Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Let me take a bat and make some noise in the cages, the gorillas will wake up this thread for good !

One thing I have been wondering lately is, when the nuclear treaties fall through and everyone can have as many ballistic missile submarines as they wish. The Borie class submarines can only carry 96-160 lightweight nuclear warheads. Would we se something like the Akula return with perhaps liquid fueled SLBMs based around the Sarmat,s engines?

Podlodka77 wrote:I take all the credit for waking up this section...  
It's nice that people get away from the special military operation.
And let me add that Russia announced in May that it tested the K-561 Kazan at the maximum depth of application, and that depth is 600 meters. That's twice as much as diesel-electric submarines.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14672145

The working depth for project 885/885M and 949A submarines is 520 meters. For project 971 submarines, it varies from variant to variant and ranges from 480 to 520 meters.

You can not trust these figures at all. As an example the K-278 Komsomolets (Mike)with an inner titanium hull was designed to reach depths of 1200+ meters. Some sources (besides Wikipedia) gives some interesting figures regarding the Lira/Alfa class saying it could reach depths just short of that at 1160 meters, but the test depth in Wikipedia is given at something like 400 meters!

The Los Angeles on the other hand (due to a thin hull design in order to breach 30+ knots) could dive to around 390 meters max which was 90 meters less than the previous generation Sturgeon class!

The-thing-next-door wrote:One thing I have been wondering lately is, when the nuclear treaties fall through and everyone can have as many ballistic missile submarines as they wish. The Borie class submarines can only carry 96-160 lightweight nuclear warheads. Would we se something like the Akula return with perhaps liquid fueled SLBMs based around the Sarmat,s engines?

Lightweight ?
The useful payload of the RS-24 missile is 1,250 kilograms, while the R-30 Bulava carries 1,150 kilograms of payload.

Podlodka77 wrote:


Lightweight ?
The useful payload of the RS-24 missile is 1,250 kilograms, while the R-30 Bulava carries 1,150 kilograms of payload.

The RS-24 carries fewer warheads.

Mir wrote:
You can not trust these figures at all. As an example the K-278 Komsomolets (Mike)with an inner titanium hull was designed to reach depths of 1200+ meters. Some sources (besides Wikipedia) gives some interesting figures regarding the Lira/Alfa class saying it could reach depths just short of that at 1160 meters, but the test depth in Wikipedia is given at something like 400 meters!
The Los Angeles on the other hand (due to a thin hull design in order to breach 30+ knots) could dive to around 390 meters max which was 90 meters less than the previous generation Sturgeon class!

Liras were notorious for chasing 40kts 800m down.
This thing was a fukin' Ferrari - nobody dared to go so far.
Soviets really pushed the limit much, much up (down ).
Komsomolets dived more than 1000m...

The-thing-next-door wrote:
The RS-24 carries fewer warheads.

There will be 12 Boreis. This means between 1.152 and 1.920 warheads. Only for the seabased part of the triad. How much do you want? 

Moooo ...!
Moooo ....!
He needs MOOOOO for further wanking!

Hole wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:
The RS-24 carries fewer warheads.

There will be 12 Boreis. This means between 1.152 and 1.920 warheads. Only for the seabased part of the triad. How much do you want? 

My friend, we shall see about that....
Yes, Russia will probably have 12 strategic submarines in total, but it is not impossible that the first two 955 submarines will be converted to replace the BS-136 Orenburg (ex-667BDR Kalmar/NATO; Delta III submarine) and the BS-64 Podmoskovye which was once a 667BDRM Dolphin submarine. /NATO; Delta IV. If that happens, then the Russians will have to build two more project 955A submarines, that is, the 13th and 14th.
Therefore, 12 submarines would remain in strategic use, while the first two would be converted into special purpose submarines.

There is no need to make another Losharik carrier when they have the Belgorod.

lancelot wrote:There is no need to make another Losharik carrier when they have the Belgorod.

That's what I thought too, but until the submarines 09851/09853 arrive, I think that the K-329 Belgorod will have the primary purpose of scaring the West every time it leaves its home port. Until then, Losharik will undergo a thorough refit and modernization and will be below the BS-64 Podmoskovye submarine, until a larger number of "Khabarovsk" submarines are in service.

Hole wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:
The RS-24 carries fewer warheads.

There will be 12 Boreis. This means between 1.152 and 1.920 warheads. Only for the seabased part of the triad. How much do you want? 

From the strategic submarine fleet, no less than 30,000.

Arrow wrote:


Yes, but Bulava is a light SLBM. It can carry 1150 kg, which is enough for 6 MIRVs, 150kT each. That's enough. On the other hand, Tident II or Sineva can carry a load of 2800 kg, which is almost three times heavier. More decoys and ABM defeating systems can be loaded. The Bulava probably has very advanced fuel anyway and is faster than the older generation SLBM missiles.

