Russian Navy: Status & News #3

Russian Black Sea Fleet to Receive 3 Submarines, 2 Frigates in 2017 - Commander

Russia's Black Sea Fleet will receive advanced submarines and several frigates during the next year, the fleet’s commander said Thursday.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Russia's Black Sea Fleet will receive three advanced submarines and two frigates during the next year, the fleet’s commander said Thursday.

"In 2017 we will get three submarines and two frigates," Adm. Aleksandr Vitko told reporters during a defense ministry meeting.

He added that the Krasnodar and the Stary Oskol were among the expected submarines.

According to the admiral, the Black Sea Fleet has received some 30 warships and vessels in 2016.

Russia is in the process of implementing a large-scale rearmament program, which was announced in 2010. The country aims to modernize 70 percent of its military hardware by 2020. The cost of the modernization program is estimated at about 20 trillion rubles ($327 billion at the current exchange rates).

Source: https://sputniknews.com/military/201612221048878101-black-sea-fleet-submarines/

SEVERODVINSK, December 23. /TASS/. The Project 955A nuclear submarine Prince Vladimir and the Project 885M Yasen-M nuclear-powered underwater cruiser Kazan will be floated out in 2017, Russian Navy Deputy Commander-in-Chief Vice-Admiral Viktor Bursuk said on Friday.

More:
http://tass.com/defense/921700

George1 wrote:

SEVERODVINSK, December 23. /TASS/. The Project 955A nuclear submarine Prince Vladimir and the Project 885M Yasen-M nuclear-powered underwater cruiser Kazan will be floated out in 2017, Russian Navy Deputy Commander-in-Chief Vice-Admiral Viktor Bursuk said on Friday.

More:
http://tass.com/defense/921700

Kazan is the most expensive military equipment made in Russia.



I think an aircraft carrier should cost as much as this submarine.

If they float it out in 2017 then I presume the hull welded, and the submarine is under pressure test?

Singular_Transform wrote:

George1 wrote:

SEVERODVINSK, December 23. /TASS/. The Project 955A nuclear submarine Prince Vladimir and the Project 885M Yasen-M nuclear-powered underwater cruiser Kazan will be floated out in 2017, Russian Navy Deputy Commander-in-Chief Vice-Admiral Viktor Bursuk said on Friday.

More:
http://tass.com/defense/921700

Kazan is the most expensive military equipment made in Russia.



I think an aircraft carrier should cost as much as this submarine.

If they float it out in 2017 then  I presume the  hull welded, and the submarine is under pressure test?

Good God no. Carrier would cost at least twice as much, probably even 3 times and we are talking just about building cost without development.

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

George1 wrote:

SEVERODVINSK, December 23. /TASS/. The Project 955A nuclear submarine Prince Vladimir and the Project 885M Yasen-M nuclear-powered underwater cruiser Kazan will be floated out in 2017, Russian Navy Deputy Commander-in-Chief Vice-Admiral Viktor Bursuk said on Friday.

More:
http://tass.com/defense/921700

Kazan is the most expensive military equipment made in Russia.



I think an aircraft carrier should cost as much as this submarine.

If they float it out in 2017 then  I presume the  hull welded, and the submarine is under pressure test?

Good God no. Carrier would cost at least twice as much, probably even 3 times and we are talking just about building cost without development.

This is not too much. Russia today has 6 Project 885 submarines under construction.

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

George1 wrote:

SEVERODVINSK, December 23. /TASS/. The Project 955A nuclear submarine Prince Vladimir and the Project 885M Yasen-M nuclear-powered underwater cruiser Kazan will be floated out in 2017, Russian Navy Deputy Commander-in-Chief Vice-Admiral Viktor Bursuk said on Friday.

More:
http://tass.com/defense/921700

Kazan is the most expensive military equipment made in Russia.



I think an aircraft carrier should cost as much as this submarine.

If they float it out in 2017 then  I presume the  hull welded, and the submarine is under pressure test?

Good God no. Carrier would cost at least twice as much, probably even 3 times and we are talking just about building cost without development.

Ahem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Harry_S._Truman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Connecticut_(SSN-22)
Both of them commissioned in the same year.
Nimitz cost 4.5 billion, Connecticut cost 3 billion.

