Soviet Nuclear submarines

Victor, Akula, Alfa, Sierra, Yankee notch. These classes of submarines were primarily designed for ASW during the cold war

But can they also be used for torpedo attacks against surface warships ? I know they carried ASW missiles which were not effective against surface warships

How effective were they against an average western Frigate/destroyer in the 80s

nastle77 wrote:These classes of submarines were primarily designed for ASW during the cold war

But can they also be used for torpedo attacks against surface warships ? I know they carried ASW missiles which were not effective against surface warships

How effective were they against an average western Frigate/destroyer in the 80s

I think you have it slightly backwards.

First generation nukes (November) were used primarily for against surface ships, while the second generation onwards were designed also with anti-submarine capability.

ASW was much much harder than ASuW in 1950's, so all submarines before Victor could do ASuW, but not ASW.

Because anti-submarine capabilities of surface ships increased significantly during the 60's, it was not considered very realistic that a torpedo attack would be able to penetrate a SAG's defensive screen. So, submarines naturally evolved for longer range using cruise missile which eventually created the SSGN/SSN split.

A pre-Victor 3 nuke getting into torpedo distance of a SAG is still pretty unrealistic due to introduction of ASROC and layered scouting capabilities.

Victor III was revolutionary for the Soviet Navy both in terms of quieting (thanks, Toshiba!), but also because it was the first Soviet SSN to carry long-range anti-ship missiles (Granat), while all SSN prior to it only carried torpedoes and rocket-torpedoes like Starfish/Vyuga. This has tremendously increased their ASuW capability.

All attack submarines since Victor III (except Alfa) were also able to carry a large arsenal of long-range anti-ship missiles and would participate in a PAD (Protoviavianosnaya diviziya), a counter-carrier division, a type of ad hoc SSGN/SSN ship formation that would be used for war-type surge.

artjomh wrote:

nastle77 wrote:These classes of submarines were primarily designed for ASW during the cold war

But can they also be used for torpedo attacks against surface warships ? I know they carried ASW missiles which were not effective against surface warships

How effective were they against an average western Frigate/destroyer in the 80s

I think you have it slightly backwards.

First generation nukes (November) were used primarily for against surface ships, while the second generation onwards were designed also with anti-submarine capability.

ASW was much much harder than ASuW in 1950's, so all submarines before Victor could do ASuW, but not ASW.

Because anti-submarine capabilities of surface ships increased significantly during the 60's, it was not considered very realistic that a torpedo attack would be able to penetrate a SAG's defensive screen. So, submarines naturally evolved for longer range using cruise missile which eventually created the SSGN/SSN split.

A pre-Victor 3 nuke getting into torpedo distance of a SAG is still pretty unrealistic due to introduction of ASROC and layered scouting capabilities.

Victor III was revolutionary for the Soviet Navy both in terms of quieting (thanks, Toshiba!), but also because it was the first Soviet SSN to carry long-range anti-ship missiles (Granat), while all SSN prior to it only carried torpedoes and rocket-torpedoes like Starfish/Vyuga. This has tremendously increased their ASuW capability.

All attack submarines since Victor III (except Alfa) were also able to carry a large arsenal of long-range anti-ship missiles and would participate in a PAD (Protoviavianosnaya diviziya), a counter-carrier division, a type of ad hoc SSGN/SSN ship formation that would be used for war-type surge.

Thanks

How many SSN carried the Granat cruise missile ? by the end of the cold war
I have read only 8 victor III, akula and Sierra carried it

Do you think the earlier subs ( before victor III) could still participate in ASuW against non-USN SAG ( like those without carriers) ?

Though not Russian but a Nice Documentary on USS Kentucky SSBN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lc2vs4Vq1c


Do we have similar documentary for Delta 4 SSBN or even Akula SSN ?

nastle77 wrote:Thanks

How many SSN carried the Granat cruise missile ? by the end of the cold war
I have read only 8 victor III, akula and Sierra carried it

By 1991:

- Project 671RTMK: 8
- Project 945A: 2
- Project 971: 8
- Project 667AT: 3

Total: 21

Plus a couple of modified diesels that were used for testing.

Do you think the earlier subs ( before victor III) could still participate in ASuW against non-USN SAG ( like those without carriers) ?

Yes, sure, why not. Depending on how close their interoperability was with NATO's Orions. A non-USN SAG would be definitely easier to penetrate.

^ appreciate your input artjomh
I don't have any access to Russian language sources that's why I ask a lot of questions regarding inventory, numbers etc


Do you know if the Soviet navy conducted any excercises with its SSN to determine if they can penetrate a SAG , and any details of that available anywhere

nastle77 wrote:Do you know if the Soviet navy conducted any excercises with its SSN to determine if they can penetrate a SAG , and any details of that available anywhere

Oh, yeah, countering the CBG was a big deal for both the submarine and naval aviation communities.

