Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

For what particular reason?

Because there will be many thousands of targets and no treaties limiting warhead count.

Operating 1 large submarine with 24 silos is far cheaper than operating 2 submarines with only 12 silos and with no treaties they can operate as many 24+ silo submarines as they want.

That would only mean the interception of 24 missile carrier is double that easy as the 12

ALAMO wrote:That would only mean the interception of 24 missile carrier is double that easy as the 12

If the Russian had the resources to make and operate as many submarines as desired and were still going to be limited to a small warhead count by treaty, then many lesser submarines would be better, but unfortunately Russia lacks infinite resources and therefore more powerful submarines are more economical.

As we could witness in the las months Russia has much more ressources then the combined west.

Not necessary.
There is a constant rumor that 885M is already capable of going down 800m.
The diving parameter of 971 revealed put the number at 600m.
What it really means, is the increasing parameters of new marine grade steel types they are using for construction.
The Soviet submarine grade steel was much superior to the US one for decades, and this gap is only increasing if we consider the progress of the Russian shipbuilding and the reports about the falsification of tests for the USN.

I don't doubt the quality of their metals, but at 1,000m... that is enormous pressure and strength of the materials is only half the problem... if you look at the Losharik externally it looks like a conventional mini sub but inside it is made up of spheres which allow it to operate at enormous depths with the insides at normal air pressures for the crew.

We already know the Soviets highly automated many things including loading torpedoes, and we also know they love their escape capsule concept for the crew to climb aboard a sort of mini capsule to escape a damaged sub.

How much of a stretch would it be to have a rescue/command capsule that has automated control of the subs functions that can detach in the case of emergencies and work as a rescue capsule, but at extreme depths also act as a command module where the crew can go to... it is a sphere so it is strong enough for the enormous pressure, while the rest of the sub is not pressurised and increases pressure with the outside water... there wont be anyone there so it does not matter... the crew will all be in the command/rescue component at normal pressures so no chances of getting the bends, and in an emergency they are all already in the rescue capsule.

Even with strong materials it will need to be spherical inside.

This model has only 12 silos and 4 torpedo tubes, considering that start will likely fall through that seems to be a terrible idea, it would be better to go back to submarines with as many missiles as possible.

It has always been easier to ramp up weapon numbers by adding MIRV warheads than extra missiles... besides we are on the verge of nuclear powered cruise missiles... can you guess which is harder to deal with... a mach 20 semi ballistic missile with a range of 8 thousand kms, or a mach 3 cruise missile that never climbs higher in altitude than 25m?

I will give you a hint... it is the low flying weapon... and if you can ramp that speed up to mach 4 or mach 5 you can probably do damage just by flying over targets... a mach 3 American nuclear powered cruise missile was cancelled in the 1950s... it was estimated to be able to kill people on the ground and damage buildings just by flying past at mach 3 at low altitude... The programme was cancelled because it was considered crazy... now I think we need crazy to wake those deep state in the US.

Operating 1 large submarine with 24 silos is far cheaper than operating 2 submarines with only 12 silos and with no treaties they can operate as many 24+ silo submarines as they want.

Operating 16 submarines instead of 8 means better distribution of your launch positions.

Even with MIRV missiles the actual missile has a flight path from the launch platform to the most distant primary target... even if you have 20 warheads in that missile they can't hit targets in the opposite direction from which they are launched. Each warhead can be released in flight and the distance away from the flight path of the missile they can hit their own targets is limited... you can't just sit a sub in the arctic ocean and say missile number one has 6 warheads... warhead one for London, warhead 2 for Paris, warhead 3 for Berlin, warhead 4 for Brussels, warhead 5 for a city in Poland and warhead 6 for a second city in the UK.

The launch position will determine what targets can be hit and what general path the missile will follow... what you don't do is launch missile one with 6 warheads all hitting London... because if that missile fails in flight then London might not get hit.

Another factor is that one warhead might go off early and damage the other warheads so they don't explode in the right place and the right time... when they all come from the same missile they will be too close together and might be interceptible all at once.

What normally happens is that warhead one on missiles 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 might be aimed at London... the second warhead on each of those missiles might be going for Paris, and the third warhead for Brussels and something else etc etc.

With the US backing out of treaties left right and centre who knows what weapons the Russians will be able to put in orbit soon...

