Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+84
TMA1
ALAMO
Arkanghelsk
Krepost
Mir
Podlodka77
owais.usmani
ult
lancelot
limb
Kiko
magnumcromagnon
Rasisuki Nebia
lyle6
andalusia
LMFS
miroslav
xeno
ultimatewarrior
thegopnik
Rodion_Romanovic
miketheterrible
Labrador
mnztr
Ned86
franco
hoom
PapaDragon
walle83
KiloGolf
Hole
verkhoturye51
Tsavo Lion
Peŕrier
nastle77
Singular_Transform
Arrow
Project Canada
Honesroc
Tolstoy
Singular_trafo
SeigSoloyvov
Isos
slasher
Svyatoslavich
Big_Gazza
artjomh
Morpheus Eberhardt
JohninMK
GunshipDemocracy
Stealthflanker
RTN
jhelb
Kimppis
Dima
Werewolf
mack8
flamming_python
eridan
kvs
Zivo
sepheronx
max steel
Austin
chicken
par far
Mike E
KomissarBojanchev
Flyingdutchman
collegeboy16
etaepsilonk
navyfield
calripson
Vann7
George1
dionis
TheArmenian
Hachimoto
TR1
Viktor
GarryB
runaway
Admin
Russian Patriot
88 posters

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 2411
    Points : 2415
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Mir 01/11/22, 07:13 pm

    @Isos

    We are actually discussing nuclear submarines here - they are not generally export material but Australia changed all that so it would be interesting to peek at the brochures of the "new" Aussie nuclear subs - "CAUTION!!!: DO NOT EXCEED 100 METERS!" Laughing

    (small print: If you do the exceed the set limit the 1 year warranty will be null and void with immediate effect.)

    Hole likes this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 10254
    Points : 10240
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Isos 01/11/22, 07:39 pm

    Nuclear subs don't use better materials than SSKs.

    Only some russian titanium subs could dive very deep. Rest use similar stuff to SSKs but are bigger.

    I agree their actual values are secret but don't expect them to go 1km bellow surface.

    Both US and Russia track each other and have good estimations so the numbers on the net are good indications about their capabilities.
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 2411
    Points : 2415
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Mir 01/11/22, 08:07 pm

    @Isos

    Most Russian subs use double hull construction and the steel quality is of (much) higher quality used in other nuclear subs. That gives them an advantage in many respects. One is they can dive much deeper than the competition.

    The-thing-next-door and Hole like this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 10254
    Points : 10240
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Isos 01/11/22, 08:16 pm

    I know. Kilo has a double hull too. It's materials and design is on par with Akula class IMO if not better for Improved kilos.

    Akula is bigger and is probably going further down however.

    600m is a good thing to achieve. And they don't go that low usually since it is very dangerous.
    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 3471
    Points : 3473
    Join date : 2014-11-26

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  ALAMO 01/11/22, 08:16 pm

    The daily routine depths the Soviets were running since the 70s were one of the main reasons of a whole ADCAP thing. It was not much about the lethality of the torpedo, its homing systems etc, but the depth they could reach. Soviet 70s gen of subs just dived below the engagement envelope of bloody torpedos, pushing all of NATO to emergency replacement programs. That was a whole generation of new torpedos emerging in the 80s and 90s. They just had to catch up the diving Soviet subs ...

    Hole and Mir like this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 10254
    Points : 10240
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Isos 01/11/22, 08:21 pm

    That's dumb. It's pretty easy for the US to improve their torpedo to go 100 or 200m more down.

    The reason of the higher max deapth is that they can play with the different levels of water temperature and salinity/saltiness (true english world anyone ?) which impacts the sonars.

    Creating a new sub to surpass the enemy's current torpedo is dumb. He can improve the torpedo in matter of months.
    Podlodka77
    Podlodka77


    Posts : 1674
    Points : 1678
    Join date : 2022-01-06
    Location : Z

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Podlodka77 01/11/22, 08:26 pm

    I take all the credit for waking up this section...  Laughing
    It's nice that people get away from the special military operation.
    And let me add that Russia announced in May that it tested the K-561 Kazan at the maximum depth of application, and that depth is 600 meters. That's twice as much as diesel-electric submarines.

    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14672145

    The working depth for project 885/885M and 949A submarines is 520 meters. For project 971 submarines, it varies from variant to variant and ranges from 480 to 520 meters.

