Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Share
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1165
    Points : 2053
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Russian Patriot on Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:34 pm

    Russia needs minimum 50 nuclear subs for fleet - Navy Vice Admiral

    RIA Novosti

    20/03/201013:58

    MOSCOW, March 20 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian Navy ideally needs to have at least 50 nuclear-powered submarines, a high-ranking Navy officer said during a live interview with Ekho Moskvy radio station on Saturday.

    The Russian Navy has some 60 strategic, multi-functional and diesel-powered submarines in its fleet that are combat ready.

    "The number of nuclear submarines in Russia's Navy should be no less than 40-50," First Deputy of the Naval General Staff Vice Admiral Oleg Burtsev said.

    He said that France, Britain and the United States have at least nine combat ready nuclear subs at sea at all times.

    "In order to counterbalance them, we need to have two or three nuclear-powered submarines. They need to know that we are prepared to respond to any strike," Burtsev said.

    In answering a call-in question of whether Russia is behind in developing its fleet in comparison with China, which builds two or three submarines a year, Burtsev said that Russia was not behind in development.

    "Trial runs are taking place with the Yasen class subs, and this year the final trial stages of the Lada class submarine will be held."

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2010/russia-100320-rianovosti01.htm
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2187
    Points : 3077
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:07 pm

    America can hardly afford 50 nuclear subs, we don't have a prayer getting that many. We will be fortunate to get 8 SSBNs and 16 SSNs.
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  runaway on Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:11 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:America can hardly afford 50 nuclear subs, we don't have a prayer getting that many.  We will be fortunate to get 8 SSBNs and 16 SSNs.

    Agree, the costs of these warmachines is getting astronomical, as they keep getting more advanced and multirolled.

    A rumor said the russian navy wouldnt put the Project 885 Yasen sub in line production, because of the high cost, still nr 2, the Kazan is being built. Maybe it ends there and they switch to a cheaper design.

    The Borei though, is being built at a rate of one sub per year. The sub is probably state of the art, as the missile Bulava
    as soon as they work out the kinks.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2187
    Points : 3077
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:37 am

    runaway wrote:

    Agree, the costs of these warmachines is getting astronomical, as they keep getting more advanced and multirolled.

    A rumor said the russian navy wouldnt put the Project 885 Yasen sub in line production, because of the high cost, still nr 2, the Kazan is being built. Maybe it ends there and they switch to a cheaper design.

    The Borei though, is being built at a rate of one sub per year. The sub is probably state of the art, as the missile Bulava
    as soon as they work out the kinks.

    Project 855 is probably obsolete to Western nuke subs now it took so long to launch Severodvinsk. The Kazan is going to be so heavily updated, it is said it will not even be of the same class.

    Bulava is as good a missile as we could ask for... when it works. The Borei uses the technologies of the Akula II which are outdated now as well. When we are willing to lease the Nerpa when we are short of advanced SSNs, it must point to some obsolescence. The French Le Terrible is the most advanced SSBN now.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 12, 2011 4:47 am

    America can hardly afford 50 nuclear subs, we don't have a prayer
    getting that many.  We will be fortunate to get 8 SSBNs and 16 SSNs.

    He doesn't say 50 new nuke subs.

    He says that they already have 60 subs of nuclear and diesel propulsion that are combat ready.

    He also says that they need 40-50 nuclear boats to fulfil their role so if they do get 8 SSBNs and 16 SSNs and have a few existing boats upgraded or converted to keep them in service that would be enough.


    A rumor said the russian navy wouldnt put the Project 885 Yasen sub in
    line production, because of the high cost, still nr 2, the Kazan is
    being built. Maybe it ends there and they switch to a cheaper design.

    The Borei though, is being built at a rate of one sub per year. The sub is probably state of the art, as the missile Bulava
    as soon as they work out the kinks.

    They are minimising costs by unifying components including propulsion etc, though sonar equipment will be different for SSN and SSBN. Though the SSNs are actually going to be SSGNs and more flexible in armament.
    There was talk I have read somewhere of a new long range supersonic weapon which maybe a further improvement on the Vulkan which will replace the Bazalt and Granit in vessels fitted with those missiles... with the exception of the Kuznetsov which is having the Granits removed to make more hangar space for aircraft during a refit to start when the admiral gorshkov is finished and sent to India.

