Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
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!
Agree that the Yasen is a very powerful vessel, I did hate to be on the opposing end of a salvo of AShM missiles........ just as much as I hate to hear the the cry "torpedo in the water" coming from god knows where from a lurking Virginia.
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
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.
A russian fighter jet cost around 1-1.2 billion rouble, an american cost around 80-90 million.

Means a carrier with 8 billion price tag equivalent is the production of 100 fighter.

And the other side, the production of a 50 billion rouble submarine equivalent of the production of 40-50 fighter jet.

The exchange rate is meaningless ,that reflect the development of relations between the USA and the given country ,not the economical performance .
So, if the USA sanction one country then the exchange rate will collapse, but not the sanctioned country .


The Kazan was the first submarine build from scratch be the Russian Federation, the first three Borei and the first Yasen were half finished Soviet projects.


So, launching the Kazan in 2017, the next Yasen in 2019 is a colossal achievement, means Russia built a new submarine industry, from the debris left over the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

And one Yasen per year is on par with two Virginia per year (in performance it is way more actually ) , and Russia is making more than one submarine per year.
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
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.
You argue with basic physical laws.

Water thousand times more dense than air, and doesn't contain oxygen, means a torpedo can have fast speed or long range, but can't have both.
Same to detect surface ships, the pressure at the carrier screw level is 1 bar, means very slow speed will make noisy cavitation - and example the Alpha submarines was detected from thousand kms at full speed and full deep.
Imagine what could be the result of a carrier going with full cruise speed : )
And I don't have to mention the towed sonars, that could detect practically any surface ship within the strike range of AShMs.



The other parts of your post is just simple propaganda as well, repeated without thinking.

Just because the USA produce the same type of equipment with the same characteristic for close to 70 years it doesn't means it is still relevant, and usable for anything else than to provide employment .

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.
This happens when you introduce huge number of inexperienced workers into an expanding industry.
In the 00s the Russian industry produced two nuclear submarine, both of them were half finished Soviet project.

In the 10s four half finished submarine launched, and three were built and launched from scratch.

I think the difference in the tempo quite visible.
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
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!
Problem with the Virginia modules (and the Mark 41) is they are too small, and can not accommodate supersonic (ramjet) missiles.

And the length of the missile is restricted by the diameter of the submarine, as well.

But the subsonic missiles are easy to defeat, the rocket propelled supersonic ones are missing the range and diameter for capable radar.
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
You argue with basic physical laws.

Water thousand times more dense than air, and doesn't contain oxygen, means a torpedo can have fast speed or long range, but can't have both.
Same to detect surface ships, the pressure at the carrier screw level is 1 bar, means very slow speed will make noisy cavitation - and example the Alpha submarines was detected from thousand kms at full speed and full deep.
Imagine what could be the result of a carrier going with full cruise speed : )
And I don't have to mention the towed sonars, that could detect practically any surface ship within the strike range of AShMs.



The other parts of your post is just simple propaganda as well, repeated without thinking.

Just because the USA produce the same type of equipment with the same characteristic for close to 70 years it doesn't means it is still relevant, and usable for anything else than to provide employment .



This happens when you introduce huge number of inexperienced workers into an expanding industry.
In the 00s the Russian industry produced two nuclear submarine, both of them were half finished Soviet project.

In the 10s four half finished submarine launched, and three were built and launched from scratch.

