Project 885: Yasen class

Very true, but US ABM systems are designed to stop one or two warheads at a time.... not 1,500 targets and perhaps 10,000 decoys.

Mace currently probably has a warhead that will manouver a tiny amount to ensure it is on target... not enough to make it hard or impossible to hit... but with the end of the new Start treaty and gradual production of Borei going to 10 boats or more then the 10 warhead capacity of Bulava wont be needed, so fitting larger payloads with manouvering warheads to penetrate defence systems and perhaps even destroy ABM defences becomes more attractive.

GarryB wrote:Very true, but US ABM systems are designed to stop one or two warheads at a time.... not 1,500 targets and perhaps 10,000 decoys.

Mace currently probably has a warhead that will manouver a tiny amount to ensure it is on target... not enough to make it hard or impossible to hit... but with the end of the new Start treaty and gradual production of Borei going to 10 boats or more then the 10 warhead capacity of Bulava wont be needed, so fitting larger payloads with manouvering warheads to penetrate defence systems and perhaps even destroy ABM defences becomes more attractive.

No one has an Air defense network meant to stop a mass saturation attack including Russia.

If that many nukes are fired at anyone, the country is going to become radioactive ash so trying to build for that is non-sense.

No one has an Air defense network meant to stop a mass saturation attack including Russia.

Air Defence Networks is what you build to defend against mass saturation attacks... countries or groups like HATO that don't expect the third world countries they fight to fight back don't bother building ADNs...

No one has an Air defense network meant to stop a mass saturation attack including Russia.

If that many nukes are fired at anyone, the country is going to become radioactive ash so trying to build for that is non-sense.

But your government think they can fight and win a nuclear war with Russia... why don't you?

Too stuck to facts and reality perhaps... get back to sleep and enjoy the American dream...

No, we don't lol, The US and Russia know if we start flinging nukes are each other both of us are dead.

I don't know where you got that impression but it's a silly one.

Russian AD cannot repel swarms of Nuclear Missiles, if you think that then you need to "wake up" and stop being such a fanboy.

No, we don't lol, The US and Russia know if we start flinging nukes are each other both of us are dead.

Yet you are spending billions on ABM systems directed at Russia...

I don't know where you got that impression but it's a silly one.

The people spending money on ABM systems in Europe, Alaska and California, Japan, South Korea, and soon Greenland and the UK, not to mention plans for AEGIS cruisers of either US coast and in the Arctic ocean...

Russian AD cannot repel swarms of Nuclear Missiles, if you think that then you need to "wake up" and stop being such a fanboy.

The US ABM defence system started with 50 interceptors... how many does it have now?

What restrictions are there regarding the number of ABM interceptors?

In addition to the expanding system around moscow based on missiles that have been constantly tested and upgraded for 40-50 odd years they have new models like Nudol that could be sent to places like Murmansk and St Petersberg and Vladivostok, and not to mention their S-500 systems that are fully mobile... they have complete radar coverage of their own airspace and an aerospace defence force dedicated to track items... moving Nudol to near the border means its interceptions can be well out over international airspace or over the new HATO allies and neutrals so using nukes for interceptions is probably a good thing...

Right now I would agree that WWIII is futile suicide, but US withdrawal from the ABM treaty and the INF treaty and not interested in ratifying the new START treaty and moving ABM systems in to eastern europe has started and accelerated a similar process in Russia, so while the first systems will not do the job... over time they will get better and more numerous... computer upgrades and radar upgrades will expand their capacity to handle large numbers of targets and their space capabilities means improved ability to spot decoys... I think given more time they would be much more likely to be in the position most American politicians seem to think they are already in...

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Russian AD cannot repel swarms of Nuclear Missiles, if you think that then you need to "wake up" and stop being such a fanboy.

Just because your country is too dumb to do it does not mean that Russia will not be able to in the near future, say by 2035-2050 and your leaders give them little reason to consider peace as an option, I hope you enjoy being on the receiving end of the pentagon monkeys wet dream.

Also you seem to think your country has enough of its low yield firecrackers to wipe out Russia, this is downrite delutional!
Not to mention that unless you want to be a chinese colony you would need to split your arsenal 50/50 between Russia and China and before you say it NO prioritising Russia would not work as China is also developing an ABM network likely far more capable than yours.

Unless ofcourse in addition to being incharge of some operations in Syria and ex navy you are also privvy to the pentagons aerospace defence documents and know something I do not...... then again maybe I I'm Iosif Stalin.

