Astute submarine: "Neither the US nor Russia has anything like this." Allow me to doubt
Marketing is a tricky business, especially when it comes to selling complex products like ships. Yet everyone who can build them sells them, even nuclear submarines.
It is worth recalling what a scandal and noise there was when Australia gave France a slap by refusing to buy French nuclear submarines in favor of British and American ones. Many of us then noted with satisfaction the fact that France had been "mistrayed", and deservedly so.
But one thing is a billion euros for two UDCs, and quite another is 66 billion dollars for 12 nuclear submarines. And the entire program, let me remind you, is estimated by experts at 245 billion US dollars. It includes the construction of the entire infrastructure for the nuclear submarine fleet and training of crews with engineering and technical staff. The Australians plan to purchase both American Virginias and British Astutes. In a 3 to 1 ratio, naturally, in favor of American ships.
Apparently, the British decided that “That’s not enough!” and many foreign media outlets began publishing a wave of publications about how wonderful the Astute boat is, how it has no analogues in NATO, and literally one more step and there will be no analogues in the world.
But is it?
The Astute class submarines, developed after the end of the Cold War to replace the Royal Navy's Trafalgar class, represent a technological leap forward. And that's only natural - what do you expect from boats laid down a quarter of a century after the Trafalgars? Of course they're bound to be better and more modern!
The replacement of the Trafalgars began to be planned back in the late 80s, simply because the boats were nothing worth cherishing. Plus, they were outdated in comparison to the general background and were clearly weak compared to the Russian Shchuka-B series boats.
The good American allies offered the Royal Navy their newest boat, the SSN 20 project, which was designed specifically to counter Russian submarines, and in principle, the SSN 20 was a very decent project. What was indecent was its cost, which made everyone's hair stand on end.
Yes, when the Cold War was going on, no one really counted dollars and pounds, but in the 90s everything suddenly changed. The enemy, against whom it was necessary to be very close friends, crumbled to dust, and the ghost of a flock of nuclear submarines under the red (okay, white and blue with a red star, sickle and hammer) sank into the abyss.
And then it turned out that the project, which we now know as Seawolf, was not needed because of its astronomical cost. And everyone, including the US Navy, abandoned the boats, the Americans preferred the more practical "Virginias", and the British had no choice but to develop a new boat.
This is how Astute came into being.
Since British companies were directly involved in the work on Seawolf, they took the path of least resistance: they developed a new boat, starting from the Trafalgar platform, but with an eye on Seawolf. True, without hysteria, that is, if the old Los Angeles had 7 noise sensors scattered around the hull, Seawolf carried 600 (!!!), then Astute decided to make do with 120 sensors. It was not possible to find data on how many noise sensors Trafalgar had, but this is not essential.
The Astute's electronic armament is quite up-to-date. There is even an innovation - there are no optical periscopes. Instead, thermal imaging sensors and all-round cameras are mounted on two special masts, providing a full picture to the central control post.
The submarine's sonar system is based on the Sonar 2076 sonar developed by Thales Underwater Systems for the Trafalgar. This system consists of an integrated set of active and passive equipment, including bow, stern, side and towed sensor arrays.
The hydroacoustic system consists of the following equipment:
- obstacle detection sonar type 2077;
- oceanographic sonar type 2094;
- active-passive bow sonar type 2079;
- bow fire control system type 2078;
- towed antenna type 2065.
All this wealth works for the Astute combat control system, developed specifically for this boat. Plus almost 40 special tiles that cover the Astute hull, and which significantly reduce the noise level produced by the boat when moving at depth.
The armament… Seems to be okay too: heavy Spearfish torpedoes and cruise missiles missiles Tomahawk Block IV.
Spearfish is very difficult to call new weapons: the development dates back to the 70s, the first torpedoes were produced in 1992, deliveries were completed in 2003. How many torpedoes were produced is not disclosed.
In 2009, a modernization program began that affected the torpedo's seeker, tactical guidance systems and fuel system, as well as improvements to the guidance channel.
In 2014, BAE Systems and TDW were awarded a £270 million contract by the UK MoD for another upgrade of the Spearfish torpedo. The upgrade includes a new warhead from TDW, changes to the fuel system to improve safety, full digitalisation of the weapon and a new fibre-optic guidance link.
In general, the torpedo is old, but it will still serve. For a good weapon, this is normal. The torpedo can travel 56 km at a speed of 80 knots (almost 150 km/h), which is impressive. A good torpedo.
The same can be said about Tomahawk Block IV. True, there is information that the British military wants to replace the missiles with Tomahawk Block V, but in any case, this is not the most advanced weaponry today.
Astute has the ability to carry 38 different weapons and launch them through its six 533mm torpedo tubes.
