Home » Budget Industry » U.S. Navy Impressed with New Russian Attack Boat


U.S. Navy Impressed with New Russian Attack Boat

Russian submarine Novosibirsk during July 2013 sea trials.

Russian Project 885 submarine during sea trials.

One of the U.S. Navy’s top submarine officers was so impressed with Russia’s new Project 885 nuclear attack boats that he had a model of K-329 Severodvinsk built for his office.

Rear Adm. Dave Johnson, Naval Sea Systems Command’s (NAVSEA) program executive officer (PEO) submarines said he had the model of Severodvinsk placed outside his office in a common area so that he could look at it every day on his way to his office.

“We’ll be facing tough potential opponents. One only has to look at the Severodvinsk, Russia’s version of a [nuclear guided missile submarine] (SSGN). I am so impressed with this ship that I had Carderock build a model from unclassified data.” Johnson said last week during the Naval Submarine League’s symposium in Falls Church, Va.
“The rest of the world’s undersea capability never stands still.”

The Russian attack boat had been in construction since 1993 and only entered sea trials late in 2011. The boat finally became operational earlier this year. A cash-strapped Russian Federation had to repeatedly delay completion of the submarine in the chaos that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Severodvinsk is the most capable Russian attack submarine ever built and leverages many of the technologies the Soviet Union invested in during the 1970s and 1980s.

Model of Russian submarine Severodvinsk built for NAVSEA. US Naval Institute Photo

Model of Russian submarine Severodvinsk built for NAVSEA. US Naval Institute Photo

The 13,800-ton, 390-foot long, submarine is highly automated vessel with a crew of only 32 officers and 58 enlisted submariners.

It is far quieter than previous Russian submarines and has a maximum “silent” speed of about 20 knots.

The U.S. Naval Institute’s Combat Fleets of the World said some reports suggest the vessel might have a maximum speed of between 35 and 40 knots. However, most Russian reports state a maximum speed of 35 knots. Like most new nuclear submarine designs, Severodvinsk’s reactor is designed to last for the life of the boat.

According the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), while the new Russian submarine is quieter than the Improved Los Angeles-class boats, the new vessel is not quite as silent as the Seawolf or Virginia-class. However, the Soviets were always only lagging slightly behind U.S. in quieting technology according to Navy sources. The Russians are already building improved versions of the Yasen design.

Unlike most Soviet submarine designs, the Yasen-class boats do not make use of a double-hull—instead it has hybrid design with a lighter structure over the vessel’s pressure hull according to Russia media reports.

Another unique feature for a Russian vessel is that it incorporates a spherical bow sonar called the Irtysh-Amfora for the first time. As a result, Severodvinsk has its torpedo tubes located at about mid-ship like U.S. submarines. The vessel has eight torpedo tubes, four of which are 650mm tubes while the rest are 533mm tubes. Combat Fleets of the World estimates that the Yasen-class might carry as many as 30 torpedoes.

Infographic of Project 885 submarine via RIA Novosti

Infographic of Project 885 submarine via RIA Novosti

Like most Russian attack submarines, the vessel’s primary weapons are in the form of heavy anti-ship missiles. The boat has 24 missile tubes which can carry the supersonic NPO Mashinostroyeniya P-800 Oniks anti-ship missile which can hit targets roughly 200 nautical miles away. Severodvinsk can also carry Novator RK-55 Granat nuclear-capable 1,600 nautical mile-range subsonic land attack cruise missiles. Additionally, the Yasen-class boats can also launch the 3M14 Kalibr and 3M54 Biryuza land attack and anti-ship missiles, which have a roughly 300-mile range, though its torpedo tubes.

It also carries 91R anti-submarine missiles and has the capability to lay mines along with its normal complement of torpedoes.

Some Russian sources such as Russia Beyond the Headlines suggest that Severodvinsk is equipped with active anti-torpedo defenses and some sort of anti-air capability. The later would not be unprecedented, the Project 941 Akula—known better as the Typhoon-class ballistic missile submarine—was equipped with a 9K38 Igla surface-to-air missile system for ship self-defense.

Russia is expected to build eight Yasen-class boats. Since Severodvinsk took almost two decades to finish, the subsequent boats have many technological refinements to improve on the original Project 885 design. The next two Yasen-class boats are already under construction at the Sevmash shipyards in Severodvinsk, Russia. Kazan was laid down in July of 2009 while Novosibirsk was laid down July of 2013.

  • Chesapeakeguy

    Looks a lot like the “Kursk”. Sure hope for their sailors sake that they fixed the torpedoes!

    • facebookprogrammer

      So it was a ‘torpedo’ that caused that perfectly round hole in the hull and the perfectly symmetrical decapitation of the entire front and the theft of the “GRANIT” missiles?

      • Ctrot

        Of course not, it was black helicopters flying from their base on the far side of the moon silly.

        • facebookprogrammer

          Still makes more sense than the official story.

      • Chesapeakeguy

        Offer your proof of something else. And my reference to torpedoes has to do with the explanation offered that at least one of her own torpedoes ‘cooked off’ inside the Kursk and resulted in the massive explosions that sank her! About that ‘decapitation’ of the bow, you DO know that divers did that to facilitate raising the rest of it, don’t you? And if the conspiracy theorists are going to assign blame to external sources (to the Kursk itself) for the sinking, then it’s fair to mention that the use of torpedoes by the Russians themselves have been mentioned as a possible cause, and might be the reason for that ‘hole’ in the Kursk’s side, right? The cruiser “Peter The Great” reputedly fired something like 5 live torpedoes towards the Kursk, and only 4 were ever recovered or accurately accounted for. Let’s get it ALL in there if that’s the road that’s going to be traveled!

        • John Allard

          Gawd how terrible that would be if true, they sank one of their own SSGN’s by accident. Another reason to cover it up, at least for Ivan.

