Project 885: Yasen class

GarryB wrote:
The difference is that with the Yasen is that no one will know they are there until they open fire.... and it essentially doesn't need air defence capacity most of the time.

My point was that a surface vessel needs to set aside a significant portion of its potential offensive missiles in order to protect itself from aerospace threats and a submarine does not, therefore a submarine should theoretically always be able to carry more ASHMs than a surface ship.

The Antei had 24 Granits while the Orlan had 20, now that missiles that are a quarter of the size of the Granit have been introduced to replace it then ratio of increase in missile numbers should be the same as on the Admiral Nakhimov 4/1 and therefore a large nuclear powered submarine should carry ~96 ASHMs.

The best way to guarantee that the enemy fleet gets to the bottom where it belongs is through saturation attack and 32 missiles just will not do.

And an F-15C can carry rather more AAMs and external fuel tanks and pods than an F-22...

the main difference is that the new Yasens have a crew of about 64 men.... compared with just under 100 for Oscar I and just over 100 for Oscar II.

I never really saw the point in stealth, rather just outgun the opponent than try to hide. Even if stealth made aircraft invisible to radar there are still laser locators and thermal sensors and the moment you enemy deploys them your fleet of invisible stealth aircraft turns into a fleet of subpar underarmed and overpriced scrap metal.

The same applies to submarines, making a vessel the depends on being undetected is shortsighted and foolish, what if the pindos manage to steal the Russian research on underwater radars? Well then I guess the Yasen would be a subpar missile sub.

Long range missile submarines are very effective and easy to use, they are difficult to respond to for your enemy and can respond quickly to your enemy.

Oscars are enormous... almost 20K tons... they are the Slava class to the Akulas Kirov. Akula SSBNs are 25K tons each...

Yasen is 6K tons lighter with almost half the crew....

And so? With automation they could probably run an Akula on a 10 man crew if they really wanted to and being larger is no disadvantage when you are over 1000km away from your enemy.

If the lack of dedicated attack submarines is a problem then they could probably introduce a dedicated submarine hunting sub with larger longer ranged torpedoes and more of them aswell as a small VLS compartment for anti sub missiles.

This would be better as your missile submarines being separate from your attack subs would mean that your anti ship assets are not exposed on the front lines hunting enemy submarines and your attack subs will be a lot less of a loss if they are sunk.

Arrow wrote:

That's what's interesting. Apparently Pump jet is quieter at higher speeds. All modern SSN and SSBN now have pump jet thrusters. The SSN class must operate at high speeds. So they had to achieve parameters similar to Pump jet on a single propeller?

It is not true.

The pump jet is quieter at a certain speed ,under / above it it could be more noisy, and the pumpjet will decrease the submarine top speed.

Does anyone have any photographs to prove that the Yasen M actually has 40 VLS cells? I did some looking and could not find any.

The-thing-next-door wrote:Does anyone have any photographs to prove that the Yasen M actually has 40 VLS cells? I did some looking and could not find any.

i think it has 8 VLS with missiles per one

Isos wrote:Some say it has either 32 oniks or 40 kalibr which means it is not UKSK but some sort of adaptative VLS systems.

I never saw any picture of it.

It has what appears to be a rotary launcher similar to that of the S300F system in each silo, I do not know how many missiles it can carry or weather or not that number varies depending on the type of missiles used (this is implied by the claims of it being able to carry more Kalibr than Oniks, but it can carry Kalibr in its torpedo tubes so it is tricky to tell weather they mean the VLS or the whole submarine when they say it can carry more Kalibr).

The number of missiles per VLS silo seems to be claimed to be 4 but who knows.

Surely I can't be the first one on this forum to want to know about the Yasens Missile armament?

The-thing-next-door wrote:Surely I can't be the first one on this forum to want to know about the Yasens Missile armament?

This is what I have at hand





It seems indeed 8 VLS with 4 missiles each. What I don't understand is why some say it only has 3 Oniks per VLS

They are not UKSK. Modular VLS with either 32 oniks or 40 kalibr from what I understand.

That does not make sense... certainly Kalibr missiles are 533mm so they can be torpedo launched, and Onyx is 750mm, even the upgraded Oscars carry 72 Onyx missiles... it has never been said that instead of 72 Onyx missiles they can carry 88 Kalibrs instead...

The new launch tubes need to accomodate either type of missile so that the loadout can be decided at the pier when loading instead of during a refit.

