Russian Navy: Status & News #3

No point in going to the trouble of recovering them if you are not going to restore them.

These are likely Russian Army Shermans that were part of Lend Lease.

The requirements of lend lease meant the Soviets returned those that were not destroyed, so basically the only material they paid for was material destroyed or used (like fuel and ammo).

When they returned vehicles like Shermans and aircraft the western vessels that came to collect them often just dumped them in the ocean as there was no point in taking old tanks and planes to the US where they already had plenty of newer models of their own.

They might restore these vehicles as gifts, or they might just keep them and put them in their own museums as they fought on the Russian front and apart from where they were made had actually rather little to do with the western war effort in other areas... except the obvious fighting 2/3rds of the Germans while the west pissed around playing in other places like Africa.

GarryB wrote:No point in going to the trouble of recovering them if you are not going to restore them.

These are likely Russian Army Shermans that were part of Lend Lease.

The requirements of lend lease meant the Soviets returned those that were not destroyed, so basically the only material they paid for was material destroyed or used (like fuel and ammo).

When they returned vehicles like Shermans and aircraft the western vessels that came to collect them often just dumped them in the ocean as there was no point in taking old tanks and planes to the US where they already had plenty of newer models of their own.

They might restore these vehicles as gifts, or they might just keep them and put them in their own museums as they fought on the Russian front and apart from where they were made had actually rather little to do with the western war effort in other areas... except the obvious fighting 2/3rds of the Germans while the west pissed around playing in other places like Africa.

Western museums would like a sample of that for their display... I know kubinka donated a T-72 and T-34 to the Tank Museum Bovington in Britain which i saw and damn they're well kept XD




https://www.facebook.com/1492252324350852/videos/1956076964635050/

Footage from the MOD of the Verba? Or is it just a normal igla?

Western museums would like a sample of that for their display... I know kubinka donated a T-72 and T-34 to the Tank Museum Bovington in Britain which i saw and damn they're well kept XD

I am sure they would like a sample, but considering the likely costs of recovery and restoration I rather doubt they would want a "Soviet" Sherman for that sort of money.

The current Russophobe sentiment in the west means I rather doubt they would be set up to represent Soviet vehicles, they would more likely put them in D Day dioramas.

At least a T-72 and T-34 would need to represent Soviet vehicles.

On the other hand their own museums could do with items of foreign origin, just to show the whole picture of WWII... unlike most western museums I have been to.

Footage from the MOD of the Verba? Or is it just a normal igla?

Old model Igla, the Igla-S model and Verba both have proximity fuses that would have set off the warhead.

Rowdyhorse4 wrote:

GarryB wrote:No point in going to the trouble of recovering them if you are not going to restore them.

These are likely Russian Army Shermans that were part of Lend Lease.

The requirements of lend lease meant the Soviets returned those that were not destroyed, so basically the only material they paid for was material destroyed or used (like fuel and ammo).

When they returned vehicles like Shermans and aircraft the western vessels that came to collect them often just dumped them in the ocean as there was no point in taking old tanks and planes to the US where they already had plenty of newer models of their own.

They might restore these vehicles as gifts, or they might just keep them and put them in their own museums as they fought on the Russian front and apart from where they were made had actually rather little to do with the western war effort in other areas... except the obvious fighting 2/3rds of the Germans while the west pissed around playing in other places like Africa.

Western museums would like a sample of that for their display...  I know kubinka donated a T-72 and T-34 to the Tank Museum Bovington in Britain which i saw and damn they're well kept XD




https://www.facebook.com/1492252324350852/videos/1956076964635050/

Footage from the MOD of the Verba?   Or is it just a normal igla?

I agree with GarryB, possibly just Igla. This is Igla-S/Verba:


You can see how it blows up right before hitting target at about 44s mark.

The gathering of ships in the Baltic continues. They should arrive to St. Petersburg in time for the Navy Day celebration (July 30).

Private Joker‏ @pfc_joker 5h5 hours ago
Replying to @pfc_joker

The world's largest submarine is on the way to the Baltic Sea, accompanied by the largest surface combatant, the Pyotr Velikiy (B)CGN. https://lenta.ru/news/2017/07/17/fleet/

Rob Verkerk‏ @GeneraalVerkerk 4h4 hours ago

Footage at first light of the Chinese Task Group passing the North Sea towards the Baltic region, escorted by HNLMS Van Amstel.

