Project 885: Yasen class #2

ALAMO wrote:
Keep in mind that those boats were all released in the 80s when Soviet construction had already been on pair.
No one argues "obsolesce" of Rubis class subs or Trafalgars, do they

Yes, Rubis, Trafalgar, 688 Ohio are now obsolete submarine. Maybe I said it wrong. All these submarines are still dangerous bur they are all from the 1980s, so their life cycle of around 40 years for these submarines is ending. Many elements and subassemblies may already be heavily worn. Turbines, gears, bearings pomps etc. To replace this, a large repair is needed, cut the hull, etc. Many components lose their warranty, life, etc. when they are 40 years old. Some of them may not even be produced anymore. This is additional hassle and cost. Of course, Russia really knows better what a major renovation it has to do to make it worthwhile instead of a brand new submarine.
There is also the question of the hull itself, which also has a guaranteed lifetime? Titanium hulls can certainly last much longer, so the renovation of Sierra-class ships is recommended.

the Russkies can throw on them a salvo of several dozens of 1.5x faster, maneuvering missiles, flying few meters above the water, evading, and emitting ECMs, with one 885 sub only. wrote:

What kind of missile do you mean? Because of the modern ones, only the P 800 can fly a few meters above the sea

This is why a mid-life refit or modernization is being performed to all the hulks that have the life reserve left.
It comes directly from the WMF chief, so there is no better source at the moment, right?

ALAMO wrote:
It comes directly from the WMF chief, so there is no better source at the moment, right?

Of course, the Russians know better if it is profitable for them to renovate older submarines or not

Russia needs as many attack subs as possible to really take advantage of the Tsirkon. wrote:

If they renovate the 949A, 971, 945, their nuclear submarine fleet will still be the second largest in the world after the USA. If we take into account the effectiveness of new missiles such as the Tsirkon, the modernized Onyx, rocket-torpedoes, etc., this will probably be the most effective submarine fleet in the world? All in all, the nuclear submarine should be a priority part of the Russian navy, and it probably is. It gives them global rangeand stealth of action. To this must be added a large fleet of conventional submarines that can operate near Russian waters.

Very nice piccie of the Novosibirsk, 1st serial 885M (Kazan being the series prototype) - source



Novosibirsk ready for trials, Krasnoyarsk floated out. Belgorod on trials. Su-75 unveiled. S-500 tested. Zircon tested. Nauka added to ISS. It's been a good month or so

Don´t underestimate the new AT vehicle for the VDV.

Can't help but notice the already apparent wear on the parascope and some other spots. But from what I have gathered with subs from all countries is that they always need lots of work after every time they go to sea

TMA1 wrote:Can't help but notice the already apparent wear on the parascope and some other spots. But from what I have gathered with subs from all countries is that they always need lots of work after every time they go to sea

Depends generally on which ocean, some are more corrosive than others, considering subs spend all their time underwater and it's in a very corrosive environment such wear is pretty normal when returning from a months long deployment.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

TMA1 wrote:Can't help but notice the already apparent wear on the parascope and some other spots. But from what I have gathered with subs from all countries is that they always need lots of work after every time they go to sea

Depends generally on which ocean, some are more corrosive than others, considering subs spend all their time underwater and it's in a very corrosive environment such wear is pretty normal when returning from a months long deployment.

Yeah looks like surface wear. Think you are correct. Was looking at some other pics from American subs and saw wear and tear similar.

Edit: had to correct writing mistake

Big_Gazza wrote:Very nice piccie of the Novosibirsk, 1st serial 885M (Kazan being the series prototype) -
Novosibirsk ready for trials, Krasnoyarsk floated out.  Belgorod on trials.  Su-75 unveiled.  S-500 tested.  Zircon tested.  Nauka added to ISS. It's been a good month or so  

In the middle of a pandemic no less. Now that's a flex

TMA1 wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

TMA1 wrote:Can't help but notice the already apparent wear on the parascope and some other spots. But from what I have gathered with subs from all countries is that they always need lots of work after every time they go to sea

Depends generally on which ocean, some are more corrosive than others, considering subs spend all their time underwater and it's in a very corrosive environment such wear is pretty normal when returning from a months long deployment.

