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!
PapaDragon wrote:
As for Yasen they should really keep building them until they reach at least 12 hulls (6 for North and Pacific each)
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.
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.
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.
medo, Big_Gazza, ALAMO, tanino, PapaDragon, littlerabbit, lyle6 and like this post
TMA1 wrote:...looks like a freaking AWACS in there. Awesome
littlerabbit, Hole and TMA1 like this post
JohninMK wrote:TMA1 wrote:...looks like a freaking AWACS in there. Awesome
They are the Internet workstations for the off duty crew![]()
![]()
![]()
kvs and lyle6 like this post
How do you think they manage to stuff twice the crew in much tighter spaces for upwards of 3 months at a time without having to put down mutinies?Big_Gazza wrote:
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...![]()
Big_Gazza and kvs like this post
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.
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.
dino00, Big_Gazza, kvs, PapaDragon, littlerabbit and lancelot like this post
JohninMK wrote:TMA1 wrote:...looks like a freaking AWACS in there. Awesome
They are the Internet workstations for the off duty crew![]()
![]()
![]()
GarryB, franco, George1, Big_Gazza, zepia, x_54_u43, AMCXXL and like this post
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
kvs likes this post
First of all, VLS is more optimal as storage than a torpedo compartment, with all reloading mechanisms, crew accommodation, etc.
Having a VLS capable standard torpedo would spare a lot of space, 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!
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.
Big_Gazza likes this post
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?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
jhelb dislikes this post
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?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
jhelb likes this post
miketheterrible wrote:I got a bridge to sell you.
Big_Gazza, jhelb and miketheterrible like this post
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?
miketheterrible wrote: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?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
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.
Big_Gazza likes this post