Seawolf? Akula?

ikalugin · 06-30-17, 07:03 AM

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.

06-30-17, 07:03 AM	#10
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ Grumpy as always. Last edited by ikalugin; 06-30-17 at 07:21 AM.