Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Share
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1780
    Points : 1776
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Isos on Wed Apr 04, 2018 4:09 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Going with anything less capable than Yasen is flat out stupidity and criminal negligence

    USA, China and Europe are not sitting on their asses (first two at least), there is no going back in this game

    Moreover they are building handfull of them not hundreds like during cold war. They should get the best.
    avatar
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 81
    Points : 81
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Wed Apr 04, 2018 4:29 pm

    Good point Gazza, big part of Yasen costs are one-time investment. Russia had to overcome big technological gap between the last Akula in 1996 and Severodvinsk in 2013. The only thing that remained the same is hull shape. Cutting edge Yasen technology will be pillar for all future 4th and 5th generation submarines in Russia. I.e., expect less delays and smaller cost with future classes.

    However, now the Russians want to cash tears and blood of developing Yasen in new cheaper class. Make no mistake, money matters a lot in present Russia. We are in the middle of arms race with Russian defense budget far behind US and Chinese and yet they are forced to decrease it even further due to low oil prices.

    So good quality/price ratio is of outmost importance, in other words 20 Huskies > 10 Yasens. That's why the US ceased to produce Seawolfs. Huskies will be less capable in quantity of weapons aboard, but not quality. Several small boats can be deployed more efficiently to cover larger ares, which is for SSN more important than for SSBN or SSGN.

    A naval historian once claimed, that Typhoon class megalomania is one of the reasons for break up of Soviet union. While Soviet engineers are brilliant and often ahead of their US counterparts with less investment, they can certainly learn from them something about cost rationality. And fortunately, they obviously have. Smile
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3672
    Points : 3779
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  kvs on Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:18 pm

    Isos wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Going with anything less capable than Yasen is flat out stupidity and criminal negligence

    USA, China and Europe are not sitting on their asses (first two at least), there is no going back in this game

    Moreover they are building handfull of them not hundreds like during cold war. They should get the best.


    Hundreds? Please lay the crack pipe down.

    And Gazza is right, the number is pure misinformation. Some minister's concerns do not make this sort of misinformation
    valid.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6723
    Points : 6825
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed Apr 04, 2018 8:14 pm


    Making Husky SSN without VLS tubes is acceptable if they have option to launch missiles through torpedo tubes, provided they leave enough storage space in the front to carry sufficient number of missiles

    But making compromises on sonar quality and noise levels is unacceptable
    avatar
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 81
    Points : 81
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Wed Apr 04, 2018 9:28 pm

    Haha don't worry, Huskies are expected to be even quiter. Russians know what are they doing, that's why they're no. 1 submarine force in the world since Khurscev.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6723
    Points : 6825
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed Apr 04, 2018 9:35 pm

    verkhoturye51 wrote:Haha don't worry, Huskies are expected to be even quiter. Russians know what are they doing, that's why they're no. 1 submarine force in the world since Khurscev.

    Not really, that would still be USN, even if you ignore quality they definitely got the numbers

    Yasen and Borei are first classes to match or exceed US subs' features

    I am not saying some Soviet ones weren't up for task but facts are facts
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1780
    Points : 1776
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Isos on Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:01 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    verkhoturye51 wrote:Haha don't worry, Huskies are expected to be even quiter. Russians know what are they doing, that's why they're no. 1 submarine force in the world since Khurscev.

    Not really, that would still be USN, even if you ignore quality they definitely got the numbers

    Yasen and Borei are first classes to match or exceed US subs' features

    I am not saying some Soviet ones weren't up for task but facts are facts

    Virginia have also VLS for tomahawks if I'm not wrong and they are very capable subs. And they replace their los angoles with them much faster than russia replace its soviets subs with yasen.
    avatar
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 81
    Points : 81
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:05 pm

    Oh boy, what do you do when you don't watch american movies?

    Facts: Soviets had better and larger submarine force. Russians have better and larger submarine force.

    In the peak in 1957, Soviets had 375 submarines. They had by far the largest submarine fleet ever formed. Today the numbers are the same in both countries. Wikipedia states that both have 10-20 SSBNs and 60 SSNs + SSGNs. The difference is that Russians have also reserve sizable fleet.

    Do you want to talk about quality? Who constructed the largest submarine? What about the fastest? Or the deepest diving? You guessed the answer. Russians use multiple hull designs, their submarines are more hydrodynamic and safer, they have escape pads, they can land on seabed, they are more comfoortable due to pool and sauna. They area more automatized and require smaller crew. They are better armed. Their reactors are liquid metal cooled, instead of water.

