Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

In Russia, we created a new sound-absorbing coating for "Boreas" and "Ash"

External noise absorbing coating disperses submarine sonar signal and thus provides protection against anti-enemy

"Tehmash" Concern has launched production of a new special sound-absorbing coating for the fourth-generation submarines, said on Tuesday in the Group.

"New industrial rubber production will ensure the release of special coatings with improved acoustic performance for modern submarine of the fourth generation of boats. Technical plates, which we launched on the basis of the Cheboksary Production Association named after Chapaev, favorably differ from Western models the ability to absorb the acoustic signals of a wide range and high performance" - are reported words of the general director Sergey Rusakov concern.



External noise absorbing coating submarine, in particular sonar signal scatters and thus provides protection against anti enemy forces.

Now several submarines of the fourth generation are in the Russian Navy - a nuclear submarine type "Northwind" and "Ash", as well as non-nuclear "Lada".

https://defence.ru/issledovanie-materialov/v-rossii-sozdali-novoe-zvukopogloschayuschee-pokritie-dlya-boreev-i-yasenei/

Russian submariners to get new escape gear

According to the Navy’s spokesman, the escape equipment will allow working outside a submarine at depths of up to 20 meters

MOSCOW, March 13. /TASS/. The crews of nuclear-powered submarines under construction for the Russian Navy will get the submariner’s improved escape gear, Navy spokesman Igor Dygalo said on Monday.

"The crews of nuclear-powered and diesel-electric submarines will be supplied with the submariner’s improved escape gear designated for the personnel’s individual escape from a stricken submarine from depths of up to 220 meters," Dygalo said.

The submariner’s escape gear has undergone operational evaluation at the Research Institute of Rescue Works and Underwater Technologies of the Navy’s Military Training and Research Center, the spokesman said.

"The submariner’s improved escape gear is planned to be supplied to the crews of nuclear-powered strategic and multipurpose submarines that are under construction for the Russian Navy, as well as to the crews of Project 636.3 diesel-electric submarines, a series of which comprising six underwater cruisers will be built for the Pacific Fleet," the Navy’s spokesman said.

Simultaneously, there are plans to supply the improved escape gear to the crews of submarines already operational with the Russian submarine force.

The submariner’s escape gear comprises an insulating respiratory system and an escape and immersion suit. It can also be supplied with the PP-2 parachute system to brake the submariner’s surfacing and prevent Caisson’s disease (the decompression sickness).

According to the Navy’s spokesman, the escape equipment will allow working outside a submarine at depths of up to 20 meters.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/935227

The Russians have plenty of experience with pump jets... they tested them on a modified Kilo class sub for several years...

Arrow wrote:Interesting why Russia doesn't use pump jet propulsion which generate less noise. All modern nuclear submarine use this propulsor. Astute, Virgina, Borey, Le Triomphant.

Pump jets are a method to avoid the cavitation noise from propellers.
Cavitation noise is inversely proportional to depth at which the submarine sails.

For example:
At a given depth, cavitation noise is generated once the speed reaches a certain level.
At lower depths, the same cavitation noise will start only at higher speeds.
At 500 m depth there is virtually no cavitation noise even at high speeds.

For strategic subs (SSBNs) who have to go to shallow depths to fire their Ballistic Missiles, pump-jets are a good idea (although they penalize performance). Hence, the Russians are equipping their Borey class SSBNs with pump-jets.
Attack submarines (SSNs), usually operate at lower depths where cavitation noise is a much lesser problem. In order not to sacrifice performance, the Russians are staying away from pump-jets in the Yasen class submarines.

TheArmenian wrote:

Arrow wrote:Interesting why Russia doesn't use pump jet propulsion which generate less noise. All modern nuclear submarine use this propulsor. Astute, Virgina, Borey, Le Triomphant.

Pump jets are a method to avoid the cavitation noise from propellers.
Cavitation noise is inversely proportional to depth at which the submarine sails.

For example:
At a given depth, cavitation noise is generated once the speed reaches a certain level.
At lower depths, the same cavitation noise will start only at higher speeds.
At 500 m depth there is virtually no cavitation noise even at high speeds.

For strategic subs (SSBNs) who have to go to shallow depths to fire their Ballistic Missiles, pump-jets are a good idea (although they penalize performance). Hence, the Russians are equipping their Borey class SSBNs with pump-jets.
Attack submarines (SSNs), usually operate at lower depths where cavitation noise is a much lesser problem. In order not to sacrifice performance, the Russians are staying away from pump-jets in the Yasen class submarines.

