Russia says it's developing 'carrier killer' submarines
Source: Business Insider
The Russian Navy is investing in two new submarines, one of which is being described by the head of Russias state-owned shipbuilding corporation as a carrier killer, according to the independent Moscow Times.
The second boat would be designed to protect Russian ballistic submarines from enemy attack.
The announcement continues an active period in Russian submarine development. Following the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union, the Russian Navy, like the countrys other military services, went into decline as resources were stripped away by a collapsing economy, poor morale, and inept leadership.
Vladimir Putin ran for the Russian presidency in 2012 on the promise of rebuilding the Russian military. The Navys building program is part of Putins broader $356 billion military upgrade program, intended to run through 2020, according to the report.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-says-its-developing-carrier-killer-submarines-2015-7
7962
(11,841 posts)But that doesnt mean they're not dangerous
Scary that it's all becoming like it was during the bad old years.
7962
(11,841 posts)Our military is all volunteer and well trained. MOST of the field leadership is pretty good, from what my contacts still in the services tell me. Certainly 100% arent going to be happy, but our military is better educated than the average US citizen and our re-enlistment rates arent too bad; especially since leaving Iraq.
Russia's military is largely made up of conscripts who dont want to be there and are poorly trained. Its hundreds of those who have been killed in Ukraine.
Russia's economy is also one-dimensional; oil. Arms to a much lesser extent.
Yes, the US economy isnt doing nearly as well as it should be, but its not 7-8 yrs ago either.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)I was thinking of overall country morale. And leadership is probably fine in the forces too, but they are getting very poor leadership from our "Leaders."
7962
(11,841 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)cstanleytech
(26,351 posts)on weapons systems that a plane almost 40 years old cant beat.
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/07/disastrous-f-35-vs-f-16-face-off-was-also-a-battle-of-philosophies/
daleo
(21,317 posts)Response to 7962 (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
7962
(11,841 posts)Response to 7962 (Reply #37)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Give it a nuclear weapon and it goes from "potential" to "certain".
Sabre rattling.
hedda_foil
(16,377 posts)It's WWII tech that would be blown up by a foe like Russia or China in a matter of days, if not hours after deploymen destroying scores of jets in the process. This isn't even refighting the last war, it's refighting several wars before that.
Such a waste.
cstanleytech
(26,351 posts)Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier#Future_of_aircraft_carriers
Russia, India and China are all either building or looking to build carriers because with carriers you have an ability to literally move an airfield to nearly any place in the world, a nuke could of course take one out but you would need to deliver it still and with proper escort vessels armed with the proper weapons that would be difficult to do.
About their only vulnerability might be to an EMP pulse but it would have to be pretty damn powerful to get though the shielding on their gear and if its that powerful the odds are its going to effect any forces you yourself might have in the region.
JohnnyRingo
(18,689 posts)Carrier Task Forces are the global mainstay of naval firepower. Because of our need to keep the oil flowing from the Middle East a task force is like relocating a military island base anywhere in the world.
The last I knew, we're still the only country in the world with nuclear carriers, but then no other nation really needs one.
cstanleytech
(26,351 posts)it into their new carrier and so is Russia and it would not surprise me to learn that China is probably looking to do so as well because it removes a strategic weakness for a large ship like a carrier that being the need to refuel so often.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)malthaussen
(17,235 posts)The "big one," if it were to occur, will render most weapons systems obsolete, but for the kinds of operations in which the United States has engaged and will engage in the future, having a floating airbase isn't a bad idea.
-- Mal
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)To fight against which countries does Russia need carrier killers?
Germany? Japan?
What is this about?
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)They have also developed a class of cruisers designed to kill carriers.
http://rt.com/news/missile-cruiser-varyag-mediterranean-127/
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)The US also has more helicopter carriers than all other country's carriers combined.
Carriers are deployed in groups of ships designed to protect the carrier from hundreds of miles around. They are vulnerable to nuclear weapons, submarines and when they are too close to shore. The point of carriers is to use them several hundred miles from the potential enemy.
Nuking one would start a nuclear exchange, and the Russians are unlikely to do that in the extreme. They are sabre rattling bullies (not that we aren't), but they are far from stupid.
Submarine technology is improving, and a carrier may be vulnerable to a sub that slips through the ship and anti-sub screen. I do not know what new counter measures have been taken.
But mostly this is sabre rattling for the home consumption of the Russian population. The Russians should take pride in popularizing the dash cam and claim victory in the culture contest and leave it at that.
7962
(11,841 posts)I thought I was the only one who noticed that
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Are around thirty. The US has 20.
We so outgun the rest of the world it isn't even close.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)because of our catapult systems we can launch heavier, more effective planes instead of launching little lightweights with a ski jump.
7962
(11,841 posts)malthaussen
(17,235 posts)Presumably such articles are good for instilling fear or outrage into the masses who know absolutely nothing about the subject.
-- Mal
truthisfreedom
(23,168 posts)I will report you if I see this happening.
I may not have as many posts as you but I'm older. And wiser. And I love DU more than you.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I don't understand the relevance of your comment. Please explain.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)Little Tich
(6,171 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)bluedigger
(17,090 posts)Arguably, a fine distinction.
