Project 885: Yasen class #2

Singular_Transform wrote:

Isos wrote:You should stop drugs.

And why do you use 2 accounts ?

Wow, I haven't recognised : O


I forgot the password of first account, but looks like it stayed in my tab . I wrote the other from there.


Anyway, the point is : one dollar was 25 ruble in 2008, now it is 78.

So, one Yasen was 2.4 billion in 2008, but now only 0.8 billion.

My point is, the real value of it coudl be in the range of 4-6 billion if the USA MIC has to manufacture it (ok, maybe 4-12 billion ), without development cost.

This metropolitan legend is hard to die it seem.

The first acquisition deal for 4 пр. 885/885М was signed in 2011 - dollar to ruble rate of exchange : 27,15 - at a price of 47 billions rubles for the first submarine of the class (1,73 billion dollars at then-year exchange) and 41 billions rubles for the other three (1,51 billion dollars at then-year exchange rate).

Therefore never a пр. 885М was priced at an amount even only near to a Virginia.

Mindstorm wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

Isos wrote:You should stop drugs.

And why do you use 2 accounts ?

Wow, I haven't recognised : O


I forgot the password of first account, but looks like it stayed in my tab . I wrote the other from there.


Anyway, the point is : one dollar was 25 ruble in 2008, now it is 78.

So, one Yasen was 2.4 billion in 2008, but now only 0.8 billion.

My point is, the real value of it coudl be in the range of 4-6 billion if the USA MIC has to manufacture it (ok, maybe 4-12 billion ), without development cost.

This metropolitan legend is hard to die it seem.

The first acquisition deal for  4  пр. 885/885М was signed in 2011 - dollar to ruble rate of exchange : 27,15 - at a price of 47 billions rubles for the first submarine of the class (1,73 billion dollars at then-year exchange) and 41 billions rubles for the other three (1,51 billion dollars at then-year exchange rate).

Therefore never a пр. 885М was priced at an amount even only near to a Virginia.

41 billion rubles each, or for three submarines?

dino00 wrote:

Mindstorm wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

Isos wrote:You should stop drugs.

And why do you use 2 accounts ?

Wow, I haven't recognised : O


I forgot the password of first account, but looks like it stayed in my tab . I wrote the other from there.


Anyway, the point is : one dollar was 25 ruble in 2008, now it is 78.

So, one Yasen was 2.4 billion in 2008, but now only 0.8 billion.

My point is, the real value of it coudl be in the range of 4-6 billion if the USA MIC has to manufacture it (ok, maybe 4-12 billion ), without development cost.

This metropolitan legend is hard to die it seem.

The first acquisition deal for  4  пр. 885/885М was signed in 2011 - dollar to ruble rate of exchange : 27,15 - at a price of 47 billions rubles for the first submarine of the class (1,73 billion dollars at then-year exchange) and 41 billions rubles for the other three (1,51 billion dollars at then-year exchange rate).

Therefore never a пр. 885М was priced at an amount even only near to a Virginia.

41 billion rubles each, or for three submarines?

41 billion rubles each.

Mindstorm wrote:


This metropolitan legend is hard to die it seem.

The first acquisition deal for  4  пр. 885/885М was signed in 2011 - dollar to ruble rate of exchange : 27,15 - at a price of 47 billions rubles for the first submarine of the class (1,73 billion dollars at then-year exchange) and 41 billions rubles for the other three (1,51 billion dollars at then-year exchange rate).

Therefore never a пр. 885М was priced at an amount even only near to a Virginia.

Thanks for the supporting data.

Russia twin engine stealth jet to submarine cost ratio:
2011- Yasen cost 47 billion.
Su-57 , 2020, 2.42 billion, using inflation calculation it was 1.38 in 2012
one yasen worth 34 Su-57

USA twin engine stealth jet to Virginia cost ratio:
2009 , F-22 cost : 138 million
2009 Virginia cost, 1.8 billion
One Virginia worth 13 F-22

34/13=2.6.

Means it takes 2.6 times more resources to make a Yasen than a Virginia.

It gives an "industrial capacity" exchange rate as well, around ten rub for one usd.

It could be, the highest USD:RUB was around 1:23 .

Singular_Transform wrote:The Virignia has small length/diamater VLS, incapable to support air breathing supersonic weapons....

They also said that supersonic missile had to be as big as Granit... until one day it didn't

Mindstorm wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

Isos wrote:You should stop drugs.

