Project 971: Akula class

And fact remains that Russia does not want to lease Yasen let alone sell one

Akula yes, Yasen hell no

Imagine USA leasing Zumwalt, it would cost way more than USN paid for buying new one not that they would ever do it just like Russia and Yasen

Bad example but I agree... Zumwalt has all sorts of brand new technology and most of it does not work, which is why it is a dog, they would not lease it in fear the Russians or Chinese might get a look and steal some new ideas and actually get them to work as intended.... a bit like leasing the F-35 to China...

The markup on Russian weapons depends on the customer and the product, but as their MIC is government run money will go into investment and upgrades and research rather than CEOs private jets or holiday homes.

In the 1990s the Russians sold a few things to the west... Britain bought a Tunguska vehicle, the US bought an S-300V battery... obviously minus a lot of secret stuff... the USN bought the Kh-31 missile they used as a drone to test their navy CIWS defences with... they called it the MA-31 or something.

The money made... at a time when they weren't selling a lot to anyone went into developing Panstir and Antei-2500 and improvements in the rocket/ramjet design of the Kh-31 that soon lead to new models with double range and higher speed performance...

Once something is in production the risk of it being compromised increases massively so making money selling them that can be invested in upgrades and new replacements makes sense.

Having said that most Russian weapons and systems are evolutions of decades of experience of confrontations with HATO or operations in locations like Afghanistan or more recently Syria, with combat experience leading to changes and improvements.

Just paying enough for it to be made is selling themselves short, but most customers these days want local production or assembly, which of course massively jacks up the price anyway.

The Su-30MKI would be much much cheaper without the foreign parts added and made in Russia, but often the customer wants foreign parts added and to make it locally so the extra money goes to other foreign companies or wages for local people... for the best price get all parts from the vendor and have them make it.

Often other factors are more important like local jobs.

The Akula Leased by India returned to Russia early due to an explosion inside the hull last year.

Source: submarine "Chakra" returns to Russia from India due to an explosion on board

The explosion of a high-pressure air cylinder on the Chakra submarine (it was named Nerpa in the Russian Navy) occurred in the spring of 2020 during the submarine's cruise. It damaged the light and durable hull of the nuclear submarine," he said.

According to him, the high-pressure air cylinder was located between the lightweight and durable housings. "As a result of the explosion, the hulls were seriously damaged. Electronic weapons and hydroacoustic equipment were also damaged," he said.

Source

Wonder what the cost would be to fix it?

miketheterrible wrote:Wonder what the cost would be to fix it?

Not the cost the issue, but the dry dock ,tool and experineced staff.

Big_Gazza wrote:

The_Observer wrote:The Akula Leased by India returned to Russia early due to an explosion inside the hull last year.

Source: submarine "Chakra" returns to Russia from India due to an explosion on board

The explosion of a high-pressure air cylinder on the Chakra submarine (it was named Nerpa in the Russian Navy) occurred in the spring of 2020 during the submarine's cruise. It damaged the light and durable hull of the nuclear submarine," he said.

According to him, the high-pressure air cylinder was located between the lightweight and durable housings. "As a result of the explosion, the hulls were seriously damaged. Electronic weapons and hydroacoustic equipment were also damaged," he said.

Source

TASS has withdrawn the article

"The reason for the return of the submarine" Chakra "to Russia from India was an explosion on board - a source", issued at 03:00:01 and 03:00:30 Moscow time, ARE CANCELED as issued erroneously.

TASS apologizes to its subscribers and readers.

wow...  the difference between TASS and the lying fake-news MFers here that dare to call themselves the "free media"...  

I wonder what the whole story is? I won't be surprised if the Indians did in fact do damage to the Sub, even if it wasn't an explosion. Considering that the Sub's journey to Russia was conducted entirely in a surfaced position. Would it be unusual for an SSN like Akula to travel such a long distance in a surfaced position? Or is that indicative of a potential problem?

Whatever Indians broke I'm pretty sure Russians can fix

It's still floating

Makes you wonder regarding their next lease though...

