Thoughts on Yasen class SSN

[speed150mph]

The launch of the most advanced submarine in the Russian navy is a very big deal. This submarine may, if it stands up to reputation, be a competitor against the legends, sea wolf, Virginia, 212 ect... Call me insane but I have never seen the truth in the claims of a "junk heep" Russian submarine fleet. I maintain that aside from electronics and stealth, Russians have the best submarine builders in the world. after-all, look at what they have built in the past. Their sub hulls go faster, dive deeper, are more structurally rugged, and have a far larger and more diverse arsenal then anything anyone else makes. however, this is just my opinion and many will disagree.

But I want to know what the subsim community thinks about this new Russian vessel. You can see a great resemblance between her and her parent class, the venerable Akula class. if reports can be believed, this sub is silent up to 28 knots with a 35 knot top speed, this sub can dive down to an astonishing 600M. being set up with a new spherical sonar and WAA sensor suite, this sub makes an astonishing leap in sensors over past Russian designs. following the Russian doctern of being armed to the teeth, It is reported to have 8 650mm and 2 533mm torpedo tubes, no doubt set up to carry the vast array of weapons designed for these tubes, including ASW missiles, mobile mines, and the Shkval II rocket torpedo. on top of that it has 32 VLS silos carrying the old klub ASM, ASW, and LAM missiles, plus the new long range nuclear capable Kalibr missile.

Now of course it being a new sub fresh from sea trials, its very possible that much of this information is incorrect in either over or underestimations. but that aside, what are your thoughts on Russia's most recent creation?


it

[Madox58]

:hmmm:
How soon will we see it on TV along with past greats?

[CCIP]

Actually the Russians have been pretty good at electronics as far as subs go. Russian subs have always relied on more automation and smaller but more specialized crews than their Western counterparts.

That said, I'm not very positive about the Yasen. The shape of the naval manufacturing industry in Russia is pretty poor right now. They have lost a lot in the last 25 years. I am skeptical of the actual "newness" of this, and actually believe these to be a "recycled" and somewhat upgraded Akula with little new tech. There has been a lot of pressure from the government on the arms manufacturing industry to produce trumped-up showpieces, and I think this is just another one.

There are some good signs here and there, but I don't think Yasen is it. It's built on a solid foundation from the Akula, and it's probably a good sub... assuming the Russians have the resources to maintain it in top shape. But it's not a revolutionary design, and in my estimation, not even close to the Virginia or Seawolf. But more than that, I don't think the Russian navy is currently capable of operating a large fleet of modern nuclear subs effectively, at all. It's going to take a lot of deliberate work for them to do so, work that is probably not worth it. I think Russia's submarine fleet needs a major rethink.

[Admiral Halsey]

I've always thought the Russian's are a bit unfairly treated when it comes to sub. We seem to forget that with the way they build them it takes a lot of punishment to actually sink them. Damage that would sink a US sub(Take your pick.) would only just damage theirs with the subs still being operable.(Abate they'd still have to return to port but a damaged yet still surviving sub is better then a sunk one.)

[Jimbuna]

IMO a lot will depend on how stealthy or undetectable she is because once she unleashes any of the vast armaments she is supposed to have, she will reveal herself and even though she may be able to take more damage than a western sub, or so it is believed, she would be prosecuted to death.

I agree with the comments made by CCIP....probably an upgrade with a few improvements.

[CCIP]

Oh, survivability has absolutely been something the Russians have always put a lot of effort into (and that's been since they started building subs in general). As far as forward thinking and unique systems, there's no denying the Russians still have some pretty awesome achievements as far as weapons, automation, hull construction, etc. etc. etc.

The problem is that there's a difference between inventing and testing something, and being able to field it as an effective operational weapon. I don't for a moment doubt either the Russian engineers who design these, nor the men who operate the submarines. The problem is that everything else in Russia is in a very sorry state right now, and that gets in the way. It's easy to create something on paper that sounds amazing, but there's no shortcut to making it truly effective, and I don't believe Russia can.

Same can be said of Russia's civilian aviation industry, for example. They have some unique aircraft. On paper, their planes look no worse if not better than Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier or Embraer etc. - and they have no less if not more experience building planes, in theory. But one look at the safety and reliability record of Russian aviation lately and you begin to see that actually, it's in serious trouble and for all earnest effort, can't get out of it even with major Western involvement. How an autonomously-designed, natively maintained and terribly underfunded submarine fleet can do better is, well, an open question...