My point was that a surface vessel needs to set aside a significant portion of its potential offensive missiles in order to protect itself from aerospace threats and a submarine does not, therefore a submarine should theoretically always be able to carry more ASHMs than a surface ship.

Any vessel will have its standard weapon load to allow it to complete it intended mission and also carry other weapons to defend itself from threats trying to stop it.

A Ship needs SAMs, but a sub has less use for such weapons.

All subs need to be able to carry more missiles that a particular ship or all ships?

That is just silly... subs are most effective when they are smaller and cheaper and quieter... not bloated with as many missile tubes as you can fit... that is just silly.

The whole point of an arsenal sub or ship is so you don't have to compromise the designs of all your ships to provide a level of fire power that overwhelms the enemy.

Ironically for the next 10 years one Zircon missile is overwhelming on its own.

The Antei had 24 Granits while the Orlan had 20, now that missiles that are a quarter of the size of the Granit have been introduced to replace it then ratio of increase in missile numbers should be the same as on the Admiral Nakhimov 4/1 and therefore a large nuclear powered submarine should carry ~96 ASHMs.

A Yasen the size and weight of the Antei probably could have that many missiles, but they have gone for a smaller lighter sub with half the number of crew... and BTW the Zircon is 5 times faster than Granit as well as having twice the range and probably operating at four times higher altitude too.

The best way to guarantee that the enemy fleet gets to the bottom where it belongs is through saturation attack and 32 missiles just will not do.

32 Zircons means 32 carriers sunk... do you not think you are being a bit of a fan boy?

I never really saw the point in stealth, rather just outgun the opponent than try to hide.

Go play paintball.... wear Fluro green colours and walk out in the open... see how long you last...

Rambo is a cartoon character and would last seconds in a real conflict.

Even if stealth made aircraft invisible to radar there are still laser locators and thermal sensors and the moment you enemy deploys them your fleet of invisible stealth aircraft turns into a fleet of subpar underarmed and overpriced scrap metal.

Wearing a helmet wont stop your head getting ripped off by a 120mm APFSDS round, but is that a good reason not to wear it?

There are lots of targets on a battlefield... most of the time your enemy will be low on ammo and the trick is to not appear worth a bullet.

The same applies to submarines, making a vessel the depends on being undetected is shortsighted and foolish, what if the pindos manage to steal the Russian research on underwater radars? Well then I guess the Yasen would be a subpar missile sub.

And what if they don't?  If the Yanks get underwater radars that work ALL subs are on a level playing field then aren't they... sounds like time to fit them with towed decoys and jammers...

Long range missile submarines are very effective and easy to use, they are difficult to respond to for your enemy and can respond quickly to your enemy.

The range of the missiles is the same whether in a Corvette or a Lada or an Akula or Yasen submarine.

And so? With automation they could probably run an Akula on a 10 man crew if they really wanted to and being larger is no disadvantage when you are over 1000km away from your enemy.

They cost money to buy and to operate and to maintain... smaller and lighter are cheaper.

If the lack of dedicated attack submarines is a problem then they could probably introduce a dedicated submarine hunting sub with larger longer ranged torpedoes and more of them aswell as a small VLS compartment for anti sub missiles.

Wow... that is brilliant... maybe have say 30 torpedos and 10 torpedo tubes... some 533mm and some 650mm large calibre tubes and hey why not have 32 vertical launch tubes for anti sub missiles... lets call it Yasen... and maybe give it the product code project 885... amazing... brilliant...

This would be better as your missile submarines being separate from your attack subs would mean that your anti ship assets are not exposed on the front lines hunting enemy submarines and your attack subs will be a lot less of a loss if they are sunk.

The roles of SSN and SSGN overlap...

Some say it has either 32 oniks or 40 kalibr which means it is not UKSK but some sort of adaptative VLS systems.

I never saw any picture of it.

UKSK... universal...KSK...

The only vessel with three missiles per tube is Oscar because the Granit tubes are fixed and their solution is to fit liners into it.

They went for Onyx liners because Onyx is a 750mm missile so they can load Onyx or they can load 533mm Kalibr missiles into those tubes too.

Each Granit tube allows three Onyx tubes but they don't want to keep changing tubes for different load outs so Kalibr would be loaded into the Onyx tubes too.... they would just need padding around them for a seal.... so Oscar has 24 Granit tubes that remain in place with 3 Onyx launch tubes in each Granit tube... making a total of 72 missile tubes... 24 x 3.

They could have put 533mm sleeves in and had four Kalibr tubes for each Granit tube meaning 24 x 4 = 96 missiles but it also means they could not use Onyx and likely Zircon.

