How this improved or not in the submarine-field I don't know...what's your opinion?


1) No, actually the new (tandem-screw, 2x4 blades) propellers were already chosen as the main system during the construction of the first RTM batch. And the first sub to use the noise-reducing experimental tandem scheme was actually the first 671RT (K-387 built in Gorki at the Krasnoe Sormovo yard and modified in Leningrad Admiralterskyie yards)!

RSM55 maybe I'm asking the same thing two times, and I ask you an apology if I'm doing so (my english is not so good), but while 671RTM introduced tandem screw 2x4 blades, did the ones of the 671RTMK that benefited from Toshiba MMM machines were better?. Did K-387 received tandem screws as a part of an overhaul/upgrade or from yard?...


2) It is sometimes said that the "K" in RTMK was added to the subs that received SOKS (not Kolos). That's only partly true: some "clean" 671 became 617K after being fitted with SOKS while some 617RT modified along the same line didn't receive any appendix at all. On top of that, K-502 (Commander: Cpt1r Smetanin) was a RTMK without SOKS but with a very characteristic bulbous appendix on the foredeck right after the fairing (6m long, 1,5m wide/high) hiding an experimental "Granat" launch pad and the experimental "Akatsia" targeting C3 system (using the same hardware as the "Omnibus" overall C3 suite but having a "battle post" of its own, namely BTch-2 while OMNIBUS was located in BTch-7).So much for consistency!

Thanks!...let me try to understand all of this:

*671RTMK were the only Victor-III subs that could use "Granat" SLCM isn't?
*No other 671 family ship could use "Granat" (if so, wich ones?, and when were they allowed to do it?) Is there any pic of K-502?, didn't found anything at deepstorm.ru.
* SOKS was installed mainly in the 671RTMK but also in some other boats of the 671 class (as you mentioned one 671 "vanilla" used it to track a Lafayette SSBN during Aport Operation). Was the same SOKS system used in 945 and 971?. I have a pic of the sail of the 971 that shows what I'm fully sure of be "SOKS" system. It was in Polmar Cold War Submarines designs and he mentioned it was used to measure "radioactivity, turbulence, temperature and other phenomenas"...photo could be showed if you want. Would be a SOKS derivative be installed in 955 and 855 proekts?
* The thingie of the Command Posts. Polmar book talks about 971 using an integraded GKP or "main command point" like the one in the "Lira" class of Interceptor SSN. I'm a little bit confused with the platforms of the 671RTM/RTMK, so let me try to understand it:

671RTM used first Viking and then Omnibus? or it was the inverse?, you talk about a BTch-7, what is exactly this?, is a part of Omnibus or is Omnibus a part of BTch-7?...what did BTCh means in russian BTW?

K-502 uses "Akatsia" special targetting C3 system for use of the Granat system. Did K-502 also used basic "Omnibus" command post?. You mentioned having a "battle post" of its own, namely BTch-2, I don't understand this, could you explain it to me?...sorry, soviet submarines are trully difficult to understand some times :(...have to research more...

Did Viking system really derived from that used in the "Ula" class of Norwegian SSK as some western sources mentioned?...


SOKS is a very sensitive (for its time) "keel-water wake detection system" (Sistema Obnarujenia Kilvaternovo Sleda) derived from the first Soviet torpedo-mounted systems. During Operation Aport the K-147 (a "clean" 671 fitted with the SOKS and the experimental MNK-100) managed to follow a Lafayette-class (probably Simon Bolivar) SSN for more than 6 days (other sources say it was a Los A. SSN, but it's hard to believe). The point is: you can't detect anything just with the SOKS, you need (passive) acoustics as well (because of basic physics) and the whole thing's name is MNK-100: the wake of a sub changes the density of the water, filling it with microscopic bubbles. This effect can last for hours and hours, so you need to go through a complex process of measuring these parameters when they're still detectable through acoustic (passive) and hydrooptical means (as it seems that trying to detect this effect by measuring the relative salinity values has not proved reliable).

OK, clear enough. Now, what is the experimental MNK-100?, is a sensor that fuses the SOKS and Sonar (active/passive) information?, was this MNK-100 installed in the other SOKS-users of the 671RTMK/945/945A/971 proekts?. Is SOKS perturbable by what class of phenomena?, I guess it would not suffer of high self-contained noise levels in 671 class SSN. if you're intersted, in Morskoi Sbornik in 1/1994 edition it was mentioned that an 671RTMK sub (the ship under the command of Captain 2nd Rank R.A Stakheyev) mantained contact with a Los Angeles Class SSN during one-day-and a half using non-acoustic sensors. The captain mentioned that he lit on the active sonar at the end of the track...


Yes and no. RTM(K) were the first subs in the Sov.Union to receive an integrated battle information system (BIUS), and the first was called "Viking". It was afterwards completely (and very painfully) replaced by the more advanced "Omnibus".

Is (BIUS) the same thing as (GKP)?, I mean Integrated Battle Information System is the same as Main Command Post?. Why was the Viking system replaced from 671RTMK by Omnibus and why it was painfull?...


4) Problems arose mainly from the difficulty of towing back the array in the bulbous canopy of the Ruza system. Skat (all systems) is said to have been highly reliable.

Great. This info along the down you provided me is just awesome, many thanks!. So the Towed Array system is called "Ruza"?...I guessed it was called Piton...well who knows!...

Let me try to understand Sonars used in Victor series:
671 receieved "Rubin" series (let's forget the MGK number, unless you're intersted in provided it!)
671RT received improved "Rubikon"
671 while in overhaul received "Rubikon"
671RTM/RTMK received "Skat-KS" same as 945. The version used in 671RTM/RTMK and 945 used analog processing of the signal.

Now, did any Victor III receiev flannk arrays like those of the 688 class?. Did the 945/945/971 used too the same "Ruza" system as the 671RTM?...did those boats received flank arrays.

In the west its mentioned that "Akula's sonar could only track 2 targets at the same time contrary to multiple ones of the 688 and the former being much less sensitive than AN/BQQ-5"...any opinion regarding this?

Morphyspribor, the NII that developed these sonars said this:


As for Morphyspribor’s primary profile, over the past two decades it has developed new-generation submarine sonar systems with digital data processing, such as MGK-500, MGK-520 and MGK-540 which are currently in service with all modern Russian submarines. These systems fully incorporated all the best features of the domestic sonar design. They also used the traditional approach to achieve «duel parity» with U.S. subs which had better acoustic characteristics until the mid-1980s (lower noise level, low manifestation of discrete elements in the noise radiation range, etc.). This approach required antennas of larger dimensions than those of the U.S. AN/BQQ-5,6 sonars. Larger antennas and, consequently, their multiple channel capability required additional costs for processing equipment. At the same time, the domestic electronic industry lagged behind the U.S. sonar industry in terms of equipment integration, capability and miniaturization. This factor caused a significant growth in the dimensions of domestically-made sonar hardware and its power consumption. To counterbalance these shortcomings, Morphyspribor researchers devised unconventional design and algorithmic solutions which were more efficient and economical than those used in the world practice. For example, target classification was resolved by Morphysbribor by using target «behavior» features which were even more stable in adverse signal propagation and jamming conditions.

Any information regarding this "target behaviour" features introduced in the Skat series of DSP Sonars?


5) Yep, both Akula and Sierra have non-acoustic sensors. Strangely enough, the acoustic suite of the Sierra is less efficient than the Akula's (Skat-KS with analogue processing) but this is probably compensated by greater operational depth. Countermeasures are still classified for all subs (they have been used during "Aport" and "Atrina" ops though), however, it is possible that the experimental, 300m/sec 2nd stage submarine rocket APR-3M can also be launched individually and not only with the first stage, as a "last chance to cut-the-wires" means.

But from what I know, both 945 and 971 have the same "test depth" at 600m without regarding its different class of hulls...

Have you heard of the "Impostor" decoy?...was this thingie used in Atrina/Aport?

Thanks a lot for your help pal!

Pit
2nd October 2005, 19:32
This is the article I wa taking about regarding active noise cancellation.

Any comments?


(c) Vladimir GUNDAROV, Captain 1st Rank

[..]
Project 677 Lada continues the line of 636s and 877s (Kilo, according to NATO classification), which for their low noise levels were dubbed in the West as the "Black Hole"). We can be proud of our new achievements, because basic performances of Sankt Peterburg are two to three times better than those of third-generation boats in combat efficiency.
The new submarine belongs to the fourth generation and features a number of fundamental differences. Above all, it is the high degree of automation of centralized control of all shipboard systems and weapons from operator's consoles located in the main control room. The torpedo and missile system was made more powerful. Design offices, research and production associations and scientific research institutes have all contributed to that. Among them are CDB ME Rubin, NPO Avrora, FGUP TsNII Elektropribor, OKB Novator, and NPO Agat. A result of their joint efforts is the CLUB-S. It is an integrated missile system which represents a unique development that is in fact unmatched by anything else in the world.

Russian scientists, designers and builders have in fact made a breakthrough in technical and economic characteristics and technology in the Lada class. Dozens of new solutions were proposed in the course of research and development. All armaments, boat systems and materials are the last word in science and technology. The sonar system, for example, is built around the latest microchips and with the latest software. Located in the forward end is a highly sensitive sonar array. A fundamentally new all-purpose multi-functional periscope is installed. The hoisting mast devices are telescopic. They do not enter the pressure hull, with the exception of the attack periscope. A new system for receiving radio information from the shore in the submerged position has been introduced.
[..]

The Achilles' heel of all our submarines, with the exception of the Kilo-class submarine and the Project 971 nuclear-powered submarine, has been their high underwater noise levels. Between 1968 and 1986, the CPSU Central Committee and the USSR Council of Ministers issued four (!) decisions on this problem. Every six years it was requested to reduce the noise level by 50 or 70 per cent. All of these instructions were fulfilled, except for the last one when work on this theme was halted because of lack of financing. Lastly, the nuclear-powered multi-purpose submarines of Project 971A managed to reduce the underwater noise level by 30 decibels, or in noise pressure terms by 96.7 per cent, and in irradiated sound power terms, by a thousand times!
Last month, one of these submarines — K-157 Vepr — demonstrated its soft catlike movement during an official visit to the French port of Brest.
But Sankt Peterburg is not for nothing described as the successor to the "Black Hole". Its noise level is approaching sea background values. And in concealment it will surpass all submarines built earlier not only in this country but also abroad.

In Heaven's name 30dB noise reduction levels!!!, is this true?, what is a 971A class?, Gepard?, Vepr?.


How could this be achieved? The answer was given at a state scientific centre called the Krylov Shipbuilding Research Institute (KSRI). Fourth-generation submarines are provided with specially developed noise-absorbing — down to low frequencies — rubber coatings only 40 mm thick. They are half as thick as those we used before. The new coating consists of 7 to 8 layers of rubber with different perforations and profiles. The idea is simple: the more air cavities there are, the more effectively they absorb noise of different frequencies and at different depths. This was said by Professor Ernst Myshinsky, Doctor of Engineering, head of the shipboard and industrial acoustics department.

But hydro-acoustic coating is only a passive defense against noise. And the Institute is already working on new tools for active defense. According to the scientist, development of such means of noise suppression is a super new direction in world science. In Russia the active methods appeared a quarter of a century ago, but then they were considered to be a "medicine", like nitroglycerin.

"Twenty-five years ago electronics was appalling. And we all feared that instead of creating an anti-sound — a sound in the anti-phase — we could knock out electronic controls. And the noise, on the contrary, would intensify," says Myshinsky. "But now electronics are normal, and so it is time to develop active comprehensive system of noise reduction."
It is possible that they may appear on the next submarine, which will be built after Sankt Peterburg.

[..]

Better Than Energiser

Stale TV advertising about batteries "that will work, work and work" would look deflated if developers of "hydrogen batteries" for the Sankt Peterburg boat dared to put their ware on the air waves.

Thirty years ago TsKB Lazurit, NPO Kvant and Kriogenmash embarked on the development for submarines of propulsive systems with electro-chemical generators, ECGs. The S-273 submarine of Project 613, which was mentioned above, was converted under Project 613E Katran. While conventional submarines at two-knot speeds could not stay under water for longer than four days without battery recharging, the use of electro-chemical generators increased this period to a month.

A second area in which Russian designers work is development of Diesels operating in a closed cycle. Project 615 with a single engine was put into metal in the middle of the last century and marked a unique event in the world.

Since 1978, the Special Boiler-Building Design Office has been the leading developer of propulsive systems with ECGs It drew on the experience of the Urals electrochemical works and NPO Energia that developed ECGs for spacecraft. In that way, a Kristall-20 engine for submarines made its appearance, using oxygen and hydrogen. The latter is present in bound form — in an intermetallic compound. Second-generation Kristall-27 and Kristall-273 engines can now also be installed on new Diesel-electric submarines, increasing their endurance to 45 days. Without divulging all secrets of Russian shipbuilding, we may say that the endurance of Sankt Peterburg is exactly 45 days.

Amur, Cousin of Lada
Just like the German Howaldtswerke Deutsche Werft AG, Admiralteiskiye Verfi, in parallel with the Lada class sub for the Russian Navy, is also building for export a fourth-generation submarine of Amur-1650 class. They are almost look-alikes. Amur will be able to fire missile salvoes against surface single and group targets. Compared with submarines of the previous projects, its acoustic signature is several times lower. It also carries radioelectronic equipment of a new generation.

Automatic ship control, and management of its combat and technical systems, will be effected from the main control room. An inertia navigation system will ensure safe navigation and determination of movement parameters while staying under water for a long time with an accuracy sufficient for missile weapons. Amur will have an all-mode propulsion electric motor of a new type, and also a storage battery with an extended service life.

Like Lada, the export unit is equipped with a highly sensitive array of the Lira sonar system. The outer hull is covered in Molniya anti-sonar coating of a new generation.
FGUP Admiralteiskiye Verfi is contributing financing to the development of an air-independent propulsion unit for use as an alternative source of electricity.

Everything for Sale
Admiralteiskiye Verfi has what financiers describe as a good credit history. By 2002, it had handed over to foreign clients thirteen submarines of Projects 877EKM and 636, i.e. more than half of boats of this class built in this country. At the same time, it repaired four vessels.
New output of the enterprise will also find its consumers. The most promising market, according to specialists, is South East Asia. Among the probable buyers of Amur-class submarines are Vietnam, Thailand, and the Philippines. Last century Russia sold about 50 submarines. It is not ruled out that in the 21st century products of Russian shipwrights will still be in demand on the international arms market.

Trident
4th October 2005, 20:06
I can't claim to have the same level of knowledge on this topic as RSM55, but...


Which advances do you think were the main bosters to noise level reductions in Soviet subs since 671RT?... I know 671RT (Victor-II) introduced rafting techniques for noise reduction of the main machenry systems. You mentioned 671RTM used 2 tandem 4-blade screws (but I have what seems a pic of a 671RTM with a typical 8-blade screw, in fact the Victor-III that participated in the "TASS" actions out of American Coasts in 1984 (the affaire in wich a Victor-III get caught in a Towed Array Sensor of an american Frigate under tests). I'm pretty sure the pic I saw was an 8-blade screw and not a tandem one...If I pass you the picture could you help me?.

I think I have a relatively clear version of the picture you're talking about in a book, it's usually a bit misleading because it was apparently taken into the sun. Perception of depth is very bad because basically every surface facing the camera is pitch-black. However if you look closely you can see spray behind one of the blades that seems to be covering part of the neighbouring blade. This would indicate tandem screws.


Anechoic tiles (wich Soviet submarine did introduced it?)

VictorII according to another book I have.

BTW, I found this image which claims to show the Lada's new anechotic coating on another forum:

Pit
9th October 2005, 05:30
Russian Sierra-I nuclear submarine soon back in active service
2005-09-29 19:22


The repairs at the Russian multipurpose nuclear submarine K-276 ”Krab” (project 945, Barrakuda) have been completed recently.

At the moment the submarine has finished sea trials and is moored at the shipyard for painting and correcting defects noted by the acceptance committee, Interfax reported. It is expected that the submarine will be back in active service in the end of 2005. At the same time the preparation works for repair works on another submarine of this class are carried out at the moment.

Krab joined the Northern Fleet in 1987. It has been presumably in reserve since 1997. Four submarines in total of this class were built in Russia. The first submarine of this project (K-239, Karp) was taken out of service in 1997-98.

Austin
9th October 2005, 06:38
After reading briefly it seems that the Sierra-I/II hulls are made up of Titanium , which will allow greater Diving Depth( between 800 to crush depth of 1500+ meteres) and also has range of Non Acoustic sensors and Silencing capabilities.Besides carrries 40 weapons ranging from cruise missile to Torpedoes and an intergated countermeasure capability, It seems that she is the most *difficult* to detect submarine , Plus for the Sierra-2 has a spherical sonar besides improved quitening than Sier-1 ( but it remains debatable if ever the Sierra-2 was ever constructed ).

This is the most interesting development as far as Russian N-Subs Development are concerned.

So Why has there been a sudden need to resurrect these subs ( just because they are relatively new ) , Or its upgrade capability give her an edge over the Akula-2 , Or perhaps the capability of the Sierra was so vastly advanced that the RuN is compelled to bring her back to service.

GarryB
9th October 2005, 08:39
Or perhaps the capability of the Sierra was so vastly advanced that the RuN is compelled to bring her back to service.


Or perhaps they are largely complete and the cost of making those already made operational is lower than building brand new Akulas from scratch even if they do work out cheaper over all?

Neptune
9th October 2005, 09:41
Sierra II never had a sperical bow sonar, you're talking about Sierra III, the project Mars. They had five of them on the building stocks in 1992, all were abandoned and scrapped. Sierra II was constructed... Two of each. Kostroma is called Krab by most, but Kostroma by the Russians! Here is a picture of her refurbishment (in this case a new escape chamber). It's a Sierra I so why refurbish one of those? This one isn't that superior to Akula.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/Severodvinsk/Kostroma.jpg

Austin
9th October 2005, 11:40
Akula class SSN was constructed because it was difficult to produce titanium sufficiently (in industrial quantity ) to keep pace with the Sierra requirements , Also from what I have read Titanium is not the easiest of metal to deal with and tends to be unpredictive at depths ( internal/miscroscopic cracks which cannot be detected easily ) .

As far as superiority of Sierra is concerned , It has been quoted in Western Def Magazine that she can easily pass through the NATO/US SOSUS network without getting detected

There must have been compelling good reasons ( Financially/Operationally ) to ressurrect her , Inspite of the fact that the Russian could have gone for more Akula-2/3 ( the 2 unfinished one ) or could have invested in the Severdovinisk SSN program .

Did any one heard any thing new on the Severodivinsk SSN program ??

Which is the second one of the Sierra class being repaired to make it operational ??

Neptune
9th October 2005, 16:33
Tula collided and is laid up.
Both Sierra IIs, Kondor and Nizhniy Novgorod are officially in service, but both of them are in a worsening state of readiness, not sure they can still sail.

Pit
9th October 2005, 17:07
K-336 Pskov, suffered a little fire while being in overhaul in 2003, read this:

Nuclear submarine on fire

A Sierra class nuclear-powered submarine caught on fire Wednesday while in dry dock.
Dry dock of naval shipyard no. 82 in Roslyakovo.
Nils Bøhmer/Bellona

Igor Kudrik, 2003-03-06 15:25


A Sierra I attack class submarine, K-336, or Pskov, suffered a fire on March 5th. The submarine was in the dry dock at Roslyakovo shipyard, situated between the city of Murmansk and Severomorsk, the home base of the Northern Fleet, on the Kola Peninsula.

Fire crews called to the shipyard managed to put the fire out in one and half hours, Russian news agency ITAR-TASS reported.

The cause of the fire is still unknown, but it may be possible that the welding works ignited the wood scaffolding surrounding the submarine.

No causalities or radiation discharge are reported, although the rubber coating of the submarine is damaged.

A similar incident took place in October last year when an Echo II submarine was undergoing decommissioning at Sevmorput shipyard, located in the north of Murmansk. The fire also started on the wood scaffolding in the dry dock surrounding the submarine, and then spread to the rubber coating of the submarine.

The Soviet Union built four Sierra I class attack class submarines, or SSNs. The fifth submarine, which would be a Sierra II class, was decommissioned at the staples in 1993. The Pskov, which entered service in 1993, is the newest nuclear-powered Sierra I class submarine. The first Sierra class submarine, K-239, retired from service in 1998. The two remaining submarines allegedly remain in service. Sierra class submarines are equipped with one PWR reactor and titanium hull.

Pit
9th October 2005, 17:20
Neptune, you're correct, K-276's (since 1992 tactical code changed to B-276) name isn't Krab (no more), because since November 15, 1996 it received the name Kostroma. This ship while being called K-276 back in 1992 collided with SSN-689 "Baton Rouge" in the Kola Peninsula, it was laid up and repaired and it returned back to service months after. It was interned in SRZ Nerpa Shipyard in 2000 and its now ready to return to the fleet.

First boat of the Pr 945, the B-239 "Karp" was retired back in 1998, and there are two other proekt 945A "Kondor" Sierra-II boats in service whose destiny right now is not known. Pskov suffered a fire in 2003 while on repairs/overhaul, and the other boat nobody knows...

Regards

RSM55
11th October 2005, 18:17
Hi guys, first of all my apologies for "disappearing" from your radar screens, have been away and far from any WWW plug...
Will try to answer your questions as well as I can:



...regarding noise level reduction techniques in Soviet Submarines. Wich was the first submarine that used the active noise cancellation technique?. I have reports that both, 971 "Schuka-B" since first series and 667BRDM introduced it. No idea if 945/945A used it. Now, accord to an article writed by a 1st Rank Captain some time ago at "Red Star" Jurnal, talking about "Sankt Petesburg" 677 Lada SSK, this technique "only now" could be used due to extenous needs in computer processing that were not in service then...What's the true regarding ANC?...it was improved since them?.

When one tells something about noise reduction, better ask him what's his/her defininition is... Noise reduction techniques have been used since WWII at the latest, ANC is a matter of definition as well. I suspect that the Red star report is actually about an all-active NC technique, thanks to which it would be possible to cancel internal radiated noise (especially pump and reductors noises) by insulating them with active conduction apparatus that radiates at inversed acoustic wavelenghts and -pitch levels (similar approaches have been tried in 4/5th gen. fighter jets, e.g. Rafale - applied to radar detection of course). Now, this sounds well in theory, but in practice you need extremely accurate internal sensors and an enormous processing capacity, neither of which was available in the SU (and even in the US). You just reach a technical barrier at one stage. And you also need to model all your aggregates and apparatus exactly, having a database that can't include all the possible noises and noise levels... Plus, this kind of ANC is not a panacea, as it can properly operate only at low radiation levels (i.e. at low speeds for ex.). The best technique is yet to combine ANC and passive noise reduction tech such as anechoic, contact-free internal frames with active movement cancellation: this, however, supposes you have enough space (so big displacement), which is not appliable on the Lada, what should explain why the Russian navy was so eager to introduce this "new ANC" on that type of boat.
BTW, I would be extremely critical of anything published in Red Star, not only because it's the official MoD paper, but especially for the reason that their redactional level is extremely poor and a lot printed there is pure PR.