Here's a must-read article for tactics used by the Naval Aviation: https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/b2ec1735-8652-40b0-ae04-a9e30a5597cd/Kamikazes--The-Soviet-Legacy.aspx

The article touches upon the efforts of the submarine community only briefly, but needless to say it was something of a major focus for Soviet Navy training and organisation.

artjomh wrote:

nastle77 wrote:These classes of submarines were primarily designed for ASW during the cold war

But can they also be used for torpedo attacks against surface warships ? I know they carried ASW missiles which were not effective against surface warships

How effective were they against an average western Frigate/destroyer in the 80s

I think you have it slightly backwards.

First generation nukes (November) were used primarily for against surface ships, while the second generation onwards were designed also with anti-submarine capability.

ASW was much much harder than ASuW in 1950's, so all submarines before Victor could do ASuW, but not ASW.

Because anti-submarine capabilities of surface ships increased significantly during the 60's, it was not considered very realistic that a torpedo attack would be able to penetrate a SAG's defensive screen. So, submarines naturally evolved for longer range using cruise missile which eventually created the SSGN/SSN split.

A pre-Victor 3 nuke getting into torpedo distance of a SAG is still pretty unrealistic due to introduction of ASROC and layered scouting capabilities.

Victor III was revolutionary for the Soviet Navy both in terms of quieting (thanks, Toshiba!), but also because it was the first Soviet SSN to carry long-range anti-ship missiles (Granat), while all SSN prior to it only carried torpedoes and rocket-torpedoes like Starfish/Vyuga. This has tremendously increased their ASuW capability.

All attack submarines since Victor III (except Alfa) were also able to carry a large arsenal of long-range anti-ship missiles and would participate in a PAD (Protoviavianosnaya diviziya), a counter-carrier division, a type of ad hoc SSGN/SSN ship formation that would be used for war-type surge.

Hi artjomh, happy to see your posts here.
For Project 671 RTM Shchuka class (Victor III), the S-10 Granat (SS-N-21) is, as far as I know, only a strategic cruise missile for land based targets attack. Do you have info about an antiship version ?
The Project 971 Shchuka-B (Akula) class have the 3M-54 Klub (SS-N-27) antiship missile launch capabilities.

archangelski wrote:Hi artjomh, happy to see your posts here.
For Project 671 RTM Shchuka class (Victor III), the S-10 Granat (SS-N-21) is, as far as I know, only a strategic cruise missile for land based targets attack. Do you have info about an antiship version ?
The Project 971 Shchuka-B (Akula) class have the 3M-54 Klub (SS-N-27) antiship missile launch capabilities.

Oh my, I just realized how much I brainfarted there. Please ignore, Granat of course only has inertial navigation... I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote "anti-ship". Thank you for noticing this, so people don't get misinformed.

And no, no 3M54 on 971 yet..

artjomh wrote:

Oh my, I just realized how much I brainfarted there. Please ignore, Granat of course only has inertial navigation... I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote "anti-ship". Thank you for noticing this, so people don't get misinformed.

And no, no 3M54 on 971 yet..

I may have misspoken, but you are right : capabilities (like i've written) only (not yet operationally used).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/07/17/soviets-score-silent-success-in-undersea-race-with-us/4e31f082-6e5a-4c55-bf30-92f797314789/

Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger and other administration officials are blaming Japan and Norway for allowing their high-tech companies to ship to the Soviet Union the technology needed to manufacture smooth, quiet submarine propellers.

But those explanations are only the latest chapters of a long book, according to antisubmarine warfare (ASW) specialists inside and outside the government. "Quieting submarines is a laborious process of doing a lot of little things," one veteran ASW specialist said.

The Soviets have been doing that at the same time that they dared to go beyond the technologies pushed by the late admiral Hyman G. Rickover, the dictator of U.S. submarine design for three decades, the specialist said. As a result, he said, in addition to better propellers, Soviet boats today incorporate advances in power plants, metallurgy, hull shapes, low-friction coatings and a broad range of quieting techniques.
"The stuff the Soviets got from Toshiba and Kongsberg helped them manufacture smooth, precisely shaped propeller blades," said another ASW specialist and former Navy submariner. "But somebody had to design those propellers and do the engineering . . . the real breakthroughs the Soviets made to make their propellers quiet, not the milling by Toshiba's machines."

Interesting how the bleating of NATO politicians has established the Toshiba myth. But at the time experts were pointing out the
BS aspect of these hysterical claims. And the US media still had some objectivity unlike today.

US ASW skills are poor.

Can anyone tell me when the following submarines were converted to the Yankee notch configuration ?
http://russianships.info/eng/submarines/project_667a.htm
this above link the information reads as
K-26 13.11.1983-1985,
K-253 17.05.1984-20.12.1985,
K-395 24.06.1988-30.12.1991,
K-423 16.10.1978-27.12.1987, «Zvezda», Bolshoy Kamen` –
K-236 с 23.11.1979-not completed,
K-399 с 18.01.1982-not completed,
K-408 8.07.1983-10.05.1984.

Does this mean that K-26, K-253 K-423 and K-408 were converted by 1990 ?

