I'd like nothing more than the Husky (or at least some of them) to be provided with a modernised version of the OK-550/BM-40A reactors of the Pr 705 Lira/Alfa SSNs. IMHO its a technology that needs to be revisited.
+32
franco
Scorpius
AMCXXL
lancelot
AlfaT8
x_54_u43
mnztr
hoom
kvs
JohninMK
Azi
Dima
owais.usmani
Isos
kumbor
Big_Gazza
Hole
Singular_Transform
KomissarBojanchev
GunshipDemocracy
Tsavo Lion
PapaDragon
TheArmenian
miketheterrible
dino00
Eduardo
GarryB
verkhoturye51
Cyberspec
SeigSoloyvov
Austin
George1
36 posters
5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
Big_Gazza- Posts : 4349
Points : 4341
Join date : 2014-08-25
Location : Melbourne, Australia
- Post n°151
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
Given that lead-bismuth eutectic melts at 123.5 deg C, i don't see why the reactor cannot be equipped with a heat tracing system to restart it after a shutdown (eg for maintenance purposes). Something like a hot-oil system where the reactor has a externally-fed re-heat exchanger and small-bore tubing is welded to the coolant lines and where an external hot-oil supply system provides the heated oil media at 200-250 deg C. Its well-established technology for temperature maintenance in bitumen/asphalt storage and handling systems.
I'd like nothing more than the Husky (or at least some of them) to be provided with a modernised version of the OK-550/BM-40A reactors of the Pr 705 Lira/Alfa SSNs. IMHO its a technology that needs to be revisited.
I'd like nothing more than the Husky (or at least some of them) to be provided with a modernised version of the OK-550/BM-40A reactors of the Pr 705 Lira/Alfa SSNs. IMHO its a technology that needs to be revisited.
GarryB likes this post
kvs- Posts : 14494
Points : 14633
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
- Post n°152
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
Big_Gazza wrote:Given that lead-bismuth eutectic melts at 123.5 deg C, i don't see why the reactor cannot be equipped with a heat tracing system to restart it after a shutdown (eg for maintenance purposes). Something like a hot-oil system where the reactor has a externally-fed re-heat exchanger and small-bore tubing is welded to the coolant lines and where an external hot-oil supply system provides the heated oil media at 200-250 deg C. Its well-established technology for temperature maintenance in bitumen/asphalt storage and handling systems.
I'd like nothing more than the Husky (or at least some of them) to be provided with a modernised version of the OK-550/BM-40A reactors of the Pr 705 Lira/Alfa SSNs. IMHO its a technology that needs to be revisited.
All the arguments against the lead-bismuth coolant are BS and engineered to make excuses for the criminal scrapping of the Lira. The scrapping
of the Lira was obvious brown nosing by Gorbie and Yeltsin to their new bosses in Washington. Washington refused to believe such tech
was possible and naturally demanded it scrapping as tribute of submission.
123.5C remelting of lead-bismuth is a joke considering the low heat capacity involved compared to water. Supposedly, if the coolant froze
it would reduce the war readiness of the submarine. They can re-design the reactor to operate in an "idle" mode to keep the coolant liquid
without any more bitching about it being such a terminal pain.
x_54_u43- Posts : 336
Points : 348
Join date : 2015-09-19
- Post n°153
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
Big_Gazza wrote:Given that lead-bismuth eutectic melts at 123.5 deg C, i don't see why the reactor cannot be equipped with a heat tracing system to restart it after a shutdown (eg for maintenance purposes). Something like a hot-oil system where the reactor has a externally-fed re-heat exchanger and small-bore tubing is welded to the coolant lines and where an external hot-oil supply system provides the heated oil media at 200-250 deg C. Its well-established technology for temperature maintenance in bitumen/asphalt storage and handling systems.
I'd like nothing more than the Husky (or at least some of them) to be provided with a modernised version of the OK-550/BM-40A reactors of the Pr 705 Lira/Alfa SSNs. IMHO its a technology that needs to be revisited.
