Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Man, I want them to order another Yasen SSGN so hard.

Seriously what's the holdup? They need it and I know they are good for it...

Chances for another Yasen are insignificant, because seven were initially planned:

They are the most expensive sumarines made in the recent history, even more than Seawolf class. Even US navy couldn't afford 3,5 bn submarines, let alone Russia. Thus, they're getting ready for the first boat of new, cheaper Husky class, which should be laid down in 2020/2021

This summer, Malakhit will present the design.

verkhoturye51 wrote:Chances for another Yasen are insignificant, because seven were initially planned:

They are the most expensive sumarines made in the recent history, even more than Seawolf class. Even US navy couldn't afford 3,5 bn submarines, let alone Russia. Thus, they're getting ready for the first boat of new, cheaper Husky class, which should be laid down in 2020/2021

This summer, Malakhit will present the design.

They planned more than seven

And while they are expensive they are also worth every cent

Waiting for Husky this long would be pretty dumb, it's 3 years away at earliest and that without taking into account mandatory delays that always occur, they should use those 3 years instead of wasting time

They finally warmed up production of Yasen class so they should take advantage of it while they still can, saving several hundred million on a product like SSGN is pretty insignificant given what you get in the end

Big_Gazza wrote:Get serious, the $3.5B "cost" of Kazan incorrectly includes all the R&D, design documentation and revised tooling for the entire 885M series ... the costs should be spread out over the full program to appreciate the true costs, not all lumped onto the lead vessel of the series.

Someone is playing dirty politics with this agitprop BS.

It's not BS, the minister of defence at the time had concerns about the growing prices of this project and it had to do with corruption. The project shouldn't be that much expensive now. It has the design of Akula and the VLS are build in big numbers for all the ships of Russian forces so if they keep with Yasen the cost could be greatly reduced to a very good price.

Husky is supposed to be less capable than Yasen. It is actually the basis for a SSN ( cheaper and smaller and less capable than Yasen) and a SSGN which we don't know the number of missiles carried which is the principal capability of a SSGN.

The price for those two Husky variant should be great too and not that much diferent from Yasen so in my opinion they will make the same mistake as geting Sovs and Udaloys instead of 1 better destroyer. So instead of having 20 Yasen they could end up with 10 SSN husky and 10 SSGN husky.

Going with anything less capable than Yasen is flat out stupidity and criminal negligence

USA, China and Europe are not sitting on their asses (first two at least), there is no going back in this game

PapaDragon wrote:
Going with anything less capable than Yasen is flat out stupidity and criminal negligence

USA, China and Europe are not sitting on their asses (first two at least), there is no going back in this game

Moreover they are building handfull of them not hundreds like during cold war. They should get the best.

Good point Gazza, big part of Yasen costs are one-time investment. Russia had to overcome big technological gap between the last Akula in 1996 and Severodvinsk in 2013. The only thing that remained the same is hull shape. Cutting edge Yasen technology will be pillar for all future 4th and 5th generation submarines in Russia. I.e., expect less delays and smaller cost with future classes.

However, now the Russians want to cash tears and blood of developing Yasen in new cheaper class. Make no mistake, money matters a lot in present Russia. We are in the middle of arms race with Russian defense budget far behind US and Chinese and yet they are forced to decrease it even further due to low oil prices.

So good quality/price ratio is of outmost importance, in other words 20 Huskies > 10 Yasens. That's why the US ceased to produce Seawolfs. Huskies will be less capable in quantity of weapons aboard, but not quality. Several small boats can be deployed more efficiently to cover larger ares, which is for SSN more important than for SSBN or SSGN.

A naval historian once claimed, that Typhoon class megalomania is one of the reasons for break up of Soviet union. While Soviet engineers are brilliant and often ahead of their US counterparts with less investment, they can certainly learn from them something about cost rationality. And fortunately, they obviously have.

