Soviet Russia VS the United States

[Typhonis 1]

based on a campaign he and nother gentleman played using the Harpoon rules from GDW

[Alyeska]

Sturgeons are *not* comparable to the Akula. At all. Period. It's like saying the F-4 Phanom is a match for the MiG-29. The first Sturgeon was commissioned in the late 60s, for fucks sake. The Akula is an entire generation ahead in technology.

Asside for the minor point that the Sturgeons were constantly upgraded as time went. They got the newer sonar systems as well as the other goodies. They even had their powerplants upgraded over time. The Akula wasn't even at the level of the first flight 688 untill the late 80s and early 90s. At best the Akula was an equal to the Sturgeon when you account all the factors (noise level, sonar performance, crew performance). Even then the US had a whole shitload of 688s and a LOT of Sturgeons. Even if the Akula was equal to the 688, the US would have more 688s then the Russians ever had Akulas. The Sturgeon easily beats any of the other pre-Akula subs the Russians have fielded.

[technomage]

Except that you can only upgrade so far.

I'm under the impression that the Akula was superior to all American submarines except the Los Angeles and the Seawolf.

As for a general war in 1980:

If it is only conventional you have a cataclysmic bloodbath which America ultimately wins through superior technology and a far, far more powerful and efficient economy.

If nuclear, BOOM. Both sides get nuked into near-barbarism. The cities, industrial infrastructure, and most of the populations are annihilated, and it takes a century or two to even begin to truly recover.

[technomage]

That is, if true recovery is even a possibility.

[Lonestar]

As good as the Akula is, it wasn't even competition against the LAs and barely could hold its own against the Sturgeons. Even then its Sonar suites weren't very good. While being able to read the Navies mail was important, they still could not have seriously hurt it.

I'm not worried about the qualities of the Akula so much as the Russkis reading our Traffic. As someone who's job is to handle the traffic and repair said machines, the ability to read it would be a big fucking red check against the US in any war. The USN would get fucked. After the first few CVBGs are ambushed, their operations would be limited until a new universial standard of cryppie tech is released to the fleet and shore bases. The Commonwealth would cease sending traffic out the the USN, knowing that if they did it would be read.

And that's assumeing Walker would not be able to figure out a way to get the new info sent out.

[Sea Skimmer]

Anyone else read it?

It runs totally contrary to Soviet planning. Okay book, not a model of reality.

[Sea Skimmer]

based on a campaign he and nother gentleman played using the Harpoon rules from GDW

You're thinking of Larry Bond, and they did a whole lot more then play one scenario.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Anyone else read it?

It runs totally contrary to Soviet planning. Okay book, not a model of reality.

What part, the invasion of Iceland or the limited war in Germany? What part, specifically, was contradictory SS?

[phongn]

The non-use of nuclear weapons, for one.

[Howedar]

After the first few CVBGs are ambushed, their operations would be limited until a new universial standard of cryppie tech is released to the fleet and shore bases.

I'm afraid I really don't see what reading our mail could do for the Soviets that RORSATs could not.

[Sea Skimmer]

What part, the invasion of Iceland or the limited war in Germany? What part, specifically, was contradictory SS?

All of it. Iceland, convoys and Norway where all basically irrelevant to Soviet planning which stressed the absolute importance of a quick war to bring the political collapse of the enemy. This would be brought about with a minimal of several hundred nuclear weapons. Attempting to use the vast conventional weight of Soviet conventional forces was a losing strategy, the attack would be guaranteed to lose its momentum and become a fat target for NATO's tactical and theater nuclear weapons which was one of the largest Soviet fears. They had to get their troops into close contact and into the rear areas of Central Front to avoid their nuclear destruction. And with no opening nuclear strike to eliminate NATO's tactical nuclear arms the risk would be unacceptable.

[Vympel]

Asside for the minor point that the Sturgeons were constantly upgraded as time went. They got the newer sonar systems as well as the other goodies. They even had their powerplants upgraded over time

That's like saying whacking a Kopyo passive phased array radar on a MiG-21 makes it a match for an F-16- there are basic design issues that cannot be solved by shoehorning new electronics into an old fuselage/hull/chassis, especially when you're talking submarines. It's slower, noisier, and packs less firepower than the Akula, while the Akula also has some superior non-acoustic detection and ASW countermeasure systems. Also, I've never seen any evidence that their powerplants were upgraded.

The Akula wasn't even at the level of the first flight 688 untill the late 80s and early 90s. At best the Akula was an equal to the Sturgeon when you account all the factors (noise level, sonar performance, crew performance).