BTW, I say all this as a native-born Russian with lots of links to the old country, and even some relatives/friends who work in shipbuilding, engineering, or have sailed on Navy ships :)

[Skybird]

I've always thought the Russian's are a bit unfairly treated when it comes to sub. We seem to forget that with the way they build them it takes a lot of punishment to actually sink them.
More of their subs already sunk (or were close to) without any punishment than of ours, if I am not mistaken!? And the fear of radiation amongst Sovjet submariners...?!

I would prefer a German, British or American sub to board before a Russian, I admit. Like I would prefer to board a modern German, British or American tank before Russian T-series.

Their fighters however - there, things start to become interesting. The SU-30 and later versions are impressive, and potent in radar and armament.

[CCIP]

I would prefer a German, British or American sub to board before a Russian, I admit. Like I would prefer to board a modern German, British or American tank before Russian T-series.

There are some nice things about being aboard Russian subs, though :know:

For one, because Russian subs have less than half the number of crew of equivalent Western subs, there is usually quite a bit more room aboard - and despite the stereotypes of everything Russian being uncomfortable, there is a long tradition in the Russian nuke fleet for taking care of the physical and psychological comfort of the crew. It's equally accounted for in the design of subs and the culture among the men. The Typhoons even have that famous "swimming pool" on board! And as I mentioned before, on average - Russian submarine crews are more professionalized, older and have more education than Western counterparts (which isn't a knock against the top-notch Western submariners at all! - just taking it on average and as a reflection of the different service culture). So all in all, you would probably be in pretty good company at least.

[Mr Quatro]

But I want to know what the subsim community thinks about this new Russian vessel. You can see a great resemblance between her and her parent class, the venerable Akula class. if reports can be believed, this sub is silent up to 28 knots with a 35 knot top speed, this sub can dive down to an astonishing 600M. being set up with a new spherical sonar and WAA sensor suite, this sub makes an astonishing leap in sensors over past Russian designs.

Now of course it being a new sub fresh from sea trials, its very possible that much of this information is incorrect in either over or underestimations. but that aside, what are your thoughts on Russia's most recent creation?


No sub is silent at 28kts on the surface or under the ocean not to mention the top speed is probably well over 45kts ... what is 600M is that 900 feet?

She can probably go well below that another 300 feet easy.

As for being better only a post war critique sheet can determine that. China and Russia building submarines and third world countries wanting their old ones makes me worry more than Russia building a better submarine.

One more thought I do not and can not understand Russia having more officers than enlisted men onboard their boats. Does not make sense unless they think officers are smarter lol

[VipertheSniper]

FYI 600M is almost 2000 ft.

[Madox58]

what is 600M is that 900 feet?


Back to school for you!
:har:

[Mr Quatro]

My bad ... I couldn't think over 10M 33ft sailboat. Older American problem :haha:

Yes, almost 2,000 ft is good enough to hide in all they need now is a thermal layer to hide from ASW

[Karle94]

The Yasen is actually based more on a cancelled upgraded Alfa than the Akula.

The Ohio is very quiet at 25 kts, that`s 1970s ere tech, so a top modern sub should be able to go faster while remaining at least as quiet.

[speed150mph]

I wanna thank everyone for their feedback, and many interesting points were made.

One thing I wanted to note was the ruggedness of Russian subs. Ill take one of the most memorable failures that everyone holds over Russia. The Kursk incident. While there is still much controversy, I feel that the official record of the HTP practise torpedo exploding in the tube to be the most credible. But lets look at the sub itself. In the two explosions large enough to register on coastal seismometers, the entire torpedo ordinance exploded, upwards of 8 tons of explosives combined. Despite this however, the missile tubes remained intact, the reactors were never breached, and the crew had survived for a time in the aft 2 compartments. Take this in comparison where a British sub had been lost earlier to just a single of these torpedos going off. its food for thought...

and second id like to talk about crews. I never brought that up. all the points listed above are very apt. Russian submarines do appear to be designed with crew comfort in mind, which is counter to the stereotypes. The automation, the layouts, the amenities and better use of space makes them better for the crews. The crews do seem to be fairly well trained, and possibly because of the "lessons learned in blood" from past disasters and near misses, the crews are more focused and alert. that too is food for though...