Isos wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Going with anything less capable than Yasen is flat out stupidity and criminal negligence

USA, China and Europe are not sitting on their asses (first two at least), there is no going back in this game

Moreover they are building handfull of them not hundreds like during cold war. They should get the best.

Hundreds? Please lay the crack pipe down.

And Gazza is right, the number is pure misinformation. Some minister's concerns do not make this sort of misinformation
valid.

Making Husky SSN without VLS tubes is acceptable if they have option to launch missiles through torpedo tubes, provided they leave enough storage space in the front to carry sufficient number of missiles

But making compromises on sonar quality and noise levels is unacceptable

Haha don't worry, Huskies are expected to be even quiter. Russians know what are they doing, that's why they're no. 1 submarine force in the world since Khurscev.

verkhoturye51 wrote:Haha don't worry, Huskies are expected to be even quiter. Russians know what are they doing, that's why they're no. 1 submarine force in the world since Khurscev.

Not really, that would still be USN, even if you ignore quality they definitely got the numbers

Yasen and Borei are first classes to match or exceed US subs' features

I am not saying some Soviet ones weren't up for task but facts are facts

PapaDragon wrote:

verkhoturye51 wrote:Haha don't worry, Huskies are expected to be even quiter. Russians know what are they doing, that's why they're no. 1 submarine force in the world since Khurscev.

Not really, that would still be USN, even if you ignore quality they definitely got the numbers

Yasen and Borei are first classes to match or exceed US subs' features

I am not saying some Soviet ones weren't up for task but facts are facts

Virginia have also VLS for tomahawks if I'm not wrong and they are very capable subs. And they replace their los angoles with them much faster than russia replace its soviets subs with yasen.

Oh boy, what do you do when you don't watch american movies?

Facts: Soviets had better and larger submarine force. Russians have better and larger submarine force.

In the peak in 1957, Soviets had 375 submarines. They had by far the largest submarine fleet ever formed. Today the numbers are the same in both countries. Wikipedia states that both have 10-20 SSBNs and 60 SSNs + SSGNs. The difference is that Russians have also reserve sizable fleet.

Do you want to talk about quality? Who constructed the largest submarine? What about the fastest? Or the deepest diving? You guessed the answer. Russians use multiple hull designs, their submarines are more hydrodynamic and safer, they have escape pads, they can land on seabed, they are more comfoortable due to pool and sauna. They area more automatized and require smaller crew. They are better armed. Their reactors are liquid metal cooled, instead of water.

Oh, I know what do you mean. They are noisier. So what? You can't detect no modern nuclear submarine outside of 1 km radius, so the differences don't really matter anymore. The real difference is non-acoustic stealth. Russians can detect US submarines also using hydrodynamic sensors, detecting heat, electricity, magnetism, radiation exhausts and turbulences from enemy submarines. While all that's a taboo in the US.

Isos wrote:............
Virginia have also VLS for tomahawks if I'm not wrong and they are very capable subs. And they replace their los angoles with them much faster than russia replace its soviets subs with yasen.

Correct, current plan is to go with 3 new Virginias per year, that's why RuN can't dick around with delays and gaps in construction

verkhoturye51 wrote:Oh boy, what do you do when you don't watch american movies?

Facts: Soviets had better and larger submarine force. Russians have better and larger submarine force.

In the peak in 1957, Soviets had 375 submarines. They had by far the largest submarine fleet ever formed. Today the numbers are the same in both countries. Wikipedia states that both have 10-20 SSBNs and 60 SSNs + SSGNs. The difference is that Russians have also reserve sizable fleet.

Do you want to talk about quality? Who constructed the largest submarine? What about the fastest? Or the deepest diving? You guessed the answer. Russians use multiple hull designs, their submarines are more hydrodynamic and safer, they have escape pads, they can land on seabed, they are more comfoortable due to pool and sauna. They area more automatized and require smaller crew. They are better armed. Their reactors are liquid metal cooled, instead of water.

