5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine

Russia to build 5th-generation nuclear sub with hypersonic missiles by 2027, source says

The results of the R&D work that has been carried out by now to design this submarine "have been recognized as unsatisfactory" as "they fail to meet the customer’s requirements," the source added. The United Ship-Building Corporation did not comment on this information for TASS. http://tass.com/defense/1007427

If so, how can they be sure that it'll even be ready "by 2027"?!

Tsavo Lion wrote:Russia to build 5th-generation nuclear sub with hypersonic missiles by 2027, source says

The results of the R&D work that has been carried out by now to design this submarine "have been recognized as unsatisfactory" as "they fail to meet the customer’s requirements," the source added. The United Ship-Building Corporation did not comment on this information for TASS. http://tass.com/defense/1007427

If so, how can they be sure that it'll even be ready "by 2027"?!

They can. Imagine situation:

a) Prototype does not mean ready for service
b) most of design work is already in place
c) only some technological solutions are to be matured

what about that?

PapaDragon wrote: They can't

because?

The Indians r building their own SSNs & SSBNs; I doubt they'll be interested in Russian SSGNs even if they could afford them.
https://defenceupdate.in/ssn-submarine-indias-next-generation-nuclear-attack-submarines/
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-kick-starts-mother-of-all-underwater-defence-deals/articleshow/59730200.cms
https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/india-launches-second-ballistic-missile-sub/
Leasing Russian SSNs is for training & isn't = buying.
Besides, locally built subs will cost less & those $ won't be leaving the country. Plus they don't want to upset the US with whom they cultivate defense relations, esp. after ordering S-400s for $6B: https://www.google.com/search?biw=888&bih=516&tbm=nws&ei=2LMRW9a0HtTj9AOx1brgBA&q=+India+S-400&oq=+India+S-400&gs_l=psy-ab.12..0.39100.42109.0.43172.7.7.0.0.0.0.770.1445.5-1j1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..5.1.674....0.TU7uQvtiS0M

PapaDragon wrote:
Russia needs submarines more than they need indian cash

There are plenty of tanks, planes and AA systems​ that Indians can buy, subs are taken

Russia soon might have too much empty spare capacity. Did you hear Putins requirement for MIC to produce civilian stuff? do you guess possibly why? yup idling capacities. So if there is money thus can build without problems. I dont think this happens for another reason: India eventually buy AIP subs

Underwater modular dreadnought

{}
Husky boats will receive new "wet" torpedo tubes, in which water will be used to launch ammunition, and torpedoes or other types of weapons can be fired from a depth of up to 1 km.

Boats will apply a wide range of both underwater uninhabited autonomous vehicles and unmanned aerial vehicles. As reported by the developers, "Husky" will be able to serve Russia for 52 years. Currently, the maximum lifetime of the domestic submarine is 37 years - the submarine BS-136 Orenburg.

The rubber noise-absorbing coating of the submarine will be replaced by multi-layer composite materials. Of these, the hull covers, bow and stern rudders, stabilizers, fencing, propellers and shaft lines will be manufactured. It is possible and the use of titanium alloys - this is indicated by the possible depth of submerging the submarine to 1 km and its service life.

The main indicator of an atomic submarine - stealth - is at least twice as high as that of existing submarines. The noise level will be at the level of the world ocean noise. It is believed that the noise of the boat, coinciding with the noise of the sea, is optimal for its secrecy.

Displacement of the boat will be about 12 thousand tons. It will receive the latest combat information management system, a hydroacoustic complex and will be integrated into the unified information space of the Russian Armed Forces.

{}

https://iz.ru/753092/dmitrii-boltenkov/podvodnyi-modulnyi-drednout


"expert " fantasy?

PapaDragon wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:..........
https://iz.ru/753092/dmitrii-boltenkov/podvodnyi-modulnyi-drednout

"expert " fantasy?

More like ''expert'' bullshit. Just look at this:

....Husky boats will receive new "wet" torpedo tubes, in which water will be used to launch ammunition, and torpedoes or other types of weapons can be fired from a depth of up to 1 km....

...this is indicated by the possible depth of submerging the submarine to 1 km and its service life....

And what is stopping the enemy from blowing that submarine at the depth of 1km? I don't see the problem with sending a torpedo at that depth at the fraction of the cost it takes to build a submarine.

Back to missile/ship issue. One is infinitely cheaper than other.


And this:

....Boats will apply a wide range of both underwater uninhabited autonomous vehicles and unmanned aerial vehicles.....

UAVs on submarine? Don't the have bigger issues to solve? They are barely building current versions. Do they even know what subs are supposed to be used for?


It's like bullshit competition over there.

1km depth in a situation where they can't even build enough subs that can't even go half that depth.

