Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

One thing to keep in mind is that neither Navy (none to be precise) can consistently detect their opponents submarines. A good example of this (in this case it is between China and the US) is when a Chinese Type 039 got within five nautical miles of the USS Kitty Hawk carrier group without being detected. Only after it surfaced (just cause, it wasn't because of the need for air) was it detected, and that was by a jet flying overheard and had nothing to do with technology... Pretty crazy to think about, and the Type 039 is China's first indigenous SSK. I don't even want to know how close a 636 or Lada could get to a carrier group....  Same could happen with a US sub, except for that they do not have any diesels in service. Anyway, 5 nautical miles in within range of a torpedo like the Shkval, so that shows the threat that SSK's represent.... Obviously, the big difference between Russian and American submarines, isn't the subs themselves, but their tactics and for what purpose they'd be used. An American SSN or two (if not more) will be guarding a carrier group, which restricts what they can do. On the other hand, Russian SSN's aren't restricted in that way, but are instead lesser in number. So it is a trade off. The US's rather offensive stragety is what causes this problem (for them), as Russia will be defensive naturally and hence doesn't have all these carriers etc. 

As for the next-gen Virginia (a current model was just commissioned actually)... It will basically be like an underwater missile carrier, which is an interesting 180 for the US Navy. The design itself will be slightly larger (mostly in length) in order to accommodate a large number of Tomahawk's (as of right now). It will also be less complex and less advanced as well, in an attempt to bring down the cost and raise the rate of production. - Both of which are needed because of budget problems and aging LA class subs respectively. IMHO, it will basically be a cruiser under the sea, but it will also be replacing older SSN's which doesn't make much sense to be honest. It would be like Russia replacing the Kilo with a shrunken down diesel Borei... They have completely different roles... Thankfully (for the US Navy), they should have a decent number of Virginia's (current model) by then. - This newer model wouldn't stand a chance against actual SSN's, and it would also have "cheaper" (worse) sensors as well AFAIK. 

The next-gen Ohio replacement is much more predictable... It should have a design influenced by the Ohio, but will be more advanced in just about every way. Interestingly enough, they will only be ordering twelve, and with the Ohio's gone by then, America's SSBN fleet will shrink down dramatically. This is partly thanks to the subs high price, which will be close to three times what the Borei costs if I remember right. Anyway, it should carry sixteen ballistic missiles (same as Borei, down from 24) and will fire the Trident-2 (a life-extension variant). Some have said it will only be able to hold twelve missiles, but I doubt that is anything more than creative thinking.... Besides that, it should use lessons learned from the Ohio and Virginia etc.

The US Navy has no plans to order a SSK AFAIK, because it doesn't fit their strategy and cannot actually be offensive. 

To be honest, I don't think that Russia has much to worry about... The US will be reling on smaller numbers (compared to today) of subs, some of which don't really have a role (Virginia-"upgrade"). At the same time, Russia won't be posing a much larger threat to the US Navy because of smaller numbers despite their advanced-nature. So, in all reality, nobody can say this sub is better than this one etc until they actually engage.

Mike E wrote:

TR1 wrote:As for actual characteristics and comparisons, beside "hard" info (missile types, number, age, etc) don't expect to find anything serious online.

Agreed, you (par far) shouldn't expect to get much in terms of good opinions on a matter such as this one. Many important factors of all the mentioned-submarines are secretive, and if they aren't, it is still a PITA to find info on them. This site; http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/ has the best (easy to find) info on Russian subs, along with a bunch of different navy-related news and articles etc. On US subs, you won't be able to find the details on just about anything on their subs, as the US Navy is extremely secretive about the details and is often conservative with their capabilities (to keep the "enemy" from gaining an advantage). That being said, some of their systems are public and can be found anywhere on the internet.

Mike you were right, I could not find any good on this topic, they are probably top secret.

