Typhoon class TK 17 Arkhangelsk has been refuelled

A NATO report in the Mid 80s described Soviet Submarines as being more automated than western subs. Western, particularly US subs having rather larger crews for similar roles than the equivelent Soviet Subs.

I’d heard that about the Alfas because of their size but not across the board.

Neptune, 945 and 971 nuclear reactors between others (surely also 941 and 949A by obvious reasons) are capable of natural convection at low speeds too.

The sources, are all the mentioned books, another one is “Submarine Warfare, an Illustrated History” written by Antony Preston.
And your sources say “one of”, which basically means what it says, “one of”, not “the most”. And neither do they compare Typhoon to any of the three mentioned subs.

Here you have something on Triomphant, it says: It’s a 1000 times more silent than its predecessor (Le Redoutable), later on in the text: Le Redoutable compared to Le Triomphant makes the sound of a helicopter compared to a car.
etc.

http://www.netmarine.net/bat/smarins/triompha/index.htm
(there’s also a nice drawing if you go to “Caractéristiques principale”.

As for Ria Novosti, well I don’t think it needs much explanation… Neither do the videos. Do you really think you can walk out with a movie of a rusty sub and bunch of bad behaving submariners? In front of a camera you’ll see them all laugh, once you get closer the story changes. On Navy days they often go home with the remainders of the organiser’s fridge not to mention the begging for food if there is a foreign warship visiting their port.

Not to mention, they killed an Akula, you really believe that kind of things??? A bit naïve no? The only moment I’d believe something like that is when it is filmed through an LA or Trafalgar’s camera. Not through a media one.

As for Typhoon, they were meant to be scrapped, only now they have seen the big option it offers. The massive size allows it to take about every system they want to install in it. Cheap solution compared to building all new subs.
The maintenance cost, that is because India wanted to keep Chakra in a very good state. By then the Russians were spending probably not even 10% of what India spent on their subs.

Oh yes and there is also the fact that both Le Triomphant and Vanguard use Pumpjets along with a single reactor. Also Ohio uses a single reactor and that reactor is capable of Natural convection, at which speeds is unfortunatly unknown, the most probably numbers lay at 5-10kts.

Russian Navy Chief Vladimir Kuroedov was removed from his post by Putin , His statement in press and the untoward incident happened which gave the RuN a bad image .

I am still waiting for any credible links from you , which actually says that there are 3 better ssbn then Typhoon , I already gave you two links there , I could have quoted Janes & NAFO which says the same thing that Typhoon is one of the most silent ssbn .

Form the same link http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050908/41341829.html

the Typhoon-class ballistic missile submarine is no ordinary Russian sub, it is equipped with an extremely silent drive system capable of fooling Soviet and American SONAR (a method for detecting and locating objects submerged in water by echolocation) detectors alike.

I would wonder why Typhoons would be made in such a way that it can even fool ( probably mean a very very low signature , even not detected by Rusian advanced SSN ) And I wont be suprised if thats the case after watching the doc on Typhoon on Nat Geo where she even detects first & simulates a Torpedo fire against a Akulla class SSN in an anti-sub exercise , I remember the Typhoon commander proudly saying inspite of her size she is the most silent sub in the RuN fleet after making the simulated Akula kill.

Was Typhoon so elite that she was so invincible even to the remaining Soviet/Russian ASW System , Or they believed that she had an autonomous role in that she wouldnt require any SSN support and would be left to itself to defend and attack which she very welll can do.

Also the fact that the Russian are investing so much in her and doing a comphrensive upgrade on her , does show how valuable she is to the Strategic fleet.

It would have been very tempting to lay her off and save money on refurbishment and maintainance , i am sure it would be quite a handsome amount to even maintain one Typhoon.

The IN would spend a huge amount from their yearly Naval Budget just to maintain the single Charlie (INS Chakra ) we got.

Can you prove that Alpha’s didnt went below 400m , when their Titanium alloy hull could have allowed it to dive deeper than 1000m

You’d have to ask Gatorfrey for that, and as one of his resources is an Alpha officer, he very well knows that.
They can go deeper, but didn’t do so.

Material is one option, yet all of the submarine builders use nearly the same material, although it has a different name. So basically to reach the same strength as a cilindrical hull with a different shaped hull you have to add thickness.

Trident, yes sometimes safety factor is different, I think the French generally used 1.6, although indeed 1.7 is more common (and logically so). A note in this regard is that if Compressed Natural Gas development goes through, I predict the use of compounds instead of steel for the future. I thought you meant comparing them by diving depth but I wasn’t really sure about it.

