Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Share
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 726
    Points : 720
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Singular_Transform on Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:17 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:

    Which Virginia's I do not understand why it's so hard for people to grasp here, Newer Virginia's are better than the older ones, much like akula 2's are better then akula ones.




    The US has three submarine that is on the same class like the Akulas
    The new Virginias has vertical launch tubes, but otherwise they are like the old ones.

    Means they are inferior compared to the Seawolf/Akula/Yassen classes. Not a bit, but seriously .

    The design is the same, the hull diameter and thickness the same, reactor as well means the max deep and speed pre-defined for all Virginias.

    Virginia has 4 torpedo tubes, Akula/Seawolf has 8.

    What do you think, which one is designed for anti-submarine warfare?

    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1152
    Points : 1150
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Oct 25, 2018 12:06 am

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:

    Which Virginia's I do not understand why it's so hard for people to grasp here, Newer Virginia's are better than the older ones, much like akula 2's are better then akula ones.




    The US has three  submarine that is on the same class like the Akulas
    The new Virginias has vertical launch tubes, but otherwise they are like the old ones.

    Means they are inferior compared to the Seawolf/Akula/Yassen classes. Not a bit, but seriously .

    The design is the same, the hull diameter and thickness the same, reactor as well means the max deep and speed pre-defined for all Virginias.

    Virginia has 4 torpedo tubes, Akula/Seawolf has 8.

    What do you think, which one is designed for anti-submarine warfare?


    Which Akula's cause the first set of those aren't better than Virginia they are equal pretty much. they may be some minor differences but that's it. This depends on which block of V's you are talking about also verse which set of akulas.

    I really hate to break it to you but hose old Akula's aren't has amazing has people here play them out to be. Yasen's sure,

    "The design is the same, the hull diameter and thickness the same, reactor as well means the max deep and speed pre-defined for all Virginias"

    Um no this is wrong, Block three's 40 percent of the hull was redesigned and block four's are going to be bigger than three's.

    Reactor? all the akula share the same reactor also yet somehow they get a pass alright then? . Get your facts, straight buddy, because you are very wrong here. I know since it's US equipment you gotta bash and twist facts but don't waste my time trying to pull the wool over my eyes.

    Well to be fair you are right about them having 4 torp slots but that's about it.
    avatar
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 225
    Points : 223
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:59 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote: Also you are leaving out keywords greater than 800 ft (240 m). If you had the time to look up test depth you would have known the submarine can go greater then 250 so should I consider you a liar?.

    Yes, you can accuse me of comparing test and max depths. Comparing test depths would be more than 244 m vs. 480/520 m. Still it doesn't change a fact that Russia is here way better on paper, and we have no reason to assume that the reality is different. Russian submarines traditionally go deeper. Until we find out that Virginia dives deeper as Shchuka-B, the most credible is to say that it doesn't.

    If you add advantages when it comes to speed, armament and hydrodynamic sensors SOKS, Russia is a SSN winner, if not in quantity, at least when it comes to quality.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 726
    Points : 720
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:20 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:

    Which Virginia's I do not understand why it's so hard for people to grasp here, Newer Virginia's are better than the older ones, much like akula 2's are better then akula ones.




    The US has three  submarine that is on the same class like the Akulas
    The new Virginias has vertical launch tubes, but otherwise they are like the old ones.

    Means they are inferior compared to the Seawolf/Akula/Yassen classes. Not a bit, but seriously .

    The design is the same, the hull diameter and thickness the same, reactor as well means the max deep and speed pre-defined for all Virginias.

    Virginia has 4 torpedo tubes, Akula/Seawolf has 8.

    What do you think, which one is designed for anti-submarine warfare?


    Which Akula's cause the first set of those aren't better than Virginia they are equal pretty much. they may be some minor differences but that's it. This depends on which block of V's you are talking about also verse which set of akulas.

    I really hate to break it to you but hose old Akula's aren't has amazing has people here play them out to be. Yasen's sure,

    "The design is the same, the hull diameter and thickness the same, reactor as well means the max deep and speed pre-defined for all Virginias"

    Um no this is wrong, Block three's 40 percent of the hull was redesigned and block four's are going to be bigger than three's.

