Submarine Warfare: U.S. vs Russia

This baby:



Range should be no problem with this thing:



Small nuclear reactor. Can be installed on the seafloor. The UUV can plug in and recharge its batteries.

If the Russians can perfect underwater IFF then their boomers can operate in an area where there are a bunch of these on patrol to attack any non Russian sub. They can attack, decoy, shield..so may options.

Hole wrote:Small nuclear reactor. Can be installed on the seafloor. The UUV can plug in and recharge its batteries.

Hmm... in practise, any form of subsea connections using ROVs (remote operated vehicles) is always a delicate operation, and is always controlled by a human operator at a remote console. I've worked in the subsea construction industry (oil & gas subsea developments) and AFAIK, no-one has ever developed autonomous ROVs that can independently locate a subsea structure, orient itself to a mating point and achieve a positive wet-mated (electrical) connection.

It's feasible I expect, but so far no-one has developed the technology. One main issue is that ROV mating forces are such that connection interfaces can be damaged by impact/shock loads or mis-alignments, particularly electrical wet-mated connectors where pins can be damaged rendering the connection unusable. Its tricky enough in conditions of poor visibility or strong currents, even with a human operator with a light touch borne from decades of experience, let alone trying to do it with via a robot using AI and working on low quality video cameras feeds.

New cellphones have charging pads where there is no actual connection... you just put the phone on the charging pad and it charges up...

GarryB wrote:New cellphones have charging pads where there is no actual connection... you just put the phone on the charging pad and it charges up...

Have you never seen an electric toothbrush charger? That is nothing new.

Now Russia has 2 submarine project 885/85M. USA has 17 Virginia class submarine and building next 11 . The US has a huge advantage in SSN. Russia will soon be defeated by China.

Arrow wrote:Now Russia has 2 submarine project 885/85M. USA has 17 Virginia class submarine and building next 11 . The US has a huge advantage in SSN. Russia will soon be defeated by China.

What a clown how many SSK the Yankees have?

Russia is and will be the great power on offence and defence weapons, try instead keep up with the Chineses

What a clown how many SSK the Yankees have? wrote:

The US does not need SSK. They build a lot of nuclear submarines that they do not have to have an SSK that has many limitations.

Retard, Russia has plenty of SSK to defend it's shores. I think you fail to realize that.

Add Oscar class subs, plus akula, etc. So Russia is fine for it's naval borders.

Russia has only a few modern submarines 636.3 SSK.

The purpose of the Virginia class are to defend carriers/assault ships against attack by other subs and to search for SSBN´s.

By 2025 the roughly 28 Virginias will have the following "targets":

10 x Borey/-A
4 x 667BDRM (Delta IV)
7 x Yassen/-M
6 - 8 Pr. 949 (Oscar II)
4 x Poseidon carrier (Belgorod + 3 Khabarovsk)

31 - 33 "enemies"

Not counting 10+ SSN´s and 20 - 30 SSK´s.

Also Russia won´t stop building subs after the Boreys, Yassens and the Poseidon carriers.

So much to global domination.

Which is all fine and well but fact remains that they haven't ordered a single new SSN in years while they wait for Husky to get off the drawing board

They seem to first want to modernize old SS(G)Ns, and SSKs also matter, as you said. Total number of RU & US subs is equal at roughly 65, as always. Everything is ok, they aren't idiots.

. The US has a huge advantage in SSN. Russia will soon be defeated by China.

No, trolls are bigger threat. It's becoming a habit that once a year somebody says that Russia doesn't have enough SSNs and everything starts over again. If somebody wouldn't say it in a long time I would probably have to say it myself.

PapaDragon wrote:

verkhoturye51 wrote:

Only why not to build 12-14 but only 7?

They said they want cheaper alternative (Husky).

Which is all fine and well but fact remains that they haven't ordered a single new SSN in years while they wait for Husky to get off the drawing board

They may be saving some negligible amount of money but they are wasting massive amounts of time

That's normal. They ordered Borei and Yasen which for the first one was a must have as Typhoons were dead and needed replacement and deltas becoming old.

Yasen is a 4in1 sub. SSN as it can fight other subs. SSGN as it can launch missiles at ground targets. SSGN/anti-carrier as it can launch near 50 antiship missiles in one salvo. And finally second nuclear strike capability as all those kalibr/zirkon can be nuclear armed and be launched from stand off distance at pretty much any  big capital around the world.