Future of Russian Navy Submarine Force Within State Armaments Program 2025 - Part 1

The new State Armaments Program (SAP) for 2018-2025 that comes into effect from January 2018 reportedly calls for drastic cuts to a number of expensive programs. The effects of restraints on the Russian Navy’s rearmament plans will be more severe, however, the upgrade of the submarine forces will continue, writes the online media outlet Lenta.ru.


The reliance on the submarine fleet as the backbone of the Navy’s fighting capabilities has been a feature of the domestic military doctrine for decades, especially after the advent of nuclear weapons and nuclear power. The balance of capabilities between the submarine and the surface fleets could be long debated, but anyway, the submarine fleet remains the leading part of the Russian Navy, and its rearmament is considered to be a priority among other programs being implemented in the interests of the Navy.

A key program, whose implementation is practically independent of economic fluctuations, is the re-equipment of strategic nuclear forces, including their sea-based component. To date, along with the Soviet-era SSBNs, the Russian Navy has three Project 955 Borei-class SSBNs transferred to the Navy in 2013-2014. Another five submarines, which are at different stages of construction, are to enter service in 2018-2021.



The construction of all these boats was financed under the previous state armament programs for 2006-2015 and 2011-2020 and, according to available data, the continuation of the series depends primarily on political decisions in the sphere of nuclear arms reduction. Given the paralysis of Russian-American relations and very high probability that by February 5, 2021 the START III Treaty will not be extended or replaced by a new agreement, in the early 2020s Russia may well have to decide on replacing the last Soviet-built Project 667BDRM SSBNs with new submarines in order to maintain its existing strike potential.

Now Russia’s submarine fleet includes formally 26 attack submarines of six different projects, half of which are under repair (or awaiting overhaul), while of the other half, according to military experts surveyed by Lentoy.ru, 6 to 8 nuclear-powered boats of Projects 949A, 971, 945 and 671RTMK are actually combat-ready at every moment of time. Such small numbers make it difficult for the Navy to ensure the performance of tasks assigned to attack submarines, be it the protection of their own ballistic missile submarines in the deployment area, tracking of the potential enemy’s SSBNs or following its carrier strike forces.

In the next few years, the number of third-generation boats, as well as their diversity, will noticeably decrease - the Navy will have no more than 10 Soviet-built submarines. Most likely, these will be four Project 949A cruise missile submarines modernized with the replacement of the main missile system, and six Project 971 submarines, which also underwent a major upgrade. In addition, six Project 885M Yasen-M-class attack nuclear submarines (SSN), ordered under SAP 2011-2020, will be commissioned between 2018 and 2022 and join the lead ship, K-560 Severodvinsk, transferred to the Navy in 2013.

Defense cuts have obviously made the Navy to curb the appetite for modernization. Judging by the available information, the Navy rejected the planned repair and upgrade of the Project 945 Barracuda-class submarines. The decision to dispose of them has not been made yet. However, the very durable titanium hulls of these sturdy submarines and their advanced classmates of Project 945A Condor class, which are currently in service, make it possible to postpone the decision until better times.


The number of Project 971 and 949A submarines to be upgraded was also reduced. It was planned to retrofit 12 boats, six in each project. Now it’s about 8 or 10 units, including four Project 949A and four or six Project 971 boats. The upgraded Project 949A boats will receive a new main missile system: instead of 24 launchers for heavy P-700 anti-ship missiles of the Granit missile system, the modernized Antey will have 72 universal launchers for cruise missiles of various types from the Kalibr and Onyx missile systems. In addition, modernization means almost complete replacement of on-board sonar equipment and electronics for the boats of both projects.

Two Project 949A boats, K-132 Irkutsk and K-442 Chelyabinsk, are already being modernized in the Far East, while two Project 971 submarines, K-461 Volk and K-328 Leopard, are being retrofitted in the north. However, according to experts, the cost of these works is close to the cost of building a new nuclear-powered boat: the Soviet-design submarines were not generally intended for a major upgrade together with service life extension and following 25-30 years in service they were expected to be decommissioned and replaced with new boats.