    ALAMO, The-thing-next-door, Hole, TMA1 and Mir like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 3471
    Points : 3473
    Join date : 2014-11-26

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  ALAMO 01/11/22, 10:30 pm

    Let me take a bat and make some noise in the cages, the gorillas will wake up this thread for good ! Laughing Laughing

    Hole, Mir and Podlodka77 like this post

    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1093
    Points : 1147
    Join date : 2017-09-19
    Location : Uranus

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  The-thing-next-door 01/11/22, 10:30 pm

    One thing I have been wondering lately is, when the nuclear treaties fall through and everyone can have as many ballistic missile submarines as they wish. The Borie class submarines can only carry 96-160 lightweight nuclear warheads. Would we se something like the Akula return with perhaps liquid fueled SLBMs based around the Sarmat,s engines?
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 2411
    Points : 2415
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Mir 01/11/22, 10:42 pm

    Podlodka77 wrote:I take all the credit for waking up this section...  Laughing
    It's nice that people get away from the special military operation.
    And let me add that Russia announced in May that it tested the K-561 Kazan at the maximum depth of application, and that depth is 600 meters. That's twice as much as diesel-electric submarines.

    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14672145

    The working depth for project 885/885M and 949A submarines is 520 meters. For project 971 submarines, it varies from variant to variant and ranges from 480 to 520 meters.

    You can not trust these figures at all. As an example the K-278 Komsomolets (Mike)with an inner titanium hull was designed to reach depths of 1200+ meters. Some sources (besides Wikipedia) gives some interesting figures regarding the Lira/Alfa class saying it could reach depths just short of that at 1160 meters, but the test depth in Wikipedia is given at something like 400 meters! What a Face

    The Los Angeles on the other hand (due to a thin hull design in order to breach 30+ knots) could dive to around 390 meters max which was 90 meters less than the previous generation Sturgeon class!

    Hole, Broski and Podlodka77 like this post

    Podlodka77
    Podlodka77


    Posts : 1674
    Points : 1678
    Join date : 2022-01-06
    Location : Z

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Podlodka77 01/11/22, 10:42 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:One thing I have been wondering lately is, when the nuclear treaties fall through and everyone can have as many ballistic missile submarines as they wish. The Borie class submarines can only carry 96-160 lightweight nuclear warheads. Would we se something like the Akula return with perhaps liquid fueled SLBMs based around the Sarmat,s engines?


    Lightweight ?
    The useful payload of the RS-24 missile is 1,250 kilograms, while the R-30 Bulava carries 1,150 kilograms of payload.

    Mir likes this post

    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1093
    Points : 1147
    Join date : 2017-09-19
    Location : Uranus

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  The-thing-next-door 01/11/22, 10:49 pm

    Podlodka77 wrote:


    Lightweight ?
    The useful payload of the RS-24 missile is 1,250 kilograms, while the R-30 Bulava carries 1,150 kilograms of payload.


    The RS-24 carries fewer warheads.
    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 3471
    Points : 3473
    Join date : 2014-11-26

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  ALAMO 01/11/22, 10:57 pm

    Mir wrote:
    You can not trust these figures at all. As an example the K-278 Komsomolets (Mike)with an inner titanium hull was designed to reach depths of 1200+ meters. Some sources (besides Wikipedia) gives some interesting figures regarding the Lira/Alfa class saying it could reach depths just short of that at 1160 meters, but the test depth in Wikipedia is given at something like 400 meters! What a Face
    The Los Angeles on the other hand (due to a thin hull design in order to breach 30+ knots) could dive to around 390 meters max which was 90 meters less than the previous generation Sturgeon class!

    Liras were notorious for chasing 40kts 800m down.
    This thing was a fukin' Ferrari - nobody dared to go so far.
    Soviets really pushed the limit much, much up (down Laughing ).
    Komsomolets dived more than 1000m...


    GarryB, Hole, Mir and Podlodka77 like this post

    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 8001
    Points : 7989
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 46
    Location : Scholzistan

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Hole 02/11/22, 01:55 am

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    The RS-24 carries fewer warheads.
    There will be 12 Boreis. This means between 1.152 and 1.920 warheads. Only for the seabased part of the triad. How much do you want?  Suspect

    ALAMO and Podlodka77 like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 3471
    Points : 3473
    Join date : 2014-11-26

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  ALAMO 02/11/22, 01:58 am

    Moooo ...!
    Moooo ....!
    He needs MOOOOO for further wanking!

    Podlodka77 likes this post

    Podlodka77
    Podlodka77


    Posts : 1674
    Points : 1678
    Join date : 2022-01-06
    Location : Z

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Podlodka77 02/11/22, 02:06 am

    Hole wrote:
    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    The RS-24 carries fewer warheads.
    There will be 12 Boreis. This means between 1.152 and 1.920 warheads. Only for the seabased part of the triad. How much do you want?  Suspect

    My friend, we shall see about that.... welcome
    Yes, Russia will probably have 12 strategic submarines in total, but it is not impossible that the first two 955 submarines will be converted to replace the BS-136 Orenburg (ex-667BDR Kalmar/NATO; Delta III submarine) and the BS-64 Podmoskovye which was once a 667BDRM Dolphin submarine. /NATO; Delta IV. If that happens, then the Russians will have to build two more project 955A submarines, that is, the 13th and 14th.
    Therefore, 12 submarines would remain in strategic use, while the first two would be converted into special purpose submarines.


