Russian Navy: Status and News #6

The US has most of its strategic nukes in is SSBNs, Russia does not. Russia has most of its strategic nuclear warheads in ICBMs.

Russia does not have two enormous oceans on each side of it that has ready access to along most of its coastline.

The Russian Navy do not need to win WWIII for Russia. Their SSBNs just have to launch their missiles at their targets and that is job done.

If you think Russia having more SSBNs would make any difference at all would love to hear that tale.

Russian SSBNs are for deterrence... their existence and presence at sea is a reminder to the entire west that to attack Russia with nuclear weapons will lead to their destruction.

New weapon systems like Poseidon and Thunderbird do the same job but are probably orders of magnitude more cost effective because they don't need to train or be manned... just kept in storage and deployed to be launched when things get nervous.

Ironically the Poseidon could carry multiple small nuclear warheads that could be distributed in deep water along the coast of the US, where superheated steam could be used to devastate their coastline and destroy fisheries and marine life... even without creating any tsunami.

Poseidon could sail up major US rivers and detonate nuclear devices inland for weeks and months and years after the ICBMs and SLBMs and air launched nuclear weapons have done their damage.

Having lots of extra SSBNs wont change the fact that most of humanity is about to get nuked and of course having hundreds of SSBNs is going to make negotiating a new START treaty a bit difficult... after spending trillions of rubles to make SSBNs, to then have to scrap most of them to meet the requirements of a new arms control agreement would be a horrible waste of money and resources.

The US will never agree to limits on aircraft carriers or cruisers or destroyers though.

The advantage of carriers and cruisers and destroyers is that it allows you to sail to countries you can't get to by land and trading with them is a good way to generate income that can help pay for the new ships and subs you need.

If HATO could destroy Kilo class subs like they were nothing then no Russian sub would be safe.

Poseidon could probably destroy an aircraft carrier to smithereens in the open sea and not just in port. The carrier strike group and escort ships might not all be destroyed (depending on Poseidon's strike power) especially if they were miles away from the carrier. An aircraft carrier is the US Navy's most valuable target at least for the cost of the ship and the total air component on it.
But any use against submarines with Posedion torpedoes is nonsense unless it is a question of submarines that are in port.
Against submarines the Poseidon is useless.
Although, the Poseidon would also be an excellent weapon to destroy the American shipbuilding industry.

Podlodka77 wrote:Submarines 671 RTMK; B-138 Obninsk has no activity data, although at the end of last year it was in a video link from TV Zvezda. Deepstorm states that K-448 is in its home base so it is very possible that it is active. In the latest list from July, Navykorabel.ru placed both submarines in inactive status. And with these two submarines it's still not enough, brother Alamo. Leopard, Volk, Samara, Tiger, ex-Magadan and Panthera must finally return to the team. Only Kuzbass, Vepr and Gepard are active. Unfortunately, Pskov and Nizhny Novgorod have been inactive since a few months ago.

There was Combat Appproval episode a few months ago, when one of them was freshly after refit. Danil Moskovsky. The other was aside, at the final stage of refit too, but I don't know the name.
There was even some suggestion that t was calibrated in the process. Which wouldn't be anything strange, as it operated S-10 before.

Morning, bro...

K-414 "Danil Moskovskiy" was decommissioned.
* December 2015; the submarine was placed in reserve (before utilization) in Ara Bay,
* July 2018; official information on decommissioning has not been published. The submarine is still in reserve and is officially part of the 7th submarine brigade.
* April 2019; information appeared on GK "Rosatom" about the utilization of the submarine. The deadline is 2021. Price of works; 250000000 rubles.
* October 28, 2022; the flag of Saint Andrew was lowered on the submarine
* November 22, 2022; submarine towed to "Nerpa" where nuclear fuel will be extracted from the reactor.
* June 2023; the fuel has been removed from the reactor.

http://www.deepstorm.ru/DeepStorm.files/45-92/nts/671RTM/K-414/K-414.htm

Bro, only K-138 Obninsk and K-448 Tambov remain in service.

Should have sold it to China to piss off americans.

Isos wrote:Should have sold it to China to piss off americans.

If nothing else, it is known that K-138 and K-448 have been overhauled and modernized (at least partially) and it is very possible that both submarines will see the year 2030 in service.
On the other hand, there is no progress with the submarines of project 971, which are in modernization - pure debacle..
If someone had told me that the K-328 Leopard (971M) would not be operational even three years after launch, I would have told them that he is crazy.
For God's sake, even the newly built Yasen-M (whose tests are also taking an unacceptably long time after launch) is being put into service sooner.
The fucking "Leopard" was supposed to be active in 2016 according to announcements from 2013. After that, should we say anything normal about VMF?