Yes, that's true, but Russia has a huge number of ICBM missiles in land-based launchers; in silos and on MZKT trucks. The wikipedia information of 6 warheads of 150 kilotons and 10 warheads of 100 kilotons means nothing. The Russians did not declare and it is probably possible that the rocket carries 3 warheads of 300 kilotons each or 4 of 250 kilotons. My opinion is that the payload is in the range of 800 kilotons to one megaton per ICBM. And that is certainly not a little, and one submarine carries 16 missiles.
We should also add the already ordered 46 RS-28 Sarmat missiles (which do not have to be the final number) which have a payload of 10 tons, which is slightly less than 168 missiles on 7 Ohio submarines with Trident missiles or a total of 4704 tons, while 46 RS-28 the missiles has 4600 tons of payload. Older R-36M2 (modification 5) Voevoda have 8.8 tons of payload.

02.11.2022
TASS

In "Sevmash" compared the volume of loading of the plant with the Soviet period


Project 955 Borey submarine at Sevmash.
Image source: flotprom.ru

The enterprise has built nine ships for the Russian Navy in 10 years

MOSCOW, 1 November. /TASS/. The Northern Machine-Building Enterprise (Sevmash, part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation) has built nine ships for the Navy of the Russian Federation in 10 years. This volume of loading of the plant is comparable to the Soviet period. This was reported to TASS by the general director of the enterprise Mikhail Budnichenko.

"The enterprise has a serious shipbuilding program. The load volume is quite comparable with the Soviet period. The tasks are huge, nevertheless, they are up to the team, whose professionalism I am sure. I see that shipbuilders love and know their job," said the head of the shipyard .

Budnichenko stressed that nine ships have been handed over to the Navy in 10 years. A group of missile carriers of the modernized Yasen-M and Borey-A projects is being built in the workshops, and the project 11442M ship is being modernized. “We have not commissioned such a number of ships in one year for many years,” the head of the enterprise said, recalling that only in 2021, three nuclear submarines were handed over to the fleet at once: Kazan, Novosibirsk and Knyaz Oleg.

Also, according to him, the laying of two strategic nuclear missile carriers of projects 955A "Borey-A" was completed at Sevmash: "Dmitry Donskoy" and "Prince Potemkin". According to the company's press service, during its history, Sevmash handed over 137 nuclear-powered ships, 40 diesel submarines and 45 surface ships to the country's Navy.

Budnichenko headed the enterprise 10 years ago. The Board of Directors of JSC "PO "Sevmash" at a meeting held in St. Petersburg on October 28 extended the powers of the General Director of "Sevmash" for another five years. Chairman of the Board of Directors Vladimir Korolev noted the effective and dynamic development of the enterprise under the leadership of Budnichenko.

https://vpk.name/news/648829_v_sevmashe_sravnili_obem_zagruzki_zavoda_s_sovetskim_periodom.html

Podlodka77 wrote:


Yes, that's true, but Russia has a huge number of ICBM missiles in land-based launchers; in silos and on MZKT trucks. The wikipedia information of 6 warheads of 150 kilotons and 10 warheads of 100 kilotons means nothing. The Russians did not declare and it is probably possible that the rocket carries 3 warheads of 300 kilotons each or 4 of 250 kilotons. My opinion is that the payload is in the range of 800 kilotons to one megaton per ICBM. And that is certainly not a little, and one submarine carries 16 missiles.
We should also add the already ordered 46 RS-28 Sarmat missiles (which do not have to be the final number) which have a payload of 10 tons, which is slightly less than 168 missiles on 7 Ohio submarines with Trident missiles or a total of 4704 tons, while 46 RS-28 the missiles has 4600 tons of payload. Older R-36M2 (modification 5) Voevoda have 8.8 tons of payload.

While I do agree that Russias heavy ICBMs will make up for the lack of potency of thier ballistic missile submarines, I forsee that SLBMs will likely increase in potency with the dawn of a multipolar world order owing to thier ability to strike at pindostan from unexpected angles and with less warning than say the Sarmat. Hence when the treaties go out the window being able to rapidly increase the number of submarine carried warheads is important and the lightweight Bulava does not offer that capability.

Arrow wrote:


Yes, but Bulava is a light SLBM. It can carry 1150 kg, which is enough for 6 MIRVs, 150kT each. That's enough. On the other hand, Tident II or Sineva can carry a load of 2800 kg, which is almost three times heavier. More decoys and ABM defeating systems can be loaded. The Bulava probably has very advanced fuel anyway and is faster than the older generation SLBM missiles.

6 warheads of 150 kilotons falling into a circle with a radius of 3-5 kilometers will cause much more damage than detonating a 1 megaton warhead at one point. the interference of shock waves and the physical laws of the growth of the radius of damage relative to the power do their job. So if you want to break through the protection of a fortified point object, you have to take a heavy warhead, but if you need to hit a vast or extended object, launch a handful of light charges into it and enjoy the fire.

Mir wrote:

Podlodka77 wrote:I take all the credit for waking up this section...  
It's nice that people get away from the special military operation.
And let me add that Russia announced in May that it tested the K-561 Kazan at the maximum depth of application, and that depth is 600 meters. That's twice as much as diesel-electric submarines.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14672145

The working depth for project 885/885M and 949A submarines is 520 meters. For project 971 submarines, it varies from variant to variant and ranges from 480 to 520 meters.

