Project 945: Sierra class

Works on the repair and modernization of nuclear submarines of Project 945 are suspended

As reported on April 27, 2017 web resource FlotProm, the modernization of the main titanium nuclear multipurpose submarine B-239 "Carp" project 945 (cipher "Barracuda") of the Northern Fleet and was limited to the unloading of fuel from the ship in 2014. According to the source FlotProm in the defense industry complex, the resumption of work is unlikely.

"The modernization of the Carp is too expensive and laborious, the candle is not worth the candle," the source said. "Today, the Defense Ministry has much more relevant projects whose expediency is not questioned."

The source added that he was not sure about the very possibility to bring the structurally complex "Karp" to the requirements put forward by the Defense Ministry to the submarines of the 4th generation, and also stressed that the final decision has not yet been taken.

According to the founder of the site "Storm of the depth" by Andrey Nikolayev, if the expediency of upgrading the 945 submarine raises questions, the money saved for the modernization of Carp and Kostroma (the second submarine of the project, which was planned to be updated after Carp - etc.) It is more logical to direct the construction of new "Ash".

"Each submarine is relevant at the time, if it is possible to get modern ships, such as the modernized Yaseni, it's more logical to concentrate on them, or to try to get 971 projects back in. Perhaps, it is more economically feasible," the expert shared his point of view.

The Ministry of Defense signed a contract with the Severodvinsk Ship Repair Center Zvezdochka to repair and upgrade submarines of Project 945 B-239 Karp and B-276 Kostroma in 2014.

It was assumed that the Barracuda will receive new sonar stations, combat information management systems, radars, GLONASS / GPS navigation systems and weapons systems.

In February 2015, it became known about the suspension of modernization, but the press service of the company announced the continuation of the repair work.

The submarine "Karp" became part of the Northern Fleet in 1984, "Kostroma" - in 1987, withdrew in reserve in 1998 and in 2000, respectively. Both submarines are built at the Nizhny Novgorod shipyard Krasnoye Sormovo.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2575158.html

mod wants there refurbished submarines to have noise levels like yasen and newest missile weaponry- that means cutting hull, new systems, and new propellers, shipyard wants huge price for that, refueling is having problems some things have to be cut,  and now it turns out there is low number of titanium welding skilled staff, even tu-160 constructors had problems to gather welding staff since no new personell training was done for 20 years.
its hard to tell but it seems you can buy new yasen-m for those 2 submarine upgraded.

Rmf wrote:mod wants there refurbished submarines to have noise levels like yasen and newest missile weaponry- that means cutting hull, new systems, and new propellers, shipyard wants huge price for that, refueling is having problems some things have to be cut,  and now it turns out there is low number of titanium welding skilled staff, even tu-160 constructors had problems to gather welding staff since no new personell training was done for 20 years.
its hard to tell but it seems you can buy new yasen-m for those 2 submarine upgraded.

Most likely course of action, I'd say...

PapaDragon wrote:

Rmf wrote:mod wants there refurbished submarines to have noise levels like yasen and newest missile weaponry- that means cutting hull, new systems, and new propellers, shipyard wants huge price for that, refueling is having problems some things have to be cut,  and now it turns out there is low number of titanium welding skilled staff, even tu-160 constructors had problems to gather welding staff since no new personell training was done for 20 years.
its hard to tell but it seems you can buy new yasen-m for those 2 submarine upgraded.

Most likely course of action, I'd say...

Let's be real these things were utterly pointless to modernize the cost wasn't worth it from day one, The Akula make sense, the Oscars make sense.

These things are dated and Russia only uses them since it's all they got right now.

Cutting this project was a wise idea and the better.

The Sierra was the capable expensive model... it is better to have them in service than to scrap them.

The cost of upgrading them is spending money in areas that have not had money spent for too long... it is putting Russians into work, so it is well invested money.

The point is that there is no capacity for building more Yasen-Ms than they are already making so upgrading these subs still makes sense as the money earned will be reinvested in improving technology in important areas.