And that's what annoys me about the Russians about the VMF; promises and non-compliance with deadlines, lies, etc.
Perhaps it is best for them to come out publicly and say; it will be over when it's over.
And while the Russians make fun of Ukroshistanians for corruption, the fact is that they are not flowers either.
Which other country in the world carries out modernization of ships and submarines that last over 10 years, except Russia?


Mark my words; Russia will NEVER have 24 SSGN submarines and Russia will NEVER have 24 project 22350 frigates. Maybe ONLY in 2050.
The Russians are also unable to build 24 project 20380/20385 corvettes because a total of 18 have been delivered or are being built (19 with 20386) while additional corvettes are not even mentioned. In short, there is no contract for additional corvettes.
A country that is incompetent and that allows its fleet to be weaker than in 1999, even after 23 years after Yeltsin, deserves nothing but criticism.
Without a strong VMF Russia can only be what it is now, a strong regional power with nuclear weapons.

I will write unapologetically;  The Russian VMF is a freak and unloved child of the Russian state, with a brand new fleet of SSBN submarines and with outdated and facelifted (it's hard to make a girl out of a grandma) but newly manufactured 636.3 submarines.

As with any other system, there would be countermeasures. But the starting point may be the basing points of the subs, in which surroundings (that could be in a radius of maybe hundreds of km) a Poseidon could wait for months and years laying in the seabed, almost impossible to be found and listening in passive mode until a target appears. wrote:

Poseidon won't be able to lie at the bottom for a year and wait for the SSBN.
On-board systems, batteries, etc. will probably not last a year.
When it close to the shores of the USA, it will be detected by a network of hydrophones. Poseidon's sonar is too small to detect SSBNs from hundreds of kilometers away, that's bullshit. Even large SSN sonars have huge problems with this. Russia is unable to track American SSBNs. Moreover, the few SSNs that Podlodka77 writes about are not even able to protect Russian zones, let alone track SSBNs. Therefore, the nonsense that Russia has a significant advantage in its nuclear arsenal is just nonsense. It is unable to carry out decapitation strikes on the USA.

Podlodka77

"he Navy commissariat, for financial reasons, considers it inappropriate to repair and modernize the Nerpa, located at one of the shipyards near Vladivostok, and proposes to dispose of it,” said the agency’s interlocutor. At the beginning of the summer of 2021, Chakra-2, accompanied by ships of the Pacific Fleet, made transition on the surface from India to Vladivostok. According to available data, before this, in April 2020, a high-pressure air cylinder exploded on board the submarine, as a result of which both of its hulls were damaged. Electronic weapons and hydroacoustic equipment were also damaged. After which the submarine was prematurely The agency's interlocutor noted that after the emergency, Indian specialists carried out repairs on both hulls of the nuclear submarine, after which it returned to Russia."

Arrow wrote:

Poseidon won't be able to lie at the bottom for a year and wait for the SSBN.
On-board systems, batteries, etc. will probably not last a year.
When it  close to the shores of the USA, it will be detected by a network of hydrophones. Poseidon's sonar is too small to detect SSBNs from hundreds of kilometers away, that's bullshit. Even large SSN sonars have huge problems with this. Russia is unable to track American SSBNs. Moreover, the few SSNs that Podlodka77 writes about are not even able to protect Russian zones, let alone track SSBNs. Therefore, the nonsense that Russia has a significant advantage in its nuclear arsenal is just nonsense. It is unable to carry out decapitation strikes on the USA.

I am not saying it can detect subs from hundreds of km away, in fact that depends a lot on factors like navigation speed and local hydrological conditions, so throwing a number would be rather pointless. I just point out that they could spread around known areas where enemy subs tend to converge, but still at distances and in conditions (due to terrain masking, depth, speed, search area for enemy ASW etc.) from the shore relatively safe to operate. As to the rest of the post, feel free to think what you want, if you don't realize how destabilising this concept can be.

Poseidon is a good foundation for the development of new versions of ultra-long-range UUVs.
Instead of a nuclear payload a sonar dome or a towed sonar array could be added.
Such a UUV could scan the oceans for months in a row, calling in ASW units in the event of
a conflict.

Mark my words; Russia will NEVER have 24 SSGN submarines and Russia will NEVER have 24 project 22350 frigates. Maybe ONLY in 2050.
The Russians are also unable to build 24 project 20380/20385 corvettes because a total of 18 have been delivered or are being built (19 with 20386) while additional corvettes are not even mentioned. In short, there is no contract for additional corvettes.

