Russia has launched its new generation Strategic Submarine

YOU are quite correct..it is in a study you read. Correct.

Also Stellar X is on point ..it is what you are told in ...I believe his expression is "crumbs" of information. Stellar is correct here.

One poster in another thread spoke of the Admirals and Generals assuming certain postures at these hearings for the purposes of acquiring certain funding...I think the poster was correct in this.

Another poster made the very apt point of the Navy spending huge sums of moneys for our sailors not to use active sonar.

I'll give you guys a hint since I have already spoken about this to someone else...but think about what you are looking at here...think outside the normal boxes we are wont to use when viewing a topic or line of thought.

Go the the Bose...stereo site where they list the various Wave Machines or what ever new product they have this year. Look for a product called headphones...noise canceling head phones. I see lots of them at the shooting range now days. I dont own a pair as of yet ..no hurry to get a set as I have several of the olde type hearing protectors headsets.
Look at this item carefully and think about what is being described. Lots of companys now produce these type of headsets.

It will be intresting to see your thoughts here.

Remember ..this is not new technology..it has been out for many years before it hit the civilian markets. YOu know ..just like that graphite stuff they make fishing rods and golf clubs out of now days...the military was using this stuff for some years before it hit the civilian market.

This stuff is often right out in front of you if you can think outside of the boxes which often pass for thinking among many of us today. Think outside of much of what is published. Often difficult to do but it can be done.

I shall not comment anymore. Enough said already.

Thanks,
Orangetom

hps.org...
www.google.com... %25202005.ppt&ei=WW8qRr3MOZO-hAO7l7CPAw&usg=AFrqEzf3PLzFtvJoSMPKiPIVfsyrN0fXEA&sig2=8GTVr6ynsxgvp6DLwv5iDQ
dcssec.blogspot.com...

General comparisons for any debate that is left.

You've yet to refute, in detail, my assertion that modern SSKs are quieter than their nuclear counterparts (SSNs) - wonder why that could be.

Anyone with at least a basic understanding of sub technology knows this - you, it seems, for all your bluster and displays of arrogance, do not.

Who's failed to refute you?
I believe OrangeTom agreed, and my post, being neutral, actually supported your argument with the links provided.
A submarine, running off battery, is indeed quieter.

Originally posted by Iblis
Who's failed to refute you?
I believe OrangeTom agreed, and my post, being neutral, actually supported your argument with the links provided.
A submarine, running off battery, is indeed quieter.

I don't quite see how this:-

"Egotosum....

YOU are quite correct..it is in a study you read. Correct."

constitutes OrangeTom agreeing with me.

[edit on 21-4-2007 by Egotosum]

My mistake.
Back to discussion!

In America there is only one shipyard where the Nuclear Aircraft Carriers are born. Only one. What is not known by the bulk of Americans is that Nuclear Submarines are also born here where the James River meets the Chesapeake Bay. This too is right across the bay from where is located the Norfolk Navy Base, port to many of these submarines and aircraft carriers.

I have been priveleged to work on all the Los Angeles class boats built here including the later class of 688I boats. Also the overhauls and repairs of several of the Sturegon class boats which came in for repairs before they were decomissioned. Also what is called Boomers.
I have also worked on the Virginia class boats currently under construction as well as Aircraft Carriers..both on the nuclear and non nuclear sides of the house.

As much as can be told concerning this buisness...when you have seen and experienced several generations of boats you become aware of certain changes providing of course that you can think past the LA Lakers games...or American Idol. You become particularly aware of noise quieting features. When you see enough of them you draw a mosaic in your mind of progress...it is substantial....and continuing. It never stopped continuing and it never will as long as we are building submarines.
You need to understand or comprehend that actual operations and methods of operation are also not what one is often lead to believe by only reading articles on the web...or in magazines...books. By my experiences I know that Tom Clancy has certain misinformations in his books. He is controlled and cannot tell much of what he knows. He is on a leash. I believe one or more of the posters on this thread correctly alluded to this understanding.

