Seawolf? Akula?

[Doctor Haider]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

For 1996 campaighn do we assume that Soviets kept the rates of production?

Then if we go by submarines that were layed down in the relevant time period and use historical (for those that were completed) and estimated (for those that were not, based on Soviet construction times) basis then we can expect in terms of non strategic nuclear subs:
- ~21 Akula series (7 Akula, 5 Improved Akula, 1 Akula-II, 8 Akula-III)
- 6 Sierra series (2 Sierra-I, 2 Sierra-II, 2 Sierra-III)
- ~16 Oscar series (2 Oscar-Is, 14 Oscar-II, 0-3 Oscar-III)
And possibly:
- first Yasen
- additional Victor-IVs
p.s. Akula class break down differs source to source.
p.p.s. historically in terms of 2nd gen subs 6 Charlies-IIs, 7 Victor-IIs, 22 Victor-IIIs, 5 Victor-IVs could be viewed as usable subs.

20 Akulas were really laid in(not all completed), 1 more prepared to be laid in, around 24 planned to build.

Good match for the Sierras: only one builder and titanium hull construction, cannot be built in great numbers.

Actually 16 Oscars were laid in (not all completed), and 3 more prepared to be laid in. Original plans were to built 24 units.

1 Yasen up to the 1996 is ok too.

As for the Victors, there were not any plans to build them after the last hull entered service in 1992. And it had sense since the initial design had its roots in late 60's and more modern and capable designs were on the march already.

But I've add some Yankee and Delta SSGN conversions in the range of dozen subs equipped the SS-N-21 Sampson Tomahawk equivalent in VLS.