Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Labrador wrote:they are very happy with this excellent boat

They're happy with falling costs and shortening production time from block to block. And Russians are happy with better performance of Shckuka-B. So it's a win-win.

verkhoturye51 wrote:

Labrador wrote:they are very happy with this excellent boat

They're happy with falling costs and shortening production time from block to block. And Russians are happy with better performance of Shckuka-B. So it's a win-win.

US has no choice at the moment just to use virginias.

They are inferior compared to the Russian stuff, but they are usable against every other submarine.

Up to the arrival of the Type 095 and its successor.

Singular_Transform wrote:

verkhoturye51 wrote:

Labrador wrote:they are very happy with this excellent boat

They're happy with falling costs and shortening production time from block to block. And Russians are happy with better performance of Shckuka-B. So it's a win-win.

US has no choice at the moment just to use virginias.

They are inferior compared to the Russian stuff, but they are usable against every other submarine.

Up to the arrival of the Type 095 and its successor.

Inferior LOL and Type 095 can be 093B... but it is a large game  and never hear about a 097 ! pay attention whith this special country and fanboys sources… 

verkhoturye51 wrote:

Labrador wrote:they are very happy with this excellent boat

They're happy with falling costs and shortening production time from block to block. And Russians are happy with better performance of Shckuka-B. So it's a win-win.

Mainly it is 2 by year build and this year first with 2 commissioned possible a 3th in december or for 2019 a and ofc more you build more the price down and all or almost commissioned in time and budget even a little less 
expensive than planned.


How many for a 885M i have see IIRC about 2 billions enormeous for Russian which build more cheaper for various reasons and why plans futur Husky cheaper
and suprising Borey have a reasonnable price why and have you price ? not in ruble please  

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.

The three Seawolfs cost 7,4 Billion (= 2,4 Billion per boat).
One Virginia costs 2,6 Billion.

Labrador wrote:How many for a 885M i have see IIRC about 2 billions enormeous for Russian which build more cheaper for various reasons and why plans futur Husky cheaper
and suprising Borey have a reasonnable price why and have you price ? not in ruble please  

I think there's too much hype around this small and cheap Husky idea. Analytics suggest only that it will be better and cheaper than US SSNs, which makes sense. If first Yasen M costed 3,5 bn, than serially produced Husky boats can be driven bellow 2,5 bn Virginia.

It will be Shchuka-B size displacement and till they start the production in 2023, there'll certainly be tech improvements. E.g. Zircon and extra stealthiness and use of Yasen M will show room for improvement, too. So it will be big and excellent and cheaper than Virginias. That mass production part looks questionable though.

verkhoturye51 wrote:

Labrador wrote:How many for a 885M i have see IIRC about 2 billions enormeous for Russian which build more cheaper for various reasons and why plans futur Husky cheaper
and suprising Borey have a reasonnable price why and have you price ? not in ruble please  

I think there's too much hype around this small and cheap Husky idea. Analytics suggest only that it will be better and cheaper than US SSNs, which makes sense. If first Yasen M costed 3,5 bn, than serially produced Husky boats can be driven bellow 2,5 bn Virginia.

It will be Shchuka-B size displacement and till they start the production in 2023, there'll certainly be tech improvements. E.g. Zircon and extra stealthiness and use of Yasen M will show room for improvement, too. So it will be big and excellent and cheaper than Virginias. That mass production part looks questionable though.

I don't see how possible cheaper and also big   

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7273p25-5th-gen-husky-class-nuclear-submarine

Labrador wrote:
Inferior LOL and Type 095 can be 093B...

....
Mainly it is 2 by year build and this year first with 2 commissioned possible a 3th in december or for 2019 a and ofc more you build more the price down and all or almost commissioned in time and budget even a little less
expensive than planned.
 

China had 5 submarine last year, now has 6, two more will join soon.
In few years time they will start to pump out two-three nuclear submarine per year.

Means the US will have hard time to keep supremacy even on the pacific ocean, not to mention the chinese seas.


www.saving.org/inflation/inflation.php?amount=3&year=1989

Seawolf class cost 6.14 billion 2018 dollars.

