Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 10:58 PM Jul 2015

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 Russia’s 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 country’s 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 Navy’s building program is part of Putin’s 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

44 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Russia says it's developing 'carrier killer' submarines (Original Post) Little Tich Jul 2015 OP
They STILL have a collapsing economy, poor morale, and inept leadership 7962 Jul 2015 #1
Kinda like us Hydra Jul 2015 #3
I beg to differ. Except regarding the economy 7962 Jul 2015 #5
Oh, you meant only troop morale Hydra Jul 2015 #6
With you on that one! 7962 Jul 2015 #20
everyone in the military should read Gen. Smedley Butler's "War Is a Racket" yurbud Jul 2015 #44
Now if we could only focus our military budget (which is far larger than Russia and China combined) cstanleytech Jul 2015 #9
You could say that about a lot of countries. daleo Jul 2015 #4
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2015 #35
One event hardly shows the status of the economy. These stories show a bit more 7962 Jul 2015 #37
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2015 #41
Any sub is a potential "carrier killer" Kelvin Mace Jul 2015 #2
Which is why it's ridiculous to believe carriers are going to be useful against another nation. hedda_foil Jul 2015 #7
I dont think the era of the carrier is over, far from it. cstanleytech Jul 2015 #10
Agreed JohnnyRingo Jul 2015 #17
Right now we have the largest number of nuclear carriers but India is looking to incorporate cstanleytech Jul 2015 #24
A floating Maginot Line, and an expensive one, at that ChairmanAgnostic Jul 2015 #19
Not really. malthaussen Jul 2015 #26
Do a lot of countries have carriers? JDPriestly Jul 2015 #11
This is aimed against the US. Agnosticsherbet Jul 2015 #13
The US has more supercarriers than all other country's carriers combined The Second Stone Jul 2015 #14
Your last sentence pretty much says it all! 7962 Jul 2015 #22
Depending on how you count Kelvin Mace Jul 2015 #31
And the others aren't up to our capabilities... awoke_in_2003 Jul 2015 #32
"lightweights with a ski jump." Thats good stuff! 7962 Jul 2015 #38
Beat me to it. malthaussen Jul 2015 #25
I am universally against seeing DU attack itself truthisfreedom Jul 2015 #8
What are you talking about? Are you on the right thread? JDPriestly Jul 2015 #12
I'm glad I wasn't the only one thoroughly confused by that davidpdx Jul 2015 #15
Nope, not the only one! 7962 Jul 2015 #21
I assume you are posting in the wrong thread. No worries. n/t Little Tich Jul 2015 #18
say what now NuclearDem Jul 2015 #30
Technically, it's Democratic Underground, not Democratic Underwater. bluedigger Jul 2015 #40
For every expensive offensive weapon... JohnnyRingo Jul 2015 #16
Hide and seek has been going on with Russia awoke_in_2003 Jul 2015 #34
Give some of our carriers to other countries ??? douggg Jul 2015 #23
The age of the carrier is LONG past... MattSh Jul 2015 #27
Great -- that means we'll spend billions on carrier killer submarine weaponry Auggie Jul 2015 #28
Hmm, so were bubbles not due to pop, could be time to 'invest' in this pig: Ghost Dog Jul 2015 #29
That's pretty much any attack submarine, though? Spider Jerusalem Jul 2015 #33
Pretty much - that's why carriers are protected by a fleet of ships and subs in battle groups Baclava Jul 2015 #36
And we are developing a plane that can do EVERYTHING. bluedigger Jul 2015 #39
They could call this Turbineguy Jul 2015 #42
Carrier battle groups aren't going away anytime soon jrandom421 Jul 2015 #43
 

7962

(11,841 posts)
1. They STILL have a collapsing economy, poor morale, and inept leadership
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 11:10 PM
Jul 2015

But that doesnt mean they're not dangerous

 

7962

(11,841 posts)
5. I beg to differ. Except regarding the economy
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 11:51 PM
Jul 2015

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)
6. Oh, you meant only troop morale
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 11:58 PM
Jul 2015

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."

