Project 949A: Oscar-II

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Isos wrote:

Peŕrier wrote:That's really strange.

They forgot to transfer four modernized 949A belonging to the Northern Fleet, despite the fact they have no chance to operate in the Atlantic.

They even went so far as assigning even the first 885, Severodvinsk, to the Northern Fleet instead of choosing the only viable option, it being the Pacific Fleet.

Or maybe they believe to be able to operate in the Atlantic as well?

There are reports that the Kursk was following US carrier in mediteranean during kosovo war and even was in position to lunch its missiles.

It is logic that they send the first Yasen in the north. It can target nato bases in UK.

No the sub would not have been positioning it's self to launch that can be seen as an act of aggression an would justify an attack on the submarine.

"We had a Russian sub built to attack AC's getting in launch position for it's missiles"

Yeah no, that's not how ROE work.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
No the sub would not have been positioning it's self to launch that can be seen as an act of aggression an would justify an attack on the submarine.

"We had a Russian sub built to attack AC's getting in launch position for it's missiles"

Yeah no, that's not how ROE work.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
No the sub would not have been positioning it's self to launch that can be seen as an act of aggression an would justify an attack on the submarine.

"We had a Russian sub built to attack AC's getting in launch position for it's missiles"

Yeah no, that's not how ROE work.

By positioning itself do you understand letting enemy know you are ready to fire?
As for Antey's Pacifistic Fleet makes more sense - this ability to send a barrage of kalibr's against CBGs.

Isos wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Isos wrote:

Peŕrier wrote:That's really strange.

They forgot to transfer four modernized 949A belonging to the Northern Fleet, despite the fact they have no chance to operate in the Atlantic.

They even went so far as assigning even the first 885, Severodvinsk, to the Northern Fleet instead of choosing the only viable option, it being the Pacific Fleet.

Or maybe they believe to be able to operate in the Atlantic as well?

There are reports that the Kursk was following US carrier in mediteranean during kosovo war and even was in position to lunch its missiles.

It is logic that they send the first Yasen in the north. It can target nato bases in UK.

No the sub would not have been positioning it's self to launch that can be seen as an act of aggression an would justify an attack on the submarine.

"We had a Russian sub built to attack AC's getting in launch position for it's missiles"

Yeah no, that's not how ROE work.

They always do that with airforce by simultating missile attack on carriers ...

The kursk wasn't even detected when it went through gibraltar by nato forces. Only when it put itself into position they detected it and send p-3 to track it. Another proof of how bad US navy actually is. They have hundreds of ships, thousands of sonars for SOSUS ... and yet they can't see the bigest submarine near their carrier.

You can find the story by yourself if you want to read it online.

What do you mean by the airforce? you mean when Russian planes buzz DD's? You know those planes aren't armed when they do this right? if they tried that with missiles or bombs on their wings they would be shot down.

The Kursk you mean the submarine that went down in 2000?.

I know what story you mean, first off the Russians where so incompetent back then, no one cared about them so little attention was paid to the kursk. They knew the submarine was there that part is a lie. That story was proven and shown to have many holes in it, this is why I take what news outlets say with a grain of salt.

no official from either the US or Russian ever stated the Kursk entered firing depth.

However, while that submarine was watching the six fleet it was never at any time told to get into firing depth and be on standby to attack the sixth fleet if it did that, the sixth fleet would have sunk it. The sixth fleet was in combat operations at that time and would have taken such a threat searious and reacted accordingly. since a submarine-like Oscar again will only get into firing position if it's going to fire.

Isos wrote:

What do you mean by the airforce? you mean when Russian planes buzz DD's? You know those planes aren't armed when they do this right? if they tried that with missiles or bombs on their wings they would be shot down.

The Kursk you mean the submarine that went down in 2000?.

I know what story you mean, first off the Russians where so incompetent back then, no one cared about them so little attention was paid to the kursk. They knew the submarine was there that part is a lie. That story was proven and shown to have many holes in it, this is why I take what news outlets say with a grain of salt.

no official from either the US or Russian ever stated the Kursk entered firing depth.

However, while that submarine was watching the six fleet it was never at any time told to get into firing depth and be on standby to attack the sixth fleet if it did that, the sixth fleet would have sunk it. The sixth fleet was in combat operations at that time and would have taken such a threat searious and reacted accordingly. since a submarine-like Oscar again will only get into firing position if it's going to fire.

No I mean real simulation of missiles attacks. This thing was just a show of force. Even during soviet times they lunched some Tupolev practice Attack against carriers.

They can fly with what they want under their fighters they won't be shot down just as they can put the oscar at firing depth and they won't do anything.

Another story to prove that US won't do anything is about Chinese ship that cut the towed sonar of a US destroy and took it to China. They did that agressively by manoeuvring behind the destroyer.

What are you talking about Chinese cut DD's sonar array while right behind it?. There was a Chinese sub that ran into one on accident. Provide a link because that sounds like made up BS.

Oh that's why whenever they do it the fighters aren't armed!

Oh really did they? and where did you get that information because that ain't true at all.