I think the difference in the tempo quite visible.
Again please stop with the bull, you keep bring up the quote "Laws of physics" yet you have never post and formula or calculation beyond what is merely an extremely generalized assumption that "bigger is better" which almost childish it is claim. To put that into prespective the Tango-class submarine is every bit larger and heavier than a U 212, but the U 212 is vastly more silent than the Tango, reason ? Design.
The fact that you think that modern torpedo needs oxygen for propulsion highlights the extreme lack of knowledge, modern torpedos runs on Otto 2 or electric batteries. So they can both be fast and long range.
For one where is the source that says that Alfa submarines can be detected from thousands of KM aways or that towed sonars have the effective range of 300km ? You claim that I am referring to propaganda when you are doing even worst at pulling nothing but pure whimsical claims out of thin air, in short you are lying. You lied when you claim that the Virginia cost 2 billion when it is actually close to 3 (which shows you did literally 0 research on the subject and that you don't care so long if you put more of your bull s$$$ out), just like how you make the dubious claim that the Yasen cost 5 billion USD when all sources puts it closer to 3 or 2.
For the matter regarding the efficency of pump jets at high speeds I will post the link here:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A russian fighter jet cost around 1-1.2 billion rouble, an american cost around 80-90 million.

Means a carrier with 8 billion price tag equivalent is the production of 100 fighter.

And the other side, the production of a 50 billion rouble submarine equivalent of the production of 40-50 fighter jet.

The exchange rate is meaningless ,that reflect the development of relations between the USA and the given country ,not the economical performance .
So, if the USA sanction one country then the exchange rate will collapse, but not the sanctioned country .


The Kazan was the first submarine build from scratch be the Russian Federation, the first three Borei and the first Yasen were half finished Soviet projects.


So, launching the Kazan in 2017, the next Yasen in 2019 is a colossal achievement, means Russia built a new submarine industry, from the debris left over the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

And one Yasen per year is on par with two Virginia per year (in performance it is way more actually ) , and Russia is making more than one submarine per year.
Again please stop lying, more than 1 sub per year? Even if we take into account all the Borei class and Yasen that are laid down after the end of the Cold war. The numbers still don't add up. If we calculate, the rate of construction is even less then 1 hull per year. Launch is very different from being "commissioned" let's get that clear. Kazan was laid down in 2009 and it took Russia 8 years to get it floating, yeah colour me impressed. During that period the average rate for the Virginia was one every 2 years.
The rules of economy does not work in a vacuum despite how much you want that to be. Like or not Russia cannot just wave a magic wand and print endless roubles for its defense budget.
In fact this line of incredulous insistence is similar to how you bayed that the Su-57 will be cheaper than Su-35 when there is very evidence to point to the contrary. The amount of lying was incredible.
 
Last edited:

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
Avangard intercontinental HGV officially assumes nuclear alert duty on SS-19 boosters:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


One interesting piece of info released recently is the range envelope:

EMoT3RLW4AA0Iu4.jpg

(
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

11000km max. is typical of an intercontinental ballistic missile, so something in that ball park basically followed from its known role and was to be expected. A minimum range of a rather substantial 6000km is more intriguing and could be indicative of an inherent performance limitation of HGVs (at least those designed to fly out to intercontinental ranges). For several minutes after separation from the booster, they may well be going too fast to survive a descent to the ground through the dense air of the lower atmosphere.

Here's the velocity versus range profile planned for the US HTV-2 flight tests (neither of which apparently made it more than a couple of hundred seconds past booster separation in reality):

HTV-2.png

(
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

At 6000km downrange, the HGV would still be doing some 4km/s, about 30% faster than a normal ICBM warhead in the terminal phase of its reentry (and already have more than 5 minutes of exposure to double digit Mach heating under its belt). Furthermore, with a 11000km maximum range as opposed to 8000km on the graph, Avangard could be going even faster at that point.

So for a given maximum range, a HGV warhead might mean longer minimum range than a normal RV because of thermal protection system limitations. Bearing in mind that depressed trajectory capability for SLBMs has been stated to require improved warhed TPS due to the resulting faster reentry this seems completely logical. In systems with significantly shorter max. range the booster burn-out velocity and exposure time might be low enough for this not to make a practical difference though.
 
