Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Plenty of them.

Examples:

-671RTMK:
Petrazavodks is a donor vessel. No way is it combat capable.

-954:
Karp has been inactive since 1998. Needs years of work @ Zvezdochka to get back to the fleet at the very least.

-949A:
Irkutsk has been in reserve since 1998. Repairs since 2008, that flopped, and is now being modernized in Zvezda till 2017. Assuming they meet the deadline.

-971:
Kashalot has been in repair @ Armur since 2003. Is partially in pieces, and its only real hope of return is if India leases it.

Anyways, just some examples of the top of my head.
Some ships are only out of it because they are being modernized and have otherwise been active, but for plenty more the situation is far less rosy.

So the attack subs?  I see that they are usually the ones always being overhauled.  The Delta's seem fine though, no?  And those are the end game ones as are all SSBM subs.

Thanks for the info.  Any particular reason why the nuclear attack subs are problematic for overhauling? Less emphasis on them?

Just wasn't any money before. That's why more than half of the attack fleet is laid up or being modernized- they never got their mid-life overhauls in the 90s and 2000s, so now they are getting them along with modernization. At least the one they can afford it with- the expensive 945s might not be worked on after all.

The ballistic missile submarines have been a priority and so have been overhauled and up-armed with Sineva since mid 2000s with regularity.

an attack sub is also a lot like an ASW aircraft... very very expensive... very very high tech... lots and lots of computers and very sensitive equipment to detect and track very quiet threats.

In 2 years they are no longer state of the art... you know how fast computer technology moves... and software moves just as fast... constant updates, plus a new programme every 2-3 years with all sorts of new features requiring new hardware to run at reasonable speeds.

TR1 wrote:Just wasn't any money before. That's why more than half of the attack fleet is laid up or being modernized- they never got their mid-life overhauls in the 90s and 2000s, so now they are getting them along with modernization. At least the one they can afford it with- the expensive 945s might not be worked on after all.

The ballistic missile submarines have been a priority and so have been overhauled and up-armed with Sineva since mid 2000s with regularity.

LOL @ this being downvoted.

No really, this place is great. The amount of reality defying Russia-strong ass-hurt is astronomical.

I can just picture some butthurt non-Russian fuming that I dare insinuate Russia can't afford to keep even half of its attack sub fleet operational right now.

TR1 wrote:

TR1 wrote:Just wasn't any money before. That's why more than half of the attack fleet is laid up or being modernized- they never got their mid-life overhauls in the 90s and 2000s, so now they are getting them along with modernization. At least the one they can afford it with- the expensive 945s might not be worked on after all.

The ballistic missile submarines have been a priority and so have been overhauled and up-armed with Sineva since mid 2000s with regularity.

LOL @ this being downvoted.

No really, this place is great. The amount of reality defying Russia-strong ass-hurt is astronomical.

I can just picture some butthurt non-Russian fuming that I dare insinuate Russia can't afford to keep even half of its attack sub fleet operational right now.

You've made some enemies here.

It appears your non-stronk, realistic assessments will not go unpunished.

TR1 wrote:

TR1 wrote:Just wasn't any money before. That's why more than half of the attack fleet is laid up or being modernized- they never got their mid-life overhauls in the 90s and 2000s, so now they are getting them along with modernization. At least the one they can afford it with- the expensive 945s might not be worked on after all.

The ballistic missile submarines have been a priority and so have been overhauled and up-armed with Sineva since mid 2000s with regularity.

LOL @ this being downvoted.

No really, this place is great. The amount of reality defying Russia-strong ass-hurt is astronomical.

I can just picture some butthurt non-Russian fuming that I dare insinuate Russia can't afford to keep even half of its attack sub fleet operational right now.

Well, if it will make you feel better, I gave you a + because you provided the info I was looking for.

Makes sense that during questionable periods, they would rely more on the ssbm subs rather than attack.

Besides Yasin, are there plans for any other nuclear subs, cheaper too? Could they not look at kinda crossmixing generational technologies like they do for aircrafts? Or seek to co develop one with China for the things that are considered problematic and costly for Russia? Or India (Since india is interested in Russian nuclear attack subs)?

yasen is . How many are in service currently ? 5 ?

max steel wrote:yasen is . How many are in service currently ? 5 ?

