Project 949A: Oscar-II

Borei is the best choice. It is already designed and tested. It has VLS that can be fit with uksk. And it is cheaper to build than the SSBN borei because you can take off all the strategic stuff needed for the use of ICBMs.

The thing is that kalibr are not cheap. I would say around 1 million a piece. 200 of them would mean 150-200 million $ just to fit the VLS. Then you also need some 30 torpedoes which add another 15-20 million $.

but it's nice to have one or two of them. You can release 200 missiles the first hour of the war and destroy strategic targets ASAP.

Isos wrote:Borei is the best choice. It is already designed and tested. It has VLS that can be fit with uksk. And it is cheaper to build than the SSBN borei because you can take off all the strategic stuff needed for the use of ICBMs.

The thing is that kalibr are not cheap. I would say around 1 million a piece. 200 of them would mean 150-200 million $ just to fit the VLS. Then you also need some 30 torpedoes which add another 15-20 million $.

but it's nice to have one or two of them. You can release 200 missiles the first hour of the war and destroy strategic targets ASAP.

Well you are getting the idea but you need to think big.

Equipping all available Akulas with 400+ vertical launch cells with a mixture of nuclear Zircon and nuclear Kalibr would allow Russia to within minutes wipe out all of european nato and the pindostanski navy with over a thousand nuclear warheads.

Perhaps this show of force could even convince the pindos not to commit suicide by vastly more capable strategic nuclear arsenal of Russia.

The-thing-next-door wrote:...Equipping all available Akulas with 400+ vertical launch cells

Akulas don't have space for vertical launch cells, they only have torpedos

pindostanski navy with over a thousand nuclear warheads.

Are you the new Eehnie or Ultimate Warrior ?

With such number of missiles you don't need nuclear warehead. If you want to use nuks use them directly against cities.

Akulas don't have space for vertical launch cells, they only have torpedos

Akula is the russian name of the Typhoon. Typhoon being its NATO name.

Akula is the Nato name for their current SSN called shuka in russian.

Isos wrote:

pindostanski navy with over a thousand nuclear warheads.

Are you the new Eehnie or Ultimate Warrior ?

With such number of missiles you don't need nuclear warehead. If you want to use nuks use them directly against cities.

I don't recall either user suggesting such things and isn't Ultimate Warrior a western troll?

Regardless there are more than a few hundred populated areas in europe and when engaging enemies with aerospace defences, ineffective as they may be, it is best not to take any chances and saturate them with nuclear Zirkons anyway. After all you do not want to be taking any chances in a nuclear war.

If it is not obvious already I think that Russia should throw parity out the window and have atleast one nuclear warhead committed to every single enemy town. Russia cannot rely on the good will of bloodthirsty savages.

PapaDragon wrote:Akulas don't have space for vertical launch cells, they only have torpedos

Hahahahah that is priceless, the largest submarines ever built "don't have space for verticle launch cells", well I guess they will just need some 500m long super subs if they want to have any VLS then won't they, or perhaps a 100km long space battleship that can crater pindostan in one shot.

On a more serious note, if I use the proper designation for everything else then I would probably get the class name of a submarine right would I not? In addition I am clearly not in any way looking at things from a nato perspective, that much should be
made clear by my suggestions of how to go about dealing with the vermin, so why ever would I use their retarded confusion causing system when talking about anything?

The-thing-next-door wrote:...the largest submarines ever built "don't have space for verticle launch cells"

Not the largest sub ever built not even close and no, it doesn't have space for VLS

@papadragon see my previous post. Akula is used for two different designations.

Regardless there are more than a few hundred populated areas in europe and when engaging enemies with aerospace defences, ineffective as they may be, it is best not to take any chances and saturate them with nuclear Zirkons anyway. After all you do not want to be taking any chances in a nuclear war.

Why would they build a SSGN for nuclear war ? They have enough ICBMs for that ...

There's some confusion on which 'Akula' sub, you guys are talking about 2 different subs here. There's the Akula NATO designation for a Soviet nuclear attack sub, and there's the Soviet designation for the largest SLBM carrier ever (NATO designation Typhoon). He's obviously talking about he Boomer/SLBM sub, and he's referring to a conversion (which was seen on the American Ohio Class Boomer) to replace SLBM's with cruise missiles. Discussion of such should be placed in the proper thread.

PapaDragon wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:...the largest submarines ever built "don't have space for verticle launch cells"

Not the largest sub ever built not even close and no, it doesn't have space for VLS

Over 9000 comments in this forum and you dont know this?