Anyway, the number of the commissioned attack nuclear submarines, not to mention the number of boats available for combat missions, is estimated as absolutely inadequate. The modernization of 8 to 10 Soviet-era boats, together with the construction of seven Project 885/885M submarines, will give the Navy 15-17 advanced attack nuclear submarines. This will enable 8 to 10 SSNs to be maintained in constant combat readiness, while reducing the difference of design types. However, the Navy needs at least twice as many submarines to accomplish its tasks.

The domestic shipbuilding industry is preparing for the series construction of the next-generation boats. However, the construction of the Project 885M SSNs with some improvements is not ruled out in the next one or two years: the maturity of the project and the reduction of prices for a number of key units, including the main powerplant and armament during the deployment of series production, make the follow-on Project 885M SSNs significantly cheaper compared with the lead hull, whose price exceeded 110 billion rubles in the early 2010s. This makes the order of 2-3 more submarines of this project in 2018-2019 more likely, with the subsequent transition to the construction of a new submarine

Source: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/5404-future-of-russian-navy-submarine-force-within-state-armaments-program-2025-part-1.html

ZHUKOVSKIY (Moscow Region) (Sputnik) — The Russian Navy's high-speed VA-111 Shkval torpedoes will be upgraded as part of the national 2018-2025 state armaments program, the head of Russia's Tactical Missiles Corporation said Thursday.

"Work is underway, I think the parameters will be seriously improved. The program is part of the 2018-2025 state armaments program," Boris Obnosov told reporters at the MAKS-2017 International Aviation and Space Salon.

Benya wrote:Future of Russian Navy Submarine Force Within State Armaments Program 2025 - Part 1

Kind of a dumb article in some ways... "However, the Navy needs at least twice as many submarines to accomplish its tasks." Utter bullshit. The overall number of SSNs is obviously not going to grow (from the current 20-25). How the hell is that inadequate?

In addition, they have 20+ SSKs, which combined is way more than any other country expect the US and China.

And stop with the exaggerated "economic crisis" rhetoric. Those economic forecasts are very conservative, the economy grew by 3.1% in May. Not to mention that the submarine building plans listed have nothing to do with the "crisis" anyway, there have been no reductions, as the article itself points out (except a slight reduction in the number of upgraded subs, maybe).

If they manage to have... let's say 10 Yasens + 10 upgraded SSNs by 2025 (+ close to 20 totally new SSKs!), that's a really good result, IMO, all things considered, and it certainly has to be "adequate".

Kimppis wrote:
Kind of a dumb article in some ways... "However, the Navy needs at least twice as many submarines to accomplish its tasks." Utter bullshit. The overall number of SSNs is obviously not going to grow (from the current 20-25). How the hell is that inadequate?

Some of these subs (such as Sierra, Victor III and older Kilo-class) will be decommissioned by late-2020s, and these will be replaced by Lada/Kalina-class SSKs, Yasen-class SSGNs/SSNs and Husky-class SSGNs. They will replace older subs when their maintenance costs and costs to upkeep their combat readiness will be uneconomical.

In addition, they have 20+ SSKs, which combined is way more than any other country expect the US and China.

So what? If you have an advantage, whether it is technological or numerical, use it.

US Navy currently has 48 SSNs (34 Los Angeles-class, 11 Virginia-class and 3 Seawolf class) in active commission. Of course, that doesn't mean that Russia need that much or even more, but the closer the gap is, the more balanced the situation is. IMO 24-30 SSNs/SSKs plus some 10-12 Yasen/Husky SSGNs and the 8 Borei SSBNs would be just perfect for the Russian Navy, but the final numbers are up to the Russian MoD to decide, not me or you or anyone of us.

And stop with the exaggerated "economic crisis" rhetoric. Those economic forecasts are very conservative, the economy grew by 3.1% in May. Not to mention that the submarine building plans listed have nothing to do with the "crisis" anyway, there have been no reductions, as the article itself points out (except a slight reduction in the number of upgraded subs, maybe).

I can understand your problem, but if it is really a problem for you, then why don't you write an email to Navyreco to correct it. Plus I don't know that how can you stumble upon such trivial things, why can't you just ignore it?

If they manage to have... let's say 10 Yasens + 10 upgraded SSNs by 2025 (+ close to 20 totally new SSKs!), that's a really good result, IMO, all things considered, and it certainly has to be "adequate".

