Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Share

    Vann7

    Posts : 3434
    Points : 3550
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Vann7 on Sat May 02, 2015 10:58 pm

    TR1 wrote:Like I said, I made a mistake because of the flurry of people I was replying to.

    .


    Of course you are mistaken ..
    Seawolf in 2 years.. lol1

    Yasen serial production in 10 years? Rolling Eyes

    there is one commisioned now how much you want to bet 3-5 Yasens will be made
    before 2020? that is in just 5 years?
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on Sat May 02, 2015 10:59 pm

    mack8 wrote:

    Just a cursory reading on on the subject indeed show unexplainable under 2 years construction for the latest Virginias, but i bet anything you want that the explanation is simple: they are "cheating", as in building the modular sections first and counting keel laying when they start assembling the modules. There is no *** way they can built something like that from scratch in 2 years or even less. I will admit being wrong on this if an unbiased  naval expert here (not TR1 obviously) says so.



    You keep showing how little you know about naval matters. And you have the gall to point out ONE mistake I made?

    Let's see, where to start.

    1.) By your standard, Russia cheats as well. Why? Because The Knyaz Vladimir and Knyaz Oleg started work @ Sevmash well before their official lay-down dates. Due to some cock-ups with the contract, the official lay down date is well after the work really started.

    2.) No way it can build something like that in 2 years ? Orly?
    Would you believe the USSR built AND COMMISIONED project 971 boats within the span of a SINGLE YEAR?
    So yes, it can be done.

    Accusing me of bias, in the midts of this Russia strong circlejerk is too much.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on Sat May 02, 2015 11:02 pm

    Vann7 wrote:
    TR1 wrote:Like I said, I made a mistake because of the flurry of people I was replying to.

    .


    Of course you are mistaken ..
    Seawolf in 2 years.. lol1

    Yasen serial production in 10 years?   Rolling Eyes

    there is one commisioned now how much you want to bet 3-5 Yasens will be made
    before 2020? that is in just 5 years?

    I never said Yasen serial production takes 10 years.

    It won't ever take 2 years though.

    So far the Borrei serial's have taken 9 years to make. No squirming will change that.


    Should I bring up how completely wrong you were regarding the current Russian sub fleet? 55 boats or whatever nonsense you posted?


    Last edited by TR1 on Sat May 02, 2015 11:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on Sat May 02, 2015 11:05 pm

    TR1 wrote:Oh, I am making crap up eh?

    The entire Block II line took 1-2 years for each boat to be laid down, finished and commissioned.
    The first was laid down in 2007. The last was commissioned in 2013. That series was composed of 6 boats. 6 nuclear attack boats in 7 years. Remind me when that has happened in Russia last?


    Blah blah blah blah will speed up blah blah blah.

    Yeah, it will increase over the first ship.
    By how much? Anywhere close to US speed?

    Project 955:
    1st ship: a century to finish. We know why.
    2nd ship: 9 years.
    3rd ship: 9 years.
    4th ship: 3 years and counting. Won't be commissioned for a while at best.

    Project 885:
    1st ship: two decades. We know why. Still in only experimental service.
    2nd ship: 6 years, still has not hit the water or started trials.

    Will it likely go faster? Sure. Not enough to make Vann's stupid point any closer to reality however.
    Especially in attack submarines, there won't be a "closing in numbers" between the two.


    The whole discussion utterly pointless. 4 submarine under construction is much better than a dozen that take a decade to get anywhere. I am exaggerating, but only slightly.


    I am gonna keep reposting this.

    Any further discussion is utterly pointless and a waste of my time.

    Oh, and to add to that:
    2 of the 677 submarines on Vann's chart........both laid down in 2005 and 2006.
    Khabarovsk is a rebuilt project 949A special purpose sub. Also in construction for decades.

    But yeah, catching up to the US navy any day now!
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on Sat May 02, 2015 11:10 pm

    Vann7 wrote:
    Already Russia have 55 Submarines.. and US 72..

    Then Russia will have 55 +14 submarines = 69   and US will have 72+4 = 76.

    Just to make sure this does not get burried. 100% baloney that Vann won't own up to.

    Since no doubt half the posts will be people harping "you were wrong about Seawolfs!"...a fair mistake that I admit, while ignoring the drivel I was responding to.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5363
    Points : 5602
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Werewolf on Sat May 02, 2015 11:25 pm

    Jesus, come down. You do know the forum rules and spamming is against the rules, instead of posting 5 comments just edit it and add it to your previous comment, just making it horrible for people to even answer to what you have said when you do it in this unorganized manner.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 03, 2015 2:57 am

    So lets take the devils advocate position and choose to view things the way TR1 does.