    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 1568
    Points : 1570
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  lancelot 02/11/22, 02:52 am

    There is no need to make another Losharik carrier when they have the Belgorod.

    Podlodka77 likes this post

    Podlodka77
    Podlodka77


    Posts : 1674
    Points : 1678
    Join date : 2022-01-06
    Location : Z

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Podlodka77 02/11/22, 02:59 am

    lancelot wrote:There is no need to make another Losharik carrier when they have the Belgorod.

    That's what I thought too, but until the submarines 09851/09853 arrive, I think that the K-329 Belgorod will have the primary purpose of scaring the West every time it leaves its home port. Until then, Losharik will undergo a thorough refit and modernization and will be below the BS-64 Podmoskovye submarine, until a larger number of "Khabarovsk" submarines are in service.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1093
    Points : 1147
    Join date : 2017-09-19
    Location : Uranus

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  The-thing-next-door 02/11/22, 11:30 am

    Hole wrote:
    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    The RS-24 carries fewer warheads.
    There will be 12 Boreis. This means between 1.152 and 1.920 warheads. Only for the seabased part of the triad. How much do you want?  Suspect

    From the strategic submarine fleet, no less than 30,000.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34888
    Points : 35406
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB 02/11/22, 12:58 pm

    If they can perfect scramjet engines and enlarged the Zircon to quadruple its onboard fuel supply to get its flight range of 1,500km up four times to 6,000km or more then cruise missiles can compete with ballistic missiles in range and performance... even a Zircon at 2.5 tons with four times more fuel... say 10 tons (needs a bigger solid rocket fuel stage to get airborne and moving fast) is a fraction of the weight of an SLBM like Bulava that is about 3 and a half times heavier...

    With nuclear propulsion and therefore unlimited range then having hundreds of cruise missiles on a sub that can run away and hide in the farthest corners of the globe ready to launch on any target at all is a real goal to aim for... especially if it has a dozen Poseidons too...

    The-thing-next-door likes this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 1749
    Points : 1743
    Join date : 2012-02-13

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Arrow 02/11/22, 02:33 pm

    ghtweight ? The useful payload of the RS-24 missile is 1,250 kilograms, while the R-30 Bulava carries 1,150 kilograms of payload. wrote:


    Yes, but Bulava is a light SLBM. It can carry 1150 kg, which is enough for 6 MIRVs, 150kT each. That's enough. On the other hand, Tident II or Sineva can carry a load of 2800 kg, which is almost three times heavier. More decoys and ABM defeating systems can be loaded. The Bulava probably has very advanced fuel anyway and is faster than the older generation SLBM missiles.
    Podlodka77
    Podlodka77


    Posts : 1674
    Points : 1678
    Join date : 2022-01-06
    Location : Z

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Podlodka77 02/11/22, 04:34 pm

    Arrow wrote:


    Yes, but Bulava is a light SLBM. It can carry 1150 kg, which is enough for 6 MIRVs, 150kT each. That's enough. On the other hand, Tident II or Sineva can carry a load of 2800 kg, which is almost three times heavier. More decoys and ABM defeating systems can be loaded. The Bulava probably has very advanced fuel anyway and is faster than the older generation SLBM missiles.


    Yes, that's true, but Russia has a huge number of ICBM missiles in land-based launchers; in silos and on MZKT trucks. The wikipedia information of 6 warheads of 150 kilotons and 10 warheads of 100 kilotons means nothing. The Russians did not declare and it is probably possible that the rocket carries 3 warheads of 300 kilotons each or 4 of 250 kilotons. My opinion is that the payload is in the range of 800 kilotons to one megaton per ICBM. And that is certainly not a little, and one submarine carries 16 missiles.
    We should also add the already ordered 46 RS-28 Sarmat missiles (which do not have to be the final number) which have a payload of 10 tons, which is slightly less than 168 missiles on 7 Ohio submarines with Trident missiles or a total of 4704 tons, while 46 RS-28 the missiles has 4600 tons of payload. Older R-36M2 (modification 5) Voevoda have 8.8 tons of payload.
    Podlodka77
    Podlodka77


    Posts : 1674
    Points : 1678
    Join date : 2022-01-06
    Location : Z

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Podlodka77 02/11/22, 05:31 pm

    02.11.2022
    TASS

    In "Sevmash" compared the volume of loading of the plant with the Soviet period

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Submar10
    Project 955 Borey submarine at Sevmash.
    Image source: flotprom.ru

    The enterprise has built nine ships for the Russian Navy in 10 years

    MOSCOW, 1 November. /TASS/. The Northern Machine-Building Enterprise (Sevmash, part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation) has built nine ships for the Navy of the Russian Federation in 10 years. This volume of loading of the plant is comparable to the Soviet period. This was reported to TASS by the general director of the enterprise Mikhail Budnichenko.