    The French Le Terrible is the most advanced SSBN now.

    Most advanced SSBN means nothing. The question is not how advanced it is, but can it do its job.
    The Boreys will do a fine job for the next few decades.
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  runaway on Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:46 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote: The French Le Terrible is the most advanced SSBN now.  

    Maybe, like their cars. But as they break down all the time, certainly not the best, nor most useful.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2187
    Points : 3077
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:48 am

    GarryB wrote:

    He doesn't say 50 new nuke subs.

    He says that they already have 60 subs of nuclear and diesel propulsion that are combat ready.

    He also says that they need 40-50 nuclear boats to fulfil their role so if they do get 8 SSBNs and 16 SSNs and have a few existing boats upgraded or converted to keep them in service that would be enough.

    He says Russia needs 40-50 nuke subs and no less. It is irrelevant what we have when it was all built during the Soviet. They are on their way out. When we get those new subs, those old subs will be long gone leaving a huge gap. 40-50 is impossible to afford on our budget.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:15 am

    He says Russia needs 40-50 nuke subs and no less.  It is irrelevant what
    we have when it was all built during the Soviet.  They are on their way
    out.

    I strongly disagree. 2-3 refurbished Typhoons, plus the Akulas, Sierras, even the last model Victors would be better than anything China could put in the water in the next 10-15 years.

    During the Cold War the Soviet policy seemed to be custom products for custom roles. In the west there would never be 10 Sovremenny ships and 10 Udaloy ships... there would have been about 30 ships of the same class that could do both jobs. In individual areas the Soviet boats would actually be superior, like 8 Sunburns/Moskits on the Sov would be far more potent than the 8 Harpoons on the western ship, but the western ship would have had 8 Harpoons and 8 ASROCs and therefore been better armed to perform either roles..

    It seems that this standardisation is going to be adopted in the Russian Navy with weapon launchers unified and sensors and propulsion standardised... and likely hull forms also standardised too.

    This will directly lead to larger class numbers with a smaller number of separate class types.

    Likely the pure SSN will actually disappear and the SSGN will replace it because all attack subs will have vertical launchers for cruise missiles of all types.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2187
    Points : 3077
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:13 am

    Refurbishing and maintaining rust buckets cost nearly as much as building new submarines. Availability will be low and their usage not worth the effort. They are already at the end of their service life and Soviet equipment was not designed for upgrades but replacement. It takes so long for anything to get upgraded here anyway, it will be rusted out before it gets done. Forget them, MoD has...

    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Austin on Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:05 am

    A fleet of 50 nuclear submarine fleet is a tall ask and I dont think they will achieve that, right now the plan is to build 8 Borei class SSBN and 6 Yasen class SSGN.

    There are working on 5th Gen small SSN design that would eventually replace the Akulas.

    In the next 20 years I would expect them to have a fleet of 20-25 Nuclear submarine of all types and 10 - 15 conventional SSK.

    That should be good enough if they can maintain a high tempo of availability.

    The Achilles Heels of SU submariner force was they could not maintain a high patrol rate at sea , so they had to build a huge numbers to come up to uptimes of NATO/US submarine force , while US could maintain high operational tempo at sea with a smaller nuclear submariner force.

    Hopefully the new Russian submarine are designed to last longer and maintain high uptime at sea to give a quality advantage with small submarine force.

    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  runaway on Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:43 pm

    GarryB wrote:I strongly disagree. 2-3 refurbished Typhoons, plus the Akulas, Sierras, even the last model Victors would be better than anything China could put in the water in the next 10-15 years.

    Likely the pure SSN will actually disappear and the SSGN will replace it because all attack subs will have vertical launchers for cruise missiles of all types.

    I agree that the designs are many years ahead of weaker navys. But the service life of these subs is going to end pretty soon. Materials just gets exhausted.