Virginia-class goes just 240m deep but that doesn't stop USA from using them effectively because priority is lowering noise not going deeper.

And best of all they can build them by the shitload. Simply because they do not indulge in delirious obsolete fantasies.

Papa,

I have explained the importance of diving depth before. Let me explain one more time with an example.

One of the most important sources of noise from a submarine is "cavitation" from the propeller(s).
Cavitation noise decreases as the submarine dives deeper.

A rough example:
-If a submarine is doing 30 knots at 50m depth, the whole ocean is going to hear it.
-At 500m depth, the same submarine can do 30 knots and be virtually silent.

How does that translate in practice? Again let me use a rough example in USA v/s Russia modes of operations.
-Virginias tactics are to hunt at low speeds, they will use their max speed in emergency escape and run away situations.
-Yasens use high speed to quickly arrive within striking range of their assigned target (carrier group or other), they need to dive deep to travel at high speed while remaining silent.

And here is another reason why diving depth is important:
-Sonar performance is affected by sea water temperature.
-The ocean temperature is not uniform, there are layers of water at different temperatures.
-The deeper a sub can dive, the more it can use the various temperature layers to hide from enemy sonar.

There are several other reasons why a Navy would want to make its subs go deeper.
The Russians (and Soviets before them) are not making Titanium hulls just to be cool. They paid "an arm and a leg" (Titanium is expensive) to build Titanium hulled subs because they can go deeper. Titanium is also far more difficult to work with (welding for example) and requires more work-hours and specially trained people.
The Americans on the other hand attach less importance to maximum diving depth.
Russian and American submarine tactics and modes of operation are different. Hence, direct comparison of Russian sub X versus American sub Y is not very relevant.

Got it now?

Well, "to hold the fort", SSKs/SSNs already in the fleet & being build/modernized will be enough; by the time new LHAs/LHDs  &/ CVNs r built, if ever, there'll be few more Yasens &/ older modernized/modified SSNs/SSGNs/Delta SSBNs in SSN/GN roles & perhaps a few new SSNs. Oscars noises could be reduced, given SSK escorts, & fill in for SSNs if need be. Also, those UUVs could shadow/interdict CSGs from great depths & attack them w/o ever being detected, so SSNs/SSGNs r not needed as much. Getting new SSNs isn't not as high a priority now.

PapaDragon wrote:
But Yasens already dive deep enough to get the job done, that's all I'm saying.

Instead of switching to another long time to build model they should at least make an effort to stabilize SSN fleet numbers​.

I already asked before but nobody answered: is current SSN fleet in any condition to hold the fort until they start receiving new subs? Oscars aside (they are SSGNs anyway) whole thing looks like a zoo and not getting any younger.

Add to that 5 year gap (at least) between last Yasen and first Husky and it's not looking good at all.

1) The magical 1000 has something with hydrography too. Like mezzo-sphere for radars AFAIK Harder to trace. For some reason Poseidon drone is also 1000m...

2) how many torpedoes can dive now to 1000m? like none besides short range ASW topedoes (10km with max speed?) max speeds 50kts vs 35kts of sub? look at envelope for torpedoes to be very limited in this case...


3) UAVs or underwater drones is a must in any fleet. Especially if you want Husky to be a modular sub.

Tsavo Lion wrote: Also, those UUVs could shadow/interdict CSGs from great depths & attack them w/o ever being detected,

looks probably

SSNs/SSGNs r not needed as much. Getting new SSNs isn't not as high a priority now.

oh yes they are and always be. Older subs will be withdrawn form service in 10-15 years. it is not much time to build new to be honest.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

1) The magical 1000 has something with hydrography too. Like mezzo-sphere for radars AFAIK Harder to trace. For some reason Poseidon drone is also 1000m...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Seawater

The speed of sound in water the slowest at 1km, means every noise emitted in the ocean will oscillate around that level in a plane .

So, if something is in the sofar channel then the noise of it never reach the surface( apart from the area above it) .

Means if you want to do long range detection then you have to be in the sofar channel, and if you want to avoid it then you have to be there as well : )

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

SSNs/SSGNs r not needed as much. Getting new SSNs isn't as high a priority now.

oh yes they are and always be. Older subs will be withdrawn from service in 10-15 years. it is not much time to build new to be honest.

If they were such a priority, more Yasens would be built now instead of Boreys. Some older subs can be kept in service longer than 15 years. They know what they need to do now better than us!

Tsavo Lion wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

SSNs/SSGNs r not needed as much. Getting new SSNs isn't as high a priority now.

oh yes they are and always be. Older subs will be withdrawn from service in 10-15 years. it is not much time to build new to be honest.

If they were such a priority, more Yasens would be built now instead of Boreys. Some older subs can be kept in service longer than 15 years. They know what they need to do now better than us!