    "The enterprise has a serious shipbuilding program. The load volume is quite comparable with the Soviet period. The tasks are huge, nevertheless, they are up to the team, whose professionalism I am sure. I see that shipbuilders love and know their job," said the head of the shipyard .

    Budnichenko stressed that nine ships have been handed over to the Navy in 10 years. A group of missile carriers of the modernized Yasen-M and Borey-A projects is being built in the workshops, and the project 11442M ship is being modernized. “We have not commissioned such a number of ships in one year for many years,” the head of the enterprise said, recalling that only in 2021, three nuclear submarines were handed over to the fleet at once: Kazan, Novosibirsk and Knyaz Oleg.

    Also, according to him, the laying of two strategic nuclear missile carriers of projects 955A "Borey-A" was completed at Sevmash: "Dmitry Donskoy" and "Prince Potemkin". According to the company's press service, during its history, Sevmash handed over 137 nuclear-powered ships, 40 diesel submarines and 45 surface ships to the country's Navy.

    Budnichenko headed the enterprise 10 years ago. The Board of Directors of JSC "PO "Sevmash" at a meeting held in St. Petersburg on October 28 extended the powers of the General Director of "Sevmash" for another five years. Chairman of the Board of Directors Vladimir Korolev noted the effective and dynamic development of the enterprise under the leadership of Budnichenko.

    https://vpk.name/news/648829_v_sevmashe_sravnili_obem_zagruzki_zavoda_s_sovetskim_periodom.html

    GarryB and Broski like this post

    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1093
    Points : 1147
    Join date : 2017-09-19
    Location : Uranus

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  The-thing-next-door 02/11/22, 07:08 pm

    Podlodka77 wrote:


    Yes, that's true, but Russia has a huge number of ICBM missiles in land-based launchers; in silos and on MZKT trucks. The wikipedia information of 6 warheads of 150 kilotons and 10 warheads of 100 kilotons means nothing. The Russians did not declare and it is probably possible that the rocket carries 3 warheads of 300 kilotons each or 4 of 250 kilotons. My opinion is that the payload is in the range of 800 kilotons to one megaton per ICBM. And that is certainly not a little, and one submarine carries 16 missiles.
    We should also add the already ordered 46 RS-28 Sarmat missiles (which do not have to be the final number) which have a payload of 10 tons, which is slightly less than 168 missiles on 7 Ohio submarines with Trident missiles or a total of 4704 tons, while 46 RS-28 the missiles has 4600 tons of payload. Older R-36M2 (modification 5) Voevoda have 8.8 tons of payload.

    While I do agree that Russias heavy ICBMs will make up for the lack of potency of thier ballistic missile submarines, I forsee that SLBMs will likely increase in potency with the dawn of a multipolar world order owing to thier ability to strike at pindostan from unexpected angles and with less warning than say the Sarmat. Hence when the treaties go out the window being able to rapidly increase the number of submarine carried warheads is important and the lightweight Bulava does not offer that capability.
    Scorpius
    Scorpius


    Posts : 997
    Points : 999
    Join date : 2020-11-06
    Age : 35

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Scorpius 02/11/22, 09:20 pm

    Arrow wrote:


    Yes, but Bulava is a light SLBM. It can carry 1150 kg, which is enough for 6 MIRVs, 150kT each. That's enough. On the other hand, Tident II or Sineva can carry a load of 2800 kg, which is almost three times heavier. More decoys and ABM defeating systems can be loaded. The Bulava probably has very advanced fuel anyway and is faster than the older generation SLBM missiles.
    6 warheads of 150 kilotons falling into a circle with a radius of 3-5 kilometers will cause much more damage than detonating a 1 megaton warhead at one point. the interference of shock waves and the physical laws of the growth of the radius of damage relative to the power do their job. So if you want to break through the protection of a fortified point object, you have to take a heavy warhead, but if you need to hit a vast or extended object, launch a handful of light charges into it and enjoy the fire.

    GarryB and Broski like this post


    Sponsored content


    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 31 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is 07/12/22, 12:26 pm