GarryB wrote:The Sierra was the capable expensive model... it is better to have them in service than to scrap them.

no it was not, marginaly in some areas but akula is ahead of it , let alone yasen.... its better to have whole old ussr fleet in service than this today, but modernisation and new weapons must come.

GarryB wrote:The cost of upgrading them is spending money in areas that have not had money spent for too long... it is putting Russians into work, so it is well invested money.

no. that spending is inflation and making people poorer , titanium welders are already very busy tnx.

GarryB wrote:The point is that there is no capacity for building more Yasen-Ms than they are already making so upgrading these subs still makes sense as the money earned will be reinvested in improving technology in important areas.

1 yasen every 3 years for next 2 decades is well enough and good enough capacity for money available thats coming along.

the Sierras at this point are too old imo...
Keeping them in service is fine but modernizing them is pointless....

Better invest the funds into newer Subs like the Yasen which can still be Upgraded even more in the future with newer systems...

SeigSoloyvov wrote:The Akula make sense, the Oscars make sense.

Oscar's make sense because for its role, the IMPORTANT parameters can be easily upgraded (the VL Systems from the Granit launchers to UKSK) and other side systems like the sonar can also be replaced to increase its combat effectiveness... Since Other areas like Noise Acoustics and such (Where upgrading them is nigh impossible without changing the hull which would be expensive as hell) was of no concern for the Oscars.... I mean sure the 949AM has significantly better acoustics than the Oscar Is (even supposedly surpassing the Akula I) but its still short of an Akula II and any furthur 4th Gen Sub (Which at this point is the norm) hence dangerous for frontline Offensive operations (Oscar IIs would make good prey for NATO SSKs/SSNs in one way to put it i guess but for sure the Russians would attach at least one Yasen/Kilo class as an escort for the Oscars)....

Akula Is.... the Improved Akula Is i'd say was taking the upgrade to the limits... a design that is 2 years older than the Sierras.... Even i was surprised that the Russians managed to modernize the Akula Is... but its still short of the Akula IIs... Make sense... Before the Improved Akulas came out, I'd say that upgrading the Akula Is also doesn't make sense BUT the russians somehow managed to upgrade it to a barely acceptable level for a modern Frontline Submarine so... yeah...

But i'd rather divert funds to more Yasens or even Husky's in the future.... Don't get me wrong, Akulas are GREAT subs for its time but she's aging alright.... and she's aging pretty well...

*Note all of this is IN MY OPINION....*

Better invest the funds into newer Subs like the Yasen which can still be Upgraded even more in the future with newer systems...

Sorry, but that is the height of stupidity.

If something is going to be in service then it needs to be kept up to date as much as possible.

You wont get to choose which boats get involved in international incidents and the boat involved should not be a 1980s technology unupgraded piece of crap.

Think about computer power in the 1980s. Think of safety performance in the 1980s. No upgrades? Fuck off you tight bastard... would you work for a company with 1980s period cars that wont upgrade them because that would just waste money they could spend on other things...

They are introducing new weapons and new C4IR systems... are you telling me you only want your new vessels tied in to your command and control and communications, intel and recon system with old computers too?

Get real.

GarryB wrote:

Better invest the funds into newer Subs like the Yasen which can still be Upgraded even more in the future with newer systems...

Sorry, but that is the height of stupidity.

If something is going to be in service then it needs to be kept up to date as much as possible.

You wont get to choose which boats get involved in international incidents and the boat involved should not be a 1980s technology unupgraded piece of crap.

Think about computer power in the 1980s. Think of safety performance in the 1980s. No upgrades? Fuck off you tight bastard... would you work for a company with 1980s period cars that wont upgrade them because that would just waste money they could spend on other things...

They are introducing new weapons and new C4IR systems... are you telling me you only want your new vessels tied in to your command and control and communications, intel and recon system with old computers too?

Get real.

Mate i never insulted you in that statement so whats with the insults?

Like i said, its all in my opinion and IS the reason WHY i want to discuss it here......

Now for the argument....

GarryB wrote:would you work for a company with 1980s period cars that wont upgrade them because that would just waste money they could spend on other things...

How about because they could spend money on newer cars to replace the 1980s period cars....