Isos wrote:@papadragon see my previous post. Akula is used for two different designations.

This is English language forum

As for Typhoon there are only three left

Two of those are rusting away waiting for scraping and last one is a testbed

All this on top of the fact that they were decommissioned became they cost twice as much to operate than Boreis

PapaDragon wrote:

This is English language forum

English language, but a forum about Russian none the less, nato represents the retarded english speakers of the world only.

PapaDragon wrote:All this on top of the fact that they were decommissioned became they cost twice as much to operate than Boreis

Well that further adds to that Boreis are just cheap 90's crap, Russia is no longer such a mess and can afford better subs.

PapaDragon wrote:Two of those are rusting away waiting for scraping

Titanium forms an oxide layer only 1 molecule thick which then prevents further oxidation, how exactly are they "rusting away"

The-thing-next-door wrote:...Titanium forms an oxide layer only 1 molecule thick which then prevents further oxidation, how exactly are they "rusting away"

It does? Wow, that's amazing!!!

Can you imagine how awesome it would have been if Typhoons were made​ out of titanium?

Just think of the possibilities!

I can't believe someone thinks Boreis are worse then Typhoons...

I will never understand peoples obsession with wanting to keep old soviet gear in service, time as moved on since the USSR accept it.

PapaDragon wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:...Titanium forms an oxide layer only 1 molecule thick which then prevents further oxidation, how exactly are they "rusting away"

It does? Wow, that's amazing!!!

Can you imagine how awesome it would have been if Typhoons were made​ out of titanium?

Just think of the possibilities!

You're wasting yer time I'm afraid. I've previously tried to point out that Pr 941 Akula (NATO name Typhoon) are not titanium boats but I guess some people only choose to read and absorb info that they like...

SeigSoloyvov wrote:I can't believe someone thinks Boreis are worse then Typhoons...

I will never understand peoples obsession with wanting to keep old soviet gear in service, time as moved on since the USSR accept it.

Their missiles are small and carry low yield warheads and thier small size means that they are good only as long as the warhead count limitation treaties are in force as they cannot be modified to allow for the carrying of additional missiles.

I am not claiming that Russian submarines are bad relative to western submarines, just that thier superiority is insufficient to ensure victory unless built in huge numbers.

My initial question was where the hell are the dedicated missile submarines (non SLBM) to replace the Antei class. Multirole submarines like the Yasen are no substitute for specialised submarines like the Antei.

Building a 2 or 3 bigger less advanced missile submarines would be far cheaper than building 10 Yasens and would offer more firepower.

Even a cheap arsenal sub will still be at least 600M dollars

And probably twice that when it is fully loaded with missiles...

Borei is the best choice. It is already designed and tested. It has VLS that can be fit with uksk. And it is cheaper to build than the SSBN borei because you can take off all the strategic stuff needed for the use of ICBMs.

The thing is that kalibr are not cheap. I would say around 1 million a piece. 200 of them would mean 150-200 million $ just to fit the VLS. Then you also need some 30 torpedoes which add another 15-20 million $.

but it's nice to have one or two of them. You can release 200 missiles the first hour of the war and destroy strategic targets ASAP.

I don't agree... it doesn't have to be useful for anything else... it is essentially a submersable barge that can move under its own power and carry lots of ready to fire missiles and keep moving at about 3-5 knots...

Fit it with a conning tower with four huge Phased array radars giving full 360 degree coverage and fit it with thousands of TORs and Pantsirs as well as S-350s and it could probably sit on the surface most of the time anyway... as a visible threat... you might not even need to fire a shot...

Well you are getting the idea but you need to think big.

I agree the idea behind an arsenal ship is to not need dozens of them... all the fire power you need on one or possibly two platforms... the cheaper and simpler the better...

When it is not being used for war you could use it as a cargo vessel...

Equipping all available Akulas with 400+ vertical launch cells with a mixture of nuclear Zircon and nuclear Kalibr would allow Russia to within minutes wipe out all of european nato and the pindostanski navy with over a thousand nuclear warheads.

Bories and Akulas will be too expensive and not custom designed for the role...

Akulas don't have space for vertical launch cells, they only have torpedos

Akula SSBN.

With such number of missiles you don't need nuclear warehead. If you want to use nuks use them directly against cities.

Nuclear warheads would essentially make it unusable for conventional warfare...

Regardless there are more than a few hundred populated areas in europe and when engaging enemies with aerospace defences, ineffective as they may be, it is best not to take any chances and saturate them with nuclear Zirkons anyway. After all you do not want to be taking any chances in a nuclear war.