Which advances do you think were the main bosters to noise level reductions in Soviet subs since 671RT?... I know 671RT (Victor-II) introduced rafting techniques for noise reduction of the main machenry systems. You mentioned 671RTM used 2 tandem 4-blade screws (but I have what seems a pic of a 671RTM with a typical 8-blade screw, in fact the Victor-III that participated in the "TASS" actions out of American Coasts


You're absolutely right, that was the K-324. If I remember well, it was the 7th vessel of the Komsomolsk line and she was modified in 1985, so after the incindent you mentioned (dated 1983 AFAIK).



Anechoic tiles (wich Soviet submarine did introduced it?) was a main factor regarding active-sonar reduction levels, but noise-level reductions?. I know because Soviet Nuke Boats like 671RTM uses two-hull arrangements, they used to use anechoic tiles in the outer hull (against active sonar) and in the inner hull (against sound from the submarine's machinery). Was this arrangement efective?. Did 671RTM introduced it?. I have some information (pretty basic one) regarding new generation anechoic tiles used in 971 "Schuka-B", in that they were 2 and half inches of thickness...anything similar for 671RTM?


The first anechoic tiles were used (experimentally) in the Lira project, both for active sonar effective range reduction and noise reduction (the latter were applied directly to the inside of the strong hull, which proved to be absolutely useless). In-between hulls arrangements proved to be highly efficient for some wavelengths, but led to an increase in acoustic radiation when the wavelength was consistent with the space between both hulls (classical raisonnance box effect). Thickness of the anechoic tiles is not consistent with their effectiveness, it only reflects advances in manufacturing (increase of inner "worm holes"). The Victor family had quite a basic coating that could not radiate the active pings away in the water in a very effective way. The other reason was that the Victor was hydrodynamically not as "perfect" as the Lira (the hull of the latter was in itself "anechoic" as its mere form acted as a diffusion factor for incoming pings).



Accord to a non-secret chart of the US Navy late-80s-early 90s about broad-band noise levels of both american and soviet/russian sub (you could find it at FAS.org per example) they comment on TWO Victor-III clasess. One Victor-III and "an Improved Victor-III". Improved Victor-III is clasiffied as having lower noise-levels that "Akula" (basic one)


This report's aim is to prove that the Toshiba gimmick did its job. Its statements are not consistent with what my sources tell me, and if I believe them, RTMK doesn't come near Akula in terms of noise reduction. Akulas benefited from the Toshiba MMM as well anyway. And it's quite strange to mention broad-band radiation when the matter is about screws...So I'll consider this report with a lot of caveats.


About Nuclear Reactors, Norman Polmar's book "Cold War Submarines Design", said that Nuclear reactor for 945 used "natural circulation" while at low speeds (5-to-6 knots) making no use of pumps. Now, did 971 used also this technique?...was natural circulation reactores further pursued by Soviet Designers or introduced in any other Soviet/Russina Nuke boat?..

Yep, some say that 971 benefits from the same feature (also at low speed levels). Don't know about the Sierras, though. Quite sure that later 949As ,the 941 and later BDRMs have it as well (in spite of dissimilar reactors but for reasons obvious enough).



And now (IMHO my most important question to you), is...WHAT impulsed the soviet Navy and designers to pursue such ambitious noise-reduction-levels programs since 1975(or so) when 945 and 971 plus 671RTM were developed?....what was the "detonant" that made the Soviets to consider so-seriously the noise levels of their subs, and what allowed them to improve so much in so much little time?


This is a very good question indeed, and I'm glad to be able to answer it. However, I have to warn you that you won't find any corroboration for my info anywhere, as this matter remains quite shrouded to this day due to reasons that have nothing to do with naval stuff. The "detonant", as you put it, was a man killed in a plane crash on Feb. the 7th, 1981, alongside with 50 top brass officers of the Soviet Pacific Fleet: Admiral Emil Nikolaevitch Spiridonov. He was an excellent specialist, the most highly skilled and the most able soviet naval commander of his day, and enjoyed enormous respect and authority within the Navy establishment. His was the impetus that shifted the focus from quantity to quality. As the Commander of the Pacific Fleet, he knew too well (contrary to the Northern Fleet officials) that he couldn't rely on on-shore support and closed seas in case of war, and his sub commanders were extremely honest in their reports to him. Gorshkov, on the other hand, was enamoured with speed , it was the only factor that seemed interesting for him for a sub to have. Spiridonov assembled an excellent group of top officers under his command who devised a long-term strategy for the whole Fleet, which still remains valid to the present day, and managed to force Gorshkov to implement it. Unfortunately, as said above, he died after attending a command exercise in Leningrad, after the Fleet's Tu-104 failed to take-off and crashed short after the runway. 50 of his best officers and friends (16 generals and admirals among them!) died instantly. The question about the need to pack the best brains of the Fleet in a single outdated plane that even Aeroflot didn't want to fly anymore remains unanswered. All the inquiry conclusions remain classified. I'll leave the rest to conspiracy theorists...





...while 671RTM introduced tandem screw 2x4 blades, did the ones of the 671RTMK that benefited from Toshiba MMM machines were better?. Did K-387 received tandem screws as a part of an overhaul/upgrade or from yard?...


No, the decision to replace them with tandem blades extended to ALL Victor III subs, the upgrade having been discontinued for costs reasons (and the venue of the Akula). K-387? If you mean K-388, yes.


*671RTMK were the only Victor-III subs that could use "Granat" SLCM isn't?

No. K is not consistent with Granat, regardless what open sources tell. Some RTMKs could use Granats, some RTM also. But only the Sierras and Akulas effectively got cleared for their use.

* SOKS...?
Yes, an improved version is installed on the 971s. Pretty sure that Yasen and Borei will have it as a part of their standard a-suite.

*
The thingie of the Command Posts. Polmar book talks about 971 using an integraded GKP or "main command point" like the one in the "Lira" class of Interceptor SSN. I'm a little bit confused with the platforms of the 671RTM/RTMK, so let me try to understand it:

671RTM used first Viking and then Omnibus? or it was the inverse?, you talk about a BTch-7, what is exactly this?, is a part of Omnibus or is Omnibus a part of BTch-7?...what did BTCh means in russian BTW?
K-502 uses "Akatsia" special targetting C3 system for use of the Granat system. Did K-502 also used basic "Omnibus" command post?.


Understand your confusion. "Viking" was the first BIUS on the 671RTM, replaced by "Omnibus". "Omnibus" is a battle command system, not a battle post. BIUS means "Boevaya Informatsionno-Upravlayushaya Sistema": litteraly, "battle command and information system". The first viable BIUS was the "Accord" on the Lira. GKP simply means "main command post", so it denotes an actual location in the sub. "BTch-X" means "battle station-X", i.e. the actual battle station in the Xth watertight compartment (but the numbers are not always consistent with the compartments). A BIUS comprises many sub-systems, so "Akatsia" is a dedicated targeting system and is integrated in the Omnibus BIUS.
Using metaphors:
*any BIUS = LAN Network
*GKP = main server room
* "Akatsia" and the like = external drivers, printers, mouses etc.
* "BTch-X = your working cubicle with family photos and bonzai.
Omnibus was painstacking to integrate because of electronic incompatibility with some other components, vibration over-sensitivity, poor microchip reliability and tendency to over-heat (looks like Microsoft tried to do some hardware there...).



...what is the experimental MNK-100?, is a sensor that fuses the SOKS and Sonar (active/passive) information?, was this MNK-100 installed in the other SOKS-users of the 671RTMK/945/945A/971 proekts?. Is SOKS perturbable by what class of phenomena?


Yes and yes. SOKS is perturbable by transient and irregular water conformation: abnormal salinity, abnormal waterflow, wake and the usual bathycelemetric layer dead zones. And if something blows up somewhere near and disturbs the water patterns, you'll have to start from the beginning.

AFAIK no flank arrays like the ones on the 688 were used in the Victor series. Flank arrays on the Akulas are probably a subsystem of the SOKS, but who knows...

Skat sonars include parallax and dynamic analysis algorithms that enable them to scan a database of known SSN/SSBN acoustic and mouvement patterns and compare them automatically. Put in a dumb way: something that sounds like a shrimp but makes a V-turn every 14 seconds travelling at 7 knots due North is not shrimp. No one knows for sure how many targets a modern Russian SSN can track simultaneously.

[QUOTE=Pit]
From what I know, both 945 and 971 have the same "test depth" at 600m without regarding its different class of hulls...
[QUOTE]

Published "test depth" figures are the greatest hoax since the Philadelphia experiment. You know what is the "official" "test depth" of an Antey according to recent Russian publication? 300 m :D :D :D

[QUOTE=Pit]
Have you heard of the "Impostor" decoy?...was this thingie used in Atrina/Aport?
[QUOTE]

I pass here, pal. Never heard about anything called "Impostor". What is it?

gatorfrey
11th October 2005, 21:27
Hello all,
I have been researching Russian submarines for years. I friend gave me this link and I am amazed!!
I just returned from the Ukraine for the second time this year after visiting an Alfa officer I have been writing for years. A few months back, I was in Balaclava walking around in the underground submarine pen there.
I have some "pretty good" pictures and video of some Russian boats, including drydock photographs of the Alfa, Akula, and Typhoon.
My research was origionally started because I am building radio controlled Russian submarines.
I see a lot of talent and information here. I am really excited to talk to you guys.
Let's go for a starter.
There was a Kilo made and based in Severostopol a few years back with a pumpjet.
I have always heard a distant rumor one of the Akulas has one. I have managed to obtain drydock photographs of all of the Akulas except one (an Akula II).
Has anyone else heard this? It would seem natural for them to try one. It could even be justified as a testbed for the Borley. I have also heard this boat will have one.
Anyone?

Neptune
11th October 2005, 22:20
Gepard, the only actual Akula II around, has a normal propellor.

Neptune
11th October 2005, 22:23
Impostor is a torpedo decoy something with a noisegenerator, maybe her other name, MG-74 Korund rinkles a bell with you? The Victors, Sierra's and others carry it. There's some arguing about it. It's said to be mounted in the Akula's external 533mm tubes, two in each tube. It would be logical to have some decoys in there as you can't reload these tubes anyway. On the other hand six extra weapons ready to fire is some advantage is some situations. The other SSNs only carry two of them, so it's quite doubtful the Akula's carry 12 of them.

wouldn't indeed believe Krasnaya, the PR is the only reason for their existence. It saved them.

K355Gepard
12th October 2005, 00:10
This is the dockyard picture of the Gepard.

Pit
12th October 2005, 00:37
RSM55, thanks A LOT for your answers! (Trident too pal ;)!!) the part about Spiridinov was just awesome and trully revealling!, I would research more on this, did you recommend any literature about this intersting character?...

The time you take to answer was WORTH the value of the answer really!, as Neptune said, Impostor, is what you call MG-74 "Korund", maybe that's the traduction, but who knows!?...

Would return later with more comments ;), keep the god job pal :D

Pit
12th October 2005, 00:39
P.S: Gatorfrey, please fell free to add any picture, link, information or video you want to add about Soviet/Russian Nuclear Boats!

If you can send any material (specially regarding those in-dock pictures of 971 Akula) to my e-mail address pit_m_viniegra@yahoo.com.ar, would be most grateful!...

Regards

gatorfrey
12th October 2005, 01:58
Pit,
You should have a couple of teaser shots of my pictures in your email.
Someone said the Gepard is the only actual Akula II. Why is the Vepr not considered an Akula II ? It is extended and has the extra hull sensors as the Gepard has.
My photographs show quite a bit. Including closeups of the retractable creeper motors on the Akula II. As I said, I have drydock pictures of each of the Akulas of various configurations, except one. The Cougar.
Let me try my question in a different fashion. What information is out there on Russian pumpjets? Other than the one drydock picture of the Kilo that is common on the net, I find almost nothing on it. I understand a few years ago, there was a second picture on the net of that Kilo that got pulled out of circulation.
That is all I have been able to find out about the Russian pumpjet in general, other than the Borely will probably have one.
I have written a few storys and published in a magazine on the Alfa, Akula, Typhoon, and Beluga. I am very interested in these classes, and all others as well.

Gepard
12th October 2005, 02:59
Likewise, Gatorfrey,

any pictures of Akulas in dock would be warmly appreciated. My email is bars971@yahoo.co.nz

By the way, what what does everyone think of the accuracy of these drawings and RSM55 in particular, how quiet are the Oscar IIs? We always hear about the Schulka B's but what of the Antey 949A's?

Pit
12th October 2005, 03:20
Gatorfrey thanks for anything you send!

971:

There are different "batches" (if you want to call them in that way) of pr 971 "Schuka-B" (Akula) made in the USSR/Russia. As we know, 971 were built in two yards, Komsomolsk-na-amur (Zavod Imeni Leninskogo Komsomola N199) and at Severodinsk (Severnoe Mashinostrel'noe Predpryatie N 402) from 1983 to 1993 (dates of first boat being lay down at Komsomolsk to date of last boat being lay down at the same place (Drakon/Samara), last at Severodinsk in 1991, ony counting finished vessels!)...

The first boats built at Komsomolsk are "what we call" "Akula" in the west, and they're the basic vessels. Once the first project 971 vessel was being tested, a lot of potential was found for further noise-level reduction capabilities, those capabilities, were introduced "mainly" (I don't know if any Komsomolsk boat taked it) from the second boat being constructed at Severodinsk (Pantera) and introduced afterwards...those boats being built at Severodinsk after "Pantera" (not sure of those ones being built at the same time at Komsomolsk) were a little different to early boats _but_ they retained the tittle proekt 971. In the west were called Improved Akula...

Begining with "Vepr" (entered in service in 1996) more improvements were made, so the west (NATO/US god knows who) decided to call it "Akula-II"...

Then, Gepard, appeared in 2002, and nobody knows how to call it. Gepard is pretty different to Vepr (an Akula-II, improved over "Improved Akula", and much improved over "early Akula"), main difference, new Towed Array. Some sources in the west call them "Akula-III", some in Russia "Proekt 971M or Proekt 971B"...I don't know how they are called...

THEN, we have two refurbished boats, one of them "Tigr" back into service and extesively upgraded...to wich level?, don't know...we could assume, some "Gepard technology" (mainly new TA maybe?, computing/display/sensors improvement?), and now is in overhaul "Pantera" an old "Improved Akula"...if those boats are different to "old" "Improved Akula", not being "Akula-II" (as Vepr), not being "Akula-III" (as Gepard)...what are they?...Akula-II improved?, Akula-II and half?, Akula-IV?...

Remind that most russkie submarines being in overhaul last time returned with new goddeys. An old 667BDR that returned to service in 2003 (the K-433 "Svyatoy Georgiy Pobedonosets") showed a new Towed Array Sonar, very similar to that of "Gepard" (plausible due to time)...is very possible "K-114 Tula" refurbished 667BDRM finished this year would also show a new TA or more thingies...confusing boats?...really they're!!!...

Pit
12th October 2005, 03:28
Gatorfrey some nice pics for you:

This is "your boat" ;)

Proekt 877V, the B-871 in service
http://foto.sevastopol.info/gallery/flot/photos/ships/submarine/b871/001.jpg
Now in docks

http://img275.echo.cx/img275/1623/pr877b4nq.jpg

Drawing
http://img279.echo.cx/img279/78/877v3ty.jpg

Lovely boat, don't you think?

gatorfrey
12th October 2005, 04:40
Ah,
The infamous "second picture" I may have heard about. Not much extra detail,but interesting how they approach the design.
I have two officers I have been writing,one for 3 years. Both served in the North Sea Fleet of Russian submarines. 25 and 30 years service. Learn a lot from those guys,plus the digging I do.
Still, I feel there is much not being said about the pumpjet design and service by the Russians. Or, at least, I have found little on the subject.
On the different Akulas,you are right. No two boats are the same as upgrades are constantly added. I have confirmed this with my source who oversaw upgrades.
While the pumpjet thing is highly interesting to me, and I would like to hear anything anyone has out there on the Russian pumpjet, I have a new question.
Delta IV.
As I said earlier, I am involved with model submarines. There is a builder who wants to do a Delta IV hull kit in 1/96 scale. What we need is a station type cross section of a Delta IV and all external measurements etc, to shape the hull. I may not have called the stations diagram the right thing, but it should get across. Anybody have anything on this? The IV is a little harder to get information on than a III when you get up close and personal. Probably because they are still in use.
Anybody help me here?
I saw mention of the towed array change on the latest one. Is there a picture of this?

Pit
12th October 2005, 05:09
Hi Gatorfrey?

It sounds nice about your contacts!, not everybody have these class of contacts for sure!...hope to hear sometime anything intersting you have heard and you can talk with us...

About towed array change, are you referring to the K-433 "Svyatoy Georgiy Pobedonosets" of the proekt 667BDR? or to the K-114 "Tula" of the 667BDRM proekt?

First, yes they're pictures about them (at the end), second, yes but no, they're pictures about refurbished "Tula" but no pictures showing the tail (like the ones of the K-433)...

Look at these:
http://deepstorm.v-real.ru/DeepStorm.files/45-92/nbrs/667BDR/K-433/K-433.htm

Sorry can't link from that page, recomended...not...HIGHLY redomended page about Soviet/Russian submarines.

Regards

Austin
12th October 2005, 10:50
Pumpjet propulsion would be used if the Russians are convinced with the Test carried on either the Kilo or other subs , Its not if the Russians can deploy a pumpjet prop on their sub , But if they really see the advantage in deploying it.

If the Russians test on subs using Pump Jet were sucessful and promising then we could see those technologies on Severdovinsk SSN and Borei SSBN , If not then we could still finds these future subs with Conventional 7 or 8 Blade Skewed Propeller.

IIRC Jonesy was saying that at deeper depth the PumpJet are not as efficient as a conventional propeller.

Gepard
12th October 2005, 11:17
Pumpjets may have significant disadvantages. Weight is the obvious one but how about nonacoustic vulnerability? Could wake sensors detect pumpjets easier than normal propellers because the density of water change is greater (RSM55 suggested kolos may measure this) due to water being locally compressed in a short tube versus dispersed laterally (sideways) by a normal propeller? In other words just as putting your finger on a hose produces a short high mass spray (akin to a pumpjet) would not a lower density flow of water by a normal propeller produce less wake in that the wake is wider and more diffuse (and harder to distinguish from natural variation) rather than a small but highly concentrated change in water density from the narrow focussed efflux of a pumpjet? Remember the F117 echewed a conventional circular nozzle because the heat efflux is concentrated and disperses slowly whereas the thin wide efflux of the platypus exhaust dissipated Ir energy faster by increasing the surface area of efflux to the atmosphere cooling it faster. Thoughts anyone?

Neptune
12th October 2005, 12:26
;)
It's easy to create a pumpjet, it's harder to create a silent one

Klingsor
12th October 2005, 16:33
;)
It's easy to create a pumpjet, it's harder to create a silent one

Neptune, I think you hit the nail in the head!

gatorfrey
13th October 2005, 10:57
The technology is interesting for sure. But, with the larger, more advanced countries(like the USA, Brits, and a few others) going to pumpjets,despite the clearly larger cost, there must be a reason they continue. It appears even the Russians are going to pursue this in the newer boats.
The differences in the pre-swirl and post swirl design each country is using is interesting also. I would like to hear thoughts on that.
RSM55. I would like to write you directly about some boat questions I have. My email is :
gatorfrey@hotmail.com
Thanks,
Wayne

Neptune
13th October 2005, 17:43
Oh yes, before someone starts nagging about it indeed a Russian sub has a spherical sonar. A converted Yankee I think. Akson II, converted for a spherical bow sonar by Rubin.
http://www.ckb-rubin.ru/rus/project/submarine/aplsn/img/02.jpg
Although a quite old project by now, it might be the sonar for Severodvinsk, or at least meant for it in the beginning. Judging from this ugly *******'s bow I doubt Severodvinsk will be large enough ;).

Austin
15th October 2005, 13:45
Besides the Spherical Sonar as suggested , I also see a new Towed Array Sonar , looks similar to those on Akula-2( Plemeda TAS ), So this new yankee-1 was used as a test bed to test new technologies for Severodvinsk.

WisePanda
15th October 2005, 18:11
what is the advantage of the spherical bow sonar ?

Neptune
15th October 2005, 19:00
Not necessarily, Akson-2 came earlier than Severodvinsk's idea, she came just in time before the Mars, (Sierra III) project, the submarines with the first spherical bow sonar in Russia, would come. And the Pelamida was already in service before Akson-2, I think they just added that for some spy missions or guard missions of their ports during her testing programme. (or of course that is not Pelamida and it actually is the new one on Sankt-Petersburg).
Spherical bow sonar gives you full direction and depth of the target (does consume a whole lot more energy), cilindrical arrays give you a bearing/direction, but not the depth iirc.

Austin
16th October 2005, 07:43
So forgive me if I have missed it , But Is there any Sierra-3 sub in operation or was the entire project was scrapped.

Do Russians have any Active Low Frequency Sonar deployed on Ships/Subs or under development ???? , Also talking about Sonars ,The Russians Lacked good processing capability for their sonar ( lack of computing capability ) but they compensated it with Good Algorithm , But now with Computing Power Abunduntly avilable via COTS that problem should dissapear.

So Spherical sonar is akin to having a 3-D Radar under water ;)

Gepard
16th October 2005, 09:32
Sierra 3 or Mars was never built, scrapped on the slipways. It was going to have the first spherical sonar occupying the entire bow, the torpedoes being angled out behind it as in US navy practice. Frequently on sites like Fas, global security it is mistakenly claimed Sierra 2 had the bow sonar but the pics below clearly show that Sierra 2 had sonar below torpedo tubes suggesting cylindrical arrays.

Gepard
16th October 2005, 09:42
Sierra 3 images plus Sierra 2 bow tubes...

Gepard
16th October 2005, 09:44
Deepstorm info on Sierra 3.

