Project 677: Lada class submarine

Viktor wrote:It has started  

Source: Russia has started production of anaerobic systems for submarines

Which confirms what we said about the Lada class:

The first boat of the project "St. Petersburg" was built with classic power plant and is currently continuing the test. Two other boats of this project are still at the stage of completion of construction, and, perhaps, they will be tested first anaerobic systems.

The first Lada class sub did not have an AIP system but the new system the Russians have developed will be fitted into the next two Lada class subs that were laid down but not completed so they can have AIP and Lithium Ion batteries added before they are complete.

Its very quite about Lada subs, is the remaining two back in production or scrapped? St petersburg, she doesnt bring home any prices or attention, seems a failure.
New torpedos also seems a long way of, and the only solution seems to be to keep building 636 Kilo, cause otherwise the entire SS fleet will soon be obselete and old.
Lucky the SSNG and SSBN fleet is modernising and highly capable.

Kronshtadt (B-586)
Laid down on July 28, 2005 at the Admiralty Shipyards, will be assigned to Baltic fleet. Construction resumed on July 9th, 2013.[4] Sevastopol (B-587)
Come on, been in production for soon 10 years!
They should really cut their losses scrapp the faulty subs and begin with new or revised 636´s

runaway wrote:Its very quite about Lada subs, is the remaining two back in production or scrapped? St petersburg, she doesnt bring home any prices or attention, seems a failure.
New torpedos also seems a long way of, and the only solution seems to be to keep building 636 Kilo, cause otherwise the entire SS fleet will soon be obselete and old.
Lucky the SSNG and SSBN fleet is modernising and highly capable.

Kronshtadt (B-586)
Laid down on July 28, 2005 at the Admiralty Shipyards, will be assigned to Baltic fleet. Construction resumed on July 9th, 2013.[4] Sevastopol (B-587)
Come on, been in production for soon 10 years!
They should really cut their losses scrapp the faulty subs and begin with new or revised 636´s

From what I've heard, most of the issues have been solved with the Lada. Now it is more the issue of finding both time and money, as the Russian naval industry is gettin' pretty busy. Sankt Petersburg has been in service for a short while, so you can't really call it a "failure". As for the new torpedoes, a recent report said that they are very close to reaching production. - Nothing to worry about there. They *are* building the 636, and as that design will reach obsolescence decades before the Lada, there isn't much reason in building any more. After all the production orders for the 636 have been satisfied, I assume the production rate of the Lada/Amur will increase dramatically. - Price will go done etc. 

Once again.... Kronshtadt has just recently resumed production, it spent many years in limbo, which explains the long construction time.... As for when it will be finished, I have no clue. 
Only a couple of years... 
That would be a huge mistake, *they are already building the 636, and they also need to look towards the future*.

Mike E wrote:Once again.... Kronshtadt has just recently resumed production, it spent many years in limbo, which explains the long construction time.... As for when it will be finished, I have no clue. 
Only a couple of years... 
That would be a huge mistake, *they are already building the 636, and they also need to look towards the future*.

Thats what i meant, iam not so sure the future russian SS should be Lada, remeber its a totally different design then the Kilo with a mono hull.
Perhaps a new dubble hull sub will be easier to make work with AIP and everything.
Do anyone know if there are other modern submarines with monohull?

Its very quite about Lada subs, is the remaining two back in production or scrapped?

Why on Earth would they scrap them?

New torpedos also seems a long way of, and the only solution seems to be to keep building 636 Kilo, cause otherwise the entire SS fleet will soon be obselete and old.

Or they could build Foxtrot class subs... they would be even easier to mass produce...

They have spent large amounts of money to create a new SSK a generation ahead of the 636, why would they scrap them now and keep making 636s?

Do you think they should also stop development of the PAK FA and just make lots more Su-35s and MiG-35s?

What a strange brain you have... nothing in the media = failure.

By any chance are you a fan of twitter?

Laid down on July 28, 2005 at the Admiralty Shipyards, will be assigned to Baltic fleet. Construction resumed on July 9th, 2013.

Having problems reading?

Please tell me the definition of the word resumed. For construction to have resumed... it must also have stopped. If it stopped in 2006 then construction time is 2 years.