Yes, they scarified three near completion akulas to make the boreis.

With the Indian Akula there are four new,modern attack submarine given up for goodwill and for three SLBM platform

TheArmenian wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:..........
https://iz.ru/753092/dmitrii-boltenkov/podvodnyi-modulnyi-drednout

"expert " fantasy?

More like ''expert'' bullshit. Just look at this:

....Husky boats will receive new "wet" torpedo tubes, in which water will be used to launch ammunition, and torpedoes or other types of weapons can be fired from a depth of up to 1 km....

...this is indicated by the possible depth of submerging the submarine to 1 km and its service life....

And what is stopping the enemy from blowing that submarine at the depth of 1km? I don't see the problem with sending a torpedo at that depth at the fraction of the cost it takes to build a submarine.

Back to missile/ship issue. One is infinitely cheaper than other.


And this:

....Boats will apply a wide range of both underwater uninhabited autonomous vehicles and unmanned aerial vehicles.....

UAVs on submarine? Don't the have bigger issues to solve? They are barely building current versions. Do they even know what subs are supposed to be used for?


It's like bullshit competition over there.

1km depth in a situation where they can't even build enough subs that can't even go half that depth.

Virginia-class goes just 240m deep but that doesn't stop USA from using them effectively because priority is lowering noise not going deeper.

And best of all they can build them by the shitload. Simply because they do not indulge in delirious obsolete fantasies.

Papa,

I have explained the importance of diving depth before. Let me explain one more time with an example.

One of the most important sources of noise from a submarine is "cavitation" from the propeller(s).
Cavitation noise decreases as the submarine dives deeper.

A rough example:
-If a submarine is doing 30 knots at 50m depth, the whole ocean is going to hear it.
-At 500m depth, the same submarine can do 30 knots and be virtually silent.

How does that translate in practice? Again let me use a rough example in USA v/s Russia modes of operations.
-Virginias tactics are to hunt at low speeds, they will use their max speed in emergency escape and run away situations.
-Yasens use high speed to quickly arrive within striking range of their assigned target (carrier group or other), they need to dive deep to travel at high speed while remaining silent.

And here is another reason why diving depth is important:
-Sonar performance is affected by sea water temperature.
-The ocean temperature is not uniform, there are layers of water at different temperatures.
-The deeper a sub can dive, the more it can use the various temperature layers to hide from enemy sonar.

There are several other reasons why a Navy would want to make its subs go deeper.
The Russians (and Soviets before them) are not making Titanium hulls just to be cool. They paid "an arm and a leg" (Titanium is expensive) to build Titanium hulled subs because they can go deeper. Titanium is also far more difficult to work with (welding for example) and requires more work-hours and specially trained people.
The Americans on the other hand attach less importance to maximum diving depth.
Russian and American submarine tactics and modes of operation are different. Hence, direct comparison of Russian sub X versus American sub Y is not very relevant.

Got it now?

Wow I didnt know water depth had such a sound impact. I thought it was minor. However, currently there are no Russian subs capable of going below 400m. Are 200-300m enough to mask sound signature without having to always be in a thermoclyne.


BTW I have extreme doubts that active sonars will be useful for subs since using them is suicide because it makes the sub easily detected.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Wow I didnt know water depth had such a sound impact. I thought it was minor. However, currently there are no Russian subs capable of going below 400m. Are 200-300m enough to mask sound signature without having to always be in a thermoclyne.


BTW I have extreme doubts that active sonars will be useful for subs since using them is suicide because it makes the sub easily detected.

400m is more likely the Virginia test deep.

The Russian ones can dive deeper.

If you put a Virginia and Jassen against each other, a passive sonar is nearly useless. Even under perfect conditions they could only hear each other at a few hundred metres. In the end both would have to use their active sonar to fire torpedos.

Hole wrote:If you put a Virginia and Jassen against each other, a passive sonar is nearly useless. Even under perfect conditions they could only hear each other at a few hundred metres. In the end both would have to use their active sonar to fire torpedos.

Still preferable to being detected km away. Its better to escape unseen and destroy surface ships and leave sub hunting to aircraft and frigates.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:
Wow I didnt know water depth had such a sound impact. I thought it was minor. However, currently there are no Russian subs capable of going below 400m. Are 200-300m enough to mask sound signature without having to always be in a thermoclyne.
.

so what is your data surce for depth claim?

The maximum immersion depth is 600 meters

https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20131230/987299910.html

Submarines of project 971 "Pike-B"

Working depth of immersion 480 m
Limit depth of immersion 600 m
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Подводные_лодки_проекта_971_«Щука-Б»


BTW lost unfortunately

Komsomolets (Fin class)

Working depth of immersion 1000 m
Limit depth of immersion 1250 m