Husky is supposed to be only SSN with none or very few VLS and some kalibr in torpedo room just like kilos. It will be cheaper but also far less capable than yasen.

No, trolls are bigger threat. It's becoming a habit that once a year somebody says that Russia doesn't have enough SSNs and everything starts over again. If somebody wouldn't say it in a long time I would probably have to say it myself.

Victors and sierras are getting old. Even Akulas are getting modernized which means they are becoming old. They will need a replacement pretty fast if they want to keep a good SSN fleet.

Kilos won't replace a SSN, only if they can put those mini reactors from burevesnik missile inside them to produce electricity.

Kilos won't replace a SSN, only if they can put those mini reactors from burevesnik missile inside them to produce electricity.

It would be a mistake. SSKs are better for shallow seas surrounding Russia.

It's correct that SSNs are getting old, but they can keep them going with overhauls and modernizations until new submarines come. It's not feasible that Russia would make more than one SSN per year at current costs.

There was some talk about modularity at Husky class, but not about smaller capability. It should be of roughly same size as Yasen (12.000 tons submerged).

Hole wrote:The purpose of the Virginia class are to defend carriers/assault ships against attack by other subs and to search for SSBN´s.

By 2025 the roughly 28 Virginias will have the following "targets":

10 x Borey/-A
4 x 667BDRM (Delta IV)
7 x Yassen/-M
6 - 8 Pr. 949 (Oscar II)
4 x Poseidon carrier (Belgorod + 3 Khabarovsk)

31 - 33 "enemies"

Not counting 10+ SSN´s and 20 - 30 SSK´s.

Also Russia won´t stop building subs after the Boreys, Yassens and the Poseidon carriers.

So much to global domination.

The USN will still have 3 Seawolfs & dozens of LA class SSNs, + the RN & FN SSNs for the VMF to deal with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Los_Angeles-class_submarines_by_homeport
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy_Submarine_Service#Fleet_submarines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarines_of_France#Nuclear_attack_submarines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Barracuda-class_submarine#Boats

Other NATO & the JMSDF SSKs shouldn't be discounted either:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyashio-class_submarine#Boats
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dry%C5%AB-class_submarine#Boats

@hole you forgot the increasing number of chinese subs to be listed as targets for US SSNs.

Most of the Virginias will be send in the pacific to deal with china. Obama already wanted to send more than 60% of US navy there.

That means less than 30% will be kept against russian navy. And they still need some around USA to keep the house safe in case they loose in the pacific.

They can roughly allocate 20 sub against russian navy maximum. And as china build more and more ships of all sorts, and keeps expending they will need more and more subs in pacific.


At the end most of SSN that russia may face are french and british that most of them will go with QE2 and CdG carriers 24/7.

China is doing the dirty work, spending billions into conventional weapon race with the west. Russia is much more free than soviet union was invterms of military spending.

They can roughly allocate 20 sub against russian navy maximum.

This. China already has 40+ modern SSKs, plus even some decent SSNs (the improved Type 093 variant).

Haters of PLA(N) are gonna hate, as usual, but the upcoming Type 095 is the real deal, IMO, and it will arrive in numbers sooner than most expect (again).

So by 2030, if not slightly earlier, the combined totals of Russia and China will be something like: 40-50 SSNs and at least 80 SSKs. Man... it really doesn't look good for the "New American Century." Just another reminder. As if Kinzhals and Type 055s weren't enough...

Now Russia has 2 submarine project 885/85M. USA has 17 Virginia class submarine and building next 11 Very Happy. The US has a huge advantage in SSN. Russia will soon be defeated by China.

It is also surrounded by the two biggest oceans on the planet with lots of hostile enemies.

China having more subs is a good thing because they are more likely to be used against US subs than Russian ones...

The US does not need SSK. They build a lot of nuclear submarines that they do not have to have an SSK that has many limitations.

Actually how long can the US continue to spend too much on weapons when much much cheaper options that are in some regards superior are ignored.

A decent modern SSK is a fraction of the cost of an SSN, yet in shallow water an SSK is markedly superior in most regards except top speed.

And top speed in a sub means you have lost because even at top speed there are lots of torpedoes that could chase you down...

