Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Share

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    russian nuclear subs

    Post  George1 on Fri Dec 26, 2014 2:39 pm

    Russia to lay down 3 Yasen-class, 2 Borei-class submarine in 2015

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3228
    Points : 3352
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Vann7 on Mon Jan 19, 2015 1:19 am

    par far wrote:How does the Borei class stack up against the American Virginia class and Ohio class submarines?

    Are Russian Submarines better than the American ones or is it the other way around?

    Also where does the Yasen class submarine rank?

    Can some please tell me all the submarines that Russia operates right and what submarines will Russia operate in the future?

    Will Russia export any submarines soon?

    amazingly no one told you this..

    But ..

    you are mixing attack conventional submarines that carry cruise missiles.. vs ballistic submarines that carry nuclear weapons mostly and its sole purpose is destroy countries..  while attack submarines is main purpose is attack warships  and or other submarines or land targets with conventional weapons.


    when it comes to the future.. it will be..
    in attack submarines...
    Yasen class + kilo class vs Virginia+Seawolf class..

    in ballistic submarines with nuclear weapons..
    Borei class vs Ohio class..

    The Borei and Yasen and brand new submarines... while the american Ohio are 40 years old.. and the seawolf 15 years and virginia 10 years old.

    So the timing they have in service should give you an idea of how they stack each other in terms of technology
    of the ships.

    When it comes to weapons.. in attack submarines..weapons..
    it will be Russia using state of the art modern Kalibr and Onix missiles..and close range torpedos ,
    vs americans using Tomahawks and harpoon missiles of the 70s..

    in terms of technology Russia wins hands down..  the advantage of USA is in numbers. really and nothing else.

    in ballistic navy submarines nuclear war weapons ..
    it will be Russia using Bulava state of the art missiles vs  Americans using tridents that is technology of the 70s..
    and some upgraded ohios using trident II technology of the 90s..

    So ironically contrary to what the western people believe..Russian navy have more cutting edge technology...
    in their Submarines.. than US navy..   US navy advantage is not technology but numbers..and that have 10 aircraft carriers vs 1 of Russia .. but Russia counter their lower numbers with better technology and superior weapons..

    Kalibers/onyx anti-ship missiles range = up to 700km supersonic cruise missiles
    Harpoon anti ship missiles range = 130km subsonic cruise missiles..

    That said.. how it stack in a naval fight US vs Russia? if is conventional. and open seas. US navy will have to keep their surface warships away of Russia combat range ie.. 800km ++  and use their naval airforce flying low or Virginia submarines to try to sneak close enough to Russian navy to start a fight.

    Russia will be using their diesel electric submarines and yasen to hunt those virginia too.. so it will not be easy..

    If is close to Russian land.. is several times more harder if not impossible to have an effective fight , because Russia continent becomes effectively a giant aircraft carrier that do not sink.  And S-400s defenses will keep away any airforce.. patrol boats and helicopters with radars will be sent to scan for  submarines.

    par far
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1063
    Points : 1200
    Join date : 2014-06-26

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  par far on Wed Jan 21, 2015 3:26 pm

    Vann7 wrote:
    par far wrote:How does the Borei class stack up against the American Virginia class and Ohio class submarines?

    Are Russian Submarines better than the American ones or is it the other way around?

    Also where does the Yasen class submarine rank?

    Can some please tell me all the submarines that Russia operates right and what submarines will Russia operate in the future?

    Will Russia export any submarines soon?

    amazingly no one told you this..

    But ..

    you are mixing attack conventional submarines that carry cruise missiles.. vs ballistic submarines that carry nuclear weapons mostly and its sole purpose is destroy countries..  while attack submarines is main purpose is attack warships  and or other submarines or land targets with conventional weapons.


    when it comes to the future.. it will be..
    in attack submarines...
    Yasen class + kilo class vs Virginia+Seawolf class..

    in ballistic submarines with nuclear weapons..
    Borei class vs Ohio class..