Neptune
16th October 2005, 09:48
yeah i know, but the sonar on Akson-2 was the one that should have come into Sierra III, all five of them were scrapped on the stocks. They seem to have been quite sure of their case, building five of them at once...
And yes Austin, spherical Bow sonar is idd something like a 3D radar underwater, although of course it uses sound.

Images of SierraIII ? Looks like this one still has a "chin" mounted cilindrical sonar and tubes on top of it...

Gepard
16th October 2005, 11:29
I agree. For a socalled spherical sonar the torpedo tubes should be angled out like thes models of the Grany / severodvinsk...

Trident
16th October 2005, 14:38
BTW, any idea what the scoops on the lower tail area of many Russian subs are? I have a feeling they may be connected to natural convection cooling.

If Severodvinsk turns out to look like the first of those models she's going to be a very pretty one.

gatorfrey
16th October 2005, 16:03
They are intakes that have to do with reactor cooling with minumum pump noise.

Trident
16th October 2005, 19:37
Thanks, just what I thought they were. Listen up Pit, that probably means Sierra, Akula, DeltaIV and Typhoon all have natural convection cooling, because I can remember with cetainty seeing those scoops on these classes (there may of course be more, DeltaIII being a candidate IMHO) :)

Pit
16th October 2005, 20:01
RSM55 where are you :(

Trident, Polmar said by sure 945 had natural circulation at low speeds. RSM55 said its factible that some 971, 949A and 941 had this too along some or all of thr 667BDRM...russkie boats are trully intersting...

Funnily I'm now trying to figure how is the SOKS pod/accesories in the 945/945A series. 971 had them in some little details on the sail and some pods in the hull just before the sail...not all of them thorugh but the majory...Any help?

gatorfrey
17th October 2005, 01:06
From the 705 Alfa forward, all of the attack boats have the intakes. I have pictures. The Deltas and Typhoons for sure have them also. My photographs show this, but from time to time I come across a question I am not 100% sure of. I consult two friends of mine that were Captain Second Rank 25 years North Sea Fleet, and 30 years Captain First Rank 30 years with the North Sea Fleet. Both served on nuclear submarines.
I find out goofy stuff. Like the Alfa. You would guess the screw would not be titanuim. You would guess wrong(I did). It is, and it is the last boat to have hand made screws.
Also, the Russians call the outside hull the "Easy Case", and the inner hull the "Hard Case".
Alfas also had the rubber insulation not on the outside of the hull, but on the inside of the "Easy Case".
Anther term they use for combat manuvers is "Battle Dashing".
Interesting. I feel like a student :)

Pit
17th October 2005, 01:38
Hello!

Gatorfrey, previously you offered to send pictures, I think I sent you a bad direction because never received anything (maybe server problem...), so if you can send them again (I would realy like it!) my e-mail direction is m_viniegra@cantv.net.

I'm intersted in any picture you could share about the 671RTM(K) and 971 proekt, but anything would be fine!

Please felt free to add anything else to the thread!, thanks a lot.

gatorfrey
17th October 2005, 04:53
You have mail.

gatorfrey
18th October 2005, 11:40
Not sure if I sent this.
Akula screw.

Austin
18th October 2005, 13:27
The Akula Screw looks likes a simple 7 Blade Skewed Propellor , If one compares the screws with that of the U-212/214 it pales of in comparision.

Any Idea what materials these screws are made of , is it Titanium or some other alloys.

NAFO had some nice pics of the screws of U-214

Victor
18th October 2005, 14:01
Screws are usually bronze

gatorfrey
19th October 2005, 01:27
I understand from the Russian Submarine Captain the Alfa was the last with the titanium screw. As he said "They were precious to us". I bet !!!

pesho
19th October 2005, 03:36
Hi all.Few days ago i was surfing trought some russian military site's and found this: http://www.army.lv/video/153.wmv
It' a nearly 40 minute movie about pr.671 submarine and it's evolution.I know that few people on this forum know russian,but in the movie is a few things only seen in pictures.I'm on work right now so i don't have much time to translate. They say that the reason of development of the first soviet torpedo reloader is because the torpedo room was too small,since the sonar was very large.They first think of redesing the sub,but that was time-costly(~12 minute of the film).The constructor of the sub explain how hard the work was,and he spend around 1000 days without his wife,and some marriages broked because of the intense work and presure.Around 22 minute of the film is said that in 1975 all the sub designer bureaus was summoned to a meeting with the presense of public prosecutor.The oversighting officer of Soviet naval forces complaint that the noise of the soviet subs was intentionally "put" in the design.....There is so much interesting in this movie,but i don't have the time right now.Tomorrow....

gatorfrey
19th October 2005, 05:28
Now that is a video!
Where did that come from and are there more? I really enjoyed that.

Pit
19th October 2005, 13:08
Pesho:

I'm researching the 671 since some time (writting an essay about them), and was searching this particular video from RTR channel since I knew it was broadcasted in Russia this year...Thanks a lot!!!, you really make my day!...

Gatorfrey, thanks for the Akula's screw its very very nice!, sadly I felt like a dumb, don't know if my antivirus is making havoc of the material you send because I don't receive anything :(...maybe Norton is making a mess out there?

Regards and thanks a lot to both of you!, Pesho, I expect ansiously more translations of that video!, hope you have time!...

Pit

pesho
20th October 2005, 04:46
Hi again.This week i'm very busy with work but i'll do my best to translate all i can.Pit i have some info for 671 in one book about russian submarines.
http://tiberium.hit.bg/22.JPG
The info about "pure" 671 is 14 pages.It will be easier to me to translate this,so tommorow i will post it.The book is quite good and cost only 9$!!And there is info about torpedo subs 627,627A,645,671,671RT,671RTM,685,705,705A,705D,94 5 and 971.And that is just for the torpedo subs.
About the film.Some interesting part(from 31:36).The translation in not direct.
"671RTM gain modernized power plant and that increased the lenght of the patrol to 3 months.Such long sail obliged the captain to search methods to keep the moral high(the captain explain-31:47)When we discover other(not soviet) submarine,we have a custom on the sub.The polit-commisar immediately go to the sub cooking room and the chef bring to all crew on shift to keep the strengh and the moral of the sailors a glass full of cream with a strawberry on the top(in this moment he smiles).After that they talk about the ration of the crew and the glass of wine that is compulsory.The doctors discover that is very healthy and was a reason for a good moral on the sub.
Bye for now.

Austin
20th October 2005, 12:52
Pesho Thanks for the video its really superb , Can some one who knows Russian can translate that in English , atlest few important stuff and key points .

I really liked that graphical representation of the akula chasing the Ohio class SSBN :)

Has there been known instances of any Russian SSN specially the Akula trailing the Ohio SSBN or the LA class SSN .

We have heard of the American Boast of they being able to trail the Russian subs how about the other way around.

gatorfrey
20th October 2005, 18:46
I keep going back to the officer I communicate with.
One time, on K493 , I think it was (it was for sure an Alfa), they tracked an American boat for 24 hours before loosing it.
It was a big deal for them. Our boats were like ghosts to them. It was not often they got to track us.
I referred the Russian officer to the weblink for hte 671 video. He said there were inaccuracys due to use of outside sources. I am not sure what he ment. I just enjoyed the heck out of seeing video on Russian boats I had not seen. If there are other links to videos, I would like to see them.
As a footnote, the book shown above I have. The Russian officer said this book was pretty reliable for information. I have seen better pictures in othe books, but he can read it way faster than I can. I just pretty much take his word on it.

Austin
21st October 2005, 04:21
Our boats were like ghosts to them. It was not often they got to track us

True Indeed The Russian subs were fast compared to American counterpart but not silent , so speed was its only advantage , Victor-3 was a good improvement over previous Russian subs , They were relitavely silent and fast but again nothing compared to what the LA or Ohios were.

But all this changed with the Akula , It was with Akula that the Russian got the slight edge , It was during this time they started Tracking the Ohio and even the LA class subs. The Akula combined Silence with Speed and Firepower besides its range of Acoustic & Non-Acoustic sensors . After Akula the Russians never looked Back they just improved upon it and bettered it , The Gepard can be seen as a pinnacle of Russian sub development and could rival any sub in the world.

But with a cautionary note I must add , that sub warfare is more than silence and speed , The people manning these subs are the most important part of this warfare , The British Sub crew are respected all over the world for its exceptional professional , competiencies and training in sub warfare , To quote a Russian in this regard they had greater Fear and Respect for the British subs than the Americans.

Pit
21st October 2005, 04:26
Austin, 671 could well track 688, via their sonar systems (Skat-KS) and via non-acoustic sensors (SOKS)...

In 1994, one 671RTM detected and tracked via sonar an 688 from nearly 7km, while it was running at 8 knots...

One boat in 1993 mantained a 28 hours contact with one 688 using SOKS...

(These are only stories I knew by sure and are well documented, by no means the only ones)
Regards

Austin
21st October 2005, 06:59
Pit , The Victor-3 were indeed a radical departure in Sub building and Design for the Soviets , For the first time Silencing and HydroDynamic character were paid attention in Detail as also Sonars and Sensors.

But recently there were some news to the fact by some Russian Officer that they would Track the Ohio with the Akula right from their bases where they were based , Its just a small window view on Russian Sub capability .


One boat in 1993 mantained a 28 hours contact with one 688 using SOKS...

Its quite interesting , So how does this SOKS work , I know for the fact it can detect the wake long after the sub has left the place , But How exactly do they put to use this system .

Does any Western Nation has any sensors similar to SOKS.

Pit
21st October 2005, 16:05
Hi Austin,

I'm with you in most of what you said, so...

For the workings methods of 671's "SOKS" systems, please check what our friend "RSM-55" wrote here in the pages 1-2, I think, you will not find better descriptions of the systems's basic in english that those one...

Check that _most_ (not sure if all!) of the Proekt 971 had also a similar but improved system...supposedly 945/945A had them too, but haven't seen anything to confirm it.

Regards

Austin
28th October 2005, 03:40
http://www.indiadefence.com/Akula-IN.htm

From the above article


Finally it has been reported that in Severodvinsk shipbuilding yard work is progressing on two further Akulas, “Cougar” and “Lynx”.

So what are these two further Akulas that Severo Yard is working on , Are they meant for the Russian Navy ????

Komsomolsk-on-Amur Shipbuilding Plant is also building 2 Akula-2 for the IN one that is mentioned is Nerpa , whats the other one ??
Is it of the Gepard type

Again To quote
Russian Akula Class SSN K -154 Tigre under the command of Aleksey Burilichev was reportedly successful of discreetly shadowing a particular United States Navy (USN) Ohio Class Ballistic missile armed nuclear-powered submarine (SSBN) in its “SSBN sanctuary” at least in one instance.

Does Any one know in which year this incident happen ?? The K-154 Tigre is of the Imrpoved Akula-1 or the 971U Type

Neptune
28th October 2005, 08:19
Kuguar was there for a long time, back in USSR days, likely they resumed building if your source is right, but it's likely considering her state of construction. Would have been stupid to keep her for 10 years and then scrap the remains. She's Akula II, the follow on to Gepard. Possible redesign was carried out, like with Gepard.

As for Tigr, she's no Project 971U as that project has never been built. It could only be assumed that some of the features of this super-akula were taken over in the Akula II and possible to a slighter extent in the Improved Akula.

Here is a picture of Soobraztelniy:
http://storage.msn.com/x1ppSgAnYivbDkrHiqj-Pf27j_eKvlsSsVAA_JJYdFRDYBaWMxidB1o_vzAHybCBMfjyi5 OxiSTplKsmIbc8GE2cmKWdzt3RhFyxq62fplDMjA1joT3V6CwD JACLnS43mJ5vE9SamxJVMZky-rGZb8peA

Pit
28th October 2005, 14:07
971U were never built because there are no 971U or 971M or 971A...

All the Akula (Schuka-B) are called "971" not matter if they're "improved" (those coming from Severodinsk, _including_ Tigr), "Akula-II Nato" (Vepr, at some extent Gepard), or "baseline Akula" (the rest)...

If someone is trying to imply there were no imporvements in the Severodinsk batch over the Komsomolsk bath, he is just clueless about those fishes and doesn't know what he's talking about...

971U/A etc, are _western_ names, not russian names.

Austin
29th October 2005, 07:00
From Admiralty Shipyard Up & Close

Kilo Class (http://www.admship.ru/en/18)

Amur (http://www.admship.ru/en/19)

Austin
2nd November 2005, 18:22
Russia Delta IV completed Sea Test (http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/navy/northern_fleet/general/40159.html)

The Russian Delta-IV Project 667BDRM nuclear submarine completed the last stage of the sea tests in the White Sea after the overhaul at the Zvezdochka shipyard in Severodvinsk.

ITAR-TASS reported about this fact on September 14 with the reference to the Zvezdochka press department. The last part of the sea trial took place from September 5 to September 10. The main tasks were measuring acoustic fields, examining of the maneuverability and speed, torpedoes testing, and equipment testing in deep sea.

The project 667 Tula, Delta-IV (factory no.382) began its previous sea trials this year on August 29 in the White Sea. According to Interfax news agency, then the main task of the trials was testing acoustic systems and the submarine’s systems. The shipyard’s trials were combined with the acceptance trials therefore the Northern Fleet’s representatives were onboard Tula during the trials. The shipyard’s specialists corrected the faults revealed by the Northern Fleet representatives and soon it will to return to active service.

Earlier in July, Tula went to sea trials twice. There it performed a test dive, the accuracy of the magnet compass and speed measurements was checked, and various electric and magnet parameters were examined. The submarine is scheduled to return to active service in 2005. The Zvezdochka shipyard’s specialists said to Interfax they had carried out works to prolong the lifetime of the submarine in the way it ”will not reflect negative on the crew and environment safety”. Before Tula the shipyard has successfully repaired Verhoturye and Ekaterinburg, the subs of the same class.

K-114 was built at the Sevmash plant in 1987. Tula is one of the last Soviet built subs and it got its name in 1995 together with the sponsorship from the city of Tula. Submarines of the Project 667BDRM (Delta-IV) class entered service in 1985-1991. The total of 7 ships of this class was built. Submarines of this class carry the D-16RM missile system with 16 R-29RM (SS-N-23) missiles.

Austin
2nd November 2005, 18:32
Can some one tell me how many Typhoon Class SSBN are operational ??? How many do they plan to keep operational after modernisation. ??

One was modernised and being used as a test platform for Bulava , are there any plans for the other Typhoons or will they be scrapped.

gatorfrey
2nd November 2005, 18:44
I know for sure two are operational.One qualifys as a generation four boat now. It has been upgraded enough for that. I think there is a third running,but would have to check that.

Austin
2nd November 2005, 18:50
One qualifys as a generation four boat now

Yes I have came across that designation , i am not too sure what upgrade it went through to make one generation leap , In that case the Borei will qualify as 5th generation SSBN.

gatorfrey
2nd November 2005, 19:41
No,
It is has many systems upgrades,including the ability to launch the new missle the Borei can use.
I do know from sources that no two boats are the same. The Russians were always upgrading and changing them over the years. Deltas will be around a while also.
The Borei is a 4th Gen boat.

Neptune
2nd November 2005, 21:35
Operational? None.
Severstal had ten missiles left back in 2004, presumably that might be called "operational", the other missiles are either launched in exercises or expired date and scrapped.
Dmitry Donskoy is the one you are referring too, she has a new towed array sonar (same as Gepard's) and has the "Bulava" system, although that is not for sure. She did the test launch, but to the question whether she really has the system I have no answer. She was converted some two years ago, yet only last year the Bulava tests were done from it, first a test of the shipboard system, this year the test of the missile itself. But whether she really has 20 of them, that's not for sure. Tuman is also left "in service", but doesn't have any missiles left, so is basically out of service. The other three of the class were some of the first victims of the Nunn Lugar program, scrapped with US help. This year, "Red October" was on the list.

gatorfrey
2nd November 2005, 23:31
Red October?
Not serious right? I heard Sadam's intell people were telling our boys over loudspeakers and radios during the war that hollywood star Bart Simpson was with their wives and girl friends while they fight. Of course that backfired !!

Pit
3rd November 2005, 03:42
Gatorfrey excuse me, are you writting a book?

I think your name is (sorry if's being private, so I would only mention your sencond name) Mr Frey and from one latin-american forum about submarines I heard this (should you know Gerwalk?)...

Hope you can tell us if you're in the writting bussines and if so, when the book would be ready, I will begin to save money :)


Hope you can jump around here more frequently, I enjoy your info, and that Akula's screw pic was awesome :).

Would you appear to have similar pics for Sierra?

Regards

gatorfrey
3rd November 2005, 05:54
There will be a book.
I have some more to gather first,but have the bulk of it. My be a year or so before I am ready.

To start a debate.... Here is an interesting photograph of the Kursk.
Thoughts and opinions about this???
Retouched photo? Real? If real, the conspiricy folks say this is where a torpedo passed through the outer hull before detonation. Note it turns inward, not out. It seems the rumor of a "foriegn submarine" either hitting the Kursk, or a torpedo, just will not go away.
It seems some fairly sharp minds watch this link. What do you think?

Austin
3rd November 2005, 07:56
Looking at the above pictures closely My assesment is

>>> The resulting damage is as a result of a Massive internal explosion in the Torpedo room , Taking in to account that the Oscar-2 is a Double Hull , The Inner one being Harder than the Outer one , The explosion didnt do much of a damage to the outer part , But Internally it looks like a msssive collapse due to massive internal explosion and twisted metal etc all tell tale signature of internal explosion, Mostly due to their own internal torpedo or something like that

>>> That marked hole is nearly a clean round one , could be a cut to put in the cables or other thing to pull the submarine up , Had a torpedo rammed from that angle and penetrated the two hulls and exploded it would have surely affected the sail and Damage would have been propotional on every side , Rather than just one side ( the torpedo side ) as in the case of Kursk.

>>> Ramming the sub by other subs is out of question as it would have caused equal damage to the other sub , and since mostly western subs are single hull it would have most definately sunk with the Kursk.

>>> Or The firing of Torpedo by an American sub etc also dosent look credible , Nor would Russia sit tight and do nothing if something of that sort happens , The moot pint is why would some one fire a Torpedo on a sub in its own water when the forein sub just came to monitor the exercise , Its not a war.

Conspiracy Theory apart , Its just looks like an accidental internal explosion , caused in the torpedo room of Kursk.

Chacko
3rd November 2005, 08:03
A ballastic penetration is clean one mate. Looks like something went in and exploded. Cable hole is out if question, as drilling a cavity on one side (since other side is not visible) and cabling it is makes no sense. Besides cabling where it blasted is a remote chance. Besidse the cavity should exhibit streach marks if cabled and pulled against gravity.

Austin
3rd November 2005, 08:21
A ballastic penetration is possible , But at lets say at 50 - 60 Knots can a Torpedo penetrate the double hull Oscar-2 clean and then explode with its shaped charged warhead , Even if it explodes after penetrading the first hull , The damage done by the warhead would be very visible on the outer hull , also from the point where the round marks are seen and where the Torpedo could have penetrated , it would have definately damaged the sail.

I am no expert but considering that the whole torpedo area looks badly damaged and the other part of sub looks intact , Internal explosion is a likely scenerio.

Chacko
3rd November 2005, 08:43
I too am not an expert on underwater torpedo hit. But this is a good simulation. See the ship hull cavity due to brahmos impact.

Starboard side where it hit.
http://frontierindia.com/fiimages/mil/indiannavy/brahmos/brahmos%20hits%20ship%20on%20starboard%20side.jpg

Exit from port side
http://frontierindia.com/fiimages/mil/indiannavy/brahmos/Brahmos%20impact%20on%20portside.jpg


Your take.

Chacko
3rd November 2005, 09:33
Another thing to consider is, Since it was a double hull, with harder hull inside, how can an explosion (anything is possible, i know) break the sub in such a nice round manner (diameter, hope it wasn't taken apart later)

Unicorn
3rd November 2005, 22:17
Here is another thought.

That does not look like a round hole. rather that it is the edge of the explosion zone, and that the lower "rounded" half of the "hole" is in fact formed by the buckling of the metal plating below it up and back, creating an optical illusion of a hole.

In a seperate image, you can see the same area, and the impact hole is not evident.

If you wish to see the pros and cons of the "Foreign sub sank Kursk" argument look at this thread.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=49333&page=1&pp=30

The conspiracy theory seemed to get well and truly debunked there.

Unicorn

GarryB
4th November 2005, 04:00
I too am not an expert on underwater torpedo hit. But this is a good simulation. See the ship hull cavity due to brahmos impact.


Brahmos is a supersonic antiship missile. It has rather more kinetic energy than any torpedo.

The obvious question would be why would this new super torpedo hit the torpedo room? If it was active sonar guided you'd expect it to hit either the centre or slightly forward of centre to get the command and control area. If it was passive sonar or wake homing you'd expect it to hit the rear of the sub.

Besides a 21 inch hole in the side of a sub would let in a rather large amount of water in the supposed 2 minutes or so between the intial small explosion and the large main explosion that was assumed to be the rest of the torpedoes blowing up. Would have thought that filling the torpedo room with water would be a bad way of setting off the rest of the torpedos with a fire myself.

Chacko
4th November 2005, 08:18
IMO, there are many torps today to sustain enough KE to penetrate a double hull. 533 mm/21 is a common diameter for a heavy torp.

"Could be" the rear bigger diameter of the torp (or the full torp) could not penetrate the outer hull and acted as a cork for water not rushing through the hole. Another reason I think this may be the case is because a hole would have depressurised the submarine section resulting sub to be crushed (or atleast a part of it) like tin can because of the depth pressure. Even if there was a internal blast and the sub developed a hole, the result would have been same. Hence i strongly believe that if that hole happened while the sub was at the bottom of sea, then it should have been crushed.

On why it hit torp chamber, "might be" the sub tried to evade and got unlucky or delibetretely tried to manouver to take hit on non-human inhabitating area. i am not sure.

Francois5
4th November 2005, 09:24
I have been reading the whole thread, and I think few things have been missed.
The biggest turn in the quietning and improvement of the soviet navy (and especially subs), without which no track would have been ever possible is the John Walker spying case.
He gave away so vital information about the US Navy, movement (of SSBNs also) that eclipsed, on the real way, the Toshiba thing.
Toshiba was made public to cover and reduce the charge on the US spy which was not looking good from the Pentagon (bad image).
The web is full today with this story, for example : http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/spies/walker/1.html

Kojedub
4th November 2005, 21:45
I have been searching for a long time about what caused the Kursk disaster and one day I stumbled on a french film,very interesting called "Le Koursk un sous-marin en eaux troubles" where the french expose a very interesting thesis on the Americans being responsible for the destruction of the Kursk after some kind of misunderstanding.The french claim that the submarine responsible is the "Toledo" (which was subsequently retired due to extensive damage incured in the collision prior to the torpedo lauch.
For those who are interested in this pretty convincing film you can find it on
e-mule file-sharing system(download it at http://www.emule-project.net)
,just type "Le Koursk:un sous-marin en eaux troubles" (in french) in english it more or less means:The Kursk:A submarine in muddy waters.
I repeat ,very interesting film,must see.