What was tested was still just a dummy, didn’t carry any real warheads did it?
The picture I posted of Donskoy was taken in 2002, when she left the yard, at that moment she didn’t have any system installed. The Bulava system is still not installed on her, the only thing she carries is a test launcher, as the real system is not ready.

You certainly have a strange perception of “workhorse” then. Generally Workhorse means a high number of deployments. As for the numbers, only 6 or 7 Delta IVs were ever built, so that matches Typhoon’s numbers.

Russian Navy refused from the strategic missile system Typhoon
22.05.2004 14:11
On April, 29 the CinC of the Russian Navy Vladimir Kuroedov held the meeting where it was officially stated. The Typhoon was the 19th division of the Northern Fleet consisting of the three project 941 (Akula) subs. The subs were armed with the D-19 missiles (NATO’s reporting name SS-N-20). Almost all missiles were utilized by launching. The last sub Severstal still has 10 missiles, half of its ****nal, but in the short future they will be launched and destroyed. This type of missiles is not in the production any more; therefore the subs will be scrapped. The Typhoon subs are not real power. Except Severstal there is one more Arhangelsk which does not have arms but has many technical problems and is used as a submarine transport for the President during the exercises. Yet another one, Dmitry Donskoi is under repair for the 13th year. In July, 2002 it was reported that the sub was put into operation, but in fact it is still waiting for the missiles in the slipway. In recent years TK-202 and TK-13 were decommissioned before the end of the set period. TK-12 was decommissioned in 1996, however, it is still berthed near Zapadnaya Litsa. Ridiculously, but in 2001 it got new name, Simbirsk, and the near sponsor, the city of Ulyanovsk. There have been different proposals how to use the subs. One was using them as tourist vessels, once the sub was used… for carrying fruits to the oil workers based in Dudinka, but it turned out economically inefficient. This experiment was headed by the Deputy Presidential Plenipotentiary Mikhail Motsak, former Admiral, the commander of the 1st Fleet. Today the fate of the legendary subs is clear – they will be utilized.

As for Ohio and others, “A guided tour through a Nuclear Submarine” by Tom Clancy, “Submarines of the World” by I-don’t-know-who-anymore and several others which I’ll tell you when I get them back. One was called “Modern Submarines” and was surprisingly accurate for its (non-internet) day. I’ll have a look for the writers.

“Very good crew” do you honestly think there are that many good crews in Russia? For no money and often as young as 18 years, do you think they could possibly be that good?

As for Russia/US, yes Russia is behind on US, but time will change, soon, very soon. Russia has now more than 30% of discovered Natural Gas resources in the world. One of the fields below the Barentz contains more than twice as much as Canada’s national gas reserve. As natural Gas is becoming one of the primary energy sources (and yes oil is at this moment estimated to last for only another 27-30 years), it will very soon change the positions on the market. (US has around 3% of the natural gas reserves for now). At this moment they are drilling sources that they had never ever thought of using in the past, calling them not economical profitable… They were wrong.
So the money stream is already changing direction, it will only accellerate.

As for John and Globalsecurity, my point was indeed prove and Globalsecurity doesn’t count as a proof.

I don’t have a problem with John and I respect him very much as his/their site is very large and extensive. For a beginning person it has a massive amount of information to digest and it is very interesting in that way.

Well John and globalsecurity is quite a well respected site and regularly updated to , It also quite huge and definately you wont find all the information very accurate or regularly updated, The information is probably the best what open source documents can provide on a particular subject.

You Point was simple and I quote it * I’d like to see these then, please prove.”

I proved that Typhoon were silent subs and the most feared one in the cold war from two different sources, And I rest my case

she is certainly one of the quietest considering there are only three better than her, Le Triomphant, Vanguard and Ohio.

Can you prove it , that the 3 are better then Typhoon , Atleast from 2 different sources just as I did.

So basically you’d send out your worst submarines, having a larger risk of seeing them all being taken out and of course keep your very nice splendid submarine in port where they are a fixed target for ICBM and SLBMs of the enemy,

Did I say it was the worst , I just stated that the Typhoon was the better off in the Soviet fleet , And Do you understand workhorse , It means numbers and a larger number of Delta’s could be deployed when the unthinkable happens , At best the Soviet had 6 Typhoon , How many Deltas did they have in Total.

The chances that either of the two could suprise each other was little because of extensive National Technical Means on both sides.

Typhoon were designed for sustained under ice operation where , Tracking the subs even with the best equipment you have is very difficult , Typhoon just exploited that weakness.