Mike E wrote:One thing to keep in mind is that neither Navy (none to be precise) can consistently detect their opponents submarines. A good example of this (in this case it is between China and the US) is when a Chinese Type 039 got within five nautical miles of the USS Kitty Hawk carrier group without being detected. Only after it surfaced (just cause, it wasn't because of the need for air) was it detected, and that was by a jet flying overheard and had nothing to do with technology... Pretty crazy to think about, and the Type 039 is China's first indigenous SSK. I don't even want to know how close a 636 or Lada could get to a carrier group....  Same could happen with a US sub, except for that they do not have any diesels in service. Anyway, 5 nautical miles in within range of a torpedo like the Shkval, so that shows the threat that SSK's represent.... Obviously, the big difference between Russian and American submarines, isn't the subs themselves, but their tactics and for what purpose they'd be used. An American SSN or two (if not more) will be guarding a carrier group, which restricts what they can do. On the other hand, Russian SSN's aren't restricted in that way, but are instead lesser in number. So it is a trade off. The US's rather offensive stragety is what causes this problem (for them), as Russia will be defensive naturally and hence doesn't have all these carriers etc. 

As for the next-gen Virginia (a current model was just commissioned actually)... It will basically be like an underwater missile carrier, which is an interesting 180 for the US Navy. The design itself will be slightly larger (mostly in length) in order to accommodate a large number of Tomahawk's (as of right now). It will also be less complex and less advanced as well, in an attempt to bring down the cost and raise the rate of production. - Both of which are needed because of budget problems and aging LA class subs respectively. IMHO, it will basically be a cruiser under the sea, but it will also be replacing older SSN's which doesn't make much sense to be honest. It would be like Russia replacing the Kilo with a shrunken down diesel Borei... They have completely different roles... Thankfully (for the US Navy), they should have a decent number of Virginia's (current model) by then. - This newer model wouldn't stand a chance against actual SSN's, and it would also have "cheaper" (worse) sensors as well AFAIK. 

The next-gen Ohio replacement is much more predictable... It should have a design influenced by the Ohio, but will be more advanced in just about every way. Interestingly enough, they will only be ordering twelve, and with the Ohio's gone by then, America's SSBN fleet will shrink down dramatically. This is partly thanks to the subs high price, which will be close to three times what the Borei costs if I remember right. Anyway, it should carry sixteen ballistic missiles (same as Borei, down from 24) and will fire the Trident-2 (a life-extension variant). Some have said it will only be able to hold twelve missiles, but I doubt that is anything more than creative thinking.... Besides that, it should use lessons learned from the Ohio and Virginia etc.

The US Navy has no plans to order a SSK AFAIK, because it doesn't fit their strategy and cannot actually be offensive. 

To be honest, I don't think that Russia has much to worry about... The US will be reling on smaller numbers (compared to today) of subs, some of which don't really have a role (Virginia-"upgrade"). At the same time, Russia won't be posing a much larger threat to the US Navy because of smaller numbers despite their advanced-nature. So, in all reality, nobody can say this sub is better than this one etc until they actually engage.

Thank you for all the good information Mike E, if the Chinese Type 039 can come this close, than the newer subs must killer.

You're welcome... 

Anyway, I made a big mistake when I said the downgraded Virginia's are going to replace the older LA's. Turns out only five of them will be made, and they will replace the Ohio SSGN's. The newer Virginia's (one of which was recently commissioned) won't be improvements, but instead will be simpler and easier to produce cheaper but not worse). So, the RU Navy still doesn't have to worry, but I thought I'd correct myself nonetheless.

Nice

2014NS "Obninsk" fulfilled shooting cruise missile

George1 wrote:

Viktor wrote:Nice  

2014NS "Obninsk" fulfilled shooting cruise missile

it is a Viktor III class submarine. Do we know what type of cruise missile was fired?

Some guys say it might be a land attack Kalibr.

At first they thought it was the new Improved Kilo that was recently turned over that will conduct the test but it's still 3 days of testing so maybe they'll try firing from different ships?

Good Details in the link


Several "Boreas" and "Ash" for improving the project lay in the "Sevmash" in 2015

http://itar-tass.com/armiya-i-opk/1632949

par far wrote:How does the Borei class stack up against the American Virginia class and Ohio class submarines?

Are Russian Submarines better than the American ones or is it the other way around?

Also where does the Yasen class submarine rank?

Can some please tell me all the submarines that Russia operates right and what submarines will Russia operate in the future?