        • jvictor1789

          Enough of that “perfectly round hole in the hull ” picture we´ve all seen.Torpedoes do not sink ships by penetrating them through “perfectly round holes in the hull”.

          • John Allard

            Well could you explain them why that area of the hull, the hull is bent inwards? I think that’s boteworthy when the rest of the bow section looked like a junkyard exploded.

      • John Allard

        There’s no way anyone stole missiles of the Kursk in 2000, not with the whole god damned Russia Navy including a nuclear powered Russian Battlecruiser. Maybe with a few Carrier groups we could force our way in.
        However, I do agree with you in the suspicios hole in the vessel, a hole about the size of say, a Mk-48 ADCAP torpedo. The USS Memphis was in the area when the Kursk went down. I’ve heard several conspiracy theories regarding the Kurak in relation to the USS Memphis. She supposedly also had to undergo repairs in a North Sea shipyard-I think it was in Norway-almost immediately following the sinking of the Kursk. Perhaps both governments covered it up to avoid a major diplomatic incident?
        What’s strange is that hole I mentioned earlier is the only damaged area with the hull bent inwards, whereas the rest of the bow was clearly blown outwards. We will probably never know the truth.

        • James Bowen

          Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t it a Russian investigation that concluded that an internal explosion in the torpedo room was the cause of the sinking?

        • Chesapeakeguy

          Which always begs the question: WHY would an American sub sink a Russian one with half the Russian navy on scene to boot? The implication has to be that it was a deliberate act. I don’t think Bill Clinton or anyone else within our command authorities would have picked that kind of fight with the Russians. I find it hard to believe that an actual ‘warshot’ could be ‘accidentally’ fired from an American sub, or that anyone, even the CO, could initiate such an action entirely on his own, or that his crew would follow through with such an order without verification from an outside source! Now, many modern torpedoes have the ability to ‘re-engage’ a target, that is, if they miss the first time, or their angle of attack is not optimal, they can literally ‘circle’ back to attack again from the same direction. I don’t know if the Kursk fired any weapons, as has been reported of the cruiser Peter The Great. But if she did fire a live torpedo, even a practice one, and if that circled back and struck the Kursk, it certainly could have set off the chain reaction of events that resulted in it being sunk. But, as you say, we will probably never know the real truth.

        • Patrick Sutfin

          Also mk 48 torpedos are designed to explode under the target creating a blast that lifts the target and creates a pressure that breaks a vessels beam. these are not the torpedoes of ww2.

          • John Allard

            I’m aware of that.

          • Patrick Sutfin

            The double hull was not designed for added survivability. It was made to provide a more stable missile launch platform. I am an ex submariner and fire control technician. I was a naval instructor at Groton for my last tour. I have a bit of knowledge and experience with this subject matter.

          • John Allard

            I have no doubt you know your stuff, and I wasn’t aware that was why they went with the double hull design. Still, a double hull has got to give added protection at least against light torpedoes like our older Mk-46’s and Mk-54’s.
            Question, is there a Mk-48 with a special penetrator warhead? I can’t find much online, but I have heard speculation about it. Still, I think if it was a torp, it was probably a Russian torp. In 2000 s lot of their ordance was suffering from extreme neglect.
            What I know is self-taught, I am not a trained or certified professional as you are, but I think I know more than your average artilleryman. Subs have always fascinated me.

  • EdC

    Make them build a couple of dozen….love to see them feed their people, fly bombers, deploy mechanized divisions, put down dissidents and so on without the money and other resources needed for building them out. Funny!

    • Jackov

      The Trillions spent on Iraq & Afghanistan could have funded free healthcare, and free college tuition for US citizens.

      • Ctrot

        There were no “trillions” spent on Iraq / Afghanistan, but we do already spend in excess of One Trillion Every Year on the American Welfare State.

        • Dennis Nilsson

          Don’t you want to live in a “Welfare State”?

          The opposite to a “Welfare State” is a “feudal slave state”.

          • Ctrot

            Wrong. The opposite of a welfare state is a “personal responsibility state”.

          • Dennis Nilsson

            A “personal responsibility state” is utopia, like all other xyz..-ism’s.

      • EdC

        Which has nothing to do with Russia trying to build nuclear submarines and support their failing economy, Still, nice try at deflecting from the topic. You’ve been studying up on strawman argument strategies when you don’t like positions!

        • ivan

          Its OK. America will become a 3rd world country when your white majority becomes a minority. Your own govt wants to make you into a racial minority subject to racial discrimination and wealth confiscation. A 3rd world majority will vote for politicians that reallocate resources towards the welfare state and away from military and defense. This is all very good. Good night America :))))

          • EdC

            Yeah….right…..good that you have a fantasy to dream about while the rest of us talk about today’s reality. Seriously, go find some futures-oriented post, this is about submarines and Russia’s attempts at trying to build a credible fleet and military.

  • Benny (off the Blenny, SS324)

    The Russians are not to be taken lightly. And if it hadn’t been for them we’d be speaking German right now.

    • Ctrot

      In truth it was American, and British, lend lease material that kept Russia in the war. Westerners are too quick to give Stalin credit for what their own parents / grandparents actually accomplished.

      • Secundius

        @ Ctrot.

        LIBERTY ship’s being part of that American Steel, too…

        • James Bowen

          Yes, much of our steel production went to the Navy (and ships for the Royal Navy and other allied fleets too).

        • Ctrot

          The 425 million tons of steel I referenced was in the form of ingots, a further 100+ freighters were also supplied to Russia.

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            I know, but the Liberty ship itself was also the cargo. I was meant to be scrapped, once it reached it’s destination. And their crew ferried back to the states, on a non-expendable ship. That what the Liberty was designed for, not only to deliver cargo, but itself being the cargo.

          • Ctrot

            The Liberty ships were not built as one use expendable ships, many remained in service into the 60’s and 70’s. And there is no record of any Liberty ship being scrapped upon arriving in Russia and the crew being returned by other means.