    The Borei and Yasen and brand new submarines... while the american Ohio are 40 years old.. and the seawolf 15 years and virginia 10 years old.

    So the timing they have in service should give you an idea of how they stack each other in terms of technology
    of the ships.

    When it comes to weapons.. in attack submarines..weapons..
    it will be Russia using state of the art modern Kalibr and Onix missiles..and close range torpedos ,
    vs americans using Tomahawks and harpoon missiles of the 70s..

    in terms of technology Russia wins hands down..  the advantage of USA is in numbers. really and nothing else.

    in ballistic navy submarines nuclear war weapons ..
    it will be Russia using Bulava state of the art missiles vs  Americans using tridents that is technology of the 70s..
    and some upgraded ohios using trident II technology of the 90s..

    So ironically contrary to what the western people believe..Russian navy have more cutting edge technology...
    in their Submarines.. than US navy..   US navy advantage is not technology but numbers..and that have 10 aircraft carriers vs 1 of Russia .. but Russia counter their lower numbers with better technology and superior weapons..

    Kalibers/onyx anti-ship missiles range = up to 700km supersonic cruise missiles
    Harpoon anti ship missiles range = 130km subsonic cruise missiles..

    That said.. how it stack in a naval fight US vs Russia? if is conventional. and open seas. US navy will have to keep their surface warships away of Russia combat range ie.. 800km ++  and use their naval airforce flying low or Virginia submarines to try to sneak close enough to Russian navy to start a fight.

    Russia will be using their diesel electric submarines and yasen to hunt those virginia too.. so it will not be easy..

    If is close to Russian land.. is several times more harder if not impossible to have an effective fight , because Russia continent becomes effectively a giant aircraft carrier that do not sink.  And S-400s defenses will keep away any airforce.. patrol boats and helicopters with radars will be sent to scan for  submarines.


    Thank for the clear up Vann, can you tell me what is the difference between project 636.3 and project 636.6.

    jhelb
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 418
    Points : 482
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Double Hulled vs Single Hulled Submarines

    Post  jhelb on Sat May 23, 2015 4:29 pm

    Akula, Typhoon, Borei are all double hulled whereas major US subs like Ohio Class and Los Angeles class are single hulled.

    Do Double Hulled Submarines provide some advantage/s over Single Hulled Submarines?

    RTN
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 185
    Points : 170
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield , CT

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  RTN on Sat May 23, 2015 4:37 pm

    jhelb wrote:
    Akula, Typhoon, Borei are all double hulled whereas major US subs like Ohio Class and Los Angeles class are single hulled.

    Do Double Hulled Submarines provide some advantage/s over Single Hulled Submarines?

    The US never opted for the double-hulled design coz it's more efficient/beneficial to not put in all that cost and effort when the same results can still be achieved if your technological acumen is high enough.The US always opted for single hull designs with a modular internal layout that allows for rapid and efficient damage control. Whereas the Soviet Union went for an alternative route by having much simpler internal layouts (easier for mass production) protected by a double wrapped hull.

    The downside to the Soviet practice (at least from the US perspective) is that if you opt for a double hulled design made of Titanium without too much compartmentalization then if your sub takes on water it's going to sink like a brick past it's crush depth before damage control can correct the flooding, especially in situations where the hull might be sufficiently damaged enough (let's say from an engagement) where the ballast tanks are non-responsive. There could also be an issue in terms of hull integrity if the Titanium itself gets too brittle and cracks from the typically cold waters of the North Atlantic.

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sat May 23, 2015 4:52 pm

    The Russians opt for double hull because it can provide higher probability to surfacing in event of disaster due to its ROB (Reserve of Buoyancy). This capability become very important during early days of Russian nuclear subs where damaged submarine can still surface and the concern related to sea-mine danger. Typical Russian submarine like Kilo have ROB of 32% the largest is Akula-941 with ROB of over 45-50%

    Americans abandoned double hull concept and opt for single hull due to hydrodynamic reason, the single hull submarine has smaller wetted area thus took less power to propel itself underwater. This however accompanied by smaller Reserve of Buoyancy in order of only 10-15% (Recent US boat however like Seawolf have ROB of 20%) Which would mean should the pressure hull punctured or ballast tank loss, the sub is in grave danger of not be able to return to surface.