I am willing to agree with the general consensus that while the Russians possess great designs the current state of the country limits their effectiveness. But does anyone notice any positive changes in this direction? It seems that while not fully recovered, that the Russian government and economy are showing promising signs of recovery.

[nikimcbee]

I don't think any of this matters until Russia can figure out safety measures on their boats.:dead:

Starting timer now for their first tragic onboard fire.:dead::down:

[Admiral Halsey]

More of their subs already sunk (or were close to) without any punishment than of ours, if I am not mistaken!? And the fear of radiation amongst Sovjet submariners...?!

I would prefer a German, British or American sub to board before a Russian, I admit. Like I would prefer to board a modern German, British or American tank before Russian T-series.

Their fighters however - there, things start to become interesting. The SU-30 and later versions are impressive, and potent in radar and armament.

Due to accidents Skybird not actual battle damage. They way they build them would allow them to survive more torpedoes then any sub the US , Brit's or Germans have.

[Jimbuna]

Due to accidents Skybird not actual battle damage. They way they build them would allow them to survive more torpedoes then any sub the US , Brit's or Germans have.

Won't disagree there but they have to do a better job of detecting them first.

[CCIP]

To take the positive side, and ignoring the comparisons to Western subs for a while - Yasen is a good ship, and an important and necessary ship to build for the Russian arms industry and navy. It's a step in the right direction and I hope it operates well. It's necessary in the same way as reactivating the Kuzetsov and the Kirov cruisers was for the surface fleet - it gives valuable experience, even if the platform itself isn't of especially great combat value, or can't quite match the West.

In the long run, Russia really needs to reorient its submarine fleet to suit actual needs and resources, not grandiose ambitions. They need to seriously downscale and simplify their nuke fleet, get rid of overly large and complex subs of way too many types, and instead create a small, modern elite core of small, lean, capable SSNs. And in the meantime, they need to put significantly more resources into making more practical and capable AIP subs. Those can cover a good 80%-90% of Russia's actual needs as far as submarines go, and then a modern SSN core can be there to do the rest. I hope that it's all moving in the right direction, but sadly the Russian political tendency for grandstanding and using weapons as propaganda pieces rather than practical combat platforms keeps getting in the way.

[Mr Quatro]

Project 885 Yasen class nuclear submarine building program is over 20 years old due to funding mostly.

The lead ship Severodvinsk was built in Severodvinsk classified lately as a 'carrier destroyer' more than a ASW submarine.

The second boat Kazan is more advanced with the latest sonar sensors and is more in line as ASW weapon, but the optimistic plan of one a year will be hard to complete giving the Russians track record.

This class submarine is reported to have a rescue chamber designed to hold the entire crew of 90 men.

Too bad they don't have an open house in San Francisco on Treasure Island I would sure like to see inside of one ... all the secrecy keeps them moving, uh?

[Skybird]

Due to accidents Skybird not actual battle damage.

That's my - ironic - point.

The theory on them lasting so very long, is just this: a theory, untested. We have not shot torpedoes into soviet/russian subs recently. So in the end, it did not even take torpepos to have them lose or seriously damage more submarines than the "weaker" constructions used in the West. Might be lacking manufacturing quality. Might be deficits in training, lacking discipline, might be whatever, I don't know. But seems to be a fact, or not?

[Admiral Halsey]

That's my - ironic - point.

The theory on them lasting so very long, is just this: a theory, untested. We have not shot torpedoes into soviet/russian subs recently. So in the end, it did not even take torpepos to have them lose or seriously damage more submarines than the "weaker" constructions used in the West. Might be lacking manufacturing quality. Might be deficits in training, lacking discipline, might be whatever, I don't know. But seems to be a fact, or not?

Ok let's look at some of the nuclear subs they've lost that actually were sunk due to the accidents. K-27 had a reactor incident that forced the Soviet Navy to scuttle her. K-8 was lost under tow after a fire onboard her. K-219 had a missile explode and sank while she was under tow. K-429 sank after diving before she was ready. The only sub that sank due to what could be considered the the equivalent of battle damage was the Kursk and she would've made it had that that first explosion not set off the the rest of her Torps. So if you add the tally up you've got one scuttling, two sunk while under tow, one sunk due to diving before she was ready and the last one sunk after all her torpedoes exploded. So if you look over the facts the Russian Nuclear Submarine program while having double the losses the US has isn't as bad as the record seems.(Oh there was one more nuke sub that sank but she had been decommissioned already so she doesn't count in this.)

