Project 949A: Oscar-II

TheArmenian wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:Alternatively, they may be planning to carry the anti-ship kalibre model with the Mach3 sea-skimmer rocket-powered terminal attack stage.  Not much gets said about this variant, but its likely to be at least as lethal as an Oniks, and with its subsonic sea-skimmer approach it would be harder to defend against than an fast Oniks cruising at higher altitudes.

Quite the opposite.

The anti-ship version of Kalibr is subsonic in the initial part and supersonic in the final attack stage.

Yes, i could have written it a little better.  Kalibre AShM is a subsonic low-altitude, near sea-skimmer for its cruise stage, then releases its M3 terminal attack stage for the final run to target.  My point is that when in its subsonic cruise stage at low altitude, the Kalibre is more difficult to defend against than a larger supersonic Granit at a higher cruise altutude.

Of course, when its a small M3 rocket coming in just above wave height its a friggin' nightmare!

GarryB wrote:..Now that every new Russian ship can carry Onyx and soon Zircon they might be considering a role change for the Oscars as their upgrade to carry 72 missiles including land attack cruise missiles becomes rather interesting in terms of interventions.
In fact a single Oscar could carry a mix of Zircon missiles for use against enemy carrier groups and also land attack cruise missiles for use against ports and infrastructure. With torpedoes and missiles it would be quite capable of taking on a small country by itself. Having two or three could be all you need to take out a small country, or even a first rate military.

I agree, but a 1st rate military won't be "taken out" by a single Oscar!
These subs will be a stop gap & force multipliers until new platforms, surface & subsurface, are built in sufficient numbers. They may also carry UAVs, Special Forces, & patrol the increasingly ice-free Arctic. "8 Delta I/III SSBN [I know the difference!] under-ice transfers conducted between 1980 and 2008" from Kola to Kamchatka. http://7fbtk.blogspot.com/2015/

I agree, but a 1st rate military won't be "taken out" by a single Oscar!

72 mach 8 land attack cruise missiles would devastate most countries even with conventional warheads.

For anything less than a first rate military even subsonic cruise missiles would be problematic if not prepared for the attack.

These subs will be a stop gap & force multipliers until new platforms, surface & subsurface, are built in sufficient numbers.

Of course... you can only upgrade so far and get so much bang for buck. At the end of the day to get really efficient sophisticated capable vessels they need to be custom designed from the start for the multipurpose role.

They may also carry UAVs, Special Forces, & patrol the increasingly ice-free Arctic. "8 Delta I/III SSBN [I know the difference!] under-ice transfers conducted between 1980 and 2008" from Kola to Kamchatka.

They are actually building a custom designed sub bigger than Typhoon/Akula for the purpose of "Special missions".

based on the Oscar II:

https://sputniknews.com/military/201704231052905471-russia-navy-biggest-sub/

"72 mach 8 land attack cruise missiles would devastate most countries even with conventional warheads."- it's not the same as "take out", i.e. totally destroy/render out of action. The US used "297 Tomahawks, of which 282 began their mission successfully (9 failed to leave the tube and 6 fell into the water after leaving the tube). At least 2 (and possibly as many as 6) were shot down,.."= 280-276, or 3.8 times  more than 72 on Iraq in Desert Storm & still didn't eliminate its non-1st rate military, while its fighters were later buried in the sand to avoid destruction & were discovered only in 2003. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/tomahawk.html 
"They are actually building a custom designed sub bigger than Typhoon/Akula for the purpose of "Special missions"."
I know, it's a "mother sub" for deep underwater work, not necessarily to insert frogmen ashore. For such risky missions, SSNs, SSKs, & SSGNs may/will be used.

ummm... with 30% of its warheads being nuclear armed I would say it would.

But earlier you said: "72 mach 8 land attack cruise missiles would devastate most countries even with conventional warheads.", & my reply was based on that assertion. Even 2-3 Oscars won't "take out" a 1st rate military", as the example of Iraq, which never had a 1st rate military, shows. Then, 276-280 CMs hit their targets, (or = ~3.8 Oscars with 72 LACMs each); they inflicted considerable damage but the devastation wasn't enough to prevent Iraq from suppressing subsequent uprisings in the North & South. In 1998, Desert Fox did more damage & further degraded their capabilities but in 2003, in many areas there was some stiff resistance against the invading forces. LACMs are best against high value targets & they could also be used against moored/anchored ships/subs. I wonder, hypothetically speaking, if the D. Donskoi SSBN (the last Typhoon) converted to SSGN, how many max. CMs could it carry?

Even 2-3 Oscars won't "take out" a 1st rate military", as the example of Iraq, which never had a 1st rate military, shows.

The example of Iraq is not a fair example... the US used 59 cruise missiles and didn't even take out one Syrian air base... but then more than half didn't even make it to the target so there are no surprises there.