If the Russian had the resources to make and operate as many submarines as desired and were still going to be limited to a small warhead count by treaty, then many lesser submarines would be better, but unfortunately Russia lacks infinite resources and therefore more powerful submarines are more economical.

You do have a point, but generally a smaller lighter sub with 12 or 16 launch tubes is going to be much smaller and lighter and cheaper than a super sub able to carry 24 missiles... remember their biggest so far carried 20 SLBMs and they were magnificent but also not cheap.

The future might be fully multipurpose vessels with 20,000km range hypersonic cruise missiles that are slower than SLBMs but also a fraction of the size and weight because they scoop their oxygen to burn their fuel on their way to the target instead of carrying it as fuel oxidiser.

An 80 ton SLBM is 95% fuel and it needs enormous super powerful rocket motors to lift 80 tons... just going to scramjets you reduce the fuel weight from maybe 73 tons to maybe 20 tons, so you have a 25 ton missile.... but then a 25 ton missile does not need such enormous rocket motors to get it airborne and the weight savings reduce the amount of fuel needed... needless to say a turbojet powered cruise missile is 2.5 tons with a flight range of 5,000km... a scramjet burns fuel faster but the missile moves faster too... so maybe an 8 ton missile that can fly 10,000km at mach 11 at 60km altitude...

And then you have nuclear powered scramjets that can operate for months...

As we could witness in the las months Russia has much more ressources then the combined west.

And every reason to develop new dual use technologies that help to make them safer and the west more scared.

GarryB wrote:
I don't doubt the quality of their metals, but at 1,000m... that is enormous pressure and strength of the materials is only half the problem... if you look at the Losharik externally it looks like a conventional mini sub but inside it is made up of spheres which allow it to operate at enormous depths with the insides at normal air pressures for the crew.

Not at all.
700m was a normal operational depth for project 705 hunter submarine, project 685 dived to 1000+ m as a part of tests without any issues, so probably could operate at this depth - at least for a while.
Sure both were titanium hulled, but that is what technological progress means. From that time, Russkie introduced several new specialized steel alloys. I wouldn't be much surprised if something that will be floated 30 years from now will be able to dive at 1km with a hull made of nonsteel material

GarryB wrote:
We already know the Soviets highly automated many things including loading torpedoes, and we also know they love their escape capsule concept for the crew to climb aboard a sort of mini capsule to escape a damaged sub.

705 was running with a crew sized about a kitchen staff on the western submarine and that was 60 years ago

Hole wrote:

Better look at the thing coming out of the tube. It´s a drone, but an underwater one.   Looks like 6 fit inside a tube.

I like the little detail on the magazine loaded with 6 "rounds".  

The drone apparently associated with the Belgorod is the Klavesin 2P-PM which is exactly 7 meters long (just like the S-300's missiles). This drone is obviously not the Klavesin and is somewhat smaller.

The missile hatch on the Borey is just under 4 meters (around 3.8m) which makes this drone about 5+ meters long, which is about the same size as the 9M96 missiles of the S-350.

I am convinced that this is part of the Husky/Laika family of submarines. Hope to see something more concrete in the near future as a replacement for the Shuka-B SSN's.

The meaning of the nuclear Scramjet is global range , just like Burevestnik, only at a speed of 15M they can replace the ICBM. Thanks to their nuclear propulsion, they also don't need air. They have no cap. However, they will not be able to fly even a few days all the time. At present, it is not even known whether Russia is working on this solution. For now, they are working on the Burevestnik subsonic cruise missile.

First of all there are a few things to clarify... my suggestion of a nuclear scramjet is flawed in the sense that we don't know how it works.

On a jet engine you have a long tube that narrows in the middle... as the air comes in the front, as the tube narrows the gas is compressed, which slows it down and heats it up... fuel is added and burned which causes rapid expansion and the gas flows out the rear at increased speed.

All jet engines work on the same principle but each different type works slightly differently.

A turbojet and a turbofan have a shaft or several shafts down the centre on which blades are mounted and those blades suck the air through, a turboprop has that shaft sticking out the front of the engine with propellers fitted and the point of the jet engine in this case is to power the propeller at the front which generates the primary propulsion for the engine. With a turbojet all the blades are inside the tube.

A turbofan is a turbojet but imagine another tube around the outside of the turbojet tube... extend the shaft up the front of the engine like the turboprop but the front fans are like the turbojet blades and are inside the outer tube too, so looking from the front the big blades at the font suck air into the outer tube that bypasses the inner tube, but the front fan also sucks air into the inner tube where it is compressed and fuel is added and burned.

