Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

They are not particulary safer check Kursk sub and larger doesn't mean better.

If the entire torpedo load had exploded in any western sub it would have been in tiny pieces on the sea floor...

The only reason it sank was because it was an internal explosion.

[quote]They are not particulary safer check Kursk sub and larger doesn't mean better.

Making Husky SSN without VLS tubes is acceptable if they have option to launch missiles through torpedo tubes, provided they leave enough storage space in the front to carry sufficient number of missiles

Two points... first of all VLS tubes will be present because they are always ready to fire... making them more useful, and second no space up front for missiles or torpedoes as that is where the large sonar arrays are... the new Russian subs have mid positioned torpedo tubes...

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:............
Virginia have also VLS for tomahawks if I'm not wrong and they are very capable subs. And they replace their los angoles with them much faster than russia replace its soviets subs with yasen.

Correct, current plan is to go with 3 new Virginias per year, that's why RuN can't dick around with delays and gaps in construction

In 13 years they commissioned 14 Virginia.

Not a 3 sub/year speed....

PapaDragon wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:............
Virginia have also VLS for tomahawks if I'm not wrong and they are very capable subs. And they replace their los angoles with them much faster than russia replace its soviets subs with yasen.

Correct, current plan is to go with 3 new Virginias per year, that's why RuN can't dick around with delays and gaps in construction

In 13 years they commissioned 14 Virginia.

Not a 3 sub/year speed....

Not yet, I said they plan to and they will do so. With Russia and China noise they finally have cover for big ticket items.

Russia doesn't need to reinvent the wheel here or play catch-up, they just need to stick with laying down one new SSGN every 12-14 months, that is all.

3 year gaps are unacceptable.

The US needs more ABM system, submarine, carrier, new strategic missile force.But at the moment the US spending more for military in % term than China at the moment, so all of them together is just enough to slow down the eroding competitiveness.

So, maybe they want to have more asses, but it is a big question if the US is capable to afford those assets.

Russia just needs to look at its own needs and not at the needs or wants or building programmes of anyone else...

When the US started building ABM systems around the world, the Russians didn't just do the same at enormous expense... they used their brains and thought outside the box with several new types of weapons.

They should do the same with their navy too.

In a decade or so they will need to expand their navy to support their growing international trade, but until then they need to be sensible.

GarryB wrote:Russia just needs to look at its own needs and not at the needs or wants or building programmes of anyone else...

When the US started building ABM systems around the world, the Russians didn't just do the same at enormous expense... they used their brains and thought outside the box with several new types of weapons.

They should do the same with their navy too.

In a decade or so they will need to expand their navy to support their growing international trade, but until then they need to be sensible.

When the USA broke the ABM treaty, the foundation of all arms control treaties, Russia should have cranked up its number of ICBMs and warheads.
It should do this now considering the insanity shown by NATO leaders in the Skripal case. Wasting resources on ships and other conventional
war assets is just idiotic. The most effective defense against NATO by a vast margin are ICBMs. MAD is the only thing that kept world war at bay.
Increasing the number if ICBMs by a factor of 10+ will revive MAD. For some reason NATO clowns decided that under 2000 strategic nuclear
warheads gives them a chance to defeat Russia (total number of warheads counting the tactical ones is not relevant since ABM systems do not
deal with tactical warheads).

PapaDragon wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:.......
The US needs more ABM system, submarine, carrier, new strategic missile force.But at the moment the US spending more  for military in % term than China at the moment, so   all of them together is just enough to slow down the eroding competitiveness.

So, maybe they want to have more asses, but it is a big question if the US is capable to afford those assets.

USA has no problems paying for that stuff, especially Naval vessels, that's where the money is.

Russia has less "ground" to cover here so they don't need to do anything other than what they already do. Simple as that.

And Yasen is excellent product so it's not like they are throwing money on junk. Unlike Soviet subs it's designed for upgrades so they will be getting way more mileage out of them than from previous models.

US can't afford the f35, the new carriers, or the seawolf class.

They can't afford even to make two Virginia in every year.


The backbone of the US submarine navy is still the old cold war relic Los Angeles class, the real Oscar/Sierra/Akula/Yassen competitor Seawolf was too expensive for the US NAvy.