They put bigger sleeves to fit all missile types. They are developing new models of all the Club and Kalibr family to fit 750mm tubes to fully fill the UKSK tubes and have better range performance... unless the UKSK-M launch tubes are larger calibre to hold S-500 SAMs... and then the new Club and Kalibr and Zircon-M missiles might be that larger calibre too to fill out the tubes efficiently.

The number of missiles per VLS silo seems to be claimed to be 4 but who knows.

No, the VLS system is modular and consists of two large tubes with four smaller tubes forming part of it. The Standard launcher is the UKSK and it has two large tubes with four missiles each... meaning one UKSK launcher could hold 8 or 4 missiles.

Yasen has 4 UKSK launchers which means 32 missiles.

I know it is from a computer game but there are claims it can carry 40 Kalibrs.

Isn't the Yasen M supposed to be longer than the Yasen though? I would be damn dissapointed if it does not have more VLS tubes.

Yasen M has the same number of VLS, just the ships where an upgrade to make them run quieter and some better electronics.

Yasen also has EIGHT VLS Silos, which means 32 Oniks or 40 Kalibers.

While they aren't quite like that picture that is a very rough idea, the silos aren't like ship-based VLS but they allow some modular capability for different missiles to be put in. So the size of the missiles dictates how many the sub can carry.

Russian latest nuclear-powered sub to enter state trials in August

In case of their successful completion, the submarine is due to be delivered to the Navy before the end of 2020

https://tass.com/defense/1182417

GarryB wrote:
That is just silly... subs are most effective when they are smaller and cheaper and quieter... not bloated with as many missile tubes as you can fit... that is just silly.

A motorcycle is cheaper than a truck, but are the number of motorcycles needed to deliver the same amount of cargo as a truck cheaper to but and operate than a truck?

A new submarine derived from the Akula class could carry 400 missiles, 12.5 times the the number a Yasen can,
do you seriously think that 12 Yasens would be cheaper to build and operate than one single Akula derrivative???

The yasen is packed full of advanced and expensive equipment that is not needed for a missile sub and a single larger sub will have far less than 12 times the crew of a smaller one.

The Antei had 24 Granits while the Orlan had 20, now that missiles that are a quarter of the size of the Granit have been introduced to replace it then ratio of increase in missile numbers should be the same as on the Admiral Nakhimov 4/1 and therefore a large nuclear powered submarine should carry ~96 ASHMs.

A Yasen the size and weight of the Antei probably could have that many missiles, but they have gone for a smaller lighter sub with half the number of crew... and BTW the Zircon is 5 times faster than Granit as well as having twice the range and probably operating at four times higher altitude too.

32 Zircons means 32 carriers sunk... do you not think you are being a bit of a fan boy?

Only if they are nuclear and there is still the chance, however minute that the enemy can shoot it down. If not nuclear then you will need atleast 5 for the carrier and 2 for each of its escorts and if you are using Oniks you will want to fire upwards of 50 at a carrier group.

Go play paintball.... wear Fluro green colours and walk out in the open... see how long you last...

Rambo is a cartoon character and would last seconds in a real conflict.

Well as we all know The IS-2 was so successful because of its stealth capabilities as opposed to its firepower and ofcourse the f117 is far superior to the TU-22M3

The range of the missiles is the same whether in a Corvette or a Lada or an Akula or Yasen submarine.

But the range of torpedoes is not the same as the range of missiles, nor do attack subs hunt other subs at ultra long range

Wow... that is brilliant... maybe have say 30 torpedos and 10 torpedo tubes... some 533mm and some 650mm large calibre tubes and hey why not have 32 vertical launch tubes for anti sub missiles... lets call it Yasen... and maybe give it the product code project 885... amazing... brilliant...

The official Russian description of the Yasen is "многоцелевых атомных подводных лодок с крылатыми ракетами" meaning multi-purpose nuclear submarines with cruise missiles, not cruise missile submarine.

The yasen is a general purpose attack submarine (and seemingly a good one) with cruise missiles added to increase versatility, it is not a replacement for the Antei class so much it is to the Shcuka class.

The Yasen is not a good SSGN but that was never expected of it to begin with.

The roles of SSN and SSGN overlap...

Oh yes staying as far away as possible from the enemy fleet while close to the surface in order to fire your missiles and getting close to fire torpedoes at thier submarines while staying deep under the water are certainly not contradictory tasks at all.......