The advantage of the turbofan is the volume of air it moves the outer tube lets a lot more air go through meaning more thrust... the air going through the outer tube also has not had fuel burned in it so it is oxygen rich so the after burner on a turbofan can be rather more powerful and effecient.

A jet airliner has a high bypass turbofan so most of the airflow is cold and relatively slower than the hot gas coming through the turbojet core but its sheer volume gives good thrust at subsonic speeds.

A strike aircraft uses a low bypass turbofan where the airflow is faster and supersonic speeds are possible with a powerful after burner.

A turbofan and a turbojet can also use disks instead of blades... the air comes in and hits the fast spinning disk that has blades on its surface that blow the airflow around the disk, rather than through a set of blades. They are common on vacuum cleaners these days.

The point is that a ramjet doesn't have blades... it needs an airflow to operate but it can be 100km/h... it does not need to be enormously fast to work... the Soviets tested ramjets on Polikarpov biplanes.

A ramjet is very simple but like a turbojet it burns fuel subsonically so the airflow through the core of a turbojet or turbofan has to be subsonic or the engine will choke and stall.

A scramjet burns fuel at supersonic speeds so the airflow coming in does not need to be restricted or slowed down which means you can get enormously more speed and more thrust from a scramjet than other types of jet engines.

When it comes to nuclear powered ramjets this raises a question... a standard ramjet or turbojet or turbofan or turboprop creates thrust by creating heat and it does that by compressing air and burning fuel, and either exit the rear at high speed or turning a set of propellers at the front or at the rear of the engine.

Presumably with a nuclear powered ramjet the nuclear reaction generates the heat to heat the incoming airflow.

There is not combustion involved at all so ramjet or scramjet terms are not relevant because the difference between them is the speed of the airflow where the fuel is burned.

A nuclear powered ramjet should be capable of supersonic flight even at fairly low altitudes and flying at very low altitudes is the optimal attack profile... it reduces the distance to which other things on the ground can see you and makes interception much harder... aircraft and missiles burn a lot of energy flying supersonic at low altitudes... a mach 4 plus air to air missile launched at high altitude might only reach mach 2.5 at low altitude so its effective flight range might be only a quarter of what it can achieve at medium or high altitudes so being able to fly fast at low altitude is more attractive than flying much faster at higher altitudes, but obviously it is easier to fly faster at higher altitudes and you maximise your own flight range by flying higher where you also fly faster for the same thrust setting at lower altitudes.

Miniaturised nuclear reactor ramjet motors for cruise missiles would revolutionise cruise missiles as long as the flight speed is decent.

A normal cruise missile will fly at medium altitude most of the way to achieve its long range... it will only be when it enters enemy airspace that it will drop down and fly down valleys and behind hills at low levels and at full throttle.

A nuclear powered cruise missile can fly low all the way at full power and will be a much more difficult target.

A sub with UKSK launchers might be able to carry them in enormous numbers...

The missile hatch on the Borey is just under 4 meters (around 3.8m) which makes this drone about 5+ meters long, which is about the same size as the 9M96 missiles of the S-350.

Under one hatch it could have 9M96 missiles and 9M100 missiles... perhaps two rings of them with the launcher arm itself able to pull out missiles in both rings at a time... one from the inner row ( 9M96) and two smaller missiles from the outer row (9M100), while another hatch opens up and a four faced phased array radar mast with a 360g degree IIR sensor on top... so radar and IR targets can be scanned for and engaged using the two types of missile... you could make the mast long enough to be able to be deployed while the sub is totally submerged, using IIR first to passively look for threats and then a descrete scan of the radar looking for targets out to 150km or so that the 9M96 could reach.

Or perhaps a drone can be launched to fly around looking for threats and sharing information about air and sea targets in the area...

10/11/2022
RIA Novosti

The command of the Navy became interested in the concept of nuclear submarines of the future



The latest submarine "Arctur"
The newest submarine "Arctur".
Image source: Rubin Central Design Bureau



MOSCOW, October 10 - RIA Novosti, Sergey Safronov. The command of the Russian Navy is interested in the concept of the nuclear submarine (NPS) of the future Arctur, developed by the Rubin Central Design Bureau, Andrey Baranov, Deputy General Director of the Central Design Bureau for Foreign Economic Activity and Military-Technical Cooperation, said in an interview with RIA Novosti.

