Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

slasher wrote:

Thanks for the clarification @Ned86. However, according to Wikipedia.ru, these eight SSNs below are listed as currently operational. Is this correct and if so which would be the ninth?

Project 971 - Active: 3 (K-317 Pantera, K-154 Tigr, K-335 Gepard)
Project 945 - Active: 1 (B-276 - Kostroma)
Project 945A - Active: 2 (B-534 Nizhny Novgorod, B-336 Pskov)
Project 671RTMK - Active: 2 (B-138 Obninsk, B-414 Daniel Moskovsky)

Wikipedia is not good source of info.
Regarding nuclear attack and cruise missiles SUBs operational are:

Northern Fleet:

Project 949A OSCAR II - Active 3
Project 885 SEVERODVINSK- Active 1 + 1 in trials

Project 945A SIERRA II- Active 2
Project 971 AKULA- Active 2
Project 671 VICTOR III-Active 1

Pacific Fleet:
Project 949A OSCAR II - Active 2
Project 671 AKULA - Active 1

Source

Russian navy composition in early October

https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/200105.html

Note that number of operational SSNs dropped over summer from 6 to 4. Only 4 inactive ones will definitely be modernised, so basically, Russian underwater defence relies on Kilo class, until Husky boats start coming.

verkhoturye51 wrote:Russian navy composition in early October

https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/200105.html

Note that number of operational SSNs dropped over summer from 6 to 4. Only 4 inactive ones will definitely be modernised, so basically, Russian underwater defence relies on Kilo class, until Husky boats start coming.

Don't try to spin facts and show things like Ru Navy has only 4 SSN + KILO class.

Reality is:
5 x Oscar II
1 x Severodvinsk
1 x Kazan (sea trials, soon)
2 x Akula class (Gepard was just temporary in dry dock after long patrol, maybe is already fully active)
2 x Sierra II class
1 x Victor III class

-----------------------------
so, at this moment you have 12 Attack + Cruise missile nuclear subs ready to sail.

plus by the end of the year we could have:
2 x Akula
K - 157 Vepr, (final stage of upgrade)
K - 328 Leopard (deep modernization)

1x Victor III
B - 448 tambov (upgrade)

1x Oscar II Omsk (overhaul)

The SSN's primary role is ASW, that's why they r called hunter-killers in the USN. Other Russian subs such as SSGNs & SSKs r multi-role with land & anti-ship attack primary missions, they r poor substitutes for SSNs. The submarine fleet must be balanced, but it's not now.

Tsavo Lion wrote:The SSN's primary role is ASW, that's why they r called hunter-killers in the USN. Other Russian subs such as SSGNs & SSKs r multi-role with land & anti-ship attack primary missions, they r poor substitutes for SSNs. The submarine fleet must be balanced, but it's not now.  

Severodvinsk and Kazan submarines are listed as SSGN in that table, but they are far better than any other SSN in the Ru Navy and maybe even in the world.
The fact that they have 8 missiles tubes and carry 32 missiles, doesn't downgrade their anti submarine capabilities.
They are definitely the best subs in Ru navy. Their Sonars system, data processing and weapons systems are all new generation ones.
Kilo class is primary anti submarine platform, only recent one have ability to fire missiles at ships and coastal targets.

Point is, Ru navy doesn't  have only 4 nuclear attack subs. Roughly, right now there are around 40 operational subs in total, SSBN+SSGN+SSN+SSK. Others are in overhaul or modernization
It is important to look at sub fleet in total, only then you can realize true size and power.

I don't think so.
Nickel-63 is a synthetic radio isotope & they're using manufactured diamond wafers between.
Manufacturing that on a scale suitable for powering a sub is likely to be catastrophically expensive I think

Sure, but they'll have many subs in overhaul &/ modernization at any given time, due to slow new construction.

How many Akula is in service/modernisation at the moment?

Wiki show 4+5+ the Indian one.

Kuzbass is the only active in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. 8 are on the other hand getting modernization, enabling them to remain in service till Husky class comes after 2030. Considering that they were better then contemporary US SSNs in early 1990s, they'll when modernized pose significant threat to rusty 1980s Ohio SSBNs.

Tsavo Lion wrote:The SSN's primary role is ASW, that's why they r called hunter-killers in the USN. Other Russian subs such as SSGNs & SSKs r multi-role with land & anti-ship attack primary missions, they r poor substitutes for SSNs. The submarine fleet must be balanced, but it's not now.  

No for SSK except 6 last Kilos 06363 armed with SS-N-30/3M-14S SSKs have for primary role ASW and ofc anti-ships 
But agree a Russian SSBN which left his homeport is surely better escorted by a Akula /Sierra/Yasen than a Oscar II but in the PF with only one seems soon finaly 2 Akulas Oscar II sometimes do the job.

