Typhoon class SSBNs future:

there is still one typhoon and yes all will be replaced with Borei because unlike previous soviet subs they are difficult to detect. Kilogolf you still must learn more about Underwater Warfare. Actually I'm into Russian subs and US subs these days after finishing with Missiles and Anti-Missile Defences and I've got a lot of online material with me ( don't even know how to share it here , where to start.) But you can Read some old threads here regarding Submarine noises and comparisons.

max steel wrote:there is still one typhoon and yes all will be replaced with Borei because unlike previous soviet subs they are difficult to detect. Kilogolf you still must learn more about Underwater Warfare. Actually I'm into Russian subs and US subs these days after finishing with Missiles and Anti-Missile Defences and I've got a lot of online material with me ( don't even know how to share it here , where to start.) But you can Read some old threads here regarding Submarine noises and comparisons.

Sure, I'm no expert and probably will never become one. But I can put some things together.
I.e. witnessing a huge capability loss simply due to the small numbers planned long-term and the threat environment of their opposing force.

I'll have a look at the threads, thx man

I'm NO expert either but love to read more from genuine sources and share it here among others. Mindstorm and GarryB are expert people acc. to me.

As of 2015 the Russian fleet three of the six originally constructed Akula subs: the TK-17 Arkhangelsk, the TK-20 Severstal and the TK-208 Dmitry Donskoi exists.

According to the 2014 plans of the Russian Fleet, the submarine will remain in use until 2022, though it is possible that it will then be modernized and continue its service.

Russia announced on12 March 2016 a decision to disarm the nuclear missile system of its Typhoon-class Arkhangelsk submarine – the world's largest – in accordance with the New START treaty between Moscow and Washington. Russia's Zvezdochka shipyard in the northern city of Severodvinsk declared its plan to disarm the missile system on the huge submarine. "We will remove the covers of the submarine's missile launchers and seal them, thus making it impossible to use the vessel's missile weapons," read the press statement. "We are not talking yet about dismantling the submarine itself. The tender for this procedure has not yet been announced."

Breaking Up the Typhoon Submarine

I'd be interested in knowing what studies Russia has done on modifing the Pr 941 Akula SSBNs to carry Kalibre and Oniks. The SS-N-20/R-39 was a BIG missile, and their launch tubes could probably hold 5 of the smaller cruise missiles. No need for hugely expensive rebuilds, just insert an adaptor module into the existing launch tube, rework the wiring interfaces and replace the R-39 related support electronics. With a relatively small outlay (compared to a new sub), you could have a SSGN with ~100 missiles.

Big_Gazza wrote:I'd be interested in knowing what studies Russia has done on modifing the Pr 941 Akula SSBNs to carry Kalibre and Oniks. The SS-N-20/R-39 was a BIG missile, and their launch tubes could probably hold 5 of the smaller cruise missiles. No need for hugely expensive rebuilds, just insert an adaptor module into the existing launch tube, rework the wiring interfaces and replace the R-39 related support electronics. With a relatively small outlay (compared to a new sub), you could have a SSGN with ~100 missiles.

You have to refurbish the submarine as well.

That cost waaaaaay more than a new SSBN.

GarryB wrote: and with 5,000km range missiles you could be fairly flexible as to where you attack from...
Of course as all Russian naval surface vessels will have UKSK launchers then the need for such a vessel is not so critical. Desirable, but not critical.

Is there a CM anywhere with 5,000km range, 2x that of Kalibr? ttp://sputniknews.com/russia/20151012/1028390749/russia-kalibr-missile.html
Since they lost the Oscar II SSGN Kursk, if 1-2 SSBNs available for conversion, why not? They r not known to decommission their platforms as easily & often as the USN does!

Tsavo Lion wrote:

GarryB wrote: and with 5,000km range missiles you could be fairly flexible as to where you attack from...
Of course as all Russian naval surface vessels will have UKSK launchers then the need for such a vessel is not so critical. Desirable, but not critical.