I heard rumors on balancers(russian speaking defense forum with a lot of insiders), that there were experiments on shutting down and then reheating/restarting the reactor from a cold state and that there was indeed success, however, the class itself was generally not very viable anymore. The reactor tech itself I believe very much is, as you can get a far smaller reactor for the same power, which is always incredibly useful for a submarine.
This was supposed to be a "AWACS" type submarine for the interceptor class(Lira/Alfa), this idea is quite worth revisiting in my opinion with more up to date sonar/non-sonar detection methods and combined with underwater unmanned platforms.

GarryB likes this post
mnztr- Posts : 2448
Points : 2486
Join date : 2018-01-21
- Post n°154
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
I find it had to belive the Russians would not continue to develop such earth shattering tech as the liquid metal reactor. It should actually be much quieter and safer then a pressureised water reactor that operates under massive pressure and if you are gonna get blasted with super heated steam or molten lead its no real difference. The main diff is the pressures are much lower, the amount of heat transfer per cc of liquid metal is MUCH higher so you can pump much less. Leaks are self fixing. On shutdown you can just let the metal drain into a sump which is electrically heated. I suspect the nuke cruise missile or doomsday torpedo may have one.
x_54_u43- Posts : 336
Points : 348
Join date : 2015-09-19
- Post n°155
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
I think the main issue was with the fuel assemblies being in the liquid metal itself which likely posed significant issues with the control arms.
mnztr- Posts : 2448
Points : 2486
Join date : 2018-01-21
- Post n°156
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
x_54_u43 wrote:I think the main issue was with the fuel assemblies being in the liquid metal itself which likely posed significant issues with the control arms.
By all accounts the reactors were quite reliable in operations, its only the shut down, start up cycle that caused logistical headaches.
mnztr- Posts : 2448
Points : 2486
Join date : 2018-01-21
- Post n°157
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
Is it true the first Huskey class will be the SSBN variant?
PapaDragon- Posts : 13092
Points : 13138
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
- Post n°158
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
mnztr wrote:Is it true the first Huskey class will be the SSBN variant?
Nope
AlfaT8- Posts : 2432
Points : 2425
Join date : 2013-02-02
- Post n°159
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
mnztr wrote:Is it true the first Huskey class will be the SSBN variant?
What??... why?
The Borei's already fulfills that role, if anything Russia needs some SSGN variants.
Isos- Posts : 11001
Points : 10981
Join date : 2015-11-06
- Post n°160
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
AlfaT8 wrote:mnztr wrote:Is it true the first Huskey class will be the SSBN variant?
What??... why?
The Borei's already fulfills that role, if anything Russia needs some SSGN variants.
That's the Yasen's role.
Husky will be a SSN to fight other subs.
PapaDragon- Posts : 13092
Points : 13138
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
- Post n°161
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
Isos wrote:AlfaT8 wrote:mnztr wrote:Is it true the first Huskey class will be the SSBN variant?
What??... why?
The Borei's already fulfills that role, if anything Russia needs some SSGN variants.
That's the Yasen's role.
Husky will be a SSN to fight other subs.
Yasen is SSGN
Borei is SSBN
mnztr- Posts : 2448
Points : 2486
Join date : 2018-01-21
- Post n°162
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
PapaDragon wrote:Isos wrote:AlfaT8 wrote:mnztr wrote:Is it true the first Huskey class will be the SSBN variant?
What??... why?
The Borei's already fulfills that role, if anything Russia needs some SSGN variants.
That's the Yasen's role.
Husky will be a SSN to fight other subs.
Yasen is SSGN
Borei is SSBN
The plan is for Husky to be the basis for all classis just like the Columbia class will be based on the Virginia class. Considering the first Huskey will emerge after a bunch of Borei AND Yassens have been laid down it makes sense it will be an SSN, unless they have decided that purebred SSNs are not really worth building any more as an SSGN can do that and a while lot more. In fact anything is possible
PapaDragon- Posts : 13092
Points : 13138
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
- Post n°163
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
mnztr wrote:.....
