Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Share

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1528
    Points : 1691
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TheArmenian on Wed Mar 16, 2016 4:07 pm

    Can the submarine launched KALIBR cruise missile be launched by a surface ship's torpedo tubes?
    In theory at least if not in practice.

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

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

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:48 pm

    artjomh wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:Was the Victor II class submarine equipped with type 65 21 inch ASuW torpedoes ? or any Asuw torpedoes ?

    It had 2 x 650 mm torpedo tubes for 65-76 torpedoes. No 650 mm rocket-torpedoes, only Vodopad (which is 533 mm)

    Also the SSN-16 Stallion was a dual role weapon ? ASuw and ASW?

    RPK-6 had two types of warhead stage: a torpedo and a depth charge. So, in a way, it was a dual-role system, but it couldn't be used for both at the same time, the two versions were in fact separate weapons.

    That being said, RPK-6 was designed as an anti-submarine weapon, so using the torpedo in anti-shipping role would be cross-purpose and likely require complete reprogramming of its search programme.

    Did it have the same range in the ASW and Asuw role ?

    Depends on how you count it.

    The rocket stage was the in both versions. Exact range is classified, but various sources give the range between 35 and 50 km. The depth charge warhead was, obviously, completely unguided. The torpedo version, on the other hand, had propulsion of its own, and could travel an extra 8 km. However, practically, the torpedo was programmed to travel in a circular descending pattern, searching for the enemy submarine.

    Like I said before, while RPK-6 had a torpedo head, it was not designed for action against enemy surface ships, and it would be highly unlikely that it would every be re-programmed for that kind of operation.
    Thanks for the detailed explanation, given this how would you rate the Victor II/III subs in the ASUW role ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:37 am

    Can the submarine launched KALIBR cruise missile be launched by a surface ship's torpedo tubes?
    In theory at least if not in practice.

    In theory it probably could... but don't know why you would bother.

    I have seen a video of a torpedo being launched from a ships torpedo launcher where the torpedo is blown off the side into the water and then a second or two later the rocket propelled missile bursts out of the water on a ballistic path... I suspect this video shows something like the SS-N-15 or SS-N-16 being fired from ship based torpedo tubes.

    Medvedka or Klub (the former with a dedicated launcher and the latter with the UKSK launcher) would make rather more sense for such a role.


    _________________
    “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

    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 307
    Points : 311
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Isos on Thu Mar 17, 2016 4:08 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Can the submarine launched KALIBR cruise missile be launched by a surface ship's torpedo tubes?
    In theory at least if not in practice.

    In theory it probably could... but don't know why you would bother.

    I have seen a video of a torpedo being launched from a ships torpedo launcher where the torpedo is blown off the side into the water and then a second or two later the rocket propelled missile bursts out of the water on a ballistic path... I suspect this video shows something like the SS-N-15 or SS-N-16 being fired from ship based torpedo tubes.

    Medvedka or Klub (the former with a dedicated launcher and the latter with the UKSK launcher) would make rather more sense for such a role.

    You could give old destroyers like Udaloys or sovr..s possibilies to engage targets at 2000 Km.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:10 am

    Rather than launchign them from the torpedo tubes, it would make more sense.. though it would be more expensive and complicated... to install UKSK launchers for the purpose.

    An upgrade of their electronics and sensors to modern systems would free up enormous amounts of internal space, and also reduce crew requirements too... with all that extra internal space you could probably fit several UKSK launchers and new vertical launch SAM missile tubes too.

    This would not only standardise their armament to match new vessels so older missiles and systems can be retired earlier, but it would also give them brand new capabilities... the Sovremmeny had limited anti sub options, while the Udaloy had limited surface ship attack options... UKSK launchers would give anti sub, anti ship, and land attack capability. And that would include new Zircon hypersonic missile capability too.


    _________________
    “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

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9457
    Points : 9949
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Fri Mar 18, 2016 3:26 pm

    http://rueconomics.ru/165172-apl-pyatogo-pokoleniya-haski-vmesto-reziny-poluchit-besshumnye-kompozity

    According to this article:
    According to experts, the use of composite technology in the construction of submarines, as well as the use of new types of missiles, completely fits into the concept of the construction of nuclear submarines of the fifth generation. Recall that last year the two types of submarines of the fifth generation have been announced: ASW submarine, the so-called boat-hunter, and the "aircraft carrier killer" with cruise missiles on board. So one project "Husky" the point here is not exactly over.