    Austin wrote:There are working on 5th Gen small SSN design that would eventually replace the Akulas.

    In the next 20 years I would expect them to have a fleet of 20-25 Nuclear submarine of all types and 10 - 15 conventional SSK.

    SSGN or SSN? I belive like Austin, we will se smaller dedicated SSN:s. More subs, cheaper and very agile.

    But 10-15 SSK:s? Now i belive that figure should be rather 20-30 SSK:s. They can perform better than nucs in near waters, and are much cheaper and much faster to build.
    The new Ladas are very quite, very deadly and very multirolled.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:12 am

    Refurbishing and maintaining rust buckets cost nearly as much as
    building new submarines. Availability will be low and their usage not
    worth the effort.

    I disagree... the bigger vessels have lifespans much longer than smaller ships and if the upgrades update everything including propulsion, electronics, sensors, and weapons we are practically talking about new ships.

    The point is that right now the need is to replace the little ships, with working on big ships limited right now to upgrades. The only way you are going to get a Kirov class size vessel into service any time within the next 15 years is to upgrade an existing one. It doesn't matter if it costs as much as a new one because they don't have the ship yard capacity to build a new one from scratch anyway... let alone a new design.

    When they do start making big ships they need to be sure that the process they have started of standardisation of parts and components works... what better way to do that than try it now with an upgrade.

    The main problem with inservice material in the Russian military is that it has been 15-20 years since it has had more than minor maintainence. A lot of stuff needs flat out replacement, but a lot of that material can't be replaced right now. A lot of stuff doesn't need replacement... it just needs a damn good upgrade instead... and every single ship doesn't need to be the USS Enterprise.

    Forget them, MoD has...

    They have already said they want to upgrade the Kirov class vessels, and the Kuznetsov is going for a massive upgrade (5 years!) when the Indian carrier leaves the shipyard to make space for it. The Typhoon class has also been pegged for special upgrades of unknown functions... it could be fitted with an enormous nose mounted sonar array, and with its missile silos removed it could carry lots of divers and mini subs and all sorts of equipment...
    The Russian military seemed interested in getting that Slava class ship from the Ukraine too... why bother if they are to be scrapped?
    With its land based air power transferred to the VVS, the VMA is has suddenly lost its land based bomber and fighter and interceptor capability... do you still think its plans for Carriers is silly?

    Without air power to defend it the Russian Navy is a very vulnerable force even with NATO standard equipment... imagine the Falklands war without the British carrier. Ships alone... and especially far from home are vulnerable to air attack.

    The Achilles Heels of SU submariner force was they could not maintain a
    high patrol rate at sea , so they had to build a huge numbers to come up
    to uptimes of NATO/US submarine force , while US could maintain high
    operational tempo at sea with a smaller nuclear submariner force.

    Part of that high US tempo was having multiple crews for each sub... I rather doubt the Russian Navy will have the number of sailors necessary to keep their subs at sea a lot.

    SSGN or SSN? I belive like Austin, we will se smaller dedicated SSN:s. More subs, cheaper and very agile.

    More likely SSGN in my opinion.

    The new Ladas are very quite, very deadly and very multirolled.

    Exactly... as long as they can fix all the bugs and get it into production.

    They also seem to have a sub that uses a very small nuclear generator similar to those used in space craft that can't use solar panels... either because they need too much power or because they can't operate without power for short periods like craft with solar panels need to be able to do.

    The small nuclear generator acts like an AIP in what is otherwise a diesel electric and does not generate enough power to propel the sub any great distance but can keep the O2 systems going and trickle charge the batteries while completely submerged.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2187
    Points : 3077
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:21 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Refurbishing and maintaining rust buckets cost nearly as much as
    building new submarines. Availability will be low and their usage not
    worth the effort.

    I disagree... the bigger vessels have lifespans much longer than smaller ships and if the upgrades update everything including propulsion, electronics, sensors, and weapons we are practically talking about new ships.