There are substantial changes coming in our nuclear submarines which will only be hinted at in whatever your read. Not everything you need to know is on the web...or for public consumption. It is necessary to be this way. It is simply the nature of the buisness. No insult intended here.
This is why I say you need to teach yourself to think outside the box of what passes for public consumption/knowlege and informations. It is difficult with that for which we have been spoonfed and conditioned or programed but it can be done. Once again ..no insult intended here.

There are several good posts along this line of breaknig out of the box in the rooms.."Disinfo/Disinformation" and also " Education and Media."

Iblis...you have been ,as observed by me, pretty much neutral in this conversation. By the way ..some good articles referenced in your posts. My thanks for this.


Thanks to all for thier posts,
Orangetom

You still haven't refuted, in detail, my assertion that modern SSKs are quieter than their nuclear counterparts.

Being vague and/or waxing lyrical about how you happen to know more, than the rest of us, about sub technology because you used to work on them (of course, there's no way to confirm that claim) does not constitute a substantial refutation of that claim.

Have another go.

[edit on 21-4-2007 by Egotosum]

[edit on 21-4-2007 by Egotosum]

Originally posted by Egotosum
You still haven't refuted, in detail, my assertion that modern SSKs are quieter than their nuclear counterparts.

Being vague and/or waxing lyrical about how you happen to know more, than the rest of us, about sub technology because you used to work on them (of course, there's no way to confirm that claim) does not constitute a substantial refutation of that claim.

Have another go.

[edit on 21-4-2007 by Egotosum]

[edit on 21-4-2007 by Egotosum]

Correct...again..no I havent. I am also not about to go into certain details about construction or operations.

What I am telling you from experience is that not all is in the articles nor assertions. That you choose not to believe what is posted or not posted is your buisness. No problem.

I have given you certain details on how to think and what to look for with no comments on your part..only assertions from articles on the web or other sources. No problem here too.
Suggest again that you re read that post and think through what concept is described here as to how it pertains to noise.

There is another thread here in the Weapons forum titled "Russia to launch new submarine Sunday." Somewhere in there is a posting by someone named ChinaWhite. You might want to check this out. Very intresting and telling photos posted by ChinaWhite if you know at what you are looking.

This is not one upmanship or such. I am not intrested in this. If you feel you have prevailed in this thread..no problem again. I merely point out some defects in your assertion of the state of the art.

Thanks for your post,
Orangetom

You claim to know a thing or two about sub engineering - yet you would argue that modern SSKs are not quieter than their nuclear counterparts?

Do you know why nuclear subs make more than their fair share of noise? What are those sources of noise?

[edit on 21-4-2007 by Egotosum]

Yes..I do know what they say about noise on SSNs and SSBNs...verses SSKs.

I also know that you are being misled by these articles. Deliberately.

As I said ...think this through carefully..about equipment and operational techniques.

Thanks,
Orangetom

So, what your saying is that no matter that these subs are louder, they have ways of canceling out any noise they make so that absolutely no noise is heard anyways.

Making them...100% noiseless in the long run of things? Making them quieter then...everything?

Or am I totally off base here?

Originally posted by PlausibleDeniability
So, what your saying is that no matter that these subs are louder, they have ways of canceling out any noise they make so that absolutely no noise is heard anyways.

Making them...100% noiseless in the long run of things? Making them quieter then...everything?

Or am I totally off base here?

Wow!!! Someone here can think outside the box...not bad olde man..not bad at all....is this beyond flash gordon or what???

Not quite...but.....remember what digital electronics can do..

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Yes..I do know what they say about noise on SSNs and SSBNs...verses SSKs.

I also know that you are being misled by these articles. Deliberately.

As I said ...think this through carefully..about equipment and operational techniques.

Thanks,
Orangetom

What "articles"? I didn't mention any "articles" specifically apart from that report on noise level differences between nuclear and conventional subs - you don't know where i've sourced my info from (you're guessing where I get my info from).

[edit on 21-4-2007 by Egotosum]

Ahem.......

Back to the topic at hand eh? If you want to have a thread discussign the pors and cons of SSK's versus SSN's, SSBN's, or even the new SSGN's start a new one.
Thanks

Back on topic:

Proof is in the pudding. The Russians are long on ideas and short on implimentation. If they want to field a new fleet of ultra quiet SSBN's good for them. But again, announcements and actual deployment of a weapons system are few and far between even here in the US.

