Typhoon class SSBNs future:

Russia set to keep Typhoon class nuclear subs until 2019 - Navy
RIA Novosti

16:3007/05/2010 NOVOROSSIISK, May 7 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's Typhoon class strategic nuclear-powered submarines will remain in service with the Navy until 2019, the Navy commander said on Friday.

The world's largest Typhoon class submarines entered service with the Soviet Navy in the 1980s. Three of the six vessels built are still in use.

"They [the Typhoon class subs] will remain in operation until 2019. They have good modernization potential," Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky said.

The Dmitry Donskoy submarine has been modernized as a test platform for Russia's new Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missile.

Two reserve vessels, the Arkhangelsk and the Severstal, are awaiting overhaul at a naval base in Severodvinsk in northern Russia. They will most likely be modernized to carry new-generation sea-based cruise missiles to match the U.S. Ohio-class submarines.

The Typhoon class subs have a maximum displacement of 33,800 tons and were built to carry 20 SS-N-20 Sturgeon solid-propellant SLBMs, all of which have been retired.

The Typhoons will be replaced in the future with the new Borey class strategic nuclear-powered submarines, which will be equipped with Bulava missiles.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2010/russia-100507-rianovosti05.htm

Always thought the Typhoons would be a good base design for a mothership that carries lots of unmanned and manned mini subs for rescue, espionage, infiltration, etc etc.

There is plenty of space on board for divers as well as very deep diving mini subs etc.

You can carry all the black ops guys you might need or scientists for deep sea research.

It could even be used to monitor underwater cables or pipelines to ensure they are not interfered with... or to do some interfering of your own.

Of course armed with land attack missiles it would also be a formidible platform to suppress an entire country anywhere in the world.

Have read on other forums that the Typhoon class were a white elephant.

If they were useless and expensive wastes of time I wonder why they bother keeping them and upgrading them?

Operationally they were the Soviet Sub most likely to survive to attack the US.

They were specifically designed to operate under the Arctic ice and when ordered to launch they would surface through the ice, their high freeboard meaning the ice around the sub would protect it from torpedo attack. It was supposed to surface through up to about 3 metres of ice and launch its missiles from the surface where the ice protected it from surface ships and sub launched weapons of all types.
To be deployed on a sub is claustrophobic, an example is the Ohio class where hot racking was practised. In other words the crew was split into three shifts so while one shift was sleeping, one was on duty and one had free time so there was only sleeping quarters for 1/3rd the crew because three crewmen shared one bunk to save space. Any free space was for food storage because the length of patrol time for the vessel was dictated by the amount of food they could stow.
On the Typhoon there was an aviary where you could sit and look at real birds, a swimming pool, a weights gym, and a movie theatre and each officer had their own room and every crewman had their own bunk with something like 3 enlisted men to a room. Luxury!

A white elephant? More like the QEII.

What do you expect from journo's Garry ?


i've read that article and the lost count of the inaccuracies in it.

Here an image of Typhoon with ice on top , that big ice would have sunk the titanic



( via Snake65 )

GarryB, is there any plans to convert any Typhoons or other subs as cruise missile carriers? refitting the slbms with uksk launchers? the kh 10x series has tremendous range 5000km

There have been lots of talk of keeping them in service and lots of speculation about what they might be used for, I mean these are huge subs and you could use that to make them super heavily armed vessels with an enormous number of missiles, or you could put a more reasonable number of weapons on board and make it a very long range long duration vessel as the inside volume is enormous so space for crew and food could be used for year long deployments or even longer.
These vessels have separate cabins for officers and rooms for two enlisted men as well as swimming pools, aviaries, two libraries and a movie theatre so there was a lot of space even with 20 SLBMs on board.
The potential is enormous and perhaps includes my favourite idea of making it a research vessel that is a mother ship for a wide variety of mini subs and unmanned underwater exploration vehicles that could be used to deploy special forces or monitor underwater cables etc etc.
The range of options is large... the only option I think unlikely is at one stage they were proposing a large underwater transport vessel to operate under the north pole... which I think would be a waste of potential.

No plans to retire Typhoon class subs soon - Russian military

RIA Novosti

05:20 30/09/2011 MOSCOW, September 30 (RIA Novosti) - A high-ranking source in the Russian Defense Ministry has denied rumors of a planned scrapping of Typhoon class strategic submarines in the near future.

Several media sources reported recently that the Russian military had decided to scrap the world's largest nuclear-powered subs by 2014.

"The Defense Ministry has not made such a decision. The submarines remain in service with the Navy," the official told RIA Novosti on Thursday.