    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sat May 23, 2015 5:28 pm

    RTN wrote:
    The US never opted for the double-hulled design coz it's more efficient/beneficial to not put in all that cost and effort when the same results can still be achieved if your technological acumen is high enough.The US always opted for single hull designs with a modular internal layout that allows for rapid and efficient damage control. Whereas the Soviet Union went for an alternative route by having much simpler internal layouts (easier for mass production) protected by a double wrapped hull.
    says who... ofc. they'll say their practice is the correct one. and btw the pressure hulls are compartmentalized too.
    RTN wrote:
    The downside to the Soviet practice (at least from the US perspective) is that if you opt for a double hulled design made of Titanium without too much compartmentalization then if your sub takes on water it's going to sink like a brick past it's crush depth before damage control can correct the flooding, especially in situations where the hull might be sufficiently damaged enough (let's say from an engagement) where the ballast tanks are non-responsive. There could also be an issue in terms of hull integrity if the Titanium itself gets too brittle and cracks from the typically cold waters of the North Atlantic.
    the same can be said of murican subs. cause thats what happens when you get holed. and pray tell why is murican compartmentalization better than the Russian/ Soviet one- because im looking at a cross section of an Akula and a Ohio and I see that Akula's smaller pressure hull houses smaller rooms and only about 2 per hull section, if it gets hit from one side the other pressure hull is almost unscathed so you end up with a lot less flooded compartments.

    not that many subs use titanium- and the titanium hulls were OK- no problems after the first one, in fact they are noises about reusing some hulls for new subs. and the brittleness issue in cold waters is obvious BS - these things operate in very, very cold waters and are expected to dive really deep at the same time, and they did.


    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2521
    Points : 2654
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  kvs on Sun May 24, 2015 2:44 am

    Another benefit of the double hull is the structure is more stiff and there is less "flopping" of the hull as it moves
    from the water. This dynamic deformation is small but still and issue for longevity.

    It seems to me the US approach is not driven by infinite IQ but by cost savings. Everything in the USA
    and the rest of NATO and 1st world friends is grossly overpriced due to legalized corruption. Why would
    the price of one Soryu class diesel-electric submarine from Japan be the same as six Project 636.3 submarines?
    There is no feature on the Soryu that could account for a 500% markup. The price of the Soryu is typical
    and not an anomaly.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 24, 2015 12:05 pm

    Do Double Hulled Submarines provide some advantage/s over Single Hulled Submarines?

    A double hull adds weight and bulk, and therefore also cost in terms of making them and operating them because they are not as light or as small as they could be.

    On the other hand a double hull creates a lot of internal volume that can be used for reducing sound, and for safety... in the Kursk the main armament of 24 Granit AShMs was stored outside the main hull which kept them safe... if they had exploded there would have not been very much left at all.

    In terms of battle damage they should improve the survivability of the sub with regard to external threats like collision or torpedoes or mines.


    The US never opted for the double-hulled design coz it's more efficient/beneficial to not put in all that cost and effort when the same results can still be achieved if your technological acumen is high enough.

    If you are trying to say all the benefits of a double hull design can be implimented on a single hull vessel using high technology and design... then no.

    The US always opted for single hull designs with a modular internal layout that allows for rapid and efficient damage control. Whereas the Soviet Union went for an alternative route by having much simpler internal layouts (easier for mass production) protected by a double wrapped hull.