1
And 3 more laid down. But the cost is so enormous that Yasen is the most expensive ssgn. So I dont think it will end up in the numbers one expects. I can see them coming up with either new Kilos with much more extended range and a cheaper nuclear reactor submarine. The nuclear attack subs are semi important, but not by much. But I cant see them not acquiring more. So who knows. But what we do know is Yasen is far too expensive.

Such things don't come cheap . It's better than usa latest seawolf subs and others too . I rea they were expected to have 5 yasens by 2020 .

max steel wrote:Such things don't come cheap . It's better than usa latest seawolf subs and others too . I rea they were expected to have 5 yasens by 2020 .

I was wrong. So 4 more are planned. But still, ridiculously expensive. More improved kilos and or kilo sub with aip, with more boreis would be better. Or look at possibly building a cheaper nuclear attack sub. Mixture of new and older (proven) tech. Or maybe remake akula's and amur shipyard as well as this shipyard co make them to help reduce overall costs and since various ones were made, may not be expensive to make a new one.

sepheronx wrote:

max steel wrote:yasen is . How many are in service currently ? 5 ?

1
And 3 more laid down. But the cost is so enormous that Yasen is the most expensive ssgn. So I dont think it will end up in the numbers one expects. I can see them coming up with either new Kilos with much more extended range and a cheaper nuclear reactor submarine.  The nuclear attack subs are semi important, but not by much. But I cant see them not acquiring more. So who knows. But what we do know is Yasen is far too expensive.

The Yasen may be expensive, but is essential that Russia has an effective force of state-of-the-art SSN hunter-killers in order to order to match the USNs Seawolves and Virginias. Fielding cheaper but less capable frontline units is not an option if you actually want these boats to hold the line in any future hostilities.

8 Yasens backed by a modernised ex-Soviet force of 4x Pr 945 Barracuda/Sierra, ~10x Pr 971 Shchuka-B/Akula and 8x Pr 949A Granit/Oscar-II would give Russia an exceptional long-duration submarine attack force, second only to the USN. That assumes a lot of course as the modernisation of the 945, 971 and 949A will depend on the actual condition of the individual boats and will no doubt prove costly, but the potential is there.

You will never see 8 885s and that many of the legacy subs.

The Navy currently does not even have 50% of its attack boats operational. And not nearly all of them are slated for upgrades that would keep them in service post 2020...

The 945s being modernized is looking doubtful as well...

Big_Gazza wrote:
The Yasen may be expensive, but is essential that Russia has an effective force of state-of-the-art SSN hunter-killers in order to order to match the USNs Seawolves and Virginias.  Fielding cheaper but less capable frontline units is not an option if you actually want these boats to hold the line in any future hostilities.

I disagree, Yasen are SSGN´s not SSN´s. It would make sense to build a smaller, cheaper and stealthier SSN as a compliment to SSGN´s. A dedicated submarine hunter that can protect the SSGN´s and SSBN´s against opposing submarines. Also it would be as good against surface targets, but with no or limited land attack capabilities.

I for one see the need for such a platform, a small very stealthy and lethal SSN.

runaway wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:
The Yasen may be expensive, but is essential that Russia has an effective force of state-of-the-art SSN hunter-killers in order to order to match the USNs Seawolves and Virginias.  Fielding cheaper but less capable frontline units is not an option if you actually want these boats to hold the line in any future hostilities.

I disagree, Yasen are SSGN´s not SSN´s. It would make sense to build a smaller, cheaper and stealthier SSN as a compliment to SSGN´s. A dedicated submarine hunter that can protect the SSGN´s and SSBN´s against opposing submarines. Also it would be as good against surface targets, but with no or limited land attack capabilities.

I for one see the need for such a platform, a small very stealthy and lethal SSN.

Incorrect. Yasen class is most definitely an SNN, but has been given VLS for anti-ship and land-attack capabilities to make them a true multi-role boat. Her advanced sonar system and emphasis on silent operations mark them as hunter-killers, not long-range stand-off missile carriers. The idea that a "Yasen-lite" without VLS will somehow be significantly smaller or cheaper is not really credible. The high cost is due to advanced (ie expensive) on-board systems and any dedicated SSN equivalent will require the same. Elimination of the VLS compartments will reduce boat length and mass, but not by a significant degree. A saving of maybe 15% may be achieved by elimination of the stand-off attack capability (and a big loss in combat capabilities), but will this result in a significant increase of hulls in water? I doubt it...