    Oh, I know what do you mean. They are noisier. So what? You can't detect no modern nuclear submarine outside of 1 km radius, so the differences don't really matter anymore. The real difference is non-acoustic stealth. Russians can detect US submarines also using hydrodynamic sensors, detecting heat, electricity, magnetism, radiation exhausts and turbulences from enemy submarines. While all that's a taboo in the US.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6723
    Points : 6825
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:07 pm

    Isos wrote:............
    Virginia have also VLS for tomahawks if I'm not wrong and they are very capable subs. And they replace their los angoles with them much faster than russia replace its soviets subs with yasen.

    Correct, current plan is to go with 3 new Virginias per year, that's why RuN can't dick around with delays and gaps in construction
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1780
    Points : 1776
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Isos on Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:51 pm

    verkhoturye51 wrote:Oh boy, what do you do when you don't watch american movies?

    Facts: Soviets had better and larger submarine force. Russians have better and larger submarine force.

    In the peak in 1957, Soviets had 375 submarines. They had by far the largest submarine fleet ever formed. Today the numbers are the same in both countries. Wikipedia states that both have 10-20 SSBNs and 60 SSNs + SSGNs. The difference is that Russians have also reserve sizable fleet.

    Do you want to talk about quality? Who constructed the largest submarine? What about the fastest? Or the deepest diving? You guessed the answer. Russians use multiple hull designs, their submarines are more hydrodynamic and safer, they have escape pads, they can land on seabed, they are more comfoortable due to pool and sauna. They area more automatized and require smaller crew. They are better armed. Their reactors are liquid metal cooled, instead of water.

    Oh, I know what do you mean. They are noisier. So what? You can't detect no modern nuclear submarine outside of 1 km radius, so the differences don't really matter anymore. The real difference is non-acoustic stealth. Russians can detect US submarines also using hydrodynamic sensors, detecting heat, electricity, magnetism, radiation exhausts and turbulences from enemy submarines. While all that's a taboo in the US.

    We are in 2018 not in 1957. There is no reserve fleet, just old ships waiting for repairs.

    They are not particulary safer check Kursk sub and larger doesn't mean better.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17793
    Points : 18359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:36 am

    They are not particulary safer check Kursk sub and larger doesn't mean better.

    If the entire torpedo load had exploded in any western sub it would have been in tiny pieces on the sea floor...

    The only reason it sank was because it was an internal explosion.

    [quote]They are not particulary safer check Kursk sub and larger doesn't mean better.

    Making Husky SSN without VLS tubes is acceptable if they have option to launch missiles through torpedo tubes, provided they leave enough storage space in the front to carry sufficient number of missiles

    Two points... first of all VLS tubes will be present because they are always ready to fire... making them more useful, and second no space up front for missiles or torpedoes as that is where the large sonar arrays are... the new Russian subs have mid positioned torpedo tubes...


    _________________
    “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
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 625
    Points : 619
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:51 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Isos wrote:............
    Virginia have also VLS for tomahawks if I'm not wrong and they are very capable subs. And they replace their los angoles with them much faster than russia replace its soviets subs with yasen.

    Correct, current plan is to go with 3 new Virginias per year, that's why RuN can't dick around with delays and gaps in construction


    In 13 years they commissioned 14 Virginia.

    Not a 3 sub/year speed....
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6723
    Points : 6825
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:09 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Isos wrote:............
    Virginia have also VLS for tomahawks if I'm not wrong and they are very capable subs. And they replace their los angoles with them much faster than russia replace its soviets subs with yasen.

    Correct, current plan is to go with 3 new Virginias per year, that's why RuN can't dick around with delays and gaps in construction


    In 13 years they commissioned 14 Virginia.

    Not a 3 sub/year speed....

    Not yet, I said they plan to and they will do so. With Russia and China noise they finally have cover for big ticket items.

    Russia doesn't need to reinvent the wheel here or play catch-up, they just need to stick with laying down one new SSGN every 12-14 months, that is all.

    3 year gaps are unacceptable.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 625
    Points : 619
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Apr 05, 2018 9:46 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Isos wrote:............
    Virginia have also VLS for tomahawks if I'm not wrong and they are very capable subs. And they replace their los angoles with them much faster than russia replace its soviets subs with yasen.

    Correct, current plan is to go with 3 new Virginias per year, that's why RuN can't dick around with delays and gaps in construction


    In 13 years they commissioned 14 Virginia.

    Not a 3 sub/year speed....

    Not yet, I said they plan to and they will do so. With Russia and China noise they finally have cover for big ticket items.

    Russia doesn't need to reinvent the wheel here or play catch-up, they just need to stick with laying down one new SSGN every 12-14 months, that is all.

    3 year gaps are unacceptable.

    The US needs more ABM system, submarine, carrier, new strategic missile force.But at the moment the US spending more for military in % term than China at the moment, so all of them together is just enough to slow down the eroding competitiveness.

