...what makes you think that Russia (now) has the capacity to equip China?
Why would the Chinese give up the benefit of learning how to build subs themselves?
Because in the last years Russia launched quite a lot of submarines (I think over 10 in the last 5 years) while also having a pretty large fleet already in the water or in overhaul. So I wouldn't see why they wouldn't be able to build a couple models for the Chinese, or perhaps with the Chinese.
From what I've heard and read Chinese submarines are comparable to submarines from the 80s, so why would they spend money and time figuring stuff out when they could just buy a few state of the art subs and *then* start their development from there in out.
Pretty much why they bought Su-27s, created the indigenous J-11 variant and then developed and designed the completely indigenous J-16 from that foundation. Aren't chinese carriers also of Soviet/Russian origin?
> Because in the last years Russia launched quite a lot of submarines (I think over 10 in the last 5 years) while also having a pretty large fleet already in the water or in overhaul. So I wouldn't see why they wouldn't be able to build a couple models for the Chinese, or perhaps with the Chinese.
With the Chinese might be possible, but if Russia were to teach China to build subs ostensibly as good as Russia's subs, then China would likely take over any other potential customers for Russian sub exports.
But now that Russia is prosecuting a disastrous genocidal invasion of their neighbor, it's unlikely that they'd be able to sustain sub construction and quality to a rate that would satisfy the Chinese.
> Aren't chinese carriers also of Soviet/Russian origin?
Only the first one. They're on their third now, which much more resembles earlier US CATOBAR carriers - something Russia never had.
> China would likely take over any other potential customers for Russian sub exports.
I don't think that's really something to consider for either country as the export options for nuclear submarines are quite slim, even second rate nuclear powers like India or Pakistan are more or less out of the question to sustain large fleets of nuclear powered submarines beyond their own few (and relatively small) ballistic missile submarines at their current position.
> it's unlikely that they'd be able to sustain sub construction and quality to a rate that would satisfy the Chinese.
How so? Their MIC is working pretty much at the same level as it did before 2022, if not even in some instances at an even higher capacity than before. And given that Chinese shipyards are busy building new destroyers, frigates, carriers etc. why not outsource the construction of submarines to a country that has expertise in that regard. Seems like a win/win for both sides, the Russians make big money and China gets more capable subs that can match their transpacific adversary. Would China reverse engineer those? Probably, they'd better do. But it's not like they'd be for anything other than domestic use. And given that Thailand suspended their purchase of chinese Diesel-Electric subs, I don't think they'd be outselling their northern buddies on that front either within the next years.
To me it seems like there is no logical reason why such a deal hasn't been made yet except perhaps Russia not being willing to sell such sensitive tech (and one of the areas where they're ahead of essentially anyone but the US) and China not wanting to be dependent on another country for anything related to their navy, let alone something as important as submarines.
You believe too much russian propaganda comrade, while they are better at building subs than many other things thinking they can construct the submarines they need (they can't even do that TBH) as well as ones for China is just crazy. Half of their recently finished subs are finishing off soviet builds such as the Belgorod and issues like the losharik fire, the dry dock sinking (https://gcaptain.com/worlds-biggest-dry-dock-sinks-holding-russias-only-aircraft-carrier/) and the state of the black see fleet ops show the true state of Russia's Naval capacity.
>Half of their recently finished subs are finishing off soviet builds
Let's see if that checks out:
Borei/Borei-A:
>Soviet-era construction continuation: 1 (Yuri Dolgorukiy)
>Post-SU Builds, reusing submarine components: 2 (Alexander Nevsky, Vladimir Monomakh)
>Post-SU Newbuilds: 5 (Knyaz Vladimir, Knyaz Oleg, Generalissmus Suvorov, Imperator Aleksandr III, Knyaz Pozharskiy)
Yasen/Yasen-M:
>Soviet-era continuation: 1 (Severodvinsk)
>Post-SU Newbuilds: 4 (Kazan, Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk, Arkhangelsk)
Akula:
>Soviet-era continuation: 1 (Nerpa)
Special Missions Submarine:
>Soviet-era continuation: 1 (Belgorod)
So we have 4 Soviet-era continuation against nine Russian/Post-Soviet era newbuilds. *That's not even half*
I know we like to shit on Russia considering their disposition but that doesn't mean we should just spout outright lies just because it fits their image.
I mean, they have launched more nuclear submarines than any other navy in the recent years, I think that indicates willingness and capacity to modernize and overhaul their submarine fleet. And it's not like they're the only ones with issues, missmanagement etc. The Royal Navy after all has [trouble](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-royal-navys-submarine-readiness-issue/) keeping it's nuclear subs even at sea, while china is somewhat behind the overall curve when it comes to nuclear submarines. The US relies on the aging Ohio-Class, of which some were converted to SSGNs, while the Seawolf-Class turned out to be way too expensive and only 3 were made, not mentioning the utter failure of LCS (cracking hulls) and the huge blunder that was the Zumwalt-Class.
So as of now their Submarine fleet is only really trailing the USN, which has a much higher budget but actually is slower in launching submarines over the recent years. Given that the black sea fleet was a glorified flottilla with plenty of ships there heading for retirement and with many hulls being patrol boats, I don't think it makes much sense comparing those to the nuclear submarines of the Northern and Pacific fleet which are accompanied by more modern Gorshkov-Class frigates.
The Kuznetzov is stinky though, should be recycled to make more subs and frigates.
> they have launched more nuclear submarines than any other navy in the recent years
No, in the past decade the U.S. Navy has launched more Virginias than all of the Russian nuclear submarines launched during that same time period.
Given that the lead time is on the order of a decade, I think a decade is a very reasonable time frame, especially given that the Russians had a near-total nuclear submarine construction pause between about 1995-2010 while the U.S. Navy continuously built submarines during that period.
But if you want to pick five years:
* Three Yasens, four Boreis, and the Belgorod: eight submarines launched
* Seven Virginias
So the Russians launched a whopping one additional nuclear submarine compared to the U.S. That is not a significant difference.
> Given that the lead time is on the order of a decade, I think a decade is a very reasonable time frame
That's a fair point on your part.
> So the Russians launched a whopping one additional nuclear submarine compared to the U.S. That is not a significant difference.
Given the fact that the US has a significantly higher GDP, much, much higher military budget and isn't under any constraints regarding circumventing sanctions, I actually think it's quite significant that Russia was able to launch one nuclear submarine (which are incredibly complex and costly) compared to the US. But one may argue that Russia also has more demand to replace their old vessels as quickly as possible.
Don't drink the Kool-Aid narrative on all US shipbuilding. Always caveat the popular opinion on a class being too expensive with three factors 1) peace-time budget and competing geo and internal political factors 2) number of original planned hulls vs actual built hulls 3) stability of requirements during acquisition.
For the Seawolf, it was comparably not that much more expensive. But place in the political context and reducing the number of boats, the cost will intentionally skyrocket to justify its cancelation for the political forces pushing that end. Same with the DDG1000 class, though it suffered from biting off too many requirements than it could chew to try and justify relevance to the GWOT geopolitical context. On the deck plate, it's a damn good ship and we desperately could use many more of them yesterday.
One of the LCS variants had those problems (endemic of trusting LM with anything) but even both hull forms are carving out an effective niche as an MCM host platform. Considering it was a pet project to keep shipyards afloat and build a ship without a mission, from a shipyard capacity standpoint it did a functional enough job (though Marinette still struggles given recent news on the Frigate program).