    "Husky" is referred to replace Yasen class and will be armed with Zircon missile so this submarine will be the  "aircraft carrier killer".

    Multi-nuclear submarine of project "Husky" fifth generation will replace nuclear submarine Project 885 "Ash", which are now being built and enter the combat strength of the Russian Navy.
    https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=3&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20160318/1392230572.html&usg=ALkJrhialvrxXJ-nlFzgtIGtDZwB9tUIwA

    They are also working on a second project which will probably be more light submarine than "Husky"


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


    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 307
    Points : 311
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Isos on Fri Mar 18, 2016 5:56 pm

    They should replace Victors and Sierras that are 20 years old, not subs which are not even build yet.

    Oscar II are very good against carrier, just need improved missiles. 72 Oniks or Zircon each with improved range to 1000km is really enough. Could be easy to improve range because Granits are 10m long and Oniks just 8m ...

    Or maybe they should design just one sub that could replace all current subs. Yasen can already replace any of them but its price i really high for a russian sub.


    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3388
    Points : 3431
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  JohninMK on Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:35 am

    Quite a good introduction to key Russian nuclear submarines.

    http://tass.ru/en/defense/862656



    jhelb
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 419
    Points : 483
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Are Western Nuclear Submarines More Silent Than Russian Nuclear Submarines?

    Post  jhelb on Mon Mar 21, 2016 11:08 am

    This report has been prepared by Lowy Institute, Australia

    http://www.lowyinstitute.org/files/nuclear-armed-submarines-in-indo-pacific-asia-stabiliser-or-menace_0.pdf

    While the report basically reflects upon the SSBN capabilities of China & India they also say that Russian submarines are more noisy than Western analogues. Is there any truth in it? Can you guys provide some estimated noise levels of US SSBNs?

    I found the estimated noise levels for Russian SSBNs http://www.armscontrol.ru/subs/snf/snf03221.htm






    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 Mon Mar 21, 2016 2:34 pm

    Two Russian Advanced Nuclear Submarines to Be Laid Down in 2016


    Two nuclear submarines of Russia's Borey- and Yasen-class will be laid down until the year-end, an official representative of Russia's United Shipbuilding Corporation said Friday.

    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 Mon Mar 21, 2016 2:41 pm

    Fifth-Gen Russian Subs to Use Composites for Increased Stealth


    Fifth-generation Russian submarines will use anti-sonar composite materials to hide them from enemy detection systems.The structure and composition of these new multilayer composite materials will significantly reduce the sonar signals reflected from submarine, isolate working mechanisms from vibrations, and so on,” Valery Polovinkin, an adviser to the general director of the Krylov State Research Center, told Izvestia

    He also said that, due to the composite material’s high internal loss factor, enemy sonar would simply be unable to pick up the required level of signal while the material’s sound absorption characteristics would minimize the spread of vibrational energy.

    The use of composite materials would reduce the weight of the submarine’s structures, increase its reliability and reduce operating costs since composites don’t corrode and need no paint.

    Composite structures would also simplify manufacturing, Polovinkin added.The new composite materials are currently being tested and the first all-composite propeller may be ready for sea trials already in 2018.

    The new composite materials are still in testing, but Russia will test its first composite propeller design in 2018. “This is one of our institute’s most promising projects,” Polovinkin said.


    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 Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:35 pm

    Off Topic


    Your thoughts on this technology ?

    Thin 'Bubble' Coatings Could Hide Submarines from Sonar

    Bubble-filled rubbery coatings may one day help make submarines virtually undetectable to sonar, researchers say.


    To avoid detection by sonar, military submarines are often covered with sound-absorbing tiles called anechoic coatings. These perforated rubber tiles are typically about 1 inch (2.5 centimeters) thick.

    In the past decade, research has suggested that the same degree of stealth could be provided by much thinner coatings filled with vacant cavities. When hit by sound waves, empty spaces in an elastic material can oscillate in size, "so it will dissipate a lot of energy," said lead study author Valentin Leroy, a physicist at the Université Paris Diderot in France

    However, figuring out how to optimize such materials for stealth applications previously involved time-consuming simulations. To simplify the problem, Leroy and his colleagues modeled the empty spaces in the elastic material as spherical bubbles, with each giving off a springy response to a sound wave that depended on its size and the elasticity of the surrounding material. This simplification helped them derive an equation that could optimize the material's sound absorption to a given sound frequency.

