Again please stop with the bull, you keep bring up the quote "Laws of physics" yet you have never post and formula or calculation beyond what is merely an extremely generalized assumption that "bigger is better" which almost childish it is claim. To put that into prespective the Tango-class submarine is every bit larger and heavier than a U 212, but the U 212 is vastly more silent than the Tango, reason ? Design.
The fact that you think that modern torpedo needs oxygen for propulsion highlights the extreme lack of knowledge, modern torpedos runs on Otto 2 or electric batteries. So they can both be fast and long range.
For one where is the source that says that Alfa submarines can be detected from thousands of KM aways or that towed sonars have the effective range of 300km ? You claim that I am referring to propaganda when you are doing even worst at pulling nothing but pure whimsical claims out of thin air, in short you are lying. You lied when you claim that the Virginia cost 2 billion when it is actually close to 3 (which shows you did literally 0 research on the subject and that you don't care so long if you put more of your bull s$$$ out), just like how you make the dubious claim that the Yasen cost 5 billion USD when all sources puts it closer to 3 or 2.
For the matter regarding the efficency of pump jets at high speeds I will post the link here:
Again please stop lying, more than 1 sub per year? Even if we take into account all the Borei class and Yasen that are laid down after the end of the Cold war. The numbers still don't add up. If we calculate, the rate of construction is even less then 1 hull per year. Launch is very different from being "commissioned" let's get that clear. Kazan was laid down in 2009 and it took Russia 8 years to get it floating, yeah colour me impressed. During that period the average rate for the Virginia was one every 2 years.
The rules of economy does not work in a vacuum despite how much you want that to be. Like or not Russia cannot just wave a magic wand and print endless roubles for its defense budget.
In fact this line of incredulous insistence is similar to how you bayed that the Su-57 will be cheaper than Su-35 when there is very evidence to point to the contrary. The amount of lying was incredible.
So ,let start with the basic vibration theory.
Quite simple, to effectively dam the sound with restricted mass and space is to have multiple layers, with different thickness material.
Double hull submarine design?
Torpedo :
Maybe it is hard to recognise, but the Otto II fuel has a pathetic 2.5 MJ/kg energy density.
The kerosene in the P-800 has 43 MJ/kg energy density.
Means the torpedo has to be launched in 10-20 km to have enough energy for a dash , otherwise the target can simply outrun it.
Sounds like quite slim chance for the Virginia to survive the torpedo launch.
H2O2 + petrol has better energy density, but the H2O2 is not the safest material, and the USA doesn't use it. (it is easy to calculate the density, I'm curious to see if you can calculate it : ) )
I have to confess, 300km is quite conservative estimate to detect an aircraft carrier.
1000 km is more realistic.
In this paper :
A few chap using commercial grade 160 element hydrophone array followed commercials ships .
The longest detection range was 200 km, and all of those was slow (maximum 8 knots ) commercial ship, not a 30+ knots monster aircraft carrier.
And the detector was a simple 160 elements one, not 3000+ element military grade.
And with passive sonar the detection range increase with the root of the elements, means 25 times more elements(and bigger aperture ) increase the detection range five-fold.
Size-detection range -range of weapons - speed of weapons.
Can you see the design pattern of the Russian submarines ?
Launches :
2017 - Borei and Yasen
2018 - 0
2019 - Yasen and Belgorod (later heavily modified Oscar)
There is nine more submarine in production, they was laid down year apart ,so they should be close to ready for launch.
Any question - comment (beyond emotional outburst ) ?