The Typhoon class submarines entered service with the Soviet Navy in the 1980s. Three of the six vessels built are still in use.

The Dmitry Donskoy submarine has been modernized as a test platform for Russia's new Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missile and will remain in this capacity for a long time, the source said.

Two reserve vessels, the Arkhangelsk and the Severstal, are awaiting overhaul at a naval base in Severodvinsk in northern Russia.

"The problem is that they do not have the arsenal of R-39 [SS-N-20 Sturgeon] submarine-launched ballistic missiles anymore, as the production of these missiles in Ukraine stopped in 1991," the source said.

The Typhoon class subs have a maximum displacement of 33,800 tons and were built to carry 20 SS-N-20 SLBMs, all of which have been retired.

Nevertheless, these subs will most likely be modernized to carry new-generation sea-based cruise missiles to match the U.S. Ohio-class submarines.

The Typhoons will be replaced in the future with the new Borey class strategic submarines, which will be equipped with Bulava missiles.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2011/russia-110930-rianovosti02.htm

No, according to rusnavy they will be dismantled beginning 2014.
As we now, the start 3 treaty limits the number of subs, and as the missiles for typhoon is no longer availeble there's no point keeping the su

I think there is a bit of confusion here... and some jumping of the gun.

AFAIK the Russian Navy have said it will be retired as an SSBN, which doesn't mean it will be retired, it means it will no longer be used as an SSBN.

This is not rocket science for two very very obvious reasons.

The first is that the solid fuel SS-N-20 SLBM the Typhoons carried was built in the Ukraine and is no longer in production, nor is it possible to make any more.

This means that it would require a fairly expensive refit to enable it to be converted to Bulava or Liner which can be built.

The second is the new START treaty which will lead to strategic warhead levels to eventually get down to 1,500 each, which is a lot, but split between air land and sea means 500 warheads at sea.

As you could imagine, a Typhoon able to carry 20 missiles each with 10 warheads means 200 warheads per vessel and with three vessels that is more than START will allow... with another 8 Boreis making it pretty hard to justify an air and land component to the nuclear triangle.

Very simply the Russians probably haven't decided what to do with the Typhoons, but I suspect they are an opportunity to do what the US has done with their Ohio class SSBNs and turned them into SSGNs.

If it was up to me I would keep the current model used for testing the Bulava for some time continuing its role of testing missiles, and I would convert the two remaining Typhoons into cruise missile carriers with the naval equivelent of the USUK vertical launch systems.
This would allow the vessel to be a cruise missile arsenal, or an anti ship missile arsenal as it could carry Oniks or Kh-102/101 or Klub/Kalibre missiles in large numbers.
I would also replace obsolete systems and propulsion and sensors with new standardised systems being adopted navy wide. Expensive in the short term but the benefits in the future will be standardisation which will allow unified training, unified spare parts, and of course cost savings with larger orders of a smaller range of components.

When the Bulava testing vessel is no longer needed I would give it a more extensive refit/upgrade and convert it into an underwater research vessel with UUVs and mini subs etc etc but also with new unified propulsion and sensors etc etc.

Let's review...

1) 30 years old
2) no SLBMs to operate
3) money pit in operations and maintenance
4) deteriorating condition
5) stripped of precious metals and gear

It is cheaper to build a new Borei than refit one and much cheaper to operate. Akulas are FINISHED...

It is cheaper to build a new Borei than refit one and much cheaper to operate. Akulas are FINISHED...

Hang on...

It might be cheaper to build a new Borei, but what will you do with another Borei?

If they decide they want a SSGN to match the US Ohio class SSGNs made from Ohio class SSBNs then the Akulas are there and have enormous internal volume and the ability to surface through several metres of ice.

With all its propulsion and machinery changed to new standard reactor designs, plus sensors and equipment standardised then running costs should be reduced.

The internal volume available with increased automation reducing crew requirements could allow the sub to operate for 6 months at a time or more... creating a whole new threat to the US... a large cruise missile carrier that operates in the Southern Atlantic or the Southern Pacific that could be armed with nuclear tipped cruise missiles with a range of 5,000km.

It could be based in Cuba and spend most of its time moving from Cuba round the bottom tip of South America to Vietnam in the Cahm Rahn Bay (spelling) base.

If course its primary purpose could be the anti carrier role, but that could be kept secret by operating it as I have mentioned above.

The size of the vessel means there is plenty of room for sound suppression material and the biggest Sonar ever fitted to a sub, and those 5,000km range cruise missiles could be replaced by Oniks or its scramjet powered hypersonic replacement.

