Submarine Warfare: U.S. vs Russia

Tsavo Lion wrote:The United States scared of Russian "killers of submarines"
https://vz.ru/news/2018/8/1/935204.print.html

IMO, they can be used against SSG/BNs & a few of them can gang up even on a CVN. The USN will need to establish its own submarine bastions in the Gulf of Alaska & the Canadian Arctic- Baffin/Hudson Bay & Davis Stait!

This is a brilliant concept. And since the US does not have such a program (no it does not), it shows that Russia
is not "second rate" or other masturbatory NATO propaganda BS.

It is vastly cheaper to have a dozens or hundreds of such robotic kamikaze submarines than to dispatch manned
subs to engage in naval dog fights.

1) They can be made to tolerate vastly higher hull pressures by simply allowing water to occupy any voids.
This allows them to attack NATO submarines from below like sharks attack seals on the surface. NATO subs
will not know what hit them.

2) They can be made vastly quieter than any of the current manned submarines. It is not all about screw noise.
Large submarines have all sorts of hull vibration modes that can can be detected. Small submarines have much
less energy dissipated on hull vibrations.

New cellphones have charging pads where there is no actual connection... you just put the phone on the charging pad and it charges up...

Retard, Russia has plenty of SSK to defend it's shores. I think you fail to realize that.

Add Oscar class subs, plus akula, etc. So Russia is fine for it's naval borders.

Arrow wrote:Russia has only a few modern submarines 636.3 SSK.

6 brand new Kilos built in record time plus 6 more under construction

Also 12 Ladas in the pipeline with 2 already built plus God knows how many after that (this is just first batch)

That's just non-nuclear fleet alone

I didn't take into account subs built before 2014

Even you would have to agree that it's more than enough to cover Russia's proportionally very small coastline (check the map, all things considered it's miniscule)

verkhoturye51 wrote:

Only why not to build 12-14 but only 7?

They said they want cheaper alternative (Husky).

Which is all fine and well but fact remains that they haven't ordered a single new SSN in years while they wait for Husky to get off the drawing board

They may be saving some negligible amount of money but they are wasting massive amounts of time

Now Russia has 2 submarine project 885/85M. USA has 17 Virginia class submarine and building next 11 Very Happy. The US has a huge advantage in SSN. Russia will soon be defeated by China.

It is also surrounded by the two biggest oceans on the planet with lots of hostile enemies.

China having more subs is a good thing because they are more likely to be used against US subs than Russian ones...

The US does not need SSK. They build a lot of nuclear submarines that they do not have to have an SSK that has many limitations.

Actually how long can the US continue to spend too much on weapons when much much cheaper options that are in some regards superior are ignored.

A decent modern SSK is a fraction of the cost of an SSN, yet in shallow water an SSK is markedly superior in most regards except top speed.

And top speed in a sub means you have lost because even at top speed there are lots of torpedoes that could chase you down...

The purpose of the Virginia class are to defend carriers/assault ships against attack by other subs and to search for SSBN´s.

It would be pretty useless protecting carriers and assault ships... how could a Virginia class stop a Kh-32 or Onyx, let alone a Kinzhal or Zircon?

It would be a mistake. SSKs are better for shallow seas surrounding Russia.

That is because they are normally smaller than most SSNs... if you take out the main diesel engines, but keep the batteries and put in a small nuclear power plant and a small AIP system it would be just as good as a normal Kilo, but with its power generation independent of burning diesel... The reactor along with water could be used to fill hydrogen tanks and oxygen tanks and charge up the batteries... once all full you can sail out under electric power until the batteries are low and use the fuel cells to generate electricity and the NPP topping up the batteries... most of the time you will be using power for electronics and low speed propulsion which should be covered by a small NPP... batteries for high speed and fuel cell as a further backup power supply to further boost energy when needed... when hydrogen tanks are empty and the batteries are flat you can operate at very low speed and minimise electricity use and use the NPP to charge the batteries and process water into H2 and O2 so the fuel cell can be used when needed again.

Note the NPP wont be powerful enough to run everything and run at full speed all at once, but when not running at full speed it can be used to store energy in the batteries and storing energy for the fuel cell to use later too...

The USN will still have 3 Seawolfs & dozens of LA class SSNs, + the RN & FN SSNs for the VMF to deal with:

The financial strain of all these vessels will hasten the demise of the current US of A... hopefully what replaces it is better... but I am not holding my breath.

USN ships and subs no where near Russia are not Russias concern... the ones that are close will be attacked by air power and ships and subs so numerical superiority will be largely nullified...

So by 2030, if not slightly earlier, the combined totals of Russia and China will be something like: 40-50 SSNs and at least 80 SSKs. Man... it really doesn't look good for the "New American Century." Just another reminder. As if Kinzhals and Type 055s weren't enough...

And more importantly there is little chance of the Chinese being more annoying than the US manages every day... good old China...