Crew performance is a subjective, unknown factor. It's arrogant to assume that just because the crews are Soviet, they must be incompetent to the point that a 1960s sub will defeat a 1980s sub.

Even then the US had a whole shitload of 688s and a LOT of Sturgeons. Even if the Akula was equal to the 688, the US would have more 688s then the Russians ever had Akulas. The Sturgeon easily beats any of the other pre-Akula subs the Russians have fielded.

I don't disagree with any of that.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Its funny, I got RSR at a discount bookstore, so I'm missing pages 22-80. Its got all the battle, though.

I don't know if they would have used an opening nuclear salvo, since that opening salvo would have been a final salvo in an era of mutually assured destruction.

[Sea Skimmer]

Its funny, I got RSR at a discount bookstore, so I'm missing pages 22-80. Its got all the battle, though.

I don't know if they would have used an opening nuclear salvo, since that opening salvo would have been a final salvo in an era of mutually assured destruction.

MAD is utter bullshit you know, and the entire point of an attack on NATO central Front would be to collapse the enemy politically, which places a strategic nuclear war out of the question. The Soviets would only have invaded as a way to exploit a pre existing instability in the western governments.

[phongn]

MAD is utter bullshit you know, and the entire point of an attack on NATO central Front would be to collapse the enemy politically, which places a strategic nuclear war out of the question. The Soviets would only have invaded as a way to exploit a pre existing instability in the western governments.

Unfortunately: one flies they all fly! - the USSR couldn't collapse the West politically that quickly.

MAD is BS, of course (the real policy was AD, more or less)

[Sebastin]

On the topic of USN sub crews vs soviet sub crews:

I don´t know about differences in training quality but the soviet union cared a lot more about crew comfort, at least on the SSBNs.

The Typhoon class SSBN has, among other luxuries, a frigging SWIMMING POOL for the crew.

Can the ohios compete with that?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

and the sonar is even more pathetic.

The sonar is worse than piss poor? It's sonar is only 1/3 as sensitive as the Los Angeles class, reportedly (how they know this I don't know, but anyway). That hardly qualifies as piss poor. It's just not as good.

When they did the sonar sensitivity comparison, they supposedly used this suite for the Akula:
MGK-503M Skat-M (apparently a modernized MGK-503 that went into the 945 plus presumably the original suite of the 971s, and probably less advanced than the MGK-700 spherical on the 945A, which by the way seems to be the only spherical sonar ever introduced by the Russkies.)
Akula flank (not much improvement over a 671RTMK)
Pelamida towed (this model seems to have lasted from the Sierra I)

With that, they competed against a 688I, which got:
BQQ-5D (an improvement over the 5A which AFAIK was used in the early Los Angeles)
Unknown Hull Array
TB-16 (no idea whether it is A, B, C, D or E)
Maybe a TB-23 (which AFAIK is a whole new generation of array)

Despite that, they got to within 5dB of sensitivity (that's 1/3rd as sensitive, presented in a form that makes the difference look smaller.) In case you are interested, submarines gain about that much from patrol beginning to patrol end. That's how small the difference is.

I've never heard of major propulsion improvements in the Sturgeon - it was always the S5W, though I suppose they could have added better padding to mask a couple dB off.

The sonar, well, they did add a TB-23 in the later Sturgeons so they did improve in that category. Considering the current age of the Sturgeons though, it is unlikely that they'd be as quiet as they were, no matter how well they were maintained, a few parts always tend to stick up on older machines.

For noise levels, well, depends who you listen to. I'd think the common consensus says that the 971 was roughly equal or maybe a bit louder than the 688, the U model is at least equal to the early 688 or even the 688I, and the A model is quieter than the I. However, it would seem that the Americans retain advantages at high speed (their noise doesn't go up as fast with more speed on the screw.) The differences are probably in the range of about 10dB or less.

[Stuart Mackey]

What part, the invasion of Iceland or the limited war in Germany? What part, specifically, was contradictory SS?

All of it. Iceland, convoys and Norway where all basically irrelevant to Soviet planning which stressed the absolute importance of a quick war to bring the political collapse of the enemy. This would be brought about with a minimal of several hundred nuclear weapons. Attempting to use the vast conventional weight of Soviet conventional forces was a losing strategy, the attack would be guaranteed to lose its momentum and become a fat target for NATO's tactical and theater nuclear weapons which was one of the largest Soviet fears. They had to get their troops into close contact and into the rear areas of Central Front to avoid their nuclear destruction. And with no opening nuclear strike to eliminate NATO's tactical nuclear arms the risk would be unacceptable.