If the previous paragraph was unclear, SSNs are front line units that operate close to the enemy while SSGNs operate at the maximum range of thier missiles and need to be close to the surface to fire them.

No, the VLS system is modular and consists of two large tubes with four smaller tubes forming part of it. The Standard launcher is the UKSK and it has two large tubes with four missiles each... meaning one UKSK launcher could hold 8 or 4 missiles.

Yasen has 4 UKSK launchers which means 32 missiles.

The UKSK is for surface ships and it is unlikely that they would have designed their surface ship VLS to work underwater.... Well I guess being able to still fire while sinking could be good.

In war there is never enough ammo. So limiting the missiles per sub is silly since that limits their effectiveness. I know that
stuffing them with too many defeats their purpose as well. But the fundamental problem remains: going back to port to fill up
is not an easy option during a war.

kvs wrote:In war there is never enough ammo.   So limiting the missiles per sub is silly since that limits their effectiveness.   I know that
stuffing them with too many defeats their purpose as well.   But the fundamental problem remains: going back to port to fill up
is not an easy option during a war.  

It is binary.
If the ship survive, then it is matter.

If doesn't survive, then it doesn't matter.

In the later it is good if you have lot of missiles. In the later doesn't.

Ouch, I had not realized Oniks is 720 mm diameter vs. 533 in Kalibr

And never to forget: read our own forum before writing, it was all perfectly explained already  



https://www.russiadefence.net/t4812p575-project-885-yasen-class#236499

I know it is from a computer game but there are claims it can carry 40 Kalibrs.

the suggestion that it can carry 40 kalibrs or 32 Onyx missiles is based on the fact that the Kalibrs are 533mm diameter weapons and the Onyx is 750mm in calibre so the physical space without launch tubes that holds 32 Onyx missiles is rather bigger than the space needed to hold 32 Kalibrs... but that does not matter.

Yasen also has EIGHT VLS Silos, which means 32 Oniks or 40 Kalibers.

No it doesn't... you can't fit 40 Kalibrs into four UKSK launchers... a single UKSK launcher is two VLS silos with four missiles each, which means 8 launch tubes per UKSK...

the silos aren't like ship-based VLS but they allow some modular capability for different missiles to be put in. So the size of the missiles dictates how many the sub can carry.

Unlikely. If we were talking about missiles in a torpedo room then I agree but with fixed vertical launch tubes it would have to be mind numbingly modular to allow different sized tubes to be used together... these are not Oscar subs to sink US carrier groups so only carry Granit missiles.... these are fully multipurpose Yasen SSGNs that will need to carry a mix of missile types most of the time...

A motorcycle is cheaper than a truck, but are the number of motorcycles needed to deliver the same amount of cargo as a truck cheaper to but and operate than a truck?

In a city where a truck cannot park or even turn around then motor cycles make more sense. The truck is cheaper to operate because it has a one man crew... a better comparison would be a truck compared with vans, but a truck with 100+ men to crew it, compared with much smaller vans and much fewer crew to operate it properly.

An SSN is not a transport vehicle... it is a hunter and a killer and part of that includes being hard to find.

Modern missiles are more capable so you wont be needing as many of them, and besides in WWIII most will have nuclear payloads anyway... this is not a chivalrous battle for honour... it is a war of survival and extermination of the enemy.

A new submarine derived from the Akula class could carry 400 missiles, 12.5 times the the number a Yasen can,
do you seriously think that 12 Yasens would be cheaper to build and operate than one single Akula derrivative???

Do you think 12 Destroyers would be more use than a container ship with lots of missile equipped shipping crates piled on top?

12 Yasens wont be cheaper than one arsenal sub even just with operational costs of manning it, but 12 Yasen subs would be vastly more use than one arsenal sub in normal operations.

12 Jason Bournes vs one Rambo... which is more useful day to day?

The yasen is packed full of advanced and expensive equipment that is not needed for a missile sub and a single larger sub will have far less than 12 times the crew of a smaller one.

Yasen will be useful for all sorts of sneaky operations and roles...  even just underwater secret escort for tankers going to Venezuela or Iran... an Arsenal sub really only becomes useful during an actual war.

The main problem for an arsenal ship or sub is that most of the time you wont have enough targets for all those missiles so while you might mount a few attacks against specific targets, your main purpose is to enable targets to be attacked at short warning while keeping your surface ships loaded up and ready to fight without having to constantly reload them.