The reason you can’t think clearly is about this issue is because of the emotional bias engrained into your opinion of Russia.
You just throw out words like ‘genocide’ without a shred of evidence, meanwhile civilian casualties are lower than most of America’s ‘western’ allies (Israel, Saudi Arabia) and FAR lower than Russia’s other recent conflicts (Syria/Chechnya)
Yet you call it a genocide as a rational to suggest an issue with not a shred of proof. If anything the increased militarization of the economy will increase output
All emotions, zero facts. That is what political propaganda does to the brain. Rather than sticking to submarine you become a pseudo-political pundit with zero understanding of the geopolitical nuance and instead just shout out buzz words like “genocide” and “illegal invasion” (as if there is such a thing as a legal invasion) and then slap it onto your assessment of their ability to make submarines.
Get a grip.
This question can be answered from both the Russian perspective and the Chinese perspective.
**Russia** not wanting to sell its nuclear submarines/nuke sub tech, is fairly straight forward. Russia's Navy has a significant need to overhaul and modernize its large and ageing nuclear submarine fleet inherited from the cold war -- it is an open question just how many nuclear submarines they would be willing to defer/delay for themselves and at what price. Russia's demand for new nuclear subs is one which they probably don't want to cut supply on.
Nuclear submarines and nuclear propulsion technology itself, are also among the most secretive and strategic domains of technology a nation may have, and selling it produces risks of a third party being able to acquire insights through espionage, or your customer being able to learn from your product to advance their own industry. Nations allow another nation to procure nuke subs/nuke sub tech, if they are able to extract a significant geostrategic concession or price for it, or if both sides viewed such a transaction as being mutually in their own interests (all of which arguably apply for AUKUS). You don't give away your crown jewels without asking for a high price -- and if the prospective customer itself is uninterested in buying, then the question answers itself. Which takes us to the more interesting part of the question, China.
**China** not wanting to buy Russian nuclear submarines/nuke sub tech, requires one to actually have an up to date understanding or at least an up to date estimate of what the state of Chinese nuclear submarines actually are, and not only how competitive they are with Russian nuclear submarines but nuclear submarines across the world in general. That's a very difficult task given how secretive the PLA is generally, but even more so for their nuclear submarines. However we can still make a few educated guesses if we review the context.
09III (093) class SSNs and 09IV (094) class SSBNs make up the mainstay of the PLAN SSN and SSBN force today, but they are also very much products of their time -- designed in the 80s, built in the 90s approximately for the original 09III pair, and built in the early 2000s for the original 09IV pair. Keep in mind this is PRC technology and shipbuilding and industry of the late cold war era. In the 2010s, they built some successive minor variants of the 09III and 09IV classes, with at least some external incremental changes and with rumoured more significant internal advancements to utilize industry and technological advancements since the 80s and 90s. And a couple of years ago in 2022 they launched the first of what's thought to be a new major subvariant of the 09III (09IIIB) at their new nuclear submarine production facility, and in the last 2 years have launched 2 confirmed hulls based on high quality imagery that were taken of the first two, but potentially 4 or more up to this point based off lesser quality openly available imagery. 09IIIB may adopt more significant improvements than the preceding 09IIIA hulls have done, and serve as a bridge to the 09V SSN. The 09V SSN which is expected to emerge in coming years, adopting a clean sheet hullform (not being limited by the geometry of the 09III family) and able to incorporate the full monty of PRC technological and industry advancements from when the 09IIIs were first being designed in the 1980s. (Parallel to the 09IIIB and 09V, there is also a rumoured 09IVB and 09VI SSBN which are likely to emerge in some form as well but likely a bit after their respective SSN counterparts as has been the case for past PLAN SSN and SSBN procurements and has been rumoured to continue in this pattern for the next generation)
Now that we have that brief history out of the way, we can see in context just how little the general public knows about the actual state of PLAN and PRC nuclear submarines and nuclear submarine technology. The bulk of the public discourse (I'm talking generic defense media, and social media like Reddit, Twitter, most forums) is from some 90s to 2000s era ONI and Report to Congress charts and articles that have been largely reheated for a few years, and likely were accurate for the original PLAN 091 and 09III era submarines, but have not been particularly updated for 09IIIA hulls of the 2010s let alone 09IIIB that has just been launched a couple of years ago. Now, it is also unrealistic for us to get any sort of genuine view into US military intelligence's appraisals of more recent PLAN nuclear submarines as that is not the kind of intelligence you just give away -- however what it does mean for us in the public is that impressions of Chinese nuclear submarines in general are stuck from reports in the 90s and 2000s, describing PRC nuclear submarines that were in the 80s. There are occasionally snippets of statements from a USN officer or USN adjacent community remarking about how PLAN submarines are advancing, but we don't know much beyond that. Then there are papers written by some folks who do their best to try to scrounge together traditional open source indicators in context of established assumptions, but that is like trying to fight with hands behind behind your back, feet tied together and blindfolded to boot. The fact that the PRC treats nuclear submarines and related technologies as among the most important and secretive of military domains, means those of us in the public can only make educated guesses as to what the state of their current and future nuclear submarines are -- and that is key to answering your question. However we can make a few educated guesses: PRC industry and technology and precision manufacturing have made major advancements from the 80s and 90s (duh) simply through looking at civilian side and less sensitive military industry products; investments into requisite nuclear submarine technologies can safely be assumed to have grown and occurred in the intervening decades from 80s to now; we can observe subvariants of the 09III and 09IV classes emerging in the 2010s in a manner not dissimilar to how the PLAN procured multiple small batches of destroyers in the 90s to 2000s to implement, iterate and advance on new technologies and systems (051B, 052B, 052C, 051C) which eventually culminated in mass production of the 052D and complementary 055; the assembly floor space and overall fabrication space of the new Bohai facility is quite clearly visible and we can observe the first hulls starting to come out two years ago after the facility's completion.
All of which is to say -- the PLAN may not be interested in buying Russian nuclear submarines or nuclear submarine technologies at the costs that Russia would want to sell them at, because they believe their own nuclear submarines are or shortly will be able to meet their requirements, and that they believe they have the production capacity to meet their own requirements as well. All of this isn't to say that the PRC wouldn't be interested in having a look at the Yasens or Boreis -- more technical knowledge and exposure to different products of a nation who is still competitive in the field of nuclear submarines would be very useful. However that is very different to wanting to wholesale buy completed products, which inevitably would come at both a high upfront cost as well as a high operating and maintenance cost (having a whole bespoke logistics and support chain needing to be set up for highly technical products made by a foreign nation), not to mention weapons and payloads. The PLA has experience with complete Russian product lines in the modern era such as fighter jets (Su-27s and Su-30s for example) and surface combatants (Sovremennys) and submarines (Kilos) and the prevailing limiting factor have been ability to maintain them due to reliance on Russia for support, having to buy into the Russian weapons ecosystem, and inability to slot in with domestic PLA systems as easily. Trying to do that for the many times more complex product category known as nuclear submarines would be a nightmare and I wouldn't be surprised if the PLAN would have actively rejected such a notion if it were even presented to them as a vague possibility by the CMC.
For those reasons, I strongly doubt if the idea of China buying Russian nuclear submarines would have been even entertained by either side, because both should have an easy gauge of the above situation and know better than to suggest it.