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            Those, that survived to see the end of the War. Remember by Official Wars end in 31 December 1946. The US Navy Fleet Strength World Wide was 71,009-ships of various classes. This can be verified by the book, “The Guinness Book of World Records”.

      • James Bowen

        The USSR produced more tanks and artillery pieces than anyone else did during World War II. They army by far took more casualties than any other army did, not to mention the mass murders inflicted on their population. Their contribution to victory over Germany was both vital and second to none. I do think defeat of Germany would have still been possible without the Soviet Union (provided Britain survived), but it would have been far, far costlier to the U.S. and Britain.

        • Ctrot

          How many tanks and artillery pieces would Russia have built without the 425 million tons of American steel? How would the Red army have survived without the 500 million pounds of pork, 600 million pounds of sausage, 2.4 Billion pounds of canned meats, 500 million pounds of beans and millions upon millions of pounds of other American foodstuffs? Do you think the 100,000+ Studebaker trucks provided to Russia had no use at all? In large part the WWII Red army was fed, clothed, armed and transported by American goods.

          Read “Russia’s Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II” by Albert L. Weeks

          • James Bowen

            You are correct that many vital resources were provided to the Soviet Union by the U.S. The Soviets were more than self-sufficient in weapons production. Indeed, they were first in tanks and artillery and second, though a distant second, in aircraft production; but they were dependent on the U.S. for truck transport, communications equipment, and other vital military supplies. Nonetheless, that in no way diminishes their contribution to victory over Germany. They had by far the largest loss of life of any belligerent in Europe, and they were responsible the the destruction of the majority of the Wehrmacht. At no time was any less than 70% of the German Army committed to the Eastern Front.

          • John Allard

            The trucks from the US were significant. Without them, its doubtful the Soviets would’ve been able to advance as quickly as they did. Sure their tanks could make the trip, but without accompanying mech infantry armored spearheads could be cut off and surrounded. And their Katuysha rockets were largely mounted on American trucks. It’s not finishing them, its a reminder that the USSR had, and needed Allies despite her prowess in other areas.

          • Lendlease

            Much of soviet requirements for Aid were as much due to the fact the whole country had to relocate its industry to the Urals in the face of invasion. Its not that the Soviets were incapable of providing for their own needs, its that under the pressure of invading armies and their subsequent ‘downtime’ that such relocations caused that definitely made them require help from the US.

            That said don’t delude yourselves, an invasion in the West without the Soviets wearing and tying down the bulk of German forces (Luftwaffe, Heer, Waffen SS etc) and the consequences this conflict with the Soviets had on their own industrial needs would have probably made any Anglo-American invasion on the European mainland next to impossible.

            The Allied Victory was a combined one, East and West….

          • syd1

            Very true, well said.

          • AI

            “Advance as quickly as they did” Are you delusional american? It took them 4 years to reach German boarder…

          • Ctrot

            Without American trucks, food, clothing, tools, raw materials of every imaginable sort (steel, aluminum, molybdenum, magnesium, chromium, mercury, tungsten etc.) Russia could not have produced those numbers of tanks, artillery and aircraft. They could not have supported them in the field; they could not have fed or clothed their own troops. Yes they tied down the majority of the German Army, but they would not have done so without American aid. At best they would have fought a long drawn out defensive battle against the Germans but they would not have been able to go on the offensive, at worst they would simply have been over ran and knocked out of the war by ~1943.

            The oft stated claim that “the Allies could not have won without Russia” is exactly 180 degrees off from the truth as Russia could not have won without the Allies, mainly America.

          • James Bowen

            I agree with most of this. I’m not sure about the steel and raw materials though–Stalin’s brutal industrialization programs of the 1930’s concentrated on these areas and made the USSR a large producer of these commodities. Also, I’m not sure they would have been knocked out of the war by mid-1943 either. During the darkest days of 1942 Allied aid was reduced to a trickle due to the shipping losses inflicted by u-boats. Late that year is when they launched their devastatingly effective counteroffensive at Stalingrad. It seems apparent that the Soviets hung on mostly on their own devices. The aid made possible their total defeat of the German Wehrmacht though.

          • El_Sid

            Perhaps more accurate to say that Russia could not have won without the US, but would have lost without the UK. British help was significant – and more important, it was early, they were shipping materiel in the summer of ’41 whilst the US was still trying to decide if Nazism was a bad thing or not. From memory 55% of the planes used in the defence of Moscow were British in origin – at that stage of the war the British aircraft industry had a significant advantage over Germany’s.

          • John Barksdale

            The Yanks were just tired of being drug into every World War the brits were so eager to join, namely WWI and WWII. Britain is like a little brother who gets his nose bloodied and comes crying to the Yanks to make it right.

          • Sand_Cat

            Get real

          • Sand_Cat

            Your post seems generally in accord with the facts, but where does your figure of 55% British planes come from?
            1) I’d like to point out that Britain certainly could not have won, or even likely held out against a determined German attack, without US aid.
            2) The fact that Hitler was more interested in destroying the USSR than defeating Britain helped the UK and – later – the US immeasurably.
            3) I may be wrong – and feel free to correct me if you have the facts – but my impression is that air forces played a distinctly secondary – or even minor – role in turning the Germans back from Moscow in 1941. The big things were the counteroffensive with Siberian units, the overconfidence of the Germans, and – big time – their failure to prepare for winter.

            My point is to denigrate no one; those who try to say one or the other of the “Big Three” didn’t carry its weight base their claims primarily on ignorance and jingoism.

          • Joe Collins

            General Winter definitely played a major role in helping the Soviets defeat Germany, but another major factor was the untenable German supply lines, stretching across a huge expanse of Eastern Europe. Coupled with a poor ratio of mechanized infantry, lack of winter clothing etc and it is clear that Germany was never really prepared for a global war and especially a war against two global superpowers, the Soviet Union and the USA. Germany didn’t even have long range bombers, proof that they were expecting a contained war of aggression to change facts on the ground and were not seriously contemplating a global conflagration. It is obvious in hindsight, that Hitler was wholly unprepared for a global fight and was more than likely banking on quick blitzkrieg victories on the European continent followed by peace talks to establish the status quo in Germany’s favor. .