The plan is for Husky to be the basis for all classis just like the Columbia class will be based on the Virginia class.
Columbia will not be based on Virginia, they abandoned that approach in favor of completely new design
owais.usmani likes this post
Podlodka77- Posts : 2427
Points : 2429
Join date : 2022-01-06
Location : Z
- Post n°164
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
"Laika-VMF": pause
Navykorabel.ru
The fact that Russia is designing nuclear submarines of the 5th generation, as far as the author knows, was first reported by Commander-in-Chief of the Navy V. Chirkov in March 2015. Later, what was said was veiledly confirmed in the annual report of the SPMBM "Malahit" for the same year - as "the implementation of research to justify the appearance of a promising order for a new project, indicated in the" Long-term program of military shipbuilding until 2050 ".
In August 2016, Malachite General Director V. Dorofeev announced the conclusion of a state contract for the development of a new generation multi-purpose submarine , and in April 2018, the completion of its preliminary project in the previous month. According to the annual report of the SPMBM for 2019, during the reporting period, the research work "Huska" and "Huska-Malachite" (that's right - "Huska", not "Husky", as some media write) was completed to ensure the creation of ships of the 5th generation .
In addition, based on the results of the research work, a state contract was concluded for the implementation of the Laika-VMF R&D. As part of the named R&D, as stated in the report for 2020, the bureau developed a draft design of a new submarine (link 6, p. 6). The report for 2021 was not published, however, in mid-2022, the fate of the project became clear.

Simplified scheme of a multi-purpose submarine (APKR) pr. Laika (Marine collection, No. 7/2022)
In the journal "Sea Collection" No. 7 for 2022, an article by Commander-in-Chief of the Navy N. Evmenov "Operational and tactical requirements for fifth-generation submarines" was published, which states that in Russia "scientific and technical groundwork for promising submarines began to form during the development of the preliminary project of the multi-purpose submarine of the "Laika" project. The project provides for an increase in strike capabilities relative to the 4th generation submarine of the Yasen-M project, while maintaining optimal dimensions and improving driving characteristics. This will allow the use of submarines in various environmental conditions and in all areas of the World Ocean .
It is assumed that the submarine will have increased self-defense capabilities, low noise level, be the carrier of advanced weapons systems, including various RTK, PTZ and GPA, which will significantly increase its combat stability. [NB] The technical proposals and studies received as a result of the preliminary project showed high risks of project implementation, which did not allow moving on to the creation of a new generation ship on time, so it was decided to postpone the start of technical design to the next program period"
Commenting on the above quote, in addition to deciphering some abbreviations (RTK - robotic complex, PTZ - anti-torpedo protection, GPA - hydroacoustic countermeasures), it is necessary to clarify the preliminary project and the program period. According to the regulatory documents, the preliminary project (like R&D) precedes the R&D, on its basis the TTZ for the R&D is developed (in other words, it is done in order to justify the possibility of implementing the requirements of the TTZ in the future). R&D, in turn, begins with a draft design, then comes a technical design, a working design (RKD), the construction of the lead ship (which is a prototype of the VT product), its state tests and, finally, the approval of the RKD for serial construction (with the assignment of the letter "O1"). Since the reports of "Malachite" include a state contract for R & D with the code "Laika-VMF" and the development of a preliminary design, the "high risks" that the commander-in-chief writes about were revealed not as a result of the preliminary project, but in the process of preliminary design. It can be assumed that some additional research was required to ensure the development work of Laika-VMF or its components, or it was decided to make changes to the TTZ and re-develop several versions of the draft design, which is generally a common thing.
It is easy to guess that the "next program period" in the article under consideration means the next state armaments program, which should replace the current SAP 2018-2027. According to the rules, the SAP should be developed for 10 years and revised after half of its validity period, i.e. after 5 years. In practice, however, this rule was almost never followed. Thus, the SAP 2011-2020 was to be restarted in 2016, but for a number of reasons (mainly due to the events of 2014 - the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis, the fall in hydrocarbon prices and the instability of the national currency) this happened two years later.