Last edited:

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
Again please stop with the bull, you keep bring up the quote "Laws of physics" yet you have never post and formula or calculation beyond what is merely an extremely generalized assumption that "bigger is better" which almost childish it is claim. To put that into prespective the Tango-class submarine is every bit larger and heavier than a U 212, but the U 212 is vastly more silent than the Tango, reason ? Design.
The fact that you think that modern torpedo needs oxygen for propulsion highlights the extreme lack of knowledge, modern torpedos runs on Otto 2 or electric batteries. So they can both be fast and long range.
For one where is the source that says that Alfa submarines can be detected from thousands of KM aways or that towed sonars have the effective range of 300km ? You claim that I am referring to propaganda when you are doing even worst at pulling nothing but pure whimsical claims out of thin air, in short you are lying. You lied when you claim that the Virginia cost 2 billion when it is actually close to 3 (which shows you did literally 0 research on the subject and that you don't care so long if you put more of your bull s$$$ out), just like how you make the dubious claim that the Yasen cost 5 billion USD when all sources puts it closer to 3 or 2.
For the matter regarding the efficency of pump jets at high speeds I will post the link here:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Again please stop lying, more than 1 sub per year? Even if we take into account all the Borei class and Yasen that are laid down after the end of the Cold war. The numbers still don't add up. If we calculate, the rate of construction is even less then 1 hull per year. Launch is very different from being "commissioned" let's get that clear. Kazan was laid down in 2009 and it took Russia 8 years to get it floating, yeah colour me impressed. During that period the average rate for the Virginia was one every 2 years.
The rules of economy does not work in a vacuum despite how much you want that to be. Like or not Russia cannot just wave a magic wand and print endless roubles for its defense budget.
In fact this line of incredulous insistence is similar to how you bayed that the Su-57 will be cheaper than Su-35 when there is very evidence to point to the contrary. The amount of lying was incredible.
So ,let start with the basic vibration theory.
vibr.jpg

Quite simple, to effectively dam the sound with restricted mass and space is to have multiple layers, with different thickness material.
Double hull submarine design?

Torpedo :
Maybe it is hard to recognise, but the Otto II fuel has a pathetic 2.5 MJ/kg energy density.
The kerosene in the P-800 has 43 MJ/kg energy density.

Means the torpedo has to be launched in 10-20 km to have enough energy for a dash , otherwise the target can simply outrun it.
Sounds like quite slim chance for the Virginia to survive the torpedo launch.

H2O2 + petrol has better energy density, but the H2O2 is not the safest material, and the USA doesn't use it. (it is easy to calculate the density, I'm curious to see if you can calculate it : ) )

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


distance.jpg

I have to confess, 300km is quite conservative estimate to detect an aircraft carrier.
1000 km is more realistic.


In this paper :
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A few chap using commercial grade 160 element hydrophone array followed commercials ships .
The longest detection range was 200 km, and all of those was slow (maximum 8 knots ) commercial ship, not a 30+ knots monster aircraft carrier.
And the detector was a simple 160 elements one, not 3000+ element military grade.
And with passive sonar the detection range increase with the root of the elements, means 25 times more elements(and bigger aperture ) increase the detection range five-fold.
Size-detection range -range of weapons - speed of weapons.
Can you see the design pattern of the Russian submarines ?

Launches :
2017 - Borei and Yasen
2018 - 0
2019 - Yasen and Belgorod (later heavily modified Oscar)
There is nine more submarine in production, they was laid down year apart ,so they should be close to ready for launch.

Any question - comment (beyond emotional outburst ) ?
 
Last edited:

Equation

Lieutenant General
that Su-57 crash must be a delay for Russian aviation ?
As for the development of the program, I don't think so. Now all they need is cash to keep the program running. This in my opinion depends on the success of Russia's cash strap (due to US and Western economic sanctions) China-Russia east-route natural gas pipeline and Nord Stream 2. Once that gets going for several years than Russia will have money to continue their Su-57 program more efficiently. Like I said before....IT'S ALL ABOUT THE PROGRAM.
 

Top