JonesyAhh okay. It looked like you’d dredged back into the archives and unnecessarily brought something back just to have a crack at me!.
If it was just a joke thats fine!. Perhaps the use of emoticons might have helped put what you said into context?. Just a hint but emotion is hard to interpret on here at times.
JonesyIts in the basic nature of SSK ops Vic. SSKs are patrol units and they deploy with a comms policy. This policy is a schedule of comms periods when they approach the surface and ‘phone home’.
To get a long range shot in on a target identified by ‘other means’ this means that, unless the sub happens to be approaching its comms interval within a short window of opportunity of the target being located and identified, that the target has an odds on chance of moving away from the submarine before it can be alerted and cued to shoot.
If the submarine is only updated as to the target location, course and speed say 4 hours AFTER the target is verified then the chances of the Klub being employable are marginal. Especially if the target is moving at anything near or above 20knts. The mantra is SSK’s dont chase.
Its a tradeoff really, but, coming to PD every hour on the hour in the hope that offboard assets will provide something to take a long range shot at is very unwise as it increases the chances of something detecting the sub and, on an SSK, you strive for discretion.
Network centricity, in terms of reaction to emerging targets like this, is much better suited to surface vessels and aircraft. If you can develop the capability to positively target at long range and if you must have these long range weapons it makes much more sense to mount them on those platforms and leave the SSK’s to the job they do best.
JonesyIndian
Oh right – so you weren’t talking about the actual topic of the thread i.e the potential necessity for Pakistan to acquire a ‘higher-tech’ alternate to the Agosta90’s.
You wanted, instead, to remind me that the Indian Navy is bigger than the Pakistan Navy?. Well as an old friend like to say ‘duh, big wed twuck’.
Victor,
Long ranged weapons on short (sensor) ranged platforms is the future. That’s where coop engagement comes in. The major navies are moving in that direction, the days of lone sharks prowling the waters by themselves are gone.
Nope. Coop engagement works when youre tied in to the net. Submarines by unfortunate virtue of their operating medium must spend long periods divorced from external comms.
Some of the major navies are moving towards fully autonmous long-range land-attack weapons but significant problems exist using SSK’s in this role without having dozens of SSKs to cope with the overhead of strike tasked units.
JonesyIf thats necessity pal they’ve done bloody well out of it!. A circa 1800 ton patrol submarine with lean manning (36 man crew is remarkable!), high endurance, diving depth in excess of 350m, towed-array capability, SUBTICS management suite and AIP.
This is the point mate….what more do you need spend the money on?. Everything critical to an SSK’s operational competency is listed above. Scorpene may offer a couple of extra torpedo tubes, isolated decks and all the passive noise reduction in the world, but, its bloody little advantage if youre operating in noisy waters anyway and/or are going to come up against low-freq active sonar – which doesnt care how quiet you are it’ll get you anyway!.
Just out of curiosity what practical advantage do you think that the Scorpene/Amur hulls offer over Agosta90 Indian?
JonesyNuke,
Get a life mate!.
1. Dirty communists???. Not said anything at all about personal cleanliness or political persuasions.
2. Reliability. I Made no reference whatsoever to the reliability of early Russian missiles. I know I made no such reference because the reliability of early British and American guided missiles were no great shakes either.
3. Relevence?. How is it relevent whether RN had SSM’s in 71 or not?. If we say that the RN had no SSM, apart from surface-mode Sea Slug, back then does it suddenly mean that those POL tanks were hit by precision guided weapons?. No it doesnt.
The point of this was discussing, some 4 months ago!, the usefulness of a conventional active radar homing antiship missile in the shore attack role. It does not, as I clearly stated, denigrate the crews performance in getting to a position where they could lob dumb missiles in on shore installations. Neither does it denigrate the performance of the missile in its intended antiship function which, at that time, was pretty good by all accounts.
JonesyI did say I thought they looked scruffy!!! 😀
JonesyThe point of the thread being, I had assumed, that their may be some requirement to supplant the 90B’s with some ‘newer-tech’ solution like a Scorpene etc???.
Their fleet, seemingly, is intended to number 6 Agosta 90B as primary combattants with the Daphne’s retired and the Agosta 70’s going into second-line and training taskings. Seems an emminently sensible procurement strategy to me!.
but I guess they dont have the funds to splurge on anything, and PN gets the crumbs.
LOL there are VERY few navies worldwide that get a chance to ‘splurge’ as you put it Indian. If the PN are going to achieve the delivery of a modest coastal patrol surface fleet and an efficient, capable, submarine arm on ‘crumbs’ you may just have given them a great compliment however inadvertently.
By ‘infiltration’ I didnt mean SF infiltration by the way, although an AIP SSK is good for that too, I meant infiltration into heavily patrolled waters i.e port approaches etc.
