Maritime ‘black hole’: Russia launches new ‘stealth’ submarine!

orangetom1999
The Soviets built a space shuttle ..it looks very much like the one we built here. How many Flights did it make?? They have a TU 144 bomber which looks very much like the B1 lancer bomber. Why is that?? Because they know it works??

Yes. Solving similar physical problems and missions lead to similar solutions. SU-27 looks like a F-15. SLBM's look identical.

And because the Communist party bureaucrats didn't trust the Soviet scientists very much when they came up with an original idea, even when it was superior. (Remember, Soviet scientists were "liberals" and many of them Jews). I've heard it nearly first hand (Sagdeev) that the Soviet Academy of Sciences did a serious study of Reagan's "Star Wars" and concluded that it wasn't ever going to work as advertised and presented no significant strategic threat, and was fairly easy to overcome. They were correct, but the Communists didn't believe them and that fear contributed to changing history. They had a long-standing inferiority complex.

A Russian mathemetician apparently wrote a key paper on radar stealth in the early 70's but they never knew how to apply it, and somebody in Lockheed recognized the brilliance and application. Also stealth depends highly on manufacturing quality, which Russians are terrible at.

But they never could get their Space Shuttle to work. Think it through...carefully.

Launch a missile into orbit where all the stages get used up is very different from a Space Shuttle.

Actually this is probably a good design change. They didn't put expensive main engines on the orbiter itself which reduces all sorts of failure modes and complex fuel transfer stuff. It's better for safety.

BTW, the US Space Shuttle program was generally an expensive failure. The US couldn't get its own Space Shuttle to work either. The US just had the money to continue but the design and economics of the system wasn't good. It became a major jobs project for Congressional districts. Notice, nobody is considering following this model again.

Space X's rockets are a natural evolution of the German & Soviet concepts (kerosene, not hydrogen, simplicity & redundancy), done with silicon-valley capitalist attention to excellence. They're going to win.

Hello Bassplyr,

Long time no see olde man. Good to see your post again.

I will tell you that I went through the sheds the other day and saw some of the
Sections for new boats under construction.

Spot on about how quiet the new boats are ..even under nuclear power. Many are reading last years publications on this and thinking of the olde class of boats.

Many do not realize that even on the olde classes of nuclear boats they could shut down much of their gear and make like a dead hole in the water...a dark silent hole. ..if need be.

What is of interest to me is the new classes of sonar technology ..or to put it a different way..."You've come a long way...baby."

Digital signal processing has changed this business radically. There are stories out in the newspapers of boats tied up to the piers here at Norfolk identifying contacts out in the Atlantic.

The question to ask yourself of which no one wants to answer...is with the new technology ..is it possible to find a dark black hole moving across the background of natural undersea noise level?? What do you think??
Dont answer that??!!

Why do you think the US Navy spent millions at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute on sonar research??
They were not particularly interested it the migrations of these underseas species as much as the patterns and the sounds they make in migrations, feeding, and mating. How this changes the background noise levels.

Does not this fellow Robert Ballard..often work out of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute?? The fellow who found the Titanic, Bismark, and I think the Uss Yorktown. Former Naval Officer...et al..etc etc. Getting the picture yet??

Yes..Woods Hole does some important natural oceanographic research of it's own..no doubt...But the government and particularly the US Navy has its hand deep up the sock puppet of this Oceanographic Institute. This should be obvious. It was to me when watching the news one evening and they were pumping up Woods Hole for their research. But I saw something very different in the news article. Something not made public unless you knew how to think outside the box and some other small details.



Great that You got to go aboard the USS Iowa. Yes they are a one of a kind ship.

Here across the river in Norfolk, Virginia we have the sister ship the USS Wisconsin

Yes indeed..a very interesting tour.

I've also been privileged to so aboard the USS North Carolina down in Wilmington, North Carolina. A battleship of the class just before the Iowa class. She too is an impressive tour.