It was never the plan...

Nor do they need so many subs. Do you know how expensive it is. If they want numbers, they can build diesel subs.

This is the Amur-950 with VLS modules that can act as a mini SSGN. With upgraded kalibr-M and their 4000km range it is enough to strike safely any part of the world.

Isos, with all due respect but that is a wrong opinion...


How much do hundreds and hundreds of S-400 system launchers cost, how much do hundreds and hundreds of helicopters and planes cost.
How much do 12 Borei submarines cost ?
Until a few years ago, Russia had more than 24 SSN/SSGN submarines in service, but not all of them were operational.
By what logic is there money for everything, including SSK and SMS submarines like K-329 Belgorod and project 09851 "Khabarovsk", but no money for SSGN submarines ?

Submarine brigade includes 6 submarines.
The Northern Fleet has three submarine brigades ; 11th, 24th and 7th. Their composition is now incomplete, but they are not extinguished, and therefore that means something.
The Pacific Fleet has the 10th division, which currently has 9 submarines, that is, one and a half brigades. Therefore three more submarines are missing for two submarine brigades.

I'm not a megalomaniac and I don't dream of aircraft carriers and nuclear destroyers, but a decent fleet made up of frigates (somewhat larger displacement than the current 22350) and MANDATORY SSGN submarines. Russia has bombers and aviation as well as coastal anti-ship batteries and the fleet would still be defensive, but at least it would be a decent fleet.

One SSGN is around 1 billion $.

S-400 launchers are probably less than 100k. What's expensive is the radars.

They will have 24 SSN/SSGN easily. 12 Yasen + 8 Oscar + 8 akula/victor/Sierra. But not 24 SSGN. They also have those 3 or 4 Poseidon carriers.

The Husky will replace the last three and Oscar are modernized with 48 oniks launchers with for sure Zirkon capability too.

They don't need more. If they want to distract the US navy they can just sell 12 Yasen (first gen) to China. Actually US navy has its hands full with the chinese navy right now even of they lack good SSN.

US have only 50 SSN and 4 SSGN. Russia has diesel subs and is not crazy to fight in the middle of the pacific or atlantic.

Isos wrote:One SSGN is around 1 billion $.

S-400 launchers are probably less than 100k. What's expensive is the radars.

They will have 24 SSN/SSGN easily. 12 Yasen + 8 Oscar + 8 akula/victor/Sierra. But not 24 SSGN. They also have those 3 or 4 Poseidon carriers.

The Husky will replace the last three and Oscar are modernized with 48 oniks launchers with for sure Zirkon capability too.

They don't need more. If they want to distract the US navy they can just sell 12 Yasen (first gen) to China. Actually US navy has its hands full with the chinese navy right now even of they lack good SSN.

US have only 50 SSN and 4 SSGN. Russia has diesel subs and is not crazy to fight in the middle of the pacific or atlantic.

Isos, I understand you now...  
By SSGN I consider all new submarines because all SSGN submarines have the ability to launch cruise missiles; Virginia, Suffren, Astute, Yasen...
To me, the SSN designation is outdated, although in the US they still designate the Virginia class that way.
What I mean is that Russia must have at least 24 attack nuclear submarines and we agreed on that.

UKSK will be installed on any new ship or sub for the russian navy.

But real SSGN with more than 16 vls are too big to really fight in a sub vs sub engagement. It's like for fighter jet, agile, fast and light. That's why they can't just have Yasen and need a Husky.

Keep some 8 to 10 VLS for antiship missiles and anti sub rockets but don't let it impact on antisub capabilities. That's why I don't considere Yasen a replacement for Akula and Sierra.

You are not right...
The surface displacement for the 971 project is 8140 to 8400+ tons, depending on the variant, while the Yasen does not exceed 8600 tons.
Even in underwater displacement, it is less than 1000 tons. It is very likely that the displacement of the Yasen-M submarines is even smaller, although the Russians will never give us real data.
Yasen-M submarines generally have a single hull and this is where parity in mass is achieved.

The 949A submarine has a surface displacement of 14,700 tons.

Check for Sierra and Victor.

Akula are big because of their double hull design. Yasen is 20m longer than akula. Without the double hull, it would be much lighter than the yasen.

Victor class is one of the best design for a SSN. Sierra has the advantage of having titanium hull also but too expensive for today.