And why do you use 2 accounts ?

Wow, I haven't recognised : O


I forgot the password of first account, but looks like it stayed in my tab . I wrote the other from there.


Anyway, the point is : one dollar was 25 ruble in 2008, now it is 78.

So, one Yasen was 2.4 billion in 2008, but now only 0.8 billion.

My point is, the real value of it coudl be in the range of 4-6 billion if the USA MIC has to manufacture it (ok, maybe 4-12 billion ), without development cost.

This metropolitan legend is hard to die it seem.

The first acquisition deal for  4  пр. 885/885М was signed in 2011 - dollar to ruble rate of exchange : 27,15 - at a price of 47 billions rubles for the first submarine of the class (1,73 billion dollars at then-year exchange) and 41 billions rubles for the other three (1,51 billion dollars at then-year exchange rate).

Therefore never a пр. 885М was priced at an amount even only near to a Virginia.

As usual some people can't grasp that the exchange rate means precisely nothing. So measuring the cost of Russian submarines
in dollars is idiotic. The cost now is not "only 0.8 billion US".

The Virginia boats going for $2.8 billion are much smaller than the Yasen:

Displacement: Submerged: 7,900 metric tons (8,700 short tons)
Length: 377 ft (115 m)
Beam: 34 ft (10 m)
Propulsion: S9G reactor 40,000 shp (30 MW)
Speed: 25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph) or over[2]
Range: Unlimited
Test depth: +800 ft (240 m)
Complement: 135 (15 officers; 120 enlisted)

The Yasen specs are:

Displacement:

Surfaced: 8,600 tons
Submerged: 13,800 tons

Length:

Yasen:139.2 m (457 ft)[4][5][6]
Yasen-M: 130 m (430 ft)

Beam: 13 m (43 ft)[4][5][6]

Propulsion: OK-650KPM[7] pressurized water reactor 200 MWt turbines of 43,000 shp

Speed:

Surfaced: 20 kn (37 km/h; 23 mph)
Submerged (silent): 28 kn (52 km/h; 32 mph)
Submerged (max): 35 kn (65 km/h; 40 mph)[8]

Range: Unlimited

Test depth:

Safe depth: 1,475 feet (450m)
Never exceed depth: 1,804 feet (580m)
Crush depth: 2,160 feet (658m)

Complement:

Yasen: 85
Yasen-M: 64

The Yasen is clearly more automated than the smaller Virginia. Using the Virginia pricing, a proper model built by the USA
would cost more than $5 billion per unit.

Isos wrote:Can you stop with your stupid maths ?

I am sorry, I don't want to offend you with high school math, but sadly there is no lower level wehere these numbers are interpreatable .

: )

Remark : I make a livinig from it, and quite good one: )

PapaDragon wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:The Virignia has small length/diamater VLS, incapable to support air breathing supersonic weapons....

They also said that supersonic missile had to be as big as Granit... until one day it didn't

Just quick fact check :
Tomahawk :
mass - 1300 kg, warhead : 450 kg
P-800 :
mass : 3000 kg , warhead : 300 kg


So, yes , it is possible to make smaller supersonic air breathing missile, but most likely that will have very small warhead, if have any.
So will be useless to destroy things.

Do you work for Bellingcat?

Yeah.... Russia spending 65 billion dollars US equivalent a year on their military actually spends 100 times more than America does when they spend 750 billion on their military industrial complex... it is the exchange rate and the way the stars align and productivity and workers rights and the temperature of the water and every other excuse under the sun which is why Russia is on the brink of collapse and struggling to compete with the US and HATO, while the US is a utopia building bridges and roads and rail lines all on time and on budget and its foreign debt is down to near zero and its emergency funds are full to overflowing with money and gold and other reserves of value.

Wake up and smell the ashes Mr Freeman.

Isos wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

Isos wrote:Can you stop with your stupid maths ?

I am sorry, I don't want to offend you with high school math, but sadly there is no lower level wehere these numbers are interpreatable .

: )

Remark : I make a livinig from it, and quite good one: )

Unfortunately you suck at economics.

Keep doing maths at work.

Offense doesn't count as proof . : )


At the moment I'm doing exhange rate arbitage, outsouring the same work content to low cost country.
The job that cost min 10pounds/hour cost less than 5 pound with management cost + profit in a low cost country.


Is it means I have half as much work from there than from here ?

So, I have to spend 1000 pounds here, 500 there for the same job.

It is the same job.