The Kazan as complicated and advanced (or more advanced) as the Connecticut.

So, a Kuznetsov class carrier should cost no more than a yassen class submarine, even with nuclear propulsion.

Good God no. Carrier would cost at least twice as much, probably even 3 times and we are talking just about building cost without development.

And without corruption cost

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

George1 wrote:

SEVERODVINSK, December 23. /TASS/. The Project 955A nuclear submarine Prince Vladimir and the Project 885M Yasen-M nuclear-powered underwater cruiser Kazan will be floated out in 2017, Russian Navy Deputy Commander-in-Chief Vice-Admiral Viktor Bursuk said on Friday.

More:
http://tass.com/defense/921700

Kazan is the most expensive military equipment made in Russia.



I think an aircraft carrier should cost as much as this submarine.

If they float it out in 2017 then  I presume the  hull welded, and the submarine is under pressure test?

Good God no. Carrier would cost at least twice as much, probably even 3 times and we are talking just about building cost without development.

Ahem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Harry_S._Truman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Connecticut_(SSN-22)
Both of them commissioned in the same year.
Nimitz cost 4.5 billion, Connecticut cost 3 billion.

The Kazan as complicated and advanced (or more advanced) as the Connecticut.

So, a Kuznetsov class carrier should cost no more than a yassen class submarine, even with nuclear propulsion.

Right.

INS Vikramaditya at the end was paid how much? About 2,4 billion right? And hull itself was sold for token price, majority of cost was modernisation-overhaul and sea trials. So.. built from a scratch... Kuznecov-like class with nuclear propulsion to cost 1,5 billion...is.. not unrealistic, its impossible. No way on Earth one can build an actual, real carrier for less than 3 billion, that does not happen and cant be done unless you do not pay workers and decide to make it out of recycled Lada Riva steel. Then yeah, it can be done.

When its about Yasen price, originally those were supposed to cost below 1 billion, actually closer to 800 million, however, certain Russian steel works refused to supply this, highly specialised steel in such small quantities for the projected price, which dramatically affected the cost. This was long ago topic on this forum you can probably still find it... somewhere.

It doesnt really matter how advanced or complicated is something. Its all about how much does it actually cost and are you ready to pay that much. Hand made woolen sweater costs more than cheapest Smartphone, that doesnt make sweater more complicated.

Actually... Wikipedia? Really? In our, 2016. USD current value, Nimitz costs almost 9 billion. Source: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=200&ct=4

Isos wrote:

Good God no. Carrier would cost at least twice as much, probably even 3 times and we are talking just about building cost without development.

And without corruption cost

O yeah i forgot that very important column in final cost calculation

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

George1 wrote:

SEVERODVINSK, December 23. /TASS/. The Project 955A nuclear submarine Prince Vladimir and the Project 885M Yasen-M nuclear-powered underwater cruiser Kazan will be floated out in 2017, Russian Navy Deputy Commander-in-Chief Vice-Admiral Viktor Bursuk said on Friday.

More:
http://tass.com/defense/921700

Kazan is the most expensive military equipment made in Russia.



I think an aircraft carrier should cost as much as this submarine.

If they float it out in 2017 then  I presume the  hull welded, and the submarine is under pressure test?

Good God no. Carrier would cost at least twice as much, probably even 3 times and we are talking just about building cost without development.

Ahem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Harry_S._Truman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Connecticut_(SSN-22)
Both of them commissioned in the same year.
Nimitz cost 4.5 billion, Connecticut cost 3 billion.

The Kazan as complicated and advanced (or more advanced) as the Connecticut.

So, a Kuznetsov class carrier should cost no more than a yassen class submarine, even with nuclear propulsion.

Right.

INS Vikramaditya at the end was paid how much? About 2,4 billion right? And hull itself was sold for token price, majority of cost was modernisation-overhaul and sea trials. So.. built from a scratch... Kuznecov-like class with nuclear propulsion to cost 1,5 billion...is.. not unrealistic, its impossible. No way on Earth one can build an actual, real carrier for less than 3 billion, that does not happen and cant be done unless you do not pay workers and decide to make it out of recycled Lada Riva steel. Then yeah, it can be done.