    So, maybe they want to have more asses, but it is a big question if the US is capable to afford those assets.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6723
    Points : 6825
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:15 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:.......
    The US needs more ABM system, submarine, carrier, new strategic missile force.But at the moment the US spending more for military in % term than China at the moment, so all of them together is just enough to slow down the eroding competitiveness.

    So, maybe they want to have more asses, but it is a big question if the US is capable to afford those assets.

    USA has no problems paying for that stuff, especially Naval vessels, that's where the money is.

    Russia has less "ground" to cover here so they don't need to do anything other than what they already do. Simple as that.

    And Yasen is excellent product so it's not like they are throwing money on junk. Unlike Soviet subs it's designed for upgrades so they will be getting way more mileage out of them than from previous models.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17793
    Points : 18359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:26 am

    Russia just needs to look at its own needs and not at the needs or wants or building programmes of anyone else...

    When the US started building ABM systems around the world, the Russians didn't just do the same at enormous expense... they used their brains and thought outside the box with several new types of weapons.

    They should do the same with their navy too.

    In a decade or so they will need to expand their navy to support their growing international trade, but until then they need to be sensible.


    _________________
    “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
    kvs

    Posts : 3672
    Points : 3779
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  kvs on Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:05 am

    GarryB wrote:Russia just needs to look at its own needs and not at the needs or wants or building programmes of anyone else...

    When the US started building ABM systems around the world, the Russians didn't just do the same at enormous expense... they used their brains and thought outside the box with several new types of weapons.

    They should do the same with their navy too.

    In a decade or so they will need to expand their navy to support their growing international trade, but until then they need to be sensible.

    When the USA broke the ABM treaty, the foundation of all arms control treaties, Russia should have cranked up its number of ICBMs and warheads.
    It should do this now considering the insanity shown by NATO leaders in the Skripal case. Wasting resources on ships and other conventional
    war assets is just idiotic. The most effective defense against NATO by a vast margin are ICBMs. MAD is the only thing that kept world war at bay.
    Increasing the number if ICBMs by a factor of 10+ will revive MAD. For some reason NATO clowns decided that under 2000 strategic nuclear
    warheads gives them a chance to defeat Russia (total number of warheads counting the tactical ones is not relevant since ABM systems do not
    deal with tactical warheads).
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 625
    Points : 619
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:59 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:.......
    The US needs more ABM system, submarine, carrier, new strategic missile force.But at the moment the US spending more  for military in % term than China at the moment, so   all of them together is just enough to slow down the eroding competitiveness.

    So, maybe they want to have more asses, but it is a big question if the US is capable to afford those assets.

    USA has no problems paying for that stuff, especially Naval vessels, that's where the money is.

    Russia has less "ground" to cover here so they don't need to do anything other than what they already do. Simple as that.

    And Yasen is excellent product so it's not like they are throwing money on junk. Unlike Soviet subs it's designed for upgrades so they will be getting way more mileage out of them than from previous models.

    US can't afford the f35, the new carriers, or the seawolf class.

    They can't afford even to make two Virginia in every year.


    The backbone of the US submarine navy is still the old cold war relic Los Angeles class, the real Oscar/Sierra/Akula/Yassen competitor Seawolf was too expensive for the US NAvy.


    And as soon as China break up the US pacific alliance the cost of weapon system will explode to the sky,as the pacific supply chain / market die .
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1780
    Points : 1776
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Isos on Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:22 pm


    The backbone of the US submarine navy is still the old cold war relic Los Angeles class, the real Oscar/Sierra/Akula/Yassen competitor Seawolf was too expensive for the US NAvy.


    The thing with those too much expensive thing like Seawolf and Zumalt cruiser is that they get few of them before figuring out that it is too much epensive. 3 Seawolf and 2 Zumalt is already very good against any navy in the world.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6723
    Points : 6825
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:39 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:..................
    US can't afford the f35, the new carriers, or the seawolf class

    They can't afford even to make two Virginia in every year.....

    They can and they do. Easily. All they needed was justification. They have it now.


    Singular_Transform wrote:.....The backbone of the US submarine navy is still the old  cold war relic Los Angeles class, the real Oscar/Sierra/Akula/Yassen competitor Seawolf was too expensive for the US NAvy.....

    Seawolf is competitor to first Yasen only. Los Angeles is superior to all others you listed.


    Singular_Transform wrote:....And as soon as China break up the US pacific alliance the cost of weapon system will explode to the sky,as the pacific supply chain / market die .

    China will not be breaking up anything any time soon. And even if they do Russian considerations will be completely irrelevant.

    Stop expecting China to do heavy lifting for anyone.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1780
    Points : 1776
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Isos on Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:24 pm

    Seawolf is competitor to first Yasen only. Los Angeles is superior to all others you listed.

    Not really. Akula are very very good. Sierra are made of titanium and are designed to hunt other subs and they were upgraded if I'm not wrong.

