Questions Thread: Russian Navy

Despite their size, why do Russian subs carry less SLBMs then smaller U.S. Subs despite having SLBMs of the same performance?

IronsightSniper wrote:Despite their size, why do Russian subs carry less SLBMs then smaller U.S. Subs despite having SLBMs of the same performance?

Thats a very good observation. Assuming you are right & you are I say that because Russian designed turbines & related assembly is relatively more spacious; this too holds true for their aeroplane engines length.

First of all in general the Soviet and now Russian SLBMs are generally bigger than US missiles which makes packing more missiles easier.

Second Soviet and Russian subs are double hulled which makes them much bigger than western submarines.

Third the Soviet and Russian preferred more subs rather than lots of missiles in fewer subs.

Fourth, despite the fact that the Ohio class SSNs carry 24 missiles their standard warhead load is 7 warheads which means in terms of SLBM warheads it had 168 warheads per boat. The Akula class (Western designation Typhoon) carried 20 missiles but each missile normally carried 10 warheads for a total of 200 warheads per boat.
The Akula was design specifically to operate under the north pole icecap as it had a very high freeboard (ie it sat very high in the water when it is on the surface) and was designed to surface through up to 4 metres of solid ice. The idea was for it to find a shallow part of the ice and surface up through it to fire its missiles. Its sides would be protected by the ice hanging down around it from SSN attack and it would be too far north to attack with aircraft.

I should point out that the long range subsonic cruise missiles the Russians make are every bit as good as their US equivelents in terms of range and speed and weight. The Kh-102 and 101 weigh more and are in the 2 ton weight class but their fight range is 5,500km.

Problem is that apparently the Kh-101 is non-existent.

Size comparison:

Trident II
----------
13.4 meters long
2.11 meters wide
58.5 tonnes

Bulava
--------
12.1 meters long
2.1 meters wide
36.8 tonnes


So the Bulava is clearly smaller, yet when one compares their launch platforms:

Ohio class
----------
18,750 tonnes submerged
170 meters long
13 meters wide

Borei Class
-----------
24,000 tonnes submerged
170 meters long
13.5 meters wide

So the Borei is also clearly equal or larger to the Ohio. Yet the Borei can only carry 16 Bulavas total compared to the Ohio carrying 24, which is a huge difference in carrying capacity, despite the equal Sub sizes and even a lighter missile for the Borei. Although the double hull might explain that though. If I may so inquire, would would the Russians prefer less Missiles per subs in favor of more Subs? My first guess was to spread out their forces so that the loss of one Sub won't mean crippling the Nuke Trinity, but wouldn't more Nukes per Sub and More Subs per fleet be even better?

Very simply they don't want all their eggs in one basket.

With a reduction of nuclear weapons warheads to 1,500 that means each branch of the nuclear triad has 500 warheads each... that is two and a half Akula class subs. Three subs would be easier to keep track of than 8 newer more capable vessels.

More nukes and more subs is not necessary and these days with limits on warheads and platforms it makes no sense to continue cold war subs.

Another issue is that MIRV missiles can't be used against widely scattered targets so the sub will have a designated launch area and from that area certain targets can be reached. Carrying enormous numbers of missile warheads wont result in a lot more targets being engaged, rather it would simply result in some targets getting multiple warheads targeted at them.

Another aspect is that Soviet/Russian subs tend to be a bit roomier for the crew and they don't follow the US practise of hot racking where the crew is divided into 3 x 8 hour shifts where one shift is at work, one is sleeping, and one is eating/relaxing/exercising/reading/etc. This means each rating shares his bunk with two other people.
In comparison the Akula had an aviary, a library, two swimming pools, a picture theatre, and each officer had their own cabin and there were two ratings to each bunk room. Luxury.

Problem is that apparently the Kh-101 is non-existent.

You might want to tell the Russian military because every time they mention air launched cruise missiles they talk about missiles with flight ranges of over 5,000km. They will have lots of Kh-55s in stock but no model Kh-55 has that sort of range... the first model had a 2,500km range and the later model with the saddle fuel tanks had a 3,500km range, but neither approached 5,000km with any flight profile option.