How much will the upgrade cost anyways? From what i heard, even the overhauls of the sierras were delayed due to pricing issues in 2015... (https://lenta.ru/news/2015/03/19/sierra/ , http://svpressa.ru/war21/article/114524/)

At the same time, i can see where you are coming from.... Having upgraded Subs even if they are old does help.... However i still believe that its better to move to the Yasens....

Mate i never insulted you in that statement so whats with the insults?

Where did I insult you?

If you say things I think are stupid I will say so... don't take things so personally.

How about because they could spend money on newer cars to replace the 1980s period cars....

But they can't.

If they don't spend money on upgrading existing vessels then keeping that money aside to spend on newer models does not work... they have a lot of different things they need to spend money on... if they don't spend money allocated to upgrade in service vessels they wont just hold that money to buy extra Yasens in 5 years time when they are ready to lay down a new one... what are the Russian Navy supposed to do in the mean time? Use a crapped out old sub that is not compatible with the current communications systems or new weapons?

That is just silly.

At the same time, i can see where you are coming from.... Having upgraded Subs even if they are old does help.... However i still believe that its better to move to the Yasens....

I would suggest they are already making the number of Yasens that they can afford and need... it is not just about building space, but you need to operate it from somewhere too.

The Sierra was the follow on to the Alpha class sub and are made of titanium... of course they are cheap to upgrade... geez... :rolleyes:

Like I said, these are expensive boats, and also very capable for their time and with proper upgrades could be very very capable boats.

It has a smaller turning circle than any US submarine and is light and fast and deep diving... the Sierra II boats were even quieter and had improved sonar arrays.

The point is that upgrades in the Russian navy are all about standardisation... modular new components fitted to make older boats compatible with new standard systems... fitting them in will be a pain but once they are in then it is standard so any Russian port will be able to deal with them in terms of support, training, maintainence, etc.

If you want to have it the different boat then fine... a mobile support team you fly around to whatever Russian port it docks at so it can be supported properly would be expensive and annoying.

Yeah... I did more research into the Sierras...

I guess what you're saying makes sense.... curious though on how would they cram the new systems in since that was one of the issue points for me.... Cramming it in and somehow making it work with what they have that cannot be modernized or replaced with better versions (Only Overhauled)

Many bits on a sub are already modular, and newer bits tend to take up rather less space than older bits.

A lot of the brand new modular bits are based on the bits they put in the Sierras and Alphas.

The wiring and piping will all need to be replaced anyway... but that is generally kept together anyway.

Details courtesy of Charly015 of the escape pod of a Sierra-1 SSN (Kostroma).  Funny how the Russians (who don't put value on human life.... ) install emerg escape bells on their subs, and have done so since Soviet times, yet the exceptionalist West with their perfect "human rights" records don't...

I don't know how many see this, but this escape pod prepared for internal overpressurisation .

^ Escape pods are valuable in war. Germany started losing the naval war bc all of their experienced captains and top 3 in command would go down with the ship. There is a lot invested in submarine crews. In a real war , Russia has a good chance of saving it's best crews and moving them to another boat to continue the fight

Isos wrote:That's not really easy to be used in actual accidents.

Or it showing that the submairine designed for pressuised crew compartment.

Wow, would like to say sorry to Rowdyhorse4... after re reading some of my previous posts on this thread I was rather aggressive and not very polite at all.

I think I was annoyed at people who pop up and say buying all new stuff is cheaper than upgrading older stuff still in operational service.

Where do you draw the line... I am sure a company like Apple want you to buy a new phone every 6 months and just throw away the old one, but Russia does not have unlimited resources and people saying they should get rid of old Sierra class subs and just buy more newer types don't understand that a Sierra sub is thousands of tons of metal that will cost money to scrap... there is lots of valuable metal there, but it still costs money to recover it and you essentially lose a sub because the money saved might be used on new submarines but if it is it wont be built right now... it will be a number added to the end of the production list, so instead of having an upgraded Sierra class sub in 3-4 years you might get a new Yasen in 10-12 years time when the already booked ships are floated out and they are ready to start new contracts.