Virginia cost 2.7 without VPM

This is due to inflation.
Inflation means that the money in 1989 is more valuable per unit base than the same amount of money in 2018.

Hole wrote:

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.

The three Seawolfs cost 7,4 Billion (= 2,4 Billion per boat).
One Virginia costs 2,6 Billion.

1989 dollars vs 2018 dollars.

verkhoturye51 wrote:

Labrador wrote:How many for a 885M i have see IIRC about 2 billions enormeous for Russian which build more cheaper for various reasons and why plans futur Husky cheaper
and suprising Borey have a reasonnable price why and have you price ? not in ruble please  

I think there's too much hype around this small and cheap Husky idea. Analytics suggest only that it will be better and cheaper than US SSNs, which makes sense. If first Yasen M costed 3,5 bn, than serially produced Husky boats can be driven bellow 2,5 bn Virginia.

It will be Shchuka-B size displacement and till they start the production in 2023, there'll certainly be tech improvements. E.g. Zircon and extra stealthiness and use of Yasen M will show room for improvement, too. So it will be big and excellent and cheaper than Virginias. That mass production part looks questionable though.

Kazan cost 2,5-3 times more than one virginia, but best part because of the reconstruction of supply base.

Use fighter jet equivalent.
One yassen worth 75 Su-35 (150 billion roubles), virginia cost 30 F/A-18 .
Maybe later they will cut the cost back to 100 billion 2018 roubles, then it will cost only 50 Su-35, means it will cost twice as more as the Virginia.

Okay you are reaaaaaaaaaaallllly twisting facts again Russian forum, so I get you to need to lie and have russia be number one and hey whatever helps you sleep at night.

Facts

It is true the Akula's are faster.

It's not true they have a greater crush depth because no one really knows how deep Virginia's can go all that is public is it's greater than 250. At max dive depth, Virginia can wait for the Akula to come back up because Virginia can stay active for longer, Akula endurance is around 100 days. Akula cannot defend it's self by launching weapons when it's that low, it's a sitting duck at that point. They also cannot travel their fully speed when at their max crush depth doesn't matter if the Akula can out run a Virginia it ain't out running the torps.

Virginia's are quieter Utilising newly-designed anechoic coatings, isolated structures and a new propulsor design, the Virginia-class submarines boast an acoustic signature lower than the Russian Akula-II class submarine (they have one in service), equivalent to that of the Seawolf-class submarines that they were designed to replace.

In terms of reactors and propulsion, The Akula uses the 190MW pressurised water nuclear reactor, one OK-7 steam turbine creating 43,000 hp and two OK-2 turbogenerators that produce 2,000 kW of power. Two OK-300 retractable electric propulsors for low-speed and quiet maneuvering have also been installed to increase stealthier operation of the submarine, although the top speed using this method of propulsion is capped at 5kt.

for Virginia, they have the S9G nuclear reactor delivering 40,000 shaft horsepower and a Pump Jet System.

Final 45kv40k. A mere 5k difference isn't going to do much.

Virginia's also have better sensors, command systems, electronics.

So please stop lying, I know better you can continue to lie to others if you wish but I am not stupid.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Okay you are reaaaaaaaaaaallllly twisting facts again Russian forum, so I get you to need to lie and have russia be number one and hey whatever helps you sleep at night.

Facts

It is true the Akula's are faster.

It's not true they have a greater crush depth because no one really knows how deep Virginia's can go all that is public is it's greater than 250. At max dive depth, Virginia can wait for the Akula to come back up because Virginia can stay active for longer, Akula endurance is around 100 days. Akula cannot defend it's self by launching weapons when it's that low, it's a sitting duck at that point. They also cannot travel their fully speed when at their max crush depth doesn't matter if the Akula can out run a Virginia it ain't out running the torps.

Virginia's are quieter Utilising newly-designed anechoic coatings, isolated structures and a new propulsor design, the Virginia-class submarines boast an acoustic signature lower than the Russian Akula-II class submarine (they have one in service), equivalent to that of the Seawolf-class submarines that they were designed to replace.