I wonder what if project 20120 Sarov class with nuclear propulsion and VLS with navalized Iskander system in antiship role?

Or perhaps mix of Iskander/Clubs. Iskander is stated to be maneuverable with different terminal guidance systems.

A launch of mix of such weapons would surely left all ships no matter they spec in great problems.

This forum is the only place I have seen a navalised Iskander mentioned, so I can't see the current makers of Russian anti ship missiles too keen to add another missile type... especially when Brahmos II is being worked on.

To put it in perspective they currently have a huge number of anti ship weapons either in service or ready for service, from the older systems like Termit, Malakhit, Granit and Vulkan, through to Moskit, Oniks, Uran, plus the new model Uran with double the range of old Uran, the Club series of missiles that are air, sea and sub launched. And that doesn't include air to surface missiles that have an anti ship role from SHTURM/ATAKA, through Kh-25 versions, Kh-29, Kh-31... including a new model Kh-31 with double the range of the previous model, and of course the Kh-58 and Kh-59M and then there is the dedicated Kh-22M anti radiation/anti ship missiles.

Even here I am assuming the Bazalts are being replaced by Vulkans.

Very simply the Russians have inherited an enormous range of weapons from small ATGMs that can be used to hit the engine compartment of a fishing boat to make it stop without obliterating the entire vessel or killing everyone on board right through to nuclear armed supersonic sea skimmers that would vapourise any ship it hit... and lots of stuff in between.

The universal launchers the Russians are developing include one for SAMs and one for other missile types... the later is the USUK system that as far as I know can carry a range of missile types. Specifically they can carry the 5,000km range convention or nuclear armed Kh-101/Kh-102 missiles, the Club series of surface launched missiles, which includes a subsonic all the way missile for anti ship use and land attack, and a subsonic most of the way and mach 3 for the last portion to penetrate CIWS defences version, and it also includes a missile that is basically a rocket that delivers a torpedo payload up to 40km away from the ship, and finally it can handle the Brahmos missile or the Oniks missile or the Yakhont missile.

Note the Oniks missile is the original Soviet/Russian missile and the Yakhont is the downgraded shorter range limited warhead size missile developed from the Oniks for export. The Brahmos is the greatly updated missile developed with India that is based on the Yakhont, so its avionics are better but its range and warhead are smaller because Brahmos and Yakhont are restricted by export agreements while the Oniks is not. I would suspect that the new build Oniks might include many of the new technologies created and the improvements made during the development of the Brahmos. I think because of this the Russians might just introduce that into service and call it Brahmos. They would not be able to export that model of course.

So the USUK can carry a 5,000km range nuclear armed cruise missile, a 5,000km range conventionally armed cruise missile, a missile that flies at subsonic speed all the way to its target which should be good for most targets, with a range of at the very least of 400km and likely 500km because it is for Russian use and not being exported so it is not restricted by any export restrictions, a missile that flies at subsonic speed most of the distance to a target to make it hard to detect and to give it a longer range than if it flew supersonic all the way which
should be good for well defended or alert targets, with a range of at the very least of
400km and likely 500km because it is for Russian use and not being
exported so it is not restricted by any export restrictions, a missile that will deliver a homing torpedo up to 40km away from the ship, and a choice of two missiles (Oniks and Brahmos) which fly at just under Mach 3 all the way to their targets 300kms or more away.

The point is that if you want to fire a Mach 7 missile that manoeuvres and can reach targets 400km away then the S-400 is likely being navalised and on its way soon... and more than likely an S-500 development will also be in the works as well to counter USN developments in this regard too.

IronsightSniper wrote:Despite their size, why do Russian subs carry less SLBMs then smaller U.S. Subs despite having SLBMs of the same performance?

Sineva is like half a meter wider than Trident. Bigger diameter means more space required. Bulava is the same size but going on smaller submarines.

Can any one identify the Russian ship and what is written in Russian ?

Sorry I can't help... as you know I can't read or understand Russian, but I must say it is the first drawing of a new ship I have seen with 57mm gun turrets, and that alone suggests this is a patrol ship.