Yeah looks like surface wear. Think you are correct. Was looking at some other pics from American subs and saw wear and tear similar.

Edit: had to correct writing mistake

I would assume that Yasen came back from the Atlantic based on the image.

And the americans got only shitty Tomahawks.

Let's add that 885M costs half of Virginia at most (closer to 1/3rd actually), needs half of its crew, is much more capable, dives deeper, sails faster, and with longer endurance.
No need to add, that as soon as 9th hulk will leave the building, the assembling of the Husky will begin, which puts WMF to 20 years' edge ahead.
Comparison of Harpoon/Tomahawk combo to the weapon suite 885M carries is pointless, it is like stealing candy from a kid on a wheelchair.
Pure bestiality

As for the US submarines, the question is how many of them are made of substandard steel?

The Husky will be much smaller than the Yasen M and will carry less weapons. Overall, it is not known what the advantage of these ships will be over the 885M. Of course, maybe better electronic equipment, etc. It will probably be the cheaper version of the 885M

The initial Husky's will be attack submarines (SSN's) and will probably have more in common with the 971's than the 885M's (SSGN's).

Mir wrote:The initial Husky's will be attack submarines (SSN's) and will probably have more in common with the 971's than the 885M's (SSGN's).

No husky will be a smaller yasen. They will put as much VLS as they can on any possible ship.

That's the new standard.

IMO husky will have 16 cells.

Very little is known about the Husky but I've read somewhere that it's going to be modular design. The initial version will be a straight attack sub but will eventually be developed into a SSGN and also a SSBN. I guess we'll have to wait and see

EDIT: If you can believe all the gossip the initial Husky may even be smaller than the 971's with a displacement of around 11 000 tons and will be of double hull construction. That means there will be much less space to cram it full of missiles. There is talk that the submarine will be a three in one and will even carry SLBM's (a SSN/SSGN and SSBN). Now that may be possible but you will end up with a sub with very little weapons capacity in the end. In my opinion - trying to put SLBM's on a attack sub would be a tactical and even a strategic mistake.

Here is some nice guesswork!

I don't buy a torpedo tubes location.

I actually think that detail could be correct as the sub will be quite small so there might not be enough space to fit the tubes and the torpedo room mid-ship?

From a known model here you can see how small this sub could be compared to the 885.

Mir wrote:I actually think that detail could be correct as the sub will be quite small so there might not be enough space to fit the tubes and the torpedo room mid-ship?

From a known model here you can see how small this sub could be compared to the 885.

that size ratio is not correct, or the Laika weighs much less or is almost as big as the Yasen

As it is drawn, it is little longer than a Kilo

12kt and that thing goes to the bottom as soon as it's put in the water.

Not on scale and probably not even the official design.

VLS will be put on any new design. That's a fact, they are building their navy around UKSK.

Yes clearly this is only speculation gentlemen but Charlie used a real model (may not be the Laika) as illustration of what the Laika could possibly look like compared to the Yasen.
Obviously no one really knows what it's going to look like - never mind the actual specs!

What we do know is that the Laika will be much smaller than the Yasen AND even smaller than the Schuka-B's (also speculation). The chunky looking model depicts what a small double hull sub may look like but yes we do not have anything concrete yet! Nobody said anything about this being the official design so no need to get all excited about nothing.

Isos wrote:

Mir wrote:The initial Husky's will be attack submarines (SSN's) and will probably have more in common with the 971's than the 885M's (SSGN's).

No husky will be a smaller yasen. They will put as much VLS as they can on any possible ship.

That's the new standard.

IMO husky will have 16 cells.

Husky is supposed to complement Yasen not replace it and it will definitely have VLS option (maybe not on lead ship but it's coming eventually)

Akula and Oscar situation only with both being on steroids

As for Yasen they should really keep building them until they reach at least 12 hulls (6 for North and Pacific each)