They should really cut their losses scrapp the faulty subs and begin with new or revised 636´s

Except if they are not faulty. F-22 is suffocating pilots... scrap all 188 of them perhaps? Or just use your brains and work out a solution to the problem and don't be such a drama queen... you sound like a reporter.

Thats what i meant, iam not so sure the future russian SS should be Lada, remeber its a totally different design then the Kilo with a mono hull.

Mono hull means smaller and lighter and cheaper and more manouverable.

Of course it is a different design to the Kilo... it is a new generation sub.

Perhaps a new dubble hull sub will be easier to make work with AIP and everything.

No.

Do anyone know if there are other modern submarines with monohull?

Almost all western subs are mono hulled.

runaway wrote:

Mike E wrote:Once again.... Kronshtadt has just recently resumed production, it spent many years in limbo, which explains the long construction time.... As for when it will be finished, I have no clue. 
Only a couple of years... 
That would be a huge mistake, *they are already building the 636, and they also need to look towards the future*.

Thats what i meant, iam not so sure the future russian SS should be Lada, remeber its a totally different design then the Kilo with a mono hull.
Perhaps a new dubble hull sub will be easier to make work with AIP and everything.
Do anyone know if there are other modern submarines with monohull?

Then you answered your own question... 
Single-hulls are easier to design and work on.
All Western subs, as GarryB noted.

GarryB wrote:  
Why on Earth would they scrap them?

Because the design is obviously faulty, St Petersburg will not enter service, that should be proof enough.

Or they could build Foxtrot class subs... they would be even easier to mass produce...
They have spent large amounts of money to create a new SSK a generation ahead of the 636, why would they scrap them now and keep making 636s?

Or Whiskey´s..
Remember the Project 685 Plavnik? Just built in one example, and for a reason.

Do you think they should also stop development of the PAK FA and just make lots more Su-35s and MiG-35s?

The PAK-FA is not a faulty design, it keeps meeting performance criterias. You reason with mockery and sarcasm, i dont like that and it doesnt add to a good discussion.

What a strange brain you have... nothing in the media = failure.
By any chance are you a fan of twitter?

When a submarine has been on the staples for 10 years, one should question if its a good project. And no i dont read twitters.

Laid down on July 28, 2005 at the Admiralty Shipyards, will be assigned to Baltic fleet. Construction resumed on July 9th, 2013.
Having problems reading?
Please tell me the definition of the word resumed. For construction to have resumed... it must also have stopped. If it stopped in 2006 then construction time is 2 years..

Do you seriously think the construction time is two years?

Except if they are not faulty. F-22 is suffocating pilots... scrap all 188 of them perhaps? Or just use your brains and work out a solution to the problem and don't be such a drama queen... you sound like a reporter.

The F22 should have been stopped long ago, as should the M551 sheridan have been. Instead the F22 is eating billions of dollars, and the Sheridan was of no use in service.

Lets be clear, it takes more guts to cancel a faulty project then to pour in alot of money and end up with a not good end product. Its called prestige, and we can blame much to that.

The new 636 is a top of the line submarine, and can certainly be used as a stopgap until a new design is ready for production. Like the T-90, T-95 and finally Armata.

runaway wrote:

GarryB wrote:  
Why on Earth would they scrap them?

Because the design is obviously faulty, St Petersburg will not enter service, that should be proof enough.

Or they could build Foxtrot class subs... they would be even easier to mass produce...
They have spent large amounts of money to create a new SSK a generation ahead of the 636, why would they scrap them now and keep making 636s?

Or Whiskey´s..
Remember the Project 685 Plavnik? Just built in one example, and for a reason.

Do you think they should also stop development of the PAK FA and just make lots more Su-35s and MiG-35s?

The PAK-FA is not a faulty design, it keeps meeting performance criterias. You reason with mockery and sarcasm, i dont like that and it doesnt add to a good discussion.

What a strange brain you have... nothing in the media = failure.
By any chance are you a fan of twitter?

When a submarine has been on the staples for 10 years, one should question if its a good project. And no i dont read twitters.

Laid down on July 28, 2005 at the Admiralty Shipyards, will be assigned to Baltic fleet. Construction resumed on July 9th, 2013.
Having problems reading?
Please tell me the definition of the word resumed. For construction to have resumed... it must also have stopped. If it stopped in 2006 then construction time is 2 years..