As a "research" vessel it can carry several DSRVs and a large number of UUVs and all sorts of equipment for testing... and we know that research is code for Special Forces platform... after all DSRV or deep submergence rescue vehicle is a contradiction in terms... if a sub sinks in 6km of water you are not going to need a DSRV, because at 6km there would be nothing to rescue with a conventional sub.

BTW argument 4 doesn't wash because as soon as the Boreis hit the water they have the same condition. The Akulas are all covered in sound suppression material like a thick coat of rubber, and the only Akula that has a problem with its external surface was nicknamed Red October, because an SS-N-20 missile slipped while loading and burnt off most of the rubber in a large area that was burned. I believe that vessel is already scrapped.

Converting the Typhoons to SSGNs with strategic nuclear cruise missiles would be a hilarious middle finger to New START, as it fails to account for such weapons in a complete and total lack of foresight. Or maybe it was intentional, with the expectation that the same could be done to Ohio SSGNs as a counter, who knows.

The irony is that being able to base cruise missiles in Europe made US missiles strategic weapons that Russia had to deal with by getting rid of all their IRBM weapons... some of which were very capable weapon systems.

But I am sure the US will take the word of Russia that these missiles are for use against rogue states and will never be directed at them...

They wont need anything on paper to assure them of the good intentions of Russia after all the cold war is over... isn't it?


Regarding the Typhoon they are available large platforms that can either be scrapped or modified for a new purpose.

The running costs of the old Typhoons were higher than other nuke subs because it used two reactors, but technology has moved on since the Typhoons were put to sea and new generation nuclear power plants should reduce the running costs while at the same time allow some standardisation of propulsion and systems across the fleet.

Very simply the Typhoon would need a big powerful reactor, but so will the Kuznetsov after its complete overhaul, and if the Kirov vessels are given upgrades, which seems to be the case then they will also benefit from a newer, safer, more powerful and more efficient nuclear propulsion system. Going for all nuclear propulsion is a bit like the Army going all high tech... expensive, but giving significant advantages in performance... if an arsenal sub like a converted Typhoon is given a mission to get to a region and deliver a missile attack then it will obviously be able to do a better job if there are two and they carry an enormous weapon load of ready to fire missiles. Cruise missiles are like tube artillery shells... after the first one goes off and the target is alerted the rest are much more vulnerable to air defences in the case of cruise missiles, while in the case of artillery shells the later ones do less damage because the enemy forces will have taken cover... that is why modern artillery tries to fire a barrage over a short period and then move. For cruise missiles you want to time multiple attacks so that the impacts occur almost together to add shock value and maximise military damage.

If you scrap the Akulas then there are the OSCARs, but you will never get the numbers of missiles in an Oscar that you can get into Akula. Not that it would hurt the last model Oscars to have their 24 tubes for Granit removed and replaced with 24 UKSK tubes (three launchers might be tricky to fit and the result will likely be either one UKSK VLS on each side for 16 missiles, or perhaps 2 UKSK launchers on each side for 32 launch tubes with Oniks.

The nuclear-armed SSGN conversion of an Ohio or a Typhoon makes sense for another reason I just thought of: all of the systems are already present for arming and releasing nuclear warheads (provided all of the electronics weren't removed from the Ohios). Besides, US air defense is a joke. Stealthy SLCMs could be a huge threat, given you'd have little warning time in the target area to do anything about it. Yeah, you'd probably know where they fired from, but an LO weapon would make tracking and impact prediction a bastard. Then there's the fact that SAM coverage in CONUS is basically nonexistant apart from Washington D.C. with its three SL-AMRAAM batteries. Want to really jerk around with the strategic force balance? Or protest the ABM deployment in Europe in a logical manner (relatively speaking, given that any proposed ABM network represents a laughable threat to Russian strategic weapons delivery...if only they'd complained about AEGIS-BMD first)? Make gigantoid nuke SSGNs out of the Typhoons. Send one to the PACFLT, and one to the NORFLT. Announce plans to do the same with Delta-III/IV vessels that come out of service, along with anything else capable of pretending to be quiet and toting a useful barrage of SLCMs. Plus, like you said, you also retain the use of the vessels for other fun things like special operations and intelligence support. Lots of those old Nike sites are still around. Want to bet on how long it takes for Patriot batteries to start showing up? This would at least force the US to wake up and realize that a large body of water is not a suitable replacement for SAM systems.

Hang on...

We already have Oscar SSGNs so we don't need to spend billions converting and refitting rotted and plundered Akula hulls. If we want cruise missiles on a sub, Oscar is the better choice. Better yet we could make torpedo launched missiles and stick them on Fast Attacks.