    The point is that right now the need is to replace the little ships, with working on big ships limited right now to upgrades. The only way you are going to get a Kirov class size vessel into service any time within the next 15 years is to upgrade an existing one. It doesn't matter if it costs as much as a new one because they don't have the ship yard capacity to build a new one from scratch anyway... let alone a new design.

    When they do start making big ships they need to be sure that the process they have started of standardisation of parts and components works... what better way to do that than try it now with an upgrade.

    The main problem with inservice material in the Russian military is that it has been 15-20 years since it has had more than minor maintainence. A lot of stuff needs flat out replacement, but a lot of that material can't be replaced right now. A lot of stuff doesn't need replacement... it just needs a damn good upgrade instead... and every single ship doesn't need to be the USS Enterprise.

    You can disagree all you want, it doesn't change the fact Soviet subs were not designed to operate past a 20 year service life. They are not surface ships with most of their mass out of the water, they sit deep and have more condition issues over time. They have pressurised hulls with many more tolerance requirements than any surface ship and since they have all their systems crammed into compartments, it is much more expensive to upgrade them as the hull has to be compromised to do it. The refit of the Ohio subs is costing as much as it would be for us to buy a new one.


    They have already said they want to upgrade the Kirov class vessels, and the Kuznetsov is going for a massive upgrade (5 years!) when the Indian carrier leaves the shipyard to make space for it. The Typhoon class has also been pegged for special upgrades of unknown functions... it could be fitted with an enormous nose mounted sonar array, and with its missile silos removed it could carry lots of divers and mini subs and all sorts of equipment...
    The Russian military seemed interested in getting that Slava class ship from the Ukraine too... why bother if they are to be scrapped?
    With its land based air power transferred to the VVS, the VMA is has suddenly lost its land based bomber and fighter and interceptor capability... do you still think its plans for Carriers is silly?

    We were talking about submarines so this has nothing to do with your previous statements. Read above for why submarines are not worth the upgrade. As far as these comments, the decision to upgrade Kirov's has not taken place, the mothballed Typhoons will not be refitted and Russia said it will not pay a dime for the rusted out Vilna Ukraina.

    Without air power to defend it the Russian Navy is a very vulnerable force even with NATO standard equipment... imagine the Falklands war without the British carrier. Ships alone... and especially far from home are vulnerable to air attack.

    As you mentioned, the Admiral K is going to be docked until 2017 so there is not going to be a carrier to defend for the next 6 years and new carriers will not be built until after 2020. It puts the need for more AAW ships on the back-burner. Most of Russia's vital interests can be protected from land based assets so a blue water navy is really a luxury right now. It is not going to be a priority until the 2020-2030 GAZ.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:35 am

    You can disagree all you want, it doesn't change the fact Soviet subs were not designed to operate past a 20 year service life.

    Even if I were to accept that were true, the Soviets were facing different problems than the Russians are now.

    Buying small compact efficient electronics for foreign sources was not an option. Compact vertical launch systems that mean a smaller sub can perform a different set of functions each time she sails. Multipurpose subs can finally be created that have the performance of a customised sub in each role she takes on.

    Future Russian subs will be smaller yet have flexibility in the weapons carried and missions they can perform.

    Soviet subs already had better automation and were faster and deeper diving than western subs, there is no reason why future Russian subs... even mini subs cannot take that automation further to allow much longer deployments on a much wider range of missions than ever before.

    They have pressurised hulls with many more tolerance requirements than
    any surface ship and since they have all their systems crammed into
    compartments, it is much more expensive to upgrade them as the hull has
    to be compromised to do it.

    I am not suggesting the entire fleet stays in service forever. Small changes to improve commonality of systems/sensors/weapons/propulsion/etc etc might be made or might not. The point is that with regular overhauls and upgrades they will last a lot better than they have over the past 20 years without proper maintainence and upgrades.

    Russia said it will not pay a dime for the rusted out Vilna Ukraina.

    Yet they have said they will accept it for free... why would they want such garbage?

    Perhaps with a 4th Slava class and upgrade of all three vessels makes more sense?

    An upgrade of in service vessels is more likely than scratch building replacements of similar size.

