Blog Post
Typhoon Class Soviet/Russian SSBN – under construction in dry dock.

The Typhoons are being replaced – or augmented – depending on who you talk to, by the newer Borei Class. 
On 15 December 2009, a Defense Ministry official announced that the laying down of the fourth Borei-class submarine had been postponed from December to the first quarter of 2010. The reason for the delay was said to be “organizational and technical reasons”. The fourth ship of the class will be constructed under a new 955A modification. It is reported by unnamed sources that this modification will include major structural changes and probably other changes. If these reports are true, technically the fourth ship will be the lead ship of a new Borei II class, though this has not been officially confirmed. The 2025 State Armament Plan mentions a new “Husky” class of ballistic missile submarine. Starting from the fourth hull, all submarines of the Borei class will have 20 missile tubes each, versus 16 for the first three boats. If armed with the Bulava (missile) with ten warheads atop each, a single Borei-class SSBN could then carry 200 warheads – as much as the entire nuclear arsenal of the United Kingdom. The UK offers no comment.
The Borei is a hybrid – far closer to a Delta IV than a Typhoon, but a far more serious punch than the old Delta boats, which carried a 65 cm torpedo capable of very long ranges and sensitive wake homing capacity (to kill US Aircraft Carriers).

13 thoughts on “Typhoon

  1. Thanks for that. The Royal Navy's on track for two new aircraft carriers, which will apparently do double duty as landing craft for what's left of the Marines.

    I may be wrong, but I doubt the Russians are overly concerned about that threat. Still, they might be good for a quick raid on Calais.

  2. Are the Russians still guided by Admiral Gorskov's philosophy?

  3. I think that the Royal Navy (Britain's senior service) is doing the best that they can given that the nation is focused on importing and then supporting savage peoples, not on providing a security cordon for its population.

    Could they raid St. Nazarie with those aircraft carriers?

    Not at present because they only have one carrier and it still doesn't work the way it needs to in order to be combat effective.

    There's also a big move in the UK to scrap its trident submarines and become a nuclear free island, trusting in French nuclear weapons to keep it safe. How times have changed. Nelson rolls in his grave.

  4. That's an interesting question. I'll offer what answer I can. Sergey Georgiyevich Gorshkov was a SOVIET era admiral who saw the navy as a phoenix rising from the ashes of the Russian humiliation at Tsushima and the struggles of the Great Patriotic War (WW2). ADM Gorshkov wanted a two-ocean navy that could threaten the planet. Russia (much smaller than the USSR) focuses on a quality nuclear deterrent and enough attack submarines to support its vital interests, protect sea lanes, etc. The surface fleet is only an adjunct to that mission.

    As a regional power and not a world power (Russia's GDP is about that of Texas – but it's 9 time zones long and only has two warm water ports), their philosophy is changing to reflect an all volunteer military with pay and benefits roughly equal to those of its Western counterparts. This is happening in the Russian Army and Navy, Strategic Rocket Forces, etc.

    The realities of Gorshkov's era (he died in 1988) and the reality of 2018 are very different. Russia is no longer communist, and it's also a Christian nation. It's not the Soviet Union. Despite the media hype, the Russians can cause mischief and they can 'be Russian', but they lack the capacity. So they resort to doing a few things well, and I can argue that their submarines over the past 20 years or so are good. They are not the equal of the US submarines, but their mission is different. They don't have to be in order to accomplish that mission.

  5. I'm more worried about the state of our Navy since 8 years of Obama did its best to disemboweled the works.

  6. We need to rebuild and reverse the curse. It's not just the state of spare parts and an over-worked navy with ships that are continually deployed to meet vital needs. It's also the waste of ships that were built during the ObamaNation like the Littoral Combat Ships, which are not only useless, they are a drain on resources to keep at seal

  7. Rebuild and reverse. That sounds good to me. I want my tax dollars going to something worth while. This sounds like a worthwhile endeavor to me.

  8. The Rissians are very Engineers, with a different design philosophy than their Western counterparts.

    They make things extremely good where they have to be, and where they don't, it looks like it rolled out of a third-rate shop.

    Aircraft with finely finished leading edges and control surfaces with welding spatter elsewhere on the skin.

    American built launch vehicles are works of art, while the ones we used at Sea Launch looked like they were painted by 3rd graders with malfunctioning spray cans…..

  9. President Trump is reversing quite a lot. Paris Climate Scam, the gift of $150 billion in cash to fund their expansionist vision and to bolster their nuclear program. If he can do that, he can fix the navy.

  10. You're right on the money with your comments. There are different philosophies with both, and both work. Russian aircraft can all land on horrible runways. American aircraft are not FOD resistant.

  11. Interesting: Russia Postpones Future Aircraft Carrier Program
    They're still being bitten by Soviet central planning. Ukraine built the big gas turbines for ships… Oops.

  12. They don't need an aircraft carrier. They can build a lot of submarines for the price of one carrier.

  13. Aircraft carriers were always a bit of a vanity project for them. China, on the other hand, bears watching.

Comments are closed.

Scroll to top