I wonder how many of thier existing boats can even make it out of port at this tiome? its not a cut down or anything like that but it reflects oepration realities in the Russian navy right now.

Why also build a whole new class of SSBN's when thier doctrine since the 80's has been to keep them in bastions or launch from the pole anyway? based on the reading I have done (albiet this is open source literature) the USN had a hard time tracking the boomers under the ide anyway. Upgrade the Typhoon and Delta IV's and you still posses a decent force.

A bigger deal IMHO would be the development of SLBM's that had a counterforce capacity. Im not sure the russians have that yet.

[edit on 4/22/07 by FredT]

For the quietest sub, I'm going to go for the Class 212A and the 214 German U-boat.



And

Class 214

As far as the new Russian boomer goes, if it is used as a first strike weapon, how loud it is may be mute, if they could unload there missles fast enough. I doubt that it would be able to make it back to reload, so I think that all SSBM's are a one shot deal, unless you are very lucky. And even if you are lucky, where do you go from there?



[edit on 4/22/2007 by Invader]

Originally posted by Invader
For the quietest sub, I'm going to go for the Class 212A and the 214 German U-boat

Yes I have see this video before. Very intrresting and telling. I have also seen a site where photos where taken around the torpedo tubes. It was automatic for me to follow the piping systems servicing the torpedo tubes. Very telling to me.

Notice what the crew member said on the pier. "This is the quietest
submarne of which he knows."

Understand yet??

By the way..isnt that host of the video a former SEAL?? Seems to me I have seen him before somewhere. It escapes me at the moment. If so what kinds of boats do you think he has been on for comparison to this one??

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by orangetom1999

Originally posted by Invader
For the quietest sub, I'm going to go for the Class 212A and the 214 German U-boat

Snip...

Notice what the crew member said on the pier. "This is the quietest
submarne of which he knows."

Understand yet??

By the way..isnt that host of the video a former SEAL?? Seems to me I have seen him before somewhere. It escapes me at the moment. If so what kinds of boats do you think he has been on for comparison to this one??

Thanks,
Orangetom

Understand yet?? Well, there is always something cooking on the back burner, but who knows. The Sweedish have a quite sub that runs a sterling instead of a fuel cell, which is trick.

The guy you think is a former SEAL is a former SEAL. He has a show on the Discovery Channel called Future Weapons, and he did a show where he checked out the Virginia Class sub. He has been stationed on other subs, but he did not say what class, but I would think it would be a Los Angeles Class considering when he was active.


[edit on 4/22/2007 by Invader]

Thanks for verifying the identity of that individual in the video. It has been some time since I have even watched as episode of "Future Weapons" not having that much surplus time for the tube. Most of my info/news lately has been from this computer or on the radio going to and fro.

There is and has been another type of boat out for some time now specially configured for the teams. It is an olde boomer of the trident type The last of the 16 tube boomers. The name USS Kamehameha comes to mind. You can tell this class of boomer because unlike the earlier class this one has the fairwater planes mounted lower on the sail structure verses the older of these boomer ...very high up on the sail. I am not even sure if this boat is still in service it was at one time fitted with two dry deck shelters.

I watched these drydeck shelters being built here at this yard without any mention of them in the news outlets. It stuck out because when I walked up to the platten on which the were being assembled it was obvious by the bumper guard rails inside that it was a type of garage. THe heavy duty chambered construction told me it had some kind of decompression section or chamber in it. A necessity for this type of work.
Some of the olde Sturgeon class boats were used by the teams in this role but they were not ideally suited for equipment loadouts. Hence the switch to the older boomers as they were being phased out by the Ohio class. THe USS Kamehameha was more suited to carry equipment. The LA class suited under certain conditions but I dont think they were configured for the dry deck shelters. The DSRVs yes but not the shelters.

I believe there is talk of configuring a couple of tubes on the four Ohio class boomers to accomodate the teams. They are certainly large enough for substantial equipment loadouts which is not the case with the LA class boats. By this I mean the four Ohio class modified to carry Tomahawks instead of the traditional ICBMs.

Thanks again for the identity of that former SEAL.
Orangetom