And as you are aware Submarine business has more to it then just low decibals , It has Tactics , Training , Good Intelligence , And some very good crew , Its like saying that best radar on a given aircraft will win the war for you , well thats really not the case and radar is just one component of the over all package, Similarly silencing is just one component of the over all package.

As for the missiles being destroyed by US-Russian treaty, you didn’t do your homework, they stopped construction of the missiles and all the others were shot in practices (that Suchkov’s statement).

You are right on that read below

From http://www.armscontrol.ru/transforming/podvig.htm

Delays with the development of the SS-N-20 follow-on forced the Navy to undertake a rather unusual step. In March and December of 1997 the Navy destroyed the missiles that were carried on two Typhoon submarines, presumably those built in 1980-1983. Since Russia had neither old R-39 nor new R-39UTTH missiles to deploy on these two Typhoons, these submarines have been deactivated. However, they have not been formally decommissioned and might return to the fleet after development of the R-39UTTH is completed.

And I’m more scared of a well trained Delta IV with live missiles than of that one sub that tested a dummy missile that is not even in service…… Typhoons will have to wait longer than that, the first systems go to the Borei

Donosky has already been converted to carry the Bulava . So Its also possible that both Borei and Donosky will get Bulava almost simultanously depending on their production schedule.

And I’m more scared of a well trained Delta IV with live missiles than of that one sub that tested a dummy missile that is not even in service.

What the tested was a real Bulava and not a dummy , It was a first real test of Bulava and more will follow soon.

Would scratch that “survivable” out of it.

Scratch what you wish too , But Typhoon was definately the Cream of the Soviet fleet.

The Russians tried to equal on this are by using thicker hulls (hence relatively more expensive), but mostly their diving depth is reduced by their multiple hull design.

Not necessary Thicker Hulls , Diving depth also depends on the material you use to build the sub , For example for the same thickness the HY-80 steel/alloysl would allow a diving depth of 300-350 meteres, A HY-100 would be 400+ meters and HY-120 more than 600 meteres.

So dosent mean that one is one thicker then the other the PSI that these Steel can withstand is different , Its a Technologinal & Metullargy improvement and more modern sub are either built with HY-100 or HY-120 steel IIRC the seawolf are made from HY-120 and can dive more than 600 meteres.

In case of alpha made of Titanium alloys they can dive as Deep as 1200 meteres with the crush depth being 1500 meteres.

Its possible that Akula/Typhoon were constructed from some different steel/metal alloys which helped it dive deeper and not necessary these alloys were thicker than previous steel used.

The Alpha’s only operated at 400m depth but they said 600m

Can you prove that Alpha’s didnt went below 400m , when their Titanium alloy hull could have allowed it to dive deeper than 1000m :diablo:

“If it wasn’t feared then U.S. wouldn’t have spent so much trying to counter it, don’t listen to these yanks they are always coming up with “Fantastic” excuses why they don’t fear this or that about Russia’s military, it’s all a public front so not to look scared/weak to there American public. ”

Another Troll.

LOL

Is that all this board has to offer is America bashers?

Ive got news for you losers.

All the bashing in the world wont make the Russians stronger or the U.S. weaker.

In fact just the opposite is likely to happen.

And then “Clear War” you lose yet again.

LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Theres nothing I have lost, all there is is you claiming I’ve lost and Russia will be weaker than U.S., so YOU lost.

LA is said to sacrifice depth for speed. I’m sure it can do better than 250m though, FAS (who are an adequate source for US weapons systems) says 300 safe/test and 450 max, which sounds about right IMHO. For Trafalgar, the RN says 400m oprational (probably the same as test) and 600m maximum, although that would imply a safety factor of 1,5 (like the US) instead of 1,75 like they supposedly use.

Hm, I can’t seem to see the difference between Kilo and Akula in this regard. Both are double hull designs with cylindrical mid-ship sections, right?

I realize that, I was not trying to compare them in general, just their diving depths.

You’d need to have seen one in a drydock to understand, unfortunately there seem to be no such images (no photographs of the real thing, that is) on the net. The only ones I’ve seen are in books. Looking at this CGI of Astute you will see what I’m talking about though:

Speaking of Astute, there is this image of the real thing under construction at BAe (but no Trafalgar!):

http://www.baesystems.com/gallery/sea/images/ASTUTE-CLASS-SUB-IN-DDH_hi.jpg

Actually there is a couple of pictures of it in the New “Janes Submairines” Book.

“If it wasn’t feared then U.S. wouldn’t have spent so much trying to counter it, don’t listen to these yanks they are always coming up with “Fantastic” excuses why they don’t fear this or that about Russia’s military, it’s all a public front so not to look scared/weak to there American public. “

Another Troll.