About running qualities. Underwater speed is a standard 30 knots, the range of the trip is practically limited only by food supplies and psychological qualities of the crew, because Astute can produce air and water independently. The maximum diving depth is 300 meters.
Did you see anything out of the ordinary? Well, except for the lack of periscopes - everything, as they say, is like people have.
Let's take a look at Virginia?
The performance is about the same, but it swims a little faster (34 knots) and dives a little deeper. The working depth of diving is the same 300 meters, but if the pressure is really strong, then the Virginia can go 450 meters. Not for long, but it can.
Range and autonomy are limited in the same way by food supplies and the crew's psyche.
Armament. Here everything is more interesting compared to the British boat. There are only four torpedo tubes, the caliber is the same, 533 mm. The ammunition complement is 26 torpedoes. And - 12 launch tubes for "Tomahawks". Here is a cardinal difference: yes, Astute can fire 4 cruise missiles from torpedo tubes. Why four? Well, two tubes must be with torpedoes just in case. The "Virginia" has 8 more missiles in a salvo, and 2 more torpedoes.
"Axes" are practically the same, we will not talk about them. Everyone knows what a "Tomahawk" is. But torpedoes are a more interesting matter.
The Mark 48 ADVCAP Mod 6 torpedo is a further development of the 1972 model torpedo! The Mark 48 torpedoes are designed to destroy surface targets and high-speed submarines. Uses an active and passive homing system and can be controlled by wire. Like the British one, the Mark 48 is equipped with a multiple attack system, which is used when the target is lost. The torpedo independently searches for, captures and attacks the target using active and passive sonars. The torpedo has a range of up to 38 km at a speed of 55 knots or up to 50 km at a speed of 40 knots. The maximum diving depth is 800 meters.
In general, the American torpedo will be weaker than the British one in terms of performance characteristics. There is a very big difference in terms of range/speed.
True, there is a nuance: instead of a torpedo, the American submarines can be loaded with the Harpoon anti-ship missile. This relatively small missile with a subsonic speed and a high-explosive fragmentation warhead weighing 227 kg can fly from 90 to 280 km depending on the modification. A good addition to the set of weapons.
The Virginia's hydroacoustic system is completely borrowed from Seawolf. It's hard to say how the Americans managed to fit the AN/BQQ-10 sonar system into the bow, given that the Virginia's hull diameter is noticeably smaller than that of the Seawolf-type boats (10,4 instead of 12,9 meters, i.e. 2,5 meters smaller), but they managed to cope with this task.
In general, the electronic warfare (EW) of the Virginia is at a very high level, this is worth noting.
In addition, the boat also has equipment for special operations - unmanned underwater vehicles, an airlock for divers, a deck mount for a container or a midget submarine.
The British boat can also carry a camera for underwater special forces, so in principle there is parity, it’s just that the Americans have a wider range.
Well, and perhaps it’s worth saying a word about the real enemy.
Project 885 "Ash"
You know, a big bear against the background of plump boars. The displacement and size of the "Yasen" is much larger than the British and American boats, which, in general, affected its capabilities.
The speed is classic, 31 knots. The range/autonomy is classic, that is, more than the Americans and the British. Ours can step over the edge if the Motherland orders. The Yasen dives to 500 meters, and if necessary, it can go to 600, which in this regard leaves competitors closer to the surface.
It is clear that modern torpedoes dive up to a kilometer, but the deeper they go, the harder it is to detect. So depth is, whatever you say, a considerable advantage of the Russian submarine.
The ship is equipped with the Irtysh hydroacoustic system with a huge spherical hydroacoustic antenna "Amphora", really huge for a submarine, occupying the entire bow of the hull, where our boats traditionally had torpedo tubes. That's why the TA had to be moved to the second compartment, but there are 10 torpedo tubes: 8 533-mm caliber and 2 650-mm caliber. As they say, we are not greedy, but thrifty and homely for all occasions. You never know what we might have to fire...
Western naval experts admit that the new boat has a high level of hydroacoustic stealth, which is comparable to the best American submarine of the Seawolf class. Of course, an American boat cannot be worse than a Russian one, but the fact that the Americans recognize the high level of stealth of the Yasen is already good. And then practice will show who is quieter.
Armament. We won't even talk about torpedoes, unfortunately, we are lagging behind here. When the "Futlyars" will be in the devices is a question, but when they will be - this torpedo is quite comparable to the Mark 48. The cavitation rocket-torpedo "Shkval" - well, let's say this is not a weapon for every occasion. Yes, it is a very fast (350 km / h) torpedo, it is almost impossible to dodge, but the range is 13 km, the inability to install a seeker, terrible noise, unmasking both the torpedo and the submarine, and the most unpleasant thing is the operating depth of up to 30 meters. That is, you can't really shoot at submarines. So it seems like a wunderwaffe, but there are a lot of nuances ...