    The researchers designed a "bubble meta-screen," a soft layer of silicone rubber that is only 230 microns thick, which is a little more than twice the average width of a human hair. The bubbles inside were cylinders measuring 13 microns high and 24 microns wide, and separated from each other by 50 microns.

    In underwater experiments, the scientists bombarded a meta-screen placed on a slab of steel with ultrasonic frequencies of sound. They found that the meta-screen dissipated more than 91 percent of the incoming sound energy and reflected less than 3 percent of the sound energy. For comparison, the bare steel block reflected 88 percent of the sound energy.

    "We have a simple analytical expression whose predictions are in a very good agreement with numerical simulations and real experiments," Leroy told Live Science. "I find it exciting and beautiful."

    To make submarines invisible to the sound frequencies used in sonar, larger bubbles are needed. Still, the researchers predicted that a 0.16-inch-thick (4 millimeters) film with 0.08-inch (2 millimeters) bubbles could absorb more than 99 percent of the energy from sonar, cutting down reflected sound waves by more than 10,000-fold, or about 100 times better than was previously assumed possible.

    However, despite the possibilities, "making these samples will probably be tough," Leroy cautioned.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9457
    Points : 9949
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:25 pm

    Current status of construction of nuclear submarines

    Web resource "Russian submariners" vk.com/club_podvodnik "today posted a very interesting information about the estimated time of delivery of construction of nuclear submarines and their current status:
    At the last meeting of representatives of Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, OAO "PO" Sevmash ", and the main contractors supplying enterprises were announced the following dates ships readiness:

    1. Project "Borey-A."

       - Coll. 204 (parent) "Prince Vladimir", readiness 44.6%
       receiving power - November 2016
       conclusion of the workshop - March 2017

       - Coll. 205 (1st serial) "Prince Oleg" readiness 19.1%,
       the withdrawal of the workshop - December 2018
       Deposit - December 2019

       - Coll. 206 "Generalissimo Suvorov" readiness 13.9%,
       the withdrawal of the workshop - December 2018
       Deposit - December 2020

       - Coll. 207 "The Emperor Alexander III", readiness 2.7%,
       the withdrawal of the workshop - December 2019
       Deposit - December 2020

       - Coll. 208, readiness 0.3%
       tab - December 2016,
       the conclusion of the workshop - February 2020
       Deposit - November 2021


    2. The project "Ash-M".

       - Coll. 161 (parent) "Kazan", readiness 67.5%
       Deposit - December 2017

       - Coll. 162 (1st serial) "Novosibirsk", readiness 35.5%,
       the withdrawal of the workshop - December 2018
       Deposit - December 2019

       - Coll. 163 "Krasnoyarsk", readiness 19.3%
       conclusion from the workshop - December 2018
       Deposit - December 2020

       - Coll. 164 "Arkhangelsk", readiness 4.7%,
        the withdrawal of the workshop - December 2019
       Deposit - December 2021

       - Coll. 165, readiness 0.6%
       tab - July 2016,
       the conclusion of the workshop - December 2020
       Deposit - December 2022

       - Coll. 166, readiness 0.3%
       tab - July 2017,
       the conclusion of the workshop - December 2021
       Deposit - December 2023

    http://eagle-rost.livejournal.com/629346.html


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


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9457
    Points : 9949
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:19 am

    Detailed design of Russia's fifth-generation Husky sub to be ready in two years

    More:
    http://tass.ru/en/defense/865434


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


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9457
    Points : 9949
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Tue Apr 05, 2016 11:35 am

    New Husky-class submarine to combine qualities of multi-purpose and strategic submarines

    The fifth-generation submarine project is being actively discussed", President of the United Ship-building Corporation said

    MOSCOW, April 4. /TASS/. The fifth-generation Husky-class nuclear-powered submarine will be maximally standardized to combine the qualities of multi-purpose and strategic nuclear submarines, Alexei Rakhmanov, President of the United Ship-building Corporation, said on Monday.

    "The fifth-generation submarine project is being actively discussed. Various preliminary requirements specifications are being elaborated. It will be absolutely different from the point of view of physical fields. It will be a commonality-based submarine combining key elements of strategic and multi-purpose submarines," he said.

    The new submarine, according to Rakhamov, "will be distinguished by its weapons," but the United Ship-building Corporations is tasked to achieve a maximum unitized solution to "have the best price offer for the defense ministry."