The new technology in the newer subs would be vastly more capable, so an upgraded Sierra wont be the same sub that was operating in the 1980s... it will likely be much much better and with all new weapons and electronics and communications will be an operational sub you could be using in a couple of years time.

Not every job will require a Yasen-M and being able to send different sub types to different regions offers potential for sending political messages too.

On land the same thing is happening with tanks... upgraded T-72s have the same gun and ammo and optics and comms and other systems as a T-90... it just does not have quite as effective armour... but with ERA and APS and things like Nakidka and of course the use of drones for early detection of enemy etc there are many missions they might be better at... certainly with T-72s in 10 years time when there are tank based armatas and Kurganets and boomerangs then all their T-72s might be converted to robot drones driven forward into enemy lines to find weak points.

Russia does not have the problem of having too many submarines and keeping some older models with proper upgrades to make them cheaper to operate and easier to use makes good sense.

It is not the case that you can either upgrade one Sierra or have two Yasens.... in practical terms it means you can either have an upgraded Sierra class sub in a couple of years or maybe two Yasens in a decade... but in a decades time the Yasen might have doubled in price so you might only get one.... or more accurately a decade without a sub at all.

GarryB wrote:Wow, would like to say sorry to Rowdyhorse4... after re reading some of my previous posts on this thread I was rather aggressive and not very polite at all.

I think I was annoyed at people who pop up and say buying all new stuff is cheaper than upgrading older stuff still in operational service.

Where do you draw the line... I am sure a company like Apple want you to buy a new phone every 6 months and just throw away the old one, but Russia does not have unlimited resources and people saying they should get rid of old Sierra class subs and just buy more newer types don't understand that a Sierra sub is thousands of tons of metal that will cost money to scrap... there is lots of valuable metal there, but it still costs money to recover it and you essentially lose a sub because the money saved might be used on new submarines but if it is it wont be built right now... it will be a number added to the end of the production list, so instead of having an upgraded Sierra class sub in 3-4 years you might get a new Yasen in 10-12 years time when the already booked ships are floated out and they are ready to start new contracts.

The new technology in the newer subs would be vastly more capable, so an upgraded Sierra wont be the same sub that was operating in the 1980s... it will likely be much much better and with all new weapons and electronics and communications will be an operational sub you could be using in a couple of years time.

Not every job will require a Yasen-M and being able to send different sub types to different regions offers potential for sending political messages too.

On land the same thing is happening with tanks... upgraded T-72s have the same gun and ammo and optics and  comms and other systems as a T-90... it just does not have quite as effective armour... but with ERA and APS and things like Nakidka and of course the use of drones for early detection of enemy etc there are many missions they might be better at... certainly with T-72s in 10 years time when there are tank based armatas and Kurganets and boomerangs then all their T-72s might be converted to robot drones driven forward into enemy lines to find weak points.

Russia does not have the problem of having too many submarines and keeping some older models with proper upgrades to make them cheaper to operate and easier to use makes good sense.

It is not the case that you can either upgrade one Sierra or have two Yasens.... in practical terms it means you can either have an upgraded Sierra class sub in a couple of years or maybe two Yasens in a decade... but in a decades time the Yasen might have doubled in price so you might only get one.... or more accurately a decade without a sub at all.

Maybe it is just me, but I love Barracuda (sierra1) and kondor (Sierra 2) class. The repair and upgrade order however should go to the Krasnoye Sormovo shipyard in nizhni Novgorod, which build them, and had the capabilities to work with titanium hulls.

That shipyard is currently not involved with submarines, but expressed also the interest to get back in building diesel electric subs.

I posted in another thread about it but I can't find my old post... The search function is a bit strange sometimes...

Nizhny-Novgorod (top photo)

These subs are virtually untouchable in the deep. It's a real pity they never got to finish at least one of the Pr. 945AB boats.

Isos wrote:It's a very special sub for Russia because it is made out of titanium. It can go under 600m easily.

Thry were upgraded.

600m is an operational depth of steel-hulled pieces of the period.
This fish can go 1000 or better, as it is the same timeline as 685/Plawnik class, and that one had an operational depth proven for 1000m, and considered as 1500 ...