Only if they are nuclear and there is still the chance, however minute that the enemy can shoot it down. If not nuclear then you will need atleast 5 for the carrier and 2 for each of its escorts and if you are using Oniks you will want to fire upwards of 50 at a carrier group.

Why would you bother using non nuclear warheads against a carrier group?

And they can't stop Onyx reliably either.

The IS-2 was so successful because of its stealth capabilities as opposed to its firepower and ofcourse the f117 is far superior to the TU-22M3

What are you talking about?

IS-2 tank?

The F-117 cost billions of dollars to develop and build and ended up being a very short ranged cruise missile... two Kh-102s have better range, better payload, similar speed to an F-117 and are vastly cheaper...

An Su-25 is a serious threat for an F-117... wouldn't get close to a Tu-22M3.

But the range of torpedoes is not the same as the range of missiles, nor do attack subs hunt other subs at ultra long range

That is correct, but why are you fixated with extra long range?  Poseidon says you are wrong BTW....  

The Yasen is not a good SSGN but that was never expected of it to begin with.

SSGNs were needed because Granits were huge and only their biggest ships could carry them in useful numbers.

Today even Corvettes are carrying more missile tubes than the Echo SSGNs so the problem is not really the same as it used to be.

If the previous paragraph was unclear, SSNs are front line units that operate close to the enemy while SSGNs operate at the maximum range of thier missiles and need to be close to the surface to fire them.

That is like saying Su-35s will only ever operate close to the enemy... really... are they not going to attach 2 SSNs to their surface action groups....  SSNs have a multitude of roles including recon and even interdicting supply routes and sea lanes...

Plus the new subs are NOT SSGNs... an SSGN carried anti ship missiles with the express purpose to help a Soviet or Russian surface group fight an opposing enemy carrier group.

Their new subs could be carrying all anti submarine missiles for all you know... or all land attack missiles... or a mix.

The UKSK is for surface ships and it is unlikely that they would have designed their surface ship VLS to work underwater.... Well I guess being able to still fire while sinking could be good.

So UKSK means universal but only for surface ships vertical cruise missile launcher... that is a mouthful.

They want their subs to be able to carry pretty much most of the same missiles their surface ships carry... most of the missiles the UKSK carriers are 533mm calibre and were torpedo launched weapons that were adapted for vertical launch from ships.

In war there is never enough ammo. So limiting the missiles per sub is silly since that limits their effectiveness. I know that
stuffing them with too many defeats their purpose as well. But the fundamental problem remains: going back to port to fill up
is not an easy option during a war.

Well previously the Papa and Oscar and the Echo carried most of their missiles with a couple in Slava and Kirov and the new Carriers.... now every ship carries at least one UKSK launcher and while upgraded Kirovs will carry 10 launchers it is very likely that any new cruisers while being lighter than the Kirov will also probably carry even more than 15 of them... perhaps double that if they also carry SAMs as well.

So I was right it's a modular VLS. I wonder if theybcould reload each VLS at once at sea. Just put another big block of missile instead of the used one with a crane.

UKSK is a modular VLS system made up of two large tubes each containing four launch tubes.

Me saying there are four UKSKs each with 8 tubes is the same as you saying there are 8 vertical launch modular systems that each hold 4 missiles... by either count there are 32 launch tubes.... and I rather doubt you could fit more in with a smaller missile like Kalibr... the spacing would be wrong and it would be an absolute nightmare if you want a random mix of missiles in a load.

GarryB wrote:
Modern missiles are more capable so you wont be needing as many of them, and besides in WWIII most will have nuclear payloads anyway... this is not a chivalrous battle for honour... it is a war of survival and extermination of the enemy.

you seem to imply that there is honor in firing a massive salvo of nuclear missiles at enemy cities so long as you not trying to remain hidden, well I guess it is slightly more honorable.

Do you think 12 Destroyers would be more use than a container ship with lots of missile equipped shipping crates piled on top?

12 Yasens wont be cheaper than one arsenal sub even just with operational costs of manning it, but 12 Yasen subs would be vastly more use than one arsenal sub in normal operations.

I never suggested the replacement of the Yasen, what I suggested was that the Yasen is a poor choice for use a an SSGN as you would need to use dozens of them in order to accomplish the same task as a single arsenal sub.

You would also need more than 2 Yasens to match a single Antei.

12 Jason Bournes vs one Rambo... which is more useful day to day?

I will take a T34/85 and protagonist grade plot armor over all of them thank you very mutch.

Yasen will be useful for all sorts of sneaky operations and roles...  even just underwater secret escort for tankers going to Venezuela or Iran... an Arsenal sub really only becomes useful during an actual war.