[CCIP]

Yeah, if you look at the record, most of the Russian submarine losses are either from deficient maintenance, or from operating poorly-tested equipment of some form. Kursk seems to fall under this too.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

The theory on them lasting so very long, is just this: a theory, untested. We have not shot torpedoes into soviet/russian subs recently. So in the end, it did not even take torpepos to have them lose or seriously damage more submarines than the "weaker" constructions used in the West. Might be lacking manufacturing quality. Might be deficits in training, lacking discipline, might be whatever, I don't know. But seems to be a fact, or not?

It is an observation, for which multiple theories are possible. What is true is that the Russian submarine fleet, must, simply by being a larger percentage of its total naval personnel than say the US fleet, inevitably less elite.

Then there is the less "thick" technical maintenance base ...

And the automation is sometimes also a factor against them. In his book Sea of Fire, Deputy Designer Romanov complains the Navy expanded and lowered the technical qualifications of the crew compared to his plan (but what did you expect, Romanov. You know that a submarine without what are effectively apprentice slots is not a long term sustainable situation). But he points out the small size of the chemical service, and how no one was actually regularly in Compartment 7 (where the fire started). One cannot help but think that for all the weaknesses of the crew, if it was twice as large (US-sized), might have been able to monitor the oxygen-level monitors better and someone (presumably a first-year conscript being bullied by his seniors) would have been left in Compartment 7. He sees the fire when it first emanates (rather than noticing it when he returns to prepare the readiness report), immediately puts a fire extinguisher on it ... one disaster avoided. All the other weaknesses of the ship and crew never make it to light.

In the long run, Russia really needs to reorient its submarine fleet to suit actual needs and resources, not grandiose ambitions. They need to seriously downscale and simplify their nuke fleet, get rid of overly large and complex subs of way too many types, and instead create a small, modern elite core of small, lean, capable SSNs. And in the meantime, they need to put significantly more resources into making more practical and capable AIP subs. Those can cover a good 80%-90% of Russia's actual needs as far as submarines go, and then a modern SSN core can be there to do the rest. I hope that it's all moving in the right direction, but sadly the Russian political tendency for grandstanding and using weapons as propaganda pieces rather than practical combat platforms keeps getting in the way.

Actually, there aren't that many types left, and how much further down can you really downscale the fleet? Remember that Russia is not a US-auxiliary like most of the West really is.

However, I agree with you to the extent that they might be interested in restarting Victor-III production. It is said that the later Victor-IIIs, being progressively improved, are actually not too bad at silencing, and if they update it with the latest stuff and mass produced it might make for a good quantity sub. Maybe have a "Victor-IV" (what shall we call it in Russian, Project 671-RTMKU?) SSN, use the Yasens as an elite SSGN with the best silencing and sonars for the difficult jobs, and build Boreis. Actually, I won't prioritize Boreis. Russia needs more conventional forces, even if that means subsisting on Delta IIIs. Then pop a few Ladas to further bolster the ranks.

It would also make for a nice career progression for the Russian Navy. Get in, group commander -> division commander -> BCh Commander (he's a Captain-Lieutenant by now) -> Assistant Commander -> Senior Assistant -> Lada Captain (by now, he's 30 or a bit more ... Captain 3rd Rank?) -> Senior Assistant of nuclear powered submarine -> Victor Captain -> "Submerged Cruiser" Captain (by now he's 40) -> Brigade/Division commander. Something like that.

[Admiral Halsey]

Yeah, if you look at the record, most of the Russian submarine losses are either from deficient maintenance, or from operating poorly-tested equipment of some form. Kursk seems to fall under this too.

Kursk was more carelessness then anything else. If they hadn't kept that torpedo that got banged around while loading then she's still sailing today.