    Hahahaha... yeah... the soviets had swing doors, and no compartmentalisation at all in their subs... they were all open plan like a New York Apartment...  Rolling Eyes 

    Soviet and Russian sub design included compartmentalisation and firewalls etc etc and all the safety design features used in American and British and French subs.

    he downside to the Soviet practice (at least from the US perspective) is that if you opt for a double hulled design made of Titanium without too much compartmentalization then if your sub takes on water it's going to sink like a brick past it's crush depth before damage control can correct the flooding, especially in situations where the hull might be sufficiently damaged enough (let's say from an engagement) where the ballast tanks are non-responsive.

    I don't know where you get this information from... first of all Titanium is stronger than steel but rather lighter than steel, so making a sub out of titanium like the Soviets did makes it LIGHTER and more buoyant than similar foreign subs made of much heavier but weaker steel.

    Double hulled subs have MORE compartmentalisation... not less.

    Any subs where the ballast tanks are not responsive and are taking on water are in the shit... ballast tanks determine whether you go up or down... of course the compressed air stored on board to blow the tanks in an emergency will have several fail safe mechanisms and are unlikely to all fail unless something very catastrophic has happened... like in the case of the Kursk where the torpedos in the torpedo room exploded.

    There could also be an issue in terms of hull integrity if the Titanium itself gets too brittle and cracks from the typically cold waters of the North Atlantic.

    Hahahaha... the air in the northern fleet main pier can get to temperatures well below minus 30 degrees... where in the north atlantic does the water get anywhere near that cold?

    Funny really because that same material is used in space in much colder and much higher temperatures... it is very difficult to wield properly, but it is used because of its strength and resistance to high and low temperatures.

    not that many subs use titanium- and the titanium hulls were OK- no problems after the first one, in fact they are noises about reusing some hulls for new subs. and the brittleness issue in cold waters is obvious BS - these things operate in very, very cold waters and are expected to dive really deep at the same time, and they did.

    Actually the first all titanium subs were the Alphas... and one didn't last long in service at all and it was claimed in the west it was because of wielding problems.... it was actually its reactor... which was declared impossible in the west....


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun May 24, 2015 12:10 pm

    kvs wrote:Another benefit of the double hull is the structure is more stiff and there is less "flopping" of the hull as it moves
    from the water.   This dynamic deformation is small but still and issue for longevity.  

    It seems to me the US approach is not driven by infinite IQ but by cost savings.   Everything in the USA
    and the rest of NATO and 1st world friends is grossly overpriced due to legalized corruption.   Why would
    the price of one Soryu class diesel-electric submarine from Japan be the same as six Project 636.3 submarines?
    There is no feature on the Soryu that could account for a 500% markup.    The price of the Soryu is typical
    and not an anomaly.    
    you just dont see it because you lack texhnological acumen. and the soryus' hull are folded a bajillion times to be insanely strong against kaiju attacks, be stealthy in the spirit of ninja and slice through both water and filthy gaijin torpedos at raiden speed.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Wed Jun 17, 2015 6:26 pm

    Chirkov: "about 10 submarines of projects 971 and 949 will be upgraded for the Russian Navy"


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:35 pm

    The Future is Now: Russian Navy to Modernize Ten Nuclear Submarines


    continuation from your press note

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20150621/1023668919.html

    Russian Naval Forces plan to upgrade ten nuclear submarines with the newest armament and ship systems.
    Russian Naval Forces plan to upgrade ten nuclear submarines, said the Navy Commander Viktor Chirkov during the ceremony in honor of the top graduates of naval institutes in St. Petersburg.

    “The modernization is planned for about ten nuclear submarines of project 971 and 949 at the factory of ‘Zvezdochka’ in Severodvinsk and the factory ‘Zvezdochka’ in the Primorskiy Krai region. It is a thorough modernization, upon completion we will have almost new submarines with the newest armament and ship systems,” elaborated Chirkov as reported by RIA Novosti.

    He further added that these nuclear submarines have the capacity for complete modernization. As the technology gets updated and new missiles and torpedoes are released, the modernized submarines will be able to fit the new weapons easily.

    So we got stop gap - modernize what we can and go through teething pains with control systems and weaponry. then we can add add supa-dupa V gen hull and et voila!


