Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

sepheronx wrote:

max steel wrote:yasen is . How many are in service currently ? 5 ?

1
And 3 more laid down. But the cost is so enormous that Yasen is the most expensive ssgn. So I dont think it will end up in the numbers one expects. I can see them coming up with either new Kilos with much more extended range and a cheaper nuclear reactor submarine.  The nuclear attack subs are semi important, but not by much. But I cant see them not acquiring more. So who knows. But what we do know is Yasen is far too expensive.

The Yasen may be expensive, but is essential that Russia has an effective force of state-of-the-art SSN hunter-killers in order to order to match the USNs Seawolves and Virginias. Fielding cheaper but less capable frontline units is not an option if you actually want these boats to hold the line in any future hostilities.

8 Yasens backed by a modernised ex-Soviet force of 4x Pr 945 Barracuda/Sierra, ~10x Pr 971 Shchuka-B/Akula and 8x Pr 949A Granit/Oscar-II would give Russia an exceptional long-duration submarine attack force, second only to the USN. That assumes a lot of course as the modernisation of the 945, 971 and 949A will depend on the actual condition of the individual boats and will no doubt prove costly, but the potential is there.

You will never see 8 885s and that many of the legacy subs.

The Navy currently does not even have 50% of its attack boats operational. And not nearly all of them are slated for upgrades that would keep them in service post 2020...

The 945s being modernized is looking doubtful as well...

Big_Gazza wrote:
The Yasen may be expensive, but is essential that Russia has an effective force of state-of-the-art SSN hunter-killers in order to order to match the USNs Seawolves and Virginias.  Fielding cheaper but less capable frontline units is not an option if you actually want these boats to hold the line in any future hostilities.

I disagree, Yasen are SSGN´s not SSN´s. It would make sense to build a smaller, cheaper and stealthier SSN as a compliment to SSGN´s. A dedicated submarine hunter that can protect the SSGN´s and SSBN´s against opposing submarines. Also it would be as good against surface targets, but with no or limited land attack capabilities.

I for one see the need for such a platform, a small very stealthy and lethal SSN.

runaway wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:
The Yasen may be expensive, but is essential that Russia has an effective force of state-of-the-art SSN hunter-killers in order to order to match the USNs Seawolves and Virginias.  Fielding cheaper but less capable frontline units is not an option if you actually want these boats to hold the line in any future hostilities.

I disagree, Yasen are SSGN´s not SSN´s. It would make sense to build a smaller, cheaper and stealthier SSN as a compliment to SSGN´s. A dedicated submarine hunter that can protect the SSGN´s and SSBN´s against opposing submarines. Also it would be as good against surface targets, but with no or limited land attack capabilities.

I for one see the need for such a platform, a small very stealthy and lethal SSN.

Incorrect. Yasen class is most definitely an SNN, but has been given VLS for anti-ship and land-attack capabilities to make them a true multi-role boat. Her advanced sonar system and emphasis on silent operations mark them as hunter-killers, not long-range stand-off missile carriers. The idea that a "Yasen-lite" without VLS will somehow be significantly smaller or cheaper is not really credible. The high cost is due to advanced (ie expensive) on-board systems and any dedicated SSN equivalent will require the same. Elimination of the VLS compartments will reduce boat length and mass, but not by a significant degree. A saving of maybe 15% may be achieved by elimination of the stand-off attack capability (and a big loss in combat capabilities), but will this result in a significant increase of hulls in water? I doubt it...

Small SSNs are possible (ie the Soviet Lira/Alpha class) but nuclear powerplants tend to be big and expensive, and keeping the size/tonnage down requires exotic design solutions like lead-bismuth liquid metal coolant systems and very high automation levels to reduce crew numbers. While possible, its not cheap, and imposes other limitations such as complex and expensive facilities to support core heating (to keep the coolant molten) while the sub is in port. More than one Lira had to be de-commissioned after her core froze...

TR1 is correct in saying that conventional AIP boats SSKs are probably the answer for Russia to defend her coastline and SSBN bastions. Small, silent, deadly and comparatively numerous, they are ideal for coast and littoral defence. They can carry sensor and weapon outfits similar in scope to the big Yasens, and their numbers will allow force concentrations in critical areas such as the bastions while their larger nuclear cousins either join them as "squad leaders" or range further afield hunting HATO high-value surface combatants.