You can not trust these figures at all. As an example the K-278 Komsomolets (Mike)with an inner titanium hull was designed to reach depths of 1200+ meters. Some sources (besides Wikipedia) gives some interesting figures regarding the Lira/Alfa class saying it could reach depths just short of that at 1160 meters, but the test depth in Wikipedia is given at something like 400 meters!

I know for sure that the designs of Soviet submarines were tested for extreme operating conditions corresponding to a diving depth of over 2 kilometers.

Scorpius wrote:
I know for sure that the designs of Soviet submarines were tested for extreme operating conditions corresponding to a diving depth of over 2 kilometers.

I doubt it, I think you are confusing 2000 meters with 2000 feet (about 600 meters)

On Aug. 4, 1984, the Soviet nuclear-powered submarine K-278 Komsomolets (Mike class) reached a record submergence depth of 1,027 meters in the Norwegian Sea. At a depth of 800 meters the submarine made a torpedo salvo. Nobody had done anything like this before, or since after. Even present-day submarines cannot go deeper than 600 meters.

AMCXXL wrote:

Scorpius wrote:
I know for sure that the designs of Soviet submarines were tested for extreme operating conditions corresponding to a diving depth of over 2 kilometers.

I doubt it, I think you are confusing 2000 meters with 2000 feet (about 600 meters)

On Aug. 4, 1984, the Soviet nuclear-powered submarine K-278 Komsomolets (Mike class) reached a record submergence depth of 1,027 meters in the Norwegian Sea. At a depth of 800 meters the submarine made a torpedo salvo. Nobody had done anything like this before, or since after. Even present-day submarines cannot go deeper than 600 meters.

I'm not confusing anything. My parents worked at the enterprises that built these submarines and took part in these tests. I repeat once again: these were tests of individual structures, and they are quite explicable by the military approach to the reliability of structures, when the margin of safety should be at least 100% of the nominal operational loads.
I hope you don't think that K-278 would have collapsed if it had plunged not to 1078, but to 1080 meters? In reality, it could withstand a dive of up to 1800 meters before it would fail.

I should also remind you that the AC-12 has about 1/4 displacement (about 2,000 tons) from the K-278 (about 8,500 tons) almost submerged, but the AC-12 has confirmed dives to a depth of more than 3,500 meters. You don't think that Russia got these technologies from aliens, do you? This is the result of a long and hard work that has been going on for many decades.

Big difference between max operating depth and crush depth. The former can be guaranteed by engneering design so that commanders can operate at max depth with total confidence. Crush depth can only be estimated, and no commander anywhere would even think about skirting that limit.

Having said that, I think that in combat situations a Russian sub "rated" at 600m will be able to achieve a significantly greater depths. I'd expect that this sort of info is a very closely guarded state secret. I knew some ex-RN boomer guys from my offshore oil & gas days, and they would steadfastly refuse to talk about the true operating max of the boats on which they served.

Construction of warships of the main classes for the Russian Navy as of 01.11.2022

Submarines, nuclear;
4 strategic submarines of project 955A + 2 more in the plan.
5 multipurpose nuclear submarines of project 885M (the Navykorabel.ru still classifies the Ulyanovsk submarine as project 09853) + 2 more 885M in the plan
1 special purpose submarine of the project 09851 Khabarovsk
Submarines, diesel-electric;
3 submarines of the project 677 + a construction contract has been signed for one more
2 submarines of the project 636.3 + a construction contract was signed for another 4

In total; 10 nuclear submarines under construction, 5 diesel-electric submarines under construction, 4 more nuclear submarines planned for construction and 5 more diesel-electric submarines planned for construction.

Surface warships

5 frigates of project 22350 are under construction, a contract on "Army-2020" for two more was signed, as well as a protocol on the possible construction of 2 frigates at the Amur Shipyard
corvettes;
1 project 20386 corvette under construction,
4 project 20385 corvettes under construction + signed contract for the construction of 3 more,
3 project 20380 corvettes under construction and a contract signed for 2 more.

2 universal landing ships of project 23900 under construction,
2 large landing ships of project 11711 under construction.

These are submarines and ships launched on the water and in the testing phase and in some cases before being put into operational status;

submarines;
* K-XXX Generalissimus Suvorov (955A), final tests and before introduction into active status
* K-571 Krasnoyarsk (885M); tests are underway and the submarine is about to be put into operational use, if not by the end of the year, then certainly in the first months of next.
* B-586 Kronstadt; this submarine has already been tested several times and is waiting to be put into active status.
* B-588 Ufa; final tests and before introduction into active status

Surface warships;

* Frigate Admiral Golovko (22350); i don't want to waste time..
* Merkuriy; it is possible that the delivery date planned for this year will be moved to next year.
* Rezkiy; final tests and before introduction into active status

the construction of submarines is going much better..
Thats all folks...

GarryB wrote:in fact a fractional orbital bomb over the US knocking out all their radar will mean missiles coming from any direction will be a surprise.

The U.S can set up radar units and listening posts in South America to detect a FOB approaching from the South.