[Aktungbby]

To take the positive side, and ignoring the comparisons to Western subs for a while - Yasen is a good ship, and an important and necessary ship to build for the Russian arms industry and navy. It's a step in the right direction and I hope it operates well. It's necessary in the same way as reactivating the Kuzetsov and the Kirov cruisers was for the surface fleet - it gives valuable experience, even if the platform itself isn't of especially great combat value, or can't quite match the West.

In the long run, Russia really needs to reorient its submarine fleet to suit actual needs and resources, not grandiose ambitions. They need to seriously downscale and simplify their nuke fleet, get rid of overly large and complex subs of way too many types, and instead create a small, modern elite core of small, lean, capable SSNs. And in the meantime, they need to put significantly more resources into making more practical and capable AIP subs. Those can cover a good 80%-90% of Russia's actual needs as far as submarines go, and then a modern SSN core can be there to do the rest. I hope that it's all moving in the right direction, but sadly the Russian political tendency for grandstanding and using weapons as propaganda pieces rather than practical combat platforms keeps getting in the way.

Precisely! As with Ukraine, as opposed to Soichi...money better spent on butter, not guns!:salute:

[Mr Quatro]

However, I agree with you to the extent that they might be interested in restarting Victor-III production. It is said that the later Victor-IIIs, being progressively improved, are actually not too bad at silencing, and if they update it with the latest stuff and mass produced it might make for a good quantity sub. Maybe have a "Victor-IV" (what shall we call it in Russian, Project 671-RTMKU?) SSN, use the Yasens as an elite SSGN with the best silencing and sonars for the difficult jobs, and build Boreis.

The only reason Russia would consider bringing back the Victor as a Victor-IV would be to export them to India or a close Persian Gulf partner.

New is better than old as they have found out judging by the pictures of their aging fleet. Russia is now designing and building diesel-electric boats for export.

USA has already taken note of this, but has yet to make a counter move to do the same. Diesel-electric is where it is at for a war that is not the end to all wars.

Hey! Sounds like a new subsim game, uh?

We could have a game here ... one that plays out with just third world countries while the superpower countries look on. Now if I could only learn computer code :D

[Skybird]

and she would've made it had that that first explosion not set off the the rest of her Torps. If only, if only. If only the enemy would not hit.

;)

Anmd for accidenmts, does it matter whether a siub is lost due to poor maintenance, poor mmanfacturing quality, deficitary material used in construction, poor crew training or whatever? The quality of a navy is judged by the outcome, not by its intention and paper form. "if only" is for second places only. And by all what I have heared and read about crew training and qualification, and electronics, I would trust a British or American submarine more, than a Russian boat. And then there is the German submarines, at least their technology. Where the German sub crew quality would to be marke din comparison to American and British crews, I honestly have no clue. But I would strongly assume they are somewhere up the scoring ladder, too - tradition obliges. :D

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Anmd for accidenmts, does it matter whether a siub is lost due to poor maintenance, poor mmanfacturing quality, deficitary material used in construction, poor crew training or whatever? The quality of a navy is judged by the outcome, not by its intention and paper form. "if only" is for second places only. And by all what I have heared and read about crew training and qualification, and electronics, I would trust a British or American submarine more, than a Russian boat. And then there is the German submarines, at least their technology. Where the German sub crew quality would to be marke din comparison to American and British crews, I honestly have no clue. But I would strongly assume they are somewhere up the scoring ladder, too - tradition obliges

I won't debate with you your general conclusion, still, is outcome definitely linked to quality?

For example, as previously mentioned, Russian subs tend to have less crew than their American counterparts? About half as many, in fact. And they run on a much leaner "tail".

So, suppose that a Russian officer's probability of spotting a fatal error is 99%, while an American is 95%. We may reasonably conclude the Russian is the better officer. Nevertheless, the chance of a fatal error slipping through is still 1% on the Russian side and .25% (5% squared) on the American because they can use two people . So it is possible for Russians to suffer more accidents even if they have better quality!

You see how outcomes and quality are not necessarily matched?

[Madox58]

Nevertheless, the chance of a fatal error slipping through is still 1% on the Russian side and .25% (5% squared) on the American because they can use two people . So it is possible for Russians to suffer more accidents even if they have better quality!


There lies the problem of down sizeing.

[Skybird]

I won't debate with you your general conclusion, still, is outcome definitely linked to quality?

For example, as previously mentioned, Russian subs tend to have less crew than their American counterparts? About half as many, in fact. And they run on a much leaner "tail".