In a nuclear war the goal is extermination, not precision strike...

This is English language forum

It is, but that does not mean we must succumb to western propaganda...

We try to educate.

Well that further adds to that Boreis are just cheap 90's crap, Russia is no longer such a mess and can afford better subs.

An arsenal ship or sub should not cost as much as attack or SSBN type subs... the ship equivalent would be a cargo ship with a crane to manouver crates to allow their contents to be launched....

Building a 2 or 3 bigger less advanced missile submarines would be far cheaper than building 10 Yasens and would offer more firepower.

Because 10 Yasens are more useful than 2 or 3 Anteis....

They don't just have the single role of sinking carrier groups... a job no Soviet or Russian sub has ever had to do so far.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:I can't believe someone thinks Boreis are worse then Typhoons...

I will never understand peoples obsession with wanting to keep old soviet gear in service, time as moved on since the USSR accept it.

Their missiles are small and carry low yield warheads and thier small size means that they are good only as long as the warhead count limitation treaties are in force as they cannot be modified to allow for the carrying of additional missiles.

I am not claiming that Russian submarines are bad relative to western submarines, just that thier superiority is insufficient to ensure victory unless built in huge numbers.

My initial question was where the hell are the dedicated missile submarines (non SLBM) to replace the Antei class. Multirole submarines like the Yasen are no substitute for specialised submarines like the Antei.

Building a 2 or 3 bigger less advanced missile submarines would be far cheaper than building 10 Yasens and would offer more firepower.

Their missiles are quite powerful and pack more than enough of a punch to do the job, they also have more than enough missiles to do the job.

You are quite mistaken there.

Also, they are modernizing Antei's to 949AM. K-186 is completed and the first of the 949AM line, K-132 and K-442 are slated to be returned to the navy in 2022 and K-150 and K-456 are slated to be returned in 2021, after that two more MAY undergo the refit.

The modernized versions carry 72 Missiles which the tubes can carry Zircons, Caliber or Onyx missiles.

Of course, the problem with arsenal submarines is they require protection from Attack Submarines since they are big and easy to track for such submarines and will be sunk easily if caught. But that is the price you pay for such a class of submarine.

owais.usmani wrote:

Hole wrote:

And there were around 9.000 tons of Titanium used for one of these beasts.

Completely incorrect. Project 941 Акула class ballistic missile submarines were made of military grade steel, not titanium.

Titanium welding require inner gas atmosphere.


They say that during the construction of the LYras the construction hall was filled with argon, and everyone worked in oxygen mask.

Hence the extreme price and long construction time of Ti submarines.

Outer hull is of steel, the inner hull(s) are made of Titanium.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
Their missiles are quite powerful and pack more than enough of a punch to do the job, they also have more than enough missiles to do the job.

You are quite mistaken there.

They are equivalent to their pindostanski counterparts, which is pathetic, there is no warhead blast yield limitation treaty so there is no excuse for the firecrackers in the Bulava.

The whole point of nuclear missiles is to kill the enemy not put on a fireworks display.

What should be done when you cannot build more is to make your warheads more powerful, if all Russian warheads were 3 more than megatons each then Russia would have a considerable advantage without leaving any treaties.

Of course, the problem with arsenal submarines is they require protection from Attack Submarines since they are big and easy to track for such submarines and will be sunk easily if caught. But that is the price you pay for such a class of submarine.

The point of them is that they are too far away to be detected by sonar or engaged before they can fire so this does not matter.

GarryB wrote:
I don't agree... it doesn't have to be useful for anything else... it is essentially a submersable barge that can move under its own power and carry lots of ready to fire missiles and keep moving at about 3-5 knots...

Fit it with a conning tower with four huge Phased array radars giving full 360 degree coverage and fit it with thousands of TORs and Pantsirs as well as S-350s and it could probably sit on the surface most of the time anyway... as a visible threat... you might not even need to fire a shot...

First you discribe a undersurface barge and then a cruiser...

Borei, without all the expensive stuff that makes it a great SSBN, can do the work. It could carry 16×8 missiles, have torpedoes to defend itsekf but also a wonderfull stealth. Once it launches its missiles at ground targets it can even do the job of SSN or track carriers with remaining missiles in the torpedo tubes or in the VLS.

It is also produced and a well known design.

Nuclear sub can't be made "simple" anyway.

Quite wrong they would need to change Borei's hull structure to make it less stealthy to fit a lot of missiles.

Submarines don't work like that.

Borei would also be a bad SSN, you have some weird impressions about these Submarines.