Small SSNs are possible (ie the Soviet Lira/Alpha class) but nuclear powerplants tend to be big and expensive, and keeping the size/tonnage down requires exotic design solutions like lead-bismuth liquid metal coolant systems and very high automation levels to reduce crew numbers. While possible, its not cheap, and imposes other limitations such as complex and expensive facilities to support core heating (to keep the coolant molten) while the sub is in port. More than one Lira had to be de-commissioned after her core froze...

TR1 is correct in saying that conventional AIP boats SSKs are probably the answer for Russia to defend her coastline and SSBN bastions. Small, silent, deadly and comparatively numerous, they are ideal for coast and littoral defence. They can carry sensor and weapon outfits similar in scope to the big Yasens, and their numbers will allow force concentrations in critical areas such as the bastions while their larger nuclear cousins either join them as "squad leaders" or range further afield hunting HATO high-value surface combatants.

He is also right regarding the low availability of Soviet era SSNs, though how much of this is due to budgetary reasons is hard to tell. I'd like to think that money for refit is the issue and that the boast themselves are basically sound and are capable of serving through the 2020s, but who really knows?

It is 100% a budgetary issue and has everything to do with the boats not receiving the mid-life overhauls and modernizations that were supposed to by Navy practice in the 2000s.

971s and 949s are solid boats by design. They can't operate when their reactor needs refueling, or the boat is half-taken apart and stuck with no funding.


Russia is simply trying to juggle a huge nuclear fleet with a modest budget.
We are going to see a reduction in the nuclear boat fleet by 2025, have no doubt about it.

TR1 wrote:It is 100% a budgetary issue and has everything to do with the boats not receiving the mid-life overhauls and modernizations that were supposed to by Navy practice in the 2000s.

971s and 949s are solid boats by design. They can't operate when their reactor needs refueling, or the boat is half-taken apart and stuck with no funding.


Russia is simply trying to juggle a huge nuclear fleet with a modest budget.
We are going to see a reduction in the nuclear boat fleet by 2025, have no doubt about it.

That is why more improved kilos and kilos with aip are needed. Field more of them to protect Russias coast while they can reduce ssgn fleet to something more modest for longer range.

sepheronx wrote:
That is why more improved kilos and kilos with aip are needed. Field more of them to protect Russias coast while they can reduce ssgn fleet to something more modest for longer range.

Probably thats why they are so stubborn with Lada class, with AIP it can guard these SSBN´s under the ice for weeks and be very very silent.
But we have probably seen the last series Kilos built for the navy, it will all be Lada´s from now on.

Big Gazza, what you say is perfectly true, but with advances in reactor tech, a SSN in size of a SSK would not be wrong!
Nato classifies the Yasen as SSGN i think, but thats make no sense as they classify Virgina as a SSN..

This is interesting..  Charly site...

http://www.charly015.blogspot.com

He reports USA already have 10 Virginia Class submarines and building 4 more.. and include the names and photos.. so they will end by 2020 with like 14 attack submarines.. of virginia class.



What is interesting however..  that he compares that with what is Russia doing..
tale a look.. what is Russia building.. for up to 2020..  (this is assuming both US and Russia will only take 5 years to build what they planning..)



While US navy is building 4 attack submarines more.. Russia is planning to build no less than
14 new submarines    .. it looks as if indeed Russia is on a much faster race ,building subs like there is no tomorrow.. then you mix that with the news ,posted earlier.. they upgrading the soviets fleet then indeed is truly a phenomenon ,that the RUssian navy in 2020
should be really comparable and very close in size to the US navy ,when it comes to submarines.

Building subs like no tommorow rofl.

Why don't you go look at the pace of Russian nuclear boat construction.

You are high if you think the Russian navy sub fleet will be close in size to the US navy by 2020.
It can't even keep half of its attack subs operational today, with a much smaller overall fleet.
If anything a reduction in the fleet size is 1.) absolutely inevitable, particularly with nuke boats and 2.) probably makes a whole lot of sense instead of a bloated force that is barely operational.