          • 55Q

            Interesting fact. The present day Russian rockets are hauled to the launch pad by a Rus locomotive that is a knock off of the Alco RSD-1 locomotive provided by Lend Lease. A pre WW2 design!

          • Vasko Dimoski

            with out Russia how many Americans & British people would have died dont make out metal supply and food supply was a big price millions more Europeans would have died maybe Russia should have taken Hitler’s side so you could eat your own food and build those Tanks your self wake up if it wasn’t for Russia it would have been your family’s fighting.

          • Ctrot

            As a matter of fact Stalin did take Hitler’s side in invading and dividing Poland. And then enslaved eastern Europe after “liberating” those countries from Hitler.

          • evangelical

            You’re definitely an ldiot after this comment.

          • Ctrot

            Read a history book, what I stated is 100% factually correct.

          • Our families were fighting anyway. In truth without Russia we would have started nuking Germany in 1946 and would have won the same way we defeated Japan.

          • Sand_Cat

            That would have been great. How many people in the rest of Europe would have died or been crippled by the radiation?

          • I wouldn’t want to be a Berliner, I can tell you that much.

          • Sand_Cat

            Russian carried its share of the freight, and Britain and the US should be grateful, but Russia should be grateful for the help it received: don’t overstate the case.

        • cig

          You are so quick to mention mass murder inflicted on Russians yet you make no mention of Russians raping over 2 MILLION German woman (children included) in the fall of Berlin alone.

          • James Bowen

            That is beside the point–the point being that the Soviets were able to destroy the Wehrmacht in spite of the enormous losses in resources and territory they initially incurred and the losses in people the incurred throughout the war/

          • ninjaside

            why not 10? sources? Russia lost over 20 millions of population mostly civilians. And land lease are far less important than you imagine. That was the only help from so called “allies” till 44. And even shortly after in 1945 Soviets helped to crush Japan, destroyed whole Japan 1.2 mil army in Manchuria in 2 weeks And you’re so quick to mention 2 million of rapes, but why you’re not mention that US is only county who actually used nuclear bombs on cities populated by civilians with instant casualties of 200k.

          • Lend lease gave a small moon made of pure steel to the USSR. If they didn’t want half a billion tons of it they shouldn’t have asked us for it.

          • Sand_Cat

            Not a pretty thing, but the Germans weren’t exactly that nice to Russians, either. Call me cruel and heartless, but I find it hard to get worked up about anything anyone did to the Germans during WW II.

          • Sand_Cat

            Not to mention to Jews and millions of others.

      • KazuakiShimazaki

        Well, there will always be a debate over exactly how vital the Lend-Lease aid is. For example, though the Studebaker trucks are very important, if they *weren’t* there, the Soviets will probably have diverted T-60/70/80 and Su-76 production to make up at least part of the shortfall – basically, they are a way to soak up productive capacity that can make automobiles and lorries, but aren’t quite up to making T-34s.

        Nevertheless, it is a sign of Russophobia that in a discussion about subs, a quick word of caution against underestimating Russians is responded to by such extravagant vitrol extolling the virtues of Lend-Lease, including the hyperbolic “every single tank” part (what? The Russians produced *no* steel during the war?). I must also wonder whether the tendency by some Americans to extoll the virtues of Lend-Lease is caused by a guilt complex that they *hadn’t* really shed much blood in comparison – in effect, they used Lend-Lease (in effect, a kind of “checkbook diplomacy” – remember how Japan was blasted for that in the Gulf War?) to minimize the bloodshed to American lives, and only to come in where conditions are favorable. Smart, but does tend to leave a bit of a complex that comes out on days like this.

        • Ctrot

          No, your imagined “Russophobia” didn’t take the subject off of subs, “Russo-worship” and Russo revisionist history did. The comment leading to this discussion was: “And if it hadn’t been for them we’d be speaking German right now.” That is a myth spread by ignorance of what really happened and whom really depended upon whom.

          As for “extravagant vitriol”, is that what you call relating facts? Is your hatred of America / love of the Soviets so great that you will turn a blind eye to facts? The US and Britain did supply Russia with enormous amounts of material during the war and that material did have a great effect in supporting the Russian war effort, whether that falls inline with your warped worldview is irrelevant. It is illogical, at best, to on one hand praise the efforts of Russia in building tens of thousands of armored vehicles and on the other hand dismissing the importance of US suppling them with steel in quantities equal to millions of those same armored vehicles. I’m sure that Russia did mine ore and produce steel as well, but if they had plenty of their own why they would they request hundreds of millions of tons of steel from the United States? Again, it simply isn’t logical.

          And don’t kid yourself about any supposed “guilt”. The US has nothing to feel guilty about with respect to our participation in WWII. If there’s any guilt to be had it would be on the Russians you seem to admire so much, they started the war on Hitlers side and ended it by enslaving millions who they claimed to have “liberated”.

        • Drew

          That was incredibly astute. I just wanted to give you a hat tip. I do believe you cut deep and to the point with that comment.

      • Jiesheng Li

        Exactly the Russians relied much on the Northern Convoys.

      • JamesOfNY

        I’m pretty sure the war could not have been won without both, Yes, our industry was obviously key to the success of the USSR’s war effort, but so were the human wave attacks in which so many citizens of the Soviet Republics lost their lives. The sacrifices they had to make to win were orders of magnitude more horrible than anything the US endured. I think they lost something like 10% or more of their population.
        That said, it cannot and should not be used to excuse bad behavior by Russia today. But no matter how bad things get between the US and Russia, we should still remember the time our grandparents came together and put their all into saving the world from darkness.

