Typhoon class SSBNs future:

Hang on...

We already have Oscar SSGNs so we don't need to spend billions converting and refitting rotted and plundered Akula hulls. If we want cruise missiles on a sub, Oscar is the better choice. Better yet we could make torpedo launched missiles and stick them on Fast Attacks.

Hold on a minute...

The cost to refit, maintain and operate Akula class submarines is twice as high as a new sub. Does it make financial sense to do anything with it when we can build newer and less maintenance and manpower intensive ones for less money? No it doesn't...

Stop the confusion! If you're going to call it an Oscar, call the other a Typhoon! I keep reading Akula, and know that it's the Russian name for the SSBN, but keep thinking of the fast-attack.

No one knows what the Kursk class is. Everyone knows Akula.

We already have Oscar SSGNs so we don't need to spend billions converting and refitting rotted and plundered Akula hulls. If we want cruise missiles on a sub, Oscar is the better choice. Better yet we could make torpedo launched missiles and stick them on Fast Attacks.

If you just want a cruise missile capability for your subs then you don't need to convert or upgrade the Oscars either... most Russian subs will have cruise missile capability... including the conventional subs.

The point of the Ohio class SSGN conversion is not to add cruise missile capacity to the USN... it already has that too.

The main reason the Typhoons/Akulas are not being used as SSBNs is because they have too great a weapon capacity and if Russia kept them in service as SSBNs they would have most of their eggs in three baskets so to speak.

As SSBNs the new Boreis are smaller, much quieter, and carry just enough missiles to allow a reasonable force of about 8 subs to carry Russias naval arm of the nuclear triad.

The point is that the Typhoon/Akula as a shell has the potential to perform the "arsenal sub" role better than any other sub type anywhere... including the US.

The Typhoon/Akula was not a cheap vessel and wont be cheaper than other options, but it was and will be a much more capable platform than pretty much any other sub not designed from the ground up for the purpose.

The Americans like to gloat about how cessnas could penetrate Soviet airspace... or course they also complain when airliners are shot down in Soviet airspace too, so I don't know what they expected the Russian air defence forces to do about a little cessna...

One of the things that bankrupted the Soviet Union was the cruise missile and the enormous cost of creating air defence forces that could cover all of the Soviet Union to protect from them.

Perhaps it is time to get a little of your own back... drug filled cessnas penetrate US airspace all the time... even just two cruise missile filled Typhoon/Akulas would make things very difficult for the US...

Not that restarting the cold war is a goal, but if the US wants Ohio SSGNs then they will have good reasons for that too.

A bigger sub is not easier to find or track, it is noise that gives away subs and a bigger sub can incorporate more silencing material. AFAIK at the moment the Typhoon/Akula currently has a twin hull design with a single outer hull. I would think from a practical point of view that because the missile tubes no longer need internal access that in the missile area a single small tunnel could be fitted to allow access to the bow area, with the entire missile section being separate from the inner hulls... this will save weight and allow the forward area to be shortened. The overall reduction in weight should increase underwater performance and make lower demands on the propulsion.

In fact in the newest subs the Russians have moved the torpedo tubes to a mid way position with all the bow containing an enlarged sonar... using the same configuration on an updated Typhoon/Akula could mean that the entire front could consist of a bow sonar and then vertical launch missiles all the way back to the conning tower with torpedo tubes in the sides and propulsion at the rear.

To compensate for fired missiles in terms of ballast they could simply retain the water in the tubes after the missile has been fired.

Stop the confusion! If you're going to call it an Oscar, call the other a Typhoon! I keep reading Akula, and know that it's the Russian name for the SSBN, but keep thinking of the fast-attack.

I agree with Vlad on this, though I don't want to confuse anyone. Considering we are fans of Russian military equipment we should start using the correct names where the correct names are common knowledge at least.

I would also add that as a bargaining chip another option is to seed confusion about the ultimate fate of the Akulas/Typhoons because as a bargaining chip it costs nothing to do nothing but talk about what they might do, but some options of what they can do are worth things at negotiating tables and other options are not.

