Indian Akula II attack submarine

Originally posted by Schaden


It's not presumptuous, Global security made that estimate based on open sources from ONI and others. Their last SSN, the Han class, was a POS. You think the Chinese Navy could make a leap from building 1950s/1960s technology subs to something as advanced as an Akula II with nothing in between ? I doubt it. Nuclear subs are some of the most complex pieces of machinery on the planet. Going from the Han to Victor III level of capability is a major step for them.

Major steps are irrelevant unless they bear true operational fruit. If not, they can be glorified as technology demonstrators and discarded without any operational relevance.

I think many things, but one thing I've figured is when it comes to sensitive military equipment, they amount of farce on the net is quite large. Reasons range from armchair enthusiasts/patriots to intentional layered deception.
And I honestly believe that this phenomenon takes the cake when it comes to submarines, especially nuclear vessels.

Also, just because the previous operational version of a class exudes 50s-60s vintage does not automatically mean that the successor will not be better than.. say an 80s version. That is the essence of bridging the technology gap, which China has become quite adept at.
Also, I'm sure that the global security experts use more than mere chronological extrapolation to determine capabilities of future classes of military vessels; however what they publish and what they withhold is altogether a different matter.

Just to point out examples of perceivable technological leaps in the Chinese scheme of things:

1) J-10 and associated technologies (weapons suites, avionics, radar, flight envelope) and the last indigenous version can be tagged as the J-8(or JF-17). Note this was developed under severe technological sanctions.

2) Something more closer to home : Yuan class SSKs (hull design, noise reduction/cancellation techniques, AIP possibly). This the next step after teh Ming and Song class vessels, which are truely of 1970s vintage, and again under sanctions post 1989.

Now I'm not saying that the Shang class is superior to the Akula II or anything else. All I'm saying is that they operationalized it in an environment in which it needs to hold its own, ans so I'm sure they've done their homework. And far as how much of this homework has been done to bridge the tech gap; only few bodies can answer that question besides the Chinese themselves: The JMSDF and USN PACCOM ASW depts to name a few..

Originally posted by chinawhite
That Submarine is defintely located in Russia not India

you mean that picture was taken in Russia and not India.

Originally posted by oxillini
The improvements to Akula II are allegedly based largely upon information the Soviets and Russians obtained from Robert Hanssen.

Note that India is actually leasing, not purchasing 2 of these from Russia.

Again, for all practical purposes, this lease, is a purchase.
Currently the lease duration stands for 7 years, with options to extend or buy.

India's indigenous nuclear submarine program currently (even though reactor miniturazation progress has jumped leaps and bound in the last 5 years) will not be produce vessels in quantity and quality to fulfill the strategic needs of the IN in next decade (5 SSNs is the apparent requirement).
Thus IMHO these akula(s?) will be eventually absorbed into the IN(serve in the IN for 10-20 years).

Also it is interesting to note that the first nuclear leased sub that the IN operated (INS Chakra again) between 1988-91 was only returned to the then newly formed Russian federation due to immense American pressure on the l Gorbachev govt. The situation is considerably different now.

Finally due to MCTR restrictions, the Indian leased version will not operate missiles with ranges greater than 300km.

Though a tad outdated; this give a good summary of events:
www.wmdinsights.com...

[edit on 2-8-2008 by Daedalus3]

reply to post by Daedalus3



I see your point about uncertainty, but there is nothing we have to conclude Global Security's estimate was presumptuous. I believe their equation to a Victor III is a sound estimate based off information available in the public domain to expert military analysts. We don't need classified tonal information or under hull shots to make an informed guess about its capabilities.

The J-10 is an impressive piece of homegrown Chinese aerospace technology. But the unique industrial/engineering requirements are not comparable IMO. Simply put, it's a lot harder to design and build a nuclear submarine than a jet fighter.

Your comment about "operationalized it in an environment in which it needs to hold its own" doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying they wouldn't have built it if it was that far behind state of the art SSN tech? Why did they bother with the Han or Xia ? The USS Nautilus could sink those junkers.

I find it highly dubious the Chinese went from a Han to anything in the realm of an Akula II or even Los Angeles class boat. The engineering behind US submarine propulsion plant, noise quieting, sonar and combat system technology took decades and tens of billions of dollars to evolve.

Even with an unlimited budget, I don't think it's possible they could make such a huge leap from one generation of submarine to the next. If employed properly, a submarine with the noise signature and capabilities of a Victor III can still be deadly against a surface Navy. I don't believe Global Security, nor I, have downplayed the Shang's ability.

[edit on 2-8-2008 by Schaden]

Originally posted by Schaden

Are you saying they wouldn't have built it if it was that far behind state of the art SSN tech? Why did they bother with the Han or Xia ? The USS Nautilus could sink those junkers.