Do you seriously think the construction time is two years?

Except if they are not faulty. F-22 is suffocating pilots... scrap all 188 of them perhaps? Or just use your brains and work out a solution to the problem and don't be such a drama queen... you sound like a reporter.

The F22 should have been stopped long ago, as should the M551 sheridan have been. Instead the F22 is eating billions of dollars, and the Sheridan was of no use in service.

Lets be clear, it takes more guts to cancel a faulty project then to pour in alot of money and end up with a not good end product. Its called prestige, and we can blame much to that.

The new 636 is a top of the line submarine, and can certainly be used as a stopgap until a new design is ready for production. Like the T-90, T-95 and finally Armata.

The heck are you smoking?

All of the so-called "faults" in the design have been resolved/fixed, this has been said enough already... If St Petersburg is never in active services, it would be because it is the lead ship, which was built without knowledge of problems for obvious reasons...

Still haven't explained why they should only build one....

The PAK-FA isn't flawless, then again neither is the Lada... 

Funding was dropped for a long period of time, obviously it is going to be overlooked. Now that funding has returned, things are going steady and it will remain that way. 

You don't get what he said... GarryB clearly meant that it has *only been in production for two years*. That being said, production time should be around two years, if not faster, because the 636 has a larger displacement. If the Kilo can be made in two years, so can the Lada, as long as everything is ready.

The F-22 is the US Air Force's most successful project in recent times (F-35...), and most of its problems, including the oxygen related ones, have been fixed. The M551 was a great design with a crappy gun, with a 105 it would have been amazing...

So, it takes guts to cancel a soon-to-be successful project and keep producing the older one? With new concepts come new risks, with your ideology, we'd still be living in caves!

It is great, hence the large numbers of orders. However, it is aging and needs a replacement sooner than later (Lada!).

If nobody "has any idea" when the kronshtadt will be finished then there's something wrong. Ships in production usually have deadlines.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:If nobody "has any idea" when the kronshtadt will be finished then there's something wrong. Ships in production usually have deadlines.

Not when it is a secretive project in general... I'm sure it could be found, but nobody wants to go look for it. - I'll take a couple of minutes...

EDIT; It will be *commissioned* around the end of 2017 at the very latest.

Mike E wrote:
The heck are you smoking?

All of the so-called "faults" in the design have been resolved/fixed, this has been said enough already... If St Petersburg is never in active services, it would be because it is the lead ship, which was built without knowledge of problems for obvious reasons...

Really? So every lead ship is built without knowledge of problems, and some so grave the ship will never enter service? I agree every lead ship have Some problems, but none so bad it wont enter service, then its a much bigger problem. Design.

The F-22 is the US Air Force's most successful project in recent times (F-35...), and most of its problems, including the oxygen related ones, have been fixed. The M551 was a great design with a crappy gun, with a 105 it would have been amazing...

If you really think the M551 was a great design and with a 105 it would have been great, your lack of knowledge is amazing.

(From military today and wiki)
On March 1971, five Sheridans from the 11th ACR were lost in one day to RPG fire, all five vehicles burst into flames and were totally destroyed.[13] It became a common scene to observe melted Sheridan hulls with their sunken steel turrets sitting at odd angles with their gun tubes pointing towards the sky in various parts of the country.
The aluminium armor was not good, it was very vulnerable and couldnt drive through trees as could the M48. Most opinions were negative,
this was largely due to the high casualty rate of both Sheridans and their crews as mines and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) that would only damage an M48 Patton tank, would destroy the Sheridan and kill or wound most, if not all, of its crew

It was a very innovative light tank design, however due to it's numerous faults the M551 Sheridans have been replaced in reconnaissance role with the M60A1 main battle tanks and later with the M3 Bradley armored reconnaissance vehicles.


Several attempts to improve or replace the Sheridan have been made over the years since it was introduced. Several experimental versions of the Sheridan mounting a new turret carrying the NATO-standard 105mm gun were made, but the resulting recoil was so great as to make the vehicle almost unusable.