LOL

Is that all this board has to offer is America bashers?

Ive got news for you losers.

All the bashing in the world wont make the Russians stronger or the U.S. weaker.

In fact just the opposite is likely to happen.

And then “Clear War” you lose yet again.

LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

So, you can reasonably assume the LA class is capable of diving much much deeper than 250m, possibly 500m or even deeper. Of course the operational depths of those subs can be around 250m as it would take longer to get back up in case of an emergency at great depths.

LA is said to sacrifice depth for speed. I’m sure it can do better than 250m though, FAS (who are an adequate source for US weapons systems) says 300 safe/test and 450 max, which sounds about right IMHO. For Trafalgar, the RN says 400m oprational (probably the same as test) and 600m maximum, although that would imply a safety factor of 1,5 (like the US) instead of 1,75 like they supposedly use.

Same can be expected of SSKs, for example a Kilo which comes closer to a cilinder will probably have quite a decent diving depth, same counts for Song.

Hm, I can’t seem to see the difference between Kilo and Akula in this regard. Both are double hull designs with cylindrical mid-ship sections, right?

All your proposed “vs.” battles have been done over and over again

I realize that, I was not trying to compare them in general, just their diving depths.

(and how come they are funny looking to you?)

You’d need to have seen one in a drydock to understand, unfortunately there seem to be no such images (no photographs of the real thing, that is) on the net. The only ones I’ve seen are in books. Looking at this CGI of Astute you will see what I’m talking about though:

Speaking of Astute, there is this image of the real thing under construction at BAe (but no Trafalgar!):

http://www.baesystems.com/gallery/sea/images/ASTUTE-CLASS-SUB-IN-DDH_hi.jpg

I don’t have a problem with John and I respect him very much as his/their site is very large and extensive. For a beginning person it has a massive amount of information to digest and it is very interesting in that way. Yet on the other hand when you are going in more detailed things then his/their site is lacking. A logical thing of course as it would require many persons to maintain a site this big and keep it all updated.

As for questioning the silence of Russian subs and not the other way round. Pretty logical, due to the end of the Cold War, many things have been told, Submarine officers gave explanations with what they did, Navy persons wanted new toys. This is the reason why so much is known about the SeaWolf, the pro guys used several of the capabilities to convince Congress, the anti’s used them to tell it was useless or even bad to do such things. This way lots of things come up (much against the submarine community’s will). By explaining what they did, it came up what the Russians did too, the capabilities of their subs became clear and they were nonetheless weaker than NATO’s with all the trailing and pictures.
That is why no one questions them and not the other way around. Add to it all the errors and accidents happening to Russian submarines and you get the picture. K-19, K-219 and others.

Trident, they could have integrated the sail much better if they wished to do so. Yet they didn’t so it must be that this turtle back (which is btw a common name for it) is not that disadvantageous, it would have only required some extra lines, plates and tests to accomplish it.

I posted the picture of that, so what’s the point of mentioning that? It really doesn’t mean anything in the way of “proving” she is one of the quietest. Btw, she is certainly one of the quietest considering there are only three better than her, Le Triomphant, Vanguard and Ohio.

Increased flow noise, the volume is much larger, with a blunt nose like Typhoon’s you have a much larger increase of waterflow creating more friction (by both shape and surface) and hence flow noise, created by accelleration of water and pressure changes. It’s btw the reason why towed arrays are only used at slow speeds, the flow noise would disturb them way too much.
Add to it that the increased displacement on its part needs extra power to propell, so, two reactors instead of one, two pump systems instead of one, two propellors instead of one, eventhough you can quieten such systems, you can eliminate all noise by not installing them (which is the case in US subs).

So basically you’d send out your worst submarines, having a larger risk of seeing them all being taken out and of course keep your very nice splendid submarine in port where they are a fixed target for ICBM and SLBMs of the enemy, I’m sure the Soviets didn’t think that way as they were scared of a first strike of US and NATO, which would then according to your logics mean that they wouldn’t retain anything. Basically I’d do it the other way around, keep the pieces of crap in port and send out the best, giving them at least some chance to escape the tailing subs and at least fire one missile (which is the reason why they wanted such a high rate of fire). And if they don’t succeed at least you still have some back up although they’d most probably wouldn’t survive anyway. But at least this gives you some chance.