Prior to the start of the SMO, it was planned to adopt a new state armament program next year for the period 2024-2033. . Now no one can guarantee that its start will not shift to the right, which is primarily due to the need to review the needs of the Armed Forces in weapons and military equipment, taking into account a detailed understanding of the experience of military operations in Ukraine. Let's hope that the hypothetical shift in the timing of the SAP will be minimal (one, maximum two years), and the development of a technical project for a 5th generation nuclear submarine cruiser will begin no later than 2025-2026.
However, we don't need to be in a hurry. 885M ("Yasen-M") is an excellent project, which, among other things, is evidenced by at least the fact that in the process of evolution of the Virginia on the Block V modification, the Americans came to an identical surface displacement and the location of most of the missile weapons, in other words - took our boat as a role model. By and large, we can build "Yasen" for a very long time, making minor changes (improvements) to the project and gradually bringing the number of nuclear multi-purpose submarine forces of the Russian Navy to an acceptable level (say, 2x6 submarines in the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet), and when the time comes, we will begin to smoothly replace them on the slipways and in the fleets with "Laikas". In conclusion, a few words about the performance characteristics of the latter. According to the available data (see photo at the end of the post), with a displacement of 11340 tons (I'm sure it's underwater), their Dboost will be the same as that of the 885M (according to the author - 9200 tons), the speed will be higher (35 vs 31 knots) . The diagram from the "Naval Collection" behind the OVU probably shows 2x5 UVP, which equalizes their missile ammunition with the "Virginia" mod. V (40 missiles). Compared to Yasen, the number of TAs or torpedo tubes is less (2x3 versus 2x5), but in front of the OVU there is something similar to the UVP for anti-torpedoes, GPA and RTK devices (*)
The scheme given in the "Sea Collection" is not clear, so some things can only be guessed at. So, the number of UVP for attack missiles behind the OVU (cutting fence) can be from 2x4, if you count on the top, to 2x5, if you count on the bottom. An increase in the ammunition load of one UVP from 4 to 5 missiles is hardly possible, and since the commander-in-chief writes about an increase in the strike capabilities of the anti-aircraft missile system, it is reasonable to assume that the number of UVPs will be increased from 8 to 10. In addition, the author has no information about technical solutions related with the placement of anti-torpedoes, GPA and RTK devices in vertical launchers located inside the pressure hull.
However, for the first two types of products, such a launch method (it doesn’t matter, up or down) has the same obvious advantage as SAMs - the ability to turn towards the attacking weapon (in our case, torpedoes), which distinguishes it favorably from on-board deployment Launcher inside or outside the PC when the starboard launcher cannot be used to repel an attack from the port side and vice versa. With the length of the UVP close to the diameter of the PC, in each launch shaft (pipe) it will be possible to place several ammunition with self-exit or with a pneumatic or hydromechanical launch system (as, for example, in the German IDAS boat missiles).
https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/292492.html
Navykorabel.ru
The fact that Russia is designing nuclear submarines of the 5th generation, as far as the author knows, was first reported by Commander-in-Chief of the Navy V. Chirkov in March 2015. Later, what was said was veiledly confirmed in the annual report of the SPMBM "Malahit" for the same year - as "the implementation of research to justify the appearance of a promising order for a new project, indicated in the" Long-term program of military shipbuilding until 2050 ".
In August 2016, Malachite General Director V. Dorofeev announced the conclusion of a state contract for the development of a new generation multi-purpose submarine , and in April 2018, the completion of its preliminary project in the previous month. According to the annual report of the SPMBM for 2019, during the reporting period, the research work "Huska" and "Huska-Malachite" (that's right - "Huska", not "Husky", as some media write) was completed to ensure the creation of ships of the 5th generation .
In addition, based on the results of the research work, a state contract was concluded for the implementation of the Laika-VMF R&D. As part of the named R&D, as stated in the report for 2020, the bureau developed a draft design of a new submarine (link 6, p. 6). The report for 2021 was not published, however, in mid-2022, the fate of the project became clear.

