Russian Nuclear Submarine Surfaces Off US East Coast

[ESay]

If we do, then that's a doctrine which has been adopted since I retired in 2001.

There's literally no reason, whatsoever, to surface a US ballistic missile submarine off the coast of Russia. Not a single one...

I know one. To show to the Russians that you're a badass and can easily wipe them out of the Earth. And promote among your population how cool their country has become.

 

[westwall]

And I am aware of this, but it also brings the other question.

Were you evading active SONAR? I agree very highly that if faced only with passive, a good boat and crew can evade such a search for a very long time. This is akin to my field, with stealth aircraft. But where instead of active SONAR on the searching ships, you put active RADAR on the aircraft being targeted. It may still be completely invisible to RADAR, but the moment it lights up, everybody knows where it is.

The US tries to never use active SONAR because of this, because it tells the enemy exactly where they are. It is best if the prey you are stalking does not even know where you are, and firing up one can instantly give the submarine a firing solution to then engage them.

And I doubt even the best of US subs can evade a serious search by active SONAR. No more than stealth aircraft can slip into an area heavily covered by RADAR. "Stealth" (in the air or underwater) does not mean "invisible".

If you are below the thermocline no active sonar can touch you. Movies aren't accurate.

Our subs are so quiet they are a hole in the water, there is nothing to find. The BQQ 5 on the LA class subs could track an Alfa class from over 100 miles away if the Alfa was moving fast, they are noisy boats, and that is accurate enough of a track to launch a SUBROC if it had had the range.

 

[westwall]

Am a diver, so am familiar with thermoclines. And yes I know of that capability, but I also know that most subs would stay well away from an active SONAR if they can, just on the chance they might be detected.

During WWII some ships doing convoys fastened what were essentially SONAR emitters but with nothing to pick up the returns. And there was a reduction of attacks, as the U-boats knew what that was and did not want to take a chance on being detected. And I know that we do have SONAR units that can dive, but the depth they reach is classified.

Wwii subs couldn't go deep enough. Modern subs spend their whole patrols underneath it. They are invisible.

If you are active pinging you are toast, a MK 48 will turn your vessel inside out.

 

[Canon Shooter]

If you are below the thermocline no active sonar can touch you.

That's not even remotely accurate...

 

[westwall]

That's not even remotely accurate...

From a surface ship it is. Not from a sub below the thermocline with you.

 

[Canon Shooter]

From a surface ship it is. Not from a sub below the thermocline with you.

The US Navy has two brands of Sonar Technician: subsurface and surface. I was of the surface variety.

You're out of your depth here...

 

[Godboy]

Can you name one US sub that "mysteriously vanished" back in the 1980s? Or even one US sub that sank in the 1980s?

I should have said "during the Cold War".

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.businessinsider.com/causes-of-mysterious-submarine-disappearances-unclear-50-years-later-2021-5%3Famp&ved=2ahUKEwjm_dalvfL1AhXvJEQIHV_5CjsQtwJ6BAgnEAE&usg=AOvVaw1Mr27J97KKHnek2VOHKRvq

 

[Silver Cat]

If we do, then that's a doctrine which has been adopted since I retired in 2001.

There's literally no reason, whatsoever, to surface a US ballistic missile submarine off the coast of Russia. Not a single one...

If we are talking about US ballistic missile submarines - yes. But if we are talking about the Russian ballistic missiles submarines with their new SBT-missiles there could be a reason: significant decrease of the flight time.

 

[Canon Shooter]

If we are talking about US ballistic missile submarines - yes.

Please pay attention.

I was responding to someone who said we also surface our subs off the coast of Russia. We do not. To that I made the comment "There's literally no reason, whatsoever, to surface a US ballistic missile submarine off the coast of Russia. Not a single one."

Now, I won't try to speak for everyone, but I think that sure looks like it's pretty crystal clear that we were discussing US ballistic missile submarines...

 

[Silver Cat]

Please pay attention.

I was responding to someone who said we also surface our subs off the coast of Russia. We do not. To that I made the comment "There's literally no reason, whatsoever, to surface a US ballistic missile submarine off the coast of Russia. Not a single one."

Now, I won't try to speak for everyone, but I think that sure looks like it's pretty crystal clear that we were discussing US ballistic missile submarines...

Ok. Agree.

 

[WinterBorn]

Please pay attention.

I was responding to someone who said we also surface our subs off the coast of Russia. We do not. To that I made the comment "There's literally no reason, whatsoever, to surface a US ballistic missile submarine off the coast of Russia. Not a single one."

Now, I won't try to speak for everyone, but I think that sure looks like it's pretty crystal clear that we were discussing US ballistic missile submarines...

If we are speaking of US ballistic missile subs (FBM subs) they rarely surface at all. Usually only for a quick burst communication, and even that is done at periscope depth.

The entire point of an FBM sub is to be completely hidden.

 

[Stryder50]

The Russians Are Coming the Russians Are Coming​

The Russians Are Coming the Russians Are Coming (1966) ⭐ 7.0 | Comedy, War

2h 6m | Unrated

www.imdb.com

...
The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming is a 1966 American comedy film directed and produced by Norman Jewison for the United Artists. It is based on the 1961 Nathaniel Benchley novel The Off-Islanders, and was adapted for the screen by William Rose.

The film depicts the chaos following the grounding of the Soviet submarine Спрут (pronounced "sproot" and meaning "octopus") off a small New England island during the Cold War. It stars Carl Reiner, Eva Marie Saint, Alan Arkin in his first major film role, Brian Keith, Theodore Bikel, Jonathan Winters, John Phillip Law, Tessie O'Shea, and Paul Ford. It was shot by cinematographer Joseph F. Biroc in DeLuxe Color and Panavision.

