Project 949A: Oscar-II

They were in the water all those 30 years. Doesn't matter they didn't go on patrol. Technology is from 30 years ago too as the structure. Granits are big, slow compared to newer russian missiles and with 30 years old technology.

Their CGNs also been in the water for a long time w/o going anywhere, but being modernized & rearmed. Granits r still fast enough in LACM role. As was discussed earlier, they r being given 72 new 3M55 Oniks & 3M54 Klub missiles, replacing 24 Granits during their modernization. By the same token, old Delta SSBNs r not scrapped just because Boreys r being built. Later they may be used in other roles, as Oscars.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9928/russias-massive-arctic-research-submarine-will-be-the-worlds-longest
The US converted 4 & keeps older Ohio SSBNs to SSGNs armed with 154 LACMs & SEALs, even though LA class SSNs were being built with VL tubes & now Block V Virginia-class SSNs. https://www.wearethemighty.com/us-builds-massive-russian-sub
Tu-95s/22s & B-52s/1Bs r also decades old, but being modernized.
China flies H-6Ks based on the Tu-16 with new engines & ALCMs.

In detail, one of the reasons for the modernization of the Akula, Sierra, and Oscar-class submarines are delays in the project 885 Yasen-class SSGN program. This class of Russian attack submarines was supposed to replace older Soviet-era multi-purpose nuclear submarine models by 2020.
Yet the exorbitant costs of the submarines — estimated to be twice as much as the new Borei-class SSBNs – has so far led only to the commissioning of one out of eight SSGNs, with a further three to four vessels likely to be completed by 2020. https://thediplomat.com/2015/10/russia-to-upgrade-12-nuclear-powered-subs/

The costs r still a lot higher for multi-purpose Yasens than for modernized Oscars, & they can rejoin the fleet sooner; if they r going to get & use LHAs/LHDs & later CV/Ns, more pure SSNs will be needed, so modernizing &/ building new SSNs instead will also save more $ & time.

Isos wrote:Tomsk submarine from pacific fleet launches a single P-700 Granit at a target during exercice. Huge explosion near the target.

I think the missile comes from the left and goes through the target and explodes on the right side in the water. Penetration capability of the missile is huge because it needs to go through carriers. I think it goes to the bottom to hit sensible part of the ship that's why it explodes in the water.

It could also be an explosion of a torpedo that they have put in the video to hide the way Granit blows up. Anyway if that explode in a ship, the explosion is the size of a ship so even a carrier will have hard time dealling with this.

Absolute quality. Oscar is simply the best, dedicated SSGN in the world.
Any ideas about the target used in the video?

I doubt it even had a warhead, it just went right through target and hit the water on the other end. Add a warhead and whole thing would be erased.

Fine subs. I think that modified Borei would be good successor for these down the road.

Isos wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
I doubt it even had a warhead, it just went right through target and hit the water on the other end. Add a warhead and whole thing would be erased.

Fine subs. I think that modified Borei would be good successor for these down the road.

There is clearly an explosion. But it looks more like a torpedo that explodes than a missile.

It is the missile.

It should hit the ship with 1000 meter/sec, and at that speed the explosion will create a cone,pushing into the water the debris / component of missile, creating an explosion like waterfall.

It has 7 tons of launch mass, at least 4 tons impacted the ship.

It is visible as the ship pushed into the water due to the kinetic energy, and bouncing back.

Omsk !
Pacific Fleet have 3 active Tver, Tomsk, Omsk and 2 others not active later modernised in 949AM

Space between 2 hulls do 3 - 4 m !

Nice, but torpedoes seem located very astern. What's in front of them? Spherical sonar like on Yasen?

Omsk should be in modernization right now btw.

verkhoturye51 wrote:

Omsk should be in modernization right now btw.

Yes, it isnt in service yet

verkhoturye51 wrote:Nice, but torpedoes seem located very astern. What's in front of them? Spherical sonar like on Yasen?

Omsk should be in modernization right now btw.

Sonar MGK-540 SKAT-3 more small below TLs an Oscar is clearly less capable than a Akula or Yasen for ASW in addition more noisy nevertheless not too but you imagine for a MAD the target !
Pressure hull is thick of about 5 cm i think about half for external

Labrador wrote:Sonar MGK-540 SKAT-3 more small below TLs

So no. 1 is sonar, but still there seem to be a lot of empty space above it in front of torpedoes. In comparison to other Soviet 1980s classes like Akula and Typhoon torpedoes are odly astern.

Still they are more capable for ASW than Typhoons.

George1 wrote:

verkhoturye51 wrote:

Omsk should be in modernization right now btw.

Yes, it isnt in service yet

Yes in refit since 2015 as usual problems with Zvezda ! and surely why two 971 was transfered from PF severals years ago but in bad conditions i have see a hole in the external hull ! to Zvezdochka to be upgraded in 971M
but Omsk is in service not as others in reserve and exist 3 categories those in cat 2 again more 3 never are back but if the need is there… quite sure Russian Navy get this boy

If you count as it in France we have only 3 Rubis fully active but in fact we can have a 4th for few weeks it is the true active number and a 5th eventualy in minor repairs the 6th is in RCOH

In green fully active, yellow in refit or others in service also and in purple not in service, reserve or very long repairs different
https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/194440.html

Nice, but torpedoes seem located very astern. What's in front of them? Spherical sonar like on Yasen?

A cylindrical sonar, Yasens have the first Soviet/Russian spherical sonar.



