Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
Yeah, both submarine capable to do the same mission , example to attack merchant ships.

Beyond that for the Virginia it would be very difficult to destroy an Steregushchiy-class corvette, the Yassen on other hand has good chances against a carrier strike group.

But yeah, the Virginia is very good to attack unarmed ships : )


The dimension differences between the two ship means the Yassen can carry long range supersonic / hypersonic missiles, three times more than the Virginia small diameter , short subsonic missiles.
Has bigger sonars, more space for acoustic damping , and can dive deeper, means it can run with less noise and more difficult to detect it due to the layers .

The biggest advantage of the Virginia its price, the Yassen cost more than twice as much .
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
Yeah, both submarine capable to do the same mission , example to attack merchant ships.

Beyond that for the Virginia it would be very difficult to destroy an Steregushchiy-class corvette, the Yassen on other hand has good chances against a carrier strike group.

But yeah, the Virginia is very good to attack unarmed ships : )


The dimension differences between the two ship means the Yassen can carry long range supersonic / hypersonic missiles, three times more than the Virginia small diameter , short subsonic missiles.
Has bigger sonars, more space for acoustic damping , and can dive deeper, means it can run with less noise and more difficult to detect it due to the layers .

The biggest advantage of the Virginia its price, the Yassen cost more than twice as much .
Putting aside the nationalistic bashing, I don't see how a Virginia is going to fair any worse at taking out a CBG group than a Yasen, a 533mm torpedo is going to sink a capital ship just as well as a anti ship missile. with the plus that there in comparison, there is virtually 0 active anti torpedo defense other than sinking the opposing sub first or launching decoys and hoping that that works. Again we can go through the whole debate of whether the multi layer missile defense is really as vaunted as it is claimed, but it is clear that a torpedo has to jump through less hoops than a a missile.
Again size and volume of armaments really only matter if one can reliably hit a target, more missiles to lob against a target is better sure. But with every missile fired the chances of one getting detected increases. And unless working in a networked system (which is unlikely given the nature of how subs work) it did be hard for the Yasen to exploit the full range of the missiles).

Bigger sonars, maybe, but do anyone knows that larger sonars has better passive capabilities because for subs using active sonar is damn near suicide. And again just because a sub is smaller does not necessarily mean that its acoustic tiles will be thinner or the acoustics will be lesser, that will largely depend on design.
Diving deeper is fine and all but that also deprives the Yasen of using its missiles. one of the few advantages it has over the Virginia. And thermal layers works both ways, if it negatively effects the enemy's sonars it will also negatively effect the Yasen's so it's a bit of a double edge sword. Due to the pump jet design there is not much need for the Virginia to dive that deep in the first place.

Also the Virginia actually cost a pretty penny to build, at 2.8 billion UDS per boat it is actually the third most expensive ship the USN can build currently. Unless the Yasen cost a whopping 5.6 billion USD ( they did have to pimp it out with gold plated tiles for that price tag), I don't see how a Yasen is going to "cost more than 2 Virginia subs")
 
Last edited:

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
Putting aside the nationalistic bashing, I don't see how a Virginia is going to fair any worse at taking out a CBG group than a Yasen, a 533mm torpedo is going to sink a capital ship just as well as a anti ship missile. with the plus that there in comparison, there is virtually 0 active anti torpedo defense other than sinking the opposing sub first or launching decoys and hoping that that works. Again we can go through the whole debate of whether the multi layer missile defense is really as vaunted as it is claimed, but it is clear that a torpedo has to jump through less hoops than a a missile.
Basic physics and probability theory.

The effective range of a torpedo is less than 50 km, and that is in the detection range of any sonar.

It means the submarine has very good chance to be detected and in worst case the enemy will detect it in the moment when it launch its torpedoes, so it will get few ASROC type missile in short notice (in 1-2 minute).

So, it is quite difficult the get close enough , and even if it successful the attack could be the last thing that the submarine did.

The other part is the probability.

The detection range of a sonar is at least 300km against an aircraft carrier.
So, the Yasen can cover at least 36 times bigger are to attack then the Virginia, as a starter.

Means 36 times more Virginia needed to patrol the area covered by one Yasen.

It is exactly the same case why everyone argue about the advantage of the Nimitz class against smaller, non catapult carriers.