Pump jet has an optimal speed, above that the prupulsion will generate more noise than without it, and will slow done the submarine.

Additionaly the Russian akula/yassen submariens operating around 1000 meters deep, the others are operating half of this deep.

The only exeption is the Seawolf, that could go as deep as the akulas/yassens.

The Los angeles is inferrior compred to the seawolf/akula/yassen. Only advantage is it is cheaper .

"Russia's naval nuclear forces have nine strategic submarines that provide continuous military patrols in the sea. The Russian Navy is also planning to increase the number of strategic nuclear submarines to 13, including seven 'Boreys' with 'Bulava' missiles," Shoigu said.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201705241053929379-russia-strategic-submarines/

Is it atleast theoretically possible to use SS-N-20 and SS-N-23 missiles of the Delta IV and Typhoon class SSBN in the anti-ship role ?

From what I could find their CEP is 500 m , this may not be accurate enough to hit an individual shipon the high seas but what about exploding it about the location of the SAG, knocking out the ECM and making it more vulnerable to cruise missile strikes ?

These SLBM had multiple MIRV, could they increase the changes of having a nuclear blast as close to the location of a SAG as possible ?

nastle77 wrote:Is it atleast theoretically possible to use SS-N-20 and SS-N-23 missiles of the Delta IV and Typhoon class SSBN in the anti-ship role ?

.........

Theoretically yes (a lot of stuff is possible in theory) but practically why bother?

You have far better platforms for dealing with surface threats (nukes and all) and Deltas have more important roles to fulfill.

They do have 3 older Deltas that are deemed too noisy even for SSBNs but it would make more sense to convert them into land attack ships by installing Kalibr LACMs instead of ICBMs. Far better than scraping them (they still sail and dive no problem)

It would also trim down their crew complement significantly, probably operational costs as well. They would be very useful for dealing with low priority third world issues.

PapaDragon wrote:

nastle77 wrote:Is it atleast theoretically possible to use SS-N-20 and SS-N-23 missiles of the Delta IV and Typhoon class SSBN in the anti-ship role ?

.........

Theoretically yes (a lot of stuff is possible in theory) but practically why bother?

You have far better platforms for dealing with surface threats (nukes and all) and Deltas have more important roles to fulfill.

They do have 3 older Deltas that are deemed too noisy even for SSBNs but it would make more sense to convert them into land attack ships by installing Kalibr LACMs instead of ICBMs. Far better than scraping them (they still sail and dive no problem)

It would also trim down their crew complement significantly, probably operational costs as well. They would be very useful for dealing with low priority third world issues.

Would it not be worth it if an entire SAG is wiped out by a single and couple of SSN20 missiles
Esp if other platforms have been destroyed by the enemy like slava sovermenny nanuchka etc

nastle77 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

nastle77 wrote:Is it atleast theoretically possible to use SS-N-20 and SS-N-23 missiles of the Delta IV and Typhoon class SSBN in the anti-ship role ?

.........

Theoretically yes (a lot of stuff is possible in theory) but practically why bother?

You have far better platforms for dealing with surface threats (nukes and all) and Deltas have more important roles to fulfill.

They do have 3 older Deltas that are deemed too noisy even for SSBNs but it would make more sense to convert them into land attack ships by installing Kalibr LACMs instead of ICBMs. Far better than scraping them (they still sail and dive no problem)

It would also trim down their crew complement significantly, probably operational costs as well. They would be very useful for dealing with low priority third world issues.

Would it not be worth it if an entire SAG is wiped out by a single and couple of  SSN20 missiles
Esp if other platforms have been destroyed by the enemy like slava sovermenny nanuchka etc

What you describe is full blown nuclear war. If it comes to that Navies will be pretty irelevant.

PapaDragon wrote:

nastle77 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

nastle77 wrote:Is it atleast theoretically possible to use SS-N-20 and SS-N-23 missiles of the Delta IV and Typhoon class SSBN in the anti-ship role ?

.........

Theoretically yes (a lot of stuff is possible in theory) but practically why bother?

You have far better platforms for dealing with surface threats (nukes and all) and Deltas have more important roles to fulfill.