Chacko
4th November 2005, 22:43
Let me de mystify that movie

Memphis shot an MK48 with a depleted uranium tip. Krusk suffered 2 explosion. Memphis and Toledo were damaged by collusion (either with each other or Krusk). Damage to the Memphis which was photographed a few days later at the Norwegian base closest to the incident. Memphis was damaged more severly. Toledo could afford to go home to US.

The whole problem was Krusk was showing off Shkval torpedo to Chinese. The US did not like it.

GarryB,

May be this answeres the question why the torpedo room was hit.

Now going further, Russians refused the British and Norvegian help because they wanted to take out Shkval.

Why a war was averted? It was because of Diplomatic channel.

Why the torp was fired? Accident or by unavoidable reasons.

Austin,

I hope this solves your Double hull penetration question: The torp was depleted uranium tipped. So the DU penetration was probably as good as Supersonic Ashm KE penetration (Garry B)

Again, this is theory.

GarryB
4th November 2005, 23:27
IMO, there are many torps today to sustain enough KE to penetrate a double hull. 533 mm/21 is a common diameter for a heavy torp.

Without a pointed tip... No.

If it were that simple why would the current US anti sub torpedo have a shaped charge warhead? If kinetic energy was all that was needed then a simple delayed impact fuse would suffice. Even 25 inch torpedos are not SAP (semi armour piercing) and they are considerably heavier and still travel a high speeds.


"Could be" the rear bigger diameter of the torp (or the full torp) could not penetrate the outer hull and acted as a cork for water not rushing through the hole.

Hahahaha... sorry... that sounds funny. If it could make a hole through both hulls then the water pressure would suck it into the torpedo room.


Another reason I think this may be the case is because a hole would have depressurised the submarine section resulting sub to be crushed (or atleast a part of it) like tin can because of the depth pressure.

I doubt it was sitting on the bottom when the incident happened and it was in only 300ft of water. Not nearly enough pressure... to crush such a heavy sub.


Even if there was a internal blast and the sub developed a hole, the result would have been same. Hence i strongly believe that if that hole happened while the sub was at the bottom of sea, then it should have been crushed.


Who said the hole was created when the sub was at the bottom of the sea?
In the "torpedoed theory" it certainly wasn't sitting on the bottom. An internal blast that wasn't large enough to crack the internal hull that started a fire that eventually set off the entire load of torpedos makes rather more sense than an enemy torpedo from the outside (which are cylindrical... not cork shaped BTW) punched through both outer and inner hull and somehow managed to start a fire but didn't explode with enough force to extend the hole it had made to get into the sub, but with enough forceto start a fire that eventually set off the other torpedos... of course everyone knows that explosives always take the line of least resistance... step on a landmine in calf length boots and you lose you leg at the calf, wear gym shoes (I think you English call them trainers) and you lose your fet at the ankles... poke a torpedo into an enclosed space that is otherwise sealed airtight and then detonate it then the force of the explosion would be focussed in two directions. Through the hole the torpedo made and back into the rest of the submarine. The Torpedo room would have been sealed off with multiple airtight doors and bulkheads to protect the rest of the ship. The torpedo would have been blasted out the side... like a torpedo... with most of the damage around the torpedo. Look at a firecracker after it has been set off. They don't blow up into tiny fragments... they remain largely intact with a hole in the side where the structure gave way.
Get a pin and make a hole in the side of a cracker deep enough to get to the black powder and then light it (safely of course). You will find the hole of the explosion is where the pin hole was... if it explodes at all. Of course this sub was surrounded by water, and water does not compress, so there would have been an explosion.
(Crackers use black powder, which is a low explosive, this might burn or detonate... the explosives in torpedos will detonate).


On why it hit torp chamber, "might be" the sub tried to evade and got unlucky or delibetretely tried to manouver to take hit on non-human inhabitating area. i am not sure.


So they had time to manouver something the size of a football field, but not enough time to radio to their fleet above they were being engaged by torpedo?


The whole problem was Krusk was showing off Shkval torpedo to Chinese. The US did not like it.


The Shkval torpedo is not the first rocket powered torpedo in the Soviet ****nal. They had torpedos like it since the 50s. It is not that new.


Memphis shot an MK48 with a depleted uranium tip. Krusk suffered 2 explosion. Memphis and Toledo were damaged by collusion (either with each other or Krusk). Damage to the Memphis which was photographed a few days later at the Norwegian base closest to the incident. Memphis was damaged more severly. Toledo could afford to go home to US.


If this is what the movie states then it is rubbish. Why fit a DU tip to any torpedo? It makes no sense at all. Does a crome steel bumper bar on your car help you in car accidents? Will it let you carve through traffic better?


It is a big ocean. Collisions happen. No body tries to start WWIII over a collision. Subs bump into things all the time.


Now going further, Russians refused the British and Norvegian help because they wanted to take out Shkval.

Rubbish. They refused British and Norwegian help because they thought they could do it themselves... just like the US refused help regarding Apollo 13 problem. It was "only" 300 ft of water.


Why a war was averted? It was because of Diplomatic channel.


********. The sinking of a sub like that is an act of war and no bull**** phone call is going to smooth that over. Putin isn't Yeltsen.


Why the torp was fired? Accident or by unavoidable reasons.

So the entire Russian fleet taking part in the exercise above didn't hear a torpedo running in the water? I doubt it!


I hope this solves your Double hull penetration question: The torp was depleted uranium tipped. So the DU penetration was probably as good as Supersonic Ashm KE penetration (Garry B)



It wouldn't matter if it was diamond tipped... something traveling at 50 knots is not going to have the kinetic energy of something travelling at 800 metres per second.


Again, this is theory.

Crap theory full of holes.

Austin
5th November 2005, 04:49
I hope this solves your Double hull penetration question: The torp was depleted uranium tipped. So the DU penetration was probably as good as Supersonic Ashm KE penetration

Supersonic Ashm have a speed of Mach 2.5 and above as compared to Torpedo which does max 50-60 knots , So penetrating both the hull is out of the question , Torpedo relies of shaped charged warhead to do the Job , Not KE , Unless Its a Shkval .


Why the torp was fired? Accident or by unavoidable reasons.


There was lots of collisions and accidents during the *height* of Cold war , None of the sides fired a Torpedo at the other , Thats the last thing you would do , unless you want to start a war.


The whole problem was Krusk was showing off Shkval torpedo to Chinese. The US did not like it.

So the US sub would fire at Kursk , just because the Chinese were being shown the Shkval , That too in Russian water and in presence of most of the fleet present during the time of exercise including the cruiser Peter The Great.

Austin
5th November 2005, 05:25
Nuclear Powered Strategic Submarine : World Wide Comparasions (http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/navy/northern_fleet/vessels/33575.html)

Chacko
5th November 2005, 07:41
Without a pointed tip... No.

If it ...........
Crap theory full of holes.

Ouch! The mouse that roars! :diablo:

Neptune
5th November 2005, 12:51
Since when is a torpedo broader on the aft side than on the front side?
And depressurising happens with planes, as they fly in thin air, with subs you'd get the adverse effect.

But how many times more do I have to tell these holes were CUT while salvaging the sub???
http://www.mammoet.com/kursk/photos/stage2/sawcomingoutofkursk.jpg
That's a cutting wire...
If not cut by this, then it was done by the Abrassive Jet Cutter used to make the holes for lifting cables. They have cut 26 holes in the submarine, about 700mm in diameter, slightly larger on the outer hull. Now, if you compare that diameter with the size of the humans that stand below it, you can estimate it is approx. 700-1000mm, which is very accidently the size of the cut holes to lift her.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/Severodvinsk/Kursktube.jpg
The red rectangle shows one of the Granit tubes, if a torpedo would have hit there, it would have been blown and wrecked. But it isn't. The tube posed quite a problem for the lifters as they at first didn't know where to put the lifting holes... The cut was clean, but other damages have been posed by lifting the vessel. By cutting holes and having a huge blast like Kursk obviously had, the structural strength was gone. Some loose plates fall of by the current, some are just loose by the former blast etc.

Chacko
5th November 2005, 17:34
Sounds like it is. It will be unwise to lift the sub with open end pointing down. As i mentioned before, it was just a theory.

GarryB
6th November 2005, 05:46
Ouch! The mouse that roars!

Take a pencil and put light pressure on the blunt end against the palm of your hand. Replace the rounded wooden tip with a rounded tip of metal. The difference is that the metal tip is cold to the touch. That is about the only difference.

DU is not some wonder material that makes everything some sort of super penetrator.

I have called your arguments stupid... I don't remember calling you stipud. If you wish to call me a mouse, that is fine. It is useful to know about those you chat with. It influences how you treat them in future discussions.

Chacko
6th November 2005, 09:26
Yeah! itsdifficult to discuss with some one who thinks limited abuse is better than total abuse. The argument could have been taken forward without those fire works. I stuck to the argument without calling any ones argument stupid. You set the benchmark on discussion standards, I excelled, don't blame me for that. This helped me forming a my opinion how to treat you in future. Then you go on and tell me your abuse was better than my abuse. Thank you Garry B. I will remember next time that your views are supreme and no one is suppose to cross it and logically avoid your highness .

Neptune,

Another quesstion. If the vent was made to attach cable and winch the sub up, only one side of the vent should have the strech mark, where as the whole vent has uniform cave it. Secondly the vent is very close to the damaged hull. I suppose, if it had been winched up the damaged side up, the hull would have torn from that side. Besides, other vents (of the 26 you mention) don't show up assuming they have been eqvi distant from the shown vent....

GarryB
6th November 2005, 10:59
Yeah! itsdifficult to discuss with some one who thinks limited abuse is better than total abuse.

So if I think your ideas are stupid then I must also think you are stupid?


The argument could have been taken forward without those fire works.

So I have to tell you your logic doesn't make sense without telling you your logic doesn't make sense because if I say anything you say is wrong then I am personally abusing you?


I stuck to the argument without calling any ones argument stupid.

And if I had said the Kursk sank, because the Pixies sank her as a ritual offering to Neptune (the god, not the poster here). Would you have accepted that as my arguement and personally chastised anyone who criticised me?


You set the benchmark on discussion standards, I excelled, don't blame me for that.

So you describe me personally as a mouse was part of my standard where? When did I make any comment whatsoever about you personally?


Then you go on and tell me your abuse was better than my abuse.

A discussion where no one is wrong and everyones thoughts are equally valid makes sense only for certain topics. Personal feelings is one topic area. Would suggest that Russian Navy: News and Discussion possibly isn't one of those areas.


Thank you Garry B. I will remember next time that your views are supreme and no one is suppose to cross it and logically avoid your highness .


Yes. Your arguements are wrong because they are not consistant with mine. Reality has nothing to do with this at all. :rolleyes:

Neptune
6th November 2005, 11:45
Brute,
the other "lifting" holes were made on top of the submarine. But, as you can see, it is very hard to make a hole in this part, as you would have to make a hole in the lid of the launcher, which is by all means of doubtful strength. Better to make the hole on the side then.
On the other hand, It could have been a cable to keep the sub in an upright position, only made later, not for lifting.
Another option is just that they've banged her against something and that a rock or something tore a hole in the structure, the water and pressure changes encountered during lifting such weakened hulls causes extra damage too. With this kind of weights you a very small collision with an object gives some very bad damage.

So basically, it could be a lifting hole, but I am not sure of that, there are other options for cutting a hole in the hull. The curve around the hole, slightly going aft and down could very easily be created by a steel wire to keep the sub upright in the dry dock. (what do you mean with Strech Mark?)

On this picture, you can see the "plane" they have cut, not a clean cut as it seems, but that is again caused by raising the weakened sub, you can see many parts hanging further forward of the cut, metal that has been bent forward etc. some of it will probably have bent aft too...
The green line, shows the cut off 11m pressure hull. (I refer to the picture above to have a check yourself as the green line blocks it, but shows which part I mean). Another note, above that green line, slightly to the right, you can see that pressure hull is quite torn apart, again something that leads to think they have put a steel cable in there to keep her at her place. The cable most probably cut her way down/aft towards the hole. Only an assumption of course.
On the other hand, if it really were a torpedo hole or something doubtful enough for any specialist to see, the Russians would have had about a year, with all this off-shore cutting equipment in place, to cut that hole out or cover up any doubtful sign of such a hit. If it really was doubtful, they would have probably made a rectangular hole, removing some entire plates and no one would have been nagging. It wouldn't even be a problem to ask Mammoet to do that as these companies can earn extra money with this and basically only few people would know about this operation.
Just a few ideas.

Edit, forgot the picture, here it is:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/Severodvinsk/Kurskplane.jpg

Austin
6th November 2005, 12:02
On a second thought , If one looks at the hole which is not exactly round but a semi-circle , since the other half is getting blocked by part of subs plate/hull.

If one looks at the marked Green Spot , Its actually slightly depressed , with cracks and fractures seen over it and indication of the water pressure and weak structures caused by the explosion.

The Semicircle/Round area could have been done ( by weld cut ) when she was probably being studied by Russian experts to look at the effect of water pressure and internal explosion on the sub. Kursk would be an ideal platform to make such a scientific study.

I remember in one interview shown with the sub designer when he commented that before the Kursk tragedy , They thought that the Oscar was *unsinkable* and they designed it that way, But that explosion broke the myth and efforts were on to make sure that rescue system and safety on Russian subs were paid more attention too.

Chacko
6th November 2005, 13:08
Neptune,

if the holes have been cut on top, i guess you are right. Check figure A. The cable nearest to the damaged hull was made lower because it had to bear extra pressure as that side would be at a 15-25 degree higher than the rest of the sub. I have seen pictures of salvage of a sunk ship whose damaged side was raised in the similar fashion. Other blue squares i have marked, can you explain them?

Added Later...

Gary B,

Thanks for the yada yada.....

Neptune
6th November 2005, 19:09
The one on the left, I can't really see anything there. The second one, on the sail, is just one of her signs painted on the side of the sail. The one in front of that, is just a black hole, I think one of her navigation lights.
The list you see, is fake, it's just the hull shape, she's not flat on the bottom. To put something in a dry dock, you have to be really careful in positioning it, you have to put the support blocks etc. just below some frames and bulkheads as otherwise the ship will collapse under its own weight and pressure caused by that.
You can see the answers to your "sail questions" here.
http://smit.clickfactor.nl/kursk/pictures/1.jpg
http://smit.clickfactor.nl/kursk/salvage/index.htm
This site is very interesting, although they don't show pictures of the ship in dry-dock, only the one posted above.
Nonetheless you can very well see where they have drilled the holes and the cutting methods are also in one of the download files.
It should be said that this is the most dangerous part of Marine operations, the off-shore world, fingers and limbs get lost, people get cut in parts, underwater explosions etc. Lots of dead people there. Nasty job, but nice payment. As you can see on the hole drilling pictures, these holes will most probably not be exactly round shaped. They also explain that some of the holes, depending on the spot, are differently shaped.

the side hole, it is assumable that a cable has just cut itself a way into the steel, you have to imagine the pressure of a few thousand tons of steel on a wire(s) with a diameter of approx 100mm. You can also see the "entrance" of that cable in the right upper corner of this hole.
This is what I think the wire went, could be very wrong of course, but judging from the hole and the wreckedge around it and on the pressure hull cutting edge, I think it's possible.

I have taken a second look, the thing on the upper left you have notified is a piece of the dry dock, the hull is intact in that area.

Chacko
7th November 2005, 07:05
I found some interesting pics

http://www.joelertola.com/grfx/grfx_img/KurskMed.gif
Thats a good indication how they lifted Kursk

http://dev.themoscowtimes.com/photos/huge/2001_07/2001_07_02/kursk-large.jpg
The cable hole where the whole debated is pointed at. This picture suggests that the hole was made to Keep the hull in upright position and not lifting up.

http://politicsofet.com/images/kursk_4.jpg
Look at this image, where did the hole go?

Austin
7th November 2005, 09:26
Yes Good point Brute,before the cables could be plugged on the subs hull , The subs needed to be straightned and held for stabiliy until such time , they finished plugging the cable on the top for it to be lifted


where did the hole go?

If the hole was created just to put in the cable , it would be small enough to notice in that hazy pics .
But Look at this

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/Severodvinsk/Kurskplane.jpg

I see two small holes one below the big hole the other opposite of the big hole

They seem to be small enough to let the steel cable pass through to hold the sub stedy.

Neptune
7th November 2005, 10:26
The picture/drawing you show, is basically the cutting off of the first part of Kursk, the yellow towers you see on the side are the suction anchors. The yellow line is the cutting wire, they gradually tighten the cable and "suck" the anchors in to maintain an angle. This way the cable cuts itself through the hull and cuts off the front part. But, as I have indicated, there might have been a cable to keep her upright somewhere, as the denting near the hole somewhat suggests.

On another note, you can see the hole shown in this picture too, in the middle of the red rectangle. You will also see that the hole has the "entrance" of a cable on top, it's not just a round hole as seen in the other angle. So basically I don't think you guys need more explanations to see it's rather stupid to think this hole is from a torpedo or other superweapon of some kind. It's just something that came with the Salvaging work.

Austin your holes don't appear on Brute's last picture though, I think it's just some decoloration due to the bad quality of the picture.

As for Kursk, they didn't test on her, they just sent some parts from that same metal to Holland to do some tests for the drilling.
She wasn't built as "unsinkable" either, the outer hull is just a hydrodynamic "suite", you can also compare the thickness of that hull with that of the pressure hull as you can see it rather well on the pictures. Some other pictures also indicate this. The outside hull is rather weak, much like a car's outside.

Chacko
7th November 2005, 10:48
Neptune for the sake of argument. The yeallow cable may have been passed through an existing hole. There is still no proof that the hole was cut and its bent inwards.

See the markings in blue, there is another hole. You cannot see much because of the angle.

Look at the second 3 D photo, if this lightwave 3D out put isan excat reproduction of the Kursk (i know it can be achieved as my company does a lot of 3 D simulation), then there was a hole there already. Or is it something else :rolleyes:

Austin
7th November 2005, 11:49
Came across this curious news

SINEVA TO ARM DELTA IV-CLASS

According to a 28 June 2001 Izvestiya article, in addition to pursuing the development of the Bulava SLBM, which is to arm the new Borey-class [NATO name 'Delta IV'] SSBNs and replace R-39 [NATO designation SS-N-20 'Sturgeon'] SLBMs on the remaining Akula ['Typhoon']-class SSBNs, Russia also plans to deploy a new variant of the R-29RM [NATO designation SS-N-23 'Skiff'], called the Sineva. The new variant carries 10 warheads and is being developed at the Makeyev State Missile Center in Miass, which proposed this missile as an alternative to the Bulava and the failed Bark. The Izvestiya article also stated that while the Bulava's characteristics are still unknown, it is to be a single-warhead missile, despite the fact that MIRVed SLBMs are not prohibited by any existing arms control treaty

>>>So are the upgrated Delta-IV are carrying the new variant of SS-N-23 ??

>>> How many warheads do the Sineva carries 4 or 10

>>> Although the original plan called for scrapping all the 6 Typhoons , But Russia decided to just scrap 3 subs , out of the remaining 3 Typhoons ( 2 Typhoons being active ), one dimitri has been modernised to carry the Bulava ( recently tested by her ) , The second one will go for a similar upgrade later.

>>> What happens to the third Typhoon what happens to it ?? , will it be scrapped or modernised along with the two , AFAIK Russians have emphatically stated they wont scrap beyond 3 Typhoons

Added Later .......

R-29RM Sineva missile carries 10MIRVs and a guidance system developed for the Bark SLBM (SS-NX-28)

Austin
7th November 2005, 11:57
Status of Russia’s SLBM programs

The current situation with sea-launched ballistic missiles is a result of what can be described a serious mismanagement, which, unfortunately, is very typical for the Russian strategic forces these days. The lack of oversight and absence of mechanism that would be able to reconcile various institutional interests create ample opportunities for ill-considered decisions and costly mistakes.

After the Soviet Union broke up, it was clear that Russia could not possibly maintain the Soviet strategic submarine fleet, so serious reductions of the submarine force were inevitable (to be sure, there were proposals to get rid of sea-launched ballistic missiles, but it was never a realistic option). So, the question that Russia confronted in the 1990s was how to proceed with keeping its strategic fleet at sea.

In the beginning of the 1990s, Russia had two types of relatively modern submarines – Project 667BDRM/Delta IV, built in 1981-1990, and Project 941/Typhooon, built in 1977-1989. Delta IVs carried liquid-fuel R-29RM missiles, Typhoons were equipped with solid-propellant R-39 missiles. By the time the Soviet Union broke up, the lead ships of each class entered overhaul, which, among other things, included replacing the old missiles with new ones.

Both R-29RM and R-39 missiles were developed at the Makeyev Design Bureau at Miass, which was working on upgraded modifications of the missiles. The new liquid-fuel missile was known as R-29RM Variant or Sineva, while the solid-propellant follow-on to R-39 was known as Bark.

The problem with the solid-propellant R-39 and its Bark follow-on was that the first stage of the missile was manufactured at the Pavlodar plant in Ukraine (the same first stage was used in the RT-23UTTH/SS-24 missile). That meant that Russia had to transfer production of the missile to its own territory. It was not impossible (the production was reportedly taken to Perm), but it certainly increased the cost of the Bark project. Given that for most of the 1990s Russia was having serious problems with financing its military, this put Bark at serous disadvantage. But the project went ahead nonetheless, since it was the only option available at the time – the new missile was to be deployed not only on Typhoons, but also on new Project 955-class submarines (the first ship of the new class, Yuriy Dolgorukiy, was laid down in 1996). In 1996, the Makeyev Design Bureau began flight tests of the missile.

The Bark missile was to become the only sea-launched ballistic missile of the Russian strategic fleet. Development of the R-29RM upgrade was apparently discontinued at some point in the early 1990s, probably because the military could not afford supporting two missile development projects. Besides, the navy, after having the chance to work with the solid-propellant R-39, strongly objected continuing with deployment of liquid-fuel missiles. Delta IV submarines would have allowed to complete their service until the missiles reach the end of their service life (maybe with moderate extension), which meant that all this ships would have been decommissioned by 2008-2010.