I can only agree, however Yasens are more like multi-mission SSGNs, which can perform SSN duties if needed. SSGNs of the Husky-class will be dedicated ones I suppose.

Uniforming the sub fleet would be more beneficial than chasing raw numbers.

That's why it would be better not to rush with Husky class and to build couple of extra Boreis and Yasens.

Borei is great ship from the get go and they finally seem to got the handle on Yasens. They may cost more but on the upside they are already in production so it would still be money well spent.

Retire old ones, upgrade those that have potential and stick with what's currently in production for a while more.

PapaDragon wrote:
Uniforming the sub fleet would be more beneficial than chasing raw numbers.

That's why it would be better not to rush with Husky class and to build couple of extra Boreis and Yasens.

Borei is great ship from the get go and they finally seem to got the handle on Yasens. They may cost more but on the upside they are already in production so it would still be money well spent.

Retire old ones, upgrade those that have potential and stick with what's currently in production for a while more.

Boreis will be build for sure.

Yassen is less probable. They need something cheaper, they are to RuN what Seawolf are for USN. They should build something smaller (80 to 100 m) like the sierra or Alpha class size with 1 nuclear reactor and put less VLS, 12 to 18 is enough, small crew. Then they should build them in at least 4 shipyards.

If they achieve to reduce Yassen's price then they could build just them. But the first Yassen-M cost 3-4 billion $, that's just huge while the Akula class is 1.5 billion$. I don't think they could achieve a 1.5 billion Yassen-M.

A good thing would be to build their ship in parts so that every shipyard make one part and one shipyards put them together. And for modernization they could just change the entire part or add part to make it bigger.

I don't think uniformization would be that great. Yassen are very capable but very costly. Having something cheaper and some yassen isn't bad at all. All these Victor, akula and sierra class are still capable while they are more than 25km years old. A cheap Husky will be as silent as first Yassen and will have VLS (fewer than Yassen but still better than any other SSN).

Isos wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:..........................

Boreis will be build for sure.

Yassen is less probable. They need something cheaper, they are to RuN what Seawolf are for USN. They should build something smaller (80 to 100 m) like the sierra or Alpha class size with 1 nuclear reactor and put less VLS, 12 to 18 is enough, small crew. Then they should build them in at least 4 shipyards.

If they achieve to reduce Yassen's price then they could build just them. But the first Yassen-M cost 3-4 billion $, that's just huge while the Akula class is 1.5 billion$. I don't think they could achieve a 1.5 billion Yassen-M.
.....................

Yasen already has a single reactor.

I don't think number of VLS cells affects price that much. It has to be something else.

So Borei stays, that is good.

As for attack subs they will either have to figure out the way to make more Yasens efficiently or switch to Huskies without making a financial splash.

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:..........................

Boreis will be build for sure.

Yassen is less probable. They need something cheaper, they are to RuN what Seawolf are for USN. They should build something smaller (80 to 100 m) like the sierra or Alpha class size with 1 nuclear reactor and put less VLS, 12 to 18 is enough, small crew. Then they should build them in at least 4 shipyards.

If they achieve to reduce Yassen's price then they could build just them. But the first Yassen-M cost 3-4 billion $, that's just huge while the Akula class is 1.5 billion$. I don't think they could achieve a 1.5 billion Yassen-M.
.....................

Yasen already has a single reactor.

I don't think number of VLS cells affects price that much. It has to be something else.

So Borei stays, that is good.

As for attack subs they will either have to figure out the way to make more Yasens efficiently or switch to Huskies without making a financial splash.

(Based on my pressure vessels knowledge : ) )

Diameter.

The pressure hull diameter define the thickness, weight ,reactor power and cost of the submarine.

The vertical tubes gives a hard define constrain, so either they decrease the reactor power and hull thickness relative to cross section ( like virginia class) but in that case the submarine will be slow and can't dive deep, or increase the cost.

Singular_Transform wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Yasen already has a single reactor.

I don't think number of VLS cells affects price that much. It has to be something else.

So Borei stays, that is good.

As for attack subs they will either have to figure out the way to make more Yasens efficiently or switch to Huskies without making a financial splash.

(Based on my pressure vessels knowledge : ) )

Diameter.