        • Ctrot

          Could the allies, or the US in particular, have won the war against Germany without Russia? Yes, I believe the US would have won regardless of Russia. For one simple reason, the Atlantic Ocean. Germany could not have defeated the US without invading the US, and that was simply beyond Germany capabilities. Germany industry was no match for American industry, the US would have defeated Germany regardless of Russia. The same cannot be said of Russia as Russia had no Ocean separating her from Germany and Russia industry was not on par with American industry. The US would have the atomic bomb by 1945 and the B-36 by 1946, Germany would be doomed.

          • Observer

            The Atlantic Ocean works in two directions…. The British were vital due to their ‘unsinkable carrier’ like location off the continent. However without Soviet Forces tying down millions of German Forces, the wearing down of the Luftwaffe (which was still quite potent leading into Barbarossa), and indeed the loss of trade that existed between the USSR/Germany before their war you would find invading the continent a whole other league of difficulty..

            The Atomic Bomb was indeed a different matter though how reliable such would be given a much stronger Luftwaffe is questionable (Re: Fuel Crisis, Loss of Training Hours, Experienced Cadres, Machines)..

            All of this is ‘what if territory’ however

          • ninjaside

            What are you talking about? You’re not able even to defeat one Japan for nearly 4 years, till Soviet Union come to help you to avoid another few years of war and few millions of additional casualties.

          • Ctrot

            On a day when there are thousands of democrats making stupid statements in the wake of their overwhelming defeat at the poles yesterday you have still managed to “win the internet” for stupidest comment I’ve seen all day, congratulations.

          • ninjaside

            So nothing reasonable, just ad-hominem?

          • Ctrot

            Okay, since you asked.

            Your supposition that the United States struggled to defeat Imperial Japan is without factual merit.

            After the humiliating defeat at Midway in June 1942 the war in the Pacific was a foregone conclusion. Japan was never again able to launch any strategic offensive operations and was routinely defeated with losses 10 times, and more, greater than American losses. And that is with the Pacific Theater of Operations purposefully being relegated to secondary status with the defeat of Germany taking precedence as matter of strategic policy.

            Which brings me to the fact of the United States building, almost from scratch (the US army ranked 18th in the world at the beginning of the war), the largest, most powerful military machine the world had ever known in the space of little more that three and a half years while at the same time also producing millions upon millions of tons of equipment and raw materials for other allied countries. During the war the United States produced no less than: 310,000 aircraft, 140,000 tanks, artillery pieces and armored vehicles, 82,000 landing craft, 900 destroyers and cruisers, 211 submarines, 110 escort carriers, 27 fleet carriers and 10 battleships. No other country comes close, I doubt that any 2 other countries combined can compare.

            The idea that the United States required any assistance from the Soviet Union in order to bring about the final defeat of Imperial Japan is laughable, ridiculous, without any factual basis and completely false. The Soviet Union refused to offer any assistance in the Pacific Theater at the same time the United States was pouring millions of tons of aid into the USSR’s fight against Germany, then with Japan defeated Stalin decided to help himself to the Kuril Islands the same way he had helped himself to eastern Poland in league with his then ally Hitler in 1939.

            Germany was never anywhere close to developing an atomic bomb (they had foolishly followed a dead end path, ie heavy water) And to this day no one has developed a rocket that can “fly through the atlantic ocean”.

          • AI

            US made Soviet Union brake their neutrality pack with Japan despite the fact that Japan sticked with it during 1941. Google: “soviet japan war 1945” They killed and POWed more Japanese in 2 weeks than US and its allies in 4 years,

          • Nukes would have won the war for the United States even if we had had no allies at all.

          • Alex Skorodumov

            The US would not have the nuke without scientists from the UK.

          • Alex Skorodumov

            And Germany would have rather strong airforce and good radars in 1946, ICBM in 1950.

        • Observer

          “Human Wave Attacks”, actually the Soviets had a doctrine for Deep Battle, there was a lot more strategy, tactics to soviet thinking then is commonly described….

          During the Finish War certainly ‘waves’ were thrown at the enemy, Stalin in all of his genius having purged the military during its reforms certainly helped in this regard.

          I agree with your overall intent though, it was a combined effort and its disrespectful to omit any of those who played a role in victory, whether they be British, Commonwealth, Soviet, US, Free French, Poles etc…..

      • Serge Krieger

        Those lend lease materials started arriving in real serious numbers only in 1943 after the tide of the war was turned. Before 1943 they were not arriving in any significant numbers. While lend lease was helpful, USSR still would win albeit at higher cost and later., Without Soviet military effort Allies would not be able to win. One of the reason would be inability to land fopr one and another was a total German conventional superiority on land in all respects, both weapons, soldiers and military leadership. Those 3 were destroyed by Soviet army allowing later in war for Allies to land and proceed.
        All major and war deciding battles happened in the East. Battle of the Bulge or al Alamein were not war deciding moments with Al Alamein plainly few divisions meeting in the middle of nowhere.
        You could check the numners of air crafts and tanks produced by Soviet Union. Far outstripped Germany… and on the par with US . Not air crafts though. But USSR did prove it was possible to win even that kind of war without air superiority which was German until 1943.
        Google Chuikov order to hug the enemy in Stalingrad… But you gotta be Russian to be able to do that. You guys cannot do that. You need air superiority to just survive .

      • Peter mcdowell

        FYI: Soviets stopped the Germans prior to the 5% of the aid that came from the US. Soviets were in Warsaw when D-Day happened. Germany had 85% of its military against Soviets and 15% against the Allies – go figure.

      • Alex U Koyfman

        425 million tons of steel doesn’t become tanks without some value added. The Soviets killed more Germans than the rest of the allies combined. Their industry was destroyed, moved and rebuilt out of the reach of the Luftwaffe. They also gave more lives than anyone for the cause – be it at the hands of Stalin, or Hitler. Maybe you should pay credit where it’s due. The Allies would have had a far harder time without the USSR – and the world would be far different today, without a doubt.