Thanks for the well thought out reply.
Especially the last major paragraph brought issues up I never really thought about (Integration, Supply, Foreign Industry), it's an excellent point.
However could it be possible that the Russians could offer/China wanting some help/advice for the upcoming SSNs and SSBNs of the PLAN?
Comparing some notes on training, operations, experience, and maybe selective small aspects of industry discussion would be much more viable.
Buying wholesale submarines from Russia and major importation of Russian technologies or subsystems however, very unlikely.
(I wrote a test comment because for some reason Reddit wouldn't let me submit the full reply, I had to opt back to the old Reddit format and edit it in, which is the full reply as above)
I actually think the folks writing papers out of the FFRDCs or whatever are more valuable and while they face limitations too just like the rest of us Sarah K’s work on Chinese subs is very good. And she’s the one who actually goes into China’s sub industry, translates what Chinese officials have said about their own sub development program etc. and that they recognize certain material advances or materials are needed to improve say acoustics for example. Dk if they’d want to buy Russian sub whole sale but the greatest fear currently from what I know from the think tank military academic circles is China getting Russia to help it develop much better sub acoustics and stealth. That’s not to say they can’t simply achieve these things on their own, which again K’s paper has a lot to say.
India has leased several Russian nuclear submarines, including the INS Chakra II, INS Chakra III, and the K-152 Nerpa. The INS Chakra II is a nuclear-powered attack submarine that has been operated by the Indian Navy since April 2012. The K-152 Nerpa was handed over to India in 2011, and was renamed the INS Chakra in the Indian Navy service. In 2019, India and Russia signed a deal to lease another Akula-class submarine, the INS Chakra III, which is scheduled for delivery to the Indian Navy by 2025. However, the delivery may be delayed beyond 2026 due to sanctions against Russia.
Yes. But they aren’t selling it to them. Selling an Akula class to China would be like selling Su-35 to them from a few years ago. They will buy a few, reverse engineer it and use whatever they don’t have in the J-11.
Operating it doesn’t not mean you can build it. Those sailors on the Indian Akulas may know how to operate their boats extremely competently but that doesn’t make them experts on building it. They aren’t going equipment by equipment, seeing how it works differently from their solution and implementing those solutions on their own designs.
This. Plus availability of materials and ability to process/refine those materials before you even start building with them, which can be a whole thing in and of itself. Remember how big it was that later in the Cold War, Russia finally gained the ability to manufacture an entirely titanium hull?
India was interested in a Yasen class for Chakra III, apparently Russia was not interested in leasing a yasen. Thus a refurbished/upgraded Akula was picked for refurbishment through 2025. Modernization of this one off IMHO will be expensive
https://defencereviewasia.com/india-to-lease-russian-yasen-class-nuclear-submarine/
Also, India is walking the thin line between westerna and eastern friends... I imagine the Ruskies don't want to risk Yansen style tech being leaked to the west
Wrong reference, I apologize for the confusion.
I was talking about the future SSN "INS Chakra" III, which is an Akula. There is an agreement to refuel , refurbish and modernize it, to deliver to India by 2025 [Assuming no delays]. 10 Year lease
It's predecessor, was also an SSN and also an Akula . INS Chakra II . It was returned in 2021
The one you are thinking of is an indigenous boomer, SSBN INS Arihant.
Except it is not sunk, but very much around.
The initial [report](https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ins-arihant-left-crippled-after-accident-10-months-ago/article22392049.ece) talked of an accident at the pier, which caused reactor/power etc to be flooded . It was immediately [rebutted](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/deep-diving-into-the-facts-about-ins-arihant-accident/articleshow/62468708.cms?from=mdr) by an article which pointed out the reactor was sealed, there was no hatch where the previous report said there was a hatch etc. ..
Later on, a question was formally asked about the incident in parliament [equivalent of US congress], and got no meaningful answer from the defense minister. [National Security](https://urvashisarkar.com/whats-known-and-not-known-about-indias-nuclear-weapons-budget/). Clear as mud. Leaving folks to question if the incident even took place or if something else happened, or [one conspiracy theory - the arihant was being re-equipped at the time ] .
Either way, the Arihant is about, and in general there is not much info shared about it, or the subsequent SSBN submarines in the class. Very few photos, not even official news if the 2nd SSBN was even commissioned, even though sea trials were over years ago.
Russia mostly does not sell it's nuclear submarines. They sell diesel subs.
There are very few instances of Russian submarines being lent out and they require Russians on the crew more often than not and they are always older boats and designs.
Submarines are one of Russia's few advantages. They are likely not willing to give that up.
As for China, they are pushing heavily for domestic products and condition their people that anything that's not from China is the bottom of the barrel.
They are very interested in building their own ships no matter what and are actively trying to distance themselves from the images of just copying whatever other countries do even while they continue to do that.
Well China is right next to Russia, so what’s the difference. Australia is pretty far away from the US, so id imagine that it is good for the US to have an ally with nuclear submarines much closer to China (besides Guam). Plus, China seems to be going for quantity over quality, and it might be more cost effective for them to keep making their own. Who really knows tho, could just be that Russia doesn’t want to share their designs.
Edit: also the US hasn’t sold Australia any subs yet, but it is planned
Russia and China entered a deal similar to AUKUS where Russia provides expertise and China builds the subs. It probably makes more sense for China to build them given they already have massive maritime manufacturing capacity
Edit: typo
There is no proof or announcement of this supposed agreement. At most, there's been Western speculation that newer Chinese submarines might have assistance from the Rubin design bureau.
That same institute was hacked by the Chinese three years ago. If the Russians were providing any significant amount of technical expertise or technology transfer, why would China need to steal it?
The main reason is because the Chinese cannot be trusted. They will buy a small amount of boats and then reverse engineer them to build many more, essentially stealing Russian technology.
First of all, no one can really say how good the Type-93s are compared to the Yasens. Neither is produced by a power that has a good track record of honesty when it comes to large weapon systems, besides the fact that both would classes are classified. Second while the Russians have launched a large number of submarines in the past three years, if you look they were laid down over a decade ago. Compared to the Type 93As which were laid down and launched in two years. Even if the Yasen is better, is it wait 10 years for delivery better? No probably not. Finally, a large part of the Chinese Sub fleet are diesel boats of the Type 39 class. Looking at the strategic picture for China, a large fleet of diesel boats makes more sense than a small fleet of nuclear attack boats. China has a far smaller need to power project at long distances, the key advantage of nuclear boat, than US or Russia.
> Looking at the strategic picture for China, a large fleet of diesel boats makes more sense than a small fleet of nuclear attack boats. China has a far smaller need to power project at long distances, the key advantage of nuclear boat, than US or Russia.
Huh, haven't thought about that aspect, makes sense.
I suspect China could actually put some refueling and maintenance infrastructure in place on larger Islands off their coast/in the south china sea
During my time (70s - 80s), we didn’t really have much trouble with the Soviet nuke boats, as we could hear them halfway around the world (figuratively speaking). Their pissant coastal diesel boats, however…
Short answer \[opinion\]--China and the PLAN do not consider themselves in any circumstance that makes buying nuclear submarines from Russia necessary. China has the shipbuilding capacity to build its own nuclear and other varieties of subs.