But a submarine is not strong only with a torpedo. 8 launch tubes, each of which can accommodate 3 Onyx missiles - that's strong. And that's especially strong now, when the missile has passed all combat tests and the Ukrainians themselves have admitted their impotence: the Onyx cannot be taken by anything. Neither by the Patriot nor by the Iriska. We won't even mention older models. The Onyx is very serious.
But there is something to load besides the Onyx. Torpedo tubes, since we are not very good with torpedoes, can be used to launch such "cute" things as the Kh-35 anti-ship missile and 3M54 Kalibr. In general, the Yasen is a very versatile boat, armed with more modern missile weapons than its opponents.
And what is this advantage of Astute that they talk about so much?
We looked at three boats. British, American, Russian.
A question arises that is hard to answer right away: what is this advantage of the Astute that people talk about? How is this boat better than its analogues? Running performance? No. Detection equipment? It is very difficult to judge. Low noise? Okay, maybe. Armament? Also no, the British boat does not have the most impressive set. Sorry, but noise protection alone is clearly not enough, and anyway, after 25 knots no protection will save you, the boats roar, pushing through the water so that only the deaf will not hear them.
So acoustic stealth is akin to radar stealth: those who really need it will see and hear it. Of course, it will be harder to detect a plane or a boat than competitors, but as practice has shown, all this is more than relative.
40 tiles made of a special material to reduce boat noise are great. But who said that these tiles are better than what our submarines are finished with? Previously, this strange, rubber-like "Medusa" coating seemed to block the boat's internal noise from getting out, and partially absorbed and partially dissipated sonar waves. Today, a new material is on the agenda, which is used to cover "Yaseni" and "Boreys". There is one difference - the entire boat hull is processed at the factory, and the monolithic coating looks more practical than tiles, which have at least microscopic cracks and can fall off under the action of water.
Say what you want, but I don't see such an advantage of the British (and American) boat over ours. Let some readers say that "the author extols Russian weapons and belittles the capabilities of the American", but you know, if the Americans themselves are skeptical about their F-22, then why should I think of where to praise them?
It's the same here. Our boats (American military publications write about this again) are no worse in terms of low noise. They are not inferior in speed, and in terms of depth they are much superior to both the Americans and the British.
The only weak point of our submarines is the torpedoes. I did not specifically focus on this, my colleagues Klimov and Timokhin have written more than enough (and more professionally) in the past. There is nothing to add, because there are no new torpedoes yet. And there is a possibility that in a one-on-one fight the American submarine will emerge victorious precisely because it has better quality torpedoes.
Next. Our "Caliber" and their "Tomahawk". More than enough has been said, these are missiles of the same class. Cruise and subsonic, which means they can be intercepted. "Topors" were shot down in Yugoslavia, shot down in Iraq, shot down in Syria. Not all of the "Calibers" in Ukraine reached their targets either, but here the very concept of a subsonic missile is such that it is slow. And therefore it can be shot down, especially by a decent complex. Defense.
But "Onyx" is a trump card that is not taken yet. And there is nothing to talk about here either, because so far no one can boast of having shot down this missile.
And here is almost parity, it is clear that during interception British and American boats will be stronger, but a torpedo is not such a big problem, to improve and release in the required quantities UGST "Physician-2" (or it is also called "Case") - and there is no problem at all. Moreover, according to theoretical data "Physician-2" is not inferior to Mk.48.
But the US and Britain don't have Onyx, and there's no sign of it. At all. We've been messing around with Case for 20 years, but there seems to be a chance.
So what? So what – pure marketing. Well, no one is stopping you from saying that your product is the best in the world. The best in the world among non-combat combat aircraft F-22 and F-35, the best non-combat Tanks Type 10 and T-14, the best modern aircraft carriers "Prince of Wales" and "Queen Elizabeth"... And if you add the super-destroyers "Poseidon" and "Burevestnik", which have no analogues in the world, then you get a picture of the whole world.
So, you can say everything. And that the Astute are the nuclear submarines of dreams. The best in NATO. To be fair, the British didn't say that they are the best in the world. Yes, they implied it, since NATO weapons are the best, but nevertheless.
Of course, you want to sell until you gnash your teeth. That's understandable. And what kind of sale without advertising? Of course, it's hard for British shipbuilding, especially against the backdrop of the near-fiasco with aircraft carriers, but you have to get out of the situation.
"Astyut" is a quite modern and good submarine. With a pretty decent set of weapons, although not the freshest, but tested in more than one conflict. Inferior in some parameters to American and Russian boats, but nevertheless, it is a really decent weapon.
But by no means the best.
Information