And i still question if Lada will be a succes, i hope so, certainly. But maybe it would have been wiser to do a "Mike", or T-95. Cancel and Continue with the next step in evolution.

runaway wrote:

Mike E wrote:
The heck are you smoking?

All of the so-called "faults" in the design have been resolved/fixed, this has been said enough already... If St Petersburg is never in active services, it would be because it is the lead ship, which was built without knowledge of problems for obvious reasons...

Really? So every lead ship is built without knowledge of problems, and some so grave the ship will never enter service? I agree every lead ship have Some problems, but none so bad it wont enter service, then its a much bigger problem. Design.

The F-22 is the US Air Force's most successful project in recent times (F-35...), and most of its problems, including the oxygen related ones, have been fixed. The M551 was a great design with a crappy gun, with a 105 it would have been amazing...

If you really think the M551 was a great design and with a 105 it would have been great, your lack of knowledge is amazing.

(From military today and wiki)
On March 1971, five Sheridans from the 11th ACR were lost in one day to RPG fire, all five vehicles burst into flames and were totally destroyed.[13] It became a common scene to observe melted Sheridan hulls with their sunken steel turrets sitting at odd angles with their gun tubes pointing towards the sky in various parts of the country.
The aluminium armor was not good, it was very vulnerable and couldnt drive through trees as could the M48. Most opinions were negative,
this was largely due to the high casualty rate of both Sheridans and their crews as mines and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) that would only damage an M48 Patton tank, would destroy the Sheridan and kill or wound most, if not all, of its crew

It was a very innovative light tank design, however due to it's numerous faults the M551 Sheridans have been replaced in reconnaissance role with the M60A1 main battle tanks and later with the M3 Bradley armored reconnaissance vehicles.


Several attempts to improve or replace the Sheridan have been made over the years since it was introduced. Several experimental versions of the Sheridan mounting a new turret carrying the NATO-standard 105mm gun were made, but the resulting recoil was so great as to make the vehicle almost unusable.



And i still question if Lada will be a succes, i hope so, certainly. But maybe it would have been wiser to do a "Mike", or T-95. Cancel and Continue with the next step in evolution.

Not necessarily, but the Lada brings a lot of untested technology into the Russian diesel sub market.

Maybe not amazing, but the ideology behind it was genius! - Light weight, lots of firepower, quick, air-drop capable... Its execution wasn't perfect, but what vehicle is? As for the 105, it should have been a low-recoil gun... They are widely available.

Why question? Think of it as an improved 636!

Because the design is obviously faulty, St Petersburg will not enter service, that should be proof enough.

If it is obviously faulty then why are they keeping the original in service as a testing platform for new systems, and continuing to build the other two vessels laid down?

When planning and developing a new complex system you have design objectives that you have no idea whether they can be met. with new systems you have to estimate and calculate but until the thing is actually built and tested you may never know its real world performance.

There were requirements and specifications for the Lada sub and when the sub was finally built it was found it did not meet requirements in a couple of areas. Before the other two were built they were able to test the first and decide on new systems and parameters and solve the problems.

the two new subs will get more powerful Lithium ion batteries and an indigenous AIP system to greatly improve performance... almost to SSN level in fact and your expert opinion is it is a failure?

Remember the Project 685 Plavnik? Just built in one example, and for a reason.

It was an operational test bed designed to test a range of new technologies... it was expensive to build, so when it was lost most of the new technologies were tested on other new sub designs and its design was cancelled as too ambitious.

The Lada didn't sink, so information about what worked and what didn't and what needed improving and what was performing fine was collected and applied to the other two vessels in the class.

The PAK-FA is not a faulty design, it keeps meeting performance criterias. You reason with mockery and sarcasm, i dont like that and it doesnt add to a good discussion.

One PAK FA lost an engine and could not be displayed, and another caught fire... Cancel it immediately!

When a submarine has been on the staples for 10 years, one should question if its a good project. And no i dont read twitters.

I have never been to twitter, but it seems to be a website for insecure people who want to talk to anyone about their mundane lives. Is it because you have not heard constant updates about Lada that you think it is a failure?

They have tested its AIP and it will be fitted to the other two Lada hulls... does that suggest they are failures?

Do you seriously think the construction time is two years?

Why not? You were happy to think it was 10 years... they aren't finished yet... if they enter service in 2017 that would mean 5 years construction, does that sound excessive?