Will Russia export any submarines soon?

amazingly no one told you this..

But ..

you are mixing attack conventional submarines that carry cruise missiles.. vs ballistic submarines that carry nuclear weapons mostly and its sole purpose is destroy countries..  while attack submarines is main purpose is attack warships  and or other submarines or land targets with conventional weapons.


when it comes to the future.. it will be..
in attack submarines...
Yasen class + kilo class vs Virginia+Seawolf class..

in ballistic submarines with nuclear weapons..
Borei class vs Ohio class..

The Borei and Yasen and brand new submarines... while the american Ohio are 40 years old.. and the seawolf 15 years and virginia 10 years old.

So the timing they have in service should give you an idea of how they stack each other in terms of technology
of the ships.

When it comes to weapons.. in attack submarines..weapons..
it will be Russia using state of the art modern Kalibr and Onix missiles..and close range torpedos ,
vs americans using Tomahawks and harpoon missiles of the 70s..

in terms of technology Russia wins hands down..  the advantage of USA is in numbers. really and nothing else.

in ballistic navy submarines nuclear war weapons ..
it will be Russia using Bulava state of the art missiles vs  Americans using tridents that is technology of the 70s..
and some upgraded ohios using trident II technology of the 90s..

So ironically contrary to what the western people believe..Russian navy have more cutting edge technology...
in their Submarines.. than US navy..   US navy advantage is not technology but numbers..and that have 10 aircraft carriers vs 1 of Russia .. but Russia counter their lower numbers with better technology and superior weapons..

Kalibers/onyx anti-ship missiles range = up to 700km supersonic cruise missiles
Harpoon anti ship missiles range = 130km subsonic cruise missiles..

That said.. how it stack in a naval fight US vs Russia? if is conventional. and open seas. US navy will have to keep their surface warships away of Russia combat range ie.. 800km ++  and use their naval airforce flying low or Virginia submarines to try to sneak close enough to Russian navy to start a fight.

Russia will be using their diesel electric submarines and yasen to hunt those virginia too.. so it will not be easy..

If is close to Russian land.. is several times more harder if not impossible to have an effective fight , because Russia continent becomes effectively a giant aircraft carrier that do not sink.  And S-400s defenses will keep away any airforce.. patrol boats and helicopters with radars will be sent to scan for  submarines.

Vann7 wrote:

par far wrote:How does the Borei class stack up against the American Virginia class and Ohio class submarines?

Are Russian Submarines better than the American ones or is it the other way around?

Also where does the Yasen class submarine rank?

Can some please tell me all the submarines that Russia operates right and what submarines will Russia operate in the future?

Will Russia export any submarines soon?

amazingly no one told you this..

But ..

you are mixing attack conventional submarines that carry cruise missiles.. vs ballistic submarines that carry nuclear weapons mostly and its sole purpose is destroy countries..  while attack submarines is main purpose is attack warships  and or other submarines or land targets with conventional weapons.


when it comes to the future.. it will be..
in attack submarines...
Yasen class + kilo class vs Virginia+Seawolf class..

in ballistic submarines with nuclear weapons..
Borei class vs Ohio class..

The Borei and Yasen and brand new submarines... while the american Ohio are 40 years old.. and the seawolf 15 years and virginia 10 years old.

So the timing they have in service should give you an idea of how they stack each other in terms of technology
of the ships.

When it comes to weapons.. in attack submarines..weapons..
it will be Russia using state of the art modern Kalibr and Onix missiles..and close range torpedos ,
vs americans using Tomahawks and harpoon missiles of the 70s..

in terms of technology Russia wins hands down..  the advantage of USA is in numbers. really and nothing else.

in ballistic navy submarines nuclear war weapons ..
it will be Russia using Bulava state of the art missiles vs  Americans using tridents that is technology of the 70s..
and some upgraded ohios using trident II technology of the 90s..

So ironically contrary to what the western people believe..Russian navy have more cutting edge technology...
in their Submarines.. than US navy..   US navy advantage is not technology but numbers..and that have 10 aircraft carriers vs 1 of Russia .. but Russia counter their lower numbers with better technology and superior weapons..