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:36 am

    Russian Strategic Sub Groups to ‘Be Constantly Updated’ – Navy Commander

    According to Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief, Russian nuclear strategic submarine groups in the north of the country and on the far-eastern Kamchatka Peninsula will be regularly updated.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Russian nuclear strategic submarine groups in the north of the country and on the far-eastern Kamchatka Peninsula will be regularly updated, Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief, Adm. Viktor Chirkov said Friday.

    "Groupings of strategic submarines in the North and in Kamchatka will be constantly updated, so we would be able to meet the ambitious criteria required by the rapid development of science and technology," Chirkov said.

    Russian submarine building technologies are unique, and will help maintain proper levels of strategic nuclear force development, he added.

    Last week, Chirkov said Russia’s nuclear submarines could guarantee security threat deterrence aimed at the country.

    Since early 2014, the Russian Navy has doubled its submarine patrols, according to Chirkov.

    Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian submarine fleet was in crisis. Since then, Russia has been modernizing and developing strategic and tactical submarines.

    Russia is currently undergoing a $325-billion rearmament program for a 70-percent modernization increase in its military's weaponry by 2020.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150626/1023889188.html#ixzz3eFXBmdyW


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:20 am

    George1 wrote:Russian Strategic Sub Groups to ‘Be Constantly Updated’ – Navy Commander

    Russia is currently undergoing a $325-billion rearmament program for a 70-percent modernization increase in its military's weaponry by 2020.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150626/1023889188.html#ixzz3eFXBmdyW


    I wonder why they never provide real worth of this plan. 90% or so is produced in Russia so PPP works here fine. Then we got almost $700bln

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:11 pm

    Russia develops new submarine stealth technology

    The innovative technology developed by the St. Petersburg-based Krylov State Research Center (KGNTS) will significantly improve stealth characteristics of Russian submarines against sonar detecting sets, chief of the KGNTS hull strength department Valery Shaposhnikov told TASS on Wednesday on the first day of the 7th International Maritime Defence Show (IMDS-2015).

    “We have developed the corresponding technology and frameworks for submarine equipment and made them from composite materials,” Shaposhnikov said. According to the scientist, the innovations are currently undergoing tests and “to date, we have considerably advanced.”

    “Our innovations make submarines undetectable by underwater detection devices,” he said. The enemy’s sonar will not be able to get a reflected hydro-acoustic signal from the submarine as the composite material is very acoustically transparent .

    Sounds Interesting . so russian subs stealth tech is moving ahead of usa's or still trailing ? Suspect

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:42 am

    Russia's Cutting Edge Submarine Fleet to Receive 'Aircraft Carrier Killer'

    Russia plans to expand its nascent high-end submarine fleet with two new fifth generation nuclear-powered watercraft, known only as an "aircraft carrier killer" and an "underwater interceptor" at the moment.

    Both submarines are currently under development.

    The "aircraft carrier killer" equipped with cruise missiles will be used for defeating coastal and surface targets, specifically aircraft carriers, the head of Russia's United Shipbuilding Corporation's state defense order department Anatoly Shlemov told Lenta.ru last week.

    The "underwater interceptor" will be tasked with protecting groups of ballistic missile carrying subs and fighting against enemy submarines.
    Both submarines will be based on the same class but different in armaments and purposes.

    The project run by the Malakhit marine engineering design bureau is part of a large-scale $350 billion military modernization program that Russia is implementing. The program is scheduled to be completed by 2020.

    Earlier in June, the commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Viktor Chirkov, confirmed that Russia's Sevmash shipbuilding company was constructing a fifth-generation nuclear-powered submarine.

    "We need low-noise, fast-maneuvering submarines with the highest level of stealthiness and equipped with powerful weapons," he said.

    The Russian Navy currently has 60 submarines, about 10 of which are nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, and more than 30 are multipurpose nuclear submarines, with the rest being diesel and special purpose vessels.