      • Sand_Cat

        Each country made its contribution. It is not “crediting Stalin” to point out that the Russians repaid the western allies for their help by absorbing and inflicting most of the casualties ion Germany and its allies.

        • Ctrot

          If that is what the original poster had stated I would agree. However the OP, to which I was replying, claimed that had it not been for the Russians we would all be speaking German, and that is hyperbole of the highest order.

          • Sand_Cat

            Sorry; the original post was hidden.

            I see I’m a Johnny-come VERY lately to this. Just tired of looking at articles on new weapons and – instead of intelligent comments that add to the info in the article – seeing the comments section filled with jingoistic bullshit from all sides; I believe this article was about Russian submarines, but almost all of the comments are insulting exchanges about WW2.
            You are certainly not the main offender here, and it seems best to let it go.

          • Ctrot

            I get what you’re saying, and this thread was pretty dormant until you commented. But to be clear: my father fought in WWII, his cousin and my namesake died in WWII. I’ll “let it go ” when the history revisionists stop trying to make the USA a bit player in that war and the Soviet Union the hero.

          • Sand_Cat

            Most of the “revisionists” are clearly Russian trolls mis-educated by Soviet / Russian propaganda. I take your point, but I doubt many serious and peer-respected historians fall into this so-called “revisionist” camp; I wouldn’t worry about what a bunch of ignorant know-nothings post here too much, though I agree it is annoying.

          • Ctrot

            The thing about “ignorant know-nothings” is that they often vote.

          • Dialn911

            Stalin himself said without the U.S. and their machines, they would not have won the war. FACT. RIght from Stalin himself.

            The U.S. also supplied the USSR with mass rail and train systems. THey would have been neutered logistically without lend lease.

            the 4% claim is also a BS number made up by Russian propagandists that try to diminish the Wests involvement.

            This has been recently admitted by curren russian historians as well. It gets old listening to the Soviet spin doctors. Its like today, you have people who try to claim how Russian hardware is superior to U.S. technology….lol sure.

          • Sand_Cat

            Your point being….?
            The Soviets repaid by inflicting enormous casualties and tying down huge numbers of troops and amounts of equipment. I don’t recall the claim about mass rail and train systems. When did this take place? The Soviet Union had railroads of its own, and it seems highly unlikely that the US did all this between 1941 and 1943, by which latter time the USSR was well on its way. Again, not demeaning the US contribution at all, but let’s not sound like the Russian trolls.

      • AI

        Ask anyone in Europe and he tells you that Americans are the most delusional people in the world. A few years ago only 15% of Americans had their passports, meaning that most of them never travel outside US. Ctrot, do us all a favor and stick to ball games and barbecues like the rest of Americans.

      • AI

        I think you’re one of the Americans who think that their cars are the best in the world as well. Better than German, British, Italian, or Japanese cars. You need a reality check seriously.

      • AI

        As for the WW2 subject that you’re bringing up here for the reason no other than your inferiority complex because it has nothing to do with the article, I can answer that for you as well. The WW2 in Europe was literally won at the battle of Moscow in October of 1941. Before land lease, before “scary Russian winter” that Germans didn’t see before in Norway, before anything else… It was the first time German Wehrmacht sustained a true military loss of WW2. After the battle of Moscow, it was Soviets who were on offensive and they followed up with battles of Stalingrad and Kursk and the big red machine never stopped till the battle of Berlin. Why they asked for lend lease goodies? It’s very simple really… and the answer is very Russian too, “just in case”. To give you a perspective, by land lease Soviet Union received 7,000 tanks and 11,300 planes but Soviets’ losses during the course of war were 83,000 tanks and 146,000 planes. Lend lease did play crucial role for Britain though, as one third of all military equipment during the war came from land lease.

      • mak_th

        Better 400 million tons of steel than the 10-15 million soldiers, it’s pretty fair to say someone did some awfully kind math.

    • 55Q

      Only thing the Russian managed in WW2 was to give the Germans too many people to kill. The Germans got to within sight of the Kremlin before being pushed back.

  • Mo Wanchuk

    How much did that model cost to produce and from where did the money come?

    • disqus_89uuCprLIv

      It doesn’t matter.

    • EdC

      Hmmm, the budget for that command? Do you have some point? He put it there as a reminder to Naval R&D/Intel that our potential opponents aren’t standing still. Excellent morale-builder and motivator. Good to see some in government who are proactive with their leadership and problem-resolution styles.

  • MarineCorpsVet

    “leverages many of the technologies the Soviet Union invested in during the 1970s and 1980s.” That’s warm, fuzzy-speak for “as much of our technology as they could steal and continue to steal from hacked computers”.

    • Observation

      Actually the Soviets developed a lot of tech themselves in parallel.
      Needless to say they lead the way in titanium production (And I’m not talking quantity), but Yes through espionage they gained a fair bit of tech too

      but that is a long way from the suggestion that it was all/mostly via espionage given the many homegrown capabilities they demonstrated (and continue to show). Soviet Education System was of high quality, the results lead to very high results in fields of science and math, and subsequently results that we’re seeing

      • cig

        For stolen technology, see China. Russia is actually making big strides on it’s own, especially in anti-air defense.

      • Aivar Krisenko

        Do not worry explaining these people. None of them want to listen to anything than their own agenda. Most of them have never seen a Soviet/Russian ship or aircraft in person. Their only source of information on the topic is the trash you see on the news now days. None of them have any idea that even during the 70’s & the 80’s the Soviet Navy had operated several boats of the Alfa class-deep diving, titanium hull, super fast attack nuclear subs with a crew of only 25-nothing in the US Navy arsenal even today would touch. The Papa class single sub also had a titanium hull with a submerged speed of 44 knots. The single Mike class experimental sub routinely had operated at the depths of 3300-3400 feet. These are numbers listed just in the open sources. I can imagine what kind of staff did not make the news.