Yasen is special a SSGN coz he have 32 missiles... but in fact SSGN/SSN

And agree with Ned86 these numbers are ridiculous as i have yet pointed out some boats can be in repair as in all others  Navies and ready in few days if the need is there…
minor repairs should not be taken into consideration for the number of boats usable.

verkhoturye51 wrote:Kuzbass is the only active in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. 8 are on the other hand getting modernization, enabling them to remain in service till Husky class comes after 2030. Considering that they were better then contemporary US SSNs in early 1990s, they'll when modernized pose significant threat to rusty 1980s Ohio SSBNs.

They are as good as Seawolfs, and way better than any of the Virginias.

Singular_Transform wrote:They are as good as Seawolfs, and way better than any of the Virginias.

Yes, Virginias don't even deserve mentioning really. 250 m test depth vs. 600 m of Shchuka-B. Underwater speed 25 knots vs. 35 knots. Tomahawks vs. Kalibr

verkhoturye51 wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:They are as good as Seawolfs, and way better than any of the Virginias.

Yes, Virginias don't even deserve mentioning really. 250 m test depth vs. 600 m of Shchuka-B. Underwater speed 25 knots vs. 35 knots. Tomahawks vs. Kalibr

There are 17 of them in service, 11 being built and 6 on order

And even if 250m test depth is accurate (it's not, it's more than that) numbers alone are overwhelming

How many Akulas are active?

Russia made 4 SSBNs in the last 5 years, how many did the US?

It's good to put things in perspective. The number of Russian and US submarines is the same, if you add diesels.

verkhoturye51 wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:They are as good as Seawolfs, and way better than any of the Virginias.

Yes, Virginias don't even deserve mentioning really. 250 m test depth vs. 600 m of Shchuka-B. Underwater speed 25 knots vs. 35 knots. Tomahawks vs. Kalibr

Which Virginia's I do not understand why it's so hard for people to grasp here, Newer Virginia's are better than the older ones, much like akula 2's are better then akula ones.

1. The Test Depth you speak off which is 250 was made with the older hulls. the newer ones can go deeper. Also you are leaving out keywords greater than 800 ft (240 m). If you had the time to look up test depth you would have known the submarine can go greater then 250 so should I consider you a liar?.

600m (rumored to be) it is also the Akula's 2 max operational depth and once they go that low it really limits what they can do, that's just the depth they go at the very max before the hull starts to crack.

They cannot even launch torps from that Depth.

How many Akula's two's does Russia have....1.

2. Not one person here can honestly tell me the true Depths of the submarines fact of the matter is that's classified and Russia and the Us keep the max dive depth of their subs quite hidden. That is a literally matter of national security.

US started to plan the Virginia replacements, supposed to be in the Seawolf class.

Each of them will be twice as expensive as the Virginias without payload modules, by the preliminary calculation. So it is expected to have cost overruns. : )

5.5 billion each means the two Yassen really cost as much as a Nimitz class.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Which Virginia's I do not understand why it's so hard for people to grasp here, Newer Virginia's are better than the older ones, much like akula 2's are better then akula ones.

The US has three submarine that is on the same class like the Akulas
The new Virginias has vertical launch tubes, but otherwise they are like the old ones.

Means they are inferior compared to the Seawolf/Akula/Yassen classes. Not a bit, but seriously .

The design is the same, the hull diameter and thickness the same, reactor as well means the max deep and speed pre-defined for all Virginias.

Virginia has 4 torpedo tubes, Akula/Seawolf has 8.

What do you think, which one is designed for anti-submarine warfare?

Singular_Transform wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Which Virginia's I do not understand why it's so hard for people to grasp here, Newer Virginia's are better than the older ones, much like akula 2's are better then akula ones.

The US has three  submarine that is on the same class like the Akulas
The new Virginias has vertical launch tubes, but otherwise they are like the old ones.

Means they are inferior compared to the Seawolf/Akula/Yassen classes. Not a bit, but seriously .

The design is the same, the hull diameter and thickness the same, reactor as well means the max deep and speed pre-defined for all Virginias.

Virginia has 4 torpedo tubes, Akula/Seawolf has 8.

What do you think, which one is designed for anti-submarine warfare?

Which Akula's cause the first set of those aren't better than Virginia they are equal pretty much. they may be some minor differences but that's it. This depends on which block of V's you are talking about also verse which set of akulas.

I really hate to break it to you but hose old Akula's aren't has amazing has people here play them out to be. Yasen's sure,

"The design is the same, the hull diameter and thickness the same, reactor as well means the max deep and speed pre-defined for all Virginias"

Um no this is wrong, Block three's 40 percent of the hull was redesigned and block four's are going to be bigger than three's.