He is also right regarding the low availability of Soviet era SSNs, though how much of this is due to budgetary reasons is hard to tell. I'd like to think that money for refit is the issue and that the boast themselves are basically sound and are capable of serving through the 2020s, but who really knows?

It is 100% a budgetary issue and has everything to do with the boats not receiving the mid-life overhauls and modernizations that were supposed to by Navy practice in the 2000s.

971s and 949s are solid boats by design. They can't operate when their reactor needs refueling, or the boat is half-taken apart and stuck with no funding.


Russia is simply trying to juggle a huge nuclear fleet with a modest budget.
We are going to see a reduction in the nuclear boat fleet by 2025, have no doubt about it.

sepheronx wrote:
That is why more improved kilos and kilos with aip are needed. Field more of them to protect Russias coast while they can reduce ssgn fleet to something more modest for longer range.

Probably thats why they are so stubborn with Lada class, with AIP it can guard these SSBN´s under the ice for weeks and be very very silent.
But we have probably seen the last series Kilos built for the navy, it will all be Lada´s from now on.

Big Gazza, what you say is perfectly true, but with advances in reactor tech, a SSN in size of a SSK would not be wrong!
Nato classifies the Yasen as SSGN i think, but thats make no sense as they classify Virgina as a SSN..

This is interesting..  Charly site...

http://www.charly015.blogspot.com

He reports USA already have 10 Virginia Class submarines and building 4 more.. and include the names and photos.. so they will end by 2020 with like 14 attack submarines.. of virginia class.



What is interesting however..  that he compares that with what is Russia doing..
tale a look.. what is Russia building.. for up to 2020..  (this is assuming both US and Russia will only take 5 years to build what they planning..)



While US navy is building 4 attack submarines more.. Russia is planning to build no less than
14 new submarines    .. it looks as if indeed Russia is on a much faster race ,building subs like there is no tomorrow.. then you mix that with the news ,posted earlier.. they upgrading the soviets fleet then indeed is truly a phenomenon ,that the RUssian navy in 2020
should be really comparable and very close in size to the US navy ,when it comes to submarines.

Building subs like no tommorow rofl.

Why don't you go look at the pace of Russian nuclear boat construction.

You are high if you think the Russian navy sub fleet will be close in size to the US navy by 2020.
It can't even keep half of its attack subs operational today, with a much smaller overall fleet.
If anything a reduction in the fleet size is 1.) absolutely inevitable, particularly with nuke boats and 2.) probably makes a whole lot of sense instead of a bloated force that is barely operational.

To be fair most countries take much longer than the US does to spit out nuclear boats as well.

Vann gonna Vann.

EDIT: Also,t here are planned to be 18 or so Virginias before 2020.
They don't need to lay the boats down a decade in advance since...construction actually moves fast.

And, another 10 Block IV boats by 2023.

So don't worry, the numbers won't be anywhere close, even if some cuts happen along the way.

Vann7 wrote:This is interesting..  Charly site...

http://www.charly015.blogspot.com

He reports USA already have 10 Virginia Class submarines and building 4 more.. and include the names and photos.. so they will end by 2020 with like 14 attack submarines.. of virginia class.



What is interesting however..  that he compares that with what is Russia doing..
tale a look.. what is Russia building.. for up to 2020..  (this is assuming both US and Russia will only take 5 years to build what they planning..)



While US navy is building 4 attack submarines more.. Russia is planning to build no less than
14 new submarines    .. it looks as if indeed Russia is on a much faster race ,building subs like there is no tomorrow.. then you mix that with the news ,posted earlier.. they upgrading the soviets fleet then indeed is truly a phenomenon ,that the RUssian navy in 2020
should be really comparable and very close in size to the US navy ,when it comes to submarines.

Based on type the US and Russia are constructing the same number in the same time frame. But both Russia and the USA
have capacity to build more. Russia is simply using its capacity to build new diesel-electrics and SLBM submarines.

An important parameter is cost. Russia is building six Project 636.3 submarines for about 2 billion US dollars. The
price per sub is several times lower than western prices. Russia still has the price structure that it can actually
afford to build many submarines. And that is a good thing.

The US production rate was only 1 boat per year for quite a while. That led to a shrinking of the US Navy's submarine fleet.
The production rate increased to 1.5 - 2 boats per year only recently.
Russian production is higher per year even when you don't count the export boats (Vietnam etc.)
However, Russia's production is a mixture of nuclear and diesel/electric ones, while the US production is strictly nuclear.