        • Dialn911

          funny, the USSR was behind the U.S. in silent running technolog by over 20 years. WIthout traitors selling out the technology to the enemy, they would have been further behind. when it comes to the USSR sub technology vs the US, they have always bee far behind in overall performance.

          • Aivar Krisenko

            Ok mister I know everything about the state of the Russian submarine technology. Thanks for sharing with us some of your precious thoughts. Can I ask you, what exactly your credentials/expertise in the subject? Beyond regular BS of course. May be you are some secret expert on Russian military capabilities that nobody knows about? ( We do have secret shoppers, you know ). You tell me. What I can tell you is the analytical conclusion of Norman Polmar, who unlike you, IS THE TOP US EXPERT on Soviet/Russian Navy & especially their submarine warfare. According to the fifth edtion (published in 1991 ) of the US Naval Institute Guide to the Soviet Navy, page 92 ” As noted in the previous edition of the Guide to the Soviet Navy, the Soviets HAVE NOT depended on the theft or commercial acqusition of Western technology for their submarine development. According to Melvin R. Paisley, at the time US Assistant Secretary of the Navy for research ” The Soviet submarine technological advances for quieting, strengthened double hulls, higher speed, higher reserve buoyance, and deeper operations are advances which are by and large NOT STOLEN or bought from the United States. Some technologies, are Soviet design decisions which are DIFFERENT from our decisions. Other technologies, are the result of Soviet engineered high power density material and high strength hull material”. “the Russian submarines are more survivable than their Western counterparts because of their higher reserve buoyancy ( up tp 40% compared to 10-15% in US subs) , double-hull configuration, and internal compartmentation. The newer subs are quieter than their predesessors and have more advanced weapon and sensor systems.” These are opinions of the top experts in this field, probably something you know nothing about my friend.

  • facebookprogrammer

    I remember when I learned of the theft of the SS-N-19 500 KT thermonuclear “GRANIT” missiles on board the Kursk. This article brought me right back…

  • bee bop

    This reminds me of the story of the secretive efforts at building the first polaris sub. Great pains were taken under Adm. Hyman Rickover to keep their information under tight control until someone stopped at the local hobby shop and discovered that Revelle had a plastic polasris submarine kit on the shelf. No sh-t.

    • EdC

      Similar things happened when developing the stealth fighters and bombers.

      • Chesapeakeguy

        Indeed. And those models one can buy and build of UFOs and flying saucers came from some source, right? The model makers RULE!

        • EdC

          I think they questioned Tom Clancy after he published Red Storm Rising about where he got his information on the F-117 and he told them Revell or Aurora.

          • H. H. GAFFNEY

            My memory of it was that nobody had gotten the model right at all. Who could ever construct such an ugly plane?

          • EdC

            There were the two different models he presented as the F-19. One was shaped sort of like the SR-71 but shorter and more rounded on the edges. The other seemed to be closer to the actual Night-hawk 117. The bigger problem seems to be the descriptions of poor handling and some of the speculation on the systems. Oh, and it was Testor and Monogram rather than Revell and Aurora!

    • Chesapeakeguy

      That’s always been the ‘solution’ for anyone to find out about a particular military vehicle or platform, rumored or otherwise. Go to the model makers. They ALWAYS know..LOL..

  • James Bowen

    This is very impressive. It looks like a rough equivalent of our Seawolf Class, except with cruise missiles to boot. The Russians have long built great submarines. Too bad the same thing can’t be said of their operational safety record with their submarines.

    • Jiesheng Li

      True and for defence, the US builds AAW destroyers and almost equally supberb SSNs.

  • JTTRI

    Don’t worry, Obama will help it along by slashing our Navy..

    • H. H. GAFFNEY

      He’s not. The Republican insistence on sequestration is. Obama asked for $115 billion more than the sequestration allowed, and they won’t give it to him — after all, he’s black. But over the last 10-15 years, the Navy’s shipbuilding plan has always been $3-4 billion short, and Congress could have just added that, but they never did. Rep. Randy Forbes keeps ranting about that, but he never even moved his own committee. But really, it’s the deficit that’s the real problem: it has grown from 9.3 percent in 2009, at the height of the recession to 2.4 percent now — you see what a disaster that is!

      • Chesapeakeguy

        Most of what Obama asked for had nothing to do with military expenditures. Remember that the sequestration process was a true bi-partisan effort, with both Obama and the Congress signing on to it. And they both should be held accountable for that. Of course those things will always degenerate into a blame game, or one of denial. Witness all those Senators and Representatives who told the world that they opposed going into Iraq, even though they VOTED to authorize that. “I was for it before I was against it” rings true on many things politically. Oh, the continuing obsession over our President’s skin color is noted!

        • HaakonKL

          If they thought that going into Iraq in 2003 was a good idea, they should be allowed to admit they were wrong without being crucified though. Otherwise, you’ll only see them evolve new and interesting ways of shifting blame. 🙁

      • gunterprien

        Well if you have a debt of $13 Trillion you need to run a surplus and NOT a deficit to even begin to pay that off. So your figures are outstanding to go from 10% in 2009 to 3% today is great going but it needs to continue.

        • H. H. GAFFNEY

          Wrong. Growth solves the debt problem because it produces more revenue. America needs more growth. especially because 90-93 percent of American wage-earners wages are stagnant (growing only with the 2 percent inflation). At 2.28 percent interest rate right now, 10-year bonds are essentially free (i.e., little interest payments on the debt — for ten years). So what if the debt grows for a while if we can stimulate the economy — infrastructure, all built by private contractors and private workers, both of which will pay up top 25 percent taxes on funds allocated, is the best stimulus right now — we no longer rely on Vanderbilt to provide private roads. The interest paid on the debt in 2013 was only $225 billion, i.e., about 1.3 percent of the debt — and $90 billion of that was simply shifted to another government account (e.g., the Social Security Trust Fund from which it was borrowed). So there is hardly any price of an increasing debt — and for the next ten years. And remember the multiplier in the economy from those infrastructure projects is 1.3 times to 3 times (especially now) — i.e. that’s the growth you get in the economy. This is not the economics that the GOTP or the U.S. military knows anything about. You need to catch up on your economics.