    By 2020, the Russian Navy is expected to operate a total of eight state-of-the-art Borei-class submarines and seven Yasen-class nuclear-powered attack submarines.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150707/1024313247.html#ixzz3fCGhMvdr


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3369
    Points : 3412
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  JohninMK on Tue Jul 07, 2015 1:01 pm

    New test system for submarine sounds

    Powerful sonar capable of “hearing” fourth generation nuclear submarines lurking in the deep will undergo trials at Russia’s Northern Fleet before the end of this year.

    The transmitter/receiver unit of the Batareya (Battery) sonar will be lowered to around 300 meters into the water 30 kilometers from the White Sea coast to pick up submarine sounds and send the date up via a fiber optic cable, said Sergei Tsygankov, one of the new sonar’s designers. “We went for exactly this method of data transmission because not a single Western country now knows how to pick up information traveling through an underwater fiber optic cable,” Sergei added.

    Another thing that makes the new sonar so special is that it can single out submarine noise from that of marine creatures, waves, stones, etc.. “Modern submarines are often more silent than the natural soundscape. Still, the Americans prefer to “listen in” during a dead calm, while the Batareya sonar will do the job under any condition,” Sergei Tsygankov emphasized.

    Rather than pick up the sounds made by “enemy” subs, the Batareya was designed to test the sound signature of Russia’s own submarines. “This new sonar will give our submarine builders a chance to single out the noisier elements of their craft to make a submarine as quite as possible,” Sergei Tsygankov said
    .

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150707/1024315790.html#ixzz3fCb5285r

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Tue Jul 07, 2015 1:23 pm

    George1 wrote:
    The "aircraft carrier killer" equipped with cruise missiles will be used for defeating coastal and surface targets, specifically aircraft carriers, the head of Russia's United Shipbuilding Corporation's state defense order department Anatoly Shlemov told Lenta.ru last week.

    The "underwater interceptor" will be tasked with protecting groups of ballistic missile carrying subs and fighting against enemy submarines.
    Both submarines will be based on the same class but different in armaments and purposes.

    so they work on a lighter project than Yasen class


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Victor I/II/III, Akula, Alfa and Sierra classes

    Post  nastle77 on Sat Aug 01, 2015 4:18 pm

    These classes of submarines were primarily designed for ASW during the cold war

    But can they also be used for torpedo attacks against surface warships ? I know they carried ASW missiles which were not effective against surface warships

    How effective were they against an average western Frigate/destroyer in the 80s

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 151
    Points : 187
    Join date : 2015-07-17

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Sat Aug 01, 2015 5:20 pm

    nastle77 wrote:These classes of submarines were primarily designed for ASW during the cold war

    But can they also be used for torpedo attacks against surface warships ? I know they carried ASW missiles which were not effective against surface warships

    How effective were they against an average western Frigate/destroyer in the 80s

    I think you have it slightly backwards.

    First generation nukes (November) were used primarily for against surface ships, while the second generation onwards were designed also with anti-submarine capability.

    ASW was much much harder than ASuW in 1950's, so all submarines before Victor could do ASuW, but not ASW.

    Because anti-submarine capabilities of surface ships increased significantly during the 60's, it was not considered very realistic that a torpedo attack would be able to penetrate a SAG's defensive screen. So, submarines naturally evolved for longer range using cruise missile which eventually created the SSGN/SSN split.

    A pre-Victor 3 nuke getting into torpedo distance of a SAG is still pretty unrealistic due to introduction of ASROC and layered scouting capabilities.

    Victor III was revolutionary for the Soviet Navy both in terms of quieting (thanks, Toshiba!), but also because it was the first Soviet SSN to carry long-range anti-ship missiles (Granat), while all SSN prior to it only carried torpedoes and rocket-torpedoes like Starfish/Vyuga. This has tremendously increased their ASuW capability.