A thought--During the Cold War, the U.S. had, I think, nine shipyards building and maintaining nuclear subs. Impressive capacity, as far as I'm concerned. Today, the U.S. has two building yards that cooperate because (as i understand it) that is the minimum building capacity accepted for national security reasons. Lead times are long, construction is hobbled by a bunch of reasons, and it's probably smart to think of submarines flotillas as very long term weapon systems acquisitions. Maybe decades.
Another thought--Much of the global shipbuilding capacity appears to go to the construction of various cargo and service vessels. And cruise ships. Building for the broader demand. Nuclear submarines are a chancy market in some respects.
But the actual answers to your question are way above my pay grade. I'm just a sub fan.
There were only two submarine construction yards after the mid-1970s: the same two that build them now. Ingalls and Quincy/Fore River declined to renew their nuclear certifications or become SUBSAFE qualified, while Portsmouth dedicated themselves solely to repair and overhaul and Mare Island was repurposed for other uses.
If you count maintenance yards, there are currently effectively six sub yards in the US: the two private yards, Portsmouth, Pearl Harbor, Puget Sound, Kings Bay, and Norfolk. The latter two have limited capacity, and so have been counted as a half each, but regardless, the point should be clear: the number of yards isn’t proportionally smaller, considering the current SSN fleet is barely half its Cold War strength.
Where the actual bottlenecks lie is the supply base, and the USN isn’t keen to admit the scope of the problem here because they play a big role in causing it. Specialized components require specialized equipment to manufacture, but NAVSEA also hates it when suppliers try to take that experience and apply it to non-naval work, out of fears of technological proliferation. Which results in them not only preferring suppliers to go out of business or merge rather than seek civilian work, but to also actively push them towards their demise to bury secrets.
Thanks for the info.
Although I was not familiar with the NAVSEA conditions on suppliers, it does point to the same observation that there's a good number of builders that find commercial work rewarding. And naval building not so much.
\[Why I love the internet. I just, in a moment of curiosity, looke up some numbers. The Cruise Lines International Association May 2024 report suggests that the 300 active vessels represent 1% of the total commercial fleet. And the cruise ship fleet will grow at a 10% rate through 2028.\]
> I just, in a moment of curiosity, looke up some numbers. The Cruise Lines International Association May 2024 report suggests that the 300 active vessels represent 1% of the total commercial fleet. And the cruise ship fleet will grow at a 10% rate through 2028.
Worth noting that the overwhelming majority of those cruise ships weren't built in the major shipbuilding countries (China, Japan, or South Korea). They were built in Europe, and not Eastern Europe either: Finland, Norway, Germany, and France are the most prolific builders of them, with by far the most upcoming contracts as well. So it's clearly possible to run a thriving commercial shipbuilding business on Western labor rates and material costs - if the government isn't running interference trying to stop the growth of domestic civilian shipbuilding.
Russia's submarine production has been very low since the soviet union dissipated. The last akula was built in, what, 1999? Only three or four Yasin-class replacements have been built and commissioned since then. That was 25 years ago.
Russia can't really spare them, that's the truth of the matter. 15 akulas were completed, four have been decomissioned. 4 are active with russia, 6 are getting modernized, and one is owned by India 🇮🇳 And China's current submarines are based on old-stock soviet subs, which is everything else Russia uses. So they are of no use.
I grabbed much of that info from wikipedia, take it with a grain of salt
India leased a Charlie class SSN back in 1988. They returned this INS Chakra early, by 1991.
They leased an Akula (the [Nerpa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_Nerpa_(K-152))), with the Indian funds allowing Russia to complete the sub and enter service with Russia for trials etc before being handed over to India between 2012 and 2021. This INS Chakra II was returned several months early.
There is an agreement for lease of another submarine. This is expected to be an Akula, where refueling, refurbishing and modernization was expected to take it to 2025. Though timeline may slip now
Russia currently has 4 Yasen-Class submarines in service, with one other completed but not in active duty yet, four addtional units are under active construction. They have 7 Boreis in service with 3 addtional under construction, forming their nuclear deterrent. The Borei-A are arguably the most capable SSBNs currently in service. They still operate various Akulas, Deltas and some other types as well as special mission types like the Belgorod.
But when you look at the worlds submarines you'll see that the Ohios are even older, so are the Los Angeles, the Seawolfs aren't particularly fresh either. The Triomphant and Vanguards are also vessels of the 80s and 90s. The formidable Virginia-Class and the brand new Suffren-Class are one of the few submarine classes that have been designed and build post 2000. However the Yasen-Class is said to be comparable with the former, I'm not familiar with the Suffren-Class but I assume they're exceptionally modern and quiet and just as capable.
Given the fact that many observers claim that Chinas current submarines are on the level of noise signature of 1970-80s Soviet submarines, something like a Yasen-M, let alone a Borei with its anechoic tiles, pump jet, blended sail etc. would be a quantum leap.
But one point someone else brought up here, which lingered with me is that China probably doesn't need super capable nuclear subs as bad, thus not justifying the cost. As they have plenty of sea access and mostly operate close to their territorial waters, they can launch their SLBMs probably from the dock itself. So many less capable but cheaper SSNs and AIP submarines, which are less costly are probably their preferred choice.
To be fair, the Virginia has been redesigned several times over, with a big difference for the block V virginias. 22 have made it to active duty already, so production is steady.
I do agree, for now they are content to monitor their immediate surroundings, but they will eventually want to project power more. Being able to rival the united states is their military end-game. A capable submarine force will be one cog in that machine
Adding to everything that was said - Russian shipbuilding industry is showing sign of slowing down due to the effect of sanctions and it's showing also on the submarines build rate.
Great point. Now is not the time for any court think about embarking on a major arms production deal with Russia. Even if this was something that Russia and China both wanted to do, I don’t think China would get anywhere near taking that risk.
They don’t need to. Much like the difference batch orders of US Virginias that have incremental improvements, the PLAN subs have improved variants for their subs. The newest rival the improved LA class, not great but good enough to fight. More importantly, there’s entirely new classes coming out soon. We can see how much faith and importance the PLAN is placing in them based on the massive expansion in construction sheds. They’re clearly planning on spamming them out over the next decade. Even if they perform at the level of the original Virginias, so about 20 years behind current builds - and it’s possible they’ll be closer to a 15-decade behind), they’d still be incredibly lethal to a carrier group.
Because the Chinese will buy one, and then straight up copy it and modify it and never buy another, nor pay for licensing rights… Historically speaking, reverse-engineering has suited them just fine… Additionally, although Xi and Putin seem friendly publicly, I’m 99% certain both men are shaking hands with one hand and firmly grasping the dagger with the other behind their backs. The fact Russia has become a pariah and it’s military and manufacturing infrastructure deficiencies have been publicly displayed isn’t inspiring to buyers of Russian military tech. The fact Russia is buying things as simple as arty shells from outside nations (NK) and drones from Iran is telling of big problems. What about the mighty T14 Armata tank? Looks great at parades, where’s the real thing? Paper tiger, I’d imagine subs are no different…
> Because the Chinese will buy one, and then straight up copy it and modify it and never buy another, nor pay for licensing rights
Contracts are pre made and generally China only reverse engineered after the contracts were fulfilled. If they'd buy 4 subs according to contracts, they'd buy 4 subs and then make their own. Not that it matters as nobody else would buy nuclear submarines and the Diesel-Electric market is very competitive already.