If current production rates for both countries remain at their current levels indefinitely, Russia will have more boats over the long term, but the US may still have more nuclear powered ones.

TR1 wrote:Building subs like no tommorow rofl.

Why don't you go look at the pace of Russian nuclear boat construction.

You are high if you think the Russian navy sub fleet will be close in size to the US navy by 2020.
It can't even keep half of its attack subs operational today, with a much smaller overall fleet.
If anything a reduction in the fleet size is 1.) absolutely inevitable, particularly with nuke boats and 2.) probably makes a whole lot of sense instead of a bloated force that is barely operational.

To be fair most countries take much longer than the US does to spit out nuclear boats as well.

Vann gonna Vann.

EDIT: Also,t here are planned to be 18 or so Virginias before 2020.
They don't need to lay the boats down a decade in advance since...construction actually moves fast.

And, another 10 Block IV boats by 2023.

So don't worry, the numbers won't be anywhere close, even if some cuts happen along the way.

US navy is building 4 new submarines..  Russia is building 14 new Submarines.. including diesel electric. no idea how you don't see the significant more submarines Russia is building.. is far more than US navy..

according to Global Firepower.. 2015..

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=United-States-of-America  

Already Russia have 55 Submarines.. and US 72..
if all Submarines remain in service until 2020.. and the new ones in construction finished .
Then Russia will have 55 +14 submarines = 69   and US will have 72+4 = 76.
So that is very close to me.. this is not counting how there are conflicting reports
that the Navy wants 8 to 10 Borei submarines.. if they build 8,then we will be in the 71 vs 76.

But for sure some will be decommissioned after 2020 from both sides , "Ohios already have 40 years in service) .. so Russia should be even above 60 subs.. and US in 70 or less. This is only
about Submarines.. not about Surface warships.. that Russia is far behind in terms of destroyers and cruisers.. still Russia manage to balance by the significant number of corvettes they have.
with very capable anti ship missiles. that can defeat any destroyer or cruiser.
counting destroyers/cruisers/Frigates and corvetters.. US navy have 72 warships (not including aircraftcarriers) and Russia navy have 90 warships..

Russia navy looks pretty dam good ,for only having 10% of the budget of the US navy..
And if Russia is building 14 brand new state of the art submarines ,vs 4 new subs that US navy is building. then i consider that very impressive. how much more Russia is doing.

It doesn't matter how many subs you are building it once.

The US takes a few years to make a boat at most.
Russia has taken a decade in many cases.

This is so simple I am shocked even you don't get it.

Your numbers are grossly off.

Are you trying to troll?

Russia is modernizing only a small part of its submarine force total.
It won't just add on boats, good grief.

I've posted the entire Russian submarine invantory here before. Don't be lazy, go look.

Russia having 60 operational (and I count in repairs as operational, as long as its not "waiting for repairs" for a decade like half the fleet has been) submarines is a pipe dream.

Complete fantasy.
Even counting diseal boats, which are ofc of much smaller tonnage than the nuke subs.

http://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/93198.html

Here is the painful reality, not your delusional fantasies.

How many new nuclear attack submarines has Russia gotten in the past 15 years Vann?
1. and it is in experimental service to date, not even regular.

How many operational diseal attack boats Vann?
Two. And a barely operational Lada, the Petersburg.


Yep, pumping them out like no tomorrow alright!

TR1 wrote:

http://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/93198.html

Here is the painful reality, not your delusional fantasies.

Since i can't use translator on an image, can i get some help with the spreadsheet? At first i thought green rows represent active ships but then i realized that can't be right, as just a few subs would be active. So is there an easy way to tell (for a non-russian speaking person) which of the ships on the list are active duty ships? (even if they're undergoing refit)

eridan wrote:

TR1 wrote:

http://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/93198.html

Here is the painful reality, not your delusional fantasies.

Since i can't use translator on an image, can i get some help with the spreadsheet? At first i thought green rows represent active ships but then i realized that can't be right, as just a few subs would be active. So is there an easy way to tell (for a non-russian speaking person) which of the ships on the list are active duty ships? (even if they're undergoing refit)

Yeah I have my own list using this source (among others, if I consider any more reliable), once I update it with the latest info I will re-post it.