These plans, however, did not materialize. After the Commander-in-Chief of the Strategic Rocket Forces, Igor Sergeyev, was appointed the minister of defense in May 1997, the Strategic Rocket Forces became the dominating force in the military. That, among other things, meant taking control over the resources that the government allocated for the development of the strategic forces. Shortly after the fourth test of the Bark missile in November 1997 ended in failure (as did previous three), the Bark program was cancelled in favor of the new one, proposed by the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology (MITT) – the primary developer of the Topol-M missile system, which was to become the main missile system of the Rocket Forces. MITT proposed creating a “naval version” of Topol-M, promising significant savings, since the Topol-M missile was at the last stages of development (the first missiles were deployed in December 1997). Despite serious doubts about the technical feasibility of adapting Topol-M for sea-based deployment, the project was approved. Construction of the Yuriy Dolgorukiy submarine was suspended, since it now had to accommodate different missiles. The plan apparently called for equipping Project 941 Typhoon submarines with the new missiles as well.

The decision to cancel the Bark project created a gap in the submarine force – development of the new “naval Topol-M” missile was expected to take at least several years, while the R-39 missiles it was supposed to replace had already reached end of their service lives. Besides, it seems that at that time it become clear that some of Typhoons will have to be decommissioned in any event, and construction of new Project 955 submarines will not be able to compensate for that. To keep the number of sea-launched missiles at a reasonable level, the government decided to resume production of R-29RM liquid-fuel missiles and to keep six Delta IV submarines in service. After an overhaul and equipped with new missiles, these submarines could be kept in service for more than a decade – until 2015-2020.

Flight tests of the new R-29RM Sineva missile were completed in June 2004. At least one of the two submarines of the Project 667BDRM class that have completed overhaul already carries missiles of this type. Other submarines are expected to be equipped with these missiles in the next few years.

Development of the new solid-propellant missile, which became known as Bulava, apparently proved more difficult than it was expected. Although the decision to go ahead with the project was made in 1997, MITT did not present technical project until 2000. In 2002 the industry completed conversion of the Dmitriy Donskoy Typhoon submarine for tests of the Bulava missile, but the missile was not ready for tests of any kind. The first “pop-up” test, that included only a mockup of the missile, was conducted in December 2003, and seemed to be more of a desperate attempt to show at least some results of the development program than an actually useful test. The first flight test of the Bulava missile was scheduled to December 2004, but the development program suffered a setback in May 2004, when a prototype rocket motor exploded during a fire test in Votkinsk. As a result, the most that the developers could produce in 2004 was a second “pop-up” test in September 2004. It is possible that flight tests of the missile will begin in 2005, but it is unlikely that new submarines with Bulava missiles will become fully operational before 2008-2010.

The delay with development of Bulava missiles proved deadly for Typhoon submarines. Although the original plan was to keep at least some of them in service with Bulava missiles, it is now impossible. The Typhoon division was disbanded in April 2004 and the submarines are scheduled to be dismantled. The only exception is Dmitriy Donskoy, but it is likely to remain just a test bed for Bulava.

This is a little old document Jan-2005

Source : http://russianforces.org

Austin
7th November 2005, 12:24
Topol-M and Bulava Side By Side (http://russianforces.org/eng/blog/archive/000613.shtml)

gatorfrey
16th November 2005, 06:17
New question:
From what I gather asking on other boards, there does not seem to be a disadvantage to using the X-tail system on submarines.
On thinking about it, the only disadvantage I could think of was surfacing in the ice. The loads would probably be a little harder on the angled appendages of the X-tail. Maybe.
Other than that, I am trying to figure out why we do not see an X-tail Akula or X-tail combat Russian submarine? From what I understand, Rickover was against automated, computer controlled systems. But now days, it is hard to get away from that. Besides, the Russians definately did not have Rickover to influence their design.
So, why not X-tails? There must be a reason. I would want a system that aided in shallow water and setting the boat on the bottom. Not the least of which, a reported superior turning factor, all other things equal.
Or, is there something about longer hulls or hull shape that adversely affects the boat?
The more I think about it, the more interesting it is.
So, why not?

Austin
9th December 2005, 16:19
So, why not X-tails? There must be a reason. I would want a system that aided in shallow water and setting the boat on the bottom. Not the least of which, a reported superior turning factor, all other things equal.

To my Knowledge X-Tail is a good thing to have in Shallow water or litorral environment , As it allows tight/fine manovering or better turning factor , But it also requires a computer control to do it , I dont think its of significant advantage in Open Ocean .

Even the latest Amur dosent have a X tail , But for the matter even the Scorpene dosent , Only U-212/214 has it in modern sub , It is quite possible that you can achieve fine manouvering without having an X-tail.

Austin
9th December 2005, 16:24
Russian Navy To Get New Submarine & Ship (http://bellona.org/en/international/russia/navy/northern_fleet/general/41103.html)

In 2006, the Russian navy will continue its renewal program for submarine and surface forces, the chief commander of the Russian Navy Vladimir Masorin said to the daily Krasnaya Zvezda.

2005-12-01 17:58

The navy rearmament program stipulates construction of the new missiles strategic submarine, which should become the basis for the future Russian submarine fleet. Besides, a multipurpose submarine and a diesel submarine are under construction now. These three projects on the submarine forces should be implemented in the nearest years. According to Masorin, the navy is to receive a new ballistic missile Bulava already in 2007. Yury Dolgoruky nuclear submarine should also enter service in 2007 and be armed with the Bulava missiles. The surface forces will receive a new corvette, a frigate and a few destroyers. The ships will be constructed with the new technologies, reported Krasnaya Zvezda

****************

Emmm.....So The Severdovinsk SSN and Borei SSBn should hit waters by 2007 , also the 3rd and production variant of Lada construction has started , As it stands today 2 Lada SSK are being built , Russian Navy plans to have 6 Lada class SSK by 2010

Vladimir
10th December 2005, 08:58
Another delay for both Dolgorukiy and Severodvinsk for another year. Ivanov said a couple weeks ago that Bulava and its carriers will be fully ready in 2008, and perhaps that's the most realistic estimate.

Austin
10th December 2005, 10:09
other delay for both Dolgorukiy and Severodvinsk for another year.

I can understand the Dolgorukiy getting delayed because of Bulava although the subs might be ready but will have to wait for her package to get into operational service.

Severodvinsk has no reason to get delayed , I expect her to be commisioned by 2006 per original plans. Its very strange that there is complete blackout over Severodvinsk progress where as Borei is getting all the coverage.

Unicorn
12th December 2005, 02:49
To my Knowledge X-Tail is a good thing to have in Shallow water or litorral environment , As it allows tight/fine manovering or better turning factor , But it also requires a computer control to do it , I dont think its of significant advantage in Open Ocean .

Even the latest Amur dosent have a X tail , But for the matter even the Scorpene dosent , Only U-212/214 has it in modern sub , It is quite possible that you can achieve fine manouvering without having an X-tail.

You might want to check again.

The Collins class also have an X tail.

Unicorn

Neptune
12th December 2005, 17:12
Walrus class too, steering moments on large submarines with these rudders would be huge. It probably gives trouble with going straight ahead too.

Trident
12th December 2005, 18:40
I think the first (operational, i.e. disregarding Albacore) submarine to use an X arrangement was the Swedish Sjörmen (spelling? you know, the ones they're selling to Singapore now) in the 60ies (!). All of their subsequent designs featured such rudders.

Austin
12th December 2005, 18:58
One more Bulava launch in 2005

One more test launch of the Bulava missile will take place in December 2005 (the first flight test of the missile took place on September 27, 2005).

Neptune
13th December 2005, 12:31
Something new, sure Italy is looking after the Russia related markets for exports.

Defense News
Posted 12/12/05 10:35 Print-friendly version

Italy, Russia Move Ahead on Joint Diesel Subs
By TOM KINGTON, ROME And LYUBOV PRONINA, MOSCOW

Russian and Italian firms are working up technical drawings for a new diesel
submarine for the export market, even as they start scrapping some of their
own older subs.

Fincantieri and Russian submarine-builder Rubin are in the second phase of
developing a 1,000-ton conventional submarine, the S1000, which will be
equipped with an Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) system said to be capable
of staying underwater for 10 days. The project was launched by the Italian
government in April 2004.

“Rubin presented a blueprint of the submarine to the Italian Defense
Ministry six months ago and is now at the second stage, preparing the
technical draft that should be ready by the end of next year,” said Yuri
Kormilitsyn, chief designer of non-nuclear submarines at the Rubin Central
Design Bureau, St. Petersburg.



It was too early to say when the sub might begin construction, Kormilitsyn
said.

Fincantieri declined to comment on its progress, but has said the S1000 will
be 40 to 50 meters long with a top speed of 14 knots, a crew of 16 and
maximum depth of 250 meters. The S1000 will be designed for anti-submarine
warfare, intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance, and transporting up to 12
special forces troops. Other missions could include anti-surface warfare,
mine-laying and air operations support.

An Italian industrial source said Fincantieri is developing a new
fuel-cell-powered AIP system.

Rubin’s Kormilitsyn confirmed that Italy would provide the S1000’s AIP
technology.

The Italian source said the AIP system would not be the same one that is
going on two U-212-class subs, being built under license from Germany’s HDW
by Fincantieri for delivery to the Italian Navy this decade.

“Part of Fincantieri’s agreement with the Germans is not to export that
technology,” the Italian source said.

But other technology is intended to flow between the two partners in the new
sub. “We are teaching but also learning,” said the Italian source.

“We are interested in Western technology and could share some of the
technologies that we have,” Kormilitsyn added.

He said the new sub would combine Russian work on the Amur 950 submarine and
Italy’s experience with the U-212.

The S1000 is Rubin’s first tie-up with a Western firm, Kormilitsyn said, but
the firm also is seeking deals with other European submarine builders.

“There is an integration between Russia and NATO, and Italy took up the
flag,” he said. “We have given our proposals to Germany and France, but
negotiations have been slow.”

Neither the Russian or the Italian navies appear likely to order the S1000
in the near future.

“Our own Lada-class submarine covers the demand for the domestic navy,”
Kormilitsyn said. The Russian Navy is satisfied with the fourth-generation
Project 677 sub, a 1,600-ton diesel-electric known as the Project 1650 Amur
for export, he said.

And Italy had planned to buy four U-212s, but budget cuts have restricted
the order to two. So Fincantieri has its eye on exports. And like the
Russians, it also has considered tie-ups with Germany. In an article about
the S1000 in its in-house journal in September 2004, the firm wrote that it
had previously sought and failed to sign a development deal with HDW.

“Cooperation with Russia is therefore an alternative opportunity,” the
article said. “Apart from having relevant know-how regarding development and
products, Russia still has an undeniable political and commercial influence
in various areas of the international market (Asia, the Arabian Gulf and
southeast Asia) … The cooperation must aim at this market with modern,
medium-sized * and therefore less expensive * products, in which a mix of
innovation and modern Western technology can improve the chance of success
in an important niche.”

How To Dismantle Atomic Subs

As Italy and Russia mull new subs, Italian firms are now separately engaged
in dismantling retired Soviet nuclear subs. Italian firms including
Fincantieri and Finmeccanica have started work worth up to 50 million euros
($58.5 million) to dismantle nuclear submarines, part of a 2003
Italo-Russian agreement.

Antonio Gozzi, chief executive of Italian steel firm Duferco, said Dec. 2 on
the sidelines of a Russia-Italy business forum in Moscow that Duferco, along
with four other Italian companies including Finmeccanica and Fincantieri,
are helping Russia to dismantle submarines on the Kola Peninsula.

He said Italy is on track to dismantle 12 to 13 Russian submarines, with a
first tranche of work worth 40 million to 50 million euros under way.

The work stems from a G-8 commitment to help Russia dismantle its nuclear
****nal. In 2003, Italy agreed to spend 360 million euros to work on nuclear
subs and organize the safe burying of radioactive materials.

Italy is seeking to bury old Italian nuclear waste alongside Soviet sub
waste, Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore reported Dec. 11. •


Trident, the Swedish subs were indeed about the first, the Baltic allows such configuration due to its environment, also the U-31 and U-32 (Type 212) operate in the Baltic.
Lada would most probably had more benefits from such configuration too, although it would then limit its export potential as Amur 1650.

Austin
13th December 2005, 12:56
Thats Interesting news on Italian & Russian effort in sub development . It makes me feel this 1000 tons sub is good for special operation like laying mines , dropping SF guys behind lines and chocking lines of merchie ships, I dont understand how it can be useful in anti-sub warfare, It probably lacks endurance .

On the X-Tail thing , Its not quite convincing that X-tail is better then the conventional ones , If thats the case why dont the Scorpene or the Amur have X-tail, Even the new Astute class sub SSN dosent have an X-Tail , The factory models of Borei & Sev dosent show X-Tail. Even the Seawolf and Virginia dont have an X-Tail.

I am sure if it was such an important factor in manouvering ,Russia , UK ,France would have had the X-tail on their sub by now or on their upcoming subs.

Neptune
13th December 2005, 19:15
As already mentioned "better" is not the word. It offers better steering, but also has the disadvantage of slowing down as all four of the blades have to be used to keep her on her heading. A hard thing to do and for nuclear subs it would make more noise and slow them down. For small subs no problem, short distances, less environmental problems. For larger diesel subs, their operational theatre is again a bit rougher than the Baltic and often currents have worse effects, add to it the already hard course-keeping of the sub.
But, due to the four rudders, the sub is capable of turning around much faster than a normal sub, and as an extra advantage it offers better bottoming capability, which is for a nuclear sub not a likely thing to do anyway.
Steering has always been a pain in the *ss for submarines as their propellor is behind the rudders and not in front of it as with surface ships. In fact the LA or Ohio class were the first submarines in the world to be capable of turning (altering course 180°)within 4 times their own length. Not sure which one of the two it was.
This is possible with normal rudders, but an for an SSK a much shorter turning circle and manoeuvrebility come in handy.

And as mentioned before the forces of a heavier submarine on the X-tail are rather annoying too.

Austin
19th December 2005, 19:15
Translated From www.redstar.ru

Ours "Lada" oceans wait
Vladimir GUNDAROV, " the Red star "

In October at a factory " the Admiralty shipyards " in northern capital there will pass solemn ceremony of descent to water new Russian a diesel engine-electric of a submarine (DEPL) "St.-Petersburg" of the project 677 "Lada". General designer TSKB MT "Ruby" has informed On it Igor Spassky which collective has developed the project of this submarine.

"St.-Petersburg" - a head submarine not only the new project. It opens line DEPL of the fourth generation. Its birth, as a matter of fact, means break in technical and economic characteristics and technologies. In it are realized over hundred new scientific and design decisions. Radio-electronic arms, the boat equipment and materials - last word of a science and technics. In opinion of founders of a submarine, it represents the pilot project of all DEPL which will be under construction in a new century.

The basic difference energovooruzhenija submarines - so-called " hydrogen a battery ". It is the main power installation (GEU) the closed type owing to which in comparison with traditional accumulators a diesel engine-electric of submarines in autonomy is some times increased.

However, the Russian designers thirty (!) more years have offered GEU with the electrochemical generator (EHG) ago. As fuel elements in it hydrogen and oxygen were used. Submarine N-273 of the project 613 have converted under the project 613Y "Katran". If usual boats on two-central speed without additional charge of batteries could be under water no more than four day at use EHG term has increased about one month. The second direction in design development became creation of the diesel engines working on the closed cycle. The project 615 (Quebec) with the uniform engine, voploshchennyj in metal in the middle of the last century, became unique all over the world. But because of frequent fires submariners have nicknamed this submarine "lighter".

http://www.redstar.ru/2004/10/09_10/1.jpg


"St.-Petersburg" guarantee, that safety of their operation GEU - on the order above. The head developer propulsivnyh systems with EHG - Special design office kotlostroenija. Making use of experience of the Ural electrochemical combine and NPO "Energy" on creation EHG for space vehicles, the special design bureau has developed the engine for submarines "E?enoaee-20" in which oxygen and hydrogen is used.

The new submarine possesses oaeoeei-technical elements which, under the statement of authors of the project, will allow in two, and even three times to surpass by fighting efficiency of a submarine of the third generation. The new building is distinguished with a high degree of automation of processes of the centralized management of all boat systems and the weapon from the camera boards located in the main command item. Capacity of a rocket-torpedo complex is increased. " St.-Petersburg " will arm new protivokorabelnym with a rocket complex eeaa-WITH with the new automated information control system of the weapon.

The new inertial navigating complex will be established. The hydroacoustic complex also is constructed on new element base and with the newest software. In nosovoj extremities the aerial is placed high-sensitivity shumopelengatornaja. Essentially new universal multipurpose periscope which is not getting into the strong case is established. The new system of reception of radio information from coast in underwater position is introduced.

The level of underwater noise is lowered more than on 30 decibels, and a level of radiated sound capacity - more than in one thousand times :eek: Thus, shumnost a new boat it will be practically approached to background values of the sea. Hence, on reserve it should surpass all the submarines constructed up to it not only at us, but also somewhere abroad.

danrh
22nd December 2005, 02:22
From JDW 7 Dec 2005



Russia's first Lada-class boat on sea trials
Richard Scott Jane's Naval Consultant

The first Project 677 Lada-class diesel-electric submarine for the Russian Federation Navy has begun a month-long period of sea trials.
Designed by the St Petersburg-based Rubin Central Design Bureau for Marine Engineering, it was built by the Admiralty Shipyard. The submarine - named Sankt Peterburg in honour of the 300th anniversary of the founding of its namesake city - sailed through the Morskoy Canal on 29 November under its own power to commence testing at a range in the Baltic Sea.
Trials will evaluate the boat's operability and manoeuvrability at a range of depths. Onboard systems will also be subject to test.
On completion of the trials programme, Sankt Petersburg will berth at Kronshtadt naval base for the remainder of Russia's winter months.
Project 677 (known as Amur 1650 in its export derivation) represents the fourth generation of Russian conventional submarine.
Laid down in December 1997, Sankt Peterburg's completion was repeatedly delayed by funding shortages and, more recently, by equipment acceptance issues and revision of the whole-boat safety case.
A first follow-on unit for the Russian Federation Navy, named Kronshtadt, was laid down in July 2005, while another partly-built Amur 1650 export variant is awaiting funds for its completion as a speculative demonstrator model at the Admiralty Shipyard.
Russian design bureau offers new cruise missile-armed SSK (jni.janes.com, 05/10/05)
Lada class, Jane's Fighting Ships (jfs.janes.com)

xanadu
23rd December 2005, 10:04
There were rumours that the second Amur was for the IN. :cool:

Neptune
23rd December 2005, 20:15
There is no such thing as a "second Amur", in fact, there is no such thing as an Amur at all, for the moment. Kronstadt was only laid down in July, the third one a few weeks ago. There was no Amur building at any moment. The "Kobra" picture that surfaced was just Sankt-Petersburg herself under construction.

Kojedub
26th December 2005, 19:57
http://www.warfare.ru/?linkid=1720&catid=243&pending=true
WHAT ?There are THREE Granays-Severodvinsk submarines being built today ?When is the first due to be commissioned ?or nobody knows ?(I know the russians are rather silent on their severodvinsks )
thanks

Maxpain
26th December 2005, 20:20
About pr.885 "Yasen" ("Severodvinsk") and pr.955 "Borei". 1 sub 885 class and 2 subs 955 are being built

snake65
26th December 2005, 21:23
About pr.885 "Yasen" ("Severodvinsk") and pr.955 "Borei". 1 sub 885 class and 2 subs 955 are being built
Scan from Taras book?

Kojedub
26th December 2005, 22:13
So warfare.ru is wrong ?or what ?

Maxpain
26th December 2005, 22:45
Scan from Taras book?
Yes

So warfare.ru is wrong ?or what ?
Maybe they count both "Yasen" subs like a "Severodvinsk" type

Gepard
27th December 2005, 00:36
What is that book called and who is the author, how can one purchase it? When was it published? I know its alot to ask but the book seems fascinating.

Gepard
27th December 2005, 00:37
When was that book published and what is its full name and how can one purchase it?

Maxpain
27th December 2005, 10:36
2Gepard
http://www.ozon.ru/multimedia/books_covers/1000272563.jpg
ATOMIC SUBMARINES (1955 - 2005).
Author - Anatoly Taras
http://www.ozon.ru/context/book_detail/id/2438143/

Austin
27th December 2005, 10:58
Thanks Maxpain , The Severdovinisk seems have pupmjet from the image you have put , But the Borei seems to retain the twin screws , dosent make much sense as the twin screws assuming that its a 7 Blade skewed propellor will make it noisier , It would have been better if it had been a pump jet.

Maxpain , any english version of the book ??

I dont understand Russian , can some one convert what that article of Borei and Yasen says Thanks.

Kojedub
27th December 2005, 10:59
What's new about the "Yasen" class ?Why we never hear anything about them ?What's their status of completion ?Do they exist ?

Kojedub
27th December 2005, 11:06
The "Borei" doesn't need to be as silent as the "Sev" because it's a SSGN not a SSN it's primary mission is to launch "Bulavas" not to hunt other submarines.If it operates under the ice of the North Pole its noise will be largely "covered" by the noise of the ice breaking.just an opinion.

Kojedub
27th December 2005, 11:12
Ah Sorry!The Severodvinsk is simply the name of the head ship of the "Yasen" class or "Granay" class according to NATO.

Austin
27th December 2005, 11:41
The "Borei" doesn't need to be as silent as the "Sev" because it's a SSGN not a SSN it's primary mission is to launch "Bulavas" not to hunt other submarines.If it operates under the ice of the North Pole its noise will be largely "covered" by the noise of the ice breaking.just an opinio

On the contrary the borei needs to be more silent than the Severdovinsk , so that she can operate alone and take care of herself from other advanced SSN like the Seawolf and other subs. Much like the Ohios being quiter than LA class

In the future Russian SSBN ( Borei is an SSBN not an SSGN which are cruise missile carrier like Oscar ) will be operating alone in hostile water and will have no SSN cover as such unless absolutely required.

Statements over the years have indicated that Borei will be the most quitest sub in Russian service including the new SSN Severdovinsk.