Firing missiles, Severstal indeed has 10 of them and your point being? She shouldn’t train because she needs those 10 missiles?
And yes I am aware of liquid fuelled missiles (and even maintain further development ont hem) but do you have any idea why they didn’t just toss them out and keep the solid fuelled ones if that was so easy??? In that case the “super typhoons” would still be in service and the Delta’s would be gone. But that isn’t the case is it?
As for the missiles being destroyed by US-Russian treaty, you didn’t do your homework, they stopped construction of the missiles and all the others were shot in practices (that Suchkov’s statement). If US would want them scrapped than it would have demanded the remaining 10 too.

And I’m more scared of a well trained Delta IV with live missiles than of that one sub that tested a dummy missile that is not even in service. So if you think it’s not important to fire missiles then I’m sure the Indian Navy shouldn’t do tests either, the Russians tested Klub, no reason for India to do so?

Typhoons will have to wait longer than that, the first systems go to the Borei, and that will only come in 2008, the Typhoons then will still have to go in refurbishment for this missile, so more likely 2009-2010.

Would scratch that “survivable” out of it. Bigger doesn’t mean better. Delta was also doubble hulled and torpedoes are made to counter that. The outer hull is only a hydrodynamic cover nothing more than that, it doesn’t withstand impact as always thought.

The US sailors respected the Akulas as they knew it was the best USSR had, but fear was not the word. Fear they had for the UK submarines and with good reason.

As for SeaWolf argument, that was to show you that they often lie to the Congress, well not lying, just exaggerating in some areas to convince them. The Alpha’s only operated at 400m depth but they said 600m, another reason to get a SeaWolf no?

If it wasn’t feared then U.S. wouldn’t have spent so much trying to counter it, don’t listen to these yanks they are always coming up with “Fantastic” excuses why they don’t fear this or that about Russia’s military, it’s all a public front so not to look scared/weak to there American public. 😎

The diving depth is quite a funny thing indeed. Basically the Russian “deep diving designs” have always been created by using a much thicker and sometimes stronger material hull. Their diving depths are more or less in the area of the real thing, although the K-219 (yankee) sank some 3000m or deep and still remained in one piece, well actually 2 pieces, but that was probably because of the damage done before the sinking (exploding SLBM).

But, for Western subs you will practically find 250m as a general statement, sometimes 400, but nothing really more than that.
Of course this is funny as the cilindrical shape is the perfect shape to contain pressure. It divides in the best possible way, which is also the reason why Spheres are used in typical semi-press semi-ref LNG carriers (the other major reason being a reduced free floating surface effect).

So basically the Western subs might have a much deeper diving depth than expected just due to their shape. The Russians tried to equal on this are by using thicker hulls (hence relatively more expensive), but mostly their diving depth is reduced by their multiple hull design. The outer hull is not as strong as the inner pressure hull. This can cause the sub to have a completely wrecked outer hull, but an intact inner hull when the sub is at considerable depths.

So, you can reasonably assume the LA class is capable of diving much much deeper than 250m, possibly 500m or even deeper. Of course the operational depths of those subs can be around 250m as it would take longer to get back up in case of an emergency at great depths. Same can be expected of SSKs, for example a Kilo which comes closer to a cilinder will probably have quite a decent diving depth, same counts for Song.

All your proposed “vs.” battles have been done over and over again, no one knows the answer and no one will know the answer (unless there’s a war, which we don’t want to happen, certainly not involving SSBNs).
If I had to pick one for a trip I’d chose the Trafalgar (and how come they are funny looking to you?)
This is what it looks when one of them is behind you:
Taken by me somewhere in July. You really want to keep a good eye on them when they’re looking at you.

Well, the French have gone to extreme lengths with SNLE Le Triomphant to ensure that the missile-tube fairing causes minimum cross-sectional changes, so there’s got to be something about it IMHO. One thing that has always made me wonder though, historically French sub-designs seem to have adopted a strategy of optimizing the hell out of the “classic” hull-shape of their respective era instead of innovating, such as the British have done with Vanguard. It’d be really interesting to know how the hydrodynamics of Vanguard and Le Triomphant compare (both are some of the best looking subs ever IMHO, unlike the funny looking bow design on British SSNs)!

You bring up an interesting point about diving depths, the figures for western subs seem to be just as obscure. What’s your opinion on on the performance of today’s SSBNs (and SSNs for that matter) in this regard? Are any half-way reliable numbers known?

Typhoon vs. any of the western boats?

688i vs. Akula?

Trafalgar vs. any of the above?

I don’t have a problem with John and I respect him very much as his/their site is very large and extensive. For a beginning person it has a massive amount of information to digest and it is very interesting in that way. Yet on the other hand when you are going in more detailed things then his/their site is lacking. A logical thing of course as it would require many persons to maintain a site this big and keep it all updated.