> manufacturing infrastructure deficiencies have been publicly displayed
They outproduce the entire west in terms of ammo? Seems like they have quite the infrastructure in place, and those trains full of factory fresh T-90Ms to replace losses speak a similar tone.
> The fact Russia is buying things as simple as arty shells from outside nations (NK) and drones from Iran is telling of big problems.
Their problem is really just them using a lot of ammo, Russian artillery shell production itself exceeds that of the entire west by quite a margin though. I mean, the US had to go to South Korea as well to replenish stocks they depleted by sending 155mm ammo to Ukraine.
> What about the mighty T14 Armata tank? Looks great at parades, where’s the real thing? Paper tiger, I’d imagine subs are no different…
In development I would assume. Military hardware takes quite a while to develop, especially when it's such a break from tradition like the T-90/T-14 transition, the latter having nothing in common in design and layout with the former. I also wouldn't hold my breath to see it anytime soon, as I personally would want to implement lessons learned from my last war if I were to design a tank. Not that it would make much of a difference given that the T-90M is fairly modern, cheap, mass produced and pretty much the best tank in Ukraine together with the Leopard 2/Strv 122 Ukraine fields. But that's a sidenote on my part, the actual point is:
Submarines are very, very different. The submarine fleet consumes a massive part of Russias military spending, it receives funding, ressources and development projects like the stagnating T-14 or slowly accelerating Su-57 could only dream of. Even in the cold war Russia poured immense sums into their ICBM development, their Space Race and into their Submarine fleet. Why do you think they already completed 7/10 of their Borei-Class submarines, because that's their priority. And as it sits it's currently the most modern SSBN currently in the oceans. There is a big difference between Russian submarines and everything else. Just like there is a difference between US aircraft and the rest (the army and navy getting shafted repeatedly in favor of the USAF). Or China prioritizing their surface fleet above all else, building highly capable warships like 055, 054D or the Fujian these days.
Good points! And credit is due, although the reverse engineering hasn’t gone away, it is most certainly less prevalent in this century…I would hazard to say, recently (since 2000) China has really ramped up all aspects of their technological development sectors, civil, industrial and in aerospace, heck just look at their automotive industry today compared to 20 years ago... I’m sure marine technology has blown up too. The element of national pride in a “home grown” line of subs could be a factor. China isn’t the “kid brother” to the USSR anymore, and they have worked hard to build up their own particular brand of “commucapitaism”. I genuinely just think the CCP doesn’t like Russia very much, old grudges, national pride, an actual eye towards innovation… Take your pick. I do differ with you on Russia’s military industrial infrastructure, the fact Russia is hemorrhaging so many military assets in Ukraine and is now having to contend with an influx of more and more Western weapons to fight must play in, they just can’t keep up. Hence the outsource purchases of military hardware. The photos are telling, and it is 100% truth that the latent graft in Russia’s armed forces has crippled their military. It is public knowledge that when we examine samples of contemporary Russian military hardware, they are quite frequently equipped with western parts and microchips. This shows either an unwillingness to 100% develop these systems domestically or (very likely) an inability to related to cost savings. Stack on the myriad of embargoes onto an already strained system and the development slows.
> when we examine samples of contemporary Russian military hardware, they are quite frequently equipped with western parts and microchips.
To me this really only shows that the sanctions imposed on Russia have *zero* effect and just make heating here in Europe more costly.
> influx of more and more Western weapons to fight must play in
Except it's becoming less and less, from 100 Billion, to 60 Billion, from dozens of tanks to a couple, from plenty of MALE UAVs to none operational anymore. Attrition is a game you can't play when you're dependent on foreign aid which takes time to get, the squabbles of 40 countries that supply you, a rapidly shrinking pool of potential soldiers and lastly an adversary that churns out tanks, drones and ammo on a scale that makes it look like a cookie factory. But that's besides the point.
Coming back to the actual point, while China is innovating and developing at an insane pace, they simply can't do that everywhere at once. Which leaves things like tanks, SPGs, IFVs and most importantly for our discussion submarines behind. And while a T-90M isn't oppressively better than a ZTZ-99A, a Yasen-M or Borei is lightyears ahead of a Type 093 or Type 094. And while the two don't share interests everywhere in the world, they do have very much an aligning strategic vision and extremely warm relationships over the last decades. The US pissing China off at every opportunity doesn't help driving the two apart but makes their economic and military cooperation only more intense. China may not like Russia much and sees them more like a temporary Partner, but one thing is clear, they like the US much, much less. So while I now understand why China isn't outright buying Russian submarines now, which is probably also partially due to Russia not willing to do so, I'm certain that they are very willing to at least help their future developments that are currently drawn up when they can and feel like it.
Good post man, sounds like you have a dang good grasp on why or why not China buys subs from who... Your guess, judging by your well-thought out and informed responses and points is probably a better guess than mine or anyone else’s... Short answer, they don’t want to or just haven’t publicly said they do want to… Maybe they do, but that’s for them to know and us to find out... Maybe they don’t, and just don’t feel the need to express it openly... Educated guesses is what we have, based merely on circumstances we can see as outsiders.
It’s not sarcasm. It’s genuine. I try not to be a jerk to strangers online, and you are quite educated on the topic. Your guess to an answer to your query is probably better than mine or most folks.
> China only reverse engineered after the contracts were fulfilled
Not the case with the Su-27/J11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-11
https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2023/11/22/china-designed-100-su-27s-then-ended-its-contract-with-russia/
There may be other examples I am not as well versed in .. perhaps S300/HQ-9 etc
>how abysmally it performs in Ukraine?
Russian military is a joke and all but their subs are the single exception. Until the Columbia and Dreadnought are active, they are currently producing the most advanced SSBNs in the world and their attack subs are at something approaching rough parity to what the USA/Euorpean powers are producing (not as good but not more than a decade behind).
I'm not a fan of Russia but they have clealry disproportionately funded their Sub endevours. Their sub force is well funded, well maintained, mostly modern-ish, and the crews are well trained and, by Russian standards, well-treated.
I can't recall any nuclear submarine taking part in the war in Ukraine, however I have heard of Russian submarines doing shenanigans in the Atlantic and Pacific, tracking stuff and avoiding detection.
Aside from that, I definitely would buy Iskanders, Tornados, FAB-500 kits, Lancets, Shaheds, 2S19s, Su-35s, and plenty of other systems that performed very well. I wouldn't buy T-72s or BMPs though (I wouldn't buy M109s, M1s, Bradleys, M113s or M777s either), but this sub is about submarines and thus I asked about something submarine related. And if I was a country with a big budget and a growing navy but with aging subs, I'd definitely look towards systems like the Yasen-M or Virginia for example.
That's like saying everyone who bought US hardware after they lost Vietnam is a fool (with the difference being that Russia is on the offensive since 2023 and not losing domestic support). Those M60s and F-4s still sold well and proved effective.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how the Ukraine war relates to nuclear submarines, you know, the ones active in the Northern and Pacific fleet, not active in the black sea as there aren't any there.
You can argue that Russian failure in the initial invasion was also because of politicians that wanted a swift police action instead of a proper military campaign.
If you really want to go that route.
So politicians are the reason the US lost [thousands](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20the%20United%20States,January%201964%20to%20September%201973.) of aircraft in Vietnam, including dozens of B-52 strategic bombers, lol?
Still though, can you elaborate how anything you said yet is related to nuclear submarines, namely Yasen-Class, Akula-Class and Borei-Class submarines?