GarryB wrote:Makes you wonder regarding their next lease though...

That's probably why they will be getting Bratsk AKA the oldest one

To say nothing of over 3 freaking billion bucks just for lease

And they actually had the nerve to ask for Severodvinsk, like WTF...?

I do hope that Russia will modernize the Chakra 2 (Nerpa) and put her back in RU Navy service.
One nagging question for me though, is whether or not Russia would restart nuclear submarine production at the Amur yard in the near future? To me this would be key to up the numbers of the future attack fleet fairly quickly.

I think Yeltsin signed a decree or something that Sevmash would be the only yard to produce nuclear subs. Hopefully that can be reversed just as easy as the signed decree?

It's just logical to have one in the Pacific as well.

Then it shouldn't be too much of a problem for the yard to qualify for the job as they are currently working on three Akula mods and probably more to come.
Hopefully this will happen sooner than later but maybe you're right - let's not rush things

I would hope any of their shipyards would be able to follow the rules regarding safety with all their vessels... it is like the chicken and the egg problem... how can you have a chicken without an egg, but then to have an egg you need a chicken.

Except there were of course eggs well before chickens even existed so that answer is actually obvious.

If Krushchev had said Soviet and Russian aircraft carriers can only be built at Nikoleyev (spelling) then of course when it became a separated different country then they would of course have to change that rule.

If there is a rule then it should be fine to look at it again now and think is that still a good thing or does it need to be changed now.

If it was a promise Yeltsin made to the US to limit Russias nuclear submarine production potential then there is no need to observe it and keep it going.

If there are safety or other practical reasons and they are still relevant then fine keep it up.

But otherwise maybe other shipyards should upgrade and improve and adapt and change to allow such capabilities because their new destroyers and new cruisers and new fixed wing carriers could all benefit from nuclear propulsion if they can optimise them to operate for 30+ years and not require refuelling for enormous time periods without limiting operational performance.

In the Soviet Navy there were only Submarines and four Kirov class cruisers that were nuclear powered... the future navy will have rather more... so expanding the number of ports that can work on them makes a lot of sense.

Not only will they be making more new vessels with nuclear propulsion but maintenance and upgrades will also require such abilities to handle them too.

The huge Zvezda shipyard in the Pacific is already nuclear capable but I think they are concentrating on surface ships atm. I wonder if the yard would be be able to build any nuclear subs in the near future?

Mir wrote:The huge Zvezda shipyard in the Pacific is already nuclear capable but I think they are concentrating on surface ships atm. I wonder if the yard would be be able to build any nuclear subs in the near future?

It started as a repair center for nuclear subs of the Pacific Fleet, this is the other side of the bay AFAIK. I guess it is easier for Sevmash to concentrate on the production of the nuclear subs while Zvezda uses their huge production capability to deliver the bulk of the vessels the Russian hydrocarbon industry needs the next decade and then freed resources for eventual carriers. Of course ideally both Sevmash and Zvezda in the future could build nuclear subs and big nuclear surface vessels, but I am not aware of any big expansion of Sevmash being planned.

Ok that's even beter news!

I do feel Russia is now set to rebuild a respectable and very capable Blue Water Navy within the next 20-30 years.

Not huge in numbers but huge in capability. Looking forward to it.

ALAMO wrote:
The general shape of nuclear marine construction is not bad at all.
Severna builds both subs and refits Orlans.
Zvezda builds Lider class icebreakers and refits Anteys.
Baltiysky builds Arktikas and floating NPPs.
Komsomolsk - I am not sure as I have said.

Back in Soviet times the Admiralty Yard also built the Liras and some Project 671 subs, and in Nizhniy Novgorod the 945's.
So lots of potential for nuclear subs.

India in talks with Russia for the lease of a second Akula Class SSN. It will take Russia at least 6 years to refurbish an Akula class SSN.

https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/why-india-is-leasing-a-second-nuclear-powered-attack-submarine-from-russia-1849277-2021-09-04