    Reactor? all the akula share the same reactor also yet somehow they get a pass alright then? . Get your facts, straight buddy, because you are very wrong here. I know since it's US equipment you gotta bash and twist facts but don't waste my time trying to pull the wool over my eyes.

    Well to be fair you are right about them having 4 torp slots but that's about it.
    : D

    Oh, interesting.
    So, they redesigned 40% of the Virginia hull,so now only 60% will crush if they try to chase an Akula : )

    Good to know : D

    So, basic : Hull diameter define minimum required thickness ,thickness define mass , radius + thickness define maximum deep.
    Radius define internal/external support rings, mass of it with the wall define hull mass.
    Diameter define max reactor size , reactor size define max power, hull diameter vs max power define max speed.
    Max diving deep define all other machine, including the pressure of air reserve, sealings, internal doors and so on.
    All of this is the characteristic of the submarine class, changing any of them means they develop a new class.

    If there is a flaw in the submarine design then it can not go deep, and they will found it during the pressure test.

    But this will be characteristic of the individual submarine, not the class.

    So, again:
    NO, the Virginia is nor comparable in its characteristics to any of the Akulas. ALL virginia is seriously inferior compared to the Akulas.
    No, they can not change this fact. To change it they need to make a new class.
    The Virginia is a cheap submarine designed to fight weak / small countries , without any significant submarine force. It is not comparable to the Akula/Yassen/Seawolf class. Difference is as big like between a light tank and a main battle tank. And unfixable.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1338
    Points : 1338
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Hole on Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:49 am

    The greatest problem of the Virignia class it that it was intended to be a cheap substitute for the Seawolf and now costs more.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 726
    Points : 720
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:07 pm

    Hole wrote:The greatest problem of the Virignia class it that it was intended to be a cheap substitute for the Seawolf and now costs more.

    Not so. Virginia still cost half as much as Seawolf.

    Seawolf equivalent submarine cost 5.5 billion, pure Virginia without VLS cost roughly half as much.

    Non inflation adjusted calculation can show different stuff, but that is irrelevant.

    Labrador

    Posts : 130
    Points : 130
    Join date : 2018-09-24

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Labrador on Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:57 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Hole wrote:The greatest problem of the Virignia class it that it was intended to be a cheap substitute for the Seawolf and now costs more.

    Not so. Virginia still cost half as much as Seawolf.

    Seawolf equivalent submarine cost 5.5 billion, pure Virginia without VLS cost roughly half as much.

    Non inflation adjusted calculation can show different stuff, but that is irrelevant.
    Right thumbsup want 2.7 billions a Seawolf only 3 also… about 3 end 1990... and they are very happy with this excellent boat and the Block V going to be amazing he want about IIRC 3 billions for 65 vs 38 weapons interesting !
    BTW with last events ... yet planned a successor for Ohio SSGN attack Smile
    avatar
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 225
    Points : 223
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:38 pm

    Labrador wrote:they are very happy with this excellent boat

    They're happy with falling costs and shortening production time from block to block. And Russians are happy with better performance of Shckuka-B. So it's a win-win.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 726
    Points : 720
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:51 pm

    verkhoturye51 wrote:
    Labrador wrote:they are very happy with this excellent boat

    They're happy with falling costs and shortening production time from block to block. And Russians are happy with better performance of Shckuka-B. So it's a win-win.

    US has no choice at the moment just to use virginias.

    They are inferior compared to the Russian stuff, but they are usable against every other submarine.

    Up to the arrival of the Type 095 and its successor.

    Labrador

    Posts : 130
    Points : 130
    Join date : 2018-09-24

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Labrador on Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:27 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    verkhoturye51 wrote:
    Labrador wrote:they are very happy with this excellent boat

    They're happy with falling costs and shortening production time from block to block. And Russians are happy with better performance of Shckuka-B. So it's a win-win.

    US has no choice at the moment just to use virginias.

    They are inferior compared to the Russian stuff, but they are usable against every other submarine.

