Western experts continue to compare Russian and American submarines. This is understandable, since the US Navy has no equal in the world so far, and when a fleet equal to it in capabilities can appear is a question for a very long time.
But this is over water. But under water - this is a completely different alignment. The surface fleet is still vulnerable to attacks from under the water, and most vulnerable in comparison with attacks from the ground or air. Technological progress has created truly invulnerable monsters capable of attacking from under the water and going to even greater depths.
Accordingly, the only thing that surface forces around the world should fear is a sudden and fatal blow from under the water. And in this regard, all Western experts can scoff as much as they want, criticizing the Russian surface fleet, consisting of forty-year-old Soviet-built ships and new small-class missile ships, but submarine forces will have to be reckoned with.
In the West, they note that Russia has practically stopped attempts to create a large-tonnage surface fleet and all attempts to restore the naval forces are mainly reduced to the creation of new submarines and the modernization of old ones.
This is a somewhat controversial opinion, but it has a right to exist.
And new types of Russian nuclear-powered ships cannot but provoke a response from the United States. New and modern submarines are a definite threat. And the threat must be responded to. Hence the constant work on the creation of their submarines in the United States.
Everything is logical. Since the days of the USSR, when the Soviet Navy had a larger numerical strength, but was still inferior to the American one, the emphasis was placed on the power of the submarine fleet. And as much as American aircraft carriers were a symbol of the projection of power to any region of the world, so the Soviet submarine fleet threatened the very existence of the United States.
Today, in the same way, according to Western experts, Russia is focusing on its submarine forces, which, unlike surface ones, can gain an advantage over the American, not only in quantitative, but also in a qualitative sense.
There is a lot of talk about Borei in the West, and they talk with rapture. Well, they like to talk there about the Apocalypse, and "Borey-A", that is, Project 955A, is exactly the apparatus for destroying, if not the whole world, then part of it. For example, North America.
In second place is "Ash".
Not such a terrible machine, but also quite enough to keep half the world at bay. Moreover, the Yasen is a separate class, a submarine armed with cruise missiles. And accordingly, there is something to compare.
Naturally, the model for comparison is the new US Navy submarine "Virginia". So to speak, "our response to Russia" from America.
The Ash class was originally developed in the late 1980s to replace the aging Akula-class nuclear submarines back in the USSR. However, the American "Virginia" began to be created at about the same time.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, work on the boat continued and the result was a fairly reworked boat, more perfect. The size of the boat has been reduced, although the Ash is still larger than the Virginia.
Both boats were made taking into account almost a century of experience in the struggle of submariners for stealth and low noise, but both types have compromise solutions, since the boats were created for several different operations.
Virginia is compact. The budget did not allow making a large boat. The underwater displacement is about 7900 tons. This does not allow the use of the latest developments in the field of sound insulation. The screw of the new generation, the "Archimedes screw", solves the problem a little, but at the expense of the speed.
"Ash" is larger, 13800 tons of underwater displacement. It seems easier to spot, but the traditional two-hull layout makes the boat less noisy. Since "Ash" - weapon offensive, aimed at surface ships, then they were able to squeeze the maximum speed out of it, not particularly worrying about camouflage.
Many in the West are strained by the fact that "Ash" is faster and quieter than "Virginia". But this is a fact. The quiet advantage is small, but it is there.
If we talk about strike weapons (and how not to talk about it), the "Ash" looks like a kind of killer monster.
Not that the "Russian threat", but in fact: 10 torpedo tubes against 4 at Virginia can form a more significant salvo, despite the fact that Russian torpedo tubes can easily fire cruise missiles.
The problem with American boats is that since the 60s of the last century, Americans have placed torpedo tubes on the sides of what is commonly called a wheelhouse. Hence the problems with launching torpedoes at speeds above 13 knots.
Rockets. Virginia owns 12 Tomahawks. This is very weighty.
The "Ash" has fewer cells, only 8, but they can charge from 32 "Onyx" or "Zircon" to 40 "Caliber". The question "who is cooler" is open.
The Americans, sacrificing torpedo tubes, can place a hydroacoustic locator of large diameter and high sensitivity in the nose.
So Ash in terms of weapons looks much more deadly than Virginia. Yes, the next American boats of the 5th series (Block V) will receive the VPM system - Virginia Payload Module, which will consist of four launchers for seven missiles each. Then the total salvo of "Axes" will increase to 40.
But we have already repeatedly compared Tomahawk and Caliber, so this is not an advantage, this is an attempt to catch up with the enemy who has gone ahead.
The mobility of boats is also not in favor of the Americans. "Ash" is faster, and much faster. Its speed under water in different sources varies from 31 to 35 knots. And even at the minimum, this is pretty much higher than the 26 knots of the Virginia.
Thermal power of the S9G reactor at Virginia is 150 MW, OK-650V at Yasen - about 200. Shaft power is about 30 MW at Virginia and 50 MW at Yasen. So much for the difference. Plus a propeller for high speeds on a Russian boat.
Ash also dives deeper. 400 meters of working depth versus 250 for an American boat. And the maximum depth to which you can go in case of emergency, and in general - 600 meters versus 300. The working depth of immersion is the one at which the submarine can stay indefinitely, keeping all its capabilities. The ultimate allows for a short-term safe stay with a limited number of characteristics.
It is clear that the submarine hunter and the ship for special operations - "Virginia" do not need high speed. But "Ash", which has to drive surface connections, speed is important.
In general, the difference in capabilities and characteristics is visible to the naked eye. And here "Ash" is clearly stronger than "Virginia" in almost all characteristics.
This is not to say that the Americans did not try to build something like that: quiet, fast, deep-sea and toothy in terms of weapons. And the result was Sea Wolf, a boat that terrified many in the United States. At a price. After that, they decided not to build such a monster. Expensive even for the USA.
Ash is stronger. He is capable of fighting anyone, even aircraft carrier formations. And Virginia must hunt Ash. Quietly and imperceptibly approach the range of a volley and ...
Plus, the American boat can be used for various special operations, for which it has the entire set of equipment. But this is not the topic of today's conversation.
And the most important thing. "Ash" is planned to be built on 9. "Virginia" - 66.
It is clear here that with such a number of boats, the US Navy can easily neutralize the advantage of the Ash trees, which will not be produced in such a large series.
There is such a confrontation as between a detachment of landsknechts and mounted knights.
Of course, no one in the United States is going to sit idly by. The Virginia Block V modification is more than the boats of the previous versions by 25 meters in length, and by 2 tons in displacement due to an insert with missile containers, which can increase the number of launchers from 12 to 40.
Contracts? To hell with the Russians coming!
It is difficult to live in the West when there is a constant threat from Russian submarines. But interesting. And there is something to talk about. And how to justify the need to build new underwater hunters at a rate of 7 to 1.
Respect, potential ...