As for questioning the silence of Russian subs and not the other way round. Pretty logical, due to the end of the Cold War, many things have been told, Submarine officers gave explanations with what they did, Navy persons wanted new toys. This is the reason why so much is known about the SeaWolf, the pro guys used several of the capabilities to convince Congress, the anti’s used them to tell it was useless or even bad to do such things. This way lots of things come up (much against the submarine community’s will). By explaining what they did, it came up what the Russians did too, the capabilities of their subs became clear and they were nonetheless weaker than NATO’s with all the trailing and pictures.
That is why no one questions them and not the other way around. Add to it all the errors and accidents happening to Russian submarines and you get the picture. K-19, K-219 and others.

Trident, they could have integrated the sail much better if they wished to do so. Yet they didn’t so it must be that this turtle back (which is btw a common name for it) is not that disadvantageous, it would have only required some extra lines, plates and tests to accomplish it.

I just stated on what the propeller of Typhoon is and how a 7 blade skewed prop can reduce cavitation and hence noise , Just one of the many features she has , I know that all good SSBN has it , Infact Le Tromp has PupmJet.

I posted the picture of that, so what’s the point of mentioning that? It really doesn’t mean anything in the way of “proving” she is one of the quietest. Btw, she is certainly one of the quietest considering there are only three better than her, Le Triomphant, Vanguard and Ohio.

Increased flow noise, the volume is much larger, with a blunt nose like Typhoon’s you have a much larger increase of waterflow creating more friction (by both shape and surface) and hence flow noise, created by accelleration of water and pressure changes. It’s btw the reason why towed arrays are only used at slow speeds, the flow noise would disturb them way too much.
Add to it that the increased displacement on its part needs extra power to propell, so, two reactors instead of one, two pump systems instead of one, two propellors instead of one, eventhough you can quieten such systems, you can eliminate all noise by not installing them (which is the case in US subs).

So basically you’d send out your worst submarines, having a larger risk of seeing them all being taken out and of course keep your very nice splendid submarine in port where they are a fixed target for ICBM and SLBMs of the enemy, I’m sure the Soviets didn’t think that way as they were scared of a first strike of US and NATO, which would then according to your logics mean that they wouldn’t retain anything. Basically I’d do it the other way around, keep the pieces of crap in port and send out the best, giving them at least some chance to escape the tailing subs and at least fire one missile (which is the reason why they wanted such a high rate of fire). And if they don’t succeed at least you still have some back up although they’d most probably wouldn’t survive anyway. But at least this gives you some chance.

Firing missiles, Severstal indeed has 10 of them and your point being? She shouldn’t train because she needs those 10 missiles?
And yes I am aware of liquid fuelled missiles (and even maintain further development ont hem) but do you have any idea why they didn’t just toss them out and keep the solid fuelled ones if that was so easy??? In that case the “super typhoons” would still be in service and the Delta’s would be gone. But that isn’t the case is it?
As for the missiles being destroyed by US-Russian treaty, you didn’t do your homework, they stopped construction of the missiles and all the others were shot in practices (that Suchkov’s statement). If US would want them scrapped than it would have demanded the remaining 10 too.

And I’m more scared of a well trained Delta IV with live missiles than of that one sub that tested a dummy missile that is not even in service. So if you think it’s not important to fire missiles then I’m sure the Indian Navy shouldn’t do tests either, the Russians tested Klub, no reason for India to do so?

Typhoons will have to wait longer than that, the first systems go to the Borei, and that will only come in 2008, the Typhoons then will still have to go in refurbishment for this missile, so more likely 2009-2010.

Would scratch that “survivable” out of it. Bigger doesn’t mean better. Delta was also doubble hulled and torpedoes are made to counter that. The outer hull is only a hydrodynamic cover nothing more than that, it doesn’t withstand impact as always thought.

The US sailors respected the Akulas as they knew it was the best USSR had, but fear was not the word. Fear they had for the UK submarines and with good reason.

As for SeaWolf argument, that was to show you that they often lie to the Congress, well not lying, just exaggerating in some areas to convince them. The Alpha’s only operated at 400m depth but they said 600m, another reason to get a SeaWolf no?

And since when is Globalsecurity the “known source”? It’s from John Pike, the same who created the FAS site, yet afterwards he left FAS. As mentioned before a nice overall source, but many mistakes.
He mentions some quieting measures, but what makes you think that US and UK submarines don’t have that? What makes you so sure that these measures are “everything” and must mean the submarine is the quietest?