    Up to the arrival of the Type 095 and its successor.
    Inferior LOL and Type 095 can be 093B... but it is a large game  Cool and never hear about a 097 ! pay attention whith this special country and fanboys sources…  Rolling Eyes

    verkhoturye51 wrote:
    Labrador wrote:they are very happy with this excellent boat

    They're happy with falling costs and shortening production time from block to block. And Russians are happy with better performance of Shckuka-B. So it's a win-win.
    Mainly it is 2 by year build and this year first with 2 commissioned possible a 3th in december or for 2019 a and ofc more you build more the price down and all or almost commissioned in time and budget even a little less 
    expensive than planned.


    How many for a 885M i have see IIRC about 2 billions enormeous for Russian which build more cheaper for various reasons and why plans futur Husky cheaper
    and suprising Borey have a reasonnable price why and have you price ? not in ruble please Wink  
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1338
    Points : 1338
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Hole on Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:27 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Hole wrote:The greatest problem of the Virignia class it that it was intended to be a cheap substitute for the Seawolf and now costs more.

    Not so. Virginia still cost half as much as Seawolf.

    Seawolf equivalent submarine cost 5.5 billion, pure Virginia without VLS cost roughly half as much.

    Non inflation adjusted calculation can show different stuff, but that is irrelevant.

    The three Seawolfs cost 7,4 Billion (= 2,4 Billion per boat).
    One Virginia costs 2,6 Billion.
    avatar
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 225
    Points : 223
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:29 pm

    Labrador wrote:How many for a 885M i have see IIRC about 2 billions enormeous for Russian which build more cheaper for various reasons and why plans futur Husky cheaper
    and suprising Borey have a reasonnable price why and have you price ? not in ruble please Wink  

    I think there's too much hype around this small and cheap Husky idea. Analytics suggest only that it will be better and cheaper than US SSNs, which makes sense. If first Yasen M costed 3,5 bn, than serially produced Husky boats can be driven bellow 2,5 bn Virginia.

    It will be Shchuka-B size displacement and till they start the production in 2023, there'll certainly be tech improvements. E.g. Zircon and extra stealthiness and use of Yasen M will show room for improvement, too. So it will be big and excellent and cheaper than Virginias. That mass production part looks questionable though.

    Labrador

    Posts : 130
    Points : 130
    Join date : 2018-09-24

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Labrador on Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:59 pm

    verkhoturye51 wrote:
    Labrador wrote:How many for a 885M i have see IIRC about 2 billions enormeous for Russian which build more cheaper for various reasons and why plans futur Husky cheaper
    and suprising Borey have a reasonnable price why and have you price ? not in ruble please Wink  

    I think there's too much hype around this small and cheap Husky idea. Analytics suggest only that it will be better and cheaper than US SSNs, which makes sense. If first Yasen M costed 3,5 bn, than serially produced Husky boats can be driven bellow 2,5 bn Virginia.

    It will be Shchuka-B size displacement and till they start the production in 2023, there'll certainly be tech improvements. E.g. Zircon and extra stealthiness and use of Yasen M will show room for improvement, too. So it will be big and excellent and cheaper than Virginias. That mass production part looks questionable though.
    I don't see how possible cheaper and also big  dunno 

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t7273p25-5th-gen-husky-class-nuclear-submarine
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 726
    Points : 720
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:44 pm

    Labrador wrote:
    Inferior LOL and Type 095 can be 093B...

    ....
    Mainly it is 2 by year build and this year first with 2 commissioned possible a 3th in december or for 2019 a and ofc more you build more the price down and all or almost commissioned in time and budget even a little less
    expensive than planned.
     

    China had 5 submarine last year, now has 6, two more will join soon.
    In few years time they will start to pump out two-three nuclear submarine per year.

    Means the US will have hard time to keep supremacy even on the pacific ocean, not to mention the chinese seas.


    www.saving.org/inflation/inflation.php?amount=3&year=1989

    Seawolf class cost 6.14 billion 2018 dollars.

    Virginia cost 2.7 without VPM

    This is due to inflation.
    Inflation means that the money in 1989 is more valuable per unit base than the same amount of money in 2018.



    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 726
    Points : 720
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:46 pm

    Hole wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Hole wrote:The greatest problem of the Virignia class it that it was intended to be a cheap substitute for the Seawolf and now costs more.

    Not so. Virginia still cost half as much as Seawolf.

    Seawolf equivalent submarine cost 5.5 billion, pure Virginia without VLS cost roughly half as much.