And yeah it is fairly accurate. He might be off on 1 or 2 971 boats, but overall the picture is correct. Keep in mind yellow contains ships that are generally active, but are in repairs right now, and are expected to be back before long.
It also includes boats that have been sitting at dock for a decade waiting repairs, and only recently got a modernization project.
And ofc it includes boats that have been out of active service, and are not under any serious repairs likely to yield service any time soon barring a sudden financial miracle.

Some differences of opinion are for example (from 971s):
He thinks Tigr is out. Other decent sources indicate it could be in service right now, assuming the planned technical work happened. So, the status is unclear.
Gepard is under dock repairs, but they are fairly light and might soon be finished. Something like that I generally count as active, but he gets a little more detailed.


Which is why I am flabbergasted at the feces coming out of Vanns mouth. 60 boats.......a third of the nuclear attack fleet isn't even operational right now.

TR1.... It may take decades because of unseen problems etc etc. The first Borei took almost two decades, I wonder why... 

Once they get in the hang of things, production will speed up and get more consistent. 

 - This forum is exploding... Record is now 380 at one time! 

TR1 wrote:It doesn't matter how many subs you are building it once.

The US takes a few years to make a boat at most.
Russia has taken a decade in many cases.

Now you are just making crap up.

The US took 4 years to build the first Virginia, and 1 year for the latest.

"Many cases" - what cases? 2? Sure, the first 885 and 955 subs might have taken "a decade" - but these numbers are for the FIRST nuclear subs Russia ever made post USSR, and they WILL (forget 'are expected to') drop significantly.

Kazan underwent modifications, so it will also take a while longer to build.

Once they are 4-5 units in, we'll see how long it takes them to build.

TR1 obviously do not know the difference between Time it gets a brand new
Submarine from scratch never done before vs the time to build submarines already mastered
its production and done on serial..  

The delay of first Borey and also first Yasen have been for lack of fund and also the weapons not finished BUlava for example its failure issues significantly delayed the Borei.. now all those problems have been sorted..

Building a new Submarine from zero always takes a lot more of time.. but once you master it.
is can be significantly done far more faster. The believe that Russia will take a decade to build a submarine can only come from pure ignorance ,that do not see the difference between building a brand new submarine ,with lots of research and testing  and building a model in serial that already is proven and tested.

US is building 4 new subs and Russia 14.. that shows a singnificant difference is speed ,and that RUssia as i said is building subs like there is no tomorrow.

Since TR1 says Russia is "slow" and US is "fast".. lets see how long it took US to build
its first ever Seawolf Class Submarine.. a new model never done before..

Design work of Seawolf began in.... 1983
then laid down .... 1989
then launched in 1995
and then finally commissioned in ......1997

So you have there how much? 14 years!!!!!! for building a new submarine.. from scratch.
Naturally first time things takes much more TR1.. but once all problems sorted out ,in funding
and in technology issues.. the following submatines takes far less time.. a year or two. This is pretty simple concept that anyone can understand.. somehow TR1 not.

Borei is a brand new submarine.. Yasen and brand new submarine.. too.. and Borei have brand new weapons ,same with Yasen. and both had problems with the technology and funding ,just like USA.. usually the estimated price is always lower than the real one.. because technology when is new , it needs to be tested and experience issues.. and such delays increase the cost.
but once all is sorted out.. the serial production becomes much faster ,since they are not testing anymore new things but reproducing them.

TR1 posts Russia WEAK! trolling to counter-balance Vann's Russia STRONG! trolling; and the end result is that neither picture painted is particularly correct and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

But why should a guest coming into this thread have to figure this out first, and analyse both sets of posts just to get an accurate appraisal of the situation? What's wrong in just posting the truth or what's likely to be the truth - as opposed to running circles around it or taking angles just for the lulz?

The point is that this is a serious discussion, on a serious sub-forum; can we please stop with the dick-swinging and personal rivalries? We should be focused on objectivity, and sober assessments; baseless optimism or needless cynisism may have a place in the more hypothetical political discussions where no-one can really guess what's going to happen anyway; but when it comes to discussions of Russia's naval build-up running through to 2020 - it should really be possible to arrive at a consensus in half the words.

Oh, I am making crap up eh?