Simplified scheme of a multi-purpose submarine (APKR) pr. Laika (Marine collection, No. 7/2022)
In the journal "Sea Collection" No. 7 for 2022, an article by Commander-in-Chief of the Navy N. Evmenov "Operational and tactical requirements for fifth-generation submarines" was published, which states that in Russia "scientific and technical groundwork for promising submarines began to form during the development of the preliminary project of the multi-purpose submarine of the "Laika" project. The project provides for an increase in strike capabilities relative to the 4th generation submarine of the Yasen-M project, while maintaining optimal dimensions and improving driving characteristics. This will allow the use of submarines in various environmental conditions and in all areas of the World Ocean .
It is assumed that the submarine will have increased self-defense capabilities, low noise level, be the carrier of advanced weapons systems, including various RTK, PTZ and GPA, which will significantly increase its combat stability. [NB] The technical proposals and studies received as a result of the preliminary project showed high risks of project implementation, which did not allow moving on to the creation of a new generation ship on time, so it was decided to postpone the start of technical design to the next program period"
Commenting on the above quote, in addition to deciphering some abbreviations (RTK - robotic complex, PTZ - anti-torpedo protection, GPA - hydroacoustic countermeasures), it is necessary to clarify the preliminary project and the program period. According to the regulatory documents, the preliminary project (like R&D) precedes the R&D, on its basis the TTZ for the R&D is developed (in other words, it is done in order to justify the possibility of implementing the requirements of the TTZ in the future). R&D, in turn, begins with a draft design, then comes a technical design, a working design (RKD), the construction of the lead ship (which is a prototype of the VT product), its state tests and, finally, the approval of the RKD for serial construction (with the assignment of the letter "O1"). Since the reports of "Malachite" include a state contract for R & D with the code "Laika-VMF" and the development of a preliminary design, the "high risks" that the commander-in-chief writes about were revealed not as a result of the preliminary project, but in the process of preliminary design. It can be assumed that some additional research was required to ensure the development work of Laika-VMF or its components, or it was decided to make changes to the TTZ and re-develop several versions of the draft design, which is generally a common thing.
It is easy to guess that the "next program period" in the article under consideration means the next state armaments program, which should replace the current SAP 2018-2027. According to the rules, the SAP should be developed for 10 years and revised after half of its validity period, i.e. after 5 years. In practice, however, this rule was almost never followed. Thus, the SAP 2011-2020 was to be restarted in 2016, but for a number of reasons (mainly due to the events of 2014 - the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis, the fall in hydrocarbon prices and the instability of the national currency) this happened two years later.
Prior to the start of the SMO, it was planned to adopt a new state armament program next year for the period 2024-2033. . Now no one can guarantee that its start will not shift to the right, which is primarily due to the need to review the needs of the Armed Forces in weapons and military equipment, taking into account a detailed understanding of the experience of military operations in Ukraine. Let's hope that the hypothetical shift in the timing of the SAP will be minimal (one, maximum two years), and the development of a technical project for a 5th generation nuclear submarine cruiser will begin no later than 2025-2026.
However, we don't need to be in a hurry. 885M ("Yasen-M") is an excellent project, which, among other things, is evidenced by at least the fact that in the process of evolution of the Virginia on the Block V modification, the Americans came to an identical surface displacement and the location of most of the missile weapons, in other words - took our boat as a role model. By and large, we can build "Yasen" for a very long time, making minor changes (improvements) to the project and gradually bringing the number of nuclear multi-purpose submarine forces of the Russian Navy to an acceptable level (say, 2x6 submarines in the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet), and when the time comes, we will begin to smoothly replace them on the slipways and in the fleets with "Laikas". In conclusion, a few words about the performance characteristics of the latter. According to the available data (see photo at the end of the post), with a displacement of 11340 tons (I'm sure it's underwater), their Dboost will be the same as that of the 885M (according to the author - 9200 tons), the speed will be higher (35 vs 31 knots) . The diagram from the "Naval Collection" behind the OVU probably shows 2x5 UVP, which equalizes their missile ammunition with the "Virginia" mod. V (40 missiles). Compared to Yasen, the number of TAs or torpedo tubes is less (2x3 versus 2x5), but in front of the OVU there is something similar to the UVP for anti-torpedoes, GPA and RTK devices (*)
The scheme given in the "Sea Collection" is not clear, so some things can only be guessed at. So, the number of UVP for attack missiles behind the OVU (cutting fence) can be from 2x4, if you count on the top, to 2x5, if you count on the bottom. An increase in the ammunition load of one UVP from 4 to 5 missiles is hardly possible, and since the commander-in-chief writes about an increase in the strike capabilities of the anti-aircraft missile system, it is reasonable to assume that the number of UVPs will be increased from 8 to 10. In addition, the author has no information about technical solutions related with the placement of anti-torpedoes, GPA and RTK devices in vertical launchers located inside the pressure hull.