    Non inflation adjusted calculation can show different stuff, but that is irrelevant.

    The three Seawolfs cost 7,4 Billion (= 2,4 Billion per boat).
    One Virginia costs 2,6 Billion.

    1989 dollars vs 2018 dollars.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 726
    Points : 720
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:53 pm

    verkhoturye51 wrote:
    Labrador wrote:How many for a 885M i have see IIRC about 2 billions enormeous for Russian which build more cheaper for various reasons and why plans futur Husky cheaper
    and suprising Borey have a reasonnable price why and have you price ? not in ruble please Wink  

    I think there's too much hype around this small and cheap Husky idea. Analytics suggest only that it will be better and cheaper than US SSNs, which makes sense. If first Yasen M costed 3,5 bn, than serially produced Husky boats can be driven bellow 2,5 bn Virginia.

    It will be Shchuka-B size displacement and till they start the production in 2023, there'll certainly be tech improvements. E.g. Zircon and extra stealthiness and use of Yasen M will show room for improvement, too. So it will be big and excellent and cheaper than Virginias. That mass production part looks questionable though.
    Kazan cost 2,5-3 times more than one virginia, but best part because of the reconstruction of supply base.

    Use fighter jet equivalent.
    One yassen worth 75 Su-35 (150 billion roubles), virginia cost 30 F/A-18 .
    Maybe later they will cut the cost back to 100 billion 2018 roubles, then it will cost only 50 Su-35, means it will cost twice as more as the Virginia.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1152
    Points : 1150
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:01 pm

    Okay you are reaaaaaaaaaaallllly twisting facts again Russian forum, so I get you to need to lie and have russia be number one and hey whatever helps you sleep at night.

    Facts

    It is true the Akula's are faster.

    It's not true they have a greater crush depth because no one really knows how deep Virginia's can go all that is public is it's greater than 250. At max dive depth, Virginia can wait for the Akula to come back up because Virginia can stay active for longer, Akula endurance is around 100 days. Akula cannot defend it's self by launching weapons when it's that low, it's a sitting duck at that point. They also cannot travel their fully speed when at their max crush depth doesn't matter if the Akula can out run a Virginia it ain't out running the torps.

    Virginia's are quieter Utilising newly-designed anechoic coatings, isolated structures and a new propulsor design, the Virginia-class submarines boast an acoustic signature lower than the Russian Akula-II class submarine (they have one in service), equivalent to that of the Seawolf-class submarines that they were designed to replace.

    In terms of reactors and propulsion, The Akula uses the 190MW pressurised water nuclear reactor, one OK-7 steam turbine creating 43,000 hp and two OK-2 turbogenerators that produce 2,000 kW of power. Two OK-300 retractable electric propulsors for low-speed and quiet maneuvering have also been installed to increase stealthier operation of the submarine, although the top speed using this method of propulsion is capped at 5kt.

    for Virginia, they have the S9G nuclear reactor delivering 40,000 shaft horsepower and a Pump Jet System.

    Final 45kv40k. A mere 5k difference isn't going to do much.

    Virginia's also have better sensors, command systems, electronics.

    So please stop lying, I know better you can continue to lie to others if you wish but I am not stupid.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 726
    Points : 720
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Oct 25, 2018 9:46 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Okay you are reaaaaaaaaaaallllly twisting facts again Russian forum, so I get you to need to lie and have russia be number one and hey whatever helps you sleep at night.

    Facts

    It is true the Akula's are faster.

    It's not true they have a greater crush depth because no one really knows how deep Virginia's can go all that is public is it's greater than 250. At max dive depth, Virginia can wait for the Akula to come back up because Virginia can stay active for longer, Akula endurance is around 100 days. Akula cannot defend it's self by launching weapons when it's that low, it's a sitting duck at that point. They also cannot travel their fully speed when at their max crush depth doesn't matter if the Akula can out run a Virginia it ain't out running the torps.

    Virginia's are quieter Utilising newly-designed anechoic coatings, isolated structures and a new propulsor design, the Virginia-class submarines boast an acoustic signature lower than the Russian Akula-II class submarine (they have one in service), equivalent to that of the Seawolf-class submarines that they were designed to replace.