Perhaps the American military does not know what it is doing... maybe the other missiles ran out of fuel while looking for baby milk factories to destroy.

A subsonic low flying cruise missile requires half a dozen missiles per target to ensure a hit... mach 8 missiles wont need so many and even when flying at altitude they should be very effective.

72 missiles wont destroy a country, but could degrade the nations air defences to the point where they cannot defend themselves. Radars, major Comms centres, power stations, HQs, Airfields, major SAM sites.

I'm sure if only the latest, more precise Tomahawk versions now in stock were used against Iraq between in 1991-2003, the results would be similar. They can destroy things above the ground/water but not in deep underground in 1 hit, if at all. For that, bunker busters are needed, & only the USAF & the RuAF have them now as AFAIK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster#Modern
I also doubt that Mach 8 & above CMs can substitute for bunker busters. To take out a 1st rate military, all those bunkers must be wiped out. Good luck finding all of them!

I also doubt that Mach 8 & above CMs can substitute for bunker busters. To take out a 1st rate military, all those bunkers must be wiped out. Good luck finding all of them!

Yeah... lot of talk in the US about bunker busters... but how many have actually been used with any success?

For some time they were talking about small power nukes for the bunker busting role... which suggests they don't have an effective one yet.

I rather doubt the wests ability to find actual bunkers too.

For Russia taking out a few important economic targets would be as effective for them as hitting a bunker with the enemy leadership. A few oil refineries, a few baby milk factories...

You don't actually need to take out all those bunkers... destroying their effective air force and C4IR system is rather more important than hitting some bunker that might be empty anyway.

Cruise missiles can take out the air defence system to allow aircraft in to finish the job.

Bunkers are also built for C4IR command posts, missile/ammo/weapons/materials/food storage, & aircraft production/repair, to name a few. A 1st rate military has either SSGs, SSGNs, SSBNs, or all of the above. Their bases & the subs caught there can also be destroyed by nuclear mines/torpedoes rather than tactical CMs. Also, airborne command posts won't be all destroyed on the open ground by LACMs. Most of their bases are out of range of SSGNs anyway, as well as missile trains that Russia & PRC are now developing, besides already fielded road mobile BM launchers which North Korea now also has. LACMs in their present & near future form are still tactical weapons that, even if there is enough of them to be used for strategic purposes, will be a huge waste of resources. Economy can also be crippled by cyber warfare but if the opposing military can still strike back for a few days/weeks it may be the Pyrrhic victory for the attackers, & if there is a follow on occupation like we've seen in Iraq & Afghanistan, guerrilla warfare that results can't be stopped by LACMs alone either, if at all. Russian ALCM & LACM attacks in Syria from Caspian & Med. Seas helped but couldn't & didn't bring immediate victory to Assad forces. Since then, the war there was far from over. So, LACMs, Mach8 or not, must be used in concert with other strike weapons.

Just a nice pic (captioned as post-refit so presumably Orel?)


I remember running into a sequence of pics of subs at dock that really showed how huge these are:
A Sierra on one side vs an Akula on the other (captioned that Sierra is about same size as an LA class)
Then an Akula with an Oscar showing nearly the same scale difference.
Finally an Oscar with a Typhoon showing again similar upscale.
Wish I could find that sequence again.

Perfect thank you!

Granit luched from Oscar sub:

^ A bit more info about that.

The Russian Pacific Fleet’s Project 949A Antey (Oscar-II class) nuclear-powered attack submarine Tomsk has launched a cruise missile against a coastal target while operating at sea, fleet spokesman Captain 2nd Rank Vladimir Matveyev said.

"A Granit [NATO reporting name: SS-N-19 Shipwreck] supersonic cruise missile was launched from the underwater position in the Sea of Okhotsk against a multiple coastal target set up at the Kura training range in Kamchatka," the spokesman said.

"While operating at sea, the submarine’s crew members carried out more than a dozen of drills. In particular, they practiced stealthily assuming the best position for an attack and avoiding a counterattack," he added.

During a competition among submarines held by the Navy in 2016, the Pacific Fleet’s nuclear-powered attack submarine Tomsk ranked first as it showed the best skills in destroying hostile surface ships and launching cruise missiles against sea targets.

Also, the submarine’s crew was awarded the challenge cup by the Pacific Fleet’s commander for the victory in the championship and the challenge cup by the Pacific Fleet Submariner Union for high combat skills.

Source: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2017/july-2017-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/5386-video-russia-s-oscar-ii-ssn-tomsk-launches-cruise-missile-against-coastal-target.html

"Granite" blow by submarine "Tomsk" https://ria.ru/analytics/20170712/1498368534.html?utm_source=ria.24smi.info&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=2007&utm_content=1232071
I wonder if all Granits will be modified for this dual strike role. They are have shorte range, but even harder to shoot down than Kalibres!