At the Army-2022 exhibition, Rubin for the first time presented a model - the concept of the next-generation nuclear submarine Arcturus, which may appear in the Russian Navy in the second half of the 21st century. The concept was exhibited at the official booth of the Russian Navy.
Now the latest nuclear submarines of projects 955 "Borey" (strategic) and 885 "Yasen" (multi-purpose) are appearing in the fleet.
“Interested. We are actively working with the fleet to create a new generation of boats,” Baranov said when asked how the command of the Russian Navy reacted to the concept.
TsKB "Rubin" specializes in the design of submarines and underwater uninhabited vehicles. Most of the submarines in the Russian Navy were designed by Rubin, in particular the strategic nuclear-powered Borey-class and non-nuclear-class Varshavyanka and Lada.

https://vpk.name/news/639630_komandovanie_vmf_zainteresovalos_konceptom_apl_budushego.html



****************************************************************************************************************************************



10/11/2022
RIA Novosti

More than ten types of underwater drones for the Navy are being developed in Russia


Underwater drone Surrogat-V.
Image source: Rubin Central Design Bureau



MOSCOW, October 10 - RIA Novosti, Sergey Safronov. The Rubin Central Design Bureau, together with the Russian Ministry of Defense, is developing more than ten types of various unmanned underwater vehicles, Andrey Baranov, Deputy Director General of the Central Design Bureau for Foreign Economic Activity and Military-Technical Cooperation, said in an interview with RIA Novosti.

In particular, at the Army-2022 forum, the Rubin Central Design Bureau presented the latest Surrogate-V underwater drone (Wingman, Surrogate-W, Wingman), which imitates the actions of a submarine.

“Last year, we showed the first models of Amulet-type underwater drones. Now we have a dozen different projects in development, we are working together with the Ministry of Defense. Rubin has the competence to create a wide range of underwater drones, from small to large. We can say that underwater technology is our forte," Baranov said.
According to him, the submarine used to be only a carrier of weapons: torpedoes, missiles, mines and others, but now, in addition to this, it is a carrier of various technical means, including drones.


https://vpk.name/news/639661_v_rossii_razrabatyvayut_bolee_desyati_tipov_podvodnyh_bespilotnikov_dlya_vmf.html

The Russian Navy will almost certainly further reduce the number of operational SSN submarines in the near future. The same will happen to American submarines (reduction in operational numbers), but that is a topic for another column. Production of the Virginia class is going badly and already 9 submarines of that type have over 10 years of operational life. 21 Virginias are active.
These russian submarines need to be replaced no later than 2035, because then both "Samara" and "Vepr" will have 40 years of operational life. Originally, they were not designed for an operating life of 40 years.
Only exception are the submarines "Gepard" and "Nerpa" because Gepard will have 40 years of operational life in 2041 and Nerpa in 2049.
Whether it will prove cost-effective to modernize the titanium 945A submarines remains to be seen. I have not included the Project 949A submarines in the list because most of them will be decommissioned by the end of this decade and will be replaced by 885M submarines. I didn't even put two submarines of project 671RTMK (Victor-3). This year, it was also announced that the submarine K-391 Bratsk (project 971) will not be modernized.


* Project 971 Schchuka-B (Akula)

24th Submarine Division of the Northern Fleet.
1. K-317 Pantera (active); operational since December 30, 1990. Project 971.
2. K-461 Volk (wolf); operational since january 27, 1992. Since 2017, it has been in Zvedochka for modernization in the 971M project. The planned reintroduction into use is planned for 2023. There are no chances for that because "Leopard" as the first submarine has not yet finished testing while "Volk" has not even been launched.
3. K-328 Leopard; operational since december 30, 1992. In July 2011, the submarine came to Zvezdochka for modernization and was launched in December 2020. It is about the modernization of the 971M project. The submarine has not completed all tests and is not operational.
4. K-154 Tigr (tiger); operational since december 29,1993. Since 2019, this submarine is located in the "Nerpa" branch of Zvedochka and the submarine should return to operational status by 2023. The submarine will not be modernized to the 971M project, but rather a detailed overhaul of the submarine and partial modernization.
5. K-157 Vepr (boar); operational since november 25,1995. The submarine was thoroughly overhauled and returned to service in August 2020. Not a project 971M submarine.
6. K-335 Gepard; operational since december 4, 2001. From 2013 to 2018, she was undergoing overhaul. Project 971.1 (971U).