Hold on a minute...

The cost to refit, maintain and operate Akula class submarines is twice as high as a new sub. Does it make financial sense to do anything with it when we can build newer and less maintenance and manpower intensive ones for less money? No it doesn't...

Stop the confusion! If you're going to call it an Oscar, call the other a Typhoon! I keep reading Akula, and know that it's the Russian name for the SSBN, but keep thinking of the fast-attack.

No one knows what the Kursk class is. Everyone knows Akula.

We already have Oscar SSGNs so we don't need to spend billions converting and refitting rotted and plundered Akula hulls. If we want cruise missiles on a sub, Oscar is the better choice. Better yet we could make torpedo launched missiles and stick them on Fast Attacks.

If you just want a cruise missile capability for your subs then you don't need to convert or upgrade the Oscars either... most Russian subs will have cruise missile capability... including the conventional subs.

The point of the Ohio class SSGN conversion is not to add cruise missile capacity to the USN... it already has that too.

The main reason the Typhoons/Akulas are not being used as SSBNs is because they have too great a weapon capacity and if Russia kept them in service as SSBNs they would have most of their eggs in three baskets so to speak.

As SSBNs the new Boreis are smaller, much quieter, and carry just enough missiles to allow a reasonable force of about 8 subs to carry Russias naval arm of the nuclear triad.

The point is that the Typhoon/Akula as a shell has the potential to perform the "arsenal sub" role better than any other sub type anywhere... including the US.

The Typhoon/Akula was not a cheap vessel and wont be cheaper than other options, but it was and will be a much more capable platform than pretty much any other sub not designed from the ground up for the purpose.

The Americans like to gloat about how cessnas could penetrate Soviet airspace... or course they also complain when airliners are shot down in Soviet airspace too, so I don't know what they expected the Russian air defence forces to do about a little cessna...

One of the things that bankrupted the Soviet Union was the cruise missile and the enormous cost of creating air defence forces that could cover all of the Soviet Union to protect from them.

Perhaps it is time to get a little of your own back... drug filled cessnas penetrate US airspace all the time... even just two cruise missile filled Typhoon/Akulas would make things very difficult for the US...

Not that restarting the cold war is a goal, but if the US wants Ohio SSGNs then they will have good reasons for that too.

A bigger sub is not easier to find or track, it is noise that gives away subs and a bigger sub can incorporate more silencing material. AFAIK at the moment the Typhoon/Akula currently has a twin hull design with a single outer hull. I would think from a practical point of view that because the missile tubes no longer need internal access that in the missile area a single small tunnel could be fitted to allow access to the bow area, with the entire missile section being separate from the inner hulls... this will save weight and allow the forward area to be shortened. The overall reduction in weight should increase underwater performance and make lower demands on the propulsion.

In fact in the newest subs the Russians have moved the torpedo tubes to a mid way position with all the bow containing an enlarged sonar... using the same configuration on an updated Typhoon/Akula could mean that the entire front could consist of a bow sonar and then vertical launch missiles all the way back to the conning tower with torpedo tubes in the sides and propulsion at the rear.

To compensate for fired missiles in terms of ballast they could simply retain the water in the tubes after the missile has been fired.

Stop the confusion! If you're going to call it an Oscar, call the other a Typhoon! I keep reading Akula, and know that it's the Russian name for the SSBN, but keep thinking of the fast-attack.

I agree with Vlad on this, though I don't want to confuse anyone. Considering we are fans of Russian military equipment we should start using the correct names where the correct names are common knowledge at least.

I would also add that as a bargaining chip another option is to seed confusion about the ultimate fate of the Akulas/Typhoons because as a bargaining chip it costs nothing to do nothing but talk about what they might do, but some options of what they can do are worth things at negotiating tables and other options are not.

"However, written-off submarines could be used for non-strategic needs; for instance, carry cruise missiles or other conventional arms, conduct scientific researches or cargo transportations. Experts of JSC Sevmash which built Project 941 Akula say those subs can be refitted into underwater LNG tankers or cargo carriers used in any season. Nonetheless, defense ministry has no plans for Akula conversion saying refitting works would cost tens of billions.

Earlier on, Rubin design bureau which is Akula developer offered to use Project 941 subs for transportation of commercial cargoes including oil or coal. However, the bureau renounced that idea later having affirmed it was inexpedient"

I think we have seen the Tyhpoons/Akulas done their last voyage, except the one to the scrapyard.
Because really, why would they need that many cruise missiles in expensive subs patrolling for what?

