Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
TR1 wrote:Like I said, I made a mistake because of the flurry of people I was replying to.
.
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.
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..
Yasen serial production in 10 years?
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?
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.
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.
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 -
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 -
Dima wrote:
Try yandex translate.... https://translate.yandex.com/translate
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.Vann7 wrote:
there you go. .2 years !! to build virginias..
More than the yards mastering, its the basic needs like planning and procurement and the much needed funding that has to be on track.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!
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.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.
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.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 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.As for the russian subs, do we know if the Yasen and Borey use modular construction?
Funding is the single factor, its beyond the yards control and are completely helpless in this regard.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.
Lets hope they complete the current figures of 8 and 10. What could succeed is hard to predict.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?
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.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.
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?
says who... ofc. they'll say their practice is the correct one. and btw the pressure hulls are compartmentalized too.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion GunshipDemocracy Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:35 pm
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.
Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion GunshipDemocracy Sat Jun 27, 2015 12:20 pm
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
|
|
|
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