    In terms of reactors and propulsion, The Akula uses the 190MW pressurised water nuclear reactor, one OK-7 steam turbine creating 43,000 hp and two OK-2 turbogenerators that produce 2,000 kW of power. Two OK-300 retractable electric propulsors for low-speed and quiet maneuvering have also been installed to increase stealthier operation of the submarine, although the top speed using this method of propulsion is capped at 5kt.

    for Virginia, they have the S9G nuclear reactor delivering 40,000 shaft horsepower and a Pump Jet System.

    Final 45kv40k. A mere 5k difference isn't going to do much.

    Virginia's also have better sensors, command systems, electronics.

    So please stop lying, I know better you can continue to lie to others if you wish but I am not stupid.

    It is interesting.

    Akula diameter: 13.6 meter
    Seawolf diameter: 12 meter
    Virginia diameter: 10 meter

    Raw power of Akula reactor is 190MWt , Virginia is 150 MWt.
    The reactor data is useless, it is probably rubbish.

    Now, the submarine maximum speed is defined by the cross section vs reactor power.

    For the Akula to have the same sustained speed like the Virginia it has to have six times more power with the same drag coefficient.

    The Akula has better and more streamline shape than the Virginia ( double hull) but the reactor sill has to be five times bigger.


    No chance.



    Additional interesting is the lack of pumpjet on Akulas.

    The advantage of the pumpet is the low noise at higher speed. But it works only in narrow speed and pressure range.
    Means the Akula would not benefit from it, means in turn it has deeper diving deep than the Virgnias, otherwise it can benefit fro m the pumpjet.

    Anyway, the above scenario is absolutely out of reality.

    The Akula will dive deep, and in the greater deep it can run with less noise, and due to the acoustic behaviour of ocean the Virginia would not be able to hear it theoretically.

    Simply can outrun the virginia, with towed sonar it will be able to detect it from great distance, and it can shoot eight torpedoes without any notice from the silence of sofar channel.
    The point is if the akula works between 200-600 meters deep then the pump jet has to work between 40 bar difference ,

    Down at 600 it would not be useful, because the higher speed means bigger drag outside the optimal range of pumpjet ring.


    The pumpjet on virginia showing its restricted deep.


    Last edited by Singular_Transform on Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 12411
    Points : 12890
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Fri Oct 26, 2018 1:27 am

    Singular_Transform wrote:How many Akula is in service/modernisation at the moment?

    Wiki show 4+5+ the Indian one.


    3 in service (Pantera, Gepard, Kuzbass), 6 in modernization (Vepr, Volk, Leopard, Tigr, Bratsk, Samara)
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 726
    Points : 720
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Singular_Transform on Fri Oct 26, 2018 1:01 pm

    The drag proportional to the area, ( my mistake ) .
    Means the Akula has 80 % bigger cross section, but more streamlined shape, slightly bigger reactor.

    So, it can be bit faster/as fast.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7383
    Points : 7477
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:40 pm


    Exclamation   Article (from VPK originally) about supposed issues with submarine shipbuilding.

    Personally I think it's complete buls**t but would still like to hear local opinions here:


    Problems of nuclear submarine shipbuilding in Russia

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3393168.html



    Like I said, looks like 100% BS.

    Author claims that new nuclear submarines are so inferior that money should be redirected to other armed forces branches and surface navy.

    Also that a single P-9 Orion is capable of locating 10 Russian submarines in one go.

    And that 2nd and 3rd Borei-class SSBNs are not used for patrols and are sitting empty while 1st one (Yuri Dolgorukii) is used only as testbed.



    Way I see it, if USA had such massive advantage as implied with P-9 Orion claim they would have adopted much much different defense posture. And that would just be a beginning.

    As for Borei-class claims, what makes much more sense is that 2nd and 3rd are not active in maneuvers and don't do test fire is because they are on combat patrols.

    For example, when was last time Ohio-class squeezed off a Minuteman missile for practice? Or Delta-class a Sineva for that matter? Maybe they did but I didn't hear about it but still, it's pretty infrequent.