To be fair most countries take much longer than the US does to spit out nuclear boats as well.

Vann gonna Vann.

EDIT: Also,t here are planned to be 18 or so Virginias before 2020.
They don't need to lay the boats down a decade in advance since...construction actually moves fast.

And, another 10 Block IV boats by 2023.

So don't worry, the numbers won't be anywhere close, even if some cuts happen along the way.

The US production rate was only 1 boat per year for quite a while. That led to a shrinking of the US Navy's submarine fleet.
The production rate increased to 1.5 - 2 boats per year only recently.
Russian production is higher per year even when you don't count the export boats (Vietnam etc.)
However, Russia's production is a mixture of nuclear and diesel/electric ones, while the US production is strictly nuclear.

If current production rates for both countries remain at their current levels indefinitely, Russia will have more boats over the long term, but the US may still have more nuclear powered ones.

TR1 wrote:Building subs like no tommorow rofl.

Why don't you go look at the pace of Russian nuclear boat construction.

You are high if you think the Russian navy sub fleet will be close in size to the US navy by 2020.
It can't even keep half of its attack subs operational today, with a much smaller overall fleet.
If anything a reduction in the fleet size is 1.) absolutely inevitable, particularly with nuke boats and 2.) probably makes a whole lot of sense instead of a bloated force that is barely operational.

To be fair most countries take much longer than the US does to spit out nuclear boats as well.

Vann gonna Vann.

EDIT: Also,t here are planned to be 18 or so Virginias before 2020.
They don't need to lay the boats down a decade in advance since...construction actually moves fast.

And, another 10 Block IV boats by 2023.

So don't worry, the numbers won't be anywhere close, even if some cuts happen along the way.

US navy is building 4 new submarines..  Russia is building 14 new Submarines.. including diesel electric. no idea how you don't see the significant more submarines Russia is building.. is far more than US navy..

according to Global Firepower.. 2015..

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=United-States-of-America  

Already Russia have 55 Submarines.. and US 72..
if all Submarines remain in service until 2020.. and the new ones in construction finished .
Then Russia will have 55 +14 submarines = 69   and US will have 72+4 = 76.
So that is very close to me.. this is not counting how there are conflicting reports
that the Navy wants 8 to 10 Borei submarines.. if they build 8,then we will be in the 71 vs 76.

But for sure some will be decommissioned after 2020 from both sides , "Ohios already have 40 years in service) .. so Russia should be even above 60 subs.. and US in 70 or less. This is only
about Submarines.. not about Surface warships.. that Russia is far behind in terms of destroyers and cruisers.. still Russia manage to balance by the significant number of corvettes they have.
with very capable anti ship missiles. that can defeat any destroyer or cruiser.
counting destroyers/cruisers/Frigates and corvetters.. US navy have 72 warships (not including aircraftcarriers) and Russia navy have 90 warships..

Russia navy looks pretty dam good ,for only having 10% of the budget of the US navy..
And if Russia is building 14 brand new state of the art submarines ,vs 4 new subs that US navy is building. then i consider that very impressive. how much more Russia is doing.

It doesn't matter how many subs you are building it once.

The US takes a few years to make a boat at most.
Russia has taken a decade in many cases.

This is so simple I am shocked even you don't get it.

Your numbers are grossly off.

Are you trying to troll?

Russia is modernizing only a small part of its submarine force total.
It won't just add on boats, good grief.

I've posted the entire Russian submarine invantory here before. Don't be lazy, go look.

Russia having 60 operational (and I count in repairs as operational, as long as its not "waiting for repairs" for a decade like half the fleet has been) submarines is a pipe dream.

Complete fantasy.
Even counting diseal boats, which are ofc of much smaller tonnage than the nuke subs.

http://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/93198.html

Here is the painful reality, not your delusional fantasies.

How many new nuclear attack submarines has Russia gotten in the past 15 years Vann?
1. and it is in experimental service to date, not even regular.

How many operational diseal attack boats Vann?
Two. And a barely operational Lada, the Petersburg.


Yep, pumping them out like no tomorrow alright!