    Los angeles were beaten by Indian kilos so russian sonars can track them easily if an export indian kilo can track them.
    avatar
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 81
    Points : 81
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:43 am

    Russians modernized 3 out of 4 Sierras, but they are still noisy as hell.

    But Akula III is entirely different story. She is the only Russian boat in the history that was more quite than American boats, when comissioned in 1996 (105 dB vs 105-110 dB). She's the real reason for Seawolf.

    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 625
    Points : 619
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:57 am

    PapaDragon wrote:

    They can and they do. Easily. All they needed was justification. They have it now.
    [/quote]
    They can't cope.
    China currently spend close to half what the US spend for military.

    Means any escalation in spending for defence can be outspend by China without any real efforts.

    Russia still has same waggling room for spending, they can just simply keep the current level to force the US to keep up with the improving Russian AND chinese capabilities.

    It is a match that very hard to win for the US.

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Seawolf is competitor to first Yasen only. Los Angeles is superior to all others you listed.

    Where you get this info? From a US patriotic fanboy?

    The Seawolf was way more expensive than the Los Angles or the Virginisa ( not by small margin, but by 2-3 times more)
    And the Seawolf is 20 years newer design.

    What do you think ,what was the reason of the price difference? Golden toilet seats?


    Los Angeles is a 60s designed sub.

    The Akula is a late seventies design.

    Actually, the reason of the Seawolf design was to keep up with the Soviet capabilities.
    But it was too expensive.
    The Vriginia is a dumbed down sub compared to the seawolf/akula/oscar or yassen , it wasn'tr designed to compete with these ships.

    It is more similar to a nuclear powered Kilo than to an akula competitor.
    PapaDragon wrote:

    China will not be breaking up anything any time soon. And even if they do Russian considerations will be completely irrelevant.

    Stop expecting China to do heavy lifting for anyone.

    China needs to break the Taiwan-South Korea- Japan chain .

    As soon as it does that the US defence cost will dramatically increase.


    Seriously, where you get your infos?

    From the nationalinterest.org ?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17793
    Points : 18359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:47 pm

    When the USA broke the ABM treaty, the foundation of all arms control treaties, Russia should have cranked up its number of ICBMs and warheads.

    I agree with you... without the 1972 ABM treaty the SALT limitations treaty and the START reduction treaties become ridiculous and redundant.

    Even now Russia should clearly state that while the US has ABM systems in development and in operation then Russia will not reduce its number of strategic warheads and will actually increase them to match the ABM systems the US introduces.

    Also while the US has ABM systems the number of tactical nuclear weapons that Russia holds will only increase.

    And thirdly the withdrawal of Soviet military forces from Europe and former Soviet baltic states should be reciprocated by an equivalent withdrawal of US forces in Europe... until that happens Soviet and Russian forces can't be moved back into europe but the nuclear equivalent of tactical nuclear weapons will be positioned and will include weapons banned under the INF treaty until this is corrected (ie US forces leave Europe).

    It should do this now considering the insanity shown by NATO leaders in the Skripal case.

    Russia is being accused of being aggressive... some aggressive actions should put their current passive actions into perspective...

    Wasting resources on ships and other conventional
    war assets is just idiotic. The most effective defense against NATO by a vast margin are ICBMs.

    That is why I am saying don't worry too much about matching the west in the naval forces now... many conventional forces are useful and are fully dual use things... conventional cruise missiles are very useful for example. Being able to send aircraft or ships or troops to different places is very useful, but don't waste time trying to match NATO. Small mobile and very well equipped multi purpose forces are the goal.

    MAD is the only thing that kept world war at bay.
    Increasing the number if ICBMs by a factor of 10+ will revive MAD. For some reason NATO clowns decided that under 2000 strategic nuclear
    warheads gives them a chance to defeat Russia (total number of warheads counting the tactical ones is not relevant since ABM systems do not
    deal with tactical warheads).

    Having a variety of nuclear weapon types is the key...

    China will not be breaking up anything any time soon.

    He didn't mean China was breaking up... he meant China was breaking up the US pacific alliance... ie China was causing the US pacific alliance to break up.

    Russians modernized 3 out of 4 Sierras, but they are still noisy as hell.

    Expensive Titanium hulled vessels that are worth keeping and upgrading.


    _________________
    “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
    Isos

    Posts : 1780
    Points : 1776
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Isos on Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:18 pm

    verkhoturye51 wrote:Russians modernized 3 out of 4 Sierras, but they are still noisy as hell.

    But Akula III is entirely different story. She is the only Russian boat in the history that was more quite than American boats, when comissioned in 1996 (105 dB vs 105-110 dB). She's the real reason for Seawolf.


    Yeah but they can go really deap and hide their noise.

    Akula are very good. I still can't understand that they gave one of their best Akula to India while they needed it.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:37 am