Just one observation on my part about the tour. On the USS North Carolina, I went into one of the smaller two gun turrents on the side of the ship. I think they are like some five inch guns or such. But in the turrent...when stepping through the side door..on the bulkhead was bolted an olde heavy black metal fan. This was high tech ventillation in those days. It became immediately obvious that when standing general quarters out in the hot Pacific ...that those guys really really suffered in those turrents. Can't go unless relieved and then back quickly to stand station again. Those guys really suffered in those turrents...not just under combat but just standing there watches. No airconditioning for which we so take for granted today..just an olde metal fan bolted to the bulkhead.

I dont know if also I told you Bassplyr...but I also had the privilege to go to Charleston, South Carolina and saw the CSS Hunley in the tank being prepared for display ..sort of like the USS Monitor is being done here at the Mariners Museum.

Nonetheless...knowing what is the state of the art..When I saw her in the tank..I was dumb struck!!

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Those guys went out in THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was aghast...stunned at what I saw.

Bassplyr..you had to have a set of big ones hanging to go out in that boat.
Man oh Man...talk about primitive. Can you go beyond primitive??

But a the same time you realize you are looking closely at a piece of history ..unfiltered..raw.

It was the same thing when first I saw the engine of the USS Monitor when it was brought here and put in a drydock..with salt water hoses spraying water on it while the holding tank was being finished up the river at the Mariners Museum.
I couldnt wait to walk down into the drydock and stand in front of this engine.
It was hanging upside down while water was sprayed on it.
There were only a handful of us down there that night and I was awed by the fact that I was seeing history close up..personally ..before most of America got to see it...and humbled by it.

It appeared to be some kind of one cylinder crude steam engine which ported steam from one side of the piston to the other. as it traveled to the other side the rod hit a lever which ported steam back to the other side and continued the cycle. At least that is the impression I got through all the sea growth on it.

At that time in that same drydock 10 with the USS Monitors engine was also the four propellors of the USS Eisenhower...and the USS Eisenhower herself was in the next drydock over...Drydock 11. What an anachronism..to be able to see the new and the olde right next to each other. Two very different times and eras at the same location.

I will remember that the rest of my days..along with the tour of the CSS Hunley and the USS Wisconsin and USS North Carolina.



It was a rare privilege to be able to see these two pieces of history close up. Same thing with these battleships.

Good to see your post again..olde man!!
Smooth Sailing
May the wind be at your back,

Thanks,
Orangetom

mbkennel

Yes. Solving similar physical problems and missions lead to similar solutions. SU-27 looks like a F-15. SLBM's look identical.

And because the Communist party bureaucrats didn't trust the Soviet scientists very much when they came up with an original idea, even when it was superior. (Remember, Soviet scientists were "liberals" and many of them Jews). I've heard it nearly first hand (Sagdeev) that the Soviet Academy of Sciences did a serious study of Reagan's "Star Wars" and concluded that it wasn't ever going to work as advertised and presented no significant strategic threat, and was fairly easy to overcome. They were correct, but the Communists didn't believe them and that fear contributed to changing history. They had a long-standing inferiority complex.

Wall Street and the Bolshivek Revolution

By Anthony Sutton.

also

National Suicide or Military Aid to the Soviet Union
by Anthony Sutton.

Also

From Major Jordan's Diary

By Major George Racey Jordan..

Aid sent to the Soviet Union during WW2 including nuclear technology and parts at a time when we ourselves did not have much of this material..it was being sent to the Soviets and still they could not produce a bomb before 1949.

What you say about their inferiority complex is true..but we are not to account for that..nor from anyone else...any other peoples or country.

A Russian mathemetician apparently wrote a key paper on radar stealth in the early 70's but they never knew how to apply it, and somebody in Lockheed recognized the brilliance and application. Also stealth depends highly on manufacturing quality, which Russians are terrible at.

What you state here is also true. However stealth was known to a degree prior to this paper by this Russian Mathemetician. The olde Dehavilland Mosquito has a relatively low radar cross section being made from wood..particulary at certain angles of attack.

So too with the olde large Avero Vulcan Bomber at a certain angle it's c ross section was noticeably small..however when it turned it had a huge radar signature.