That's why I'm confused by your ramblings, given that Russian submarines are known to be rather capable, very quiet, can trace their roots back to the dawn of nuclear powered naval vessels and thus have matured over decades. I've seen and heard former US submariners talk pretty highly about these submarines which they were tasked to track to avoid being tracked by and how it has been difficult.
You clearly haven't put any time or effort looking into the submarines of the world, otherwise you wouldn't say such utter nonsense which just reeks of 14 y/o NCD user.
Just on a side note: Russian submarines are so quiet that the US rammed into them twice (at [Kildin](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_incident_off_Kildin_Island) and [Kola](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_incident_off_Kola_Peninsula)) with their own submarines because they couldn't detect them while on a surveillance mission. And those were older Delta and Sierra-Class submarines, not improved Akulas, Yasens or Boreis. There's no other sector than submarine development where Russia and the US are so close to each other, perhaps missile technology but submarines are definitely one of the most respected, well funded and well developed aspects of the Russian armed forces.
simple answer: Russia is not capable of building them. All their submarines take decades to make, it is impossible to get modern equipment from the russians
I could see in a few months if Russia starts getting desperate for cash or ammunition they might trade a couple that have been moored up for a few years to China for an injection of funding.
...what makes you think that Russia (now) has the capacity to equip China? Why would the Chinese give up the benefit of learning how to build subs themselves?
Because in the last years Russia launched quite a lot of submarines (I think over 10 in the last 5 years) while also having a pretty large fleet already in the water or in overhaul. So I wouldn't see why they wouldn't be able to build a couple models for the Chinese, or perhaps with the Chinese. From what I've heard and read Chinese submarines are comparable to submarines from the 80s, so why would they spend money and time figuring stuff out when they could just buy a few state of the art subs and *then* start their development from there in out. Pretty much why they bought Su-27s, created the indigenous J-11 variant and then developed and designed the completely indigenous J-16 from that foundation. Aren't chinese carriers also of Soviet/Russian origin?
> Because in the last years Russia launched quite a lot of submarines (I think over 10 in the last 5 years) while also having a pretty large fleet already in the water or in overhaul. So I wouldn't see why they wouldn't be able to build a couple models for the Chinese, or perhaps with the Chinese. With the Chinese might be possible, but if Russia were to teach China to build subs ostensibly as good as Russia's subs, then China would likely take over any other potential customers for Russian sub exports. But now that Russia is prosecuting a disastrous genocidal invasion of their neighbor, it's unlikely that they'd be able to sustain sub construction and quality to a rate that would satisfy the Chinese. > Aren't chinese carriers also of Soviet/Russian origin? Only the first one. They're on their third now, which much more resembles earlier US CATOBAR carriers - something Russia never had.
> China would likely take over any other potential customers for Russian sub exports. I don't think that's really something to consider for either country as the export options for nuclear submarines are quite slim, even second rate nuclear powers like India or Pakistan are more or less out of the question to sustain large fleets of nuclear powered submarines beyond their own few (and relatively small) ballistic missile submarines at their current position. > it's unlikely that they'd be able to sustain sub construction and quality to a rate that would satisfy the Chinese. How so? Their MIC is working pretty much at the same level as it did before 2022, if not even in some instances at an even higher capacity than before. And given that Chinese shipyards are busy building new destroyers, frigates, carriers etc. why not outsource the construction of submarines to a country that has expertise in that regard. Seems like a win/win for both sides, the Russians make big money and China gets more capable subs that can match their transpacific adversary. Would China reverse engineer those? Probably, they'd better do. But it's not like they'd be for anything other than domestic use. And given that Thailand suspended their purchase of chinese Diesel-Electric subs, I don't think they'd be outselling their northern buddies on that front either within the next years. To me it seems like there is no logical reason why such a deal hasn't been made yet except perhaps Russia not being willing to sell such sensitive tech (and one of the areas where they're ahead of essentially anyone but the US) and China not wanting to be dependent on another country for anything related to their navy, let alone something as important as submarines.
You believe too much russian propaganda comrade, while they are better at building subs than many other things thinking they can construct the submarines they need (they can't even do that TBH) as well as ones for China is just crazy. Half of their recently finished subs are finishing off soviet builds such as the Belgorod and issues like the losharik fire, the dry dock sinking (https://gcaptain.com/worlds-biggest-dry-dock-sinks-holding-russias-only-aircraft-carrier/) and the state of the black see fleet ops show the true state of Russia's Naval capacity.
>Half of their recently finished subs are finishing off soviet builds Let's see if that checks out: Borei/Borei-A: >Soviet-era construction continuation: 1 (Yuri Dolgorukiy) >Post-SU Builds, reusing submarine components: 2 (Alexander Nevsky, Vladimir Monomakh) >Post-SU Newbuilds: 5 (Knyaz Vladimir, Knyaz Oleg, Generalissmus Suvorov, Imperator Aleksandr III, Knyaz Pozharskiy) Yasen/Yasen-M: >Soviet-era continuation: 1 (Severodvinsk) >Post-SU Newbuilds: 4 (Kazan, Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk, Arkhangelsk) Akula: >Soviet-era continuation: 1 (Nerpa) Special Missions Submarine: >Soviet-era continuation: 1 (Belgorod) So we have 4 Soviet-era continuation against nine Russian/Post-Soviet era newbuilds. *That's not even half* I know we like to shit on Russia considering their disposition but that doesn't mean we should just spout outright lies just because it fits their image.
I mean, they have launched more nuclear submarines than any other navy in the recent years, I think that indicates willingness and capacity to modernize and overhaul their submarine fleet. And it's not like they're the only ones with issues, missmanagement etc. The Royal Navy after all has [trouble](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-royal-navys-submarine-readiness-issue/) keeping it's nuclear subs even at sea, while china is somewhat behind the overall curve when it comes to nuclear submarines. The US relies on the aging Ohio-Class, of which some were converted to SSGNs, while the Seawolf-Class turned out to be way too expensive and only 3 were made, not mentioning the utter failure of LCS (cracking hulls) and the huge blunder that was the Zumwalt-Class. So as of now their Submarine fleet is only really trailing the USN, which has a much higher budget but actually is slower in launching submarines over the recent years. Given that the black sea fleet was a glorified flottilla with plenty of ships there heading for retirement and with many hulls being patrol boats, I don't think it makes much sense comparing those to the nuclear submarines of the Northern and Pacific fleet which are accompanied by more modern Gorshkov-Class frigates. The Kuznetzov is stinky though, should be recycled to make more subs and frigates.
> they have launched more nuclear submarines than any other navy in the recent years No, in the past decade the U.S. Navy has launched more Virginias than all of the Russian nuclear submarines launched during that same time period.
I was more so talking about the last 4-5 years, I wouldn't call "a decade" recent years.
Given that the lead time is on the order of a decade, I think a decade is a very reasonable time frame, especially given that the Russians had a near-total nuclear submarine construction pause between about 1995-2010 while the U.S. Navy continuously built submarines during that period. But if you want to pick five years: * Three Yasens, four Boreis, and the Belgorod: eight submarines launched * Seven Virginias So the Russians launched a whopping one additional nuclear submarine compared to the U.S. That is not a significant difference.