The pressure hull diameter define the thickness, weight ,reactor power and cost of the submarine.

The vertical tubes gives a hard define constrain, so either they decrease the reactor power and hull thickness relative to cross section  ( like virginia class) but in that case the submarine will be slow and can't dive deep, or increase the cost.

Because of VLS, Yasen is almost 140m long against 110 for Akula and less for Sierra and victor. That has a price to make it bigger. The fact that it uses state of art new systems increase its price too. The big question is will they be able to reduce the cost ? If yes no need for Husky. Yassen is a SSN and SSGN. No need for new designs. If not they will need a new cheaper SSN because it will be hard to have them in big numbers or Northern and Pacific fleets.

In addition, they have 20+ SSKs, which combined is way more than any other country expect the US and China.

Actually if they have 20 SSKs then they have 20 more than the USN...

I can understand your problem, but if it is really a problem for you, then why don't you write an email to Navyreco to correct it. Plus I don't know that how can you stumble upon such trivial things, why can't you just ignore it?

Actually no. If an article contains false or misleading information then it should not be ignored, the author decided to include it in the article so it is not trivial.

One tennant of propaganda is that if you repeat something often enough the people will believe it... whether it is true or not... the only way to fight such crap is to point out when it is wrong when it is repeated and hopefully people will notice how often it seems to get repeated without evidence to support it and perhaps people will notice who keeps repeating it and learns not to trust them...

The real problem with economy and markets is that opinion has an enormous influence on it.... indeed just the believe that an economy might be in trouble can often be enough to actually create trouble for that economy if the right people believe it.

Because of VLS, Yasen is almost 140m long against 110 for Akula and less for Sierra and victor. That has a price to make it bigger.

But it is the VLS that actually make them powerful vessels... adding VLS systems to Sierra would extend length too and make them heavier.

A shorter cheaper vessel is no good if it can't do what the more expensive longer models can.

Benya wrote:

Kimppis wrote:
Kind of a dumb article in some ways... "However, the Navy needs at least twice as many submarines to accomplish its tasks." Utter bullshit. The overall number of SSNs is obviously not going to grow (from the current 20-25). How the hell is that inadequate?

Some of these subs (such as Sierra, Victor III and older Kilo-class) will be decommissioned by late-2020s, and these will be replaced by Lada/Kalina-class SSKs, Yasen-class SSGNs/SSNs and Husky-class SSGNs. They will replace older subs when their maintenance costs and costs to upkeep their combat readiness will be uneconomical.

Exactly.

So what? If you have an advantage, whether it is technological or numerical, use it.

US Navy currently has 48 SSNs (34 Los Angeles-class, 11 Virginia-class and 3 Seawolf class) in active commission. Of course, that doesn't mean that Russia need that much or even more, but the closer the gap is, the more balanced the situation is. IMO 24-30 SSNs/SSKs plus some 10-12 Yasen/Husky SSGNs and the 8 Borei SSBNs would be just perfect for the Russian Navy, but the final numbers are up to the Russian MoD to decide, not me or you or anyone of us.

Yes, Russia doesn't need as many SSNs as the US. Even the UK and France have only like 12-14 SSNs combined (and the French SSNs are really small), and no SSKs. That is one way to think about it too. They are developed, major Western European powers with a combined population of 130 million.

IIRC, on this very thread I made (roughly) a following prediction... Russia's submarine fleet around 2035:

8-12 Borei
10 Yasen
12-14 Husky
12 Improved Kilo
12 Kalina
= 50-60 submarines

Would be perfect, and achievable!

GarryB wrote:

In addition, they have 20+ SSKs, which combined is way more than any other country expect the US and China.

Actually if they have 20 SSKs then they have 20 more than the USN...

Exactly, I was talking about the combined number of SSNs and SSKs.

Actually no. If an article contains false or misleading information then it should not be ignored, the author decided to include it in the article so it is not trivial.

One tennant of propaganda is that if you repeat something often enough the people will believe it... whether it is true or not... the only way to fight such crap is to point out when it is wrong when it is repeated and hopefully people will notice how often it seems to get repeated without evidence to support it and perhaps people will notice who keeps repeating it and learns not to trust them...

The real problem with economy and markets is that opinion has an enormous influence on it.... indeed just the believe that an economy might be in trouble can often be enough to actually create trouble for that economy if the right people believe it.