Leave the Ice Cover of North Pole to the Doomsday machine Typhoon :D

Maxpain
27th December 2005, 12:35
Maxpain , any english version of the book ??
No :(

I dont understand Russian , can some one convert what that article of Borei and Yasen says Thanks.
I'll try

Pit
27th December 2005, 18:34
Weird things:

There is STILL no "confirmed" Yasen/Severodinsk/Pr 855 layout, while it have been universally stated as having the new Irtysh-Amfora massive spherical bow array (first tested on Akson-2) some drawings beggining from "Tekhnika-Voruzhenie" magazine then showed "typical" Skat-alike conformal bow array with super-imposed TT...

Combat Fleets 2002-2003 claims this:


The Irtysh-Amfora bow sonar array is expected to resemble the array of the U.S. BQQ-2, in which a spherical active/passive array is flanked by passive receiving hydrophone arrays, but a drawing of the ship published in 1996 showed a standard Russian-style cylindrical bow array (the system dubbed Skat-3) with the torpedo tubes above it. Resource constraints may have forced Russia to abandon the more complex spherical array, which is installed in Yankee Big-Nose trials submarine Kazan (KS-403); see under [SSAN]. Locating a spherical sonar array at the bow requires the torpedo tubes to be relocated further aft, angled outboard, as in U.S. submarine designs since the late 1950s; if the design has been altered to employ a cylindrical array, however, then the tubes will likely have been relocated at the bow.

Interesting...I think we would need to see the real thing whe its launched so to clarify this...

Borey uses an improved version of the all-digital and /massive/ conformal bow array MGK-540 Skat-3, the Skat-3M...surely using new DSP and computers...maybe something else?

Maxpain
27th December 2005, 19:04
Translation of first scannde page.

Project 885 “Yasen” (“Ash”)
Multi-purpose submarine for “hunt” on atomic submarines, cruisers, aircraft carriers, transports, and for destroing on-land targets with cruise missles.
Project 885 was designed in construction bureau “Malahit” (SKB-143) as a replacement for project 971. Construction of first sub – K-329 “Severodvinsk” – was started 21 december 1993, but it is still not finished.

Crew 93 men
Diving depth 520 m
Sea endurance 100 days
Length 119 m
Beam 13.5 m (15.5 with stabilisators)
Draught 9.4 m
Surfaced displacement 8600 tones
Submerged displacement (full load) 13800 tones
Surfaced speed 16 knots
Submerged speed 30 knots
Monoblock-engine (46000 h.p.)
1 propeller
8 launchers of anti-ship rockets P-100 “Oniks” or H-35 (totally 24 rockets), 4 533-mm torpedo tubes (12 USGT torpedoes and 19 rockets RK-55 “Granat”), 650-mm torpedo tubes.

Launchers are moved to the first half of submarine’s body. Floating rescue camera for all crew is now situated in the center of submarine. Radar is placed to the nose of sub, torpedo tubes are moved to the center of sub’s body and situated not gorizontally (rotated on ~45 degrees CW).

A lot of measures were used to make the sub silent and untistinguished. A lot of new electronic systems will be used on the pr.885 subs, including hydroacustic complex “Irtysh-Amfora” or “Ajax”, which consists of nose spheric radar and alongside rail antennes.

Austin
4th January 2006, 13:36
Thanks Maxpain Pit , Are you pretty sure that the submerged displacement of the Yasen is 48000 tons seems like a Typo for me , or that figures being mixed with Typhoon submerged displacement.

Also the crew of 93 men looks more suspicious , if nothing else that would be reduced from the Akula-2 crew of 63 , as in Greater Automation , Its also likely that the good old design of the 1993 may have changed , as did of Borei ( change in slbm ) , The improvements of over a decade would have been incorporated in both these new subs , The Gepard would be the benchmark for Severdovinisk as she is referred to be closest to 4th Gen SSN , the Yasen will exceed by how much needs to be seen .

A spherical sonar and a pumpjet propulsion would be a very basic thing for the Sev to have , I have seen references to the follow on Severdovinsk-2 series.

Pit , do they use the same processor , DSP electronics as they do for A/C avionics ??



In 2007 VMF of Russia will be supplemented by the underwater atomic cruiser of project 955 (Borey)"Yuri dolgorukiy". Specifically, by this time it is planned to accept to the armament the new missile complex of the sea basing Of "bulava", which and will equipped submarine. About this stated the commander-in-chief OF VMF Admiral Vladimir masorin, who inspects during these days Caspian flotilla. Besides "Yuri dolgorukogo", he said by central board, the program of rearmament provides for the building of the fundamentally new SSBN of strategic designation, it will become the basis of the future submarine fleet of Russia. Masorin also reported that "now they are constructed and then will be neglected into a series multipurpose nuclear-powered submarine and diesel submarine". They are placed "it korvet from the surface ships on the stocks, frigate several destroyers". Next year in the Caspian Region will arrive new artillery ship "Astrakhan". It already undergoes road tests. In the course of of trip central board it presented to the military council to new commanding rear admiral Victor kravchuk's flotilla.

Neptune
4th January 2006, 14:10
48,000? I don't know where you found that, but for Yasen only 13,800t is mentioned as submerged displacement. Borei gives 24,000t submerged in Maxpain's book.

Automation is not always good and will not go on forever, you will always need that sonar operator, you will always need people to check and repair the engines eventhough they are automated. Otherwise you could wildly assume there will be unmanned ships, something impossible as it would probably mean the totall loss of the ship if something goes wrong.

The induction of VLS tubes with Onyx also means there is a need for extra crew to control that as not everything can be done from the torpedo room then. Same counts for the more complicated spherical bow sonar etc. You need more people that know more than in the previous ships.

As for "very basic", I wouldn't be so sure about it, only UK, US and France have these "very basic" things up till now. Not really basic then if you ask me.

Maxpain
5th January 2006, 23:19
48,000? I don't know where you found that, but for Yasen only 13,800t is mentioned as submerged displacement.

Are you pretty sure that the submerged displacement of the Yasen is 48000
Sorry, mistake... of course, 13.800

Also the crew of 93 men looks more suspicious
Another book says, that crew will be 73 men.



Translation of second page, about Borey project

Project 955 "Borey" ("Borey")
Yury Dolgorukiy - building started at 2nd november 1996, should be finished in 2004, but not finished yet.
Aleksandr Nevskiy - building started at 19th march 2004, should be finished in 2008.

955 "Borey" project is SSBN class submarine. Designers from SKB "Rubin" said, that it'll be "most silent submarine in the world".

Crew 107 men
Diving depth - "work depth" 380, max depth450 m
Sea endurance 100 days
Length 170 m
Beam 13.5 m
Draught 9 m
Surfaced displacement 14720 tones
Submerged displacement (full load) 24000 tones
Surfaced speed 15 knots
Submerged speed 29 knots
New type atomic engine (98000 h.p.)
2 propellers
12 "Bulava-30" missiles, 4 533-mm and 2 650-mm torpedo tubes (for UGST and SOET-60M torpedoes, RPK-6 rockets (totally 18); cruise misslies and mines), 10 anti-aircraft missiles "Igla-1".

Submarine has a floating rescue camera for all crew.
Newest electronics will be used in sub construction, including submarine informational & combat control system.
Hydroacustical complex MGK-540 "Skat-3" will detect enemy submarines before they will be able to "see" "Borey".

From another book:

Especially for work with 955 "Borey" SSBNs several control centers will be built:
- in Nizhniy Novgorod (100-150 km eastern than Moscow)
- in Krasnodar (west-southern region)
- in Khabarovsk (on Pacific ocean seaside, near border with China)
- in Molodcheno (Belarus)
- in Tashkent (Uzbekistan capital)
Signals from this stations will be got by submarine on the depth 20 meters.
One more station - "Zevs" - will be built on Kolskiy peninsula (near Murmansk), and signals from this station will be got on the depth 200-300 meters (!)

Austin
6th January 2006, 00:56
Thanks Maxpain , 73 looks like a acceptable figure for yasen , and the 24,000 tons submerged displacement is in line with it being bigger than Delta ,but much smaller than Typhoon.

What kind of control centers are they talking about VLF station ??? How many existing VLF station are there in Russia


One more station - "Zevs" - will be built on Kolskiy peninsula (near Murmansk), and signals from this station will be got on the depth 200-300 meters (!)

That depth figures corresponds to ELF station being built by the Russians


Designers from SKB "Rubin" said, that it'll be "most silent submarine in the world".

Interesting :)

Austin
6th January 2006, 01:09
One more station - "Zevs" - will be built on Kolskiy peninsula (near Murmansk), and signals from this station will be got on the depth 200-300 meters (!)

Damn And I was spot on , Look what I found
http://www.vlf.it/zevs/zevs.htm



in Nizhniy Novgorod (100-150 km eastern than Moscow...........................in Tashkent (Uzbekistan capital)


All the mentioned above are VLF stations operated by Russia for submarine communication
http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/snf03223.htm

http://www.vlf.it/russianvlf/image001.gif

PS : Maxpain is it possible to scan stuff from the same source as yasen.. on
Typhoon and Akula-1/2 submarine , seems to me the data is quite reliable . Thanks ,Austin

Maxpain
6th January 2006, 18:21
Maxpain is it possible to scan stuff from the same source as yasen.. on
Typhoon and Akula-1/2 submarine , seems to me the data is quite reliable
Get it...


Proj.941 "Akula" (NATO - Typhoon)

In December 1972 CKB-18 (CKB "Rubin") got a new assigment - designing of submarine-carrier of new ballistic rockets R-39. Construction of first ship in project - TK-208 - was started 30 June 1976, Russian Navy got this submarine 12 December 1981. Two weeks later (27 December) submarine first time launched R-39. Last submarine of pr.941 (TK-20) was finished in September 1989.
Building of 7th ship (TK-210) was stopped in 1990 course of OSV-2 indenture between USSR and USA. It was left on the building berth and later aparted.

Crew 179 men
Diving depth - "work depth" 380, max depth 500 m
Sea endurance 120 (180?) days
Length 172.8 m
Beam 23.3 m
Draught 11.5 m
Surfaced displacement 28500 tones
Submerged displacement (full load) 33800 tones
Surfaced speed 12 knots
Submerged speed 25 knots
2 atomic reactors OK-650 (2x50000 h.p.)
2 propellers (7-blade each)
20 R-39 (SS-N-20) missiles, 4 650-mm and 2 533-mm torpedo tubes (22 torpedoes and rocket-torpedoes), 8 "Igla-1" AA launchers

Great building bearth was built at the end of 70th in Severodvinsk. It was constructed specially for building of pr.941 submarines. NATO experts knew about appointment, but when TK-208 was finished and left building bearth, they were schoked by the size of new russian ship.
Rocket R-39 (weight 90 tonns, size - 16x2.4 meters) was much heavier, than R-29RM (40.4 tonns, 14.8x1.9 meters). Primarily, pr.941 got only 16 missiles, but new american "Ohio" got 24, and constructors got objective to enlarge quantity of missiles up to 20.
Constructors got 2 objectives: place 20 missiles on board of submarine and make ship to be able to stand in already exsiting fleet bases. Solution was found - designers used principle of a catamaran. Two parallel hulls (8.5 m diameter each) are situated in the external hull of ship. Missiles are situaded in the nose part of submarine, between two internal hulls. Also construction includes three pressurized modules - torpedoes module, control module with electronics and central command post and rudders module. All modules and both hulls are connected with corridors.
Internal hulls are made of titanium, light external hull is made of steel. American specialists suggest that internal hulls are also covered with soundproofing materials.
Couse of nose of submarine was used for missile launchers, conning tower was moved back. Two rescue floating cameras (for 90 men each) are situated under the conning tower fence. Fence is so strengeth, that it can break ice 2-2,5 meters thickness - it wass proofed several times during manoeuvres.
Owing to specifical construction, width of submarine is 22.8 meters, and submerged displacement - 33.800 tonns.
Hulls got common energetic system - 1 energoblock in each hull. Enerogoblock consits of 190 mVt reactor, which gives energy to turbine and two turbogeneratos 3200 kVt each. Submarine got two 7-blade propellers, which are placed in short pipes - this was used for decreasing noise level.
Several rubbers 750 kVt power each are situated at the nose and stern of submarine for encreasing of manoeuvrability on low speed or if space is not enough.
Each energoblock has also reserve diesel-generator DG-750 (800 kVt power). Reserve moving system - 2 electroengines 190 kVt each.
On a level of comfort any other submarines, including "Ohio" can not be compared to these submarines. On "Typhoon" there is a sports hall, sauna, swimming pool, separate cabins for all members of crew and much other, that allows really to consider a submarine as the present underwater cruiser both on battle possibilities, and on conditions of a habitability.
Radioelectronics: submarine combat control system "Omnibus"; sonar "Skat", which can supervise 10-12 targets; hydroacoustical mine searcher MG-519 "Arfa", ice thickness scanner MG-518 "Sever" ("North"); radiolocation system MRKP-58 "Buran"; navigation system "Symphonia"; radio connection system "Molnia-L1" ("Flash-L1") and system of satellite connection "Tsunami"; television system MTK-100 and other electronics.
Modernization of TK-208 submarine started in 1992, but new missiles SS-N-28, which were included in modernization project, didn't enter service in Russian Navy, and modernization was canceled. Submarine will be utilized. TK-12 and TK-13 are no longer operational since 1996 - Russian Navy didn't have money for explotations of this submarines.
In USSR pr.941 submarines were developed like an analog of "Ohio", but "Ohio" is a carrier of 24 missiles, and "Typhoon" has only 20. Also "Ohio" has lower level of "visibility".


http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/7665/akula15xa.th.jpg (http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/7665/akula15xa.jpg) http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/9233/akula29vy.th.jpg (http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/9233/akula29vy.jpg) http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/1862/akula31ds.th.jpg (http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/1862/akula31ds.jpg) http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/3010/akula40mv.th.jpg (http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/3010/akula40mv.jpg) http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/7681/akula57cg.th.jpg (http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/7681/akula57cg.jpg)

Proj.971 "Schuka-B" (NATO - Akula I)

Crew 73 men (including 31 officers)
Diving depth - "work depth" 520, max depth 600 m
Sea endurance 100 days
Length 110.3 m
Beam 13.6 m
Draught 9.7 m
Surfaced displacement 8140 tones
Submerged displacement (full load) 13770 tones
Surfaced speed 11.6 knots
Submerged speed 33 knots
1 atomic reactor IK-650B (50000 h.p.), 2 diesel-generators DG-300 (2 x 750 h.p.)
1 propeller
4 650-mm (12 shots) and 4 533-mm torpedo tubes (28 shots) - torpedoes, rocket-torpedoes RPK-6 "Vodopad" ("Waterfall") and RPK-7 "Veter" ("Wind"), cruise missiles RK-55 "Granat", underwater missiles M5 of V-111 "Shkval" weaponry complex, "Igla-1" AA launchers

Pr.971 submarines were designed for "hunt" on aircraft carriers and SSBNs. Project 971 "Schuka-B" (NATO - "Akula") was created in contruction bureau "Malahit" (SKB-143) like an evolution of 671RTM "Schuka". Primarily, project 971 was just a version of project 945, with light steel hull instead of titan. Using steel allowed to build more submarines, beacuse they were cheaper and could be constructed in Komsomolsk-na-Amure (those shipyards were not able to build submarines with titan hull at the moment).
Six submarines (K-284, 263, 322, 391, 331, 419) were build in Komsomolsk-na-Amure for Pacific fleet, five (K-480, 317, 461, 328, 154) - on the "SevMash" in Severodvinsk for Northern fleet.
Head ship of 971 project - K-284 "Akula" - was started at the end of 1980, finished at 6th October 1982 and given to service at 31 December 1984. Last year of construction was very hard - designers from SKB-143 decided to use new sonar, which was complete only in 1988, and workers had to rebuilt nose part of submarine's hull - without holidays, they worked 16 hours per day.
Last submarine (K-154) was started in 1989, finished at 10 July 1993, and got in service at 5 December 1994.
After crash of USSR founding of Navy was totally decreased. Fleet got only 4 project 945 submarines; project 971 submarines were built until 2001.
Light steel hull of pr.971 has good hydrodynamical characteristics. It's covered with antiradar and sound-proof materials. Submarine has a cross-tail, with a container for towage of "tail" wire-radar. One pr.971 of visual features - bent connection of hull and stabilizer (they are situaded perpendicularily on other submarines). This measure was used to decrease noise level.
""Bars" (second russian name of pr.971 "Schuka-B") is much more silent, than pr.671 submarines. Even when it's speed about 25 knots, sonar can't exactly say - is it moving or at the rest."
Project 971 is using sonar "Skat-3".


Proj.971U (NATO - Akula II)

Crew 72 men
Diving depth - "work depth" 520, max depth 600 m
Sea endurance 100 days
Length 114.3 m
Beam 13.6 m
Draught 9.7 m
Surfaced displacement 9830 tones
Submerged displacement (full load) 12390 tones
Surfaced speed 11.6 knots
Submerged speed 33 knots
1 atomic reactor OK-650B (50000 h.p.), 2 diesel-generators DG-300 (2 x 750 h.p.)
1 propeller
4 650-mm (12 shots) and 4 533-mm torpedo tubes (28 shots) - torpedoes, rocket-torpedoes RPK-6 "Vodopad" ("Waterfall") and RPK-7 "Veter" ("Wind"), cruise missiles RK-55 "Granat", underwater missiles M5 of V-111 "Shkval" weaponry complex, "Igla-1" AA launchers

Pr.971U were built in 1991-2002 in Komsomolsk-na-Amure (K-152, 167) for Pacific fleet and in Severodvinsk (K-157, 335).
Head submarine (K-157) was started in 1991, finished at 10 December 1994 and got in service at 8 January 1996. Last submarine (K-333) was started in 1993.
Project 971U has new hull construction, other reactor and new electronics.
Command post, combat posts and tower are situated in amortized blocks - frame designs with decks. It makes building of submarine easier and faster - blocks are opened for equipment installation in all dimesons. When blocks are finished, they are installed to the hull.
In foreigh experts' opinion, noise level was decreased by using active sound-proofs and impaction on the surrounding water.
Main reason of increasing submarine's length (4 meter longer than pr.971) is using new system of engine noise absorbing. Totally noise level was decreased to 12-15 dB (4-4,5 times lower, than other submarines).
Engine consists of atomic reactor with 4 generators (circular pumps fot 1st and 4th reactor's contours (2 for each), three pumps for 3rd contour) and single-shaft turbine. Also engine includes 2 electricity turbogenerators.
Submarine has a reserve engine - 2 propellered electroengines 410 h.p. each and 2 diesel generators. This provides movement on 5 knots speed. Diesel generator has fuel for 10 days.
Electronics include upgraded submarine combat control system "Omnibus" and sonar MGK "Skat-KS", which includes nose radar, two rail radars and towing radar. "Skat-KS" scan 3 times bigger radius, than previous models.


http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/5796/schuka15kr.th.jpg (http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/5796/schuka15kr.jpg) http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/6786/schuka29lk.th.jpg (http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/6786/schuka29lk.jpg) http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/6889/schuka31vz.th.jpg (http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/6889/schuka31vz.jpg)

http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/5503/schuka49ns.th.jpg (http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/5503/schuka49ns.jpg) http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/5982/schuka50wl.th.jpg (http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/5982/schuka50wl.jpg) http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/7467/schuka67kf.th.jpg (http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/7467/schuka67kf.jpg) http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/7831/schuka79ia.th.jpg (http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/7831/schuka79ia.jpg)



[b]Current status of proj.941 submarines

- TK-208 "Dmitry Donskoy" / 1981 / Northern fleet. On the trial after modernisation on "SevMash" (without missiles).
- TK-202 / 1983 / Nothern fleet. Out of service since 1996, utilized on "SevMash".
- TK-12 "Simbirsk" (?) / 1984 / Nothern fleet. Out of service since 1996.
- TK-13 / 1985 / Nothern fleet. Out of service since 1997, utilization on "SevMash".
- TK-17 "Arkangelsk" / 1987 / Nothern fleet. In service after repairing on "SevMash" in 2002.
- TK-20 "Severstal'" / 1989 / Nothern fleet. In service after repairing on "SevMash" (June 2001 - December 2002, and then in 2003)


Current status of proj.971 and 971U submarines

Akula-I subs:
- K-284 Akula (501) / 1985 / Pacific fleet. Haven't been in the sea since 1998, maybe out of service since 2001
- K-263 Delfin (502) / 1987 / Pacific fleet. Under repair in Kamensk-Komsomolsk
- K-322 Kashalot (513) / 1988 / Pacific fleet. Haven't been in the sea since 2000, out of service or under repair
- K-391 Bratsk (ex-Kit) (514) / 1989 / Pacific fleet. In service, repaired in 2001-2002
- K-331 Magadan (ex-Narval) (515) / 1990 / Pacific fleet. In service
- K-419 Kuzbass (ex-Morj) (516) / 1991/92 / Pacific fleet. In service
- K-480 Ak Bars (ex-Bars) (821) / 1988 / Northern fleet. Haven't been in sea since 2003, out of service; we need 3 billions for repair of it or 5 billions for new sub
- K-317 Pantera (822) / 1990 / Northern fleet. Under repair on SevMash since 2005
- K-461 Volk (831) / 1991 / Northern fleet. In service, maybe now under repair
- K-328 Leopard (832) / 1992 / Northern fleet. In service
- K-154 Tigr (833) / 1993 / Northern fleet. In service, repaired in 1998-2002 on Sevmash after a break of agrigate

Akula-II subs:
- K-157 Vepr (834) / 1995 / Northern fleet. In service
- K-267 (or K-295?) Samara (ex-Dragon) (517) / 1995 / Northern fleet. In service
- K-152 Nerpa (518). Was under construction in Komsomolsk since 1987, on 1st January 2002 was ready 83.4%, no money for finishing
- K-335 Gepard (835) / 2001 / Northern fleet. In service
- K-333 Rys (837) Construction on "SevMash" stopped
- K-337 Kuguar (836) Construction on "SevMash" stopped

Austin
6th January 2006, 19:17
Thanks a Tons Maxpain , Appreciate your effort , Thanks Once Again.
Yes Please Translate it when ever you can do it .