Its called prestige, and we can blame much to that.

We certainly can, but cancelling a project when you spent all that money to actually make it work would be stupid if the final product is a generation ahead of everything else you have and you have a need for it.

The new 636 is a top of the line submarine, and can certainly be used as a stopgap until a new design is ready for production. Like the T-90, T-95 and finally Armata.

The problem there is that the T-95 was a cold war dead end, while Armata is a family of vehicles of a new concept.

If they cancelled the Lada now and started from scratch developing a new sub using all new technologies they would develop... a Lada... it already uses new technologies and does everything they want it to do.

It would be like having the T-90s in service and developing the Armata and then cancel the armata and make more T-90s for 10 years while you throw out the Armata design and come up with... an armata design that could be called Armata-M.

The M551 was a great design with a crappy gun, with a 105 it would have been amazing...

Ignoring the gun, which was a colossal waste of money and time, the Sheridan is basically what you get if you want an airborne armoured vehicle... for airborne forces given the choice of armour or walking I think the advantages of some armour protection and much better mobility is clear.

It is pretty funny when the Discovery channel does a programme on the worlds best tanks and includes the Sheridan... Sprut is far superior...

EDIT; It will be *commissioned* around the end of 2017 at the very latest.

Boy, my guess above was pretty accurate.

They are adding new batteries and a new AIP so the production time for the next vessels in the class should be quicker to make.

Really? So every lead ship is built without knowledge of problems, and some so grave the ship will never enter service? I agree every lead ship have Some problems, but none so bad it wont enter service, then its a much bigger problem. Design.

Look at the Kiev class ships... especially near the take off ramp... they spent a fortune trying to fix the air flow there with ramps and walls on all the vessels of that class, the last in the class had so many changes they wanted to call it Improved Kiev in the west.

there are so many complex interactions in a modern vessel that problems will be expected... the question is, what sort of solutions are there and how easy are they to impliment... especially without creating new problems.

It became a common scene to observe melted Sheridan hulls with their sunken steel turrets sitting at odd angles with their gun tubes pointing towards the sky in various parts of the country.

The Sheridans gun used combustable propellent stubs made of cardboard that were an enormous fire risk. Storing ammo in the crew compartment any penetration showered the ammo with sparks leading to immediate ignition of the propellent... T-64 and T-80 have the same problem.

Change to 105 would fix that.

The aluminium armor was not good, it was very vulnerable and couldnt drive through trees as could the M48.

Delivered by parachute the Sheridan is a useful light vehicle with a crap gun. the M48 would be a hole in the ground.

Several attempts to improve or replace the Sheridan have been made over the years since it was introduced. Several experimental versions of the Sheridan mounting a new turret carrying the NATO-standard 105mm gun were made, but the resulting recoil was so great as to make the vehicle almost unusable.

Even a 90mm gun would be an improvement over the 152mm gun it carried.

Cancel and Continue with the next step in evolution.

The Lada-M with LI Ion batteries and AIP IS THE NEXT STEP.

5 years is exccessive for( by your definitions) a puny non strategic sub, especially if its not a lead ship. That's the time it should take a to build an entirely new class leader ballistic sub.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:5 years is exccessive for( by your definitions) a puny non strategic  sub, especially if its not a lead ship. That's the time it should take a to build an entirely new class leader ballistic sub.

As said earlier, when the construction on the 636 is finished, the Lada will be built much faster... - ~ 2 years

KomissarBojanchev wrote:5 years is exccessive for( by your definitions) a puny non strategic  sub, especially if its not a lead ship. That's the time it should take a to build an entirely new class leader ballistic sub.

That is because the original project was an utter failure in terms of technical specs, MOD-shipyard-design bureau coordination, and anything else you can think of.

The two follow on hulls were done pretty fast, it is just they had no systems to instal since the systems themselves were not working on the experimental boat.

As for "everything being solved", well, I will believe it when the St. Petersburg doesn't need to be TOWED to its supposed operational residence.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:5 years is exccessive for( by your definitions) a puny non strategic  sub, especially if its not a lead ship. That's the time it should take a to build an entirely new class leader ballistic sub.