Correct, just pointed out that's it's BS.

GarryB wrote:Actually no. If an article contains false or misleading information then it should not be ignored, the author decided to include it in the article so it is not trivial.

Well, if someone here gets fooled by it, then it's his problem, not mine. I think that most of us in this forum are somewhat immune to western propaganda, and learnt to take articles like this one with a grain of salt. Navyreco is run by french analysts and editors, so I can't really blame them, but there is one thing that they are doing good most of the time. If there are news about Russia, then they mostly rely on sources like Izvestia and TASS, which are clearly russian ones. I have posted a lot of their articles here, and found out that they are writing such sentences occasionally.

The author of this article has all rights to write down what he/she thinks about Russia, but in this case there are things that he/she isn't entirely correct about. Maybe he/she lacks enough knowledge about this and that about Russia, or maybe it is mandatory to him/her to slam Russia time to time.

One tennant of propaganda is that if you repeat something often enough the people will believe it... whether it is true or not...

And if you keep beleieving it, your mental capabilities are questionable. Propaganda works best on people with little to no common sense, but it hardly affects the ones with knowledge and logical thinking.

If you still get upset by it, then it is your fault, propagandists have achieved their goal with you.

the only way to fight such crap is to point out when it is wrong when it is repeated and hopefully people will notice how often it seems to get repeated without evidence to support it and perhaps people will notice who keeps repeating it and learns not to trust them...

My personal opinion is that everyone should assess articles on his own, and take only the necessary informations, or the ones that he finds interesting, or worthy to debate about it. I'm 100% sure that there are sh*tloads of western lies here in this forum that have been debunked, so if someone here isn't entirely sure about this and that, then they should go and find out themselves. It's not my, neither your responsibility to say to someone that what is right and what isn't, everyone should come up with his own version, and maybe he will start to discuss it, maybe not. One thing is common in most members of this forum that we are like-minded about Russia, and we tend not to listen to western naysayers.

The real problem with economy and markets is that opinion has an enormous influence on it.... indeed just the believe that an economy might be in trouble can often be enough to actually create trouble for that economy if the right people believe it.

Look Garry, if you wish then we can discuss it, but not in this thread.

Isos wrote:But the first Yassen-M cost 3-4 billion $, that's just huge while the Akula class is 1.5 billion$. I don't think they could achieve a 1.5 billion Yassen-M.

No, that is simply NOT TRUE. Much of that cost is the up-front R&D and re-tooling costs, it is NOT representative of the unit cost. It needs to be spread out across the entire class build, not lumped into the lead vessel.

FFS, people should know this, so why are they repeating BS HATOstani propaganda?

But it is the VLS that actually make them powerful vessels... adding VLS systems to Sierra would extend length too and make them heavier.

A shorter cheaper vessel is no good if it can't do what the more expensive longer models can.

Soviet/Russian navy always designed ships that they needed. Karakurt are not good if you compare them to Gorshkov or Kirov but yet they are proucing them because for what they are made it's a very good ship.

No need for the shorter vessel to do what bigger one can because they will have both of them. The VLS actuelly make them very very powerfull because they can carry 40 oniks + some Kalibr in the topredo tubes. But a shorter Yasssen with cheaper system and with less VLS would be purchased in bigger numbers.

No, that is simply NOT TRUE. Much of that cost is the up-front R&D and re-tooling costs, it is NOT representative of the unit cost. It needs to be spread out across the entire class build, not lumped into the lead vessel.

FFS, people should know this, so why are they repeating BS HATOstani propaganda?

Well for the former defence minister the price was a problem because it was to high so they were expecting something cheaper. They paid 3.5 billion for the first Yassen-M while it was supposed to cost 1.5.

And can you please stop your paranoia of "nato BS propaganda" when someone don't even criticize Russia, but just talk about facts.

Isos wrote:

But it is the VLS that actually make them powerful vessels... adding VLS systems to Sierra would extend length too and make them heavier.

A shorter cheaper vessel is no good if it can't do what the more expensive longer models can.

Soviet/Russian navy always designed ships that they needed. Karakurt are not good if you compare them to Gorshkov or Kirov but yet they are proucing them because for what they are made it's a very good ship.