The entire Block II line took 1-2 years for each boat to be laid down, finished and commissioned.
The first was laid down in 2007. The last was commissioned in 2013. That series was composed of 6 boats. 6 nuclear attack boats in 7 years. Remind me when that has happened in Russia last?


Blah blah blah blah will speed up blah blah blah.

Yeah, it will increase over the first ship.
By how much? Anywhere close to US speed?

Project 955:
1st ship: a century to finish. We know why.
2nd ship: 9 years.
3rd ship: 9 years.
4th ship: 3 years and counting. Won't be commissioned for a while at best.

Project 885:
1st ship: two decades. We know why. Still in only experimental service.
2nd ship: 6 years, still has not hit the water or started trials.

Will it likely go faster? Sure. Not enough to make Vann's stupid point any closer to reality however.
Especially in attack submarines, there won't be a "closing in numbers" between the two.


The whole discussion utterly pointless. 4 submarine under construction is much better than a dozen that take a decade to get anywhere. I am exaggerating, but only slightly.

flamming_python wrote:TR1 posts Russia WEAK! trolling to counter-balance Vann's Russia STRONG! trolling; and the end result is that neither picture painted is particularly correct and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

But why should a guest coming into this thread have to figure this out first, and analyse both sets of posts just to get an accurate appraisal of the situation? What's wrong in just posting the truth or what's likely to be the truth - as opposed to running circles around it or taking angles just for the lulz?

The point is that this is a serious discussion, on a serious sub-forum; can we please stop with the dick-swinging and personal rivalries? We should be focused on objectivity, and sober assessments; baseless optimism or needless cynisism may have a place in the more hypothetical political discussions where no-one can really guess what's going to happen anyway; but when it comes to discussions of Russia's naval build-up running through to 2020 - it should really be possible to arrive at a consensus in half the words.

There is absolutely nothing factually innacurate in what I posted.

People can feel free to refute the points in my argument.

Really I don't even have one, aside from Vann's claims being dumb.

That chart is particularly hilarious because :
It has two 677 boats that have been under construction since.....2005 and 2006.
Xabarovsk which is a special service sub, and is an unfinished submarine from decades ago.
Kazan, under work since 2009.

And of course, we are comparing Russian attack and boomer subs to just US attack subs. The US is not replacing Ohio's right now, it deems them adequate.
And they maintain a larger force of active boomers than Russia does in any case, but that is beside the point.

If we actually compare type vs type, (even allowing for diseal subs) the notion that Russia is massively outproducing the US (or outproducing...at all) is just delusional and Russia-strong bullcrap.
Don't expect me to not call out BS for what it is.

I would MUCH rather Russia lay down 4 boats and finish them within 5 years than the current situation.

flamming_python wrote:but when it comes to discussions of Russia's naval build-up running through to 2020 - it should really be possible to arrive at a consensus in half the words.

Sure- the planned 955 and 855 numbers are BS, wont be met, and the Russian Navy will be lucky to get a combined 10-11 of both SSN and SSBN types by 2020.


I am not sure why so many posters here need to be comforted with vague nonsense like "it will be super duper sped up, you'll see!" when we can by now make fairly decent predictions of the speed of work.
Particularly for the 955s.

The BS revisionism TR1 is peddling is that "Russia" doesn't have the capability. The facts are something else.
The 1990s economic implosion under the US-backed Yeltsin regime halted many projects dead in their tracks
and degraded Russia's economy and productive capacity by over 50%. In the case of the military it was
actually closer to 80%. I am talking about productive capacity and not existing equipment and
underpaid men experiencing long term disappearance of military capacity like in Ukraine.

Clearly, only a hater troll would conflate the economic disruption with "Russia's ability". Thanks to Putin's undoing
of Yeltsin's nightmare Russia has managed to restore its productive capacity to a high level. It is less than it was
in the good old days in some ways, but better in others. It took about 8 years from 2000 to 2008 to restore Russia's
productive capacity to a reasonable level so you have do add an additional few years for project delay. A good
15 years of project paralysis is what Russia experienced.

A 15 year delay in construction due to the post 1991 transition has no relevance for any project started
after 2008 and today. TR1 was already attacking me for posting that the six Project 636.3 diesel-electric subs
would be finished as planned with his usual pulled from the a** truthiness and chutzpah. Eat this:

http://www.janes.com/article/42571/russia-launches-third-improved-kilo-submarine-commissions-first

Three of them delivered already last year.