    And finally about claim that submarine fleet is eating into navy budget with nothing to show for in the face of US technological superiority: If USA is really that superior then it would not only make Russian submarine fleet inferior but would also make entire Russian surface navy completely redundant because if latest SSGN/SSBN is so vulnerable then every single other surface ship is literally dead in the water before it even sets sail.

    Investing in navy (especially surface navy) under those circumstances would be not just wasteful but criminally negligent.


    To me this reeks of desperate lobbying effort by shipyards and surface navy lobby into getting more money. A single nuclear submarine is being built faster and more efficiently than single near obsolete corvette/frigate with fraction of size and combat capability.

    Timing of the article is also very interesting with INF treaty being scuttled.
    Soon surface fleet will be even less relevant than ever before once intermediate range missiles start being deployed in anti-ship roles at fraction of the cost of surface fleet.

    They do not dare to imply that money should be taken from army or aerospace force because nobody would buy that. So they are trying to weasel their narrative under the guise of redirecting funds to army and airforce while saying that surface navy should get more funds as a ''side-effect''

    There is probably something else in article but I can't work through machine translation.
    So what do you folks think?  Question
    avatar
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 225
    Points : 223
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Sat Oct 27, 2018 12:00 am

    First funny "fact" is that basic Russian ASW aircraft are Il-38 from 1970s. AFAIK Russians use mostly Tu-142MZ, heavily modernized version of Tu-142 from 1993.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2525
    Points : 2519
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Isos on Sat Oct 27, 2018 12:28 am

    Problems of nuclear submarine shipbuilding in Russia

    I stopped here. Nuk subs constructions is perfect compare to any other naval project in russian shipbulding industry. They build tem and even improved version of borei and yasen while they upgrade most of their older nuk subs.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 12411
    Points : 12890
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Sat Oct 27, 2018 1:32 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Exclamation   Article (from VPK originally) about supposed issues with submarine shipbuilding.

    Personally I think it's complete buls**t but would still like to hear local opinions here:


    Problems of nuclear submarine shipbuilding in Russia

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3393168.html



    Like I said, looks like 100% BS.

    Author claims that new nuclear submarines are so inferior that money should be redirected to other armed forces branches and surface navy.

    Also that a single P-9 Orion is capable of locating 10 Russian submarines in one go.

    And that 2nd and 3rd Borei-class SSBNs are not used for patrols and are sitting empty while 1st one (Yuri Dolgorukii) is used only as testbed.



    Way I see it, if USA had such massive advantage as implied with P-9 Orion claim they would have adopted much much different defense posture. And that would just be a beginning.

    As for Borei-class claims, what makes much more sense is that 2nd and 3rd are not active in maneuvers and don't do test fire is because they are on combat patrols.

    For example, when was last time Ohio-class squeezed off a Minuteman missile for practice? Or Delta-class a Sineva for that matter? Maybe they did but I didn't hear about it but still, it's pretty infrequent.

    And finally about claim that submarine fleet is eating into navy budget with nothing to show for in the face of US technological superiority: If USA is really that superior then it would not only make Russian submarine fleet inferior but would also make entire Russian surface navy completely redundant because if latest SSGN/SSBN is so vulnerable then every single other surface ship is literally dead in the water before it even sets sail.

    Investing in navy (especially surface navy) under those circumstances would be not just wasteful but criminally negligent.


    To me this reeks of desperate lobbying effort by shipyards and surface navy lobby into getting more money. A single nuclear submarine is being built faster and more efficiently than single near obsolete corvette/frigate with fraction of size and combat capability.

    Timing of the article is also very interesting with INF treaty being scuttled.
    Soon surface fleet will be even less relevant than ever before once intermediate range missiles start being deployed in anti-ship roles at fraction of the cost of surface fleet.

    They do not dare to imply that money should be taken from army or aerospace force because nobody would buy that. So they are trying to weasel their narrative under the guise of redirecting funds to army and airforce while saying that surface navy should get more funds as a ''side-effect''

    There is probably something else in article but I can't work through machine translation.
    So what do you folks think?  Question

    what puzzles me is that the modernization of aculas and oscars is too slow
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18977
    Points : 19533
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 27, 2018 9:32 am

    To start with.... WTF is a P-9 Orion?

    I have heard of a P-3 Orion and a P-8 Poseidon.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 19, 2018 6:04 pm