Kojedub
6th January 2006, 20:31
Thanks Maxpain !!A small question to you:Are all the six Akula IIs in service with the Russian Navy?I thaught that the "Gepard" was the last to have been commissioned(source:Voennoe delo NTV),but this source says that the last was "Rys K-333".Could you clarify this please ?And do you know how many of the Project 971 "Akula Is" are still in service?thanks

Kojedub
6th January 2006, 21:02
My translation of the first page on the "Typhoon"

"In december 1972 "Rubin" Construction Bureau received from the Navy Command the task to develop new underwater carriers for new solid fuel Ballistic Missiles R-39.
The head ship TK-208 was laid on the June 30th 1976 and commissioned on November 12th 1981,the first R-39 Missile was fire-tested from her two weeks later(27.12.81).The last ship of this class(TK-20) was commissioned in september of the year 1989.After the signing of Soviet-US START II the building of the seventh ship was canceled in 1990,she was subsequently disassembled right at the shipyard.
28.500/33.800 tonnes ; 172,8x23,3x11,5 meters ; working depth 380 meters(limit depth 500 m);2 reactors OK-650;(power unit ???) 50.000 Hp ;twin screws ;
speed 12/25 knots.Armament :20 R-39 SLBM,four 650 mm & two 533 mm
nose torpedo launch tubes with payload of 22 torpedoes and rocket-torpedoes.
Air Defense: 8 "Iglas I" systems. Crew 179 sailors.Autonomy 120 days(180 according to other sources).

Maxpain
6th January 2006, 21:31
Translated about Typhoon... look in the same post

I thaught that the "Gepard" was the last to have been commissioned(source:Voennoe delo NTV),but this source says that the last was "Rys K-333".
K-335 "Gepard" was finished in 2001; construction of subs K-333 "Rys" ("Lynx") and K-337 "Kuguar" ("Cougar") was stopped and their parts were moved to the 55th workshop of SevMash plant for the construction of other boots. The reason is that building of all this subs was stopped in 1993-94, when Russia had no money for navy, and when money appeared, projects were too old - "Gepard" was finished, but these two couldn't be, cause submarine electronics plant didn't produce such old electronics any more.

Kojedub
6th January 2006, 21:59
thanks I'll continue the translation.Simple question:are you russian ?

Kojedub
6th January 2006, 22:02
How many according to you are there operationnal Schuka-B(Akula I and II ) operationnal as of today ?You seem to be well informed !

Maxpain
6th January 2006, 22:48
Simple question:are you russian ?
Yes http://rusarmy.ru/forum/images/smilies/aga.gif

How many according to you are there operationnal Schuka-B(Akula I and II ) operationnal as of today ?You seem to be well informed !
It's a pity, but info about 11 Akula-I and 6 Akula-II in service is wrong :(
Got another, very reliable source:

Index Name (Number on factory) Fleet (Year) State

Akula-I subs:
- K-284 Akula (501) Pacific (1985) Haven't been in the sea since 1998, maybe out of service since 2001
- K-263 Delfin (502) Pacific (1987) Under repair in Kamensk-Komsomolsk
- K-322 Kashalot (513) Pacific (1988) Haven't been in the sea since 2000, out of service or under repair
- K-391 Bratsk (ex-Kit) (514) Pacific (1989) In service, repaired in 2001-2002
- K-331 Magadan (ex-Narval) (515) Pacific (1990) In service
- K-419 Kuzbass (ex-Morj) (516) Pacific (1991/92) In service
- K-480 Ak Bars (ex-Bars) (821) North (1988) Haven't been in sea since 2003, out of service; we need 3 billions for repair of it or 5 billions for new sub
- K-317 Pantera (822) North (1990) Under repair on SevMash since 2005
- K-461 Volk (831) North (1991) In service, maybe now under repair
- K-328 Leopard (832) North (1992) In service
- K-154 Tigr (833) North (1993) In service, repaired in 1998-2002 on Sevmash after a break of agrigate

Akula-II subs:
- K-157 Vepr (834) North (1995) In service
- K-267 (or K-295?) Samara (ex-Dragon) (517) Pacific (1995) In service
- K-152 Nerpa (518) Was under construction in Komsomolsk since 1987, on 1st January 2002 was ready 83.4%, no money for finishing
- K-335 Gepard (835) North (2001) In service
- K-333 Rys (837) Construction on SevMash stopped
- K-337 Kuguar (836) Construction on SevMash stopped

Austin
6th January 2006, 23:59
Thanks Maxpain,Kojedub.

Although the general classification is Akula-1 and Akula-2 ( there is this U & M variant or the 971 ,971U, 971A , Shuka,Shuka-B )

But technically no two Akula's were similar , depending on the time scale on when they were commisioned , Each Akula were progressively better than the previous one as said by the designer himself , The technical achievements during the period of construction were incorporated and the continuous zeal to improve them made them better.

Hence Gepard can be considered as the Epitome of Akula development and as west would like to classify her as Akula-3 type .

Its most likely that Rys and Kuguar will be inducted into service perhaps the last of the Akula's before Severdovinisk (Yasen ) takes over for regular prod but not before 2008

Two uncompleted Akula at Komsomolsk are being completed to be leased to the Indian Navy , The one identified is Nerpa , the other unknown ????

Also the older Akula-1 types are being upgraded and modernised, Depending on the state of the submarine and funding available all the Akula subs will go through their modernisation.

Neptune
7th January 2006, 10:48
Today it was reported that Amur shipbuilding corp got a contract for the construction of "corvette" type ships. The state of the plant was also mentioned, with three submarines under repair (probably Kilos) and two nuclear submarines under construction. One under construction, one in a different place where the nearly finished ships are put, on the coast and not in the plant up the river. The one over there I think that should be Belgorod, the one under construction should be Nerpa then.

Austin on what source do you base the idea of the Akulas??? If Severodvinsk is commisioned, it is likely that she will replace one of the early Akulas.
As for the name Schuka, that is the designation of the Victor III.

Kojedub
7th January 2006, 13:42
"Two uncompleted Akula at Komsomolsk are being completed to be leased to the Indian Navy , The one identified is Nerpa "

What a disgrace !!!Selling nuclear subs to the Indian Navy !!!I have nothing against the indians but it's a shame for the russians !

Trident
7th January 2006, 15:52
Slightly OT: any idea what these triangular thingies on Russian SSBNs (only on SSBNs, AFAIK) are? The Delta IVs have a single one in a similar location.

Austin
7th January 2006, 18:10
What a disgrace !!!Selling nuclear subs to the Indian Navy !!!I have nothing against the indians but it's a shame for the russians !

No mate not really , It is not the first time that Russia is leasing a Nuclear sub to India , Way back in late 80's it had leased a Charlie-2 class SSGN to India , And Indian Navy operated her as INS Chakra , The IN was damn impressed by the Chakra , In her 3 years of operation , Never once was she in refit or maintainance when operational required ,She has participated in all the IN exercises during that period.

Also India and Russia are the closest friend , India is to Russia what UK/Israel is to US perhaps much more , The fact that Russia agreed to lease her top class SSN shows the trust she has in India .

Russian are Concentrating on their 4th Gen Sub program(Sev & Borei) and as such still retains the best sub for herself , The news is India would lease 2 Akula Class SSN ( either the improved or Akula-2 class ) for a period of 10 years under $1.8 Billion deal.

Russians are also heavely involved in assisting India in their ATV Nuclear Sub Program.India as such owes a lot to Russia as far as her defense needs goes.

Kojedub
7th January 2006, 19:06
Ah Okay,but still I've got doubts about the Severodvinsk subs,if only one is gonna be built it won't make much difference.But we'll see...

Pit
7th January 2006, 19:22
Maxpain pal, can you pass me via PM your e-mail direction?

Have somethings to talk with you :)

Gepard
8th January 2006, 07:58
Trident, the triangular objects on the Akula (Typhoon) stern are CCTV (closed circuit television) cameras. They are there supposedly to assist in under-ice maneouvering and breaking through ice but most importantly are there to monitor the release and retrieval of the VLF buoys deployed from 2 hatches just ahead of the cameras. The Delta IV has a similar retractable CCTV camera for the same reason. Given that SSBNs are priority strategic platforms, communication is an absolute neccessity, thus the ability to establish if the VLF buoy is operational or not is the reason these devices exist. Interestingly they are not present on Akula, Sierras and Oscar IIs which have the VLF buoys but then again they are not strategic assets where not knowing about VLF reception failure is unacceptable.

Austin
8th January 2006, 08:31
Thanks Gepard , Thats interesting .

I am Crystal Gazing on RuN Submarine Fleet by end 2012 or early 2013 and specially from the POV of their new Submarine Asset.

From the statement from Naval Official what is clear is they would would be commisioning One Borei and One yasen class in 2007 and what we know acros the period of time is they plan to have 3 Borei by 2010 ( 2nd laid down ) , 6 Lada class by 2008-10 , But looking at 2013 the numbers I can see is.

4 Borei SSBN ( which is 3 SSBN by 2010 and 1 more in next 2 years and its a topmost priority program )
3 ~ 4 Severdovinisk SSN ( 4 being the highest figure and 3 the lowest @ a rate of 1 sub constructed ever 2 years or at best 1 sub every 1.5 year , the 2nd priority for Russia ) ,6 Lada by 2010

Besides if one looks at the Akula fleet , Assuming thar Rys and Kuguar will be completed , they will have 5 Akula-2 Class , 4 improved akula , 2 ~ 3 Akula-1 ( 15 Akulas of different class and build period ) assuming a bare minimum of 6 survive and modernised .

By 2013 the Russian will have a Fleet of
4 Borei SSBN
2 Typhoon Class SSBN ( possible 3 depending on funding )
4 ~ 5 Upgrades Delta 4
3 Severdovinisk SSN
5 Akula SSN ( bare minimum operational )
4 Oscar-2
6 Lada

The above mentioned will be the cream of fleet , and then there would be few remaining Victor-3 , Sierra and few other subs depending if Russia wants to add to the Numbers.

Money seems to be coming for the Russian Navy and hence forth will get better , Thanks to the petro dollars and better economy.

Austin
8th January 2006, 09:14
As for "very basic", I wouldn't be so sure about it, only UK, US and France have these "very basic" things up till now. Not really basic then if you ask me.

Neptune if you look at the info of Yasen by Maxpain , the propeller looks like a Pumpjet , Even if you look at world wide trends , The Virginia , Astute , Baracudda all have Pumpjet , so I dont expect Russia to be an exception with its 4th Gen SSN , Its just a Natural progression.

About Pumpjet Gepard has given an interesting info on advantage of Pumpjet I am sure you will be aware of it , But still makes a good read http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=821085&postcount=3


Austin on what source do you base the idea of the Akulas??? If Severodvinsk is commisioned, it is likely that she will replace one of the early Akulas.

Neptune I agree that Sev will eventually replace the Akulas , Probaby the Sev would also follow the foot steps of Akula with Basic Sev , Improved and Sev-2 ( M & U).

But the Russian will also and eventually be upgrading their older Akula , depending on the funding and state of sub and i think its a logical thing to do.

Kojedub
8th January 2006, 13:24
The fleet of 2013 seems pretty impressive if the plan goes ahead of course but the figure of 4 Antei IIs(Oscar 2) seems pretty low they should keep at least 7 of them knowing how effective these subs would be in a modern conflict.

Trident
8th January 2006, 15:18
Trident, the triangular objects on the Akula (Typhoon) stern are CCTV (closed circuit television) cameras. They are there supposedly to assist in under-ice maneouvering and breaking through ice but most importantly are there to monitor the release and retrieval of the VLF buoys deployed from 2 hatches just ahead of the cameras. The Delta IV has a similar retractable CCTV camera for the same reason. Given that SSBNs are priority strategic platforms, communication is an absolute neccessity, thus the ability to establish if the VLF buoy is operational or not is the reason these devices exist. Interestingly they are not present on Akula, Sierras and Oscar IIs which have the VLF buoys but then again they are not strategic assets where not knowing about VLF reception failure is unacceptable.

Thanks! They're *huge* though.

Gepard
8th January 2006, 21:04
I know, but there were 80s technology!

snake65
8th January 2006, 23:28
Trident, the triangular objects on the Akula (Typhoon) stern are CCTV (closed circuit television) cameras. They are there supposedly to assist in under-ice maneouvering and breaking through ice but most importantly are there to monitor the release and retrieval of the VLF buoys deployed from 2 hatches just ahead of the cameras. The Delta IV has a similar retractable CCTV camera for the same reason. Given that SSBNs are priority strategic platforms, communication is an absolute neccessity, thus the ability to establish if the VLF buoy is operational or not is the reason these devices exist. Interestingly they are not present on Akula, Sierras and Oscar IIs which have the VLF buoys but then again they are not strategic assets where not knowing about VLF reception failure is unacceptable.
These are kind of ice-breakers and ice-guards to guide ice away from screws and rudders. The CCTV cameras are further aft and are much smaller.

snake65
8th January 2006, 23:47
Same thing from another view-point

Gepard
9th January 2006, 01:09
That makes more sense. John Jordan's book, Soviet Submarines, 1945 to the present suugests they were CCTV camera but ice guards is a more likely answer.

gatorfrey
9th January 2006, 21:02
Are there any bow plane photographs on the Alfa and 971 Akula?
Also, I know the Alfa 705 retracted straight in instead of swinging back. They were also staggered, due to space limitations.
I would like to confirm the 971 project also retracts straight in.
Do these models have "trim tabs" on the trailing edges, as shown in drawings.
Frequently, I find drawings wrong. Even Russian drawings. I compare them to drydock shots usually.

Gepard
9th January 2006, 21:18
Well Sierra II has trim tabs on bow planes. The absense of large hatches near the bow planes on the 971 class suggest they retract straight in. No pictures sorry, others might have them on this forum.

snake65
9th January 2006, 21:49
If these might help :cool:

Austin
9th January 2006, 21:55
Whats that Sierra I or 2 , Hydrodynamically to my untrained eyes , she looks the most effecient design .

snake65
10th January 2006, 10:17
Projekt 971 (launch of "Gepard") on the left and Projekt 705 on the right.

Pit
10th January 2006, 17:14
Gatorfrey I have a photography of what appears to be Vepr at surface with their bow planes retracted and fully showed...are you interested?

gatorfrey
11th January 2006, 19:51
Thanks for the photograph. It is mislabled,however. That is a Victor class. Look at the sail and especially the flat deck.
The Akula bow planes should be on centerline in the later versions. I am not clear on the first versions.

Austin
11th January 2006, 19:59
Projekt 971 (launch of "Gepard") on the left and Projekt 705 on the right.

Thanks , Are the Gepard Hull Albacore Type ???


Gatorfrey I have a photography of what appears to be Vepr at surface with their bow planes retracted and fully showed...are you interested?

Pit , Mate can you put up the pics here , so that we lesser soul can have a look at it :)

gatorfrey
11th January 2006, 23:41
Akula does have the so called "body of revolution". More rounded on the top than the Victor.

Austin
12th January 2006, 08:32
Frigate Project 11541 Korsar ( under construction )

http://www.shipyard-yantar.ru/info/corsair.jpg

Thanks To Singha from BRF

Maxpain
15th January 2006, 00:00
Finally, i've made translation of articles about 971 and 971U:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=820043&postcount=175
Also status of 941 subs added and 971 and 971u subs status moved to the same post.

Austin
15th January 2006, 23:31
Maxpain Thanks , Thats really nice :)

Now a Little History


Russian-Source Naval Anti-Ship Missiles in Action

The first occasion came shortly after the Six Day War in 1967, during the so-called War of Attrition, when Israeli and Egyptian forces continually clashed around the Sinai Peninsula. On October 21, 1967, the Israeli destroyer Eliat rather unwisely closed in on Port Said, conducting a combat patrol. Two Egyptian Komar-class (Type 183R) missile vessels, armed with two P-15 missiles each, maneuvered within the harbor and fired four missiles. The first three hit the target, breaking the destroyer in two, and it quickly sank. The fourth missile also arrived at the scene, but too little debris was left on the surface for its radar to pick up a target. The action was a big shock for Israeli naval forces, but they soon started to develop countermeasures against anti-ship missiles.

The next action was rather mysterious. According to Russian sources - specifically, missile specialists A.E. Taras and A. Shirokorad - another success came almost exactly one year later. According to Taras and Shirokorad, on that day, Egyptian Osa-class (Type 205) missile vessels fired a few P-15 missiles and sank a 10,000-ton "merchant ship" that Israel had converted into a signals-intelligence (SIGINT) ship. It was reported to have taken place off the Egyptian coast, but the story has never been confirmed in the West.

During the Yom Kippur War in 1973, however, the P-15 was much less successful. From October 6-12, 54 missiles were fired to no effect, according to Western sources. The aforementioned Russian sources, however, claim that a total of seven ships were sunk - all small types, such as trawlers, patrol boats, and missile boats. But the Russian specialists agreed with their Western counterparts that the overall results were unsatisfying, especially considering that seven Egyptian and Syrian vessels were sunk after being hit by Israeli Gabriel Mk.1 anti-ship missiles. Interestingly, this last figure is commonly recognized by specialists in both the West and East.

The first such encounter took place during the night of October 6-7, 1973, near Latakia on the Syrian coast. Israeli forces used helicopters flying slowly at very low altitude, effectively simulating naval targets. No Israeli ship was hit by the large salvo of P-15s subsequently fired by Syrians, who themselves lost the T-43 class trawler Jarmuk and three torpedo boats to Israeli Gabriel missiles. The Syrian missile boats withdrew successfully, but all of their missiles missed the Israeli helicopters, which had climbed to break the missile radars' locks. On the same night, a similar trick with helicopters was repeated against Egyptian ships north of the Sinai Peninsula. Yet another encounter took place near Latakia on the night of October 10-11. This time, the missile exchange between Israeli and Syrian missile boats took place without the use of helicopters, and Israeli ships relied on chaff launchers. The Syrian vessels maneuvered outside their harbor, among the anchored merchant ships. Two of the warships were sunk by Gabriels, which also hit two neutral ships (the Greek Tsimentaros and the Japanese Yamashuro Maru). According to Israeli sources, the use of chaff saved all of its vessels, but it is possible that, on that occasion, at least one Sa'ar-class missile boat was hit and sunk (Russian sources claim three). The following night, the helicopter trick was again successfully used during an encounter near Tartus, off the Syrian coast. Again, no Israeli ship was hit by a salvo of P-15s fired by Syrian missile boats. On the Syrian side, two Komar-class vessels were sunk by Gabriels and also the Soviet merchant ship Ilya Mechnikov was hit. On the same night, a similar encounter took place off the coast of Port Said.

The Soviets realized the high vulnerability of the P-15 to active and passive countermeasures even before the Yom Kippur War, and adjustments were made. New versions of P-15 missiles, such as the P-15U, were less susceptible to jamming, and the use of an infrared-guided version, the P-15T, also increased the system's effectiveness. It was proven during the India-Pakistan conflict in December 1971, when Indian forces fired 11 missiles (seven P-15U and four P-15T) at targets with good effect. On the night of December 3-4, Indian Osa-class vessels, towed 950 km from Bombay to the mission area around Karachi by trawlers conducted very successful actions. During the attack, the Pakistani destroyer Khaibar (an ex-British Battle class destroyer) and the trawler Muhafiz were sunk. The Khaibar was hit by two P-15U missiles, while it took only a single one to sink the Muhafiz. The Osa-class vessel Nirghat has been credited with sinking the Khaibar , while her sister ship, the Veer, sank the Muhafiz. Of 289 crewmen, only 70 were saved.

Perhaps even more interestingly, three P-15T missiles were once fired against a ground target! On December 4, 1971, the oil refinery at Keamari was attacked (see "In Peril on the Sea"). The large oil tanks were heated by the sun during the day, and at night they emitted heat (infrared energy). The P-15Ts, with their infrared seekers, picked up the target and caused a great deal of damage to the facility. A second missile attack was conducted four days later, on December 8, 1971, by the Vinash , an Osa-class vessel. The Vinash fired four missiles, first one P-15T and then three P-15Us. According to the Pakistan Military Consortium, an independent, non-governmental organization, the first missile flew over the ships at the anchorage, crossed Manora Island, and crashed into an oil tank at the Keamari oil refinery. The remaining three missiles (radar-guided P-15Us) hit three different vessels anchored at Manora. Two of them were merchant ships: the British Harmattan and the Panamanian Gulf Star. The first sank, while the other was seriously damaged but survived. The third ship, the Pakistani replenishment ship Dacca also survived, despite having been hit in her oil tanks.

Austin
15th January 2006, 23:57
""Bars" (second russian name of pr.971 "Schuka-B") is much more silent, than pr.671 submarines. Even when it's speed about 25 knots, hydroacustical radar can't exactly say - is it moving or staying on the place." Project 971 is using hydroacustical radar "Skat-3".

From Maxpain link posted above m what does the highlighted statement in the quote means

danrh
16th January 2006, 07:28
From Maxpain link posted above m what does the highlighted statement in the quote means

I guess hydroacoustical radar is sonar and the statement indicates that at speeds up to 25kts the submarine as much noise as if at rest.

Daniel

Maxpain
16th January 2006, 10:40
I guess hydroacoustical radar is sonar and the statement indicates that at speeds up to 25kts the submarine as much noise as if at rest.
Yes, i meaned that... seems that my English is not enough to translate such articles :(

Austin
16th January 2006, 11:19
I guess hydroacoustical radar is sonar and the statement indicates that at speeds up to 25kts the submarine as much noise as if at rest.

That kind of reminds me of similar kind of statements made for Seawolf , IIRC it said at 25 knots the SeaWolf is as noisy as the LA at rest.

Maxpain you have done a fantastic job mate , Thanks , I just highlighted that statement as it seems a little propoganda and would take it with a pinch of salt , How can a sub at 25 knots makes the same amount of noise when she is at rest .

It seems both the statements on Seawolf and the Akulas are exagaggerated

Maxpain
16th January 2006, 11:23
Maxpain you have done a fantastic job mate
Thanks :)
Some more - about russian experimental and special submarines:


Proj.1910 "Kashalot" ("Sperm whale"; NATO - "Uniform")

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/8984/kashalot5dr.th.jpg (http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/8984/kashalot5dr.jpg)

- AS-13 (started 20 October 1977, finished 25 November 1982, in service since 31 December 1986)
- AS-15 (started 23 February 1988, finished 29 April 1988, in service since 30 December 1991)

Crew 36 men
Diving depth - 1000 m
Length 69 m
Beam 7 m
Draught 5.2 m
Surfaced displacement 1390 tones
Submerged displacement (full load) 2000 tones
Surfaced speed 10 knots
Submerged speed 30 knots
10000 h.p. engine
1 propeller

Both submarines were built in Leningrad, on "SudoMeh" ("Ship mechanics") shipyard. Thery are first russian/soviet single-hull atomic submarines.
According to official sources, they are intended for "research of new atomic reactors" and also could be a transport for combat divers. Unofficial sources say, that it's a special operations submarines, and one of their targets could be destroying NATO "SOSUS" anti-submarine systems.