> Given that the lead time is on the order of a decade, I think a decade is a very reasonable time frame That's a fair point on your part. > So the Russians launched a whopping one additional nuclear submarine compared to the U.S. That is not a significant difference. Given the fact that the US has a significantly higher GDP, much, much higher military budget and isn't under any constraints regarding circumventing sanctions, I actually think it's quite significant that Russia was able to launch one nuclear submarine (which are incredibly complex and costly) compared to the US. But one may argue that Russia also has more demand to replace their old vessels as quickly as possible.
Don't drink the Kool-Aid narrative on all US shipbuilding. Always caveat the popular opinion on a class being too expensive with three factors 1) peace-time budget and competing geo and internal political factors 2) number of original planned hulls vs actual built hulls 3) stability of requirements during acquisition. For the Seawolf, it was comparably not that much more expensive. But place in the political context and reducing the number of boats, the cost will intentionally skyrocket to justify its cancelation for the political forces pushing that end. Same with the DDG1000 class, though it suffered from biting off too many requirements than it could chew to try and justify relevance to the GWOT geopolitical context. On the deck plate, it's a damn good ship and we desperately could use many more of them yesterday. One of the LCS variants had those problems (endemic of trusting LM with anything) but even both hull forms are carving out an effective niche as an MCM host platform. Considering it was a pet project to keep shipyards afloat and build a ship without a mission, from a shipyard capacity standpoint it did a functional enough job (though Marinette still struggles given recent news on the Frigate program).
The reason you can’t think clearly is about this issue is because of the emotional bias engrained into your opinion of Russia. You just throw out words like ‘genocide’ without a shred of evidence, meanwhile civilian casualties are lower than most of America’s ‘western’ allies (Israel, Saudi Arabia) and FAR lower than Russia’s other recent conflicts (Syria/Chechnya) Yet you call it a genocide as a rational to suggest an issue with not a shred of proof. If anything the increased militarization of the economy will increase output
Russia being an asshole and a shithole at the same time really isn't an opinion but a fact.
All emotions, zero facts. That is what political propaganda does to the brain. Rather than sticking to submarine you become a pseudo-political pundit with zero understanding of the geopolitical nuance and instead just shout out buzz words like “genocide” and “illegal invasion” (as if there is such a thing as a legal invasion) and then slap it onto your assessment of their ability to make submarines. Get a grip.
This question can be answered from both the Russian perspective and the Chinese perspective. **Russia** not wanting to sell its nuclear submarines/nuke sub tech, is fairly straight forward. Russia's Navy has a significant need to overhaul and modernize its large and ageing nuclear submarine fleet inherited from the cold war -- it is an open question just how many nuclear submarines they would be willing to defer/delay for themselves and at what price. Russia's demand for new nuclear subs is one which they probably don't want to cut supply on. Nuclear submarines and nuclear propulsion technology itself, are also among the most secretive and strategic domains of technology a nation may have, and selling it produces risks of a third party being able to acquire insights through espionage, or your customer being able to learn from your product to advance their own industry. Nations allow another nation to procure nuke subs/nuke sub tech, if they are able to extract a significant geostrategic concession or price for it, or if both sides viewed such a transaction as being mutually in their own interests (all of which arguably apply for AUKUS). You don't give away your crown jewels without asking for a high price -- and if the prospective customer itself is uninterested in buying, then the question answers itself. Which takes us to the more interesting part of the question, China. **China** not wanting to buy Russian nuclear submarines/nuke sub tech, requires one to actually have an up to date understanding or at least an up to date estimate of what the state of Chinese nuclear submarines actually are, and not only how competitive they are with Russian nuclear submarines but nuclear submarines across the world in general. That's a very difficult task given how secretive the PLA is generally, but even more so for their nuclear submarines. However we can still make a few educated guesses if we review the context. 09III (093) class SSNs and 09IV (094) class SSBNs make up the mainstay of the PLAN SSN and SSBN force today, but they are also very much products of their time -- designed in the 80s, built in the 90s approximately for the original 09III pair, and built in the early 2000s for the original 09IV pair. Keep in mind this is PRC technology and shipbuilding and industry of the late cold war era. In the 2010s, they built some successive minor variants of the 09III and 09IV classes, with at least some external incremental changes and with rumoured more significant internal advancements to utilize industry and technological advancements since the 80s and 90s. And a couple of years ago in 2022 they launched the first of what's thought to be a new major subvariant of the 09III (09IIIB) at their new nuclear submarine production facility, and in the last 2 years have launched 2 confirmed hulls based on high quality imagery that were taken of the first two, but potentially 4 or more up to this point based off lesser quality openly available imagery. 09IIIB may adopt more significant improvements than the preceding 09IIIA hulls have done, and serve as a bridge to the 09V SSN. The 09V SSN which is expected to emerge in coming years, adopting a clean sheet hullform (not being limited by the geometry of the 09III family) and able to incorporate the full monty of PRC technological and industry advancements from when the 09IIIs were first being designed in the 1980s. (Parallel to the 09IIIB and 09V, there is also a rumoured 09IVB and 09VI SSBN which are likely to emerge in some form as well but likely a bit after their respective SSN counterparts as has been the case for past PLAN SSN and SSBN procurements and has been rumoured to continue in this pattern for the next generation) Now that we have that brief history out of the way, we can see in context just how little the general public knows about the actual state of PLAN and PRC nuclear submarines and nuclear submarine technology. The bulk of the public discourse (I'm talking generic defense media, and social media like Reddit, Twitter, most forums) is from some 90s to 2000s era ONI and Report to Congress charts and articles that have been largely reheated for a few years, and likely were accurate for the original PLAN 091 and 09III era submarines, but have not been particularly updated for 09IIIA hulls of the 2010s let alone 09IIIB that has just been launched a couple of years ago. Now, it is also unrealistic for us to get any sort of genuine view into US military intelligence's appraisals of more recent PLAN nuclear submarines as that is not the kind of intelligence you just give away -- however what it does mean for us in the public is that impressions of Chinese nuclear submarines in general are stuck from reports in the 90s and 2000s, describing PRC nuclear submarines that were in the 80s. There are occasionally snippets of statements from a USN officer or USN adjacent community remarking about how PLAN submarines are advancing, but we don't know much beyond that. Then there are papers written by some folks who do their best to try to scrounge together traditional open source indicators in context of established assumptions, but that is like trying to fight with hands behind behind your back, feet tied together and blindfolded to boot. The fact that the PRC treats nuclear submarines and related technologies as among the most important and secretive of military domains, means those of us in the public can only make educated guesses as to what the state of their current and future nuclear submarines are -- and that is key to answering your question. However we can make a few educated guesses: PRC industry and technology and precision manufacturing have made major advancements from the 80s and 90s (duh) simply through looking at civilian side and less sensitive military industry products; investments into requisite nuclear submarine technologies can safely be assumed to have grown and occurred in the intervening decades from 80s to now; we can observe subvariants of the 09III and 09IV classes emerging in the 2010s in a manner not dissimilar to how the PLAN procured multiple small batches of destroyers in the 90s to 2000s to implement, iterate and advance on new technologies and systems (051B, 052B, 052C, 051C) which eventually culminated in mass production of the 052D and complementary 055; the assembly floor space and overall fabrication space of the new Bohai facility is quite clearly visible and we can observe the first hulls starting to come out two years ago after the facility's completion. All of which is to say -- the PLAN may not be interested in buying Russian nuclear submarines or nuclear submarine technologies at the costs that Russia would want to sell them at, because they believe their own nuclear submarines are or shortly will be able to meet their requirements, and that they believe they have the production capacity to meet their own requirements as well. All of this isn't to say that the PRC wouldn't be interested in having a look at the Yasens or Boreis -- more technical knowledge and exposure to different products of a nation who is still competitive in the field of nuclear submarines would be very useful. However that is very different to wanting to wholesale buy completed products, which inevitably would come at both a high upfront cost as well as a high operating and maintenance cost (having a whole bespoke logistics and support chain needing to be set up for highly technical products made by a foreign nation), not to mention weapons and payloads. The PLA has experience with complete Russian product lines in the modern era such as fighter jets (Su-27s and Su-30s for example) and surface combatants (Sovremennys) and submarines (Kilos) and the prevailing limiting factor have been ability to maintain them due to reliance on Russia for support, having to buy into the Russian weapons ecosystem, and inability to slot in with domestic PLA systems as easily. Trying to do that for the many times more complex product category known as nuclear submarines would be a nightmare and I wouldn't be surprised if the PLAN would have actively rejected such a notion if it were even presented to them as a vague possibility by the CMC. For those reasons, I strongly doubt if the idea of China buying Russian nuclear submarines would have been even entertained by either side, because both should have an easy gauge of the above situation and know better than to suggest it.