'
'Omsk' undergoing overhaul at Zvezda shipyard

https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/101785/

Just noticed this chart is wrong:





Typhoon has 20 missiles and Borei has 16 missiles.... not the other way around.

Tsavo Lion wrote:"Granite" blow by submarine "Tomsk" https://ria.ru/analytics/20170712/1498368534.html?utm_source=ria.24smi.info&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=2007&utm_content=1232071
I wonder if all Granits will be modified for this dual strike role. They are have shorte range, but even harder to shoot down than Kalibres!

72x calibers is enough for carrier group. Especially when some of them are supersonic edition. And I presume cheaper.

Russia’s Pacific Fleet to get 4 upgraded nuclear subs by 2021

Russia’s Pacific Fleet may get four upgraded Project 949A Antey nuclear-powered submarines armed with Kalibr cruise missiles in 2021

BOLSHOI KAMEN (Primorye Region), February 6. /TASS/. Russia’s Pacific Fleet may get four upgraded Project 949A Antey nuclear-powered submarines armed with Kalibr cruise missiles already in 2021, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said on Tuesday.

"We have discussed this issue today and we believe that the year 2021 is a realistic term," he told journalists while visiting the Zvezda Shipyard in the Russian Far East.

The Pacific Fleet may also get already this year the nuclear submarine Omsk of this Project that was earlier expected to be delivered in 2019, the deputy defense minister noted.

The Zvezda Shipyard will soon launch work to repair and upgrade Project 955 Borei-class nuclear submarines, he said.

"New Borei subs will arrive here soon. The Zvezda will provide maintenance and repairs and upgrade this grouping," the deputy defense minister said.

It was reported earlier that Antey nuclear-powered submarines would be rearmed with Kalibr cruise missiles during their heavy upgrade at the Zvezda Shipyard while their service life would be doubled. CEO of the Rubin Central Bureau for Marine Engineering Igor Vilnit told TASS that not all the submarines of this class operational in the Fleet were slated for the upgrade.

Overall, Russia has built 11 submarines of this class and now the Russian Navy operates only eight of them. Each submarine displaces 24,000 tonnes and is furnished with 24 Granit cruise missile launchers and six torpedo tubes.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/988610

Notice that none of them going to the NF. The Arctic is out of range Calibres, & N. Atlantic is full of Western ASW assets. Stationing them in the Pac. Fleet offers better access to CONUS:
http://svpressa.ru/war21/article/192560/?cba=1

They could also sail South around S. America & then North to the US E. Coast, where Kings Bay SSBN base in Georgia is located.

That's really strange.

They forgot to transfer four modernized 949A belonging to the Northern Fleet, despite the fact they have no chance to operate in the Atlantic.

They even went so far as assigning even the first 885, Severodvinsk, to the Northern Fleet instead of choosing the only viable option, it being the Pacific Fleet.

Or maybe they believe to be able to operate in the Atlantic as well?

Peŕrier wrote:That's really strange.
They forgot to transfer four modernized 949A belonging to the Northern Fleet, despite the fact they have no chance to operate in the Atlantic.
They even went so far as assigning even the first 885, Severodvinsk, to the Northern Fleet instead of choosing the only viable option, it being the Pacific Fleet.
Or maybe they believe to be able to operate in the Atlantic as well?

Severodvinsk can definitely operate there (or anywhere else), successors will even more so.

As for Oscar's transfer, it could be anything

Peŕrier wrote:That's really strange.

They forgot to transfer four modernized 949A belonging to the Northern Fleet, despite the fact they have no chance to operate in the Atlantic.

They even went so far as assigning even the first 885, Severodvinsk, to the Northern Fleet instead of choosing the only viable option, it being the Pacific Fleet.

Or maybe they believe to be able to operate in the Atlantic as well?

There are reports that the Kursk was following US carrier in mediteranean during kosovo war and even was in position to lunch its missiles.

It is logic that they send the first Yasen in the north. It can target nato bases in UK.

Isos wrote:

Peŕrier wrote:That's really strange.

They forgot to transfer four modernized 949A belonging to the Northern Fleet, despite the fact they have no chance to operate in the Atlantic.

They even went so far as assigning even the first 885, Severodvinsk, to the Northern Fleet instead of choosing the only viable option, it being the Pacific Fleet.

Or maybe they believe to be able to operate in the Atlantic as well?

There are reports that the Kursk was following US carrier in mediteranean during kosovo war and even was in position to lunch its missiles.

It is logic that they send the first Yasen in the north. It can target nato bases in UK.

No the sub would not have been positioning it's self to launch that can be seen as an act of aggression an would justify an attack on the submarine.

"We had a Russian sub built to attack AC's getting in launch position for it's missiles"

Yeah no, that's not how ROE work.