    All attack submarines since Victor III (except Alfa) were also able to carry a large arsenal of long-range anti-ship missiles and would participate in a PAD (Protoviavianosnaya diviziya), a counter-carrier division, a type of ad hoc SSGN/SSN ship formation that would be used for war-type surge.

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Sat Aug 01, 2015 6:33 pm

    artjomh wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:These classes of submarines were primarily designed for ASW during the cold war

    But can they also be used for torpedo attacks against surface warships ? I know they carried ASW missiles which were not effective against surface warships

    How effective were they against an average western Frigate/destroyer in the 80s

    I think you have it slightly backwards.

    First generation nukes (November) were used primarily for against surface ships, while the second generation onwards were designed also with anti-submarine capability.

    ASW was much much harder than ASuW in 1950's, so all submarines before Victor could do ASuW, but not ASW.

    Because anti-submarine capabilities of surface ships increased significantly during the 60's, it was not considered very realistic that a torpedo attack would be able to penetrate a SAG's defensive screen. So, submarines naturally evolved for longer range using cruise missile which eventually created the SSGN/SSN split.

    A pre-Victor 3 nuke getting into torpedo distance of a SAG is still pretty unrealistic due to introduction of ASROC and layered scouting capabilities.

    Victor III was revolutionary for the Soviet Navy both in terms of quieting (thanks, Toshiba!), but also because it was the first Soviet SSN to carry long-range anti-ship missiles (Granat), while all SSN prior to it only carried torpedoes and rocket-torpedoes like Starfish/Vyuga. This has tremendously increased their ASuW capability.

    All attack submarines since Victor III (except Alfa) were also able to carry a large arsenal of long-range anti-ship missiles and would participate in a PAD (Protoviavianosnaya diviziya), a counter-carrier division, a type of ad hoc SSGN/SSN ship formation that would be used for war-type surge.
    Thanks

    How many SSN carried the Granat cruise missile ? by the end of the cold war
    I have read only 8 victor III, akula and Sierra carried it

    Do you think the earlier subs ( before victor III) could still participate in ASuW against non-USN SAG ( like those without carriers) ?


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Austin on Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:11 pm

    Though not Russian but a Nice Documentary on USS Kentucky SSBN

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lc2vs4Vq1c


    Do we have similar documentary for Delta 4 SSBN or even Akula SSN ?

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 151
    Points : 187
    Join date : 2015-07-17

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:45 pm

    nastle77 wrote:Thanks

    How many SSN carried the Granat cruise missile ? by the end of the cold war
    I have read only 8 victor III, akula and Sierra carried it

    By 1991:

    - Project 671RTMK: 8
    - Project 945A: 2
    - Project 971: 8
    - Project 667AT: 3

    Total: 21

    Plus a couple of modified diesels that were used for testing.

    Do you think the earlier subs ( before victor III) could still participate in ASuW against non-USN SAG ( like those without carriers) ?

    Yes, sure, why not. Depending on how close their interoperability was with NATO's Orions. A non-USN SAG would be definitely easier to penetrate.

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:55 pm

    ^ appreciate your input artjomh
    I don't have any access to Russian language sources that's why I ask a lot of questions regarding inventory, numbers etc


    Do you know if the Soviet navy conducted any excercises with its SSN to determine if they can penetrate a SAG , and any details of that available anywhere

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 151
    Points : 187
    Join date : 2015-07-17

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Sat Aug 01, 2015 8:32 pm

    nastle77 wrote:Do you know if the Soviet navy conducted any excercises with its SSN to determine if they can penetrate a SAG , and any details of that available anywhere

    Oh, yeah, countering the CBG was a big deal for both the submarine and naval aviation communities.

    Here's a must-read article for tactics used by the Naval Aviation: https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/b2ec1735-8652-40b0-ae04-a9e30a5597cd/Kamikazes--The-Soviet-Legacy.aspx

    The article touches upon the efforts of the submarine community only briefly, but needless to say it was something of a major focus for Soviet Navy training and organisation.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:06 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:06 pm