    According to earlier reports, the preliminary design of the fifth-generation Husky-class nuclear-powered submarine will be worked out within two years. The fifth-generation multipurpose nuclear-powered submarine is being developed by the Malakhit Design Bureau in St. Petersburg in northwest Russia. A series of fourth-generation Project 885 Yasen-class submarines armed with missiles and torpedoes is currently under construction in Russia.


    More:
    http://tass.ru/en/defense/867232


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


    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1528
    Points : 1691
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TheArmenian on Tue Apr 05, 2016 2:45 pm

    The sixth submarine of Project 885 Yasen will be called PERM.

    http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201604051408-1bcc.htm

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 06, 2016 12:20 pm

    They should replace Victors and Sierras that are 20 years old, not subs which are not even build yet.

    When they say these new subs will replace Yasen I think they mean replace it in production.

    The old Victors etc will of course be replaced first, though with upgrades the Sierras are comparable with the Akulas so they might stay in service for some time. Very Happy


    _________________
    “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

    SeigSoloyvov
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 224
    Points : 226
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:37 pm

    They even still using RK-55's on the modernized akula's?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:05 pm

    RK-55s are nuclear armed and AFAIK are withdrawn from service already.

    Upgraded Akulas?

    Do you mean the Pike class?

    Nato codename for Akula is Typhoon.

    AFAIK the upgraded vessels with cruise missile capability will be equipped with Kalibr in conventional and presumably nuclear armed models in reserve too.


    _________________
    “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

    SeigSoloyvov
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 224
    Points : 226
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Mon Apr 11, 2016 8:47 pm

    Yes I would mean the pike class

    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 Apr 14, 2016 9:53 pm

    Exposed: Russia's Master Plan for Its Next Class of Deadly Submarines

    Majumdar and his sensationalist reporting lol1

    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 307
    Points : 311
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Isos on Thu Apr 14, 2016 10:39 pm

    max steel wrote:Exposed: Russia's Master Plan for Its Next Class of Deadly Submarines

    Majumdar and his sensationalist reporting   lol1

    I don't think I have seen something more stupid than this scratch

    SLBM in a SNA with liquid metal cooled reactors which can't be shut down lol!

    This guy is a particular case.

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 142
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Singular_trafo on Sat Apr 16, 2016 11:27 am

    Isos wrote:
    max steel wrote:

    Majumdar and his sensationalist reporting   lol1

    I don't think I have seen something more stupid than this scratch

    SLBM in a SNA with liquid metal cooled reactors which can't be shut down lol!

    This guy is a particular case.

    The problem of freezing coolant is not the drawback of the liquid metal cooled reactor, rather than a problem with one specific, 50 years old designs.

    They managed to restart the lyra onshore testbed reactor from frozen, but of course the shutdown happened with direct designer supervision,and the startup as well.

    Of course it risking a partial core meltdown if the shut down/start up not done properly.

    Additionaly the original design of the lyras was as light as possible, so they had to use the steam-metal steam generator to keep the coolant liquid.


    In a new ,updated reacotr design , with modern heat simulation tools and control electornic the reactor should be sent into freezening state, and go back to full power in short notice.




    And the most butifull part: the liquid metal fast neutron reactor means a quantum leap in reactor technology ,similar one like the gas trubine in the airplane technology.


    A liquid metal cooled reactor mated with direct thermoelectric converter could make a submarine that is extremly quiet.
    Compared to that the most up to date nuclear sumarine should be as noisy like an old steam engine .

    Of course the efficiency would be not 30% like with the carnot, but only 10-15%, but the coolant can be moved with magnetohydraulic pumps, so you have a nuclear reactor /generator powertrain with no moving parts and no phase changing working medium.

    Russia has all design institute of the SU, the ones that made reactors for Rorsat, they have the Topaz as well, both of them was reactor with direct thermoelectric converter. They connected to the grid the BN-800 fast neutron sodium cooled comercial reactor last year, so there is the knowledge/industry to make it works.

    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 Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:47 pm

    Orwell would be astonished by this level of double speak Neutral

    Russian Subs Are Reheating a Cold War Chokepoint lol1



    The recent U.S. promise to fund upgrades to Iceland’s military airfield at Keflavik is no diplomatic bone thrown to a small ally. The improvements will allow the U.S. Navy’s new P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft to keep an eye on Russia’s increasingly active and capable submarine force in a region whose importance is rising with the tensions between Moscow and the West. In short, the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap is back.

