Submarine Warfare: U.S. vs Russia

Hole wrote:1. a LA or Virginia always stays with a carrier or amphibious group. It will stay 100 or 200km in front of the group or circle it and try to find enemy subs to prevent themfrom launching missiles. Just like a MiG-31 would try to soot down a bomber before it can launch his weapons.

2. the first LA´s were pure sub hunters. Just like the Burkes were developed for AAW and ASW (against russian bombers and subs launching missiles). At the end of the 80´s they needed a new role and put a few Tomahawks onto the ships/subs. Then the 688I was developed with 12 silos and now the LA III or Virginia class has even more silos but in a large conflict there main task would be to hunt strategic weapon carriers and defend own battle groups.

3. Arrow compared the numbers of the Virginia with the Yassen. I replied that it isn´t that easy. You have to compare their roles, that´s why I mentioned all the possible targets (Bulava, Poseidon and Kaliber/Zircon carriers) for the Virginias. Now someone brought up the LA class and french subs and so on.

Western block (including Australia, Japan, Sweden): roughly 180 - 190 subs (around 80 with nuclear propulsion)
Russia: some 60 - 65 subs (around 30 - 35 nuclear)
China: roughly 70 subs (around 25 nuclear)

Compared to the 80´s, when Russia had 375 subs and the rest of the world (including Amiland and China) had around 550.

As an American, I would like to think that we do not factor the NATO allies fleet more than 20% in our ability to go on offense or defense. Countries as allies are like spouse's at the divorce time, true character comes out.....so we can more than match Russia's maximum reach in numbers and tech but where we lack at the moment is having some decent policy setters that has balls to optimize and oversee our engagements like where to fight, why we fight and what we are achieving. To me that is the problem more than any wonder weapons that Russia may throw at the world. The thing is decent strategists work with in the envelop of mutual respect for opponents and weigh their options...

Kilos can go down to 300m. Just like Los Angeles or Virginia.

Virginias go much deeper in reality, these are just official numbers. Russian wiki states cca 1600 ft or almost 500 m. There's a long list of reasons why a SSK can't compete with a SSN, starting from the form of hull that allows much less space for supplies, living quarters, sonar - everything is perfected for low endurance missions. Especially Paltus/Varshavyanka classes weren't designed for anti-submarine role and have a poor passive sonar.

we can more than match Russia's maximum reach in numbers

Democrats and GOP seem to agree that 355-ship navy is a must-have. All major navies are in the process of expansion, so the US is facing more opponents than just Russia, if it is to continue it's policy of global reach. On the other hand it's also clear that this goal is challenging, putting it mildly. And this is offtopic.

verkhoturye51 wrote:

Kilos can go down to 300m. Just like Los Angeles or Virginia.

Virginias go much deeper in reality, these are just official numbers. Russian wiki states cca 1600 ft or almost 500 m. There's a long list of reasons why a SSK can't compete with a SSN, starting from the form of hull that allows much less space for supplies, living quarters, sonar - everything is perfected for low endurance missions. Especially Paltus/Varshavyanka classes weren't designed for anti-submarine role and have a poor passive sonar.

Doesn't this contradict the physical capabilities of the materials that US sub hulls are made of?

Also are the Russians covering up their real SSN diving depths too?

Doesn't this contradict the physical capabilities of the materials that US sub hulls are made of?

No, modern US and Russian nuclear submarines are both made of steel, allowing them to dive to about 500-600 m.

Also are the Russians covering up their real SSN diving depths too?

Exact crush depths are always classified, for the obvious reasons.

Purpose of Kilos and Ladas is to cover Black Sea, Baltic Sea, Mediterranean (from time to time) and SSBN bastions in White and Ohotsk Sea

These are all relatively small locations where limited range is not a problem

By doing this they free up nuclear sub fleet to focus strictly on oceans (Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic)

So yes, non-nuclear subs do count a lot and they do so as a method of enabling more efficient use of nuclear subs

That being said Russia should definitely kick SSN/SSGN construction in high gear because right now they are definitely not getting required numbers

I'm surprised that we're even having debates over the lack of range of SSK's, when they're primarily used for coastal defense where port fuel depots are located not so far away.