Is there a CM anywhere with 5,000km range, 2x that of Kalibr? ttp://sputniknews.com/russia/20151012/1028390749/russia-kalibr-missile.html
Since they lost the Oscar II SSGN Kursk, if 1-2 SSBNs available for conversion, why not? They r not known to decommission their platforms as easily & often as the USN does!

Well there's Kh-101/102 which have 5,500 km range, but they're strictly air launched...but it's not impossible to modify the 3m-14 Kalibr's with conforming fuel tanks.

Is there a CM anywhere with 5,000km range, 2x that of Kalibr?

Kh-101 and Kh-102.

GarryB wrote:

Is there a CM anywhere with 5,000km range, 2x that of Kalibr?

Kh-101 and Kh-102.

...As far as range is concerned, cruise missiles range could easily be 4x higher than that, but has major drawback with the exponential increase in cost. For example, modern HALE could just as easily play the role of a cruise missile, the RQ-4 Global Hawk HALE UAS has a max range of 22,000 km's, and nothing real stops the U.S. airforce from attaching a tactical thermonuclear warhead on one (which makes you wonder why the INF treaty doesn't cover drones)...but there is massive downside, where talking about white-elephant expensive here...like +$130 million a piece!

Speaking about the INF treaty, looks like drones are a loopwhole around the damn thing lol!

Singular_trafo wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:I'd be interested in knowing what studies Russia has done on modifing the Pr 941 Akula SSBNs to carry Kalibre and Oniks.  The SS-N-20/R-39 was a BIG missile, and their launch tubes could probably hold 5 of the smaller cruise missiles.  No need for hugely expensive rebuilds, just insert an adaptor module into the existing launch tube, rework the wiring interfaces and replace the R-39 related support electronics.  With a relatively small outlay (compared to a new sub), you could have a SSGN with ~100 missiles.

You have to refurbish the submarine as well.

That cost waaaaaay more than a new SSBN.

Really? Why exactly would that be? The TK-208 Donskoi is currently active as a Bulava testbed, so what refurbishment would be required to convert her to a SSGN following the planned Bulava II development trials? As long as her reactor, fuel reserve and propulsion train are sound, and her general marine, life support and accomodation systems are in working condition, what exactly is needed? Is there any publically-available account, or is this just opinion?

Big_Gazza wrote:

Singular_trafo wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:I'd be interested in knowing what studies Russia has done on modifing the Pr 941 Akula SSBNs to carry Kalibre and Oniks.  The SS-N-20/R-39 was a BIG missile, and their launch tubes could probably hold 5 of the smaller cruise missiles.  No need for hugely expensive rebuilds, just insert an adaptor module into the existing launch tube, rework the wiring interfaces and replace the R-39 related support electronics.  With a relatively small outlay (compared to a new sub), you could have a SSGN with ~100 missiles.

You have to refurbish the submarine as well.

That cost waaaaaay more than a new SSBN.

Really? Why exactly would that be? The TK-208 Donskoi is currently active as a Bulava testbed, so what refurbishment would be required to convert her to a SSGN following the planned Bulava II development trials? As long as her reactor, fuel reserve and propulsion train are sound, and her general marine, life support and accomodation systems are in working condition, what exactly is needed? Is there any publically-available account, or is this just opinion?

I read same time before that the reason of the Pr.941 scraping is the extremly high cost of refurbishment.

It cost less to make a new submarine thatn to refurbish one 941.


It is supported by the simple fact the russian navy scraping the 941s, instead to refurbish them.

Singular_trafo wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

Singular_trafo wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:I'd be interested in knowing what studies Russia has done on modifing the Pr 941 Akula SSBNs to carry Kalibre and Oniks.  The SS-N-20/R-39 was a BIG missile, and their launch tubes could probably hold 5 of the smaller cruise missiles.  No need for hugely expensive rebuilds, just insert an adaptor module into the existing launch tube, rework the wiring interfaces and replace the R-39 related support electronics.  With a relatively small outlay (compared to a new sub), you could have a SSGN with ~100 missiles.

You have to refurbish the submarine as well.