When its about Yasen price, originally those were supposed to cost below 1 billion, actually closer to 800 million, however, certain Russian steel works refused to supply this, highly specialised steel in such small quantities for the projected price, which dramatically affected the cost. This was long ago topic on this forum you can probably still find it... somewhere.

It doesnt really matter how advanced or complicated is something. Its all about how much does it actually cost and are you ready to pay that much. Hand made woolen sweater costs more than cheapest Smartphone, that doesnt make sweater more complicated.

Actually... Wikipedia? Really? In our, 2016. USD current value, Nimitz costs almost 9 billion. Source: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=200&ct=4

?

Simple inductive logic:
1. Cost of the Connecticut was 3 billion, Cost of the Harry_S._Truman was 4.5 billion.
2. The Yassen class as complicated and expensive as the Seawolf class

The first is from the actual paid 1998 price for the above assets.
You can argue about the second point, but we know that the Yassen class is extremely expensive, and the reason of the Virginia class was to cut back the cost of the attack submarines.


If we say that the Kuznetsov class cost 60 % of the Nimitz class then one Kuznetsov ≈ one Yassen.

I have to mention that the Arktika nuclear icebreaker cost 10% more than a yassen submarine.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/russia-launches-worlds-largest-nuclear-8215487


the main thing is the complexity ratio between a highly advanced submarine (seawolf) and a carrier (nimitz).

Based on this you can asses the magnitude of resources needed ( amount of rubels) to make a carrier in russia.


And the corruption equally affect the price of a carrier and submarine, so the final equation / ratio doesn't change.

Navy ordered 5th generation subs

http://vpk-news.ru/news/34448

Viktor wrote:Navy ordered 5th generation subs

http://vpk-news.ru/news/34448

Actually they cancelled the last two planned Borey A , and started to design a new strategic ballistic submarine.

So, there will be three Borey, five borey A ,and unknown number of new SSBNs.

INS Vikramaditya at the end was paid how much? About 2,4 billion right? And hull itself was sold for token price, majority of cost was modernisation-overhaul and sea trials. So.. built from a scratch... Kuznecov-like class with nuclear propulsion to cost 1,5 billion...is.. not unrealistic, its impossible. No way on Earth one can build an actual, real carrier for less than 3 billion, that does not happen and cant be done unless you do not pay workers and decide to make it out of recycled Lada Riva steel. Then yeah, it can be done.

When its about Yasen price, originally those were supposed to cost below 1 billion, actually closer to 800 million, however, certain Russian steel works refused to supply this, highly specialised steel in such small quantities for the projected price, which dramatically affected the cost. This was long ago topic on this forum you can probably still find it... somewhere.

It doesnt really matter how advanced or complicated is something. Its all about how much does it actually cost and are you ready to pay that much. Hand made woolen sweater costs more than cheapest Smartphone, that doesnt make sweater more complicated.

Actually... Wikipedia? Really? In our, 2016. USD current value, Nimitz costs almost 9 billion. Source: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=200&ct=4

The price of a carrier depend on what system you put on it. You can design it without all the modern radars, communication system and Combat manag system and it will be cheap. It's enough for protecting a fleet, not enough for destroying a country. The price for the structure is not even 50% of the total price. It's less than 20% if you take in count the price for aircrafts.

Isos wrote:


The price of a carrier depend on what system you put on it. You can design it without all the modern radars, communication system and Combat manag system and it will be cheap. It's enough for protecting a fleet, not enough for destroying a country. The price for the structure is not even 50% of the total price. It's less than 20% if you take in count the price for aircrafts.

That is a bit tricky, the US carriers has minimal amount of weapons/radar systems to be cheap, and they depended on the aircraft.
The costly part of a Nimitz is the catapult and arresting gear.


The Kuznetsov has extensive number of missiles/advanced weapon system .

A nuclear attack submarine has more expensive advanced weapons and systems than a surface vessel.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Isos wrote:


The price of a carrier depend on what system you put on it. You can design it without all the modern radars, communication system and Combat manag system and it will be cheap. It's enough for protecting a fleet, not enough for destroying a country. The price for the structure is not even 50% of the total price. It's less than 20% if you take in count the price for aircrafts.