Response to 7962 (Reply #1)

Response to 7962 (Reply #37)

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
2. Any sub is a potential "carrier killer"
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 11:17 PM
Jul 2015

Give it a nuclear weapon and it goes from "potential" to "certain".

Sabre rattling.

hedda_foil

(16,375 posts)
7. Which is why it's ridiculous to believe carriers are going to be useful against another nation.
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 11:59 PM
Jul 2015

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

(26,299 posts)
10. I dont think the era of the carrier is over, far from it.
Sat Jul 11, 2015, 12:22 AM
Jul 2015

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

(18,636 posts)
17. Agreed
Sat Jul 11, 2015, 03:37 AM
Jul 2015

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

(26,299 posts)
24. Right now we have the largest number of nuclear carriers but India is looking to incorporate
Sat Jul 11, 2015, 08:35 AM
Jul 2015

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.

malthaussen

(17,205 posts)
26. Not really.
Sat Jul 11, 2015, 08:51 AM
Jul 2015

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)
11. Do a lot of countries have carriers?
Sat Jul 11, 2015, 12:52 AM
Jul 2015

To fight against which countries does Russia need carrier killers?

Germany? Japan?

What is this about?

 

The Second Stone

(2,900 posts)
14. The US has more supercarriers than all other country's carriers combined
Sat Jul 11, 2015, 01:53 AM
Jul 2015

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.

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
31. Depending on how you count
Sat Jul 11, 2015, 03:02 PM
Jul 2015

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)
32. And the others aren't up to our capabilities...
Sat Jul 11, 2015, 04:36 PM
Jul 2015

because of our catapult systems we can launch heavier, more effective planes instead of launching little lightweights with a ski jump.

malthaussen

(17,205 posts)
25. Beat me to it.
Sat Jul 11, 2015, 08:48 AM
Jul 2015

Presumably such articles are good for instilling fear or outrage into the masses who know absolutely nothing about the subject.

-- Mal

truthisfreedom

(23,148 posts)
8. I am universally against seeing DU attack itself
Sat Jul 11, 2015, 12:02 AM
Jul 2015

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)
12. What are you talking about? Are you on the right thread?
Sat Jul 11, 2015, 12:54 AM
Jul 2015

I don't understand the relevance of your comment. Please explain.

JohnnyRingo

(18,636 posts)
16. For every expensive offensive weapon...
Sat Jul 11, 2015, 03:29 AM
Jul 2015

...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.

douggg

(239 posts)
23. Give some of our carriers to other countries ???
Sat Jul 11, 2015, 08:32 AM
Jul 2015

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)
27. The age of the carrier is LONG past...
Sat Jul 11, 2015, 09:20 AM
Jul 2015

The U.S. Navy’s 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.

Rickover’s response? “Forty-eight hours,” he said.
(That's 33 years ago).


Now let’s 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 it’s 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

 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
33. That's pretty much any attack submarine, though?
Sat Jul 11, 2015, 04:47 PM
Jul 2015

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)
36. Pretty much - that's why carriers are protected by a fleet of ships and subs in battle groups
Sat Jul 11, 2015, 05:18 PM
Jul 2015

They are never alone

bluedigger

(17,086 posts)
39. And we are developing a plane that can do EVERYTHING.
Sat Jul 11, 2015, 05:28 PM
Jul 2015

You have to love MIC marketing and promotion, don't you?

Turbineguy

(37,354 posts)
42. They could call this
Sun Jul 12, 2015, 02:05 AM
Jul 2015

The Nagaer Doctrine. As if they need to convince the US to spend itself into the ground.

jrandom421

(1,005 posts)
43. Carrier battle groups aren't going away anytime soon
Sun Jul 12, 2015, 06:31 PM
Jul 2015

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.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Russia says it's developi...