However, for the first two types of products, such a launch method (it doesn’t matter, up or down) has the same obvious advantage as SAMs - the ability to turn towards the attacking weapon (in our case, torpedoes), which distinguishes it favorably from on-board deployment Launcher inside or outside the PC when the starboard launcher cannot be used to repel an attack from the port side and vice versa. With the length of the UVP close to the diameter of the PC, in each launch shaft (pipe) it will be possible to place several ammunition with self-exit or with a pneumatic or hydromechanical launch system (as, for example, in the German IDAS boat missiles).
https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/292492.html
GarryB, Big_Gazza and AMCXXL like this post
lancelot- Posts : 2050
Points : 2048
Join date : 2020-10-18
- Post n°165
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
I think it is pretty obvious that construction of the Laika will start sooner rather than later. The retooling of Sevmash is probably complete at this point. I expect the first submarine to start construction over the next year or two. New facilities to build large structures out of titanium, plus large composite material structures are now available. None of the present submarine projects use any of this. So would they invest significant resources into something they would not be expected to use?
GarryB and Big_Gazza like this post
Podlodka77- Posts : 2427
Points : 2429
Join date : 2022-01-06
Location : Z
- Post n°166
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
As far as we know, the Russians have announced that they are planning to build two more project 955A submarines and two more project 885M submarines.
Whether that will happen remains to be seen, especially for the 885M submarines.
As for the successor to the 885М submarines, it may be as you write, and it may be that we will have to wait a few more years.
Currently, in the halls of Sevmash, you have ten submarines under construction and they are; 5 submarines of project 885M, one 09851 and another 4 submarines of project 955A.
The BIGGEST number of simultaneously built submarines inside the Sevmash hall was 12, and the total largest number was 14, but those two submarines had already been launched. So it's a matter of capacity.
In this table you have two numbers under a certain year, for example under 2019 it says 14/12, that is 14 submarines in total under construction and 12 under construction in the factory halls...

So, my opinion is that if they decide to build 2 more submarines of project 955A and two more of project 885M, then the keels for project 545A will not be laid for a few more years. And there is the factor of submarines of project 09853, which will also be built..
This is a chart from 2018 and as far as I can see the entry year assumption for the 955A submarines turned out to be correct while for the 885M submarines.....they are late and by a lot..
And since it is 2018, the Voronezh and Vladivostok submarines whose keels were laid in 2020 are not in the table. Therefore, the blogger's assumption was not correct since he assumed in 2018 that the construction of 885M submarines would not continue.
Whether that will happen remains to be seen, especially for the 885M submarines.
As for the successor to the 885М submarines, it may be as you write, and it may be that we will have to wait a few more years.
Currently, in the halls of Sevmash, you have ten submarines under construction and they are; 5 submarines of project 885M, one 09851 and another 4 submarines of project 955A.
The BIGGEST number of simultaneously built submarines inside the Sevmash hall was 12, and the total largest number was 14, but those two submarines had already been launched. So it's a matter of capacity.
In this table you have two numbers under a certain year, for example under 2019 it says 14/12, that is 14 submarines in total under construction and 12 under construction in the factory halls...