    • John Allard

      Actually, US Submarine production has been one of the rare times of DoD getting the aquistion process right. We are building a lot of Virginia class boats-almost at an accelerating rate-and they vessels have been delivered AHEAD of schedule and UNDER budget. I heard the two shipyards building then are actually competing how fast they can build a new SSN. Let’s hope the SSBN(X) is as succesful as the Virginia-class has been.

      • James Bowen

        We are not building Virginias fast enough to replace the Los Angeles-class at the rate they are retiring.

  • Basically rhe Russians have caught up to where the 688I’s were in the 80’s and 90’s

    • Csibi Attila

      not really. The only subs that can outperform them are the Virginia and the Seawolf. Meaning the US and Russian navies are heads and shoulders above the rest again. Even french, british and especially the chinese.

      • Jiesheng Li

        And the British Astutes.

        • Csibi Attila

          no.

          • Jiesheng Li

            no? Astute “sunk” a Virginia SSN in a war game.

          • Csibi Attila

            which batch(Block)? please provide link. I’ve heard of the war games, but never came across the results

      • Alex Skorodumov

        Russian/German/Swidish non-nuclear submarines are still much quieter than any nuclear sub.

    • James Bowen

      The boats appear to be ahead of the Virginias and about on par to the Seawolfs. Also, the Akulas were at least as good as the Los Angeles class boats. Neat the end of the Cold War the Soviets were building a lot of good boats. They were able to do this in part because of espionage and Toshiba selling them technology that helped them quiet their submarines. The Seawolf-class was in part a response to these developments–to regain the qualitative edge we once enjoyed. However, the Cold War soon ended and the Seawolf-class was capped at three.

      • If we had plenty of Seawolf’s we still dominate them

  • disqus_89uuCprLIv

    The Office of Naval Intelligence warned in 1991 that the Russians would be back in strength in 20 years. Now they have shown the beginning of their return to International affairs and power-mongering. This sub is an example. More, better coming.

  • J. Neville Groff

    Still has a sail. How 1990’s. They’ll be fishing this one off the bottom soon too.

  • Marjus Plaku

    It is impressive, but only if it works and used right. Still, with only six projected boats over the next 8-10 years, the USN will have built all the BlockIII Virginias then and moving into the IV, 18+ brand new boats versus maybe 6 and the diesels. I also highly doubt in quality every Russian crew member if the equivalent of his counterpart in the USN, they may be able to put together a good crew, but in every boat all the time, I doubt it. Not like we’ll be alone, I didn’t mention the British or the Germans etc…

  • wilo

    why do we have so many plane crashes in the modern age is some big country or well organised group involve in it

  • Xyu

    You are stupid (RuS)

  • Dialn911

    . “However, the Soviets were always only lagging slightly behind U.S. in quieting technology ”

    not true, the U.S. had achieved silent running subs in the 60’s the USSR had not achieved the same until over 20 years later. Thats more then “slightly” behind.

  • UpLateAgain

    Russian military equipment in general is first rate in design. But their economy precludes getting the really good stuff (which is expensive for them) deployed in significant numbers. For example, they started out ordering 52 PAK/FA generation five fighters, but had to cut that back to 12. At the height of the Cold War, Russia had as many as 350 submarines at sea at one time. Now they are lucky to float 50, and the majority of those are designed for littoral, not blue water operations. These boats are scary because they are good. MOST Russian submarines have been garbage by Western standards…. with over 700 Russian submariners having died during the Cold War…… most by radiation poisoning, with the second largest group lost to catastrophic failure resulting in subs going down. You had a better chance surviving as a Security guy on Star Trek than as an actual Russian submarine sailor. For a while there, they had subs disappearing as fast as a set of chrome rims outside a Jay-Z concert.

  • Clark

    Sometimes the victim supplies the burglar the weapons. Indeed the US did furnish Russia a lot of raw materials, although, Russia took the brunt of the 2nd World War. The United States purposely did it to exhaust both Germany and Russia.
    When Patton’s Armies over ran Europe, Germany was exhausted in their attack against Russia.
    Russia yet, still came back and participated in the defeat of Germany on its own soil. Not many countries could do that.
    You and I will see the defeat of the United States at the hands of Russia and China.
    For every equivalent dollar Russia uses for defense building, the United States uses 10. The greed of the United States Defense industry and US Corporations knows no bonds, Like a cancer this time they’ve destroyed their host. Unfortunately, many reading this will be inside the US when this happens.
    More dollars doesn’t necessarily translate into a better defense or better weapons. The JF-35 is an excellent example.
    Gut feeling doesn’t necessarily translate into reality, however for myself it certainly has been the harbinger of the future on several occasions and this time, I also believe I will see my country destroyed.
    May I be wrong and may everyone that reads this have a chance of laughing at me.
    To say, after a nuclear holocaust inside the US, I told you so……….is inane and stupid. However, reality is often unpleasant and sometimes very and other times it becomes horror!
    Nevertheless, I would lay the destruction of the US, at the feet of the US Defense Industry and their cronies inside the Pentagon and Defense Department.

  • evangelical

    To any [email protected] who says the USSR needed the US to win WW2 (lend lease or whatever), then go back in time, don’t give the USSR any help, and fight the war yourselves you dumb arrogant [email protected]

  • evangelical

    It’s like all these anti-Russians in here chirping about how great the US is were all born after 1991 when the entire world united against the Soviet Union finally brought down a BRUTAL TIGER capable of surviving Hitler and 70 years of international pariah status.

    Yeah, so let’s poke the “Bear” a little more because we’re so [email protected]

    News flash, the world won’t take America’s side after Iraq. Never again.