What this mathemetician did was translate the principles into a universal language of numbers which could be followed and reproduced to create the desired effects. Now there was something which could be followed and predicted.

John Boyd did similar when he broke down the flight and combat characteristics of Ameican fighter aircraft verses Soviet fighter aircraft into computer parameters and discovered we were building and buying the wrong aircraft which could not survive air combat maneuvering. The Soviets had more maneuverable and combat worthy aircraft. The only thing helping us was better crew training. We were also to reliant on missles..not combat tactics...maneuvering. Bleeding and regaining energy in combat while maneuvering to gain advantage or get the enemy to commit to a mistake.
However ..like the Soviets...John Boyds discoverys did not endear him to the top brass or politicians making a killing off fancy over priced but useless aircraft.

Out of what John Boyd worked out with his "Fighter Mafia" was the design for the F 15 Eagle, the F 16 fighter and the A 10 Warthog.
All of them to go on to work out to great effect in their service lives.
The basic principles of the F 15 is the aircraft so many nations are copying for themselves.



I agree ...the space shuttle program was an very expensive failure. While it had alot of successes...I believe it was to complex and by this expensive. The aircraft were becoming to maintenance intensive and by this expensive as they aged.
I think this became painfully apparent with the loss of the second shuttle.


It was the same with the SR 71 program...verses the usefulness gained out of it. It just got to expensive for the product delivered.

Our rocket technology is indeed an extension of what was learned from German/Nazi
scientists and engineers after WW2. However ..America was to take this to new heights in heavy payload know how for which the Soviets could not match in engine design. This is why they stuck with the multi clustered engine booster type packs verses a large engine. This is what got the Apollo project going. The leap in engine design

There were other things which contributed to soft landings on the moon but that is another story.

I'm going to tell you this story because one of my friends ..his father worked for NASA..and the space program and designed certain equipments which went on the space shuttle and other NASA projects.

My Friend Roger...his dad told him one day in off the record conversation...that the Russians go up when we tell them it's ok to go up. In otherwords..it has to look like a real space race...because the real people being controlled and conned here are the American Public. This way the American public do not really know the lay of the land and are cosnstantly mislead to cheer for good guys verses bad guys..and lead around by the nose. Very few stop to think they are all bad guys. There are no good guys out here.

This is becoming clear with the NSA spy scandles going on and for which the much of the media is glossing over or ignoring.

Working on submarines for so long and many years ago..taught me that we...America..spy on our friends as well as our enemies. And that their is no difference. I knew this over twenty years ago. Hence I was at first a bit surprised at the ignorance of the average American on this...to think or wake up to the concept that our own government is spying on us. The technology has only made this more possible and more convenient for certain agencies.

And this can only happen if somewhere along the line your own government now looks upon you as a "Competitor" ..not as an asset or a citizen..but someone to be monitored and controlled.

This is what happens when you learn to think outside the box..not just think about the Redskins, or NASCAR or the Kardashians or orange housewives..and other drivel.

Thanks for your posts,
Orangetom

orangetom1999
The question to ask yourself of which no one wants to answer...is with the new technology ..is it possible to find a dark black hole moving across the background of natural undersea noise level?? What do you think??
Dont answer that??!!

Sorry, I can't help it.

You probably could get some correlation and 'indicators', in the same way that long-wavelength radar can detect the presence of even maybe a B-2, but not well enough to shoot a missile.

But it won't have excellent range, target identifiability (is it ours or theirs or a whale) and angular resolution enough to make a torpedo attack on its own.

As you say knowing the expected background and fluctuations isn't so easy either, you have to make many assumptions and model them well. I assume noise generated by sea state is a big input into this.

And besides, the sub could do active 'noise propagation' from one side to the other expected side of the enemy in the same manner as optical stealth.

Why do you think the US Navy spent millions at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute on sonar research??
They were not particularly interested it the migrations of these underseas species as much as the patterns and the sounds they make in migrations, feeding, and mating. How this changes the background noise levels.