So, my opinion is that if they decide to build 2 more submarines of project 955A and two more of project 885M, then the keels for project 545A will not be laid for a few more years. And there is the factor of submarines of project 09853, which will also be built..
This is a chart from 2018 and as far as I can see the entry year assumption for the 955A submarines turned out to be correct while for the 885M submarines.....they are late and by a lot..
And since it is 2018, the Voronezh and Vladivostok submarines whose keels were laid in 2020 are not in the table. Therefore, the blogger's assumption was not correct since he assumed in 2018 that the construction of 885M submarines would not continue.
GarryB- Posts : 37245
Points : 37761
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°167
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
As far as we know, the Russians have announced that they are planning to build two more project 955A submarines and two more project 885M submarines.
Whether that will happen remains to be seen, especially for the 885M submarines.
If they are going to lay down two more of each then now would be a good time to start the new design... it is going to take a while to build and tested so the sooner they get started the sooner it will arrive.
I wonder if it will be all electric drive... that might also be what is delaying the new Destroyers and Cruisers...
AMCXXL- Posts : 896
Points : 896
Join date : 2017-08-08
- Post n°168
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
Podlodka77 wrote:As far as we know, the Russians have announced that they are planning to build two more project 955A submarines and two more project 885M submarines.
So, my opinion is that if they decide to build 2 more submarines of project 955A and two more of project 885M, then the keels for project 545A will not be laid for a few more years. And there is the factor of submarines of project 09853, which will also be built..
This is a chart from 2018 and as far as I can see the entry year assumption for the 955A submarines turned out to be correct while for the 885M submarines.....they are late and by a lot..
this is old and only the opinion of the author
It does not seem that they are going to build more than 12 Borey's
And on the Yasen, maybe there will be 10 or at most another 12, although the Ulyanovsk is for the Poseidon system and surely another one will be made based on the 885M to reach 4 units.
If the 11th and 12th Borey's are started in 2023-2024, the Husky's could be started as early as 2025-2026 and surely the construction time will take less time.
Scorpius- Posts : 1258
Points : 1256
Join date : 2020-11-06
Age : 35
- Post n°169
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
AMCXXL wrote:Podlodka77 wrote:As far as we know, the Russians have announced that they are planning to build two more project 955A submarines and two more project 885M submarines.
So, my opinion is that if they decide to build 2 more submarines of project 955A and two more of project 885M, then the keels for project 545A will not be laid for a few more years. And there is the factor of submarines of project 09853, which will also be built..
This is a chart from 2018 and as far as I can see the entry year assumption for the 955A submarines turned out to be correct while for the 885M submarines.....they are late and by a lot..
this is old and only the opinion of the author
It does not seem that they are going to build more than 12 Borey's
And on the Yasen, maybe there will be 10 or at most another 12, although the Ulyanovsk is for the Poseidon system and surely another one will be made based on the 885M to reach 4 units.
If the 11th and 12th Borey's are started in 2023-2024, the Husky's could be started as early as 2025-2026 and surely the construction time will take less time.
I think that the main link here should be to the State Armament Program as a program document, according to which such things are financed. So at present, I think, the construction of new nuclear submarines will be transferred to the GPV-2035 or later.
owais.usmani likes this post
Podlodka77- Posts : 2427
Points : 2429
Join date : 2022-01-06
Location : Z
- Post n°170
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
The next GPV is GPV 2024-2033. Waiting for 2033-20XX for the next GPV to include the construction of a new class submarine is too late UNLESS construction of the existing 885M submarines continues.
Russia needs a replacement for Project 971 submarines.
With the exception of the "Gepard" submarine, all the others are 28+ years old, which is a lot.
Russia needs a replacement for Project 971 submarines.
With the exception of the "Gepard" submarine, all the others are 28+ years old, which is a lot.