The main problem for an arsenal ship or sub is that most of the time you wont have enough targets for all those missiles so while you might mount a few attacks against specific targets, your main purpose is to enable targets to be attacked at short warning while keeping your surface ships loaded up and ready to fight without having to constantly reload them.

As I said there are many cities in europe and many towns aswell, it the sub still has missiles the there are even more targets in pindostan.

Why would you bother using non nuclear warheads against a carrier group?

If you have conventional missiles loaded you may aswell fire them.

And they can't stop Onyx reliably either.

No they can not, but that does not mean that it is impossible for them to stop a few.

What are you talking about?

IS-2 tank?

What else.

The F-117 cost billions of dollars to develop and build and ended up being a very short ranged cruise missile... two Kh-102s have better range, better payload, similar speed to an F-117 and are vastly cheaper...

An Su-25 is a serious threat for an F-117... wouldn't get close to a Tu-22M3.

How exactly did you fail to detect such obvious sarcasm?

My point was that stealth is not so relevant when you lack firepower.

That is correct, but why are you fixated with extra long range?  Poseidon says you are wrong BTW....  

Oh I was not aware that the Yasen could carry Poseidons, I was under the impression that they needed a modified Antei class to carry a single one of them, due to the shear size and bulk of the weapon.

Would you by any chance happen to know how many Poseidons do the Yasen class submarines carry?

Plus the new subs are NOT SSGNs... an SSGN carried anti ship missiles with the express purpose to help a Soviet or Russian surface group fight an opposing enemy carrier group.

A very important task for the Russian navy and yet you seem to imply in every other post that this is the Yasens purpose, a purpose for which it is neither designed not suited.

https://112.ua/mnenie/rossiya-porazila-novym-oruzhiem-sposobnym-probivat-arkticheskiy-led-546864.html

you seem to imply that there is honor in firing a massive salvo of nuclear missiles at enemy cities so long as you not trying to remain hidden, well I guess it is slightly more honorable.

Honour has nothing to do with it... I am talking about completing a mission to attack the enemy and living to tell the tale.

I never suggested the replacement of the Yasen, what I suggested was that the Yasen is a poor choice for use a an SSGN as you would need to use dozens of them in order to accomplish the same task as a single arsenal sub.

Yasen was never intended to be an arsenal sub... it is much smaller than the Oscar class SSGNs which in their original form only carried 24 missiles... why do you think a Yasen carrying 32 missiles is worse?

If you need thousands of missiles to complete a mission then you probably need nuclear armed missiles.

You would also need more than 2 Yasens to match a single Antei.

The only reason they are still using Anteis is because they are available... in practise however they are no where near as quiet or modern or capable, but they are big and can carry lots of missiles.

As I said there are many cities in europe and many towns aswell, it the sub still has missiles the there are even more targets in pindostan.

There is a difference between a normal sub or a normal ship and an arsenal sub or arsenal ship. The Yasen was never intended to be an arsenal sub so why are you complaining that it is not?

If you have conventional missiles loaded you may aswell fire them.

There will be millions of ships at sea at any one given time... there will be plenty of targets that can be engaged... but the first priority is to eliminate the real threats first as quickly and as efficiently as possible... a 5 MT nuke centred on a US strike carrier should create a wall of super heated steam 15km across that would have a good chance of taking out an SSN operating nearby as well as a few of the ships protecting the carrier... it would barbecue any person on the surface in a ship... they would be broiled fairly quickly... which would functionally eliminate that surface group from the problem list... and if you think they would never do the same to you think again...

No they can not, but that does not mean that it is impossible for them to stop a few.

When they are all armed with nukes they have to stop them all...

My point was that stealth is not so relevant when you lack firepower.

If you lack stealth as a submarine you can't get into a position to use your fire power...

Oh I was not aware that the Yasen could carry Poseidons, I was under the impression that they needed a modified Antei class to carry a single one of them, due to the shear size and bulk of the weapon.

They effectively have unlimited range... they could be launched from Russian ports if need be...

A very important task for the Russian navy and yet you seem to imply in every other post that this is the Yasens purpose, a purpose for which it is neither designed not suited.

The Yasen, with 32 Zircon missiles will be more of a threat to US carrier groups than the Oscar class with 24 Granits ever was.

Most of the rest of the time however can do things an Oscar never dreamed of because it can change its load out of anti carrier missiles with a range of other weapons including long range land attack missiles and anti sub missiles too.