These subs are actually quite valuable against strategic nuclear subs. They are small and take advantage of the thermocline in the oceans to
hide themselves in the background noise. Having these subs patrolling a one 500-1000 km zone around Russia's coasts would be quite
worthwhile.

Six project 636 boats are being built at the same time and are to be completed by the end of 2015. The Black Sea will be the home
of some of them. The time to build each boat is just under 1.5 years.

kvs wrote:

The time to build each boat is just under 1.5 years.  

Not a single boat of the class for Russia has been built in 1.5 years.

TR1 wrote:

kvs wrote:

The time to build each boat is just under 1.5 years.  

Not a single boat of the class for Russia has been built in 1.5 years.

True, but they been built quickly nonetheless. When the Lada is ready, they should be built quicker because of the lower displacement and single-hull. - Have to wait and see, preferable after the 636's are completely and more funding and time can be given to the Lada.

Is there any news about lada sub export contract between China and Russia ? most import factor about lada is the HULL

type055 wrote:Is there any news about lada sub export contract between China and Russia ?   most import factor about lada is the HULL

Don't think so... Even when the Lada's are completed, I doubt Russia will be willing to sell them soon after due to their advanced nature. To be honest, China doesn't really need any new SSK's right now anyway. - They already have 12 kilos, multiple Yuan class etc. They are probably more interested in the Lada's technology than the sub itself.

Mike E wrote:

type055 wrote:Is there any news about lada sub export contract between China and Russia ?   most import factor about lada is the HULL

Don't think so... Even when the Lada's are completed, I doubt Russia will be willing to sell them soon after due to their advanced nature. To be honest, China doesn't really need any new SSK's right now anyway. - They already have 12 kilos, multiple Yuan class etc. They are probably more interested in the Lada's technology than the sub itself.

yes they are interest in mono hull , from chinese site, navy want to learn to build single hull sub, and use that tech in new nuclear sub , cos all subs china have built are double hull .
Navy want to use their own aip and weapon , and russia build the hull, 2+2 2 made in russia 2 in China,
but lada program seems stuck , what happen ?

type055 wrote:

Mike E wrote:

type055 wrote:Is there any news about lada sub export contract between China and Russia ?   most import factor about lada is the HULL

Don't think so... Even when the Lada's are completed, I doubt Russia will be willing to sell them soon after due to their advanced nature. To be honest, China doesn't really need any new SSK's right now anyway. - They already have 12 kilos, multiple Yuan class etc. They are probably more interested in the Lada's technology than the sub itself.

yes they are interest in mono hull , from chinese site, navy want to learn to build single hull sub, and use that tech in new nuclear sub ,  cos all subs china have built are  double hull .
Navy want to use their own aip and weapon , and russia build the hull,  2+2 2 made in russia 2 in China,
but lada program seems stuck , what happen ?

As I said, they are interested in the 'technology" and not the sub itself.  Russia wouldn't build the hull for China, or at least they shouldn't... They are already loaded with work, last thing they need to do is start building more export hulls. China could just license hull design or something like that. 

It isn't stuck, read the former posts on this thread. It was delayed indefinitely, but has resumed.

5 years is exccessive for( by your definitions) a puny non strategic sub, especially if its not a lead ship. That's the time it should take a to build an entirely new class leader ballistic sub.

We have guessed at 5 years, but the second two vessels were only laid down... they haven't worked on them for 5 years... they only had a successful test of the new AIP this year, so including the one year from 2005 and 2006, and from this year to the start of 2017 when it will likely be put in the water we are talking about actually 4 years and possibly less.

The second two vessels will have significant changes from the first boat so can't be considered serial production, which means delays and testing to make sure everything works properly.

With the actual work time 4 years or less I would say they are doing very well to produce a modern very capable SSK with all new state of the art technologies... of which there is no western equivalent.

That is because the original project was an utter failure in terms of technical specs, MOD-shipyard-design bureau coordination, and anything else you can think of.

If it was an utter failure it would not be kept in service... they don't need a dog.

but lada program seems stuck , what happen ?

AIP only just had full size testing, and Lithium Ion batteries are also new.

When ready its performance will be excellent.

The second diesel-electric submarine Project 677 "Kronstadt" for the Russian Navy will be launched in late 2015.