Again size and volume of armaments really only matter if one can reliably hit a target, more missiles to lob against a target is better sure. But with every missile fired the chances of one getting detected increases. And unless working in a networked system (which is unlikely given the nature of how subs work) it did be hard for the Yasen to exploit the full range of the missiles).
Quite hard to detect the missile launch from 300km.
Bigger sonars, maybe, but do anyone knows that larger sonars has better passive capabilities because for subs using active sonar is damn near suicide. And again just because a sub is smaller does not necessarily mean that its acoustic tiles will be thinner or the acoustics will be lesser, that will largely depend on design.
You argue with basic physics .

Bigger aperture will increase the sensitivity - it is this simple.
Bigger diameter give more space for damping ,smaller gives less.
Diving deeper is fine and all but that also deprives the Yasen of using its missiles. one of the few advantages it has over the Virginia. And thermal layers works both ways, if it negatively effects the enemy's sonars it will also negatively effect the Yasen's so it's a bit of a double edge sword. Due to the pump jet design there is not much need for the Virginia to dive that deep in the first place.
It is the opposite.
The USA forced to use pump jet because they can't dive deep.

The pump jet decrease the maximum speed ,and most likely will increase the noise above the optimal speed.
The Russians use it on the SSBNs.

Thermal layers can be used to mask the submarine, and the sofar channel gives chance to hear ships far away - and attack them.
Also the Virginia actually cost a pretty penny to build, at 2.8 billion UDS per boat it is actually the third most expensive ship the USN can build currently. Unless the Yasen cost a whopping 5.6 billion USD ( they did have to pimp it out with gold plated tiles for that price tag), I don't see how a Yasen is going to "cost more than 2 Virginia subs")
The Yasen is an advanced version (with VLS tubes) of the Seawolf class (that was designed against the Akulas) , and that had a nice 5 billion $ pricetag.
So maybe three times expensive should be more accurate.

Cost of Virginia is about 2 billion.
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
It is like the ship is cursed, literally. Murphy is definitely having a field day with this.
It is more about the teething pains / problems of the Russian shipbuilding industry.


If anyone followed the Floating Nuclear Power Plant misery then they are in very good shape these days.
 

Brumby

Major
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




Just a reminder about the difference between the virginia and yassen:
View attachment 56172

The small one is the Virginia.

The difference between the two ship class is like between a frigate and a destroyer and it reflected in the armament as well.

So, it is a bit funny to read things like "The Yasen-M line is expected to occupy the same performance league as the U.S. Virginia class of fast-attack submarines." from the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

It is like saying the "Perry class frigate is in the same performance league like the Burke class destroyer " : D
I suggest you look up the meaning of "performance". Performance is not necessarily correlated to displacement and dimensions. If you wish to promote the capabilities of the Yasen M then by all means - enlighten us. Btw, the Virginia Block V (with VPM) is actually longer than the Yasen M at 140.2 m but not in displacement.
 

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
If you look at the kind of missions that both submarines are to perform and their capabilities and limits the comparison is not too far off.
Yeah, on the one hand they are, on the other it's an apples-to-oranges comparison the way that graphic makes it.

All but the first-of-class Yasens are slightly shorter than stated, therefore also a bit lower in displacement, while the Block III and onwards Virginias with the 20m cruise missile VLS section are longer (longer in fact than Yasen!) and displace correspondingly more than 7900t. That's more accurate as it better brings the capabilities in line with each other and narrows the size gap considerably - at least part of the remaining difference also is simply higher reserve buoyancy on the Russian sub due to (partial) double hull construction.

Still, the Pr.885(M) is undeniably a beast - pretty much the Virginia Block III concept executed on the basis of the blue water ops Seawolf hull!
 
Last edited:

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
Basic physics and probability theory.

The effective range of a torpedo is less than 50 km, and that is in the detection range of any sonar.

It means the submarine has very good chance to be detected and in worst case the enemy will detect it in the moment when it launch its torpedoes, so it will get few ASROC type missile in short notice (in 1-2 minute).

So, it is quite difficult the get close enough , and even if it successful the attack could be the last thing that the submarine did.

The other part is the probability.

The detection range of a sonar is at least 300km against an aircraft carrier.
So, the Yasen can cover at least 36 times bigger are to attack then the Virginia, as a starter.

Means 36 times more Virginia needed to patrol the area covered by one Yasen.

It is exactly the same case why everyone argue about the advantage of the Nimitz class against smaller, non catapult carriers.