So, suppose that a Russian officer's probability of spotting a fatal error is 99%, while an American is 95%. We may reasonably conclude the Russian is the better officer. Nevertheless, the chance of a fatal error slipping through is still 1% on the Russian side and .25% (5% squared) on the American because they can use two people . So it is possible for Russians to suffer more accidents even if they have better quality!

You see how outcomes and quality are not necessarily matched?

Does the fact that Russian tanks have only three crewman make their crews or tank efficiency better? Well, I board a Leopard anytime before a T-80, I tell you.

Sorry, I have better trust in the American and British training programs for submarine crews and officers. The doctrines also are such that Eastern officers especially in the army are more obedient and submissive to the next higher level of hierarchy than in especially the American army, where they are trained to be more self-responsible and individual in their decisions and freedoms to decide. And when it comes to sonar and propellers, again I give the West the edge.

This all is not meant to say that Russian forces all are weak and ineffective. They are not. But their efficiency comes at the price of accepting higher loss ratios (ground forces), and technically Western platforms often have the edge over their Russian pendants. So as a rule of thumb I would usually prefer a good Western platform over the Russian equivalent.

Compare for example the high Russian losses due to the way they approached armoured fighting in city environments in the Georgian war, and compare that to the way British, American and Israeli forces operate armoured forces inside towns and villages. The difference in efficiency and loss ratio is STUNNING.

But however. :shucks:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Does the fact that Russian tanks have only three crewman make their crews or tank efficiency better? Well, I board a Leopard anytime before a T-80, I tell you.

Sorry, I have better trust in the American and British training programs for submarine crews and officers. The doctrines also are such that Eastern officers especially in the army are more obedient and submissive to the next higher level of hierarchy than in especially the American army, where they are trained to be more self-responsible and individual in their decisions and freedoms to decide. And when it comes to sonar and propellers, again I give the West the edge.

Perhaps ... but that was not the argument you made. You argued that the "quality" of a Navy is judged by the "outcome" (which from the context outcome is determined by the number of accidents so big they cannot be concealed). I just point out a flaw in that argument.

However, let me just punch a small hole in your confidence in American training (I have to admit I have yet to hear of such a disaster from the Brits).

There was this destroyer, nearly brand new at the time, who challenged a gunnery range. Presumably, it had been warned about the exercise countless months in advance, and mobilized any squadron resources required to ensure the equipment was in top shape. It went to the range ... where the gun broke. They fixed it, and almost completed the exercises ... when the gun broke again ... for over an hour. Now, I don't care how fast or how accurately they shot when the gun worked ... if that had been for real, that would be two failures to contribute even minimally to the mission at the mandated times. For some reason, they got over 100 (103.7 to be exact).

By the way, lest you think this came from a Lewis Page or some other unsavory character, no, it didn't. The ship is USS Barry, the commander was Stavridis (you know him, he topped off as SACEUR...), and he was so proud of the event in his Destroyer Command. Now, I'm sure his crew worked very hard, but doesn't he have any doubt about a system that permitted a >100 mark when the gun failed to fire twice? Should we?

When Suvorov dissed Soviet Army inspections in his Inside the Soviet Army, at least the APC moved in a presumably Excellent fashion. At least bullets were hitting the targets. And at least they had the excuse that there was only one moving APC so how can you seriously expect more than one APC driver to be trained to an Excellent level. What excuse did Stavridis have being in the well-funded US Navy?

Compare for example the high Russian losses due to the way they approached armoured fighting in city environments in the Georgian war, and compare that to the way British, American and Israeli forces operate armoured forces inside towns and villages. The difference in efficiency and loss ratio is STUNNING.

Here's my overview of the Georgian War. It is probably true that British, American and Israeli forces can operate more cleanly. It is, however, at least possible that the Georgians would be a bit more competent (they are, after all, at least partially American trained) than the Iraqis the Brits and Yanks were fighting, so maybe it won't be as clean for the Brits and Americans as well.

Here is one thing that's 99.9% sure though, if the post 90s Britain or the US ran that op ... we'll be hearing about bombing raids for at least three months before the first tank even dares to cross the border. Say what you want about the Russians, but they finished faster than the West would have been able to start.