Torps are straight through the nose not out the side like they need to be with a spherical sonar

Nice

If one have please, I search and i have very few datas for Soviets/Russians nuclear submarines classes their reactor(s) service life i have only Yasen to 25 - 30 years and 949 or A to 50000 hours hours of operation …
do about 6 years but the boat is not at sea 365 days and true service life used for others classes ?

Well all recent Russian nuclear submarines use OK-650B nuclear reactor, so lifetime should be the same.

Sources suggest the reactors are supposed to suffice for the entire submarine's lifetime. If not, they can be refueled anyway.

Hole wrote:Not the reactor, the fuel rods had a lifespan of six years or so back in the 80´s. Today it should be more but...

verkhoturye51 wrote:Well all recent Russian nuclear submarines use OK-650B nuclear reactor, so lifetime should be the same.

Sources suggest the reactors are supposed to suffice for the entire submarine's lifetime. If not, they can be refueled anyway.

Look very good but link for Yasen also ? if not  impossible for Oscar etc.. yet few deployed during many years and all or almost have yet a RCOH minimum…  
i repeat : 50000 hour of use… can be different than 6 years …for me with part of the time not deployed max 9 - 10 years if the sub is in good condition and deployed enough often.

BTW Astute and Virginia reactor have also a entire sub's lifetime 25 - 30 and 33 years, Seawolf 20 years

Hole and yes posible by ex initialy OHIO had reactor with a lifespan of 13 years as Los Angeles but last RCOH allow 20 years uranium is more concentrated 
but USN do better reactors since always for quality and security ! remains Russians powerful.

Labrador wrote:

BTW Astute and Virginia reactor have also a entire sub's lifetime 25 - 30 and 33 years, Seawolf 20 years

Hole and yes posible by ex initialy OHIO had reactor with a lifespan of 13 years as Los Angeles but last RCOH allow 20 years uranium is more concentrated 
but USN do better reactors since always for quality and security ! remains Russians powerful.

: )

The Russian nuclear technology has better quality and reliability than the US, just check the track records.

Anyway, the reactor lifetime depending on the size of the reactor mainly, the enrichment of uranium, the maximum allowed burn up, that depending on the type of fuel elements in turn.

So, the lifetime is more of a choice at the design phase of the submarine, than a manufacturing / quality characteristics.
Now USA/Russia has enough long term data about the reactors performance to make good and reliable reactors.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Labrador wrote:

BTW Astute and Virginia reactor have also a entire sub's lifetime 25 - 30 and 33 years, Seawolf 20 years

Hole and yes posible by ex initialy OHIO had reactor with a lifespan of 13 years as Los Angeles but last RCOH allow 20 years uranium is more concentrated 
but USN do better reactors since always for quality and security ! remains Russians powerful.

: )

The Russian nuclear technology has better quality and reliability than the US, just check the track records.

Anyway, the reactor lifetime depending on the size of the reactor mainly, the enrichment of uranium, the maximum allowed burn up, that depending on the type of fuel elements in turn.

So, the lifetime is more of a choice at the design phase of the submarine, than a manufacturing / quality characteristics.
Now USA/Russia has enough long term data about the reactors performance to make good and reliable reactors.

Seriously want you i provide all accidents had Soviets/Russians nuclears submarines … with sailors dead or irradiated    in more Virginia was the first with a reactor which have same service life time than the boat and in service since 14 years...

Labrador wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

Labrador wrote:

BTW Astute and Virginia reactor have also a entire sub's lifetime 25 - 30 and 33 years, Seawolf 20 years

Hole and yes posible by ex initialy OHIO had reactor with a lifespan of 13 years as Los Angeles but last RCOH allow 20 years uranium is more concentrated 
but USN do better reactors since always for quality and security ! remains Russians powerful.

: )

The Russian nuclear technology has better quality and reliability than the US, just check the track records.

Anyway, the reactor lifetime depending on the size of the reactor mainly, the enrichment of uranium, the maximum allowed burn up, that depending on the type of fuel elements in turn.

So, the lifetime is more of a choice at the design phase of the submarine, than a manufacturing / quality characteristics.
Now USA/Russia has enough long term data about the reactors performance to make good and reliable reactors.

Seriously want you i provide all accidents had Soviets/Russians nuclears submarines … with sailors dead or irradiated    in more Virginia was the first with a reactor which have same service life time than the boat and in service since 14 years...

There is no way to provide such a list the Soviets buried a lot of their accidents, Most countries with nuclear subs have a concealed such accidents.

Here, however, is a list of known accidents and I believe this is just the Northern Fleet.

http://spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/nfl8.htm

Labrador wrote:

Seriously want you i provide all accidents had Soviets/Russians nuclears submarines … with sailors dead or irradiated    in more Virginia was the first with a reactor which have same service life time than the boat and in service since 14 years...

Let me summarise.

USA has two commercial reactor type, has three main core melting and catastrophic radioactive product release.
The CCCP had one .

I went through the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents .

USA had one type of reactor design, CCCP had two.
Visibly the 50/60 vintage reactors was the main problem on both navy, and the later designed reactors hasn't had accidents .
The CCCP metal cooled reactors had the same learning curve like the pressurised ones, but during the 70s/80s.
If the US start to make metal cooled reactors then they would face the same learning curve like in the 50/60s.

Just check the Ford carrier : )

Otherwise there is no difference between the learning curves of the two country.


If I need to make a general assessment about the reactor safety of USA/Russia then I bet onto Russia, considering Fukishima.