The purpose of the Virginia class are to defend carriers/assault ships against attack by other subs and to search for SSBN´s.

It would be pretty useless protecting carriers and assault ships... how could a Virginia class stop a Kh-32 or Onyx, let alone a Kinzhal or Zircon?

It would be a mistake. SSKs are better for shallow seas surrounding Russia.

That is because they are normally smaller than most SSNs... if you take out the main diesel engines, but keep the batteries and put in a small nuclear power plant and a small AIP system it would be just as good as a normal Kilo, but with its power generation independent of burning diesel... The reactor along with water could be used to fill hydrogen tanks and oxygen tanks and charge up the batteries... once all full you can sail out under electric power until the batteries are low and use the fuel cells to generate electricity and the NPP topping up the batteries... most of the time you will be using power for electronics and low speed propulsion which should be covered by a small NPP... batteries for high speed and fuel cell as a further backup power supply to further boost energy when needed... when hydrogen tanks are empty and the batteries are flat you can operate at very low speed and minimise electricity use and use the NPP to charge the batteries and process water into H2 and O2 so the fuel cell can be used when needed again.

Note the NPP wont be powerful enough to run everything and run at full speed all at once, but when not running at full speed it can be used to store energy in the batteries and storing energy for the fuel cell to use later too...

The USN will still have 3 Seawolfs & dozens of LA class SSNs, + the RN & FN SSNs for the VMF to deal with:

The financial strain of all these vessels will hasten the demise of the current US of A... hopefully what replaces it is better... but I am not holding my breath.

USN ships and subs no where near Russia are not Russias concern... the ones that are close will be attacked by air power and ships and subs so numerical superiority will be largely nullified...

So by 2030, if not slightly earlier, the combined totals of Russia and China will be something like: 40-50 SSNs and at least 80 SSKs. Man... it really doesn't look good for the "New American Century." Just another reminder. As if Kinzhals and Type 055s weren't enough...

And more importantly there is little chance of the Chinese being more annoying than the US manages every day... good old China...

From attack by subs.
There is always a sub wit a carrier group for that.

That is because they are normally smaller than most SSNs

SSKs lack seaworthiness for operating in open ocean. With their slow speed, poor max depth and armament, they'll be sitting ducks for hostile real SSNs. As you know they're made for operating in chokepoints and small/shallow seas.

verkhoturye51 wrote:

That is because they are normally smaller than most SSNs

SSKs lack seaworthiness for operating in open ocean. With their slow speed, poor max depth and armament, they'll be sitting ducks for hostile real SSNs. As you know they're made for operating in chokepoints and small/shallow seas.

That's because of low power of batteries. With small nuclear reactor engines would be more powerfull.

Kilos can go down to 300m. Just like Los Angeles or Virginia. And below the surface you can shit on seaworthiness because there won´t be much waves.

A sub fight would take place with a speed around 10kn because otherwise you would give away your position. At that speed a Kilo/Lada is much quieter than a LA or Virginia. Also they use standard torpedo tubes which means they can use the same weapons as a SSN.

1. a LA or Virginia always stays with a carrier or amphibious group. It will stay 100 or 200km in front of the group or circle it and try to find enemy subs to prevent themfrom launching missiles. Just like a MiG-31 would try to soot down a bomber before it can launch his weapons.

2. the first LA´s were pure sub hunters. Just like the Burkes were developed for AAW and ASW (against russian bombers and subs launching missiles). At the end of the 80´s they needed a new role and put a few Tomahawks onto the ships/subs. Then the 688I was developed with 12 silos and now the LA III or Virginia class has even more silos but in a large conflict there main task would be to hunt strategic weapon carriers and defend own battle groups.

3. Arrow compared the numbers of the Virginia with the Yassen. I replied that it isn´t that easy. You have to compare their roles, that´s why I mentioned all the possible targets (Bulava, Poseidon and Kaliber/Zircon carriers) for the Virginias. Now someone brought up the LA class and french subs and so on.

Western block (including Australia, Japan, Sweden): roughly 180 - 190 subs (around 80 with nuclear propulsion)
Russia: some 60 - 65 subs (around 30 - 35 nuclear)
China: roughly 70 subs (around 25 nuclear)

Compared to the 80´s, when Russia had 375 subs and the rest of the world (including Amiland and China) had around 550.