If they would be so kind to sanction the country where I outsource then I would have even higher profit margin due to the more favourable exchange rate, but of course the money trasnfer would be problematioc - I would need to do transfer goods between the two country to eliminate the need of exhange rate, or to use direct cash payments.

What is so hard to capture about the price difference between an USA shipyard and a Russian one, in the absence of any meaningful trade or financial relationship ?

Yasen M outclasses the competition in every aspect. Yasen M much better armed than Virginia. More torpedo tubes, more VLS, which contain much more advanced missiles. It is much more automated. The hull is made of much better steel, greater draft. It has better ASW weapons, rocket torpedoes.Probably the electronic equipment is also at a very high level and the mute of the unit.Russia did not have such an advantage in submarine technology even under the USSR

To be fair the Americans don't need a sub capable of carrying 32 hypersonic anti ship missiles to sink enemy carriers and the air defence cruisers supporting and defending them... the Sea Wolf was too expensive for what the Americans thought they needed going forward... there was no actual or perceived arms race with either Russia or China, so the purpose of the Virginia was essentially a do all type that would not cost as much... very much similar in concept to the F-35 fighter programme... but not a total cockup like that programme was.

They have screwed up litoral vessels and new destroyers and new carriers, but the Virginias seem to be OK.

Just quick fact check :
Tomahawk :
mass - 1300 kg, warhead : 450 kg
P-800 :
mass : 3000 kg , warhead : 300 kg

Why are we fact checking with ancient missiles that are 40 years old?

The US currently still uses Tomahawks with subsonic flight ranges of about 2,000km, but not for anti ship use normally... Americas main anti ship missile has been the subsonic rather short range Harpoon.

New Russian ramjet and scramjet powered missiles have gone from the 7 ton Granit to the 2.5 ton Onyx... the Zircon will likely be a similar 2.5-3 ton weight because the difference is in the type of motor it uses... because it will be flying four times faster but not using four times more fuel it should have both better range and speed and also not be that much heavier.

One of the criticisms of the Soviet anti ship missiles was that they were big and heavy so the platforms that carried them would be big and heavy which makes them expensive and limits the number on each ship and the number of ships they could have.

The Soviets pioneered vertical launch missiles, but the use of universal missile cells was a western idea... it has taken time but they have developed their own systems and are actually able to take it rather further than the west... their main problem has been to get new ships into production and increase the number of tubes available for use... but that is progressing too.

Is it means I have half as much work from there than from here ?

So, I have to spend 1000 pounds here, 500 there for the same job.

It is the same job.

But in one country you might earn 50,000 pounds a year, and the other 500,000 pounds a year so the job being done in one country might cost more but be much more affordable.

The other point is profit margins... what you pay and what it costs are two completely different things... in the US I rather suspect their profit margins are enormous and they will make up all sorts of excuses for that and there will be claims that they can afford it... no wonder it continues... and is getting worse.

GarryB wrote:To be fair the Americans don't need a sub capable of carrying 32 hypersonic anti ship missiles to sink enemy carriers and the air defence cruisers supporting and defending them... the Sea Wolf was too expensive for what the Americans thought they needed going forward... there was no actual or perceived arms race with either Russia or China, so the purpose of the Virginia was essentially a do all type that would not cost as much... very much similar in concept to the F-35 fighter programme... but not a total cockup like that programme was.

Agreed, but since the US places such a high priority on a large SSN fleet, Russian attack subs will always be outnumbered on a total fleet basis, so its sensible to build their boats as capable as possible and partially offset the US numerical advantage. With Russia having technically superior boats operating in defensive posture in local seaspace and operating in concert with their coastal ASW forces, SSKs and their land-based airborne ASW forces, Russia becomes a much harder nut to crack for those Virginias mobilised far from home bases and operating with minimal external support.

Big_Gazza wrote:

GarryB wrote:To be fair the Americans don't need a sub capable of carrying 32 hypersonic anti ship missiles to sink enemy carriers and the air defence cruisers supporting and defending them... the Sea Wolf was too expensive for what the Americans thought they needed going forward... there was no actual or perceived arms race with either Russia or China, so the purpose of the Virginia was essentially a do all type that would not cost as much... very much similar in concept to the F-35 fighter programme... but not a total cockup like that programme was.