SSBN bastions

Makes me smile every time.

Bastions are 70s tactics because Soviet submarines were too loud to go in the mid Atlantic to launch their missiles. That's not an issue with Boreis anymore.

Not sure why the concept is not applicable now? Care to explain? It is still a very valid strategy for Russian's or Americans to hangout in various bastions where they are relatively in close distance to their other force components. Moving around may reduce the risk with respect to somethings but it may also increase the risk in other areas...they probably use both options now if noise was ever an issue at all.

That being said Russia should definitely kick SSN/SSGN construction in high gear because right now they are definitely not getting required numbers

Why?

What a waste of money to spend on SSNs and SSGNs... what number do you think they will need that will be enough to make the US back down and stop being ?

The defence of Russia from US carrier groups is via aircraft and land based and small ship based subsonic, supersonic, and hypersonic missiles... extra SSNs or SSGNs wont change that either way, but it will be bloody expensive to buy and to operate a much larger fleet of such vessels.

A CVN would be very very expensive too but at least it gives you global access to world markets via the ocean and protects the money invested in the surface fleet too... SSNs do not do that... well they can assist in defending a surface fleet, but would not be much good for defence... they are attack weapons... SSNs are called attack subs.

GarryB wrote:

That being said Russia should definitely kick SSN/SSGN construction in high gear because right now they are definitely not getting required numbers

Why?

What a waste of money to spend on SSNs and SSGNs... what number do you think they will need that will be enough to make the US back down and stop being ?

The defence of Russia from US carrier groups is via aircraft and land based and small ship based subsonic, supersonic, and hypersonic missiles... extra SSNs or SSGNs wont change that either way, but it will be bloody expensive to buy and to operate a much larger fleet of such vessels.

A CVN would be very very expensive too but at least it gives you global access to world markets via the ocean and protects the money invested in the surface fleet too... SSNs do not do that... well they can assist in defending a surface fleet, but would not be much good for defence... they are attack weapons... SSNs are called attack subs.

If building SSNs is waste of money then building CVNs is flushing money down the toilet and then pouring burning napalm after it

Besides​, Russian trade moves by land not by sea

Which means there is nothing to protect out there unless you are also of opinion that Russia should fight wars instead of usual Mideast and Latin American deadbeats who are too chickensh*t to do it themselves?

Papa, it is not a waste, how many instances do you have where a US carrier is sunk not considering WW2? It exists for reasons other than fighting the dooms day war....it serves its purpose and the debate goes on endlessly between good and bad goals that US achieves with it. You can not deny the reality....I am not denying that in a peer to peer war, it may come under threat but so does every other surface fleet. Think about like this....bullies can be taken out with one hit to their head but how many dare to take them on?

High speed of SSN allows them to escape more easily.

Using speed to escape is the dumbest thing a submarine captain could possibly do... high speed means noise and revealing your position... it also means pointing your propellers at the enemy... from the enemies perspective... they know where you are and can fire a torpedo at your propeller noise and it will catch you up and sink you and you wont hear it coming because of all the noise you are making and also because your sonar can't hear behind your propeller very well anyway...

Yasens make sense since they can pop up anywhere in the world and send 40 greeting to unsuspecting opponent. Russia has access to most of markets via land or Mediterranean too. only latin America is far. New Zealnd doesnt relly cound as we all know

The problem for Russia is that EU is a hostile market... the Med gives access to north africa, the rest of africa is a long way away, as is central and south america and asia...

Right now the NZ market is still western oriented and so not so lucrative for Russia... there is certainly potential for farm machinery exports, but western brands corner the market at the moment.

If building SSNs is waste of money then building CVNs is flushing money down the toilet and then pouring burning napalm after it

As a global entity with global reach, what exactly would SSNs add for Russia... apart from the ability to kill?

A carrier means surface ships can access most of the world... whether it is for trade or famine relief or humanitarian aide, or just training... when was the last time Russia sent some SSNs to train with an ally?