10 submarine divisions of the Pacific Fleet

1. K-331 ex "Magadan"; K-331; operational since december 31, 1990. K-331; it currently has no name except a number because the name "Magadan" was given to the submarine of the 636.3 project. The submarine is being modernized to Zvezda to the 971U standard. It was planned that the submarine would return to operational use in 2022 instead of 2023, which did not happen.
2. K-419 Kuzbass ;operational since december 31, 1991. in March 2016, it was returned to service after overhaul. Project 971.
3. K-295 Samara; operational since july 1995; on modernization in 971M project since 2014 in Zvezdochka.
4. K-152 Nerpa; operational since december 29, 2009; Project 971I. She was leased to the Indian Navy. It is assumed that he will serve in the Russian Navy in the future. It is located in Zvezda.

We have two more 945A Condor (Sierra-2) submarines in the 7th Submarine Division of the Northern Fleet
1. K-534 Nizhny Novgorod; operational since december 26, 1990. The submarine underwent an intermediate overhaul in 2008.
2. K-336 Pskov; operational since december 14, 1993. She was undergoing overhaul since 2011 and was returned to operational service in March 2016.

Podlodka77 wrote:This year, it was also announced that the submarine K-391 Bratsk (project 971) will not be modernized.

AFAIK the Bratsk is still slated to be leased to India following its repair in 2026 (?). For tech-transfer reasons, a repair is therefore more appropriate than an modernisation.

aasupersonic missile would not be stealthy though, the sonic boom would be detected and warning could be sent ahead

A subsonic missile would not be silent either and would be much easier to intercept.

A supersonic... say mach 3 missile flying below 100m would be incredibly difficult to intercept and as it would have unlimited range you could plot a flight course to fly through largely empty areas where there are few people and no air defences to notice its passing.

You could launch them from deep inside Russian airspace and send them the other way around the world to reach its target... flying over water it could fly at 10m altitude or less and just fly around oceans to get to the target.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Podlodka77 wrote:This year, it was also announced that the submarine K-391 Bratsk (project 971) will not be modernized.

AFAIK the Bratsk is still slated to be leased to India following its repair in 2026 (?).  For tech-transfer reasons, a repair is therefore more appropriate than an modernisation.

No, it's over.

January 17, 2022 at 7:56 Subject: Navy

The multi-purpose nuclear submarine "Bratsk" of project 971 (code "Pike-B") was declared unsuitable for repair and will not be restored.
This was reported on Monday, January 17, by Izvestia, citing sources in the Russian Defense Ministry.

The publication recalls that the submarine entered the Zvezdochka Ship Repair Center back in 2014 and has since been waiting for repairs and modernization. According to Izvestiya's interlocutors, at the same time the military department approved an updated schedule of work on the Samara nuclear submarine of the same type. As indicated in the supplementary agreement to the existing contract, a decision was made at Samara to carry out "repairs according to technical condition with an extension of the overhaul period." The delivery of the submarine to the Pacific Fleet, according to the document, is scheduled for 2023, but sources in the Ministry of Defense did not rule out that this could happen later.

http://flot.com/2022/%C7%E2%E5%E7%E4%EE%F7%EA%E01/

Only Sevmash, nothing else..
When you look at the news in the Russian Navy, then look only at Sevmash, because it turns out that everything else is irrelevant. 12 submarines are currently in Sevmash and two of that number are about to be put into service; "Suvorov" (955A) and "Krasnoyarsk" (885M), while another 10 are under construction; 4 submarines of project 955A, 5 submarines of project 885M and one submarine of special purpose (as the Russians call submarines 09851 Khabarovsk). 12 submarines !!!!! I don't know of any other shipyard that is building 10 submarines at a time and two more are being tested and about to enter service.
Consider that the start of the construction of two more project 955A submarines and very likely two more project 885M submarines is already being hinted at. And the construction of additional project 09851/09853 submarines is very likely planned, although I think the Russians may not officially announce the start of construction of those submarines. Although I am concerned about the speed of the current construction of the 885M submarines, I am convinced that it will be accelerated as the construction of the 955A project is nearing completion. That shouldn't come as a surprise, 12 fucking submarines are in Sevmash plus the modernization of the "Admiral Nakhimov" cruiser. After him, we should expect the modernization of the "Peter the Great" cruiser.