That is a bit tricky, the US carriers has minimal amount of weapons/radar systems to be cheap, and they depended on the aircraft.
The costly part of a Nimitz is the catapult and arresting gear.


The Kuznetsov has extensive number of missiles/advanced weapon system .

A nuclear attack submarine has more expensive advanced weapons and systems than a surface vessel.

We know actual prices of expensive Soviet ships. They can give some comparison.

(mil. rubles)
949 - 300-350
1144 - 370-390
1164 - 135-140

I remember some "experts" were claiming that they shouldn't have built 1144, because they could build three 949's instead.

In real life underwater rocket cruiser costs the as much as surface one.

Singular_Transform wrote:

That is a bit tricky, the US carriers has minimal amount of weapons/radar systems to be cheap, and they depended on the aircraft.
The costly part of a Nimitz is the catapult and arresting gear.


The Kuznetsov has extensive number of missiles/advanced weapon system .

A nuclear attack submarine has more expensive advanced weapons and systems than a surface vessel.

A bit

The US Navy carriers do not need a lot of weapons, since the destroyers of the CSG (Carrier Strike Group) will take care of any incoming threats.

Indeed, the catapult and other systems are a very expensive part of the whole ship. The new Gerald R. Ford-class carriers of the US Navy will feature an Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and other new and advanced systems which would be rather expensive. Tax-payer money well spent

A1RMAN wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

Isos wrote:


The price of a carrier depend on what system you put on it. You can design it without all the modern radars, communication system and Combat manag system and it will be cheap. It's enough for protecting a fleet, not enough for destroying a country. The price for the structure is not even 50% of the total price. It's less than 20% if you take in count the price for aircrafts.

That is a bit tricky, the US carriers has minimal amount of weapons/radar systems to be cheap, and they depended on the aircraft.
The costly part of a Nimitz is the catapult and arresting gear.


The Kuznetsov has extensive number of missiles/advanced weapon system .

A nuclear attack submarine has more expensive advanced weapons and systems than a surface vessel.

We know actual prices of expensive Soviet ships. They can give some comparison.

(mil. rubles)
949 - 300-350
1144 - 370-390
1164 - 135-140

I remember some "experts" were claiming that they shouldn't have built 1144, because they could build three 949's instead.

In real life underwater rocket cruiser costs the as much as surface one.

Even the US data can be compared to the same year manufacturing cost.
So without knowing the actual year it is hard to compare the numbers, and without knowing more details it is hard to compare the same numebrs in the soviet economy.

It doesn't mean that the numbers can't be compared, it means that it need more supporting evidence. : )

Singular_Transform wrote:

A1RMAN wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

Isos wrote:


The price of a carrier depend on what system you put on it. You can design it without all the modern radars, communication system and Combat manag system and it will be cheap. It's enough for protecting a fleet, not enough for destroying a country. The price for the structure is not even 50% of the total price. It's less than 20% if you take in count the price for aircrafts.

That is a bit tricky, the US carriers has minimal amount of weapons/radar systems to be cheap, and they depended on the aircraft.
The costly part of a Nimitz is the catapult and arresting gear.


The Kuznetsov has extensive number of missiles/advanced weapon system .

A nuclear attack submarine has more expensive advanced weapons and systems than a surface vessel.

We know actual prices of expensive Soviet ships. They can give some comparison.

(mil. rubles)
949 - 300-350
1144 - 370-390
1164 - 135-140

I remember some "experts" were claiming that they shouldn't have built 1144, because they could build three 949's instead.

In real life underwater rocket cruiser costs the as much as surface one.

Even the US data can be compared to the same year manufacturing cost.
So without knowing the actual year it is hard to compare the numbers, and without knowing more details it is hard to compare the same numebrs in the soviet economy.

It doesn't mean that the numbers can't be compared, it means that it need more supporting evidence. : )

1983

Russia's 1st Project 955A SSBN Prince Vladimir & 1st Project 885M Kazan Will Be Launched in 2017

The nuclear submarines Prince Vladimir (first unit of project 955A SSBN) and Kazan (first unit of project 885M SSN) will be floated in 2017, Russian Navy Deputy Commander-in-Chief for armaments Vice Admiral Viktor Bursuk said.