"However, written-off submarines could be used for non-strategic needs; for instance, carry cruise missiles or other conventional arms, conduct scientific researches or cargo transportations. Experts of JSC Sevmash which built Project 941 Akula say those subs can be refitted into underwater LNG tankers or cargo carriers used in any season. Nonetheless, defense ministry has no plans for Akula conversion saying refitting works would cost tens of billions.

Earlier on, Rubin design bureau which is Akula developer offered to use Project 941 subs for transportation of commercial cargoes including oil or coal. However, the bureau renounced that idea later having affirmed it was inexpedient"

I think we have seen the Tyhpoons/Akulas done their last voyage, except the one to the scrapyard.
Because really, why would they need that many cruise missiles in expensive subs patrolling for what?

The cold war is over, and for now, and the nearest future, the funds and energy should be spent elsewhere, where it is most important.
Modernize the Kirovs to protect Mistrals for example. Modernize the Slavas too and start the production of new Destroyers.

The Tyhpoons are cold war relics, they did their job back then. Now their time has past. I for one will remember them with awe.

SSBN Dmitry Donskoy Won't Be Dismantled

SSBN Dmitry Donskoy Won't Be Dismantled 02.12.2011
Text: RIA Novosti
Photo: SSBN Dmitry Donskoy. osin.ru
Project 941UM nuclear-powered ballistic submarine (SSBN) Dmitry Donskoy adapted for test launches of Bulava missile will remain in service and take part in trials of new submarines in Severodvinsk, reported RIA Novosti referring to Director General of Sevmash shipyard and Rubin Design Bureau Andrei Diachkov.

The sub was modernized specially for Bulava tests until completion of the missile's standard platform – Project 955 Borei SSBN Yury Dolgoruky.

"Dmitry Donskoy finished her part of the missile tests, and it was said the sub could have been utilized... We reached an agreement with defense ministry that the submarine would be stationed at White Sea Naval Base in order to maintain trials of newly constructed subs", Diachkov said.

He explained that some special operations should be carried out during a submarine's trials. It is so-called 'double sub' test. "To check sonar and arms, the second submarine is needed. Earlier, Northern Fleet command had to remove a combat-worthy submarine from patrol mission and dispatch her to the shipyard", Diachkov said.

According to him, SSBN Dmitry Donskoy has completed her mission as the Bulava testing platform. Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky gave the green light for the sub to be based in Severodvinsk.

"Two other submarines of this project – SSBN Arkhangelsk and SSBN Severstal – are moored at the port of Severodvinsk also awaiting a final decision", said Diachkov.

SSBN Dmitry Donskoy (Akula class, on NATO classification – Typhoon) is the world's biggest nuclear-powered submarine; full displacement is 49,800 tons, length is 172 meters, beam is 23.3 meters; commissioned into the Navy on Dec 12, 1981.

In 2004 the submarine was refitted for SLBM Bulava test launches.

So the DD will be used in testing new subs and will not be going to the scrapyard.

The remaining two Typhoon class subs are awaiting a final decision. Personally I think underwater research vessels would be an excellent use for them... they could be modified to be motherships to all sorts of different manned and unmanned under water vehicles and would be able to carry lots of scientists or if necessary divers.
A SSGN version would allow one vessel to carry a huge number of cruise missiles... recently we saw the west basically take down Libyan air defences with about 120 cruise missiles. The Russian Navy will not be huge so needing to fire that many missiles to achieve a goal will likely use up all the available land attack missiles on most of the boats in a Russian carrier group... having even just a single Akula that can sail at full speed for as long as needed to get anywhere with maybe 400 missile tubes, but high levels of automation with a relatively small crew (remember crew size determines operational times as it is the supply of food that determines the voyage length).

The tubes will be UKSK tubes though the most likely weapon loaded will be the 2,000km land attack Kalibre (Klub) or the 5,500km range Kh-101 conventionally armed cruise missile.

i am confused about Akula/Typhoon class submarines. At last they will be modified to carry cruise missiles? will be scrapped? will be used as special purpose submarines?

If they are going to be modernized, what they wait at last?

We are all confused.

It is not clear what exactly they will be used for, but they have said that they will be given overhauls and upgrades to extend their operational lives to about 2025.

Their use appears to be in the battle fleet, which suggests to me that they will either be anti ship or land attack missile carriers. The article above mentions a nuclear role, but that could be an anti carrier role or a land attack role.