We agree on that. If the future submarine had a single hull and a length of up to 110 meters and a slightly larger diameter than the 671 RTM(K), the full displacement would most likely be below 10,000 tons.
Project 945 and 945A (Sierras) submarines used lighter but stronger titanium for the inner hull.
If nothing else, at least due to the resistance of titanium to the test of time, it is desirable to modernize the existing submarines.

What is the purpose of such a fleet?

Have you not seen what Ukraine did to the BSF?

And you want more junk hulls?

Russia does not need such a huge fleet, it can continue to build small missile river ships for the small closed seas

And for the Atlantic and pacific,  the current numbers are sufficient,

Frigates will do for the bigger oceans, and Maybe a couple of destroyers/cruisers , maybe 12-18 later in the future once the helicopter carriers are finished and they lay down some carriers , of which maybe 2 or 3 are needed

SSGN numbers are fine, 1 sub per carrier, you don't need more

The days are large fleets is over, if you invade a 3rd world country, you can do it with 2 frigates, 2 diesel subs, 2 destroyers, and 1 carrier and 1 helicopter carrier

That's literally all you need for Syria style intervention,

If you are in a high intensity conflict, half that fleet will be at the bottom of the sea anyway

It's 2024 guys, the era of hypersonic missiles and nuclear torpedoes is here

Wake up guys

1 22350 frigate with a salvo of 16 zircon will end whatever you put in front of it,

And 1 yasen with zircon will be even scarier

The rest is irrelevant, what are you gonna do? Hunt subs with ships and more subs?

It's a waste of money, lay down the Garmony sonar net, and lay down skiff modules with torpedoes and have some comms for nearby subs to respond when an enemy sub is detected

The means of naval warfare have completely changed

And here we are talking about ww2 tactics and fleet numbers

Russia needs to build up the ports in the Arctic including Murmansk. And they need to open up the Northern Sea Route.
They also need to build more frigates and some destroyers. Plus several more large corvettes.

The ships will be necessary to deter Western piracy activities.

lancelot wrote:Russia needs to build up the ports in the Arctic including Murmansk. And they need to open up the Northern Sea Route.
They also need to build more frigates and some destroyers. Plus several more large corvettes.

The ships will be necessary to deter Western piracy activities.

The Northern sea route leads to the bering strait

And the other way goes to the UK-GI gap

These are chokepoints that can be blocked like the bosphorus

This is geography, and it's impossible to change

If anything, before Russia worries about laying down ships, the main concern should be naval bases to establish replenishment and resupply points close to major sea lanes of trade

The base in Vietnam was closed, but recently the VMF stopped in Myanmar and Bangladesh , specifically Chittagong port

Also was there any progress with the base in Sudan? No there are 2 wars which have effectively blocked in the red sea

So it's the same problem as always

Well if trade flows increase here then a need for a presence will be great

But right now Russia does not have such a high volume of trade, so it will take time one way or the other

Poseidon could probably destroy an aircraft carrier to smithereens in the open sea and not just in port.

And a strategic bomber carrying strategic nuclear armed cruise missiles could probably destroy a carrier too, but its main problem is that it is intended to hit fixed targets on enemy territory so getting it to find and hit targets moving at sea would be almost impossible.

The Poseidon hits ports or fixed positions at sea where its nuclear explosion would have the greatest effect... it wont be able to detect if there is a ship or sub nearby, and certainly wont be able to find shipping to destroy. Satellite images show aircraft carriers easily enough and conventional subs can launch nuclear armed torpedoes into the paths of carrier groups they wont need to get anywhere near.

Why waste a Poseidon doing that?

Although, the Poseidon would also be an excellent weapon to destroy the American shipbuilding industry.

Poseidon is an underwater cruise missile intended to hit fixed targets of high value, taking out a major port would make sense. Trying to get subs or ships with it would be difficult and not likely to succeed.

Mark my words; Russia will NEVER have 24 SSGN submarines and Russia will NEVER have 24 project 22350 frigates. Maybe ONLY in 2050.

Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of the word never.... especially when shouted.

Did it occur to you that they don't need 24 SSGNs and they don't need 24 frigates right now and that other things are a bit more important?

New Frigates are nice, but real nuclear powered destroyers and cruisers would be more useful in international waters.

On-board systems, batteries, etc. will probably not last a year.

How long do onboard systems and batteries last on an SSN? The 3 month tour of duty for SSNs is normally because that is how much food they can carry and much longer than that and the crew goes a bit stir crazy, but Poseidon stores no food and no crew so what are its limits.

Poseidon's sonar is too small to detect SSBNs from hundreds of kilometers away, that's bullshit.