GarryB- Posts : 37245
Points : 37761
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°171
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
The Huska will be a brand new design probably incorporating lots of new technologies, so I am not sure the first one will be built quickly.
franco- Posts : 6249
Points : 6275
Join date : 2010-08-18
- Post n°172
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
Podlodka77 wrote:The next GPV is GPV 2024-2033. Waiting for 2033-20XX for the next GPV to include the construction of a new class submarine is too late UNLESS construction of the existing 885M submarines continues.
Russia needs a replacement for Project 971 submarines.
With the exception of the "Gepard" submarine, all the others are 28+ years old, which is a lot.
Never forget the State Armament Program is a 10 year plan revised every 5 years.
GarryB, owais.usmani and Podlodka77 like this post
AMCXXL- Posts : 896
Points : 896
Join date : 2017-08-08
- Post n°173
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
franco wrote:Podlodka77 wrote:The next GPV is GPV 2024-2033. Waiting for 2033-20XX for the next GPV to include the construction of a new class submarine is too late UNLESS construction of the existing 885M submarines continues.
Russia needs a replacement for Project 971 submarines.
With the exception of the "Gepard" submarine, all the others are 28+ years old, which is a lot.
Never forget the State Armament Program is a 10 year plan revised every 5 years.
State Defense Order GOZ, is every 5 years, the State Arms Plan is for 10 years, but it is reviewed every 5, so in practice it is every 5.
The Russians/Soviet have been making five-year plans every 5 years for 100 years.
the plan was changed due to the war in Ukraine in 2014-2015 (after the failure of the Minsk agreements) and it was passed from 2016-2025 to 2018-2027 and included, among other things, the two LHDs, it is possible that the Special Military Operation plans have changed again and is reconfigured again to its natural rhythm in 2025 for the period 2026-2035 with a State Defense Order 2026-2030, but that is mostly secret and we will not know
In any case, as I said before, if the 11th and 12th Borey are started in 2023 or 2024, it is likely that the Pr-545 can be started in a few years, if it is not 2026, it may be a little later but in this decade. definitely
owais.usmani likes this post
Podlodka77- Posts : 2427
Points : 2429
Join date : 2022-01-06
Location : Z
- Post n°174
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
And not only 955A submarines...
In any case, this means that there should be at least two more 885M submarines, which have already been written about.
The last two keels for 885M submarines or K-XXX "Voronezh" and K-XXX "Vladivostok" were laid in 2020.
Waiting for 2025, 2026 or 2027 to lay the keel for a new project is idiocy.
It would be complete idiocy for Russia not to lay at least two more keels for the 885M project and to wait for 2025, 2026 or 2027 for some new project.
In any case, this means that there should be at least two more 885M submarines, which have already been written about.
The last two keels for 885M submarines or K-XXX "Voronezh" and K-XXX "Vladivostok" were laid in 2020.
Waiting for 2025, 2026 or 2027 to lay the keel for a new project is idiocy.
It would be complete idiocy for Russia not to lay at least two more keels for the 885M project and to wait for 2025, 2026 or 2027 for some new project.
AMCXXL- Posts : 896
Points : 896
Join date : 2017-08-08
- Post n°175
Re: 5th gen Husky-class nuclear submarine
Podlodka77 wrote:And not only 955A submarines...
In any case, this means that there should be at least two more 885M submarines, which have already been written about.
The last two keels for 885M submarines or K-XXX "Voronezh" and K-XXX "Vladivostok" were laid in 2020.
Waiting for 2025, 2026 or 2027 to lay the keel for a new project is idiocy.
It would be complete idiocy for Russia not to lay at least two more keels for the 885M project and to wait for 2025, 2026 or 2027 for some new project.
I do not think there is a rush with the 885M submarines since there are still many 949A in operation and even a couple of them in modernization 949AM
Two series are being manufactured at the same time: 955A and 855M
The plan was to make 6,885 in the first phase, plus there will be Ukyanovsk, this in addition to the 12 Borey's which are the most important and which have been given preference.
In the next phase, the pr.545 should be made simultaneously while another 6,855 and another carrier of the Poseidon system based on the 885, are delivered.
In addition, the manufacturing time of the 545 should be shorter than that of the Borey and the Yasen