Quite hard to detect the missile launch from 300km.

You argue with basic physics .

Bigger aperture will increase the sensitivity - it is this simple.
Bigger diameter give more space for damping ,smaller gives less.


It is the opposite.
The USA forced to use pump jet because they can't dive deep.

The pump jet decrease the maximum speed ,and most likely will increase the noise above the optimal speed.
The Russians use it on the SSBNs.

Thermal layers can be used to mask the submarine, and the sofar channel gives chance to hear ships far away - and attack them.

The Yasen is an advanced version (with VLS tubes) of the Seawolf class (that was designed against the Akulas) , and that had a nice 5 billion $ pricetag.
So maybe three times expensive should be more accurate.

Cost of Virginia is about 2 billion.
I am going to wrap this all up in one post seeing as the most of them goes by the same measure.

Everything you state is honestly bull and based on hyperbole claims.
No there is no vertiable proof that US submarines are not able to dive at great depths.
No there is no proof that CBGs can be detected at more than 300km range by passive sonar alone.
You fail to address the ossue of thermal layers working both ways against both submarine and surface ships.
You are wrong in claiming that pump jets decrease noise efficiency at higher speeds, if anything it is quite the opposite. Pump jets gives high speed efficiency but poorer performance at low speeds. But this given the unlimited power of a nuclear reactor is hardly a problem.
Again, big size does not give more space for damping, it depends of the design. Which the Yasen lugging 48 VLS is going to have to make some compromises.It is not rocket science you know.
And in comparison to a missile launch, a torpedo launch is going to be much more stealthy and the 50km range is the minimum rough estimate. Many nations purposefully kept their torpedo range a secret unlike anti ship missiles which are a seen as a much more lucrative export option.
And finally, even Russian sources have put the Yasen's cost at an estimated 1 to 2 billion per boat. So stop pulling fictional numbers outta nowhere. And the Virginia is 2.8 billion (3.2 billion with the VPM upgrade).
The last thing this forum need is a veritable Russian troll who pulls fictional number outta thin air, makes fanciful claims and outlandish denigration like Phaeton on disqus. The man is literally a chess playing pigeon as in every single fact or number flys pass his brain and he literally lives in a constructed bubble of "Russian weapon superiority" reality.
 
Last edited:

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
It is more about the teething pains / problems of the Russian shipbuilding industry.


If anyone followed the Floating Nuclear Power Plant misery then they are in very good shape these days.
With not just one but 2 man made mishaps on the Kuznetsove this is hardly some "teething pains". The simple fact is that Russian industry is not equipped to deal with ship heavier than 30,000 tons and above.
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
Basic physics and probability theory.

The effective range of a torpedo is less than 50 km, and that is in the detection range of any sonar.

It means the submarine has very good chance to be detected and in worst case the enemy will detect it in the moment when it launch its torpedoes, so it will get few ASROC type missile in short notice (in 1-2 minute).

So, it is quite difficult the get close enough , and even if it successful the attack could be the last thing that the submarine did.

The other part is the probability.

The detection range of a sonar is at least 300km against an aircraft carrier.
So, the Yasen can cover at least 36 times bigger are to attack then the Virginia, as a starter.

Means 36 times more Virginia needed to patrol the area covered by one Yasen.

It is exactly the same case why everyone argue about the advantage of the Nimitz class against smaller, non catapult carriers.


Quite hard to detect the missile launch from 300km.

You argue with basic physics .

Bigger aperture will increase the sensitivity - it is this simple.
Bigger diameter give more space for damping ,smaller gives less.


It is the opposite.
The USA forced to use pump jet because they can't dive deep.

The pump jet decrease the maximum speed ,and most likely will increase the noise above the optimal speed.
The Russians use it on the SSBNs.

Thermal layers can be used to mask the submarine, and the sofar channel gives chance to hear ships far away - and attack them.

The Yasen is an advanced version (with VLS tubes) of the Seawolf class (that was designed against the Akulas) , and that had a nice 5 billion $ pricetag.
So maybe three times expensive should be more accurate.

Cost of Virginia is about 2 billion.
Also , if the Yasen cost 5 billion to build (which is really bull and we all know it) then the joke is on Russia because it can never afford to build anymore than a handful of these overpriced things. The tortuous building of even the first 3 is ample evidence to go by.
 

Top