And as soon as China break up the US pacific alliance the cost of weapon system will explode to the sky,as the pacific supply chain / market die .

Russians modernized 3 out of 4 Sierras, but they are still noisy as hell.

But Akula III is entirely different story. She is the only Russian boat in the history that was more quite than American boats, when comissioned in 1996 (105 dB vs 105-110 dB). She's the real reason for Seawolf.

PapaDragon wrote:

They can and they do. Easily. All they needed was justification. They have it now.

[/quote]
They can't cope.
China currently spend close to half what the US spend for military.

Means any escalation in spending for defence can be outspend by China without any real efforts.

Russia still has same waggling room for spending, they can just simply keep the current level to force the US to keep up with the improving Russian AND chinese capabilities.

It is a match that very hard to win for the US.

PapaDragon wrote:
Seawolf is competitor to first Yasen only. Los Angeles is superior to all others you listed.

Where you get this info? From a US patriotic fanboy?

The Seawolf was way more expensive than the Los Angles or the Virginisa ( not by small margin, but by 2-3 times more)
And the Seawolf is 20 years newer design.

What do you think ,what was the reason of the price difference? Golden toilet seats?


Los Angeles is a 60s designed sub.

The Akula is a late seventies design.

Actually, the reason of the Seawolf design was to keep up with the Soviet capabilities.
But it was too expensive.
The Vriginia is a dumbed down sub compared to the seawolf/akula/oscar or yassen , it wasn'tr designed to compete with these ships.

It is more similar to a nuclear powered Kilo than to an akula competitor.

PapaDragon wrote:

China will not be breaking up anything any time soon. And even if they do Russian considerations will be completely irrelevant.

Stop expecting China to do heavy lifting for anyone.

China needs to break the Taiwan-South Korea- Japan chain .

As soon as it does that the US defence cost will dramatically increase.


Seriously, where you get your infos?

From the nationalinterest.org ?

When the USA broke the ABM treaty, the foundation of all arms control treaties, Russia should have cranked up its number of ICBMs and warheads.

I agree with you... without the 1972 ABM treaty the SALT limitations treaty and the START reduction treaties become ridiculous and redundant.

Even now Russia should clearly state that while the US has ABM systems in development and in operation then Russia will not reduce its number of strategic warheads and will actually increase them to match the ABM systems the US introduces.

Also while the US has ABM systems the number of tactical nuclear weapons that Russia holds will only increase.

And thirdly the withdrawal of Soviet military forces from Europe and former Soviet baltic states should be reciprocated by an equivalent withdrawal of US forces in Europe... until that happens Soviet and Russian forces can't be moved back into europe but the nuclear equivalent of tactical nuclear weapons will be positioned and will include weapons banned under the INF treaty until this is corrected (ie US forces leave Europe).

It should do this now considering the insanity shown by NATO leaders in the Skripal case.

Russia is being accused of being aggressive... some aggressive actions should put their current passive actions into perspective...

Wasting resources on ships and other conventional
war assets is just idiotic. The most effective defense against NATO by a vast margin are ICBMs.

That is why I am saying don't worry too much about matching the west in the naval forces now... many conventional forces are useful and are fully dual use things... conventional cruise missiles are very useful for example. Being able to send aircraft or ships or troops to different places is very useful, but don't waste time trying to match NATO. Small mobile and very well equipped multi purpose forces are the goal.

MAD is the only thing that kept world war at bay.
Increasing the number if ICBMs by a factor of 10+ will revive MAD. For some reason NATO clowns decided that under 2000 strategic nuclear
warheads gives them a chance to defeat Russia (total number of warheads counting the tactical ones is not relevant since ABM systems do not
deal with tactical warheads).

Having a variety of nuclear weapon types is the key...

China will not be breaking up anything any time soon.

He didn't mean China was breaking up... he meant China was breaking up the US pacific alliance... ie China was causing the US pacific alliance to break up.

Russians modernized 3 out of 4 Sierras, but they are still noisy as hell.

Expensive Titanium hulled vessels that are worth keeping and upgrading.