Uh huh, and you can read the minds of STAVKA, hmm? Thats not to say that you are nessarily wrong, but nor are you nessarily right. Who knows exactly what they would have done, and under what circumstances. Sure as hell they would not have been informing young Sea Skimmer of their plans.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

At best the Akula was an equal to the Sturgeon when you account all the factors (noise level, sonar performance, crew performance).

For all of what I just said however, I'd easily give the Sturgeon even odds against an Akula. That makes me different from Vympel for IMHO the factors that give the Akula an advantage are not really in play in this scenario. We are talking about 1980s, right?

The problem is that ever since the Soviets realized that they had been going into the wrong road (thanks to Walker) - they hastily padded up their Victor II to make the Victor III model. They also padded up the sonar and FC gear. Ever since, the Soviets had a real chance. While the odds were still in favor of the West (a 20 year or so lead in moving in the right direction doesn't just go away,) it now depended a lot more on initiative and environment. Basically, the differences between all the subs involved got a lot smaller. A Victor III is not that far behind a LA, a Sturgeon is even closer. So training and scenario mattered a lot more.

However, given an equal scenario and a fully upgraded Sturgeon... The Akula may be quieter, but if the Sturgeon was fitted with the latest American sonar (making it on par with a new production 688 in that category,) it'd have a better sonar, which would neutralize the difference. Speed is not a major issue until when they need to evade torpedoes (speed has strategic uses, but tactically you'd rarely use speeds higher than maybe 15 knots until it is time to dodge.)

Even firepower is not a major issue. In fact, you may have an effective advantage.

The Akula has 8 tubes, the Sturgeon 4. That looks like giving the Akula an advantage. But in fact, your tubes are almost certainly stuffed with Mk 48 Mod 4, probably the best overall torpedo at that time (the 1981 version of Spearfish is faster but shorter ranged, which may make it somewhat better in this scenario, but I'd say not overall.)

As a rough refresher, the estimated specs of the Mk 48 (not the official version - that's an unrealistic, implausible joke.)
Speed: 55 knots
Range: 32km at 55 knots
Max Depth: 760m
Acquistion range: 3.6km

Your opposition is armed with two or maybe three kinds of torpedoes. The 65cm tubes are stuffed with the 65-76, for antisurface purposes. They could be re-armed for 53cm, but IIRC that requires a liner, and it is a bit too late to change loads when you've already detected a possible American sub on your scope. He'd go in with what he has, and the 65's utility is probably marginal versus a submerged target.

The 53cm tubes are stuffed with pair of USET-80s (probably means a Universal Self-guiding Electric Torpedo in Russian parlance.) The other pair are probably stuffed with TEST-71 (probably Telegraphing Electric Self-guiding Torpedo.) Neither is anywhere close to as good as its American counterpart, in speed, range or acquisition range.

When all else are roughly equal, an improved autonomous homing ability means you can use a less certain firing solution - which speeds up your response time. The longer range means you might be able to shoot at a range your opponent is unable to reply or make a successful attack at an inferior aspect. Faster means that even if you both fire at the same time, you'd hit first.

Mechanically speaking therefore, an upgraded Sturgeon probably is equal to or even superior to the Akula in overall in areas that matter in the fight.

The crew. You could play it two ways. The average American crew is better than the average Soviet crew. But being on an Akula means you are part of the elite. Being on the Sturgeon is probably not so flattering. The best Red Commie crew, versus some so-so Yankee crew... there's a possible contest there.

[Striderteen]

Quiet as the Akula is the crews are piss poor and the sonar is even more pathetic. Furthermore, the Akula is NOT the best submarine in the world. That title is clearly reserved for the Sea Wolf class thank you very much.

The Seawolf boats are unquestionably the most advanced and capable attack submarines in the world today. Unfortunately, they're also the most expensive attack submarines ever made, at roughly $2 billion apiece, and they have limited multirole capability. Hence, the new Virginia class, which will cost about two-thirds as much and be much more versatiles.

Any war between the USSR and the US in the 1980s would not favor the Soviets at all in the submarine business. The Akula was in very limited numbers and with its poor sonar capability Sturegons would be comparable while 688s would blow it away. Sure the improved Akula and the Akula 2 are nice, but those are 90s era subs.

You're off by a generation. The Victor class boats -- the first Sov boats to be designed with low noise levels in mind -- are rougly equivalent to the Sturgeon; the Akula was always considered comparable to the Los Angeles, while the upgraded versions are equivalent to the Improved Los Angeles (ie 688I) and the Akula II is midway betwen a 688I and a Seawolf. In general, the Russian subs have less advanced sensors and electronics, but somewhat better hullform and weaponry.

