Project 885: Yasen class #2

PapaDragon wrote:

As for Yasen they should really keep building them until they reach at least 12 hulls (6 for North and Pacific each)

Only 9 so far but we'll see - 10 would be a good number for me and 12 would be great!

EDIT: If you can believe all the gossip the initial Husky may even be smaller than the 971's with a displacement of around 11 000 tons and will be of double hull construction. That means there will be much less space to cram it full of missiles. There is talk that the submarine will be a three in one and will even carry SLBM's (a SSN/SSGN and SSBN). Now that may be possible but you will end up with a sub with very little weapons capacity in the end. In my opinion - trying to put SLBM's on a attack sub would be a tactical and even a strategic mistake.

There is no reason why vertical launch tubes need to be inside the inner hull of a double hulled sub.

The Oscar class SSGNs had their outer hulls about three and a half metres from their inner hulls and had their Granit missiles loaded between the two hulls...

Equally the inner hull can be any shape you please and could narrow down to allow vertical launch tubes be fitted in enormous numbers along its length without needed bulges in the outer hull which is the hull that needs to be hydrodynamic.

GarryB wrote:

EDIT: If you can believe all the gossip the initial Husky may even be smaller than the 971's with a displacement of around 11 000 tons and will be of double hull construction. That means there will be much less space to cram it full of missiles. There is talk that the submarine will be a three in one and will even carry SLBM's (a SSN/SSGN and SSBN). Now that may be possible but you will end up with a sub with very little weapons capacity in the end. In my opinion - trying to put SLBM's on a attack sub would be a tactical and even a strategic mistake.

There is no reason why vertical launch tubes need to be inside the inner hull of a double hulled sub.

The Oscar class SSGNs had their outer hulls about three and a half metres from their inner hulls and had their Granit missiles loaded between the two hulls...

Equally the inner hull can be any shape you please and could narrow down to allow vertical launch tubes be fitted in enormous numbers along its length without needed bulges in the outer hull which is the hull that needs to be hydrodynamic.

Plus Russian subs have a high degree of automation and much reduced crew sizes compared to US boats. That reduces the space needed for crew accommodation and storage of provisions.

GarryB wrote:

EDIT: If you can believe all the gossip the initial Husky may even be smaller than the 971's with a displacement of around 11 000 tons and will be of double hull construction. That means there will be much less space to cram it full of missiles. There is talk that the submarine will be a three in one and will even carry SLBM's (a SSN/SSGN and SSBN). Now that may be possible but you will end up with a sub with very little weapons capacity in the end. In my opinion - trying to put SLBM's on a attack sub would be a tactical and even a strategic mistake.

There is no reason why vertical launch tubes need to be inside the inner hull of a double hulled sub.

The Oscar class SSGNs had their outer hulls about three and a half metres from their inner hulls and had their Granit missiles loaded between the two hulls...

Equally the inner hull can be any shape you please and could narrow down to allow vertical launch tubes be fitted in enormous numbers along its length without needed bulges in the outer hull which is the hull that needs to be hydrodynamic.

Yes I am not saying that these subs will not have any vertical launched tubes at all. I am just suggesting that as a modular design (I hope) these subs can be purpose built. I also think the initial Husky's will be ASW orientated and will be relatively small which might exclude them from carrying VL tubes. If the Navy wants a SSGN or a multi-purpose sub they could insert a VL module with say 16tubes - and the same goes for a SSBN.

But yes there's no reason why the missiles could not be installed between the two hulls as they are much smaller than the Granit.

Kazan inside.

https://twitter.com/RSS_40/status/1423543672721784832?s=19

...looks like a freaking AWACS in there. Awesome

TMA1 wrote:...looks like a freaking AWACS in there. Awesome

They are the Internet workstations for the off duty crew

JohninMK wrote:

TMA1 wrote:...looks like a freaking AWACS in there. Awesome

They are the Internet workstations for the off duty crew

Nah, thats only on USN boats. LGBTqwerty faggotry on-demand, 24-7-365, with double doses on weekends. Optional privacy screens for those who prefer safe spaces. Tax payer supplied toys, lube and tissues. Dedicated crewman to manage the "leisure center".

Really displays the intrinsic superiority of a privately-owned MIC for elite profit...