So whats the problem with John Now 😀 . Hey John, Nepture has a problem with you

Well the point here is every one questions Russias N-sub decibels , Its not the other way around , I have not come across any post which says US & UK have inferior in quitening etc , The post I have just posted supporting my Claim as Typhoon being one of the quitest SSBN .

Which one is the most quitest we will never know , wheather its the Ohio , Typhoon , Trident or the French Le Triomp..

Mr. Thompson must be one hell of a smart guy

So now whats the problem with Mr Thompson 😀

I know even the Delta IIIs didn’t have to leave their base to hit most of US.

He just stated that that it can hit US cities staying at her base , and if the need be she can easily penetrate undetectable where ever she wanted.

As compared to Delta-3 the Typhoon carries the 3 stage solid fuelled , 10 MIRV’d Warhead SS-N-20 with a range of more than 8000 Km

They like to exaggerate to get their own toys too, please please let us have some SeaWolf SSNs, what for? Because that Akula is way too dangerous. They always do such things when necessary. Feel the best in the world, but when they want something it looks like they are the worst.

Have you ever thought of the fact that Akula could be really dangerous , What makes you fell they are exaggerating stuff .

What makes you feel Russia cant make something better than what US already has it.

And where did Mr Thompson ever stated that he needs more SeaWolf he was just stating about the capabilities of Typhoon which IMHO is a fair assesment.

As mentioned here before, almost every submarine has such measures by now, what’s the point of thinking that Typhoon’s would be the best in it?

I just stated on what the propeller of Typhoon is and how a 7 blade skewed prop can reduce cavitation and hence noise , Just one of the many features she has , I know that all good SSBN has it , Infact Le Tromp has PupmJet.

Multihulled yes, but also displacement increasing and flow noise increasing.

Care To Explain ???

And why shouldn’t you compare Delta IV with Typhoon?

B’coz Delta 4 was the workhorse and they were in numbers not necessary the best SSBN type in the soviet fleet but had the numbers to be around every where.

Typhoon had the best what the soviet had achieved in underwater sub technology , was clearly designed to operate underice for sustained period of time and had a much much better punch then Delta-4 and definately in the hostile water had a better chance of survival because of its much better Hydrodynamic,hydroacoustic features.

Delta’s are the ones firing the missiles lately.

So ???

Are you aware of the fact that Delta SLBM’s are liquid fuel with its own cumbersome logistics issue associated with it.

Oh BTW the Donosky fired the Bulava recently 😀 , If firing a missile is a major consideration for you

So what would a super submarine be worth if it’s tied up on a pier?

They are waiting for the Bulava , In the mean time they are going through upgrades and refulling , IIRC the Severstal still carries 10 SS-N-20 the other were destroyed under a US-Russia thread reduction program , But thats a moot point , They will get the newer Bulava.

It has a reason why they are giving the Delta IV programme priority over Typhoon

Both subs are getting their upgrade , But the Typhoon will have to wait till 2007 to get their Bulava.

Typhoon was a stability bet to increase the rate of fire.

It was much more than that , It was the better SSBN in the Soviet fleet , Packed Bigger,Better and more Survivable punch , It was definately the Cream of the Soviet SSBN fleet.

And It earned the respect of the West as the Most Feared Sub of the Cold War :diablo:

Hydrodynamics, I think there is VERY little you can teach me about that and in case you haven’t noticed, Typhoon has a huge blister on the root of her conning tower, you think that’s so good for hydrodynamics and flow noise? And ever thought of the idea that Russian designers would have changed the turtleback of Delta if it were so bad, after four versions? I’d think they would…

If the blister on the root of the sail was so bad, why did they put one there? 😉 Seriously, atleast the blister follows a rough teardrop shape, so it shouldn’t be that bad IMHO.

The turtle back (best name for it I’ve ever heard BTW! 🙂 ) is most certainly somewhat detrimental to the hydrodynamics of the Delta IV, but the designers didn’t have much of a choice. The realtively small diameter of the Delta hull (especially since it is a double-hull design) combined with the length of the R-29s mandated this solution. This is also why it might be a good idea to move on to a completely new hull with Borei, even if the basic lay-out is closer to the Delta/western SSBNs than Typhoon.

And since when is Globalsecurity the “known source”? It’s from John Pike, the same who created the FAS site, yet afterwards he left FAS. As mentioned before a nice overall source, but many mistakes.
He mentions some quieting measures, but what makes you think that US and UK submarines don’t have that? What makes you so sure that these measures are “everything” and must mean the submarine is the quietest?