Agreed, but since the US places such a high priority on a large SSN fleet, Russian attack subs will always be outnumbered on a total fleet basis, so its sensible to build their boats as capable as possible and partially offset the US numerical advantage.  With Russia having technically superior boats operating in defensive posture in local seaspace and operating in concert with their coastal ASW forces, SSKs and their land-based airborne ASW forces, Russia becomes a much harder nut to crack for those Virginias mobilised far from home bases and operating with minimal external support.

I think the lacal sea protection done by Kilos, the Yasens used to block the Atlantic/Pacific shipping / replenishment routes .

The US has a planet to dominate... Russia just needs to defend its own interests... different job needs different tools and the different subs being built reflect that.

They also have a whipped population that don't ever question increases in defence expenditure despite being in the unusual situation of world dominance, and at the same time vulnerability to being destroyed completely by Russia.

And ironically withdrawing from the INF treaty so they can make IRBMs and land based cruise missiles they can base all around China is going to result in China realising that just using their IRBMs and cruise missles and conventional weapons to hit back at those locations like Japan and South Korea and perhaps the Phillipines and Australia and also perhaps India and maybe at some point even Pakistan gets swept up in Americas anti China drive... China will realise they need long range missiles to defeat the home of the threat and not just the vassal states around China.

This will mean both Russia and China will have the means and capacity to destroy the US... maybe that is their goal.... then they can double their defence spend perhaps...

The irony is that such a thing will not bankrupt China, and Russia has already committed to helping them develop a missile detection shield so they will see what is coming in time to do something about it... so no chance of a successful surprise attack...

China is building space rockets so large missiles is something they are building anyway... so ICBMs wont be a problem for them.... they will likely be truck mounted and could be based anywhere.

Start limits where the Russian truck mounted missiles can be during peace time....

No such limits for China.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/10830363

MOSCOW, March 4. / TASS /. The ships of Sevmash (part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation) are forming the hulls of the seventh and eighth nuclear submarines (NPS) of project 885M (code Yasen-M) Voronezh and Vladivostok, laid down on July 20, 2020. This was reported to TASS by a source in the military-industrial complex.

"At Sevmash, the formation of the corps of the Voronezh and Vladivostok nuclear submarines is in full swing," the agency's interlocutor clarified. He recalled that the transfer of submarines to the Russian Navy is planned for 2027 and 2028, respectively.

TASS has no official confirmation of this information.

Russian President Vladimir Putin watched the laying of the Voronezh and Vladivostok submarines by videoconference. Then, addressing the head of state, the general director of "Sevmash" Mikhail Budnichenko said that ships with hypersonic weapons were being laid.

This year the shipbuilders of Sevmash are preparing to hand over to the Russian Navy the lead submarine of the project 885M Kazan and the first serial submarine - Novosibirsk. There are four more submarines of this project at the enterprise in different stages of construction. The main strike weapons of Project 885 / 885M submarines are the Kalibr-PL and Onyx cruise missiles. Now the lead and only submarine of the project 885 Yasen, Severodvinsk, is preparing for tests of the Zircon hypersonic missile, which will begin this year.

Comparing Virginia to Yassen is like comparing a Burke to the Admiral Nakhimov. The Yassens are underwater cruisers, the Virginias are frigates. There main purpose is to guard the aircraft and helicopter carriers/assault ships. The muricans need around 40 subs for that job. In a fight against Russia or China this subs will perform mostly defensive missions.

Hole wrote:Comparing Virginia to Yassen is like comparing a Burke to the Admiral Nakhimov. The Yassens are underwater cruisers, the Virginias are frigates. There main purpose is to guard the aircraft and helicopter carriers/assault ships. The muricans need around 40 subs for that job. In a fight against Russia or China this subs will perform mostly defensive missions.

I think Yasen is comparable to Seawolf class that its production was discontinued because of its high cost

No, Russia should also strive for ever greater domination. Even to the level of the USSR, if not more. It is a struggle for influence. US domination is ending and nature does not like a vacuum.

Russia does not need to dominate... they don't need to kick the west out of places, but they do need to assert their position so they wont get kicked out of anywhere they have the legal right to be.

The US domination is ending and that is a good thing for everyone... including the US... it was never their job to be judge jury and executioner... but by controlling things they made lots of money and got exclusive access to resources... the future will see more competition and they wont be able to bribe or steal or sabotage that competition like they do now.

For instance if Russia tries to engage a small country in trade talks about building road and rail networks in their country and the US is against it and they want the contracts and threaten to cut off wheat supplies to that country... well Russia can probably supply that wheat cheaper anyway...