In terms of reactors and propulsion, The Akula uses the 190MW pressurised water nuclear reactor, one OK-7 steam turbine creating 43,000 hp and two OK-2 turbogenerators that produce 2,000 kW of power. Two OK-300 retractable electric propulsors for low-speed and quiet maneuvering have also been installed to increase stealthier operation of the submarine, although the top speed using this method of propulsion is capped at 5kt.

for Virginia, they have the S9G nuclear reactor delivering 40,000 shaft horsepower and a Pump Jet System.

Final 45kv40k. A mere 5k difference isn't going to do much.

Virginia's also have better sensors, command systems, electronics.

So please stop lying, I know better you can continue to lie to others if you wish but I am not stupid.

It is interesting.

Akula diameter: 13.6 meter
Seawolf diameter: 12 meter
Virginia diameter: 10 meter

Raw power of Akula reactor is 190MWt , Virginia is 150 MWt.
The reactor data is useless, it is probably rubbish.

Now, the submarine maximum speed is defined by the cross section vs reactor power.

For the Akula to have the same sustained speed like the Virginia it has to have six times more power with the same drag coefficient.

The Akula has better and more streamline shape than the Virginia ( double hull) but the reactor sill has to be five times bigger.


No chance.



Additional interesting is the lack of pumpjet on Akulas.

The advantage of the pumpet is the low noise at higher speed. But it works only in narrow speed and pressure range.
Means the Akula would not benefit from it, means in turn it has deeper diving deep than the Virgnias, otherwise it can benefit fro m the pumpjet.

Anyway, the above scenario is absolutely out of reality.

The Akula will dive deep, and in the greater deep it can run with less noise, and due to the acoustic behaviour of ocean the Virginia would not be able to hear it theoretically.

Simply can outrun the virginia, with towed sonar it will be able to detect it from great distance, and it can shoot eight torpedoes without any notice from the silence of sofar channel.
The point is if the akula works between 200-600 meters deep then the pump jet has to work between 40 bar difference ,

Down at 600 it would not be useful, because the higher speed means bigger drag outside the optimal range of pumpjet ring.


The pumpjet on virginia showing its restricted deep.

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

Wiki show 4+5+ the Indian one.

3 in service (Pantera, Gepard, Kuzbass), 6 in modernization (Vepr, Volk, Leopard, Tigr, Bratsk, Samara)

The drag proportional to the area, ( my mistake ) .
Means the Akula has 80 % bigger cross section, but more streamlined shape, slightly bigger reactor.

So, it can be bit faster/as fast.

  Article (from VPK originally) about supposed issues with submarine shipbuilding.

Personally I think it's complete buls**t but would still like to hear local opinions here:


Problems of nuclear submarine shipbuilding in Russia

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3393168.html



Like I said, looks like 100% BS.

Author claims that new nuclear submarines are so inferior that money should be redirected to other armed forces branches and surface navy.

Also that a single P-9 Orion is capable of locating 10 Russian submarines in one go.

And that 2nd and 3rd Borei-class SSBNs are not used for patrols and are sitting empty while 1st one (Yuri Dolgorukii) is used only as testbed.



Way I see it, if USA had such massive advantage as implied with P-9 Orion claim they would have adopted much much different defense posture. And that would just be a beginning.

As for Borei-class claims, what makes much more sense is that 2nd and 3rd are not active in maneuvers and don't do test fire is because they are on combat patrols.

For example, when was last time Ohio-class squeezed off a Minuteman missile for practice? Or Delta-class a Sineva for that matter? Maybe they did but I didn't hear about it but still, it's pretty infrequent.

And finally about claim that submarine fleet is eating into navy budget with nothing to show for in the face of US technological superiority: If USA is really that superior then it would not only make Russian submarine fleet inferior but would also make entire Russian surface navy completely redundant because if latest SSGN/SSBN is so vulnerable then every single other surface ship is literally dead in the water before it even sets sail.

Investing in navy (especially surface navy) under those circumstances would be not just wasteful but criminally negligent.


To me this reeks of desperate lobbying effort by shipyards and surface navy lobby into getting more money. A single nuclear submarine is being built faster and more efficiently than single near obsolete corvette/frigate with fraction of size and combat capability.

Timing of the article is also very interesting with INF treaty being scuttled.
Soon surface fleet will be even less relevant than ever before once intermediate range missiles start being deployed in anti-ship roles at fraction of the cost of surface fleet.