Yes I am not saying that these subs will not have any vertical launched tubes at all. I am just suggesting that as a modular design (I hope) these subs can be purpose built. I also think the initial Husky's will be ASW orientated and will be relatively small which might exclude them from carrying VL tubes. If the Navy wants a SSGN or a multi-purpose sub they could insert a VL module with say 16tubes - and the same goes for a SSBN.

Removing vertical launch tubes would minimise size and weight of the subs so if they want the smallest lightest cheapest sub it is possible, but vertical launch tubes are useful and make a sub much more capable.

Of course with a double hull and waist mounted torpedo rooms suggest external tubes could be located along the length of the entire sub if they want fire power options.

External tubes is like a torpedo tube but it is not connected to anything. It is loaded at base with a weapon that is always ready to fire but cannot be reloaded so it is a one shot deal, but is always ready to go.

Of course even with a torpedo only sub most of the weapons that go in the vertical launchers have versions that can be loaded into 533mm torpedo tubes too.

I would think the value of the vertical launch tubes probably mean the numbers without them will be small.

First of all, VLS is more optimal as storage than a torpedo compartment, with all reloading mechanisms, crew accommodation, etc.
I would rather consider removing the torpedo room at all, keeping the vertical launched Kalibr family of torpedoes.
Having a VLS capable standard torpedo would spare a lot of space, too

GarryB wrote:

Of course even with a torpedo only sub most of the weapons that go in the vertical launchers have versions that can be loaded into 533mm torpedo tubes too.

AND you can carry quite a large number of weapons in a torpedo room. Just look at the Yasen vs Virginia illustration above. The Yasen has 32 VL launched missiles (that takes up quite a lot of space) compared to the 40 torpedoes etc in the torpedo room/tubes.

BUT let it be known I'm definitely not against VL missile launchers!

The new submarine "Kazan" is capable of carrying hypersonic missiles "Zircon"

The commander of the 11th submarine division of the Northern Fleet Rear Admiral Alexander Zarenkov noted that Kazan is the second ship of the Yasen series and the lead cruiser built according to the modernized Yasen-M project

MOSCOW, August 10. / TASS /. The new Russian Project 885M Yasen-M multipurpose nuclear submarine Kazan, commissioned by the Navy in May, is capable of carrying Zircon hypersonic missiles for strikes against land and sea targets. This was announced by the commander of the 11th submarine division of the Northern Fleet, Rear Admiral Alexander Zarenkov, during a single day of acceptance of military products.

The Rear Admiral recalled that the Kazan is the second ship of the Yasen series and the lead cruiser, built according to the modernized Yasen-M project.

"A feature of the project is the availability of universal launchers that allow the deployment of Onyx anti-ship missiles, Zircon hypersonic missiles or Caliber cruise missiles, which provides the ability to deliver numerous strikes both on surface and ground targets of the enemy," Zarenkov reported Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu.

The division commander noted that the ship "differs from its predecessors in greater stealth, improved maneuvering systems, improved communications and hydroacoustics, and improved living conditions."

Zarenkov added that according to the Navy's development strategy, the Yasen-M submarines are designed to become the backbone of attack submarine forces in the Russian fleet.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/12098003

JohninMK wrote:

TMA1 wrote:...looks like a freaking AWACS in there. Awesome

They are the Internet workstations for the off duty crew

How u gonna get internet underwater?

Towing a cable

OH F*CK YEAH!!!

Borisov confirmed that construction of Yasen subs will continue beyond current order

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/12208869

This is what I'm talking about, stick with what works and buy loads of it, Kilo-style

PapaDragon wrote:
OH F*CK YEAH!!!

Borisov confirmed that construction of Yasen subs will continue beyond current order

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/12208869

This is what I'm talking about, stick with what works and buy loads of it, Kilo-style

This is simply excellent news

First of all, VLS is more optimal as storage than a torpedo compartment, with all reloading mechanisms, crew accommodation, etc.

Torpedo rooms are also used for divers and there is an ability to select a weapon from a torpedo room... and of course the obvious case that if the target is directly in front of you a torpedo will shoot them in the face whereas a vertical launch tube not so much... vertical launch tubes are great for missiles but not so good for actual torpedoes.

Also things like launching mines and recovering divers requires torpedo tubes...

Having a VLS capable standard torpedo would spare a lot of space, too

Not sure how that would work though.... especially with cable guided torpedoes catching on things... going backwards and fouling your own props would not be good...

