Hi to all!

I hope we’ll get to see some good photos, maybe we’ll finally find out for sure whether it has a pumpjet etc. 🙂

Well, what you get is what you (are allowed to) see…
I’m quite happy that the vid confirms that she got one screw / pumjet / anything. The rest (i.e. almost everything) is either invisible or covered. Let’s wait till 2009 (again…) for the rest. Or someone will post new shots after tonight’s party at Sevmash 😀 (a not-so-improbable hypothesis BTW).

Photos:

Images courtesy of the NTV channel (and the VIF2NE forum)

See the video here: http://news.ntv.ru/107427/
Pay attention to the smart guy picking up the rests of the champagne bottle 🙂

She’s almost 100% CGI. The design appears to have been based on the ANCHAR project (alternate to the Kirov). Nothing to do with actual projects. I know it’s a circular and unhelpful thing to say, but believe what you believe.
PS: to whoever drawed this: next time you do something similar, please have a glance at the international maritime flag code. Had a good laugh when I noticed that thanks to modern CG tech, soviet naval ensigns were flown at the bow… (where the jack would be – in port). Sometimes it’s such petty details that give a hoax away…

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 2×4 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 😀 😀 😀

[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?

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…

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:

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!” 😀

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.

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.