They do have 3 older Deltas that are deemed too noisy even for SSBNs but it would make more sense to convert them into land attack ships by installing Kalibr LACMs instead of ICBMs. Far better than scraping them (they still sail and dive no problem)

It would also trim down their crew complement significantly, probably operational costs as well. They would be very useful for dealing with low priority third world issues.

Would it not be worth it if an entire SAG is wiped out by a single and couple of  SSN20 missiles
Esp if other platforms have been destroyed by the enemy like slava sovermenny nanuchka etc

What you describe is full blown nuclear war. If it comes to that Navies will be pretty irelevant.

Not if the other side has no nukes
Is it possible militarily?

nastle77 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:....................
What you describe is full blown nuclear war. If it comes to that Navies will be pretty irelevant.

Not if the other side has no nukes
Is it possible militarily?

I don't think any side out there has navy that big without nukes other than Japan. But going full Armageddon on some medium sized navy would be total overkill.

I mean if they wanted to they could incinerate region of the ocean where targets are with either nuke sub or land based ICBM without a problem but why? Especially if it is a non-nuclear military.

RS-28 Sarmat should be able to handle ships; satellites can ascertain their bearing and speed; giving their position in 15 minutes time - and this would be enough time for a Sarmat to get there.

As I understand it has a manuevering bus with about 3 kinetic kill warheads on board that it can release along its flight-path. The idea is these vehicles can bust a silo wide-open; but since this is basically the Russian equivalent of America's global strike doctrine and with the same capabilities; there's no reason why they can't be used for precision strikes against targets of any nature anywhere in the world.

PapaDragon wrote:

nastle77 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:....................
What you describe is full blown nuclear war. If it comes to that Navies will be pretty irelevant.

Not if the other side has no nukes
Is it possible militarily?

I don't think any side out there has navy that big without nukes other than Japan. But going full Armageddon on some medium sized navy would be total overkill.

I mean if they wanted to they could incinerate region of the ocean where targets are with either nuke sub or land based ICBM without a problem but why? Especially if it is a non-nuclear military.

Well the impression i got from posters on another US forum was that without using nukes soviet pacific fleet would be slaughtered by Japan navy like a repeat of 1904
Thats why i asked this question

Isos wrote:Even nuk warehead need to explode near a ship to destroy it. All modern ships have NBC protection so they are safe if the explosion occure too far. I don't think intercontinantal missile could be reprogrammed to follow a moving ship. The flight is like 20-30 minutes, if a ship goes at 50km/h it will move 25 km for this time so it is safe.

Then best to use SLBM against naval bases to destroy ships undergoing refits etc

nastle77 wrote:......
Well the impression i got from posters on another US forum was that without using nukes soviet pacific fleet would be slaughtered by Japan navy like a repeat of 1904
Thats why i asked this question

Urghhhh, not this again.....

Just​ tell those geniuses that Russian Navy has this thing called submarines in addition to surface ships out in the Pacific

Also those coastal missiles and naval aircraft also come into equation

PapaDragon wrote:

nastle77 wrote:......
Well the impression i got from posters on another US forum was that without using nukes soviet pacific fleet would be slaughtered by Japan navy like a repeat of 1904
Thats why i asked this question

Urghhhh, not this again.....

Just​ tell those geniuses that Russian Navy has this thing called submarines in addition to surface ships out in the Pacific

Also those coastal missiles and naval aircraft also come into equation

The argument i heard was that the sea manship of jap navy is so much superior and that soviet navy could barely leave port and be overwhelmed

Even in surface warships pacific fleet has kiev kirov and slava and their missiles far outrange the harpoons they can decline or accept engagement depending on the circumstances, thsts my opinion

Well if the future is doomed to be a repeat of history why pick 1905?

Why not pick a more recent time like 1939 when Soviet air and land power gave the Japs such a hiding they turned south and would rather face the navy of the US and the British commonwealth than go another round in a land war with the Russians?

Russia could simply use ground forces and move down the islands they hold now to the islands to the south that they don't...

So we have only in service:

5x Oscars
3x Akulas
2x Sierras
1x Victor

11 SSN/SSGNs..

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/372788/227305704.37/0_178a34_6774fb6a_orig

George1 wrote:So we have only in service:

5x Oscars
3x Akulas
2x Sierras
1x Victor

11 SSN/SSGNs..

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/372788/227305704.37/0_178a34_6774fb6a_orig

Are they going to overhaul any others or does everything besides these 11 get scrapped?