    The US.... untouched by economic sanctions and economic collapse, and having never had major components like engines and transmissions produced in what is now a foreign country, with modern state of the art facilities that are funded by the largest military budget on the planet that exceeds all other budgets combined can make more SSNs than Russian can.

    Hooray.

    BUT.

    The Russians are making more SSBNs and SSKs than the US is.

    Considering SSBNs are strategically important and SSNs are not... I say the Russians are getting the best value for money.

    Why do we have to compare with the US when we are constantly told Russia is a third world country with the GDP of Portugal... in that situation the Russian shipyards are doing an outstanding job... Twisted Evil

    BTW any more personal attacks or abuse and this thread will be locked and the offender will get a two day break to think about why they come here.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Dima

    Posts : 1032
    Points : 1047
    Join date : 2012-03-22

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Dima on Sun May 03, 2015 9:05 pm

    Thought about posting some timelines for US subs from wiki. Hope it helps. Approx time in years given, corrections are welcome.

    Main difference between Russian and US production to be note is the contract and procurement. This is where it all makes the difference. In addition, the keel laying in most cases are not just the ceremonial hull plates like we see with Russian yards, but in cases its completed hull sections nearing 50-60% of hull and the reason why we see smaller completion timelines of 2yrs or below.

    I think the blame for non-performance or lack of construction pace should rest with the political and military decision makers rather than Sevmash yard. Let them correct the planning, funding and procurement part and I can bet my arse on Sevmash delivering at a faster pace and the entire ship building industry moving to a higher level. But that said, the likes of Severnya yard which have the monopoly to build pr.22350 and pr.20380 need to be broken at the earliest and parallel construction lines needs to be started. Their monopoly is harming and will only continue to harm the Russian Navy than doing anything good.  

    Block-I
    Block I boats were built in 10 modules with each submarine requiring roughly 7 years (84 months) to build.

    USS Virginia (SSN-774)

    Contract - 30 September 1998, Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics Corporation
    Keel laid  - 2 September 1999
    Launched - 16 August 2003
    Delivered - 12 October 2004
    Commissioned - 23 October 2004

    Time from keel to delivery/commission - 4yrs/5yrs
    Time from contract to delivery/commission - 5yrs/6yrs

    USS Texas (SSN-775)

    Contract - 30 September 1998, Northrop Grumman Newport News shipyard
    Keel laid - 12 July 2002
    Launched - 9 April 2005  
    Delivered -
    Commissioned - 9 September 2006

    Time from keel to delivery/commission - /4yrs
    Time from contract to delivery/commission - /8yrs

    USS Hawaii (SSN-776)

    Contract - 30 September 1998, Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics Corporation
    Keel laid - 27 August 2004  
    Launched -  
    Delivered - 22 December 2006
    Commissioned - 5 May 2007

    Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - 2yrs/2.4yrs
    Time from contract to delivery/commission - 8yrs/8.4yrs

    USS North Carolina (SSN-777)

    Contract - 30 September 1998
    Keel laid - 24 May 2004
    Launched - 5 May 2007
    Delivered -
    Commissioned - 3 May 2008

    Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - /4yrs
    Time from contract to delivery/commission - /10yrs



    Block-II
    Block II boats were built in four sections rather than ten sections, saving about $300 million per boat.

    USS New Hampshire (SSN-778)

    Contract - 14 August 2003, Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics Corporation
    Keel laid - 30 April 2007
    Launched - 21 February 2008
    Delivered - 28 August 2008
    Commissioned - 25 October 2008

    Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - 1.25yrs/2.5yrs
    Time from contract to delivery/commission - 5yrs/5yrs

    USS New Mexico (SSN-779)

    Contract - 14 August 2003
    Keel laid - 12 April 2008
    Launched - 18 January 2009
    Delivered - 29 December 2009
    Commissioned - 27 March 2010

    Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - 1.75yrs/2yrs
    Time from contract to delivery/commission - 6.3yrs/6.5yrs

    USS Missouri (SSN-780)

    Contract - 14 August 2003, Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics Corporation
    Keel laid - 27 September 2008
    Launched - 20 November 2009
    Delivered -
    Commissioned - 31 July 2010

    Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - /1.75yrs
    Time from contract to delivery/commission - /7yrs

    USS California (SSN-781)

    Contract - 14 August 2003, Newport News Shipbuilding
    Keel laid - 1 May 2009  
    Launched - 14 November 2010  
    Delivered - 7 August 2011
    Commissioned - 29 October 2011

    Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - 2.25yrs/2.5yrs
    Time from contract to delivery/commission - 8yrs/8.2yrs

    USS Mississippi (SSN-782)

    Contract - 14 August 2003, Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics Corporation
    Keel laid - 9 June 2010
    Launched -  
    Delivered -
    Commissioned - 2 June 2012

    Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - /2yrs
    Time from contract to delivery/commission - /9yrs

    USS Minnesota (SSN-783)

    Contract - 14 August 2003
    Keel laid - 20 May 2011  
    Launched -
    Delivered - 6 June 2013
    Commissioned - 7 September 2013

    Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - 2yrs/2.25yrs
    Time from contract to delivery/commission - 9.8yrs/10yrs


    Block- III
    Block III subs feature a revised bow with a Large Aperture Bow (LAB) sonar array, as well as technology from Ohio-class SSGNs (2 VLS tubes each containing 6 missiles). The horseshoe-shaped LAB sonar array replaces the spherical main sonar array which has been used on all U.S. Navy SSNs since 1960. The LAB sonar array is water-backed—as opposed to earlier sonar arrays which were air-backed—and consists of a passive array and a medium-frequency active array.

    North Dakota (SSN-784)

    Contract - 14 August 2003
    Keel laid - 11 May 2012  
    Launched - 15 September 2013
    Delivered - 29 August 2014
    Commissioned - 25 October 2014

    Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - 2.25yrs
    Time from contract to delivery/commission - 11yrs

    John Warner (SSN-785)

    Contract - 22 December 2008
    Keel laid - 16 Mar 2013
    Launched - 10 September 2014
    Delivered - contract for delivery in August 2015
    Commissioned -

    Time from keel laying to delivery/commission -
    Time from contract to delivery/commission -

    Illinois (SSN-786)

    Contract - 22 December 2008
    Keel laid - 2 June 2014
    Launched -  
    Delivered - under contract to be delivered in August 2016
    Commissioned -

    Time from keel laying to delivery/commission -
    Time from contract to delivery/commission -


    Russian nuclear submarine timelines.

    Pr.955 Yury Dolgorukiy

    Contract - Sevmash
    Keel laid - 2 November 1996
    Launched - 13 February 2008  
    Delivered -
    Commissioned - 10 January 2013

    Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - /16yrs
    Time from contract to delivery/commission -


    Pr.955 Alexander Nevsky

    Contract - Sevmash
    Keel laid - 19 March 2004
    Launched - 6 December 2010
    Delivered -
    Commissioned - 23 December 2013

    Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - /9.75yrs
    Time from contract to delivery/commission -


    Pr.955 Vladimir Monomakh

    Contract - Sevmash
    Keel laid - 19 March 2006
    Launched - 30 December 2012
    Delivered -
    Commissioned - 19 December 2014

    Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - 8.75yrs
    Time from contract to delivery/commission -

    Pr.955A Knyaz Vladimir

    Contract -
    Keel laid - 30 July 2012
    Launched -  
    Delivered -
    Commissioned -

    Time from keel laying to delivery/commission -
    Time from contract to delivery/commission -


    Pr.955A Knyaz Oleg

    Contract - Sevmash
    Keel laid - 27 July 2014 
    Launched -  
    Delivered -
    Commissioned -

    Time from keel laying to delivery/commission -
    Time from contract to delivery/commission -  

    Russia has a long way to go in terms of numbers but it is very well doable and within the capacity and capability of the yards. But yards taken in isolation is nothing, as said earlier there has to be a proper plan with solid funding and procurement process so that yards can do what it is meant to do and not hindered by these two which are the single most factor for lack of pace from Russian yards. Blaming the yards and design bureaus for all the fault while letting go the political and decision making arseholes wont do any good and is akin to burying head in sand to the obvious problem that was the norm past decades.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 4812
    Points : 4918
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun May 03, 2015 9:43 pm

    Dima wrote:

    Try yandex translate.... https://translate.yandex.com/translate


    Thanks Dima, I bookmarked that baby. thumbsup


    Vann7

    Posts : 3434
    Points : 3550
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Vann7 on Sun May 03, 2015 9:45 pm


    there you go. .2 years !! to build virginias.. Laughing Is looks like 10 to me.. lol

    Russia had problems that US didn't like economy default in the 90s.. and having to build a 100% new Submarine with 100% new weapons , that experience problems like Bulava those things delay project.. is normal.. But i don't think that once Russia master the process of building a Submarine.. that they will have to go through all the trial and error again.. DUH!