They do not dare to imply that money should be taken from army or aerospace force because nobody would buy that. So they are trying to weasel their narrative under the guise of redirecting funds to army and airforce while saying that surface navy should get more funds as a ''side-effect''

There is probably something else in article but I can't work through machine translation.
So what do you folks think?  

First funny "fact" is that basic Russian ASW aircraft are Il-38 from 1970s. AFAIK Russians use mostly Tu-142MZ, heavily modernized version of Tu-142 from 1993.

Problems of nuclear submarine shipbuilding in Russia

I stopped here. Nuk subs constructions is perfect compare to any other naval project in russian shipbulding industry. They build tem and even improved version of borei and yasen while they upgrade most of their older nuk subs.

PapaDragon wrote:
  Article (from VPK originally) about supposed issues with submarine shipbuilding.

Personally I think it's complete buls**t but would still like to hear local opinions here:


Problems of nuclear submarine shipbuilding in Russia

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3393168.html



Like I said, looks like 100% BS.

Author claims that new nuclear submarines are so inferior that money should be redirected to other armed forces branches and surface navy.

Also that a single P-9 Orion is capable of locating 10 Russian submarines in one go.

And that 2nd and 3rd Borei-class SSBNs are not used for patrols and are sitting empty while 1st one (Yuri Dolgorukii) is used only as testbed.



Way I see it, if USA had such massive advantage as implied with P-9 Orion claim they would have adopted much much different defense posture. And that would just be a beginning.

As for Borei-class claims, what makes much more sense is that 2nd and 3rd are not active in maneuvers and don't do test fire is because they are on combat patrols.

For example, when was last time Ohio-class squeezed off a Minuteman missile for practice? Or Delta-class a Sineva for that matter? Maybe they did but I didn't hear about it but still, it's pretty infrequent.

And finally about claim that submarine fleet is eating into navy budget with nothing to show for in the face of US technological superiority: If USA is really that superior then it would not only make Russian submarine fleet inferior but would also make entire Russian surface navy completely redundant because if latest SSGN/SSBN is so vulnerable then every single other surface ship is literally dead in the water before it even sets sail.

Investing in navy (especially surface navy) under those circumstances would be not just wasteful but criminally negligent.


To me this reeks of desperate lobbying effort by shipyards and surface navy lobby into getting more money. A single nuclear submarine is being built faster and more efficiently than single near obsolete corvette/frigate with fraction of size and combat capability.

Timing of the article is also very interesting with INF treaty being scuttled.
Soon surface fleet will be even less relevant than ever before once intermediate range missiles start being deployed in anti-ship roles at fraction of the cost of surface fleet.

They do not dare to imply that money should be taken from army or aerospace force because nobody would buy that. So they are trying to weasel their narrative under the guise of redirecting funds to army and airforce while saying that surface navy should get more funds as a ''side-effect''

There is probably something else in article but I can't work through machine translation.
So what do you folks think?  

what puzzles me is that the modernization of aculas and oscars is too slow

To start with.... WTF is a P-9 Orion?

I have heard of a P-3 Orion and a P-8 Poseidon.

7 or 8 Il-38 have already been upgraded to the Il-38N standard.

A week ago a 667BRDM fired a Sineva.

Ohio class uses Trident II. Minuteman III are land-based.

Well, guys like these are one of the last remaining problems in Russia. No politician/military man/industry guy in the west would say that "all our tanks are shit that´s why we have to spend more money on helicopters". Guys like this really pisses me off.

To start with.... WTF is a P-9 Orion?

Original article just says Orion.
The anecdote about detecting 10 subs in one flight is pretty alarming reading, implies SOSUS/other sensors providing high accuracy tracking of Russian subs in their own waters.

Submarine officers from Severomorsk put the flight path of the American reconnaissance aircraft Orion on the map of the location of our submarines during the exercises. And all ten turning points of his route were right on the locations of our boats. That is, he did not even look for them, but was heading for a specific point. "Orion" left without any tacks exactly on our submarine, dumped the buoy and went to the next one.