There is only one more Russian shipyard that is definitely efficient, and that is why they entrusted the construction of nuclear icebreakers to that shipyard. After all, the heavy nuclear cruisers of Project 1144 were also built in that shipyard. It is the Baltic shipyard.


Sevmash

Podlodka77 wrote:Only Sevmash, nothing else..

The new doctrine might just change all that - I hope.

The annual production rate is actually quite good but they will have to pick up some pace to increase the numbers even more (esp SSN's).
Potentially there are a number of ship yards with nuclear submarine experience in the past. These include the Admiralty Yard, Krasnoye in Nizhniy Novgorod and Amur and even Zvezda can be a future producer of nuclear subs.

It would be great if they can add say Amur in the Pacific and Admiralty in the Baltic in addition to Sevmash.

Mir wrote:

Podlodka77 wrote:Only Sevmash, nothing else..

The new doctrine might just change all that - I hope.

The annual production rate is actually quite good but they will have to pick up some pace to increase the numbers even more (esp SSN's).
Potentially there are a number of ship yards with nuclear submarine experience in the past. These include the Admiralty Yard, Krasnoye in Nizhniy Novgorod and Amur and even Zvezda can be a future producer of nuclear subs.

It would be great if they can add say Amur in the Pacific and Admiralty in the Baltic in addition to Sevmash.

Sevmash is excellent, but suddenly everything fell on that shipyard in terms of building nuclear submarines. At the beginning of this year, Sevmash had 13 submarines in its waters, but recently the K-329 Belgorod was handed over to the Russian Navy.
Amur Shipyard has already worked on nuclear submarines and "Nerpa" (project 971I) is the last submarine built in that shipyard. Now there is only talk about the construction of project 22350 frigates in that shipyard, but even that takes time. Nuclear submarines were also built by Krasnoye Sormovo, which is now completely forgotten, where submarines of project 671 and magnificent titanium submarines of projects 945 and 945A were built.

Some of the yards famous for nuclear subs construction lost the competence folks, and that was long time ago. Like Krasnoye Sormovo.
I can't remember now in details, but there are about half of the facilities left keen to deal with nuclear vessels construction.
And objectively I don't suppose that will change, as there is no space for more of them at the moment, while certification costs huge cash. Both in investments and a daily routine security measures.

You are probably right but I do feel if they really want to expand their naval footprint world wide they will have to look at expanding and upgrading some of the yards - including those for nuclear submarine construction. One yard is not enough. Amur is the logical step forward and then perhaps Admiralty. Yes the expertise might not be there but it shouldn't be too difficult to turn things around.

If they ever want to consider Titanium subs then Krasnoye could make a comeback but I have my doubts - only time will tell.

They have not constructed titanium hull subs for 40 years.
All the competence that used to exist in Sormovo simply retired or died.
From this perspective, they can start that process at any facility, it will be from the scratch anyway.
You weld titanium in the same gas chamber as any gas welding, only the gas mix is different.

They added more modern capabilities to process both titanium and composites to Sevmash so there is no doubt those will be used in submarines eventually. Probably on the Laika nuclear submarine.

The Amur shipyard also probably has a couple of Shchuka-B submarine hulls wasting space on the shipyard which could be in use for something else. They can either finish those submarines or scrap them.

lancelot wrote:They added more modern capabilities to process both titanium and composites to Sevmash so there is no doubt those will be used in submarines eventually. Probably on the Laika nuclear submarine.

The Amur shipyard also probably has a couple of Shchuka-B submarine hulls wasting space on the shipyard which could be in use for something else. They can either finish those submarines or scrap them.

The titanium welding process was also returned to KAPO, which produces the Tu-160.
As for the Amur Shipyard, the submarine with factory number 519 (allegedly should have been named "Irbis") has a percentage of completed works of about 60%, while the submarines with factory numbers 520 (25% of the work completed) and 521, on which approx. 12% work is completed.
Submarine with factory number 519 is probably still in the shipyard and is partially preserved, while the other two (520 and 521) are probably scrapped.
At Sevmash, the K-337 Kuguar submarine sections were used in the construction of the Yuri Dolgorukiy submarine, while the K-333 "Rys/Lynx" submarine sections were used for the Aleksander Nevsky submarine.

http://www.deepstorm.ru/DeepStorm.files/45-92/nts/971/list.htm