Now that the INF treaty is essentially dead the US is likely to build up its forces around China... likely including developing new IRBMs... in the past China didn't really feel it needed much more than a token nuclear force to defend itself, but US escalation might make them rethink their policy which of course will make India want more nukes and therefore also Pakistan and I suspect both Japan and South Korea will want a nuclear missile capacity too...

GarryB wrote:Now that the INF treaty is essentially dead the US is likely to build up its forces around China... likely including developing new IRBMs... in the past China didn't really feel it needed much more than a token nuclear force to defend itself, but US escalation might make them rethink their policy which of course will make India want more nukes and therefore also Pakistan and I suspect both Japan and South Korea will want a nuclear missile capacity too...

Japan and South Korea are under the US nuclear umbrella so doubt they need it.

The US doesn't project the idea of trust to me... Germany seems to be looking into getting its own nukes too as an option... if I was Japan or South Korea I would not trust the US to save me... and in the process risk escalating a local war into global suicide.

The UK and France and Israel are pretty much under the same umbrella are they not?

Why don't these three countries trust Uncle Sam?

Is it the speed at which all three countries have seen Uncle Sam throw countries under the bus in the past?

The UK and France and Israel are pretty much under the same umbrella are they not?

each of them rely on their own nuclear deterrence, which allows them to say "no" to the US.
Even w/o her own nukes, Japan finally said no, as the AEGIS Ashore BMD is also potential dual use & those sites could be attacked 1st with CMs:
Following the urgent suspension of the deployment plan, the Japanese government emphasized that the security environment facing Japan would not change as a result. Japanese Defense Minister Taro Kono said that Japan will rely on the Aegis-equipped destroyers to maintain the missile defense capability,...
http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2020-06/22/content_9839628.htm

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/06/15/national/japan-halt-deploy-aegis-ashore-missile-defense-system/

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2020/06/18/what_japans_u-turn_on_aegis_ashore_says_about_us_alliance_management_115390.html

https://thediplomat.com/2020/06/japan-suspends-aegis-ashore-missile-defense-plans-what-happens-now/

GarryB wrote:
Why don't these three countries trust Uncle Sam?

Is it the speed at which all three countries have seen Uncle Sam throw countries under the bus in the past?

Why anyone would trust the US is beyond me, they have been abandoning allies for decades. They abandoned South Vietnam like a $2 whore when the North broke the peace deal and attacked.  Did not even supply enough ammo to the South Vietnamese military. Just hung them out to dry. Same with the Kurds they have screwed them so many times (although part of me feels they get their karmic reward). Now they are trying to abandon their allies in Afghantistan. Those people know they are dead meat if the US leaves so they keep trying to hinder the peace (surrender) deal.

mnztr wrote:Why anyone would trust the US is beyond me, they have been abandoning allies for decades. They abandoned South Vietnam like a $2 whore when the North broke the peace deal and attacked.  Did not even supply enough ammo to the South Vietnamese military. Just hung them out to dry. Same with the Kurds they have screwed them so many times (although part of me feels they get their karmic reward). Now they are trying to abandon their allies in Afghantistan. Those people know they are dead meat if the US leaves so they keep trying to hinder the peace (surrender) deal.

The Sth Vietnam regime deserved to loose, and the Muricanz had no rights to try to prop up that despotic band of criminals.  Ho Chi Minh was working to reunify his country after periods of French/Japanese occupation, and the US should have sat back and done nothing while the UN-mandaed elections were held (even if it meant that HCM was declared the clear winner as was almost certain to be the case).  Peace deal?  LOL!!  The Muricanz had lost the will to fight on the side of evil, and the corrupt South was never going to last.  Justice was served, and today Vietnam is a unified and stable nation that is doing well (rather than a divided mess like the Koreas were the US still to this day works incessantly to maintain the hate and prevent any meaningful rapprochement).

Screw the Kurds. Those pricks deserve what they get.

Afghanistan? Funny how the West sniggered when the Islamist nutjobs dismantled the most effective Afghan ruling regime in a century (Najibullahs commie gov) and watched smugly as its cadres were slaughtered by terror gangs, but now are stridently concerned about the eventual fate of their own band of trained and well-fed rats. As far as I am concerned, the Taliban should put to the sword anyone who co-operated with the US.  Good for the (commie) goose, good for the (neoliberal) gander.....

End of  

In Severodvinsk laid two nuclear submarines of project 885M "Ash-M"

They will receive the names "Voronezh" and "Vladivostok"

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/9006561

...The Russian Navy will receive the multipurpose nuclear submarines Voronezh and Vladivostok at the turn of 2027-2028. This was announced by the head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) Alexei Rakhmanov.

“We plan to build boats within six and a half years, that is, the fleet will receive them at the turn of 2027-2028,” RIA Novosti quotes him as saying...