I am not saying don't have any, but the only time having lots of SSNs would be valuable is in WWIII fighting US and NATO forces, but we have already agreed that this is a pointless waste of money because that ends in a nil all draw anyway... fighter planes and tanks and ships will have little effect on the outcome.

Besides​, Russian trade moves by land not by sea

At the moment it does, but as Russia expands its trade partners and trade route options it will need to expand its navy to support that.

Which means there is nothing to protect out there unless you are also of opinion that Russia should fight wars instead of usual Mideast and Latin American deadbeats who are too chickensh*t to do it themselves?

But the Russia is also too chickenshit to fight NATO... but brave brave Serbia took them on... how did that go by the way... was it worth it?

They didn't really give you much choice but at least you had the sense to say when... unlike the US in Afghanistan or Syria...

Papa, it is not a waste, how many instances do you have where a US carrier is sunk not considering WW2?

How often has the US met an equal force in combat where their carriers are actually at risk?

That is like saying no B-2s have ever been shot down so they must be invincible... but they are not... nothing is.

The point however is that a group of ships operating with the proper air cover that an aircraft carrier provides is much safer and much more powerful and more capable than the same group of ships without air cover/power.

GarryB wrote:
How often has the US met an equal force in combat where their carriers are actually at risk?

That is like saying no B-2s have ever been shot down so they must be invincible... but they are not... nothing is.

The point however is that a group of ships operating with the proper air cover that an aircraft carrier provides is much safer and much more powerful and more capable than the same group of ships without air cover/power.

That is the point, the odds of them coming into direct conflict are not very high and hence the carriers pay themselves 100 times the money they cost by projecting our power (I am not going into moral or ethical aspects here) directly or indirectly. I did not deny their vulnerability but there have been proxy wars and carriers never came into any sorta threat. Taking down a carrier will mean global conflict and taking out Russian assets also carry the same risk. You have to agree our country excels at making money :-). Russia and USSR were more of defensive power and can fight back but smart countries/people do not go into wars they can't win unless their existence is on the line.

GarryB wrote:...But the Russia is also too chickenshit to fight NATO... but brave brave Serbia took them on... how did that go by the way... was it worth it?...

Went better than for anyone else who tried playing since days of 13 colonies save for maybe Vietnam but given the bodycount and fact that we don't procreate like rabbits I think we take the high score overall

And since original plan was for column of M1 Abrams' to ride into Belgrade and carve up this whole place among neighbouring countries I'd say it was definitely worth it

If you haven't noticed we are still in the game

As for others who played, well...

On the contrary....I believe in strong economy with proportionate muscle deterrent. Wars are for under-evolved, smart ones find other means. I just stated it as it is....there have been many super powers before and there will be many to come. Who am I kidding, nothing lasts forever things or people. OT perhaps...sorry I a bit too excited to respond as this is my first day joining the forum...I will take my chill pills.

southpark wrote:Papa, it is not a waste, how many instances do you have where a US carrier is sunk not considering WW2? It exists for reasons other than fighting the dooms day war....it serves its purpose and the debate goes on endlessly between good and bad goals that US achieves with it. You can not deny the reality....I am not denying that in a peer to peer war, it may come under threat but so does every other surface fleet. Think about like this....bullies can be taken out with one hit to their head but how many dare to take them on?

I am not saying it wouldn't be nice if they had CVN

Neither am I saying that they won't need or get some of them down the road

But at this point in time and immediate future they have way more important stuff to build and purchase so CVN can definitely wait because they simply don't need them now

A CVN is a war projection equipment. Russia needs a CVN simply to provide support to third nations we're they don't have a proper runway for Russian needs. So having a CVN is good in that account.

Traditional CVN's is something I do not see Russia investing in. If Vertical launch jets are what is being funded and developed, then chances are it will be pocket jump jet carriers, which are perfectly fine. Something we're they can have a squadron or two ready to fly jump jets on the coast of Venezuela or something is ideal. But as Papa said, they have higher priorities right now.