Hydrodynamics, I think there is VERY little you can teach me about that and in case you haven’t noticed, Typhoon has a huge blister on the root of her conning tower, you think that’s so good for hydrodynamics and flow noise? And ever thought of the idea that Russian designers would have changed the turtleback of Delta if it were so bad, after four versions? I’d think they would…

Mr. Thompson must be one hell of a smart guy, as far as I know even the Delta IIIs didn’t have to leave their base to hit most of US. And do you also know in which context he said that? They like to exaggerate to get their own toys too, please please let us have some SeaWolf SSNs, what for? Because that Akula is way too dangerous. They always do such things when necessary. Feel the best in the world, but when they want something it looks like they are the worst.

Being multihulled and rubber coating between the hulls reduces its noise signature, 2*7 Blade skewed propellor reducing cavitation .

As mentioned here before, almost every submarine has such measures by now, what’s the point of thinking that Typhoon’s would be the best in it? Multihulled yes, but also displacement increasing and flow noise increasing.

And why shouldn’t you compare Delta IV with Typhoon? It has the same task, operates in the same environment the Delta’s are the ones firing the missiles lately. So what would a super submarine be worth if it’s tied up on a pier? It has a reason why they are giving the Delta IV programme priority over Typhoon and as said before Typhoon was a stability bet to increase the rate of fire.

IMHO , Borei would be a new design , based on what the Russians have learnt from years of operating the Delta’s and Typhoon , Borei will be the workhorse for the 21st Century and lots of front technologies will be going in this sub.

From what little has been said and known about it , It will be more quiter then their new gen SSN Severdovinisk and very much capable of taking independent operation without any SSN cover , as used to be the case before .

One thing I would like to see on Borei is the use of Pump Jet Propulsion , And the testing the Russian are doing on the Kilo as seen even from yesterdays pics gives me hope

Has nice pics on Russian Subs http://www1.newsteam.ru/reports/index.html?8,197,25

If they indeed base Borei on Delta IV I sure hope the do some extensive modifications. Better hydrodynamics are needed for the missile silo fairings (pretty likely actually, seeing how Bulava is shorter than the R-29/-39 series) and sail, moving to a single shaft (preferrably with a pumpjet) is a must.

I’d like to see these then, please prove.

From http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/941.htm

Compared to the first and second generation of SSBNs the Typhoon enjoys far greater maneuverability Despite of its larger displacement the Typhoons are less noisy than their predecessors. To reduce the acoustic signature a two-spool system of rubber-cord pneumatic shock-absorption is employed as well as a block layout of gears and equipment, a new sound isolation and andrihydroacoustic coating.

The Typhoons are equipped with the “Slope” hydroacoustic system that consists of four hydroacoustic stations. The “Slope” system allows to track 10-12 vessels simultaneously. It also employs two floating antenna buoys to receive radio messages, target designation data and satellite navigation signals at great depth and under an ice cover.

If you look at the Hydrodynamics of the Typhoon as compared to the Delta 4 you will find that it has no uneven shape , which is the case with delta 4 , which affects sub hydrodynamics, Being multihulled and rubber coating between the hulls reduces its noise signature, 2*7 Blade skewed propellor reducing cavitation .

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050908/41341829.html
American Patrick Thompson, resident scholar and critic said, “the Typhoon-class ballistic missile submarine is no ordinary Russian sub, it is equipped with an extremely silent drive system capable of fooling Soviet and American SONAR (a method for detecting and locating objects submerged in water by echolocation) detectors alike.” This clearly gave the Soviets a strategic cold war advantage as the advanced stealth class Typhoons could engage targets across the United States without actually leaving their base and having to deal with enemy anti-submarine defenses – though they were indeed silent enough to penetrate wherever they wanted.

And you cant compare the Delta’s with the Typhoon , Deltas were the workhorse of the underwater nucler fleet and were to be built in numbers , They had many noise reducing features like reduction in limberholes, tiling etc , But were not exactly the most silent and advanced of the Soviet underwater fleet ,That credit goes to the Typhoon to be built in small numbers about 6 to 7 of them and had sustained underwater ice capability and argubly one of the most silent of SSBN in the world.

Borei will soon come out as a Delta V, which will prove you that the Delta IV is a much more capable submarine than the Typhoons were.

It remains Disputable if Borei will be a Delta 5 or a fllow on to the Typhoon class albeit much smaller in displacement , Some even believe that its a modification to the Severdovinisk class SSN , It remains disputed and only time can give that answer , whats confirmed is that its displacement will be somewhere in between the Delta 4 and Typhoon , slightly larger than the US Ohio class.