That cost waaaaaay more than a new SSBN.

Really?  Why exactly would that be?  The TK-208 Donskoi is currently active as a Bulava testbed, so what refurbishment would be required to convert her to a SSGN following the planned Bulava II development trials?  As long as her reactor, fuel reserve and propulsion train are sound, and her general marine, life support and accomodation systems are in working condition, what exactly is needed?   Is there any publically-available account, or is this just opinion?

I read same time before that the reason of the Pr.941 scraping is the extremly high cost of refurbishment.

It cost less to make a new submarine thatn to refurbish one 941.


It is supported by the simple fact the russian navy scraping the 941s, instead to refurbish them.

The 3x 941s which have been scrapped were done so as part of the Nunn-Lugar "De-fanging Defeated Russia" program, and its likely that Russia chose those hulls that were in the worst condition. Without hard data its not possible to tell on the condition of TK-17 & TK-20. If these vessels are hooked up to an active impressed current cathodic protection and have been nitrogen purged they can be preserved for decades without significant deterioration, and be available for refurb and modernisation when the will (and funds) become available. IMHO this is exactly why these subs have not been sent to the knackers yard - to allow the RuN to keep its future options open (and the same applies to the Pr 1144 Lazarev and Ushakov nuke cruisers)

Speaking about the INF treaty, looks like drones are a loopwhole around the damn thing lol!

Not a loophole at all.

If they take off from a land based runway then they are ground launched, so any UAV or UCAV with a range of more than 500km and less than 5,000km is banned under the INF treaty.

With a range of more than 5,500km a UCAV is classified as a strategic nuclear weapon and subject to new START limits.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Singular_trafo wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

Singular_trafo wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:I'd be interested in knowing what studies Russia has done on modifing the Pr 941 Akula SSBNs to carry Kalibre and Oniks.  The SS-N-20/R-39 was a BIG missile, and their launch tubes could probably hold 5 of the smaller cruise missiles.  No need for hugely expensive rebuilds, just insert an adaptor module into the existing launch tube, rework the wiring interfaces and replace the R-39 related support electronics.  With a relatively small outlay (compared to a new sub), you could have a SSGN with ~100 missiles.

You have to refurbish the submarine as well.

That cost waaaaaay more than a new SSBN.

Really?  Why exactly would that be?  The TK-208 Donskoi is currently active as a Bulava testbed, so what refurbishment would be required to convert her to a SSGN following the planned Bulava II development trials?  As long as her reactor, fuel reserve and propulsion train are sound, and her general marine, life support and accomodation systems are in working condition, what exactly is needed?   Is there any publically-available account, or is this just opinion?

I read same time before that the reason of the Pr.941 scraping is the extremly high cost of refurbishment.

It cost less to make a new submarine thatn to refurbish one 941.


It is supported by the simple fact the russian navy scraping the 941s, instead to refurbish them.

The 3x 941s which have been scrapped were done so as part of the Nunn-Lugar "De-fanging Defeated Russia" program, and its likely that Russia chose those hulls that were in the worst condition. Without hard data its not possible to tell on the condition of TK-17 & TK-20. If these vessels are hooked up to an active impressed current cathodic protection and have been nitrogen purged they can be preserved for decades without significant deterioration, and be available for refurb and modernisation when the will (and funds) become available. IMHO this is exactly why these subs have not been sent to the knackers yard - to allow the RuN to keep its future options open (and the same applies to the Pr 1144 Lazarev and Ushakov nuke cruisers)

The 941 is a monster, composited from three independent hull.

Two of them has everything , reactor + propulsion, third is only for humans.

So, the cost of a 941 should be around 2.5 times more than a normal submarine.

If the refurbishment cost is half a new submarine then you have more cost to bring back to service a 941 than if you build a brand new ship from scratch.

This was the reason why russia doesn't want them.

True, & the D. Donskoi was retained for testing BMs (probably not only the Bulava, but other types as well) because there r 20 tubes, strong hulls, & the fact that active SSBNs r being modernized & needed for patrol duty.