I know it is from a computer game but there are claims it can carry 40 Kalibrs.
the suggestion that it can carry 40 kalibrs or 32 Onyx missiles is based on the fact that the Kalibrs are 533mm diameter weapons and the Onyx is 750mm in calibre so the physical space without launch tubes that holds 32 Onyx missiles is rather bigger than the space needed to hold 32 Kalibrs... but that does not matter.
Yasen also has EIGHT VLS Silos, which means 32 Oniks or 40 Kalibers.
No it doesn't... you can't fit 40 Kalibrs into four UKSK launchers... a single UKSK launcher is two VLS silos with four missiles each, which means 8 launch tubes per UKSK...
the silos aren't like ship-based VLS but they allow some modular capability for different missiles to be put in. So the size of the missiles dictates how many the sub can carry.
Unlikely. If we were talking about missiles in a torpedo room then I agree but with fixed vertical launch tubes it would have to be mind numbingly modular to allow different sized tubes to be used together... these are not Oscar subs to sink US carrier groups so only carry Granit missiles.... these are fully multipurpose Yasen SSGNs that will need to carry a mix of missile types most of the time...
A motorcycle is cheaper than a truck, but are the number of motorcycles needed to deliver the same amount of cargo as a truck cheaper to but and operate than a truck?
In a city where a truck cannot park or even turn around then motor cycles make more sense. The truck is cheaper to operate because it has a one man crew... a better comparison would be a truck compared with vans, but a truck with 100+ men to crew it, compared with much smaller vans and much fewer crew to operate it properly.
An SSN is not a transport vehicle... it is a hunter and a killer and part of that includes being hard to find.
Modern missiles are more capable so you wont be needing as many of them, and besides in WWIII most will have nuclear payloads anyway... this is not a chivalrous battle for honour... it is a war of survival and extermination of the enemy.
A new submarine derived from the Akula class could carry 400 missiles, 12.5 times the the number a Yasen can,
do you seriously think that 12 Yasens would be cheaper to build and operate than one single Akula derrivative???
Do you think 12 Destroyers would be more use than a container ship with lots of missile equipped shipping crates piled on top?
12 Yasens wont be cheaper than one arsenal sub even just with operational costs of manning it, but 12 Yasen subs would be vastly more use than one arsenal sub in normal operations.
12 Jason Bournes vs one Rambo... which is more useful day to day?
The yasen is packed full of advanced and expensive equipment that is not needed for a missile sub and a single larger sub will have far less than 12 times the crew of a smaller one.
Yasen will be useful for all sorts of sneaky operations and roles... even just underwater secret escort for tankers going to Venezuela or Iran... an Arsenal sub really only becomes useful during an actual war.
The main problem for an arsenal ship or sub is that most of the time you wont have enough targets for all those missiles so while you might mount a few attacks against specific targets, your main purpose is to enable targets to be attacked at short warning while keeping your surface ships loaded up and ready to fight without having to constantly reload them.
Only if they are nuclear and there is still the chance, however minute that the enemy can shoot it down. If not nuclear then you will need atleast 5 for the carrier and 2 for each of its escorts and if you are using Oniks you will want to fire upwards of 50 at a carrier group.
Why would you bother using non nuclear warheads against a carrier group?
And they can't stop Onyx reliably either.
The IS-2 was so successful because of its stealth capabilities as opposed to its firepower and ofcourse the f117 is far superior to the TU-22M3
What are you talking about?
The F-117 cost billions of dollars to develop and build and ended up being a very short ranged cruise missile... two Kh-102s have better range, better payload, similar speed to an F-117 and are vastly cheaper...
An Su-25 is a serious threat for an F-117... wouldn't get close to a Tu-22M3.
But the range of torpedoes is not the same as the range of missiles, nor do attack subs hunt other subs at ultra long range
That is correct, but why are you fixated with extra long range? Poseidon says you are wrong BTW....
The Yasen is not a good SSGN but that was never expected of it to begin with.
SSGNs were needed because Granits were huge and only their biggest ships could carry them in useful numbers.
Today even Corvettes are carrying more missile tubes than the Echo SSGNs so the problem is not really the same as it used to be.
If the previous paragraph was unclear, SSNs are front line units that operate close to the enemy while SSGNs operate at the maximum range of thier missiles and need to be close to the surface to fire them.
That is like saying Su-35s will only ever operate close to the enemy... really... are they not going to attach 2 SSNs to their surface action groups.... SSNs have a multitude of roles including recon and even interdicting supply routes and sea lanes...
Plus the new subs are NOT SSGNs... an SSGN carried anti ship missiles with the express purpose to help a Soviet or Russian surface group fight an opposing enemy carrier group.
Their new subs could be carrying all anti submarine missiles for all you know... or all land attack missiles... or a mix.
The UKSK is for surface ships and it is unlikely that they would have designed their surface ship VLS to work underwater.... Well I guess being able to still fire while sinking could be good.
So UKSK means universal but only for surface ships vertical cruise missile launcher... that is a mouthful.
They want their subs to be able to carry pretty much most of the same missiles their surface ships carry... most of the missiles the UKSK carriers are 533mm calibre and were torpedo launched weapons that were adapted for vertical launch from ships.
In war there is never enough ammo. So limiting the missiles per sub is silly since that limits their effectiveness. I know that
stuffing them with too many defeats their purpose as well. But the fundamental problem remains: going back to port to fill up
is not an easy option during a war.
Well previously the Papa and Oscar and the Echo carried most of their missiles with a couple in Slava and Kirov and the new Carriers.... now every ship carries at least one UKSK launcher and while upgraded Kirovs will carry 10 launchers it is very likely that any new cruisers while being lighter than the Kirov will also probably carry even more than 15 of them... perhaps double that if they also carry SAMs as well.
So I was right it's a modular VLS. I wonder if theybcould reload each VLS at once at sea. Just put another big block of missile instead of the used one with a crane.
UKSK is a modular VLS system made up of two large tubes each containing four launch tubes.
Me saying there are four UKSKs each with 8 tubes is the same as you saying there are 8 vertical launch modular systems that each hold 4 missiles... by either count there are 32 launch tubes.... and I rather doubt you could fit more in with a smaller missile like Kalibr... the spacing would be wrong and it would be an absolute nightmare if you want a random mix of missiles in a load.