1. Sierra's aren't worth keeping they are junk, They are WELL past their prime and upgrading them is pointless has said by the Russian's themselves but hey internet experts know best.

2. The Los class's active sensors were off the Kilo evaded the passive's, we do not know what would have changed if the Active Sensors where on.

3. Oscar's aren't better than Los Class, the Oscar's weren't designed to deal with other subs, they would be detected and sunk fairly easy by a hostile attack submarine and Sierra's aren't more advance a single Los would wreck a sierra. Saying fanboy but then posting such a fanboy statement is cute. Oscar's and Sierra's would be destroyed verse a Los, the akula 1 would stand a fair chance, akula 2's are a bit better and the akula three is better, the Yasen are better.

"cold war relic" last I checked the majority of the Russian fleet is "Cold War Relics" that are old and in need of vast upgrades, lol this is biased statement alright.

4. It should be noted there are different flights of Los class submarines, The first flight, second and third each different.

5. sierra's can go as deep as they want, they won't be able to hide, they are too loud and too old, that is why Russia stopped trying to upgrade them they seen it was just a huge waste of money.

6. Los Angeles isn't a "60"s sub, first one was commissioned in 1972, and none of the first flight versions remain in active service, well some are used has training subs only Second and Third Flight versions remain all of which was built past the 80's with better subsystems. Ignorance at it's best.

Some retarded statements and fake news:

-Sierras are noisy
-Sierras are junk
-Virginias are nuclear powered Kilos
etc. etc.

Reality:

-Russia is keeping two of the Sierras, the other two would cost too much to modernize (as much as building a new one)
-Deeper diving depth means less cavitation noise (means a sub can travel faster at deeper depth without making too much noise). Sierras are employed with different tactics than Akulas or American subs
-Oscars are hard to detect
-Virginia is less capable than Seawolf only in some aspects, in other aspects it is just as good
-Virginia built rate started slow (1 per year), the rate is building up to be 2 per year
-Los Angeles class is still useful but will fade away quickly as they are getting old and will cost too much to maintain/upgrade them

As far as I know, modernization of Sierras isn't cancelled. They've modernized the third last year and the forth is about to enter Zvezdochka.

verkhoturye51 wrote:As far as I know, modernization of Sierras isn't cancelled. They've modernized the third last year and the forth is about to enter Zvezdochka.

You are correct. I confused myself with 2 other subs.
I just updated my information:

The two later pr.945A class (Sierra 2) are in service.
The two earlier pr.945 class (Sierra 1) are not. The Karp is still in modernization at Zvezdochka, the Kostroma is expected to undergo modernization afterwards.

The building rate concerned: Amiland isn´t building SSBN´s or SSK´s, like Russia is doing. From this perspective, their rate of 1 - 2 Virginias (Los Angeles III) isn´t so impressive.

TheArmenian wrote:
-Virginia is less capable than Seawolf only in some aspects, in other aspects it is just as good
-Virginia built rate started slow (1 per year), the rate is building up to be 2 per year

-virginia cheaper, has better computers , has VLS , but can't dive as deep and not as fast as the seawolfs.

So, a seawolf is effective to hunt down virginias, and the virginia is effective to attack targets on land: )

It is similar like to say a 2018 BMW is way better in many aspect than a T-72 tank.
It is true, but irrelevant.

-They would like to increase the number of commissioned Virginias. Like the US wanted to introduce the F-35 half decade earlier into the service then its actual delivery date.

Isos wrote:
Or maybe all those US information about Seawolf being a super sub are lies and they found out that for its super price the seawolf is not that much better than virginia, probably on the same lvl, and they stoped its construction for a more economical sub. It's not like they would say to people that one of their military stuff is bad. Same with Zumwalt they probably found out it isn't that great and Burkes had much more advantages. It's not only about weapons. Those things are size of buildings that need to work 24/7.

?

It is not two competing design , it is the dame design team and same manufacturer delivered two, different weapon system ,developed in sequence.

Your logic can be true for say grippen vs mig vs sukhoi comparison .


The story of the Zumwalt is simple: The recognised that the special, nice gun projectile cost as much as per piece as a tomahawk, it rendered the whole zumwalt thingy into an oversized, funky shaped burke. Costing way more than the burkes.