"The first submarine of the upgraded project 955A and Yasen-M will be floated in 2017," he said adding the Navy wants to get the submarines "in time agreed in the contract".

The Prince Vladimir had its keel laid in 2012 and is the fourth submarine in the series of eight Borei and the first boat of the upgraded Borei-A project. Two other submarines - Prince Oleg and Generalissimo Suvorov - had their keels laid in 2014. In 2015 the Emperor Alexander III followed suit. Each of the submarines can carry 16 Bulava intercontinental ballistic missiles.


The Kazan had its keel laid in 2009 and is built by the upgraded 885M project (code Yasen-M). It is the second boat of project 885. The first Severodvinsk submarine was handed over to the Navy in 2014. A total of seven submarines are to be built.

A source in the Russian military-defense complex earlier told TASS the Prince Vladimir and the Kazan will join the Russian Navy a year later than planned - in 2018. Both submarines had to be handed over in 2017.

Copyright 2016 TASS. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

About Project 955A
On 15 December 2009, a Defense Ministry official announced that the laying down of the fourth Project 955 Borei-class submarine had been postponed from December to the first quarter of 2010. The reason for the delay was said to be "organizational and technical reasons". The fourth ship of the 955 class will actually be the first improved "955A" variant. It is reported by unnamed sources that this modification will include major structural changes and probably other changes.

About Project 885M
Not much is known about the modifications or improvements on Project 885M, but deputy general director of the Malakhit Design Bureau was quoted saying that Kazan will be quieter and have improved sensors and weapon systems compared to Severodvinsk.

Source: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2016/december-2016-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/4729-russia-s-1st-project-955a-ssbn-prince-vladimir-1st-project-885m-kazan-will-be-launched-in-2017.html

Benya wrote:The Kazan had its keel laid in 2009 and is built by the upgraded 885M project (code Yasen-M). It is the second boat of project 885. The first Severodvinsk submarine was handed over to the Navy in 2014. A total of seven submarines are to be built.

Slow would be an understatement for that project.
It's a gigantic disaster, where it takes about a decade to induct a single unit.

It's neither a good enough SSGN nor an pure SSN. Worst of both worlds is what it is. Russians were better off to keep building Oscar II and Akula III.
They'd have more units right now instead of... one.

KiloGolf wrote:

Slow would be an understatement for that project.
It's a gigantic disaster, where it takes about a decade to induct a single unit.

It's neither a good enough SSGN nor an pure SSN. Worst of both worlds is what it is. Russians were better off to keep building Oscar II and Akula III.
They'd have more units right now instead of... one.

I think you miss the point.

Up to the Kazan / Prince Vladimir all sub has been finished, not manufactured.
The shipyard had reactor/sonar/valve trains and so on for the first yassen and for the first three Borei (from the half finishedOscar-ii subs).

In the CCCP they had a four years lead time for subs, means that they had in the shipyard at the dissolution of CCCP five-six full set of sonar,reactor, main parts for nuclear submarines.

So, the Kazan is special, because it will be the first nuclear sub manufactured by Russia, not manufactured by CCCP and finished by Russia : ).

Singular_Transform wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Slow would be an understatement for that project.
It's a gigantic disaster, where it takes about a decade to induct a single unit.

It's neither a good enough SSGN nor an pure SSN. Worst of both worlds is what it is. Russians were better off to keep building Oscar II and Akula III.
They'd have more units right now instead of... one.

I think you miss the point.

Up to the Kazan / Prince Vladimir all sub has been finished, not manufactured.
The shipyard had reactor/sonar/valve trains and so on for the first yassen and for the first three Borei (from the half finishedOscar-ii subs).

In the CCCP they had a four years lead time for subs, means that they had in the shipyard at the dissolution of CCCP five-six full set of sonar,reactor, main parts for nuclear submarines.

So, the Kazan is special, because it will be the first nuclear sub manufactured by Russia, not manufactured by CCCP and finished by Russia : ).

I'd go for the more realistic option. Build what you know instead of venturing into the wild like that. Maybe future proves me wrong.