The cold war is over, and for now, and the nearest future, the funds and energy should be spent elsewhere, where it is most important.
Modernize the Kirovs to protect Mistrals for example. Modernize the Slavas too and start the production of new Destroyers.

The Tyhpoons are cold war relics, they did their job back then. Now their time has past. I for one will remember them with awe.

SSBN Dmitry Donskoy Won't Be Dismantled

SSBN Dmitry Donskoy Won't Be Dismantled 02.12.2011
Text: RIA Novosti
Photo: SSBN Dmitry Donskoy. osin.ru
Project 941UM nuclear-powered ballistic submarine (SSBN) Dmitry Donskoy adapted for test launches of Bulava missile will remain in service and take part in trials of new submarines in Severodvinsk, reported RIA Novosti referring to Director General of Sevmash shipyard and Rubin Design Bureau Andrei Diachkov.

The sub was modernized specially for Bulava tests until completion of the missile's standard platform – Project 955 Borei SSBN Yury Dolgoruky.

"Dmitry Donskoy finished her part of the missile tests, and it was said the sub could have been utilized... We reached an agreement with defense ministry that the submarine would be stationed at White Sea Naval Base in order to maintain trials of newly constructed subs", Diachkov said.

He explained that some special operations should be carried out during a submarine's trials. It is so-called 'double sub' test. "To check sonar and arms, the second submarine is needed. Earlier, Northern Fleet command had to remove a combat-worthy submarine from patrol mission and dispatch her to the shipyard", Diachkov said.

According to him, SSBN Dmitry Donskoy has completed her mission as the Bulava testing platform. Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky gave the green light for the sub to be based in Severodvinsk.

"Two other submarines of this project – SSBN Arkhangelsk and SSBN Severstal – are moored at the port of Severodvinsk also awaiting a final decision", said Diachkov.

SSBN Dmitry Donskoy (Akula class, on NATO classification – Typhoon) is the world's biggest nuclear-powered submarine; full displacement is 49,800 tons, length is 172 meters, beam is 23.3 meters; commissioned into the Navy on Dec 12, 1981.

In 2004 the submarine was refitted for SLBM Bulava test launches.

So the DD will be used in testing new subs and will not be going to the scrapyard.

The remaining two Typhoon class subs are awaiting a final decision. Personally I think underwater research vessels would be an excellent use for them... they could be modified to be motherships to all sorts of different manned and unmanned under water vehicles and would be able to carry lots of scientists or if necessary divers.
A SSGN version would allow one vessel to carry a huge number of cruise missiles... recently we saw the west basically take down Libyan air defences with about 120 cruise missiles. The Russian Navy will not be huge so needing to fire that many missiles to achieve a goal will likely use up all the available land attack missiles on most of the boats in a Russian carrier group... having even just a single Akula that can sail at full speed for as long as needed to get anywhere with maybe 400 missile tubes, but high levels of automation with a relatively small crew (remember crew size determines operational times as it is the supply of food that determines the voyage length).

The tubes will be UKSK tubes though the most likely weapon loaded will be the 2,000km land attack Kalibre (Klub) or the 5,500km range Kh-101 conventionally armed cruise missile.

We are all confused.

It is not clear what exactly they will be used for, but they have said that they will be given overhauls and upgrades to extend their operational lives to about 2025.

Their use appears to be in the battle fleet, which suggests to me that they will either be anti ship or land attack missile carriers. The article above mentions a nuclear role, but that could be an anti carrier role or a land attack role.

It is all very ambiguous...

Does the russian navy still use the typhoon class subs in action or what do they do with them?

Surely they cant even think of scrapping the 3 remaining Typhoons. They're awesome, incredible beasts.

How many year would it take just to build the basics of a Typhoon? Keep them. THEN decide what to do. With energy weapons etc emerging, a big hull will be even more useful. And ofcrouse it has space for sound dampening. I like the idea of a mothership, maybe for a fleet of mini unmanned vehciles. Maybe for ABM missiles. Maybe cruise missiles. Maybe a form of stealth delivery of cargoes.Theres a HUGE amount of uses. Who knows park them up for 10 years. But militaries change, technology and doctrines change. And diplomatic situations change. Some here say the Cold War is over. Not if you talk to that deranged imbecile Romney. Russia shouldnt destroy her greatest technologies. EVER.

PS the other thing is that Kirovs, Typhoons etc are more than just ships. They are mobile bases.America has bases near Russia. So Russia needs the same. The base near NY, the base near LA, near Syria. Thats 1 reason why they were build to begin with.