    During the Cold War, the maritime choke points between Greenland, Iceland, and the UK were key to the defense of Europe. This “GIUK gap” represented the line that Soviet naval forces had to cross in order to reach the Atlantic and stop U.S. forces heading across the sea to reinforce America’s European allies. It was also the area that the Soviet Union’s submarine-based nuclear forces would have to pass as they deployed for their nuclear strike missions. In response, the United States and its northern NATO allies spent considerable time, money, and effort on bolstering anti-submarine warfare capabilities and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance in the region. Maritime patrol aircraft from the UK, Norway, and the U.S.(Navy P-3s, flying from Keflavik) covered the area from above, while nuclear and conventional submarines lurked below the surface. The choke points were also monitored by an advanced network of underwater sensors installed to detect and track Soviet submarines.

    But after the Cold War ended, the GIUK gap disappeared from NATO’s maritime mind. U.S. forces left Iceland in 2006, and the UK, facing budget pressures, retired its fleet of maritime patrol aircraft fleet in 2010. (The Netherlands did the same in 2003.) Anti-submarine warfare and the North Atlantic were hardly priorities for an Alliance embroiled in peacekeeping, counter-insurgency, and fighting pirates in far-flung Bosnia, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa.

    But the term “GIUK gap” is now heard again in NATO circles (and sometimes as GIUK-N gap, to signify the inclusion of the maritime domain around Norway), as it becomes increasingly apparent that Russia is pouring money into its naval forces in general, and its submarine fleet in particular. Moscow is introducing new classes of conventional and nuclear attack submarines, among them the Yasen class and the Kalina class, the latter of which is thought to include air-independent propulsion. AIP, which considerably reduces the noise level of conventional submarines, was until recently seen only in Western navies’ most capable conventional subs. Much of Russia’s investment in its submarine force has been focused on its Northern Fleet, which is based in Murmansk and intended for operations in and around the Arctic, as well as the Atlantic. The Northern Fleet is also the home of Russia’s submarine-based nuclear deterrent.

    Russia is believed to be putting these new sub-surface capabilities to the test. The UK, Sweden, and Finland have all launched recent hunts for suspected Russian submarines deep in their territorial waters. Russia has also showed off its new ability to launch land-attack cruise missiles from its submarines; late last year, a sub in the Mediterranean fired Kalibr missiles against targets in Syria.

    Russia’s growing sub-surface capabilities are coupled with an apparent political will to use them. Its recently revised maritime strategy emphasizes operations in the Arctic, along with the need for Russian maritime forces to have access to the broader Atlantic Ocean. And that access will have to be, just as during the Cold War, through the GIUK gap.

    Now the United States is pivoting back to the region; witness the Obama administration’s recent announcement that it intends to spend part of the proposed 2017 European Reassurance Initiative budget on upgrading facilities at Keflavik.

    And the U.S. is not alone. Britain recently announced that it will seek to rebuild its maritime patrol aircraft fleet, probably by buying P-8s from Boeing. Norway is also considering its options for the future of its maritime patrol aircraft, and is also looking to buy a new class of submarines. Norway also recently upgraded its signal intelligence ship with new U.S. sensors, and the ship is primarily intended for operations in the vast maritime spaces of the High North.

    The emerging challenge in the North Atlantic should also drive NATO and its members to look hard at regenerating the ability to conduct anti-submarine warfare against a potent adversary. European nations should also take a hard look at its aging maritime patrol aircraft fleet and think about its future. The UK and the Netherlands are not the only countries who let their MPA fleets slip after the end of the Cold War.

    While current U.S. and NATO efforts at deterring further Russian aggression may be most visible through ground force deployments, exercises, and pre-positioned equipment in Europe’s east, a mostly unseen contest is also emerging in the North Atlantic. The GIUK gap is back.

    Tolstoy
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 12
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2015-07-12

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Tolstoy on Thu May 05, 2016 9:22 am

    artjomh wrote:It had 2 x 650 mm torpedo tubes for 65-76 torpedoes. No 650 mm rocket-torpedoes, only Vodopad (which is 533 mm)

    Is the choice of a HWT torpedo dictated exclusively by the type of combat management system (CMS) & its associated torpedo fire-control system? If NOT, can Russia-origin torpedoes be fired from any SSK of non-Russian design? Thank You.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:08 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:08 am