Of course. And on my coast, the ONR has been funding Scripps Institution of Oceanography since the end of WW2. Navy & Air Force also funded many of the studies on atmospheric radiative transfer and infrared, and that's how we know the greenhouse effect & global warming with quantitative accuracy.

Does not this fellow Robert Ballard..often work out of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute?? The fellow who found the Titanic, Bismark, and I think the Uss Yorktown. Former Naval Officer...et al..etc etc. Getting the picture yet??

Yes..Woods Hole does some important natural oceanographic research of it's own..no doubt...But the government and particularly the US Navy has its hand deep up the sock puppet of this Oceanographic Institute. This should be obvious. It was to me when watching the news one evening and they were pumping up Woods Hole for their research. But I saw something very different in the news article. Something not made public unless you knew how to think outside the box and some other small details.

I don't mind the Naval reserach, but it's unfortunate to me that basic science can't get equally large and serious long-term funding.
s

orangetom1999
Our rocket technology is indeed an extension of what was learned from German/Nazi
scientists and engineers after WW2. However ..America was to take this to new heights in heavy payload know how for which the Soviets could not match in engine design. This is why they stuck with the multi clustered engine booster type packs verses a large engine. This is what got the Apollo project going. The leap in engine design

I don't see how single larger engines are a leap in engine design that propelled the space program. Note that many of the Soviet/Russian engines were bigger than they looked---they have more than one nozzle per engine. This is to reduce the effect of significant combustion instabilities which come up on large surfaces.

en.wikipedia.org...(rocket_engine)

Space-X is also going for large collections of smaller engines--and use the pintle injector invented for the lunar lander. (the lunar lander system was another awesome achievement).

It was Korolev's death which probably really hurt things in the USSR and stupid political interference. And the fact that 1960's US high-tech capitalist industry was really awesome. Corporations now are not like that at all, we don't have that level of intense capability. Back then, there were hundreds of Elon Musks. That was normal. The money first attitude then took over, and anti-nationalism.

Now silicon valley is about making video games for phones and advertisements, and China knows how to make stuff.

And besides, the sub could do active 'noise propagation' from one side to the other expected side of the enemy ...
s

Yes a submarine could do that. That's possible. But say you are acoustically "cloaked" as a enemy submarine. You sound exactly like the ocean around you. You're camouflaging perfectly. Then the USS Abouttokickyourass decides that they may have an enemy contact (or just because ) blast the water suddenly and force the ocean to now sound differently than what the SS long dung is mimicking. Ill tell you what will happen since I won't go further into details but have you ever seen the movie return if the Jedi? Remember the scene in the beginning at jabbas palace where leia is dressed like a alien bounty hunter and thinks she's disguised enough to sneak around the palace and free Han. And then all tge lights cone on and jabbas got them surrounded with his palace denizens and they are all laughing at them. That's pretty much what can happen when you gamble with evading the us navy's detection systems.

Chance are the captain of the DRNK SS. Yu Stin Ki Pu isn't fooling anybody at the helm of a us navy vessel. But he may be getting under hulled the entire time

reply to post by orangetom1999


Orangetom good to see your posts. Ill respond with a larger post this weekend when I'm not bogged down with work.

However, in regards to dr Ballard. I'd say you are correct. Not many people know this but Ballard was doing something at the threshers wreck when after finishing the naval task early had enough time left over to find the titanic.

Many people also don't know that bob Ballard also served for a while on board the NR1. Doing "science" for woods hole. Must be pretty tight with the navy to be having the opportunity to take the nr1 out for a spin. Makes me wonder what's replaced her. I bet they are on the equivalent of the nr4 by now. Probably uncrewed.

reply to post by BASSPLYR


Also dont answer about the successor to the nr1 concept/ niche. As far as I'm concerned with tge navys submarine technology its nobody's damned business except their own. ( until it gets kicked down safely to the us population for new technology innovation via military cutout)

reply to post by dragonridr


Agreed.

Displacement, and density of the sub compared to the water surrounding it is a good start.

I thought the US Navy could track just about anything, since they have their own secretive methods of active detection in the waters around the coastlines?

I mean, does anyone seriously think hundreds of dolphins and entire pods of whales beach themselves regularly in calm weather because they want to sunbathe?