It is all very ambiguous...

Does the russian navy still use the typhoon class subs in action or what do they do with them?

Surely they cant even think of scrapping the 3 remaining Typhoons. They're awesome, incredible beasts.

How many year would it take just to build the basics of a Typhoon? Keep them. THEN decide what to do. With energy weapons etc emerging, a big hull will be even more useful. And ofcrouse it has space for sound dampening. I like the idea of a mothership, maybe for a fleet of mini unmanned vehciles. Maybe for ABM missiles. Maybe cruise missiles. Maybe a form of stealth delivery of cargoes.Theres a HUGE amount of uses. Who knows park them up for 10 years. But militaries change, technology and doctrines change. And diplomatic situations change. Some here say the Cold War is over. Not if you talk to that deranged imbecile Romney. Russia shouldnt destroy her greatest technologies. EVER.

PS the other thing is that Kirovs, Typhoons etc are more than just ships. They are mobile bases.America has bases near Russia. So Russia needs the same. The base near NY, the base near LA, near Syria. Thats 1 reason why they were build to begin with.

ssk1777 wrote:Does the russian navy still use the typhoon class subs in action or what do they do with them?

Dmitry Donskoy has been in service as a Bulava testbed.

Severstal and Arkhangelk are in conservation @ Severodvinsk (near SevMash), side by side.

Rest have been scrapped.

As TR-1 said, they are keeping one for testing, and they have two more they are thinking about what to do with, whether they convert them to cruise missile carriers, or use them for research, or other purposes.

BTW they are actually Akula class subs... it is unfortunate that NATO calls SSNs of the Shuka class Akula.

I wonder how much it would cost to build 3 Typhoons today?
Its interesting that miltary agreements mean the trashing of machines that could be used for conventional and not just nuclear conflict. I'm thinking thge Tu-160s the Ukraine was paid to destroy. Or the 3 Typhoons that have gone already. Arguably the half built Ulyanovsk that the Ukraine was encouraged by the US to scrap.

Why is it that agreements never call for 5 or 6 Nimitz to be chopped in half?
Rant over..! How successful could a Typhoon be as a forward ABM base? I also remember Russian designs for a small submarine that could fly out of the water. Perhaps a Typhoon could be a mothership for that?

The 3 of the 6 Typhoon subs(I'll use that name, as its less confusing for some people.. ; ) ), I know they are basically listed as "scrapped".

But are they scrapped as in cut into lots of tiny pieces. As China's new carrier supposedly was (and then it wasn't). Or are they just cut open with the reactors taken out.

In other words, could any of the 3 scrapped Typhoons be brought back into service with a lot of work done.

The potential uses for such a huge sub are mindboggling, IMO.

I think in many ways, they're my favourite of all Russian weaponry. Alongside the Pak fa, Tu-160 and Kirov cruisers.. To think that these things weigh nearly 50k tonnes when submerged... Most non military people don't even believe that..

No they are gone.

However there are two aside from Donskoy (Arkhangelsk and Severstal) that are tied up awaiting their fate, and could certainly be brought back
A matter of price however.

TR1 wrote:No they are gone.

However there are two aside from Donskoy (Arkhangelsk and Severstal) that are tied up awaiting their fate, and could certainly be brought back
A matter of price however.

Oh well, I thought so...

Quite a shame IMO.
3 magnificent hulls.The envy of the World in many ways, not old, and very expensive to produce. Feared by the US.

My argument is to keep a series if possible. 6 subs not 3 means economies of scale in upkeep etc..

Ofcourse the big question is, what to use these mammouth hulls for. My view is an underwater mothership for undersea drones or even for flying drones.. Maybe an undersea cargo carrier. Lets hope Russia utilises its expertise in building huge hulls when then next gen of subs are built..

The idea of an undersea cargo vessel would only be useful if the arctic stays frozen... or perhaps for "secret cargo deliveries".

I suspect mothership for UUVs, a potential special forces delivery vessel, and perhaps even a rescue vessel or marine research vessel with mini and micro subs and also aircraft would be very useful.

Equally an arsenal ship with row upon row of UKSK tubes for hundreds of cruise missiles is a possibility too.

Replacement of machinery and sensors and weapons of the new standardisation regime should enable fairly reasonable cost savings in operation.