The lighter gun would still be very useful against illegal fisherman and smugglers without being overkill.

The missiles suggests a vessel that can look after itself.

From my knowledge of basic Cyrillic the name on the side of the ship is GAVRIIL. This name is repeated in the bottom left corner of the page.

Its too heavily armed to be a patrol boat , infact its quite well armed never mind the 57 mm twin gun , i suppose thats the new Corvette ?

Looking at the vertical launch systems I think perhaps they have gone with everything vertical launch including decoy rockets etc.

The round bin seems to hold only 5 weapons, one of which is the anti torpedo system with the 40km range and 324mm calibre in the brown box at the bottom. It is an ASROC type weapon but instead of a conventional torpedo it carries an anti torpedo torpedo... used to intercept incoming enemy torpedoes. The other weapon depicted with a range of 150km could be an anti ship missile, but I am not sure. I could just as easily be a SAM for outer ring defence of the vessel.

The other bin seems to have a range of weapons but they are relatively small weapons... the bottom missile shown is a naval TOR missile... KLINTOK... a SAM with a range of 15km.
The weapon depicted above it in the green box looks like some sort of replacement rocket for the RBU series depth charge launchers with a mass of 160kgs.

To be honest these are patrol boat sized weapons... I would think if this boat was built 30 years ago the front gun would be moved back to where the vertical launch bins are and because of the extra volume in the hull it would likely have been an AK-176 single barrel 76mm automatic gun and the new space in front of it would have a couple of RBU-6000 launchers. At the middle of the boat would be a couple of 533mm torpedo tubes to launch torpedoes, and at the rear would be a couple of 30mm gun mounts for AK-630 CIWS.

I still think this is a small ship.

I have read on the internet, 'rumours' that the Russian Navy will being an Ekranoplan project again. Does anyone know anything about this? I saw this article on it coldwarcontinues dot blogspot dot com

Rumours about the Ekranoplan is a bit like rumours about the A-42 Albatross... there is all sorts of speculation about whether the Russian Navy will or will not fund these programs.

For the A-42 some say it is too specialised and expensive and that because they will only need a dozen or so at most for the Black and Baltic sea fleets, because sea conditions in the northern fleet and pacific fleet mean that for most of its time it will not be able to land on the sea surface will make it a very expensive aircraft to operate and use.

A more conventional shape like that of the Tu-214 or something similar would be far more cost effective.

The issue is what can its unusual design bring to the table that is worth the cost and effort and cannot be achieved through other means or simply the navy can do without the capability it provides.



The same question will be asked of Ekranoplan designs.

BTW Woogar it is a forum rule that you introduce yourself in the "members introductions and rules" thread.

This Alpha is related to the Granat that the Klub series are based on.

Very simply Granat and Alpha are dead, Klub is the future and includes domestic granat and alpha equivalents.

The UKSK vertical launch systems being introduced on Navy subs and ships carries Klub and Oniks/Yakhont/Brahmos, and Kh-101/102 type missiles.

Granat is basically Klub/Club/Kalibr.

Must ships and subs in the new Russian fleet will have UKSK launchers for various Klub and other missiles.

They used to carry them yes. If they do today is a separate question. Not sure if a conventionally armed variant was ever fielded, and Russian attack subs stopped carrying nuclear weapons in the early 90s, I think.

It was nuclear from outset. Wikipedia makes conventional claims, but weather a conventional variant was actually fielded in the 90s or not, I don't know.

AFAIK the Klub series was the result of trying to make conventionally armed versions of the Granat, that led to anti ship models with both subsonic all the way and mixed subsonic and supersonic flight profiles.
The addition of solid rocket propelled torpedo systems was an added bonus.

Nuclear weapons were totally withdrawn from Russian Navy vessels, but I believe they are going to... if they haven't already, returning them to service as a counter to the significant difference in force levels of NATO, US, and Russian fleets.

A sub with a few cruise missiles is much more of a threat to a carrier battle group if its anti ship missiles are nukes and of course the ability to deliver a cruise missile attack (conventional or nuke) makes their vessels much more flexible and capable.

Torpedoes only.