AND you can carry quite a large number of weapons in a torpedo room. Just look at the Yasen vs Virginia illustration above. The Yasen has 32 VL launched missiles (that takes up quite a lot of space) compared to the 40 torpedoes etc in the torpedo room/tubes.

BUT let it be known I'm definitely not against VL missile launchers!

Seems to me that the preferred arrangement is to have both generally when it is possible to do so.

Launch tubes don't have to be vertical and could be located along the entire length of the sub between the inner hull and outer hull all ready to fire... don't know of any sub that actually has that arrangement but it is certainly possible.

GarryB wrote:Launch tubes don't have to be vertical and could be located along the entire length of the sub between the inner hull and outer hull all ready to fire... don't know of any sub that actually has that arrangement but it is certainly possible.

Pr 677M Andromeda aka Yankee "sidecar"? Now scrapped, and mercifully so. She truly was the Quasimodo of the Soviet submarine fleet

Big_Gazza wrote:
Pr 677M Andromeda aka Yankee "sidecar"?  Now scrapped, and mercifully so.  She truly was the Quasimodo of the Soviet submarine fleet  

She's quite a looker compared to the pr 665

LMFS wrote:
Zarenkov added that according to the Navy's development strategy, the Yasen-M submarines are designed to become the backbone of attack submarine forces in the Russian fleet.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/12098003

The U.S Navy had stated that US naval reactor tech is a generation ahead, relying on 90% HEU to achieve reactor fuel life of > 30 years while Russia's current level of tech uses 40% enriched uranium that requires the boat to be cut open every 10 years to refuel. Is that true?

Sujoy wrote:

LMFS wrote:
Zarenkov added that according to the Navy's development strategy, the Yasen-M submarines are designed to become the backbone of attack submarine forces in the Russian fleet.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/12098003

The U.S Navy had stated that US naval reactor tech is a generation ahead, relying on 90% HEU to achieve reactor fuel life of > 30 years while Russia's current level of tech uses 40% enriched uranium that requires the boat to be cut open every 10 years to refuel. Is that true?

Of course an Indian would believe that nonsense. I got a bridge to sell you.

America says a lot of shit regarding their technology.  You have to refuel every 5+ years for nuclear reactors.  And no, you dont have to cut anything open.

You can answer that question on your own.
Who builds half of the world's atomic energy at the moment, and who has no active program for any NPP, and one bankrupted company attached to this misery?

miketheterrible wrote:I got a bridge to sell you.

Wanna change for a Statue of Liberty?
Machniom?

Sujoy wrote:
The U.S Navy had stated that US naval reactor tech is a generation ahead, relying on 90% HEU to achieve reactor fuel life of > 30 years while Russia's current level of tech uses 40% enriched uranium that requires the boat to be cut open every 10 years to refuel. Is that true?

New russian submarine project 955A, 885M, 09851 and Belgorod probably have brand new reactors that do not need to be refilled for the entire life cycle of a submarine.
Besides, the time after which nuclear fuel is changed depends also on the intensity of the submarine's operation. It is also not that important, because the submarine undergoes many repairs during its life cycle, so you can also replace the fuel.

miketheterrible wrote:

Sujoy wrote:

LMFS wrote:
Zarenkov added that according to the Navy's development strategy, the Yasen-M submarines are designed to become the backbone of attack submarine forces in the Russian fleet.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/12098003

The U.S Navy had stated that US naval reactor tech is a generation ahead, relying on 90% HEU to achieve reactor fuel life of > 30 years while Russia's current level of tech uses 40% enriched uranium that requires the boat to be cut open every 10 years to refuel. Is that true?

Of course an Indian would believe that nonsense.  I got a bridge to sell you.

America says a lot of shit regarding their technology.  You have to refuel every 5+ years for nuclear reactors.  And no, you dont have to cut anything open.

LMAO, I can assure you, the latest reactors developed for the latest classes of American boats, as well as Yasen-M and Borei-A don't need to be refueled every 5-7 years, and you actually very much do have to cut open a submarine hull to refuel the reactor, as was done on older American and Soviet submarines, the only exception is the French, who build in a specific hatch into the hull, but this is a function of them unifying their reactor designs for both surface and submarine fleets which makes such a solution appropriate.