Or am I reading it wrong

nastle77 wrote:Can anyone tell me when the following submarines were converted to the Yankee notch configuration ?
http://russianships.info/eng/submarines/project_667a.htm
this above link the information reads as
K-26 13.11.1983-1985,
K-253 17.05.1984-20.12.1985,
K-395 24.06.1988-30.12.1991,
K-423 16.10.1978-27.12.1987, «Zvezda», Bolshoy Kamen` –
K-236 с 23.11.1979-not completed,
K-399 с 18.01.1982-not completed,
K-408 8.07.1983-10.05.1984.

Does this mean that K-26, K-253 K-423 and K-408 were converted by 1990 ?

Or am I reading it wrong

Only K-253 (1989), K-395 (1992) and K-423 (sometime between 1988 and 1992).

K-26 was supposed to be converted into a minisub mothership, but conversion was never finished.

236, 399 and 408 were never completed as cruise missile carriers.

artjomh wrote:

nastle77 wrote:Can anyone tell me when the following submarines were converted to the Yankee notch configuration ?
http://russianships.info/eng/submarines/project_667a.htm
this above link the information reads as
K-26 13.11.1983-1985,
K-253 17.05.1984-20.12.1985,
K-395 24.06.1988-30.12.1991,
K-423 16.10.1978-27.12.1987, «Zvezda», Bolshoy Kamen` –
K-236 с 23.11.1979-not completed,
K-399 с 18.01.1982-not completed,
K-408 8.07.1983-10.05.1984.

Does this mean that K-26, K-253 K-423 and K-408 were converted by 1990 ?

Or am I reading it wrong

Only K-253 (1989), K-395 (1992) and K-423 (sometime between 1988 and 1992).

K-26 was supposed to be converted into a minisub mothership, but conversion was never finished.

236, 399 and 408 were never completed as cruise missile carriers.

Thanks

Was the Victor II class submarine equipped with type 65 21 inch ASuW torpedoes ? or any Asuw torpedoes ?

Also the SSN-16 Stallion was a dual role weapon ? ASuw and ASW?
RPK-6 Vodopad (Russian: РПК-6 Водопад, "waterfall") is a Soviet 533 mm anti-ship missile deployed operationally since 1981.[1]

RPK-7 Veter (Russian: РПК-7 Ветер, "wind") is a 650 mm version, deployed operationally since 1984.[1]

Both missiles are given the same United States Navy designation SS-N-16 and NATO designation Stallion.[1]

Both missiles are torpedo-tube launched, with a solid-fuel rocket engine to power them above the surface

Did it have the same range in the ASW and Asuw role ?

nastle77 wrote:Was the Victor II class submarine equipped with type 65 21 inch ASuW torpedoes ? or any Asuw torpedoes ?

It had 2 x 650 mm torpedo tubes for 65-76 torpedoes. No 650 mm rocket-torpedoes, only Vodopad (which is 533 mm)

Also the SSN-16 Stallion was a dual role weapon ? ASuw and ASW?

RPK-6 had two types of warhead stage: a torpedo and a depth charge. So, in a way, it was a dual-role system, but it couldn't be used for both at the same time, the two versions were in fact separate weapons.

That being said, RPK-6 was designed as an anti-submarine weapon, so using the torpedo in anti-shipping role would be cross-purpose and likely require complete reprogramming of its search programme.

Did it have the same range in the ASW and Asuw role ?

Depends on how you count it.

The rocket stage was the in both versions. Exact range is classified, but various sources give the range between 35 and 50 km. The depth charge warhead was, obviously, completely unguided. The torpedo version, on the other hand, had propulsion of its own, and could travel an extra 8 km. However, practically, the torpedo was programmed to travel in a circular descending pattern, searching for the enemy submarine.

Like I said before, while RPK-6 had a torpedo head, it was not designed for action against enemy surface ships, and it would be highly unlikely that it would every be re-programmed for that kind of operation.

I'm assuming the Victor III was better suited to ASUW than Victor I/II
as the Victor III had the 2 65 cm tubes and can carry the type 65-76 torpedoes which had the longer range ( 8 torpedoes )

Also it seems the Akula and Sierra class also had the 65 cm tubes so can fire the ASUW type 65-76 torpedoes ?

However the Alfa class was kind of a ASW specialist as it had no 65 cm tubes only 53 mm tubes

is that accurate ?

I believe only one was operational before 1990 but what kind of missiles was it equipped with ?
We're these missiles not scrapped as part of INF treaty ?
What was the purpose of yankeee notch once these cruise missiles were gone?

GarryB wrote:They could carry cruise missiles but also torpedoes in the spaces where the SLBMs were, so they became large capacity SSNs... but were not intended as such.

The original purpose was cruise missile carrier.

A newer modification of a newer SSBN would involve ready to launch SLCMs that would be available to launch right away without being loaded into tubes and most armed with conventional warheads for land attack.

If sub standard UKSK tubes were used then anti ship and anti sub weapons could also be loaded to make it even more flexible.

High capacity SSN geared towards ASUW role ? Or just general purpose Ssn

K-3, the first nuclear submarine of the Soviet Union.

Pretty impressive museum.

lancelot wrote:Pretty impressive museum.

Yeah, where is that?