[Mr Quatro]

You know all of those medals admirals and captains and officers and enlisted men wear on their uniforms?

They hand them out after the war is won, not before :D

[ikalugin]

On the topic.

First of all I think that project 885 is actually a substantial departure from the project 971 desighn because:
- different overall structure, 1.5 hull vs double hull.
- substantially different sonar and torpedo tube placement.
- different armament (only 533mm, no external torp tubes, missile silos).

As to how modern the (sole in it's class) Severomorsk is - it is old, as the lengthy building (sufficient funds arrived post 2008 I think) lead to a number of systems growing old. That said, the subs currently in production (project 08851) appear to have upgraded internal systems, meaning that they would (probably, should the proper funding continue) be decent after their launch.

Morever - a mystery 09851 class has been layed down recently, which may be a prototype for the new submarine series.

Overall Russian navy appears to have barely sufficient production programs - 3 new nuclear attack subs, boomers, number of conventional subs. The reason for this is (in my opinion) the decrease in shipbuilding capability which, unlike the Sukhoi and UVZ, did not survive the pre 2008 period well.

[Oberon]

I wouldn't knock the T-80 too badly, it might not have the bells and whistles of the Leopard II/M1A2/Challie II but it's still a very potent weapon (although I too, would take the NATO tank...I can't deny that). Likewise the later model T-72s and T-90, but I must admit I'm not a big fan of the auto-loaders (neither are the gunners arms, so I hear :O:). ERA though, the Russians have done good stuff with that, don't forget the nasty shock that NATO got when Germany unified and we started shooting SABOTs at an ERA T-72 and found that the M829 (I think) wasn't the magic bullet that we thought it was, as the ERA broke the SABOT up before it penetrated the hull.
Likewise, the MiG-29 with its ability to lock on targets 45 degrees off the aim-point, that gave NATO a scare too.
Sure, NATO troops made up in other areas, and still do, but I wouldn't automatically downgrade the potency of a single unit because of its nationality (unless it's North Korean), however I do agree that the numeracy advantage was a key factor in the Soviet strategy for a Cold war attack, that, and nuclear weapons...lots of nuclear weapons...

I can't help but like the T-72 though, perhaps it's because of all the times I've seen that familiar low, curved shape lumber over a hillside and come trundling towards my position. :haha:

[Oberon]

Another thing that the Russians have an advantage over NATO in, and this is a bit more in keeping with the subject matter of this thread (heaven forbid :haha:), and that's the Shkval. I'm not aware of any NATO torpedo that is a counterpart to the Shkval, and the Shkvals current weakness, the inability to turn is (or quite possibly has, not sure on the current state of affairs) being (been) worked on. There are no countermeasures that work against a Shkval, the only hope you have is that a) it doesn't have a nuclear warhead, b) the enemy has a poor firing solution on you or c) kill the enemy before he fires.
I think the Shkval might have one other weakness in comparison to the likes of the ADCAP and that's range, I think it's a fairly close in weapon, but that will change in time, oh...and it uses HTP which is not exactly the worlds most stable substance. However, if you've ever been on the receiving end of one in the likes of Dangerous Waters...well, it's probably a bit like the first time you get an ATGM to the side in Steel Beasts Pro, you don't see it until it's already too late to do anything about it and before you can even think "Oh, that's a..." you're dead.

[ikalugin]

To be honets, I think what Russia needs at the moment is something on the lines of this:
http://paralay.com/958/958-1-Model[1].jpg
with a large aperture conformal sonar set. e.g.:
http://www.nationaldefense.ru/dyn_images/img10984.jpg

But with the pump jet and multipurpose payload bay.

[Kapitan]

I Think 885 will be built in a largeish number and will maintain the back bone of the Russian navy for a good few years, so far 16 are planned they look capable and despite the long wait they are finally here.

[ikalugin]

I Think 885 will be built in a largeish number and will maintain the back bone of the Russian navy for a good few years, so far 16 are planned they look capable and despite the long wait they are finally here.
Where did you get that number? As far as I know only 7 are to be built (and this is including Severodvinsk) as from 2012 under GPV 2020.

[Kapitan]

Excuse me I have screwed up here (dancing between posts)

7 ordered 12 planned not 16 my bad !

[ikalugin]

5 planned would assume that there is some further (post 2020) program to build them, I am not aware of such program.