@TR1 totally agree.



Dmitry Donskoy is the only survivor of the Typhoon class (Severstal and Arkhangelsk going the the scrapyard)

Russia "let the knife," the biggest nuclear submarines by 2018

I guess it is for the best regarding the Akula class... though I do hope that when they are ready to retire the Dmitry Donskoy that it has its nuclear bits removed and is converted into a museum up somewhere on land where its enormous size can be truly appreciated.

Research vessels and arsenal subs sound OK, but custom designed vessels probably make rather more sense... and arsenal subs simply don't sound like something the Russian military actually need... an arsenal sub is a murderer... something that is unseen and stabs you in the back... with a sharpened stick of dynamite with its 0.5 second fuse burning. An arsenal ship however... based on the Kirov/Orlan class is something that can be publicly moved into position to exert real direct pressure... hopefully so that like nuclear weapons wont need to be actually used to be useful.

The information on the carriers also makes a lot of sense... and nuclear power and forward looking design clearly means EM catapults too. There was really no point in the Russians going through the process of deploying and perfecting steam catapults when EM offers a better solution and technologies that are more useful in other areas of electronics and weapons.

The Russian Navy developing Steam cats now would be like Kalashnikov working on a Flintlock for front line use.

I don't know ...it's a shame to scrap such unique vessels. It would've been nice to go ahead with the proposal to turn 2 of them into cruise missile and special forces boats. But I guess that's a luxury from a financial perspective.

Cyberspec wrote:I don't know ...it's a shame to scrap such unique vessels. It would've been nice to go ahead with the proposal to turn 2 of them into cruise missile and special forces boats. But I guess that's a luxury from a financial perspective.

Even from a button counting(financial) pt of view I don't see the case for scrapping the 3 greatest submarines in history..

The scrap value is measley. The upkeep value of 3 hulls is small. The pr and image benefits are huge.

Also the argument to build new mega hulls is huge. Even the 1st Borei is based on older hull designs.

The USA's CIA are captivated by the ingenuity of the Typhoon design and its myriad of possible uses in this pdf. Extremely jealous I detect.

The Soviet Typhoon Submarine-. A Radical Innovation in Submarine Design

My view is keep the 3 hulls. Its better to have a "non diversified fleet" and it keeps refit costs down.

Also these hulls are massively useful. One as a testbed for missiles. One as a test bed for cargo or "stealth landings". Another as a mothership for mini-subs and underwater drones, or even for flying drones/planes.

Rather than becoming obsolete, I believe the submarine megahull is becoming more and more attractive...

In 15 years time, I'd park one in St Petersburg, one in Vladivostock and maybe one elsewhere. By that time, the next gen of megasubs would be fully in operation.

All this genius scrapped for a few millions in scrap metal... I cannot understand it.

The Arkhangelsk and Severstal have both been in reserve for many years. Both would need reactor refueling as well as general repairs + maintenance. And of course, both would need major modification if they were to receive a new cruise missile armamanent. Regular drydock visits and maintance are a pain on these monsters.
What is all this looking like? A huge expense that would be better spent elsewhere. The RuNavy is not in critical need of more ballistic missile subs, considering the BDRM fleet modernization and the 955s in the pipeline. Cruise missile forests would be nice, but are a luxury. Kalibr is becoming widespread on new ships with UKSK, and new and modernized submarines.

Dmitry Dinskoy has been well maintained in its role as a test ship, so its not going anywhere anytime soon.
But Russia isn't going to be building any subs that big, not anytime soon. Mind you Borei and Graney are big boys themselves, on an international level.

Their new corvettes are showing that new vessels will pack much more punch than older vessels... I wouldn't rule out large subs in the future, but I suspect building them from scratch would result in a more useful vessel.

Two Project 941 nuclear ballistic missiles submarines, "Severstal" and "Arkhangelsk" will be scrapped

Shame they couldn't be turned into museums with all the secret bits removed... and of course all the nuke bits removed.

It reportedly had 3-4 libraries and open places for sitting a reading including aviarys with real birds flying around, and at least 3 swimming pools for the crew to relax when they were not on duty.

No hot racking either... you got your own bed that you didn't have to share with two other people like you do on some US subs.