Oh, I know what do you mean. They are noisier. So what? You can't detect no modern nuclear submarine outside of 1 km radius, so the differences don't really matter anymore. The real difference is non-acoustic stealth. Russians can detect US submarines also using hydrodynamic sensors, detecting heat, electricity, magnetism, radiation exhausts and turbulences from enemy submarines. While all that's a taboo in the US.

We are in 2018 not in 1957. There is no reserve fleet, just old ships waiting for repairs.

They are not particulary safer check Kursk sub and larger doesn't mean better.

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:............
Virginia have also VLS for tomahawks if I'm not wrong and they are very capable subs. And they replace their los angoles with them much faster than russia replace its soviets subs with yasen.

Correct, current plan is to go with 3 new Virginias per year, that's why RuN can't dick around with delays and gaps in construction

In 13 years they commissioned 14 Virginia.

Not a 3 sub/year speed....

Singular_Transform wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:............
Virginia have also VLS for tomahawks if I'm not wrong and they are very capable subs. And they replace their los angoles with them much faster than russia replace its soviets subs with yasen.

Correct, current plan is to go with 3 new Virginias per year, that's why RuN can't dick around with delays and gaps in construction

In 13 years they commissioned 14 Virginia.

Not a 3 sub/year speed....

Not yet, I said they plan to and they will do so. With Russia and China noise they finally have cover for big ticket items.

Russia doesn't need to reinvent the wheel here or play catch-up, they just need to stick with laying down one new SSGN every 12-14 months, that is all.

3 year gaps are unacceptable.

PapaDragon wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:............
Virginia have also VLS for tomahawks if I'm not wrong and they are very capable subs. And they replace their los angoles with them much faster than russia replace its soviets subs with yasen.

Correct, current plan is to go with 3 new Virginias per year, that's why RuN can't dick around with delays and gaps in construction

In 13 years they commissioned 14 Virginia.

Not a 3 sub/year speed....

Not yet, I said they plan to and they will do so. With Russia and China noise they finally have cover for big ticket items.

Russia doesn't need to reinvent the wheel here or play catch-up, they just need to stick with laying down one new SSGN every 12-14 months, that is all.

3 year gaps are unacceptable.

The US needs more ABM system, submarine, carrier, new strategic missile force.But at the moment the US spending more for military in % term than China at the moment, so all of them together is just enough to slow down the eroding competitiveness.

So, maybe they want to have more asses, but it is a big question if the US is capable to afford those assets.

Singular_Transform wrote:.......
The US needs more ABM system, submarine, carrier, new strategic missile force.But at the moment the US spending more for military in % term than China at the moment, so all of them together is just enough to slow down the eroding competitiveness.

So, maybe they want to have more asses, but it is a big question if the US is capable to afford those assets.

USA has no problems paying for that stuff, especially Naval vessels, that's where the money is.

Russia has less "ground" to cover here so they don't need to do anything other than what they already do. Simple as that.

And Yasen is excellent product so it's not like they are throwing money on junk. Unlike Soviet subs it's designed for upgrades so they will be getting way more mileage out of them than from previous models.

GarryB wrote:Russia just needs to look at its own needs and not at the needs or wants or building programmes of anyone else...

When the US started building ABM systems around the world, the Russians didn't just do the same at enormous expense... they used their brains and thought outside the box with several new types of weapons.

They should do the same with their navy too.

In a decade or so they will need to expand their navy to support their growing international trade, but until then they need to be sensible.

When the USA broke the ABM treaty, the foundation of all arms control treaties, Russia should have cranked up its number of ICBMs and warheads.
It should do this now considering the insanity shown by NATO leaders in the Skripal case. Wasting resources on ships and other conventional
war assets is just idiotic. The most effective defense against NATO by a vast margin are ICBMs. MAD is the only thing that kept world war at bay.
Increasing the number if ICBMs by a factor of 10+ will revive MAD. For some reason NATO clowns decided that under 2000 strategic nuclear
warheads gives them a chance to defeat Russia (total number of warheads counting the tactical ones is not relevant since ABM systems do not
deal with tactical warheads).