You should really be careful what you read on the web

Isos wrote:

What are you talking about Chinese cut DD's sonar array while right behind it?. There was a Chinese sub that ran into one on accident. Provide a link because that sounds like made up BS.

Oh that's why whenever they do it the fighters aren't armed!

Oh really did they? and where did you get that information because that ain't true at all.

You should really be careful what you read on the web

About the chinese story I just remember it. Maybe it was bulshit but I think it was a serious article. They also took one US submarine drone in front of the US ship.

You don't need missiles to practice missile attack. It is the detection, approch and communication with other fighter that matters. During the buzzing they did that : low lvl approch at high speed.

You have plenty of of videos showing su-27 heavily armed in the international space.

Tupolev keep missiles in weapons bay they can simulate lunch any time they want. US carriers were always apeoched by soviet bombers. You also have video of that.

True you don't need a missile to practice an attack BUT the Kursk was armed with missiles at the time, submarines do not leave port without weapons.

There is a difference between international space and flying over an American DD like they do at times with weapons.

Then I know what buzzing you mean and there was no American CV group during those times or Us ships, soviets were very careful not to risk things with us back then.

Isos wrote:

True you don't need a missile to practice an attack BUT the Kursk was armed with missiles at the time, submarines do not leave port without weapons.

There is a difference between international space and flying over an American DD like they do at times with weapons.

Then I know what buzzing you mean and there was no American CV group during those times or Us ships, soviets were very careful not to risk things with us back then.

Soviet SSN were always tracking and practicing against carriers when in operation. They go at whatever depth they want. From ouside the sub or bomber you don't know what they are doing. For US sailors they are just moving around. But for soviet or russian sailorq inside the sub they are practicing how to arm missile and torpedos and it all goes until the fire when the commander says stop.

What do you think they do when they sail ? Look for Nemo ?

There is no difference between international air space and abovr US ships. Soviet tupolev used to fly 100 m above the carriers. Lot of pictures of that too. You did nothing because it is not a poor defenceless country. That will always be like that. You know how to shot Lybian lonely mig 23 but when it comes to soviet or russian or chinese army you shut up like always.

There is also another good story about your fleet trying to impress India during the war against pakistan but they were stoped by Soviet cruiser and your ships left the area. Google that you will find it easily.

Isos wrote:https://www.google.fr/amp/s/swarajyamag.com/amp/story/world%252Fdecember-1971-when-the-us-sent-its-naval-ships-into-bay-of-bengal-and-ussr-responded


https://www.google.fr/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/us/politics/us-underwater-drone-china.amp.html

You can find by yourself the pictures of russian bombers near your carrier. Also during the buzzing of the arleigh burke su 24 were less than 100m ...

Yes you have destroyed more aircraft because you have attacked more poor countries than they did.

Yes they SSN use to train against US carriers. They activate torpedo at least they follow the procedure so that crews know what they have to do. They just don't lunch the torpedo. It is the same with ssbn. They always train to lunch their missiles by following the rules until the last minute when they have to push the red button.

A Russian naval task force from the Pacific Fleet based in Vladivostok, consisting of a cruiser, a destroyer and two attack submarines under the command of Admiral Vladimir Kruglyakov intercepted Task Force 74.Sebastien Roblin writes in War is Boring that Kruglyakov revealed in a Russian TV interview about “encircling” the task force, surfacing his submarines in front of the Enterprise, opening the missile tubes and “blocking” the American ships.
https://swarajyamag.com/world/december-1971-when-the-us-sent-its-naval-ships-into-bay-of-bengal-and-ussr-responded