JohnnyRingo
(18,689 posts)...there's a defense at a fraction of the cost.
That's one of the formulas of war. Our stealth bombers, that cost 4bil a copy, can be tracked by signal anomalies between cell towers. In this case, the defense will be more costly, but much less than what Putin is spending.
The end result, whether defeated through technology or tactics, will be carrier attack subs that are neutered. What I believe this is is a test bed for new stealth systems to be incorporated on future class subs. Let the hide & seek games begin.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)since the end of WWII. They were never any good at it.
douggg
(239 posts)Give some of our carriers to other countries ???
.
.
This guy is a real moron! He calls 5 out of 11 carriers "a handful" as in 'minor amount'.
That's 45%, Leaving six carriers for America to do its missions.
He expects these other countries to keep up and maintain older carriers which need more overhauls?
He might have covered intelligence but none of it rubbed off on him.
.
===============
.
http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/x360405293/Instead-of-mothballing-Navy-ships-give-them-to-our-allies
.
April 18, 2014
Instead of mothballing Navy ships, give them to our allies
MattSh
(3,714 posts)The U.S. Navys Big Mistake Building Tons of Supercarriers War Is Boring Medium
Soviet Adm. Sergei Gorchakov reportedly held the view that the U.S. had made a strategic miscalculation by relying on large and increasingly vulnerable aircraft carriers. The influential U.S. Adm. Hyman Rickover shared this view. In a 1982 congressional hearing, legislators asked him how long American carriers would survive in an actual war.
Rickovers response? Forty-eight hours, he said. (That's 33 years ago).
Now lets take a look at the unofficial record derived from war games. In 2002, the U.S. Navy held a large simulated war game, the Millennium Challenge, to test scenarios of attacks on the fleet by a hypothetical Gulf state Iraq or possibly Iran.
The leader of the red team employed brilliant asymmetric tactics resulting in 16 U.S. ships, including two supercarriers, going to the bottom in a very short span of time. The Navy stopped the war game, prohibited the red team from using these tactics and then reran the exercise declaring victory on the second day.
.....
This extends to diesel submarines. Although the number of simulated sinkings by ships of the Navy is officially unacknowledged, there are reports of around a dozen U.S. aircraft carriers being sunk in exercises with friendly countries including Canada, Denmark and Chile.
In 2005, the USS Ronald Reagan was sunk by the Gotland, an electric diesel sub that the U.S. Navy borrowed from Sweden between 2005 and 2007 and which was never detected in exercises by U.S. carrier groups during all that time.
Although its true that the Soviets and the Americans never faced off in an actual naval battle, there is every reason to believe that they would have had some success against the invulnerable carriers. As far back as 1968, a fast nuclear powered Russian submarine matched the Enterprise at top speed in the Pacific.
.....
One carrier, the USS Kitty Hawk, used up three of its nine lives having been run into by an undetected Soviet sub in 1984, overflown by two undetected Russian planes an Su-24 and an Su-27 in 2000, and surprised by a Chinese Song-class attack submarine that surfaced undetected inside its perimeter and within torpedo range in 2006.
In March of this year, the French Navy reported that it had sunk the USS Theodore Roosevelt and half of its escorts in a war game, but hurriedly removed that information from its website.
Complete story at - https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-building-tons-of-supercarriers-79cb42029b8
Auggie
(31,230 posts)Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)There's a reason carrier battle groups include destroyer escorts (with sonar and depth charges and such) and ASW sea patrol by planes. Japan, the USA and the UK all lost carriers to submarine torpedoes during WWII. There hasn't been a carrier sunk in wartime since then because there hasn't been a naval war between great powers that have carriers to sink since then. (But the sinking of a carrier by a submarine is pretty well within the capabilities of the existing submarine forces of the USA, UK, France and Russia, at least, and probably other countries.)
Baclava
(12,047 posts)They are never alone
bluedigger
(17,090 posts)You have to love MIC marketing and promotion, don't you?
Turbineguy
(37,412 posts)The Nagaer Doctrine. As if they need to convince the US to spend itself into the ground.
jrandom421
(1,005 posts)Not until the utility of being able to move strike and fighter aircraft closer to the action diminishes.
Actually, the Russians have been developing 'carrier killer" submarines since the '60s. The November class, the 3 Victor classes, the Alfas, the 2 Sierra classes, and the new Mike class are just the nuclear powered ones.
The Navy has been aware of the submarine threat for several generations, going back to World War 2. Since then anti-submarine warfare has been a priority. Detection and destruction are the big things they've been working on.
A carrier battle group consists of a carrier (normally Nimitz class), two Ticonderoga-class Anti Aircraft Cruisers, 4 Burke-class antisubmarine frigates, and up to 4 Los Angeles-class attack submarines. And this is in addition to the carriers S-3 antisubmarine patrol planes and the UH-60 antisubmarine helicopters on the carrier and the frigates. Going to be pretty costly to get enough hits on a carrier to sink one.
This sounds like a more credible than the Iranian threat to carriers, but not by a whole bunch.