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.

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

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

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.

Hole wrote:Kilos can go down to 300m. Just like Los Angeles or Virginia. And below the surface you can shit on seaworthiness because there won´t be much waves.

A sub fight would take place with a speed around 10kn because otherwise you would give away your position. At that speed a Kilo/Lada is much quieter than a LA or Virginia. Also they use standard torpedo tubes which means they can use the same weapons as a SSN.

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?

SSBN bastions

southpark wrote: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.

GarryB wrote:
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.