They often appear to have injuries consistent with sonic damage...suggesting the US is at the very least experimenting with active systems that are so powerful these sea creatures would rather beach than be exposed to it in the water.

Gentlemen,
Think ..Bose Noise Canceling headphones...then think digital signal processing.




NR 1 has been decomissioned. I know some fellows who worked on her when
she was up and about. Wheels on the bottom...that told you alot abouat her.

It became clear to me by some of the stories they tell and attachments for it...that it was about research alright.


I think too that by time and hours on the NR 1 over so many years that she slowly became obsolete..and maintenance intensive. Just like many ships, planes, and other equipments. Costs once again verses maintenance and down time.
Also ...as olde as she was ..are many of the manufacturers even in business today to make spare parts or special parts??
I dont believe there are many boneyards where parts can be obtained for a boat like NR 1.
It is not like getting parts for an F 4 Phantom or A 4 Skyhawk from the boneyard.
Lots of spares still about for these olde birds. Not so with the NR 1.

Also , like many, boats, as they age they become more Hot..or radioactive.
Though the reactor was small..so too was the boat herself. And of early design...I too was alarmed about certain aspects of the reactor design. But then again it was a much older design than would be built today. Alot has been learned about reactor designs since building NR 1.

Thanks,
Orangetom

nighthawk1954
The U.S. Navy openly acknowledges that they cannot track these subs when they are submerged.

The US doesnt admit to weakness very often, so im highly suspicious of their actually being true.

Its a bit like WWII code breakers having cracked the codes for years but never moved on the info "too much" so the nazis wouldnt realize.

Im betting the US can in fact detect the subs but would rather let the Russian's "know" they cant instead.

reply to post by Biigs


That would make sense.

If someone thinks they are invulnerable or invisible, they're liable to take less care.

reply to post by Biigs


I tend to agree Biigs.

If you notice...the news papers and TV crews are often in force down at the
Carrier and destroyer piers when the fleet returns home. Not so much down at the submarine piers. It isnt done for the most part.

In the olde days when you had open house on a submarine..you could go to the forward areas but not aft where the engines and reactors are located with public visitors. It simply was not done.

The point here is that you show your kings in the deck..but you do not show your aces. You hold those cards very very close to the vest.
For submarines can accomplish certain tasks which satellites cannot. Hence their importance in the pecking order of Navy ships and in spite of their huge costs. And today's technology is even expanding this tasking of submarines and by this their importance.



Many submaries have been damaged out under way and in operations. They are often brought into the Navy Yards for repair...immediately and directly and brought into drydocks for repair or disposal...and often without any public announcement in the press. I've known of this being done and only news released a couple of years after the incident is over and the boat returned to the fleet.
Such is the nature of these operations.

A sizeable surface ship it is much more difficult to hide such damage when it is in a dry dock...particularly from prying satellites.

If you look at certain shipyards capable of handling submarine traffic...there are drydocks with complete covers over them ..they can hide the extent of the damage and also the extent of the repairs and or modifications. They can also by this do repairs and modifications under climate controlled conditions. This is also important for critical fitting and welding operations.


This kind of thing or covers in the drydocks is more difficult with surface ships which have very tall masts and upper structures.

Thanks,
Orangetom

a reply to: nighthawk1954

Here's the latest:

www.defensereview.com...< br /> RUSSIA'S NEW SUB IS SO STEALTHY IT'S UNDETECTABLE

theweek.com...
RUSSIA'S NEW ASSASSIN SUB HAS A FATAL FLAW

Interesting article about the "Yasen" class of Russian subs, with each one costing $1-$3 BILLION. The thrust of the article is that these super-duper Russian subs are incredibly expensive, but still couldn't defeat the U.S. Navy, which has a larger and more modern submarine force.

originally posted by: dragonridr
reply to post by nighthawk1954

 

Trust me if a sub moves it can be detected. No matter how hard you try you cant move through water without creating cavitation. You can minimize it making you have to be closer to the source to detect it but you cant do away with it.

I might argue that...