Kalibers/onyx anti-ship missiles range = up to 700km supersonic cruise missiles
Harpoon anti ship missiles range = 130km subsonic cruise missiles..

That said.. how it stack in a naval fight US vs Russia? if is conventional. and open seas. US navy will have to keep their surface warships away of Russia combat range ie.. 800km ++  and use their naval airforce flying low or Virginia submarines to try to sneak close enough to Russian navy to start a fight.

Russia will be using their diesel electric submarines and yasen to hunt those virginia too.. so it will not be easy..

If is close to Russian land.. is several times more harder if not impossible to have an effective fight , because Russia continent becomes effectively a giant aircraft carrier that do not sink.  And S-400s defenses will keep away any airforce.. patrol boats and helicopters with radars will be sent to scan for  submarines.

Thank for the clear up Vann, can you tell me what is the difference between project 636.3 and project 636.6.

That chart is "nominally" right, but realistically many of those boats are either non-operational or under modernization. And some of their fates are very unclear.

No they wouldn't.

You can't just turn a boat that has been sitting pier-side for a decade operational overnight. Not how it works.

In some cases the boat is half apart in terms of propulsion.

Plenty of them.

Examples:

-671RTMK:
Petrazavodks is a donor vessel. No way is it combat capable.

-954:
Karp has been inactive since 1998. Needs years of work @ Zvezdochka to get back to the fleet at the very least.

-949A:
Irkutsk has been in reserve since 1998. Repairs since 2008, that flopped, and is now being modernized in Zvezda till 2017. Assuming they meet the deadline.

-971:
Kashalot has been in repair @ Armur since 2003. Is partially in pieces, and its only real hope of return is if India leases it.

Anyways, just some examples of the top of my head.
Some ships are only out of it because they are being modernized and have otherwise been active, but for plenty more the situation is far less rosy.

Just wasn't any money before. That's why more than half of the attack fleet is laid up or being modernized- they never got their mid-life overhauls in the 90s and 2000s, so now they are getting them along with modernization. At least the one they can afford it with- the expensive 945s might not be worked on after all.

The ballistic missile submarines have been a priority and so have been overhauled and up-armed with Sineva since mid 2000s with regularity.

an attack sub is also a lot like an ASW aircraft... very very expensive... very very high tech... lots and lots of computers and very sensitive equipment to detect and track very quiet threats.

In 2 years they are no longer state of the art... you know how fast computer technology moves... and software moves just as fast... constant updates, plus a new programme every 2-3 years with all sorts of new features requiring new hardware to run at reasonable speeds.

TR1 wrote:Just wasn't any money before. That's why more than half of the attack fleet is laid up or being modernized- they never got their mid-life overhauls in the 90s and 2000s, so now they are getting them along with modernization. At least the one they can afford it with- the expensive 945s might not be worked on after all.

The ballistic missile submarines have been a priority and so have been overhauled and up-armed with Sineva since mid 2000s with regularity.

LOL @ this being downvoted.

No really, this place is great. The amount of reality defying Russia-strong ass-hurt is astronomical.

I can just picture some butthurt non-Russian fuming that I dare insinuate Russia can't afford to keep even half of its attack sub fleet operational right now.

TR1 wrote:

TR1 wrote:Just wasn't any money before. That's why more than half of the attack fleet is laid up or being modernized- they never got their mid-life overhauls in the 90s and 2000s, so now they are getting them along with modernization. At least the one they can afford it with- the expensive 945s might not be worked on after all.

The ballistic missile submarines have been a priority and so have been overhauled and up-armed with Sineva since mid 2000s with regularity.

LOL @ this being downvoted.

No really, this place is great. The amount of reality defying Russia-strong ass-hurt is astronomical.

I can just picture some butthurt non-Russian fuming that I dare insinuate Russia can't afford to keep even half of its attack sub fleet operational right now.

You've made some enemies here.

It appears your non-stronk, realistic assessments will not go unpunished.

yasen is . How many are in service currently ? 5 ?

Such things don't come cheap . It's better than usa latest seawolf subs and others too . I rea they were expected to have 5 yasens by 2020 .