    As you mentioned, the Admiral K is going to be docked until 2017 so
    there is not going to be a carrier to defend for the next 6 years and
    new carriers will not be built until after 2020. It puts the need for
    more AAW ships on the back-burner.

    Problem is that things like the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia often occur without warning, so you have to use the tools you have available. Right now you have some fairly obsolete large ships still in service... you can scrap them and save a little money, or you can spend money now to upgrade them so they will remain useful for a while longer. If you scrap them you create a gap that you will not be able to fill for quite some time... you wont be able to afford to buy big support ships AND carriers, so if you let the current big ships rust into the scrapyard by the time you get to 2020 and are considering starting with new carriers there wont be any vessels to operate with them, so you will need to decide which to make first.... carriers, or the big support ships carriers need to operate with. Now big ships are useful on their own and they make carrier groups possible so having them now is not a big waste of cash... especially if their upgrade spends money on Russian companies that make propulsion systems for ships and radar systems and sonar systems and missiles and guns etc etc. If you just start making small ships... guess what... the people who make big ships will find another job, and Russia will have to crawl to France to buy a carrier design from them... and some big ship designs too because Russian shipyards can't handle that.
    If instead, the current large ships get unified upgrades that use all the new components they want to use in their new build ships then some of the teething problems with these systems can be worked out and production volumes should reduce prices... and get Russians working.

    Most of Russia's vital interests can be protected from land based assets so a blue water navy is really a luxury right now.

    If you want to be a global power, then you need a global reach. Britain didn't become a world power and then decided it could afford to spend a bit of this extra cash on a decent navy. The navy allowed Britain to become a global power and a tiny otherwise fairly unremarkable country had an empire that spanned the globe.

    To be honest there is no reason why these 40-50 nuke propelled subs need to be large heavy expensive vessels.

    With two major fleets that is 20-25 per northern and pacific fleet... with SSBNs being maybe 15 of those in one fleet or 6-8 in each and the rest a variety of SSGNs and smaller subs such a target is perfectly possible if you create a new class of sub that is a smaller cheaper sub the size of a conventional vessel with a nuclear propulsion system with vertical launch tubes for all sorts of missiles and a modest torpedo load... sort of like an Alpha class but without the high speed and expensive liquid metal reactor.
    Sort of a coastal SSN with standard multipurpose weapons, decent but not amazing speed, good sonar, and a relatively small crew so that manning is not a problem.
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1165
    Points : 2053
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Russian shipbuilder, Defense Ministry agree nuclear sub prices

    Post  Russian Patriot on Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:18 pm

    Russian shipbuilder, Defense Ministry agree nuclear sub prices
    20:16 01/11/2011
    MOSCOW, November 1 (RIA Novosti)

    United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) and the Russian Defense Ministry have agreed on prices for the Yasen and Borey class nuclear-powered submarines, a defense industry source said on Tuesday.

    The ministry and the USC have been wrangling over the prices of the Borey (Project 955) and Yasen (Project 885) submarines and other major contracts for several months.

    “Today, at a meeting with [Deputy Prime Minister] Igor Sechin, an important compromise has been reached on arms procurement contracts between USC and the Defense Ministry for the current year,” the source said.

    Future contracts between the USC and the Defense Ministry will be signed on the condition that the shipbuilder chooses its own subcontractors “whereas previously subcontractors were effectively chosen by the Defense Ministry,” he said.

    In 2010, Russia launched an ambitious military modernization program, setting aside 20 trillion rubles (about $730 billion) for the next 10 years.

    However, the program has stumbled over a number of setbacks in a price war between the Defense Ministry and arms manufacturers.

    The situation came to a head in May when President Dmitry Medvedev scolded ministry officials for stalling the process. The military complained about "skyrocketing prices".

    http://www.en.ria.ru/russia/20111101/168330072.html

    http://www.en.ria.ru/russia/20111101/168330072.html
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:29 am

    So they are getting paid for the subs they have built and they have agreed on a framework for paying for subs ordered in the future.

