09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread

[Deleted member 13312]

Compared to SSK, yes it is, endurance/range as well as divinng depth and speed. SSK max out at around 20 knots with limited range. Aircraft carriers can exceed 30 knots and SSN can exceed 35 knots. Seawolf top speed is actually classified. So being quiter at higher speeds is quite an advantage.

This is a issue that I have been meaning to set upon for sometime. The idea that a submarine must be always chasing a carrier battle group or an enemy submarine that is always on flank speed.
The truth in these situations are far more complex than that, yes a nuclear carrier or submarine can outrun a diesel sub. But that's not the main part of their job description. A carrier is there to provide air cover while a sub to provide undersea capabilities.
For the former it will mean deploying within reach of the target area, and for the latter it means operating undetected which almost always entitle operating at a lower speed limit.
Skillful deployment of a SSK, and taking advantage of their cheap costs and availability can effectively neutralize both, by deploying a permanent presence in the area the enemy assets are to operates. If they enter those areas, they will run the risk of SSKs lying in ambush in multiple areas. A torpedo with a top speed of 70 knots average is always going to out run a carrier or a submarine doing 30-35 knots, and SSKs can be made to be more quiet than a nuclear sub can hope to achieve.
And if they stay out of those areas, they will be of no use to the enemy. An asset that cannot be deployed is no better than a destroyed asset.
Going back to the matter at hand, high speed stealth for a nuclear submarine is a bit of a mixed bag. Yes you might be able to mask your approach a little when going at flank speed. But odds are you are very likely to give away your position much sooner then the enemy if both are employing ASW tech of comparable capabilities. In both ASW and submarine operations. Stealth and undetectability comes first and foremost.
It is always amusing to pick up a USN article nitpicking away at the differences of speed in submarines and not caring to highlight the various other caveats that comes with it...................... it is like they are hoping the enemy fights the way they want them to.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

I am pretty sure that they also make incremental improvement with the noise of the power plant
It can never be as quiet as diesel/electric motor drive. But with the advances of pumpless primary circuit loop reactor They will keep increasing the rate at which power plant can run full tilt without pump driver

As so happened today is the 64th birthday of Chinese submarine force. ON this occasion they release this video

 

[A.Man]

094

 

[A.Man]

094

Sorry, I just found that photos come from a tv Show:

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Thanks A Man great photos and video look modern hopefully close to real thing

 

[Deleted member 13312]

The last 3 pictures seems to have a lot of artistic creativity added into them, if they are true at all. Seriously, those colored buttons will not be out of place in a Star Trek clip.
And I seriously doubt a SSBN has that much space even in the command center for that much elbow room.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Now this is real

Training of Chinese submariners

 

[Tam]

2nd picture of the four. Is that a lady thee that is training to be a submariner?

 

[taxiya]

2nd picture of the four. Is that a lady thee that is training to be a submariner?

That is a HE. He is a trainer not trainee.

 

[Iron Man]

Western subs have their torpedo tubes on the bottom, with sonar up top, Chinese/Russian subs have their sonars up top and torpedo tubes on the bottom.

Since subs will normally be below their prey, having the sonar up top could potentially give better reception compared to being on the lower half of the nose.

OTOH, having tubes at the top allows reloading directly through the tubs at peer, as well as through the dedicated loading ramp (which could potentially be omitted in the sub design, saving space).

But with the way sound propagates in water, having direct line of sight to the source is not as big a deal as for optics or radar, so the difference in reception should be minimal at best.

Similarly, most (if not all) Chinese and Russian subs have the reloading ramp anyways.

So at this point, I think it’s more about preference and tradition rather than any special reason on the choise or where to mount the sonar dome.

It is more correct to say that specifically US subs have their torpedo tubes at the flanks canting outwards due to the presence of the spherical bow passive array, which I'm not sure either the British or French navies even have. All nuke subs do have a smaller cylindrical active/passive array, which allows the placement of the torpedo tubes either on top (Russian/Chinese), or on the bottom (British/French/US). Though in the case of the US its subs have both spherical arrays and cylindrical bow "chin" arrays on some subs and not on others. IIRC correctly LA and early block Virginias do not have chin arrays, while Seawolf and later block Virginias do have both spherical and chin arrays. As for the differences in placement, it really makes no difference since there is only a minimal vertical component to these arrays' detection envelopes as they are mostly cylindrical +/- some minimal spherical tendencies, meaning placing them above or below the torpedo tubes isn't going to make a difference in how well they detect either ships or subs.