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/20207211419-lzH82.html

Side point of this: Voronezh is a current Oscar class -> if one of the new Yasens has the name the Oscar is going out of service.
Apparently already is effectively so, last went to sea in 2017 & not looking healthy.
https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/244963.html

You would need 2 extra Yasens to make up for the loss of an Antei.

I always used to think that the yasen had 80 or 64 missiles, but evidently the naval designers are morons. What is the actual number it can carry in its VLS again?

If I remember correctly it was about twice the number that the newly laid down Gorshkove can carry, but the Gorshkovs also carry air defence and are bloody conventionally fuelled frigates. Back in the 80s the submarines had more ASHMs than the missile cruisers, creating a new one that has less than the coming destroyers is simply insulting!

The-thing-next-door wrote:You would need 2 extra Yasens to make up for the loss of an Antei.

I always used to think that the yasen had 80 or 64 missiles, but evidently the naval designers are morons. What is the actual number it can carry in its VLS again?

If I remember correctly it was about twice the number that the newly laid down Gorshkove can carry, but the Gorshkovs also carry air defence and are bloody conventionally fuelled frigates. Back in the 80s the submarines had more ASHMs than the missile cruisers, creating a new one that has less than the coming destroyers is simply insulting!    

Yasen is only 130m long and carry 32 or 40 VLS cells and 24 torpedoes that can be switched for kalibr missiles. Oscar is 2 times its size and has only 24 outdated granit (which could be 72 oniks if they upgrade it).

If they want an arsenal sub they will convert a borei with 200 cells instead of the BM. IMO it would be good to have 1 or 2 like that and borei are cheaper than Yasen and better than an Oscar.

Yasen M has 10 VLS? This gives the ability to carry 40 3M22 or 50 3M14 enormous firepower.

Isos wrote:

Oscar is 2 times its size and has only 24 outdated granit (which could be 72 oniks if they upgrade it).

You can through a simple modification equip an Antei with 72 Oniks, you will never manage to cram 72 Onkis into a Yasen without wormhole based storage.

If they want an arsenal sub they will convert a borei with 200 cells instead of the BM. IMO it would be good to have 1 or 2 like that and borei are cheaper than Yasen and better than an Oscar.

Why the hell would a Borei be cheaper than a Yasen? Is the Yasen's interior made of solid gold.

Not that easy. They need new wiring and if they do it they would need to modernize the ship to last another 10 years at least.

Well the first yasen was quite expensive. It should change for the following ones.

Interesting why Yasen-M still use standard screw?

The-thing-next-door wrote:You would need 2 extra Yasens to make up for the loss of an Antei.

It's other way around

Yasen is far superior to Oscar, there is entire technological ere separating those two it's not even a contest

The-thing-next-door wrote:...Why the hell would a Borei be cheaper than a Yasen? Is the Yasen's interior made of solid gold.

SSGNs are always more expensive than SSBNs of comparable size

SSGNs have to be faster and be able to dive deeper than​ SSBNs which automatically means bigger pricetag

You would need 2 extra Yasens to make up for the loss of an Antei.

I always used to think that the yasen had 80 or 64 missiles, but evidently the naval designers are morons. What is the actual number it can carry in its VLS again?

AFAIK they have four UKSK launchers per sub (32 tubes), but such vessels can also carry about 30 full sized torpedos which could be substituted for missiles as well.

Back in the 80s the submarines had more ASHMs than the missile cruisers, creating a new one that has less than the coming destroyers is simply insulting!

The difference is that with the Yasen is that no one will know they are there until they open fire.... and it essentially doesn't need air defence capacity most of the time.

Yasen M has 10 VLS? This gives the ability to carry 40 3M22 or 50 3M14 enormous firepower.

It has 4 UKSK launchers which each hold 8 missiles, so 32 weapons... and I suspect they will get Zircon first...

You can through a simple modification equip an Antei with 72 Oniks, you will never manage to cram 72 Onkis into a Yasen without wormhole based storage.

And an F-15C can carry rather more AAMs and external fuel tanks and pods than an F-22...

the main difference is that the new Yasens have a crew of about 64 men.... compared with just under 100 for Oscar I and just over 100 for Oscar II.

You can through a simple modification equip an Antei with 72 Oniks, you will never manage to cram 72 Onkis into a Yasen without wormhole based storage.

Oscars are enormous... almost 20K tons... they are the Slava class to the Akulas Kirov. Akula SSBNs are 25K tons each...

Yasen is 6K tons lighter with almost half the crew....

Interesting why Yasen-M still use standard screw?

Better question would be how is it so quiet with a standard screw?