    This is very good news.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on Sat Dec 10, 2011 1:51 am

    From russian defence policy blog:
    Sevmash will take on construction of two diesel-electric proyekt 636 from Admiralty Wharves. This will lighten the workload of the latter, and use excess capacity at the former.

    And:
    KB Malakhit has developed repair and modernization plans for the Akula-class (Proyekt 971, Bars). Money’s been allocated and Zvezdochka will do the work.

    Very happy to hear the last part. Those boats still have many years of service left.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:29 am

    I agree... a large part of the reason why the Russian Navy was in such a dreadful state was not the lack of new vessels, but the lack of servicing and upgrades for the old vessels.

    It is one thing to go and buy new stuff, but if you don't also spend money on upgrades and maintainence they wont last long.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10515
    Points : 10992
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Decommissioned and Unfinished ships and submarines

    Post  George1 on Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:50 pm

    K-145 VOLGOGRAD, SSGN Oscar II
    K-139 BELGOROD, SSGN Oscar II



    Russia’s Sevmash shipyard is to convert the multirole Project 949AM nuclear submarine Belgorod for a “series of special missions,” the navy’s head Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky said on Thursday.


    Last edited by George1 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 5:35 pm; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:26 pm

    There is more:

    There are two incomplete 949A hulls outside @ Sevmash, Belgorod aside.
    There is the incomplete 971 Irbis as well. It is in dock though.  
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:42 pm

    Belgorod looks saved, but the other 949As? No chance, they are nowhere near completion. Rumor going around that the two hulls @ Sevmash will be used for project 955 though, much like 971 hulls were used. True or not? No clue.
    The hulls:
    http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/898/suboscariihullsvolgogra.jpg
    http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/4725/suboscariihulksk135volg.jpg
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:04 pm

    The point of the exercise is to keep in service what is worth keeping, finish those worth finishing, but not to waste money that could be used on brand new stuff.

    It is a balancing act and it might be effected by current events.

    For instance the 4 Mistral class helicopter carriers would not have even been considered if Saakashvili hadn't invaded South Ossetia and revealed a weakness that made them look at their current forces and realise the navy needs work.

    In fact up until 2008 most of the government promises for funding and upgrades were not fulfilled which led to a lot of cynicism in the industry.
    At shows the military officials showed plenty of interest in things like UAVs and guided missiles and upgrades, but very little money was actually spent.

    After 2008 however there was almost a panic and everything was going to be bought from foreign countries.

    Now it is clear that Russia needs to make its own stuff and most of it was not as bad as it was depicted in the media.

    With a serious upgrade most was pretty good but new generation stuff is on its way now which will be even better.
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1165
    Points : 2053
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Russian Patriot on Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:07 am

    TR1 wrote:Belgorod looks saved, but the other 949As? No chance, they are nowhere near completion. Rumor going around that the two hulls @ Sevmash will be used for project 955 though, much like 971 hulls were used. True or not? No clue.
    The hulls:
    http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/898/suboscariihullsvolgogra.jpg
    http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/4725/suboscariihulksk135volg.jpg


    About Belgorod:

    Russia to Convert Belgorod Submarine for Special Missions

    RIA Novosti

    11:50 09/02/2012 MOSCOW, February 9 (RIA Novosti) - Russia’s Sevmash shipyard is to convert the multirole Project 949AM nuclear submarine Belgorod for a “series of special missions,” the navy’s head Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky said on Thursday.

    Construction of the Belgorod has been suspended since the sinking of its sister ship, the Kursk, a cruise missile armed boat, in 2000.

    “Belgorod will be completed as a special project. The boat will have many special tasks ahead of it,” Vysotsky said.

    The Russian Navy has several submarines for what it terms “special missions,” but information about them remains classified.

    The Project 949M class has a displacement of 23,860 tons, a length of 150 meters, speed of 33 knots and crew of 118.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2012/russia-120209-rianovosti06.htm

    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    THE FUTURE OF THE BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINE FORCE IN THE RUSSIAN NUCLEAR TRIAD

    Post  Austin on Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:58 am


    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Some Old but Nice Read

    Post  Austin on Mon May 07, 2012 12:34 pm


    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:35 pm