A U.S. carrier group only came face-to-face with a Russian carrier task force during the Cold War once. During the tensions surrounding the Yom Kippur war, the presence of a “locally superior Russian force” resulted in the American ships having to reposition further west in the Mediterranean.
Soviet Adm. Sergei Gorchkov reportedly held the view that the U.S. had made a strategic miscalculation by relying on large and increasingly vulnerable aircraft carriers. The influential U.S. Adm. Hyman Rickover shared this view. In a 1982 congressional hearing, legislators asked him how long American carriers would survive in an actual war. Rickover’s response? “Forty-eight hours,” he said.
..In 2002, the U.S. Navy held a large simulated war game, the Millennium Challenge, to test scenarios of attacks on the fleet by a hypothetical Gulf state — Iraq or possibly Iran.
The leader of the red team employed brilliant asymmetric tactics resulting in 16 U.S. ships, including two supercarriers, going to the bottom in a very short span of time. The Navy stopped the war game, prohibited the red team from using these tactics and then reran the exercise declaring victory on the second day. ..
Ballistic missiles are just the most recent challenge to carrier vulnerability. “I would argue that you can put a ship out of action faster by putting a hole in the bottom [with a torpedo] than by putting a hole in the top [with a weapon like the DF-21],” former U.S. Naval Operations chief Gary Roughhead said.
This extends to diesel submarines. Although the number of simulated “sinkings” by ships of the Navy is officially unacknowledged, there are reports of around a dozen U.S. aircraft carriers being “sunk” in exercises with friendly countries including Canada, Denmark and Chile.
In 2005, the USS Ronald Reagan was “sunk” by the Gotland, an electric diesel sub that the U.S. Navy borrowed from Sweden between 2005 and 2007 and which was never detected in exercises by U.S. carrier groups during all that time.
Although it’s true that the Soviets and the Americans never faced off in an actual naval battle, there is every reason to believe that they would have had some success against the “invulnerable” carriers. As far back as 1968, a fast nuclear powered Russian submarine matched the Enterprise at top speed in the Pacific.
In 1995, Israeli Adm. Yedidia Ya’ri wrote in the 2005 Naval War College Review that the Russian SS-N-22 “Moskit” anti-ship missile “can probably penetrate any existing defense system, hard or soft-kill, especially when launched in salvos.”
In 2012, test of a slower and higher-flying surrogate of the Moskit missile demonstrated that “the Aegis system could not be relied on for effective defense of itself or the aircraft carriers it was escorting,” Winslow Wheeler of the Straus Military Reform Project noted.
One carrier, the USS Kitty Hawk, used up three of its nine lives having been run into by an undetected Soviet sub in 1984, overflown by two undetected Russian planes — an Su-24 and an Su-27 — in 2000, and surprised by a Chinese Song-class attack submarine that surfaced undetected inside its perimeter and within torpedo range in 2006.
In March of this year, the French Navy reported that it had sunk the USS Theodore Roosevelt and half of its escorts in a war game, but hurriedly removed that information from its website.
The world, of course, is not standing still. Missile ranges and speeds will increase. Missiles will become more elusive and accurate — and could be nuclear-tipped. Sensors will see further and more accurately, significantly reducing the fog of war. Surface ships, no matter where located, will be increasingly vulnerable.
Supercavitating torpedoes — such as the Russian Shkval — already travel at 200 knots and can track ships for more than 1,000 kilometers. Above the surface, supersonic anti-ship missiles that currently travel at Mach 2 will be replaced by hypersonic missiles that will travel at Mach 5, and Mach 10 and Mach 25.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-building-tons-of-supercarriers-79cb42029b8

Increased tension between Russia and the West attracts additional attention of Iceland to NATO leadership, since this country is an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" of the US and its military bloc in the northern part of the Atlantic Ocean, providing control over adjacent waters. ..today the Russian Federation "more than ever" can imperceptibly bring submarines to the coast of the United States. Calmness does not add to the alliance and the qualitative modernization of Russia's submarine fleet, which is inferior to the Soviet in size, but significantly ahead of its capabilities. NATO understands that additional forces and means are needed to track Russian submarines, but they are afraid of provoking Iceland's discontent once again. For this reason, the alliance's observer aircraft have to fly to the north of the Atlantic from Sicily.
In addition to the vulnerability of the US coasts, NATO is concerned about the fate of transatlantic cables that provide America's connection with Europe, transferring 99% of all data, stresses NZZ. The alliance fears that Russian submarines can cut off these communications and deprive NATO members of communications, some of which pass directly through Iceland.
Let's note, the president of Russia Vladimir Putin considers NATO strategy "offensive and aggressive", especially concerning creation of a rocket infrastructure in Europe. The very fact of the existence of an alliance that was created to counteract the socialist bloc, after its disintegration, causes Moscow many questions.
https://rueconomics.ru/vse-novosti#from_copy

Isos wrote:Oscars are already pretty old and almost outdated..

KiloGolf wrote:

Isos wrote:Oscars are already pretty old and almost outdated..

Oscar II is the best, active class of SSGNs in the world.

Isos wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Isos wrote:Oscars are already pretty old and almost outdated..

Oscar II is the best, active class of SSGNs in the world.

Doesn't change the fact that they are old and a modernization can't give them a new life, only add some years of service compare to the 40 or 50 years that a new sub has.

Their missiles are also outdated for attacking carriers.

Well, they have more than a few years left, since from 1991 till present most didn't go on long patrols. Their Granits r as deadly as they were 20 years ago, what make u think they r outdated? After Zircons & other AShMs r inducted, they can still be used as LACMs.

They can level a small country and deal with most navies in Europe, Middle East and Far East. If they need upgrading, so be it, go for it. To replace them early (i.e. in 5 or 10 years) is a waste of resources and already paid for platforms.

Isos wrote:
That's not their role. Against a small country buyan M proved to be very good.

That's the thing. If you upgrade them you will spend money on upgrade and on buyong new subs in ten years.

It's better to buy new subs now so that you save money from upgrading old ships and you have ten or 15 new ships with state of art technology and modular architecture by sharing design of husky class. So the price falls and you can even build husky SSN sooner and for cheaper because Husky SSGN would have resolved issues of the design.

Isos wrote:.......

That's the thing. If you upgrade them you will spend money on upgrade and on buyong new subs in ten years.

It's better to buy new subs now so that you save money from upgrading old ships and you have ten or 15 new ships with state of art technology and modular architecture by sharing design of husky class. So the price falls and you can even build husky SSN sooner and for cheaper because Husky SSGN would have resolved issues of the design.