[Vympel]

and the sonar is even more pathetic.

The sonar is worse than piss poor? It's sonar is only 1/3 as sensitive as the Los Angeles class, reportedly (how they know this I don't know, but anyway). That hardly qualifies as piss poor. It's just not as good.

When they did the sonar sensitivity comparison, they supposedly used this suite for the Akula:
MGK-503M Skat-M (apparently a modernized MGK-503 that went into the 945 plus presumably the original suite of the 971s, and probably less advanced than the MGK-700 spherical on the 945A, which by the way seems to be the only spherical sonar ever introduced by the Russkies.)
Akula flank (not much improvement over a 671RTMK)
Pelamida towed (this model seems to have lasted from the Sierra I)

With that, they competed against a 688I, which got:
BQQ-5D (an improvement over the 5A which AFAIK was used in the early Los Angeles)
Unknown Hull Array
TB-16 (no idea whether it is A, B, C, D or E)
Maybe a TB-23 (which AFAIK is a whole new generation of array)

Despite that, they got to within 5dB of sensitivity (that's 1/3rd as sensitive, presented in a form that makes the difference look smaller.) In case you are interested, submarines gain about that much from patrol beginning to patrol end. That's how small the difference is.

I've never heard of major propulsion improvements in the Sturgeon - it was always the S5W, though I suppose they could have added better padding to mask a couple dB off.

The sonar, well, they did add a TB-23 in the later Sturgeons so they did improve in that category. Considering the current age of the Sturgeons though, it is unlikely that they'd be as quiet as they were, no matter how well they were maintained, a few parts always tend to stick up on older machines.

For noise levels, well, depends who you listen to. I'd think the common consensus says that the 971 was roughly equal or maybe a bit louder than the 688, the U model is at least equal to the early 688 or even the 688I, and the A model is quieter than the I. However, it would seem that the Americans retain advantages at high speed (their noise doesn't go up as fast with more speed on the screw.) The differences are probably in the range of about 10dB or less.

Ah excellent thanks for that very informative!

The Seawolf boats are unquestionably the most advanced and capable attack submarines in the world today. Unfortunately, they're also the most expensive attack submarines ever made, at roughly $2 billion apiece, and they have limited multirole capability. Hence, the new Virginia class, which will cost about two-thirds as much and be much more versatiles.

If anything, the entire Seawolf thing pisses me off because they WASTED SSN-21. Like jeez, they only got up to SSN-23. That sucks.

Well, the SSN-774 Virginia is supposed to be cheaper, I wonder if it actually will be- they may doody it up with so much new generation stuff (unmanned underwater vehicles, improved sensors etc etc) that the cost savings they get from making it slower, less heavily armed, and in general less capable in a pure attack role may simply be eliminated. And it will be just as quiet.

[MKSheppard]

Its funny, I got Fucking Donkeys: A guide to Pleasure at a bookstore, it's missing pages 10-20, but other than that, lots of
donkeyfucking!

Weren't you supposed to go to Spain for a "missionary" trip to rebuild
a church? Yer awfully busy for a guy supposedly packing for said
trip

*whips out Railgun and aims*

<(BZAPP!!!)>

{SPLAT!!}

*Shep laughs with glee as the Depleted-Uranium Rail Slug hits flesh at Mach 8. The massive hydroshock, the flash-vaporization, the violent stripping of flesh from bone, bone immediately shattering into tiny razor-sharp shards and getting propelled throughout his body at half the slug's speed instantly severs Chookie's body at the waist and flays it into a rapidly-expanding cloud of chunky gibs, jagged ribbons of cooked meat, and crimson salsa...*



IMPRESSIVE!!

[phongn]

Uh huh, and you can read the minds of STAVKA, hmm? Thats not to say that you are nessarily wrong, but nor are you nessarily right. Who knows exactly what they would have done, and under what circumstances. Sure as hell they would not have been informing young Sea Skimmer of their plans.

I think those plans might have actually become public (WARPAC vs. NATO) after the fall of the Cold War.

[Sea Skimmer]

I think those plans might have actually become public (WARPAC vs. NATO) after the fall of the Cold War.

They did. The Russians open up many of there archives to researchers.

[Sea Skimmer]

Well, the SSN-774 Virginia is supposed to be cheaper, I wonder if it actually will be- they may doody it up with so much new generation stuff (unmanned underwater vehicles, improved sensors etc etc) that the cost savings they get from making it slower, less heavily armed, and in general less capable in a pure attack role may simply be eliminated. And it will be just as quiet.

Virginia may end up being around 2.5 billion per boat, and the USN is already working on yet another SSN design to fully replace the 688's.