JonesyPrecisely right Burger!. What is the source for the belief that the Agosta 90’s are anything other than perfectly suited to the tasks that will be required of them?.
The sonar suite they possess is comparable to that of most current SSK’s, the weapons capability is similarly comparable and I applaud their refusal to be forced down the ludicrous long-range AShM route that others are seeking to try and establish on an inherently short-ranged sensor platform. The AIP will be useful to a degree against hostile airborne ASW and very useful for covert infiltration taskings.
Technically there is little wrong with the boats and, factoring in the economics and logistics/operational advantages of single class/established technology fleet, the Pakistan Navy’s submarine service looks to be a very neat, efficient, force worthy of emulation by other small navies.
JonesyBoring answer lads I’m afraid but the red colour is just the ‘red lead’ antirust coating. Our ships use it too but we uniformly put a surface coat of grey over the top of it. In some cases the Russians do and in some cases they dont.
Theres no absolute need to apply the surface coat. Certainly at the many dozens of miles that modern naval engagements are anticipated to take place over the visual advantage of having greyed out horizontal surfaces is insignificant. Plus there is a bonus that an area that takes lots of seaspray, thusly requiring regular maintenance, is easier to maintain if you can just slap on another coat of red lead rather than having to scrape off a patch then reapply the base and top coats.
To be flippant though those decks have always looked damn scruffy to me! :diablo:
JonesyTop work 7seas.
Hope VT get aways with their slight borrowing of design features:
VT’s Cerberus
JonesyCant be sure on this one I’m afraid. That said if its not a Vospers design its doing a bloody good impression of one. In fact it looks a lot like a shrunk-down, monohull VT Cerberus corvette.
Other than that I cant help I’m afraid.
JonesyAgree with Distiller looks like a passive RF seeker assembly on an ARM
JonesyHi Jonesy, very interesting. I have a difficulty in reasoning why broadside is worse. If it’s a wave, then turning into it would mean a bigger difference in pressure distribution due to the moment arm, thus creating huge high stress areas around the node of the pressure wave. But, being broadside means the wave pass it as fast as possilbe. I understand the problem for a boat/ship in terms of stability but i dont’ quite see the reason for a sub.
Havent seen you about in a while Vortex nice to see you back!.
Youre thinking about the pressure=force/area calculation?. Its true that the bow on aspect will subject greater forces on that area, but, the bows are designed to pierce waves and tolerate much greater forces. The beam aspect presents a much greater surface area to the wave which, if the boat was a pure cylinder, would be little issue. What happens in fact though is that the tower/sail acts to generate a rotational force around the long axis pushing the boat over into a capsize. It also can generate shear forces on the screw and main shaft from the perpendicular shock pulse. May not be enough to rip the screw off but certainly danger exists in popping shaft seals etc.
Normally when such things happen, a wave is only formed in shallow waters. So at 3,000m deep, the energy will go horizontally, when it reaches shallow waters, it is directed upwards and forms a wave.
..and you’re quite right Roel, for a tsunami created in such a fashion as this i.e by an underground siesmic event. The effect is a shock wave travelling horizontally through the water that only really ‘climbs’ into a surface wave when it hits a continental shelf edge.
For a tsunami created by a large surface impact or a large-order near-surface explosion though a surface wave is created and, for a submarine at 500ft depth, a 200ft wave over the top adds the ‘weight’ of that water to the pressure already on the sub hull. The effect is, over a short interval, that the sub would be subject to the stresses of 700ft depth. The results of that being potentially unfortunate.
JonesyExactly Dreadnought…very few quiet earthquakes in recorded history!.
The question about the term ‘in the vicinity’ is a good one. Its an obvious assumption that the Indian boat, being an SSK, could be closer inshore than the US boat and maybe the Chinese boat (if it were one of the Han SSNs). I have a hard time believing that the Indian boat was first to accurately analyse the seismic event for what it was, unless the boat was right over the epicentre, due to the huge superiority of US SSN sonar/processing capacity over anything bolted into an Indian Kilo or 209. Its not like thats a significant issue in the whole scheme of events though.
Can a tsumani hurt a submerged sub….yes very much so. A tsunami is, essentially, a very large wave generated by a shock event and as much as it deposits water ashore when it breaks it carries that water as it travels. This means there are two effects at work that can threaten a sub in the waves path. First is the shock pulse – a pressure wave travelling at many hundreds of metres per second that will hit a hull much like the the shock wave from a depth charge. Second is the extra volume of water the wave carries over the sub. This has the effect of adding the wave mass to that of the water already above the sub and can lead to a sudden increase of crush forces on the hull for a short period.
Turning into the wave and going shallower will mitigate both effects on the hull, but, if the sub is caught deep and broadside on to the wave it could mean big problems.
JonesyNot any more Steve. They disbanded the 18 missile S-3 IRBM force they had based at Plateau d’Albion in 1996.
Sign In