    Also TR1 completely ignores that in Soviet times ,the 1 year submarines they produced were significantly more easier and simple to make.. and world war 2 submarines were just a piece
    of closed metal with a snorkel .even less time took to make for soviets and germans.

    Fortunately Russia is not cutting corners in their Yasen or Borei Submarines and each one of them is head and shoulders over their Seawolf/Virginia and Ohio submarines.. in terms of technology .. Ohios are 40 years old technology with about 40 years old tridents nukes.. for example and depends of escorts to protect it. while Borei can defend itself. and is using state of the art technology.. that Americans do not have.



    avatar
    mack8

    Posts : 953
    Points : 1013
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  mack8 on Sun May 03, 2015 10:11 pm

    Nice info, thanks Dima.

    Interesting how the apparent construction of the Virginias seems sharply reduced once the four module block assembly is introduced. It indeed only can be reasonably explained by building those blocks well in advance of the official keel laying (assembling those blocks basically) imo.

    As for the russian subs, do we know if the Yasen and Borey use modular construction? Regardless, i think it is fair to say that the situation in regards to the SSN/SSBN construction is greatly improving compared to the disastrous period of the nineties and early 2000s, and should keep to unless some major mess-up, it may well be that the plan for 8 of each by 2020 will not be met, but probably by say 2021-2022 would be realistic (is there anything that does
    not suffer delays these days?), that still being  a huge improvement for the Navy, especially the nuclear deterrent, no matter how you look at it.

    Would be interesting what the long term plans for the 2030 horizon are, would they eventually build 14 Borey/Borey-M (we can expect improvements imo) to match the americans' Ohio numbers, plus something like 2 dozen Yasen/Yasen-M, or once the initial 8 of each are completed they will be replaced by new designs? Any info on that front?

    Oh and how about the SSKs, there should be six pr.636 plus two improved pr.677 (plus the only Lada in the initial form that was not accepted)  by 2020 is that correct? (i did of course some reading on the subject but would be nice to confirm from russian sources)


    Last edited by mack8 on Sun May 03, 2015 10:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Dima

    Posts : 1032
    Points : 1047
    Join date : 2012-03-22

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Dima on Sun May 03, 2015 10:17 pm

    Vann7 wrote:
    there you go. .2 years !! to build virginias..  Laughing    Is looks like 10 to me.. lol
    The important thing is they are building it at a steady pace. When funding & procurement is proper, everything falls in line. For example in modular construction its different workshops that do different things...so the workshop which is fabricating the outer hull will continue to do it as long as the materials to be worked upon is in flow. This is probably how the vessels in the list contracted for got launched with good part of hull completed and much more than just few hull plates, because they do not sit idle after one hull has been completed, instead they work according to plan for the numbers contracted for.

    Russia had problems that US didn't like economy default in the 90s.. and having to build a 100% new Submarine with 100% new weapons , that experience problems like Bulava those things delay project.. is normal.. But i don't think that once Russia master the process of building a Submarine.. that they will have to go through all the trial and error again.. DUH!  
    More than the yards mastering, its the basic needs like planning and procurement and the much needed funding that has to be on track.

    Also TR1 completely ignores that in Soviet times ,the 1 year submarines they produced were significantly more easier and simple to make..  and world war 2 submarines were just a piece
    of closed metal with a snorkel .even less time took to make for soviets and germans.
    The submarines at that time was not of any lesser complexity for that time. But the difference was a well oiled machinery with funds and political will to fuel it.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 2971
    Points : 3096
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  kvs on Sun May 03, 2015 10:22 pm

    Thanks for the data, Dima.

    Sevmash was like Almaz-Antei in 2003.  Their equipment was falling apart and there was no money.   This is the
    starting point for any discussion and not some nonsense about some nebulous "ability".   The head of Sevmash stated
    last year that they had managed to upgrade their equipment. This process was not a rapid transition back in 2004,
    it took many years due to the lack of funding.