Quite.. there's no point building a vessel that cannot compare to its competitors. It does not have to be an exact match nor does it have to be overwhelmingly superior (everyone doesn't have the luxury employed by the American military design board).
The Han and Xia were technological stepping stones, the first of the nuclear kind for the Chinese.
You comment about the Nautilus just proves what you're trying to downplay and not.
The Chinese do not have nuclear submarine experience that began yesterday.

Let me turn this around a bit and ask you another question:
How would you rate the Seawolf/Virginia/LA class boats against the Barracuda and Astute class vessels?

heres one for everyone:

what will happen to the unfinished K-329 Belgorod? as she stands - russia don`t want her - so india could be in a ripe position to get themselves an SSGN for bargain price.

oranage - i have seen that the akula`s have 2 retractable `crawl speed` fullly electric propulsors - now these can be used for ultra silent running - or could possibly be maneuvering

but why fit them for anything other that silent running at crawl rate?

Originally posted by Daedalus3
there's no point building a vessel that cannot compare to its competitors.

With regards to China, I don't follow that reasoning. Mao asked Russia for help building nuclear subs and was denied. He vowed they'd get them even if it took 10,000 years. We're talking about a communist totalitarian state. They wanted a nuclear submarine for "bragging rights" no matter how crappy they were. Look at us, we can make them too, we have "arrived".

The fact they'd get creamed in a sub on sub encounter vs a foreign Navy doesn't mean they're useless. No matter how bad, they'd have some military value.
Say a war broke out with Japan, they'd be useful against merchant shipping.

Same goes for the Shang. Just because it's outclassed against the US/UK sub fleet, or even an Indian operated Akula II, doesn't mean it's not worth building.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
The Han and Xia were technological stepping stones, the first of the nuclear kind for the Chinese.
You comment about the Nautilus just proves what you're trying to downplay and not.
The Chinese do not have nuclear submarine experience that began yesterday.

The Han and Xia class subs were utter failures. High radiation, barely seaworthy, noisey as hell. I doubt they ever stayed at sea longer than a month at a time. Being so unreliable negates one of the major advantages to nuclear propulsion: endurance.

Seriously, the Nautilus's 1950s era sonar and weapons systems are most likely outclassed. But I would not be surprised if it was quieter and harder to track than the first Chinese subs. The Han might sink itself, or break down and need to surface and return to port, at which point it's a sitting duck.

I know the Nautilus was capable of reaching the East China Sea, after all it went to the North Pole, and other American nuke subs of the era like USS Triton circumnavigated the globe submerged. But I'm not sure a Han SSN would make it across the Pacific to California and back.

Originally posted by Daedalus3Let me turn this around a bit and ask you another question:
How would you rate the Seawolf/Virginia/LA class boats against the Barracuda and Astute class vessels?

In terms of what ? I think the Astute class will be a great asset. Overall I'd say it will definitely exceed all the LA boats' capabilities. Its sonar and weapons systems are probably just as good as Seawolf or Virginia class. A lot of the same contractors supply both Navies.

Barracuda I don't know much about other than it is smaller and probably not designed with the same mission flexibility as an American/British SSN. In terms of silence and combat sensors, it's got to be at least as good as the last of the 688s, probably better. How close it comes to Seawolf or Virginia I don't know.

Originally posted by Harlequin
i have seen that the akula`s have 2 retractable `crawl speed` fullly electric propulsors - now these can be used for ultra silent running - or could possibly be maneuvering

but why fit them for anything other that silent running at crawl rate?

I'd guess they're for maneuvering. Not submerged operations, but for moving to and away from a pier.



[edit on 2-8-2008 by Schaden]

Originally posted by orangetom1999
The US State Department did the same kind of stupidity in the late 1960s with a specialized ball bearing grinding machine to cut precision miinature ball bearings for inertial navigation gyros.systems...made by Bryant Chuck and Grinder company in Springfield, New Hampshire. They declared them "Non Strategic Equipment" and authorized the sale of 125 of these machines to the Soviets. This allowed the Soviets to miniaturize thier inetrial navigation gyroscopes in their missle warheads and procuce miniature individual sets for Multiple Independent Re Entry Vehicles. MIRVs in their ICBM missles.
Very smart move on the part of the US State Department. Makes one wonder for whom the State department actually works ...same with Toshiba.

You can find this type of information in

National Suicide...Millitary Aid to the Soviet Union By Anthony Sutton.

Seems like we are still in the buisness of arming and building our enemys...only later to be fighting them with arms invented and developed by ourselves.

Orangetom

Amazing story. I hadn't heard that one. I don't think we've learned our lesson. Remember Clinton authorizing the sale of secret satellite technology?
Anything to make a buck right ?