Reactor? all the akula share the same reactor also yet somehow they get a pass alright then? . Get your facts, straight buddy, because you are very wrong here. I know since it's US equipment you gotta bash and twist facts but don't waste my time trying to pull the wool over my eyes.

Well to be fair you are right about them having 4 torp slots but that's about it.

SeigSoloyvov wrote: Also you are leaving out keywords greater than 800 ft (240 m). If you had the time to look up test depth you would have known the submarine can go greater then 250 so should I consider you a liar?.

Yes, you can accuse me of comparing test and max depths. Comparing test depths would be more than 244 m vs. 480/520 m. Still it doesn't change a fact that Russia is here way better on paper, and we have no reason to assume that the reality is different. Russian submarines traditionally go deeper. Until we find out that Virginia dives deeper as Shchuka-B, the most credible is to say that it doesn't.

If you add advantages when it comes to speed, armament and hydrodynamic sensors SOKS, Russia is a SSN winner, if not in quantity, at least when it comes to quality.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Which Virginia's I do not understand why it's so hard for people to grasp here, Newer Virginia's are better than the older ones, much like akula 2's are better then akula ones.

The US has three  submarine that is on the same class like the Akulas
The new Virginias has vertical launch tubes, but otherwise they are like the old ones.

Means they are inferior compared to the Seawolf/Akula/Yassen classes. Not a bit, but seriously .

The design is the same, the hull diameter and thickness the same, reactor as well means the max deep and speed pre-defined for all Virginias.

Virginia has 4 torpedo tubes, Akula/Seawolf has 8.

What do you think, which one is designed for anti-submarine warfare?

Which Akula's cause the first set of those aren't better than Virginia they are equal pretty much. they may be some minor differences but that's it. This depends on which block of V's you are talking about also verse which set of akulas.

I really hate to break it to you but hose old Akula's aren't has amazing has people here play them out to be. Yasen's sure,

"The design is the same, the hull diameter and thickness the same, reactor as well means the max deep and speed pre-defined for all Virginias"

Um no this is wrong, Block three's 40 percent of the hull was redesigned and block four's are going to be bigger than three's.

Reactor? all the akula share the same reactor also yet somehow they get a pass alright then? . Get your facts, straight buddy, because you are very wrong here. I know since it's US equipment you gotta bash and twist facts but don't waste my time trying to pull the wool over my eyes.

Well to be fair you are right about them having 4 torp slots but that's about it.

: D

Oh, interesting.
So, they redesigned 40% of the Virginia hull,so now only 60% will crush if they try to chase an Akula : )

Good to know : D

So, basic : Hull diameter define minimum required thickness ,thickness define mass , radius + thickness define maximum deep.
Radius define internal/external support rings, mass of it with the wall define hull mass.
Diameter define max reactor size , reactor size define max power, hull diameter vs max power define max speed.
Max diving deep define all other machine, including the pressure of air reserve, sealings, internal doors and so on.
All of this is the characteristic of the submarine class, changing any of them means they develop a new class.

If there is a flaw in the submarine design then it can not go deep, and they will found it during the pressure test.

But this will be characteristic of the individual submarine, not the class.

So, again:
NO, the Virginia is nor comparable in its characteristics to any of the Akulas. ALL virginia is seriously inferior compared to the Akulas.
No, they can not change this fact. To change it they need to make a new class.
The Virginia is a cheap submarine designed to fight weak / small countries , without any significant submarine force. It is not comparable to the Akula/Yassen/Seawolf class. Difference is as big like between a light tank and a main battle tank. And unfixable.

The greatest problem of the Virignia class it that it was intended to be a cheap substitute for the Seawolf and now costs more.

Hole wrote:The greatest problem of the Virignia class it that it was intended to be a cheap substitute for the Seawolf and now costs more.

Not so. Virginia still cost half as much as Seawolf.

Seawolf equivalent submarine cost 5.5 billion, pure Virginia without VLS cost roughly half as much.

Non inflation adjusted calculation can show different stuff, but that is irrelevant.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Hole wrote:The greatest problem of the Virignia class it that it was intended to be a cheap substitute for the Seawolf and now costs more.

Not so. Virginia still cost half as much as Seawolf.

Seawolf equivalent submarine cost 5.5 billion, pure Virginia without VLS cost roughly half as much.

Non inflation adjusted calculation can show different stuff, but that is irrelevant.

Right want 2.7 billions a Seawolf only 3 also… about 3 end 1990... and they are very happy with this excellent boat and the Block V going to be amazing he want about IIRC 3 billions for 65 vs 38 weapons interesting !
BTW with last events ... yet planned a successor for Ohio SSGN