    It is not legitimate to predict completion timelines based on anything before 2008.   And there is no evidence of any
    crisis in delivery with multi-year overruns.

    As usual the US and Russia comparisons are afflicted with apples and oranges comparisons.   The Virginia completion
    periods are meaningless if they start with 50% complete hulls.
    avatar
    Dima

    Posts : 1032
    Points : 1047
    Join date : 2012-03-22

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Dima on Sun May 03, 2015 10:57 pm

    mack8 wrote:Nice info, thanks Dima.

    Interesting how the apparent construction of the Virginias seems sharply reduced once the four module block assembly is introduced. It indeed only can be reasonably explained by building those blocks well in advance of the official keel laying (assembling those blocks basically) imo.
    Yes that's how it is and the reason why they are able to complete it at a seemingly very fast pace. But in reality it is not 2 years, more like 4yrs per sub from the first metal cut. But its a very healthy thing.

    As for the russian subs, do we know if the Yasen and Borey use modular construction?
    Yes it could be. We have seen it for 11356, 677 etc. But the degree of modular construction vary. Russian yards as seen are using bare hull sections and later on fitting it out where as we saw the Brits with mostly fitted out sections for QE class a/c carrier.

    Regardless, i think it is fair to say that the situation in regards to the SSN/SSBN construction is greatly improving compared to the disastrous period of the nineties and early 2000s, and should keep to unless some major mess-up, it may well be that the plan for 8 of each by 2020 will not be met, but probably by say 2021-2022 would be realistic (is there anything that does
    not suffer delays these days?), that still being  a huge improvement for the Navy, especially the nuclear deterrent, no matter how you look at it.
    Funding is the single factor, its beyond the yards control and are completely helpless in this regard.

    Would be interesting what the long term plans for the 2030 horizon are, would they eventually build 14 Borey/Borey-M (we can expected improvements imo) to match the americans' Ohio numbers, plus something like 2 dozen Yasen/Yasen-M, or once the initial 8 of each are completed they will be replaced by new designs? Any info on that front?
    Lets hope they complete the current figures of 8 and 10. What could succeed is hard to predict.
    Personally I would love to see the 885 getting continued to replace the entire lot of 945 and 971... but if there is no option to fund it what can we say...

    Oh and how about the SSKs, there should be six pr.636 plus two improved pr.677 (plus the only Lada in the initial form that was not accepted)  by 2020 is that correct? (i did of course some reading on the subject but would be nice to confirm from russian sources)
    Six 636.6 are on their way and the lone 677 is likely to be fitted with the AIP by 2017 and plans are for the rest of 677 to come online with this AIP as standard. So if everything goes alright there should be no less than 3-4 of Lada/Kalina by 2020. Lets hope it goes our way.
    avatar
    mack8

    Posts : 953
    Points : 1013
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  mack8 on Sun May 03, 2015 11:35 pm

    Thanks again for input Dima.

    Six 636.6 are on their way and the lone 677 is likely to be fitted with the AIP by 2017 and plans are for the rest of 677 to come online with this AIP as standard. So if everything goes alright there should be no less than 3-4 of Lada/Kalina by 2020. Lets hope it goes our way.

    Well, for what its worth i'm reading in wiki (not exactly the best or most up to date source i know) that at least initially six of these AIP equipped Lada/Kalinas are planned.
    avatar
    Kimppis

    Posts : 276
    Points : 282
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force

    Post  Kimppis on Tue May 05, 2015 7:36 pm

    Are there any plans to strengthen Baltic Fleet's submarine force? According to Wikipedia they currently have only 2 (or is it actually 1?). Shouldn't they build some improved Kilos or Ladas for the fleet after they finish with the Black Sea?

    And TR1, how does this look:

    Russian submarine fleet in the future:

    18 SSN
    24 SSK
    8 SSBN

    = 50 submarines

    Northern and Pacific Fleets: 9 SSN, 6 SSK, 4 SSBN, each
    Baltic and Black Sea Fleets: 6 SSK, each
    avatar
    jhelb

    Posts : 428
    Points : 494
    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?
    avatar
    RTN

    Posts : 188
    Points : 173
    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.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 798
    Points : 882
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    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.

    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1184
    Points : 1201
    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.

    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 2971
    Points : 3096
    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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    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
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1184
    Points : 1201
    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.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1502
    Points : 1542
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on 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!

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10063
    Points : 10553
    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


    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:42 pm