Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

mack8 wrote:Nice info, thanks Dima.

Interesting how the apparent construction of the Virginias seems sharply reduced once the four module block assembly is introduced. It indeed only can be reasonably explained by building those blocks well in advance of the official keel laying (assembling those blocks basically) imo.

As for the russian subs, do we know if the Yasen and Borey use modular construction?

Regardless, i think it is fair to say that the situation in regards to the SSN/SSBN construction is greatly improving compared to the disastrous period of the nineties and early 2000s, and should keep to unless some major mess-up, it may well be that the plan for 8 of each by 2020 will not be met, but probably by say 2021-2022 would be realistic (is there anything that does
not suffer delays these days?), that still being  a huge improvement for the Navy, especially the nuclear deterrent, no matter how you look at it.

Would be interesting what the long term plans for the 2030 horizon are, would they eventually build 14 Borey/Borey-M (we can expected improvements imo) to match the americans' Ohio numbers, plus something like 2 dozen Yasen/Yasen-M, or once the initial 8 of each are completed they will be replaced by new designs? Any info on that front?

Oh and how about the SSKs, there should be six pr.636 plus two improved pr.677 (plus the only Lada in the initial form that was not accepted)  by 2020 is that correct? (i did of course some reading on the subject but would be nice to confirm from russian sources)

Six 636.6 are on their way and the lone 677 is likely to be fitted with the AIP by 2017 and plans are for the rest of 677 to come online with this AIP as standard. So if everything goes alright there should be no less than 3-4 of Lada/Kalina by 2020. Lets hope it goes our way.

jhelb wrote:
Akula, Typhoon, Borei are all double hulled whereas major US subs like Ohio Class and Los Angeles class are single hulled.

Do Double Hulled Submarines provide some advantage/s over Single Hulled Submarines?

RTN wrote:
The US never opted for the double-hulled design coz it's more efficient/beneficial to not put in all that cost and effort when the same results can still be achieved if your technological acumen is high enough.The US always opted for single hull designs with a modular internal layout that allows for rapid and efficient damage control. Whereas the Soviet Union went for an alternative route by having much simpler internal layouts (easier for mass production) protected by a double wrapped hull.

RTN wrote:
The downside to the Soviet practice (at least from the US perspective) is that if you opt for a double hulled design made of Titanium without too much compartmentalization then if your sub takes on water it's going to sink like a brick past it's crush depth before damage control can correct the flooding, especially in situations where the hull might be sufficiently damaged enough (let's say from an engagement) where the ballast tanks are non-responsive. There could also be an issue in terms of hull integrity if the Titanium itself gets too brittle and cracks from the typically cold waters of the North Atlantic.

http://sputniknews.com/military/20150621/1023668919.html

Russian Naval Forces plan to upgrade ten nuclear submarines with the newest armament and ship systems.
Russian Naval Forces plan to upgrade ten nuclear submarines, said the Navy Commander Viktor Chirkov during the ceremony in honor of the top graduates of naval institutes in St. Petersburg.

“The modernization is planned for about ten nuclear submarines of project 971 and 949 at the factory of ‘Zvezdochka’ in Severodvinsk and the factory ‘Zvezdochka’ in the Primorskiy Krai region. It is a thorough modernization, upon completion we will have almost new submarines with the newest armament and ship systems,” elaborated Chirkov as reported by RIA Novosti.

He further added that these nuclear submarines have the capacity for complete modernization. As the technology gets updated and new missiles and torpedoes are released, the modernized submarines will be able to fit the new weapons easily.

George1 wrote:Russian Strategic Sub Groups to ‘Be Constantly Updated’ – Navy Commander

Russia is currently undergoing a $325-billion rearmament program for a 70-percent modernization increase in its military's weaponry by 2020.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150626/1023889188.html#ixzz3eFXBmdyW

kvs wrote:Ah the Toshiba myth.   That's right Soviet engineers could never create NC machinery that could produce the metal part
geometry needed.   Even though the USSR had world leading understanding of the science and applied mathematics of
fluid boundary layers and turbulence.   The USSR could make a world leading propeller design, but couldn't produce it.
What a retarded joke.

kvs wrote:Ah the Toshiba myth.   That's right Soviet engineers could never create NC machinery that could produce the metal part
geometry needed.   Even though the USSR had world leading understanding of the science and applied mathematics of
fluid boundary layers and turbulence.   The USSR could make a world leading propeller design, but couldn't produce it.
What a retarded joke.  

Anyone who spends any time thinking about this "insurmountable" problem would realize it is the usual NATO quasi-racist
propaganda.    They could produce the right geometry by hand if they had to, down to 0.1 mm.   It's not like they needed 10 million propellers
per month.   This trope is the same one as the "Soviet ICBMs were not accurate".  More pap for uneducated saps who don't
know what laser gyroscopes are and what determines the accuracy of a missile (hint: it ain't much besides the gyroscopes, missiles
aren't sailing ships where the crew performance with the sails and astrolabe matters).   The USSR had good solid state ring laser
gyroscopes as of 1970 (glass-ceramic).  

Austin wrote:Found SmoothieX2 after a long time , He now runs a blog , He is ex Russian Navy and has good knowledge on Russian Submarine , So you can ask any questions you have in the blog and I have requested him to join RMF

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.in/2015/07/russias-navy-day.html#comment-2174771999

Check comment section for some questions answered

http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.in/2013/12/chinas-anti-access-strategy-submarine.html

To provide a point of reference, the following acoustic signatures are from "Chinese Evaluations of the U.S. Navy Submarine Force" and "CHINA’S FUTURE NUCLEAR SUBMARINE FORCE"

Ocean background noise - 90 decibels
Seawolf-class - 95 decibels
Virginia-class - 95 decibels
636 Kilo class - 105 decibels
Akula-class - 110 decibels
Type 093 - 110 decibels
Type 094 - 120 decibels