Proj.1851 "Nel'ma" (NATO - "X-ray")

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/6785/nelma8wj.th.jpg (http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/6785/nelma8wj.jpg)

- AS-23 (started 25 September 1977, finished 30 October 1983, in service since 30 December 1986)
- AS-21 (started 26 December 1984, finished 29 April 1991, in service since 28 December 1991)
- AS-35 (started 20 December 1989, finished 29 September 1994, in service since 12 October 1995)

Crew ? men
Diving depth - 1000 m
Length 40 m
Beam 5.3 m
Draught 5 m
Surfaced displacement 550 tones
Submerged displacement (full load) 1000 tones
Surfaced speed ? knots
Submerged speed 20 knots
10 mVt atomic reactor
1 propeller

Built on "SudoMeh" in Leningrad. These project is an analogous to american NR-1.
Intended for divers' works on a big depth with using of barocamera.


Proj.10831 "Paltus" (NATO - "Norsub-5")

- AS-12 (started 16 July 1990, finished 26 August 1995, in service since 1997)

Crew 25 men
Diving depth - 1000 m
Length 60 m
Beam 7 m
Draught 5.1 m
Surfaced displacement 1600 tones
Submerged displacement (full load) 2100 tones
Surfaced speed ? knots
Submerged speed 30 knots
15000 h.p. engine
1 propeller

Built in Severodvinsk. Constructed for researchs, needed for creating 4th generation combat submarines. Submarine's hull made of titanium

Austin
16th January 2006, 12:04
Hi Maxpain , One of the more recent experimental commisioned by Russia by the name Loshkr ( spell ) which can dive much deeper than ( 6000 feet ??? ) and invisible to sonar by Putin some time in 2004-2005.

IIRC the media report mentioned that its shape represented a cartoon character in Russia and it was nuclear powered .

Though construction started during Soviet Days , But it could just be completed recently. Do you have any information on that sub

snake65
16th January 2006, 18:01
Hi Maxpain , One of the more recent experimental commisioned by Russia by the name Loshkr ( spell ) which can dive much deeper than ( 6000 feet ??? ) and invisible to sonar by Putin some time in 2004-2005.

IIRC the media report mentioned that its shape represented a cartoon character in Russia and it was nuclear powered .

Though construction started during Soviet Days , But it could just be completed recently. Do you have any information on that sub
Name is Projekt 10831 Losharik, it's a toon horse made of small balls. The construction of the craft resembles it, consisting of intersected spheres. Allegedly it's supposed for deep sea rescue and special operations. Designed by Malakhit, construction started in 1988 under Sevmash inventory No.210, launched in 2003. In 2003 newspaper articles said it's nuclear powered and can dive to 6000m, this information seems to be erased.
IIRC there was some information with photo of it at deepstorm.ru, but seems it's gone too :cool:

Maxpain
16th January 2006, 18:25
Hi Maxpain , One of the more recent experimental commisioned by Russia by the name Loshkr ( spell ) which can dive much deeper than ( 6000 feet ??? ) and invisible to sonar by Putin some time in 2004-2005.
I think you mean this:

Proj.210 "Losharik"
Designed in SKB-143 "Malahit". Built on "SevMash", workshop #42. Started in 1988. After USSR crash and until 2000 project had no info. "SevMash" offered americans to participate (submarine became just a rescue ship if they assented), but they refused. Since 2000 project funding was started again. During construction only definited workers and specialists, designers from "Malahit" and several Navy officers could get to the shipyard. Finished in 2003.
Submarine's characteristics are top secret, and everyhting i know about that - diving depth is 6000 m.

Article (in Russian): http://newsru.com/russia/12aug2003/losharik.html


Name is Projekt 10831 Losharik
Pr.10831 is "Paltus"

snake65
16th January 2006, 18:43
210 is Nomer zakaza at Sevmash, not Nomer projekta. The closest I got to actual project number was 1?8?. 10831 was mentioned at one of the forums, but it's wrong of course, You're right there.

Maxpain
16th January 2006, 19:01
I've found an English version of aticle: http://shipbuilding.ru/eng/news/2003/08/20/losharik/print.phtml

210 is Nomer zakaza at Sevmash, not Nomer projekta.
Sorry, i thought it's project number...

Austin
16th January 2006, 19:18
Thanks Maxpain , Snake65 . Is this a special ops sub or just a research vessel , any idea on its displacement , length etc , Any line drawing of the sub at the least.

Thanks
Austin

Maxpain
16th January 2006, 19:39
Special ops and rescue. Sub looks smaller than pr.971, but bigger than pr.1910. Draught seems about 6,5 meters:

http://images.newsru.com/pict/id/large/573475_20030812102256.gif

http://images.newsru.com/pict/id/large/573477_20030812102714.gif

snake65
16th January 2006, 20:23
Thanks Maxpain , Snake65 . Is this a special ops sub or just a research vessel , any idea on its displacement , length etc , Any line drawing of the sub at the least.

Thanks
Austin
IIRC the drawing in deepstorm there were 3 spheres in line and one below them, the upper three and partly the lower one encased by outer hull.

gatorfrey
17th January 2006, 13:48
Deepstorm also removed the Typhoon and Delta IV information links.
Could security be going up in Russia????
I am involved with building a Delta IV radio controled submarine hull master for hobbiest. A nice secional plan of the Delta IV would help immensly. There is one of the Delta III out there. Shape wise where are the differences? Perhaps I can modify a Delta III sectional plan but would need to know dimension differences and where they are on the hull.
It seems the Delta IV information is well guarded.
None the less, it would make an awsome model in the pond with other submarines. At 1/96 scale, it would be around two meters long!!
Anybody?

snake65
17th January 2006, 14:56
Don't panic, Pr.941 and 667BDRM were just suspended. Now they are accessible again.

Neptune
17th January 2006, 18:20
I already sent you some drawings Wayne, normally there should be one with at least some frames on it. Otherwise there is indeed little to be found. Pomorsky modeller, the Archangelsk based company that released the Borei and Yasen models often shown around, also has a Delta IV kit. Judging from their other kits they are extremely detailed and accurate, so I think the Delta IV kit should be nice too! I do think they build them for you too, not sure of that. Maybe you can do some design work yourself? It should work with enough pictures! (won't be 100% accurate of course).

The third Stereguchiy was laid down back in July, she's called Boikiy and the estimated cost for one Stereguchiy is estimated at $100mlln.

The Yantar deal with India is worth$1.56blln. The extra costs are caused by the installation of Brahmos (and probably associated controls and electronics). Normally they asked for $1.6blln, but due to the delays in the delivery of the old trio, India got a $40mlln reduction.

Russia signed a deal for the sale of two Gepard class frigates with Vietnam. Along with the frigates, two land-based anti-ship Bastion systems are included. The Bastion uses the Yakhont missile. The sale is estimated $300mlln, but due to the not-yet-defined lay-out of the frigates the real price is not clear yet. There is also the plan to build two additional Gepard frigates in Vietnamese yards.

Francois5
18th January 2006, 04:33
Maxpain,
I saw some article about russians using old german U-boot as SOSUS buster.
Have you get something?
Thanx.

gatorfrey
18th January 2006, 14:41
Thanks Neptune, for the sectionals on the Delta. In fact, I am indeed working with someone to produce a hull. I have a graphics and CAD man about to start modifying the Delta III to IV specs. Just hoping to hit on someone that had a true sectional of the Delta IV. It would be a lot less work for the lazy :)))
The Delta IV is an interesting boat. Kinda seems like it was always in the shadow of the Typhoon.Actually, it is the main part of the SSBN backbone of Russia for now.

Victor
18th January 2006, 18:39
Russia To Buy British Robot Rescue Sub
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, Moscow

Russia said Jan. 17 it was buying a British robot submarine of the type that last year helped rescue seven of its sailors stranded on the seabed.

“We are going to order this year a British Scorpio craft to carry out crew rescue missions and also various civilian missions,” Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said, according to Russian news agencies.

Moscow will base the transportable version, which can be carried by cargo aircraft, at St. Petersburg in northwest Russia.

The usefulness of the Scorpio — and the failings of the Russian military — were highlighted last August when seven Russian sailors in the AS-28 “Priz” mini-submarine were trapped 625 feet under water in the Pacific Ocean for more than 75 hours.

They were finally brought to the surface after a remote-controlled British Scorpio-45 vessel flown from Scotland cut through the cables and nets ensnaring the Russian submarine.

The incident, following the loss of the Kursk submarine and its 118 crew in the Barents Sea in August 2000, highlighted the Russian military’s lack of transparency and resources.

danrh
19th January 2006, 02:03
Russia To Buy British Robot Rescue Sub
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, Moscow

Russia said Jan. 17 it was buying a British robot submarine of the type that last year helped rescue seven of its sailors stranded on the seabed.

“We are going to order this year a British Scorpio craft to carry out crew rescue missions and also various civilian missions,” Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said, according to Russian news agencies.

Moscow will base the transportable version, which can be carried by cargo aircraft, at St. Petersburg in northwest Russia.

The usefulness of the Scorpio — and the failings of the Russian military — were highlighted last August when seven Russian sailors in the AS-28 “Priz” mini-submarine were trapped 625 feet under water in the Pacific Ocean for more than 75 hours.

They were finally brought to the surface after a remote-controlled British Scorpio-45 vessel flown from Scotland cut through the cables and nets ensnaring the Russian submarine.

The incident, following the loss of the Kursk submarine and its 118 crew in the Barents Sea in August 2000, highlighted the Russian military’s lack of transparency and resources.


This is good to see. They could probably have spent millions more to improve/replace indigenous systems and the perosonnel would probably have doubted it. This system obviously has history with Russian submariners and its not like a rescue system is a critical national security project. Good to see sense rule over national pride.

Daniel

Blackcat
19th January 2006, 17:30
I wud like have more info on the M-90s.

The gas turbine, whose development was completed in the late 80s, rated at 20,000 shp. Is it the same one used in Neustrashimyy Frigates. The frigate is using 2 x M90 boost turbines rated at 37,000 shp where as it make use of 2 x M70, rated at 20,000 shp, as its cruise turbines. Also, want to know, if the M90FR, rated at 27,500 shp is the same as the earlier two mentioned M90 gas turbines, with a different rating.

It cud be possible that the 3 new Talwars for Indian Navy thats to arrive from Russia might feature CODOG and it might get a variant of the M90 gas turbines (rated between 25,000 shp-30,000shp?). In addition to the M90 gas turbines, the CODOG might as well get in the 10,000 hp (shp?), M507A diesels.

hope to c u guys contribution regarding the same .... any info on M90 & its variants wud be fine. .......

Neptune
19th January 2006, 18:02
All turbines come from Ukraine up till now.
It has just recently, a couple of weeks ago, to set up an own engine development centre. The company called Saturn, will set up a development centre near St-Petersburg to develop their own Gas Turbines. Up till now they have always used the turbines from Ukraine, but due to several reasons (not the least the political once as lastly proven) they are now going for their own development. I suppose their first produced turbines will probably be copies of the turbines from Ukraine, although they have already mentioned the hope for indigenous turbines by 2009. I guess the Talwars will get the old Ukraine turbines then.

Trident
19th January 2006, 18:13
Saturn should do a decent job on those naval gasturbines. They've got extensive experience with jet engines for aircraft and industrial gasturbines for power generation (the AL-31F turbofan of Flanker-fame is their creation).

Austin
19th January 2006, 21:43
Proj.10831 "Paltus" (NATO - "Norsub-5")

Any Picture of this sub ???

Maxpain
20th January 2006, 00:10
Any Picture of this sub ???
There was no photo or even scheme in the book. I'll try to find something..

Pit
20th January 2006, 00:29
Maxpain:

Wich book do you use as source for the 971 nomenclature?.

Thanks :)!

Also I have doubts about Akula-II using MGK-500 Skat-KS sonar suite...Skat-KS uses ANALOG processing of the sound signal and it's used in Victor-III, Sierra-I and some other boats...Akula uses the MGK-540 Skat-E with advanced digital processing :)

Maxpain
20th January 2006, 00:57
Pit:
The same book by Taras
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=812440&postcount=161
I don't know what to say about MGK... because author calls MGK-540 "Skat-KS" :)
http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/2638/skat3hd.th.jpg (http://img229.imageshack.us/my.php?image=skat3hd.jpg)

PS. What should i translate next - about Oscar I & II or about submarine missiles (from R-13 to R-39)? Or something else - maybe pr.667?

Pit
20th January 2006, 01:08
Oscar I and II should be nice :)
Victor-III would be oh so cool too ;)...

BTW, wich Russian Magazines about modern (70 to now) submarine themes do you recomend me?...

What about discussion forums on russian?

Thanks :)

Austin
20th January 2006, 04:11
PS. What should i translate next - about Oscar I & II or about submarine missiles (from R-13 to R-39)? Or something else - maybe pr.667?

My request if possible please add Sierra-1 & 2 to Pits list.

A Walkie-Talkie on Delta IV will do a lot good to my soul :)

Thanks
Austin

Neptune
20th January 2006, 06:36
You should check the Airbase.ru forum. The Morskoy part is really good, with plenty of excellent pictures! Go to the site, then you find Форумы Авиабазы , then you go down and go for Морской, that's the place.
Огромное спасибо Maxpain!

snake65
20th January 2006, 08:21
This is airbase naval forum:
http://forums.airbase.ru/index.php?showforum=25
You'll have to register first.

Austin
22nd January 2006, 18:13
Soviet/Russian Nuclear Submarine Patrols (http://www.nukestrat.com/russia/subpatrols.htm)

Maxpain
22nd January 2006, 19:32
Proj.949 "Granit" (NATO - "Oscar I")

Head ship K-206 was started in 1978, finshed in December 1980, got in service in 1981. Built in Severodvinsk

Crew 127 men
Diving depth - "work depth" 480, max depth 600 m
Sea endurance 120 days
Length 143 m
Beam 18.2 m
Draught 9 m
Surfaced displacement 13400 tones
Submerged displacement (full load) 21300 tones
Surfaced speed 15 knots
Submerged speed 31 knots
2 atomic reactors OK-650B with 2 turbines OK-9 (2x49000 h.p.)
2 propellers
4 650-mm and 4 533-mm torpedo tubes (28 torpedoes and rocket-torpedoes), "Igla-1" AA launchers, 24 missiles P-700 "Granit"

In December 1969 USSR Navy gave CKB-18 "Rubin" task for designing of new atomic submarine for resisting USA aircrafts. Submarine should have 20-24 antiship missiles, good speed and invisibility - to escape from attack. New project got index 949 "Granit". General designer - P.P. Pustyntsev, since 1977 - I.L. Baronov.
Twin missile launchers are situated between internal and external hulls on both sides on both sides. Tilt of launchers is 40 degrees.
Internal hull has diameter 8,5 meters, space between internal and external hulls is about 3 metes. This space is filled with rubber, which gives additional defence from torpedoes and decreases loudness of submarine.
Target search and missile seeking is provided by sea intelligence system "Legenda". Submarine receives data from sattelites and planes in surfaced position.
Submarine is armed with automatical missiles and torpedoes system "Leningrad-949", which consists of torpedoe tubes, fire control system "Grind", torpedoe loading system and ammo create.
Submarine has three variants of ammo:
- 10 "83-R" and 8 "84-R" torpedoe-missiles, 6 "86-R" torpedoe missiles and 4 "88-R" missiles;
- 18 torpedoes USET-80, 10 torpedoes 65-75A;
- 16 or 12 torpedoes USET-80 and 2 or 6 torpedoe-missiles "86-R", 10 "83-R".
Torpedoes can be launched on depth 480 meters and at speed 13 - 18 knots.
Both 949 submarines got sonar "Skat-3" and navigation system "Medveditsa".
These gigantic submarines are 5,4 meters wider, than "Ohio", only pr. 941 subs are larger, than pr. 949. Using of P-700 "Granit" (length 10 meters, weight 7 tons) increased noise and dimesons of submarine.
Both submarines - K-206 in 1996 and K-525 in 1997 - were moved to reserve of Navy.


Proj.949A "Antey" (NATO - "Oscar II")

Crew 107 men
Diving depth - "work depth" 480, max depth 600 m
Sea endurance 120 days
Length 154 m
Beam 18.2 m
Draught 9 m
Surfaced displacement 13700 tones
Submerged displacement (full load) 23860 tones
Surfaced speed 15 knots
Submerged speed 31 knots
2 atomic reactors OK-650B with 2 turbines OK-9 (2x49000 h.p.)
2 propellers
4 650-mm and 4 533-mm torpedo tubes (28 torpedoes and rocket-torpedoes), "Igla-1" AA launchers, 24 missiles P-700 "Granit"

Main difference between 949 and 949A is internal configuration of equipment and weaponry. 949A is 11 meters longer and 1300 tons bigger.
Head ship K-148 "Krasnodar" got to service in 1986, last ship - "Tomsk" - in 1996. The twelfth sub K-329 "Belgorod" is still under construction on "SevMash" shipyard (books says that it's finished but not in service - it's not truth).
Besides "Granit" missiles, submarines got new torpedoe "Shkval". According to official sources, K-141 "Kursk" sunk 12 August 2000 course of "Shkval" detonation.
Fence of sliding devies is moved to the nose of submarine hull. It's very long - 29 meters. Rescue floating camera, two anti-sonar devices launchers and anti-aircraft missiles "Igla-1" are also situated there. Fence is strong enough to break ice when suracing in Artic.
Crew is situated in berths for 1, 2, 4 or 6 men. They are equipped with beds, tables, wardrobes and TV. Dinning room for 42 people, submarine has a bakery, food is situated in storages and refrigerators.
Condition system provides constant temperature, air clearing and oxygen level control.
Submarine rescue systems are better, than on previous projects.
Floating of "Antey" is more than 30%, it provides sailing even when one section of hull and two sections of main ballast is filled with water - if such incident happens, store of compressed air is enough to blow ballast on depth till 150. Time of ballast blowing is 90 seconds. Rescue systems can pump 90 cubic metes of water from internal hull per hour.
Endurance bouy V-600 can float from depth 1000 meters and allows to send coordinates and data about incident during 5 days in 3000 km radius.
Walls between 1 and 2, 4 and 5 sections can hold 40 atmospheres pressure. All other walls - 10 atmospheres. So, submarine is sected on three partes, where crew can rescue in case of wreck on depth till 400 meters. When "Kursk" sunk, crew saved in stern sections. Wall between 1 and 2 sections wasn't breaked by torpedoe detonation. Emergency exit in 9th section allows to leave submarine using diver's equipment. Exit is pressurized and can be automaticaly or manually controlled, crew can leave submarine if depth is not more than 200 meters. Exiting trough bouyrep is possible on depth till 100 meters.
Submarines has a monoblock engine, which include two reactors 190 mVt each and two turbines OK-9, which are connected to propellers. Turbines are situated in two sections. Submarine has two turbogenerators. Vapour generator, endurance turbogenerators, electroengines and shaft with one propeller, and in case of wreck will be replaced with the second part.
Also "Antey" has a reserve energetical system: two diesel-generators, two electroengines with propellers. Each zone (1-3, 4-5, 6-9 sections) has own electric system, compressed air, hydraulics and pumps.
Submarine has combat control system MVU-132 "Omnibus", which is controlled from 2nd section, sonar MGK-540 "Skat-3", minesearcher MG-519 "Arfa", emergency station MGS-30, 360 degrees navigator NOK-1, systems MG-512 "Vint" and MG-543, ice thickness scanner MG-518 "Sever" and other equipment.
These systems allow search, take the bearings and watch for 30 targets. Submarine also has towed radar, situated in the stabilizer, and recievers on the sides of external hull. Sonar work range - 220 km.
Submarines are equiped with automatical navigation system "Symphonia" with identificator KPF-3K and pelengator KPI-7F, navigation system of target's position identification SNP-3, echolots NEL-2 and NEL-5, satellite system ADK-3M (or ADK-4M) and AVK-73, gyrocompass GKU-1M, intertional systems "Stellit" and "Scandyi", logs LKP-1 and "Samsheet", connected with digital system "Struna". Communication facilities are integrated to system "Molnia".
Submarine has a TV-observation system, which allows visual overviewing on depth 50-60 meters. Commander uses periscope PZKE-11 "Lebed'", shutrman has a periscope "Signal-3".


http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4065/oscar18dp.th.jpg (http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4065/oscar18dp.jpg) http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1760/oscar26id.th.jpg (http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1760/oscar26id.jpg) http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/8058/oscar31er.th.jpg (http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/8058/oscar31er.jpg) http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1072/oscar41gf.th.jpg (http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1072/oscar41gf.jpg)
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/3928/oscar53xq.th.jpg (http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/3928/oscar53xq.jpg) http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/8530/oscar67wk.th.jpg (http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/8530/oscar67wk.jpg) http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/130/oscar76eo.th.jpg (http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/130/oscar76eo.jpg) http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/7690/oscar81ll.th.jpg (http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/7690/oscar81ll.jpg)

Neptune
22nd January 2006, 19:46
Hmmm, looks suspiciously much like the drawings in Pavlov's book! First drawing doesn't seem to be right either, too muh space in the bow and too few to the rear of the conning tower (well I'm not sure, but it doesn't look right!)

I'm pretty interested in Delta III too, some seem to have undergone an upgrade with Pelamida and likely a new coating, any information on that?

snake65
22nd January 2006, 19:51
Taras is a well known compilator :dev2: He has absolutely no idea about the topic - to mix up Shkval with Kit,that's really something. I saw those crossections in Pavlov's book issued in 2001 :diablo: Taras says they come from Shunkov's book issued in 2004. :D

Trident
22nd January 2006, 19:53
Ah, so 949 does have a rescue chamber! I thought so comparing its sail to the Sierra's, but never found a source to confirm this suspicion.

snake65
22nd January 2006, 19:58
Neptune, don't expect too much NEW information from Taras. Mostly it seems to be a compilation of information dating back to 2004 and older. ;)

snake65
22nd January 2006, 19:59
Ah, so 949 does have a rescue chamber! I thought so comparing its sail to the Sierra's, but never found a source to confirm this suspicion.
It's standard equipment for Soviet third generation nukes.

Maxpain
22nd January 2006, 20:03
Taras says they come from Shunkov's book issued in 2004. :D
I've got Shunkov's book. These crossections also are used there.

Neptune, don't expect too much NEW information from Taras. Mostly it seems to be a compilation of information dating back to 2004 and older.
I think everything we are allowed to know is already published and we won't see anything new ;)

Trident
22nd January 2006, 20:27
It's standard equipment for Soviet third generation nukes.

What about 971 and Delta IV?

Another question, have the Russians ever experimented with turbo-electric powerplants for their nuclear submarines?