The film was released by United Artists on May 25, 1966, to critical acclaim.[3] At the 24th Golden Globe Awards, the film won in two categories (Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy and Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy for Arkin), and was nominated for four Academy Awards (Best Picture, Best Actor for Arkin, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Editing).
...

The Russians Are Coming the Russians Are Coming - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

....
Images and video clips;

movie - the russians are coming, the russians are coming at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

 

[AZrailwhale]

If you are below the thermocline no active sonar can touch you. Movies aren't accurate.

Our subs are so quiet they are a hole in the water, there is nothing to find. The BQQ 5 on the LA class subs could track an Alfa class from over 100 miles away if the Alfa was moving fast, they are noisy boats, and that is accurate enough of a track to launch a SUBROC if it had had the range.

That's why a lot of ASW ships have variable depth sonar heads that they can reel out like a Helo's variable depth sonar head. lower it below the thermocline and your problem disappears.

 

[westwall]

That's why a lot of ASW ships have variable depth sonar heads that they can reel out like a Helo's variable depth sonar head. lower it below the thermocline and your problem disappears.

Yes, a towed array sonar is essential. Also the MAD boom on the P-3 Orion was a fairly effective way to spot shallow running subs, but now its effectiveness is greatly reduced. What is not in doubt though, is the first person to make a noise is toast.

 

[westwall]

The US Navy has two brands of Sonar Technician: subsurface and surface. I was of the surface variety.

You're out of your depth here...

If you have a towed array I agree with you. If you don't, you are out of luck.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Yes, a towed array sonar is essential. Also the MAD boom on the P-3 Orion was a fairly effective way to spot shallow running subs, but now its effectiveness is greatly reduced. What is not in doubt though, is the first person to make a noise is toast.

If a towed array was essential, all ASW-capable assets would have it. The simple fact of the matter is that they don't.

Three years ago Lockheed Martin won a $77.8 million dollar contract to upgrade the ASW capabilities of the fleet with the AN/SQQ-89A(V)15 ASW suite. TACTAS isn't part of that suite and was not considered for the contract.

I conducted ASW ops for 20 years and never used a towed array and I'm not in any exclusive club. Most Sonar Techs can make the same claim. When I was with FTSCPAC, and then ATG, we never; not once, ever trained a ship on, or with, towed array.

You don't need it. It's not "essential"...

 

[westwall]

If a towed array was essential, all ASW-capable assets would have it. The simple fact of the matter is that they don't.

Three years ago Lockheed Martin won a $77.8 million dollar contract to upgrade the ASW capabilities of the fleet with the AN/SQQ-89A(V)15 ASW suite. TACTAS isn't part of that suite and was not considered for the contract.

I conducted ASW ops for 20 years and never used a towed array and I'm not in any exclusive club. Most Sonar Techs can make the same claim. When I was with FTSCPAC, and then ATG, we never; not once, ever trained a ship on, or with, towed array.

You don't need it. It's not "essential"...

I always wondered what the effect of surface temps were on sonar, do you get negative or positive refraction? Also, which is the most important factor for calculating transmission loss? Also, is the SVP calculated purely by depth, or are there other factors involved? I have always wondered about that.

 

[Canon Shooter]

I always wondered what the effect of surface temps were on sonar, do you get negative or positive refraction? Also, which is the most important factor for calculating transmission loss? Also, is the SVP calculated purely by depth, or are there other factors involved? I have always wondered about that.

A sound wave is impacted most by temperature, then depth and then salinity. As any one of those factors increases, the speed of sound increases. Generally speaking, as water temperature decreases, refraction increases.

As water temperature decreases, the speed of sound also decreases. At 68° fahrenheit, the speed of sound through water is about 4,800 fps. In places like the Caribbean or the Persian Gulf, where the water is very warm, the speed of sound increases. Go to the Flemish Cap and it slows.

We used to use an expendable bathythermograph, or XBT, to measure temperature, pressure and salinity in order to do what was known as "range predictions":

The range predictions would tell you, more or less, what the effective ranges of the sonar would be when operated in different active modes, as well as when operated passively. I've long since forgotten the formulas we used (I haven't done an XBT drop in 25 years), but the resulting range predictions would then get posted on the bridge and near the ASW fire control panel...

 

[westwall]

A sound wave is impacted most by temperature, then depth and then salinity. As any one of those factors increases, the speed of sound increases. Generally speaking, as water temperature decreases, refraction increases.

As water temperature decreases, the speed of sound also decreases. At 68° fahrenheit, the speed of sound through water is about 4,800 fps. In places like the Caribbean or the Persian Gulf, where the water is very warm, the speed of sound increases. Go to the Flemish Cap and it slows.

We used to use an expendable bathythermograph, or XBT, to measure temperature, pressure and salinity in order to do what was known as "range predictions":

The range predictions would tell you, more or less, what the effective ranges of the sonar would be when operated in different active modes, as well as when operated passively. I've long since forgotten the formulas we used (I haven't done an XBT drop in 25 years), but the resulting range predictions would then get posted on the bridge and near the ASW fire control panel...

I knew that bathythermographs were used for sonar work, just not the exact reason for them, so thank you. I assume the frequency of the waves will create dead zones that subs can hide in. Is that correct?

 

[eagle1462010]

My brother flew P3 Orions back in the day. He said you could stick a sona buoy up a subs ass in the Med. And wouldnt know he's there.

Called it the Bath Tub effect