Very true, but a torpedo the size of Poseidon could carry literally hundreds of small nuclear warheads... 10KT warheads used in 152mm artillery shells weigh about 40kgs each... you could stack enormous numbers in Poseidon... it has unlimited range and could sail to a launch area used by western subs and just sow the sea floor with these nuclear warheads... create a grid and place them every 4-5km apart on the sea floor... the blast radius of a 10KT nuke is going to be 5-6km for each bomb, so maybe put them 12km apart, and then when you are done set them all off at once... bound to get something...

The point is that that same warhead load could be used up and down the US coastline to render their ocean access radiated and damaged... which is what a dooms day device is supposed to do.

I'm not a megalomaniac and I don't dream of aircraft carriers and nuclear destroyers, but a decent fleet made up of frigates (somewhat larger displacement than the current 22350) and MANDATORY SSGN submarines.

But you are... you want Russian subs to be produced in the most numbers and be the biggest fleet, but that is expensive and is of no use to the Russians in the future.

It does not help future Russia to have more subs than the US in any way.

The number of SSGNs will not effect anything at all in peace or during a war.

Frigates are home sea use, and while they are useful, they do not help boost trade or protect trade relations with countries around the world.

One SSGN is around 1 billion $.

S-400 launchers are probably less than 100k. What's expensive is the radars.

More importantly 1,000 S-400 launchers in 250 S-400 batteries give Russia an excellent view of the air space around them with their radar and systems, and keep much of Russian airspace safe from a wide range of enemy air threats.

Not perfect obviously but serious limits an enemies options for an air attack on Russia because S-400 wont just blunt such an attack, it will brutalise it... and used in conjunction with airborne radar like A-50 and A-100 it can hit targets at extreme range right down to ground level.

Except there is no higher value target than an enemy SSBN filled to the brim with thermonuclear warheads. They call it left of launch. If Russia is going to bother with a very expensive and destabilizing weapons program why stop at retaliation? End the threat before the war even starts and dictate the peace. You're not only saving millions of Russian lives but millions of American lives too.

And besides Tailing an SSBN with Poseidon is not even that hard..

It has an unlimited endurance. It can sit at the mouths off submarine bases and patrol areas for months if not years. Its superior stealth means an SSBN can spend its entire patrol without detecting that it has been followed the entire time.

And if you do detect it God help you if it has a 200MT nuclear warhead onboard because there is simply no escape. Can't outrun it and you can't shoot it - it can be a hundred miles away and it will still annihilate you.

It has an unlimited endurance. It can sit at the mouths off submarine bases and patrol areas for months if not years. wrote:

There is no such thing as unlimited stamina. Poseidon is a very complex beast. It can certainly sail to its destination for a long time, covering hundreds of thousands of nautical miles. It is doubtful that it could remain submerged for years. There are many independent power systems with batteries, etc., which will run out of power within months or years, especially if it were to lie at the bottom somewhere and be undetected.

And if you do detect it God help you if it has a 200MT nuclear warhead onboard because there is simply no escape. Can't outrun it and you can't shoot it - it can be a hundred miles away and it will still annihilate you. wrote:

200 MT will not climb Poseidon - it is physically impossible. The 200 MT load is too large. You can't get around physics.

Podlodka77 wrote:
If some people find the construction of Borei submarines impressive, on the other hand, it is sad for me to see the desperate state of Russian attack nuclear submarines. The Russian VMF has never been weaker and Russia has 6 active attack nuclear submarine.

Just made a quick calculation.

Since 2019 Russia commisioned 125 000 tons of nuclear submarine, 12 000 tones of conventional submarine, and 25 000 tons of surface ships.

USA commisioned 71 000 tons of submarine. 140 000 tons of corvetes/destroyers, and 70 000 tons of amphibious landing ships and docks.

Considering that one tons of surbmarine cost approximately the same, the Russian capacity to make submarines close twice as big than the USA capacity.

Since 2019 Russia commisioned 6 submarine, USA 7 .

What else can I say ?

And that was in peacetime, now the Russian shipyards most likelly increased dramatically they capacity.

85% of the Russian shipbuilding is submarine, 25% of the US capacity is submarine .


Virginia not comparable with the Oscar or Yassen.

The Russian carriers capable to strike with supersonic weapons ships thousand kms away - in practice they can clean up of ships a 1200-2000 km circle .

Any ships , with only few rockets.

Other hands, the virginias with the outdated tomahawks could be happy to sink one small naval ship with all of the missiles in they disposal.