5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine

Hole wrote:Komsomolets is no more.

GunshipDude wrote and Hole skipped wrote:BTW lost unfortunately

Komsomolets (Fin class)

Big_Gazza wrote:Don't forget the Proj 954 & 954A Sierra/Barracuda-Condor. Their maximum depth was at least 600m.

PapaDragon wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:Don't forget the Proj 954 & 954A Sierra/Barracuda-Condor.  Their maximum depth was at least 600m.  

So is for Yasen

Just buld more of those in the 5 year gap until they switch to Husky

kumbor wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:Don't forget the Proj 954 & 954A Sierra/Barracuda-Condor.  Their maximum depth was at least 600m.  

So is for Yasen

Just buld more of those in the 5 year gap until they switch to Husky

For increase in diving depth you need new hull materials, e.g. Titanium. Russians gave up building of new subs with Ti hulls, as the increase in cost was immense. However, Ti hulls are not prone to corrosion, so they have practically unlimited lifespan.
Newest AS torpedoes have increased depth of action, down to 1000m, but depth affects speed and manoeuvrability.

Russian subs are well known for their increased diving depth, compared to western subs. But, you must know how to use benefits of deep diving and hydroacoustic parameters of the layers of seawater.
Also, we must know the difference between maximum working depth, maximum permissible depth in war and crushing depth. These are different things! Security factor should be no less than 1,5 between maximum operational depth and crushing depth.

kumbor wrote:
Newest AS torpedoes have increased depth of action, down to 1000m, but depth affects speed and manoeuvrability.

Singular_Transform wrote:

kumbor wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:Don't forget the Proj 954 & 954A Sierra/Barracuda-Condor.  Their maximum depth was at least 600m.  

So is for Yasen

Just buld more of those in the 5 year gap until they switch to Husky

For increase in diving depth you need new hull materials, e.g. Titanium. Russians gave up building of new subs with Ti hulls, as the increase in cost was immense. However, Ti hulls are not prone to corrosion, so they have practically unlimited lifespan.
Newest AS torpedoes have increased depth of action, down to 1000m, but depth affects speed and manoeuvrability.

Russian subs are well known for their increased diving depth, compared to western subs. But, you must know how to use benefits of deep diving and hydroacoustic parameters of the layers of seawater.
Also, we must know the difference between maximum working depth, maximum permissible depth in war and crushing depth. These are different things! Security factor should be no less than 1,5 between maximum operational depth and crushing depth.

Why?
The cheapest steel has a strength of 140 N/mm^2, it translate to 14000 meter deep.

Means only the wall thickness is the upper limit.

But that is the reason why the CCCP/RuN use double hull construction.

Big_Gazza wrote:

There is more involved in making a submarine able to operate in deep water than simply hull thickness. All wetted systems need to be operable at such pressures, all piping systems need to be up-rated, all inter-compartmental  transits for electrical, piping, air, instruments, services need to be fully rated for max working depth, ballast systems need sufficient air pressure to be able to operate against worst case hydrostatic ambient (you cannot push water from your ballast tanks if your air receiver pressure is less than the environment).  

All things considered, the building of large subs capable of operating at 600m+ depths is VERY difficult and expensive, and that's why so few nations attempt it.

owais.usmani wrote:https://twitter.com/KomissarWhipla/status/1209396166372265984

Dmitry Stefanovich
@KomissarWhipla
Looks like Husky 5th gen nuclear sub will be SLBM capable, according to briefs dedtributed at Federation Council event on shipbuilding.

Well based on their use of multirole systems in their surface ships it might be that for their 5th gen they can replace big huge heavy SLBMs of 2m diameter and 30-50 tons in weight with a nuclear ramjet powered cruise missile sized weapon with unlimited range that might be 2 or 3 tons each... so every sub could have 4-6 strategic missiles that could be launched from anywhere on the planet as part of their nuclear deterrent, while being SSGNs or SSNs all at the same time.

In terms of size and shape these strategic missiles will have a tiny foot print effect on the design and could even potentially be loaded on to SSKs as well... meaning to defeat their nuclear response they will need to sink all their subs before they get the order to launch...

Should be a lot cheaper too... having one design doing all the jobs...

Hole wrote:Dima means a MRBM for attacking targets inside Europe or Asia. In this case no need for a Borei to waste her costly intercontinental range missiles.

Back in the 80´s Russia used some old Golf class subs for that purpose. They were based in the Baltic Sea.

Interesting

So they are going back to original concept for the Husky

Most likely all boats will share frontal and propulsion segment while central one will be optional and selected based on class requirement for each boat

Hole wrote:Dima means a MRBM for attacking targets inside Europe or Asia. In this case no need for a Borei to waste her costly intercontinental range missiles.

Back in the 80´s Russia used some old Golf class subs for that purpose. They were based in the Baltic Sea.

Isos wrote:They won't put SLBM inside a SSN/SSGN. Strategic subs are not going anywhere near danger. Also that would also make the sub f*cking expensive.

Also they have 10 boreis on order so they will carry the nuclear deterence. Husky won't replace them for the next 20-25 years and they won't order more than 12-14 SSBN.

It's most likely a variant of husky with SLBM to follow on Boreis in 2030.