Thoughts on Yasen class SSN

[Admiral Halsey]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Admiral Halsey

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]

Originally Posted by Admiral Halsey

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by CCIP

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Admiral Halsey

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.

[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?

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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.