Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
Relatively speaking, it can be divided into three zones: a unified nasal extremity, a unified aft extremity, and the middle part can be transformable and replaceable - for various types of combat load.
The VLS are probably behind the sail aft of the 2nd hatch, possibly 4 x 2 silos.Isos wrote:Seems like no VLS and shorter than Yasen. 11kt must be submerged so lighter than yasen.
It looks a lot like a kilo sub. They must have been impressed by the stealth of its shapes and used it for the Husky.
Very good !! Exactly what they need !
Scaling doesn't work in this picture! Project 1144 cruiser is the same size like a Gorshkov frigateIsos wrote:Seems like no VLS and shorter than Yasen. 11kt must be submerged so lighter than yasen.
It looks a lot like a kilo sub. They must have been impressed by the stealth of its shapes and used it for the Husky.
Very good !! Exactly what they need !
Exactly! You can see it because the shape in this part is more angular above and not round, as it should be without VLS.Dima wrote: VLS are probably behind the sail aft of the 2nd hatch.
Azi wrote:....It will have VLS !Exactly! You can see it because the shape in this part is more angular above and not round, as it should be without VLS.Dima wrote: VLS are probably behind the sail aft of the 2nd hatch.
Isos wrote:You can guess its size thanks to its sail. I would say some 105-110m. Yasen is 120m.
Hole wrote:Displacement will be 11.000 tons. Yassen-M: 13.500 tons.
Some versions will have VLS
One in the photo doesn't have it
That ain't much of a difference
I mean, if the displayed model is the actual design, then the most probable place for VLS is behind those hatch we see aft of the sail. I cannot see with clarity a VLS on that model due to lighting and other issues, but can see sort of bulge in the aft section of the hull (top and bottom) in that video grab. That's why I used the model displayed at ARMY 2017 to suggest how a VLS section is likely to be on the new sub.Azi wrote:Exactly! You can see it because the shape in this part is more angular above and not round, as it should be without VLS.
Isos wrote:I calculated 77m with such scale. Not realistic.
Big_Gazza wrote:Isos wrote:I calculated 77m with such scale. Not realistic.
I'd expect the Husky to be extensively automated to minimise the crew size, and this would allow a reduction in boat size - consider the Pr 705 Lira Class (Alfa) which had an all-officer crew numbering only 31. If the Soviets could build such boats in the late 1960s, why the heck couldn't the Russians improve on the automation levels in the 2020s? (the Yasen is claimed to have a complement of only 64, compared the Seawolf/Virginia at 140/135).
Isos wrote:Automatisation makes the sub very expensive.
Isos wrote:Automatisation makes the sub very expensive.
No it doesn't
Alpha-class wasn't expensive
Automatisation makes the sub very expensive.
Problem is the plaque says 11ktons.I'd expect the Husky to be extensively automated to minimise the crew size, and this would allow a reduction in boat size
Big_Gazza wrote:The Yasen class does NOT replace the Antei/Oscar-IIs. After modernisation these boats become underwater arsenal ships...
The article repeats the usual garbage about pump-jets making boats quieter and say that "curved propeller blades" are old fashioned... FFS... Pump-jets are pointless beyond a certain depth as water pressure is too high to permit cavitation at the edges of prop blades, regardless of the running speed. Avoid cavitation and you eliminate the main cause of prop noise.
Western boats however aren't built for diving that deep while Russians boats are, but don't expect our feckless "experts" to ever admit these basic facts. The narratives are all-important to these pro-establishment stenographers.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