But I wonder when was the last time the Russian North fleet had 10 subs at sea simultaneously?
If its fairly often then Russian sub fleet is considerably more active than I had the impression it is.

But whether that is legit or not I do agree on the question of the sense in spending huge amounts of $$$ on ballistic subs when USSR/Russia doesn't seem to have been able to actually keep US subs out of the Bastions (is Bastions still the tactic?), if US really has subs constantly trailing the SSBNs that expensive second strike capability becomes pretty void & a waste of $$$.

I'm surprised Russia hasn't put a lot more effort into modernising ASW capability/SSNs than it seems to be eg building a bunch of 20380/other new ASW ship for North/smaller, cheaper modern SSN in decent numbers rather than large expensive Yasens or a new gen ASW plane.
Obviously there is only so much budget kicking around but still...

hoom wrote:.......
I'm surprised Russia hasn't put a lot more effort into modernising ASW capability/SSNs than it seems to be eg building a bunch of 20380/other new ASW ship for North/smaller, cheaper modern SSN in decent numbers rather than large expensive Yasens or a new gen ASW plane.
Obviously there is only so much budget kicking around but still...

If Yasens are that detectable by hostiles then it makes all naval vessels complete waste of money. Goes double for surface ships.

Compared to submarines 20380 is nothing. It's less than nothing, a toilet paper. Same goes for every other ship from Karakurt all the way up to Kirov.

If USA has that kind of advantage then ordering people to climb aboard deathtraps like surface ships is act of crime, mass murder and high treason.

There is no way to catch up on technological advantage described in that article. If true then whole thing is hopelessly​ out of reach.

If there is any truth to any single claim made in this article then entire Russian Navy should be immediately disbanded starting with surface fleet and all funds should be redirected towards army, airforce and missile troops before it's to late.

hoom wrote:is Bastions still the tactic?

GUGI is laying seafloor sensors Garmoniya in the Barents sea, so it will be increasingly difficult for the US subs to sail there undetected.

2015 Naval strategy is talking about blue waters again...literally for the first time in Russia since Stalin. So smaller ships will defend the bastions and larger ships will cruise the oceans. Still it's unclear how they plan to use their 1 CV to defend their SLOC against 11 US CVNs. To realise the second part of the maritime strategy, alliance with China may be needed.

Only one guy active on the comment section defending the article vehemently and I believe it is the writer of the article. Everyone asks for names and proof and he provided none.

And yes, the claim that 10 subs detected by 1 Orion is stupid and anyone who believes that should be shot.

No 10 submarines were in the same area all at once at same time. It is a made up story using no names, but something vague. Borei is very silent, much more silent than Chinese subs and up there to being one of the most silent Nuke subs out there. But he seems to think this Orion is the end all be all. No, it isn't, nor did it detect 10 submarines in the same area all at once. Because that never happened. If it did, the US would have bragged about it.

And that is key right there. US loves to make up stories. They also love to brag about their capabilities. Remember how they would brag about how their F-22's would operate near Russian jets and not get spotted? Or how America killed 100....no wait, 300.... Oh now it is 600 Russians?

You see, if something like this happened, then it would have been used as cheap propaganda. But no, no word of that. And we would have heard from more than 1 source of some random person too. But no, we hear it on a blog then on vpk.name which loves to also host Ukrainian propaganda and American as well.

But no word of such things happening in US, as I said, who loves to brag about things that either never happened or happened to a much lesser extent than they exaggerated.

This would be unbelievable even if all the systems of the P-8 would work. According to a report from last year only the optics work as they should and I doubt that the corrupt system in Amiland is capable to fix all problems in just a year.

Looks like a good article.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/25/europe/nato-russian-submarines-iceland-intl/index.html wrote:

Russia not yet NATO's equal

To keep track of the Russian subs, NATO planes are making a flight about every other day out of a revived US base at Keflavik International Airport.

Foggo says those subs are a big headache for NATO's leaders.

But even with the twin-engine jets running regular surveillance in the North Atlantic, finding Russian submarines is not an easy task.

It's a chess match between the sub commander and all the assets that are trying to find him

"We can no longer take for granted that we can sail with impunity in all of the oceans."

It would be stupid to say either P-8 or the subs is garbage.