No need for the shorter vessel to do what bigger one can because they will have both of them. The VLS actuelly make them very very powerfull because they can carry 40 oniks + some Kalibr in the topredo tubes. But a shorter Yasssen with cheaper system and with less VLS would be purchased in bigger numbers.

No, that is simply NOT TRUE. Much of that cost is the up-front R&D and re-tooling costs, it is NOT representative of the unit cost. It needs to be spread out across the entire class build, not lumped into the lead vessel.

FFS, people should know this, so why are they repeating BS HATOstani propaganda?

Well for the former defence minister the price was a problem because it was to high so they were expecting something cheaper. They paid 3.5 billion for the first Yassen-M while it was supposed to cost 1.5.  

And can you please stop your paranoia of "nato BS propaganda" when someone don't even criticize Russia, but just talk about facts.

first off if you must use the terms "facts" get yours right.

first Yasen cost around 1-6 billion USD

It was Kazan that cost around 3.5 billion USD to build that is because Russia went and made them Super Submarines.

Subs like Yasen's aren't cheap Alias The Russians have been keeping the price tags of the Yasen's secret now so we don't really know how much the others are costing to date.

Russia likes to try and get really good stuff for a cheap price, if you want a Really good submarine like a YasenM it's going to cost alot of money and Russia seems to have gotten over that fact since they are currently building 6 YasenM's.

so unless you got access to some top secret stuff any talks about the price of these submarines are mere speculation at best

..It. was Kazan that cost around 3.5 billion USD to build that is because Russia went and made them Super Submarines....

But what did they do differently that made them "super"?

Any info or of not then speculations at least?

Genuinely curious.

PapaDragon wrote:

..It. was Kazan that cost around 3.5 billion USD to build that is because Russia went and made them Super Submarines....

But what did they do differently that made them "super"?

Any info or of not then speculations at least?

Genuinely curious.

More VLS, better arrays etc

just over all improved. Ruskies went and packed all the goodies they could into the YasenM's then got surprised when that jacked up the cost by extreme amounts,

getting specifics is nearly impossible and since I do not have access to that kind of information (if I did I'd sell the design to china and make a good easy few billion dollars~). So in a case like this since Russia is keeping a super tight lid on YasenM's little you can do on specific information since.

even if I did "know" something that I cannot say

Pssst .... I would like to remind everyone that the 7th Yasen is going to be laid down in Severodvinsk by the end of this month. Thee name will be ULYANOVSK. It will cost CENSORED

At the link is a really good video made by Danish TV of the Typhoon and its escorts sailing through Danish waters today on a flat sea. That is a big sub! Not sure why the marine? on guard at the back of the conning tower has a facemask on tho'.

You can see one good reason for going all the way on the surface, noise. No-ones going to build a new noise profile with that amount of wave and wash.

http://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2017-07-21-se-enorm-russisk-atomubaad-sejle-i-dansk-farvand

first off if you must use the terms "facts" get yours right.

first Yasen cost around 1-6 billion USD

It was Kazan that cost around 3.5 billion USD to build that is because Russia went and made them Super Submarines.

Subs like Yasen's aren't cheap Alias The Russians have been keeping the price tags of the Yasen's secret now so we don't really know how much the others are costing to date.

Russia likes to try and get really good stuff for a cheap price, if you want a Really good submarine like a YasenM it's going to cost alot of money and Russia seems to have gotten over that fact since they are currently building 6 YasenM's.

so unless you got access to some top secret stuff any talks about the price of these submarines are mere speculation at best

I clearly said Yassen-M, they will produce just Yassen-M now which far better than Yassen so it cost far more. If you have no argument, don't put words I didn't say in my mouth to make you smarter than everyone, that doesn't work.

Prices are not secret, like I said even the former MoD said it was to high for such a ship.

6 Yassen won't replace all the sierras, victors and akulas. It means 3 per fleet. They need at least 15 more of them in order to have 20 in total because Pacific and northern fleets are too far one from the other help each other, they need significant numbers of SSN for each fleet. If they didn't achieve to reduce the cost they won't be able to replace all soviet SSNs, so they will go for something cheaper.

The fact is now that they are working on Husky class. If it's a smaller less capable subs then I was right. If it's in the same class as Yassen-m then they achieved to reduce the cost and can build them in big numbers. We will see.