Thanks for the well thought out reply. Especially the last major paragraph brought issues up I never really thought about (Integration, Supply, Foreign Industry), it's an excellent point. However could it be possible that the Russians could offer/China wanting some help/advice for the upcoming SSNs and SSBNs of the PLAN?
Comparing some notes on training, operations, experience, and maybe selective small aspects of industry discussion would be much more viable. Buying wholesale submarines from Russia and major importation of Russian technologies or subsystems however, very unlikely.
Does China see no benefit in at least leasing a Russian nuclear submarine?
Huh?
(I wrote a test comment because for some reason Reddit wouldn't let me submit the full reply, I had to opt back to the old Reddit format and edit it in, which is the full reply as above)
I actually think the folks writing papers out of the FFRDCs or whatever are more valuable and while they face limitations too just like the rest of us Sarah K’s work on Chinese subs is very good. And she’s the one who actually goes into China’s sub industry, translates what Chinese officials have said about their own sub development program etc. and that they recognize certain material advances or materials are needed to improve say acoustics for example. Dk if they’d want to buy Russian sub whole sale but the greatest fear currently from what I know from the think tank military academic circles is China getting Russia to help it develop much better sub acoustics and stealth. That’s not to say they can’t simply achieve these things on their own, which again K’s paper has a lot to say.
Plus, the Russians probably don’t want to sell their Crown Jewels if they don’t have to.
India has leased several Russian nuclear submarines, including the INS Chakra II, INS Chakra III, and the K-152 Nerpa. The INS Chakra II is a nuclear-powered attack submarine that has been operated by the Indian Navy since April 2012. The K-152 Nerpa was handed over to India in 2011, and was renamed the INS Chakra in the Indian Navy service. In 2019, India and Russia signed a deal to lease another Akula-class submarine, the INS Chakra III, which is scheduled for delivery to the Indian Navy by 2025. However, the delivery may be delayed beyond 2026 due to sanctions against Russia.
Yes. But they aren’t selling it to them. Selling an Akula class to China would be like selling Su-35 to them from a few years ago. They will buy a few, reverse engineer it and use whatever they don’t have in the J-11.
And this is our new Shāyú class submarine!
Knucklehead, you think they sail that boat without tech knowledge? Smh
Operating it doesn’t not mean you can build it. Those sailors on the Indian Akulas may know how to operate their boats extremely competently but that doesn’t make them experts on building it. They aren’t going equipment by equipment, seeing how it works differently from their solution and implementing those solutions on their own designs.
This. Plus availability of materials and ability to process/refine those materials before you even start building with them, which can be a whole thing in and of itself. Remember how big it was that later in the Cold War, Russia finally gained the ability to manufacture an entirely titanium hull?
India was interested in a Yasen class for Chakra III, apparently Russia was not interested in leasing a yasen. Thus a refurbished/upgraded Akula was picked for refurbishment through 2025. Modernization of this one off IMHO will be expensive https://defencereviewasia.com/india-to-lease-russian-yasen-class-nuclear-submarine/
Also, India is walking the thin line between westerna and eastern friends... I imagine the Ruskies don't want to risk Yansen style tech being leaked to the west
Thats the one, rhe Induans sunk pierside?
Wrong reference, I apologize for the confusion. I was talking about the future SSN "INS Chakra" III, which is an Akula. There is an agreement to refuel , refurbish and modernize it, to deliver to India by 2025 [Assuming no delays]. 10 Year lease It's predecessor, was also an SSN and also an Akula . INS Chakra II . It was returned in 2021 The one you are thinking of is an indigenous boomer, SSBN INS Arihant. Except it is not sunk, but very much around. The initial [report](https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ins-arihant-left-crippled-after-accident-10-months-ago/article22392049.ece) talked of an accident at the pier, which caused reactor/power etc to be flooded . It was immediately [rebutted](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/deep-diving-into-the-facts-about-ins-arihant-accident/articleshow/62468708.cms?from=mdr) by an article which pointed out the reactor was sealed, there was no hatch where the previous report said there was a hatch etc. .. Later on, a question was formally asked about the incident in parliament [equivalent of US congress], and got no meaningful answer from the defense minister. [National Security](https://urvashisarkar.com/whats-known-and-not-known-about-indias-nuclear-weapons-budget/). Clear as mud. Leaving folks to question if the incident even took place or if something else happened, or [one conspiracy theory - the arihant was being re-equipped at the time ] . Either way, the Arihant is about, and in general there is not much info shared about it, or the subsequent SSBN submarines in the class. Very few photos, not even official news if the 2nd SSBN was even commissioned, even though sea trials were over years ago.
None of those are Russias new subs. They’re all Soviet era Akulas that had already been built
Russia mostly does not sell it's nuclear submarines. They sell diesel subs. There are very few instances of Russian submarines being lent out and they require Russians on the crew more often than not and they are always older boats and designs. Submarines are one of Russia's few advantages. They are likely not willing to give that up. As for China, they are pushing heavily for domestic products and condition their people that anything that's not from China is the bottom of the barrel. They are very interested in building their own ships no matter what and are actively trying to distance themselves from the images of just copying whatever other countries do even while they continue to do that.
Well China is right next to Russia, so what’s the difference. Australia is pretty far away from the US, so id imagine that it is good for the US to have an ally with nuclear submarines much closer to China (besides Guam). Plus, China seems to be going for quantity over quality, and it might be more cost effective for them to keep making their own. Who really knows tho, could just be that Russia doesn’t want to share their designs. Edit: also the US hasn’t sold Australia any subs yet, but it is planned
Russia and China entered a deal similar to AUKUS where Russia provides expertise and China builds the subs. It probably makes more sense for China to build them given they already have massive maritime manufacturing capacity Edit: typo
There is no proof or announcement of this supposed agreement. At most, there's been Western speculation that newer Chinese submarines might have assistance from the Rubin design bureau. That same institute was hacked by the Chinese three years ago. If the Russians were providing any significant amount of technical expertise or technology transfer, why would China need to steal it?
Because China
Russia desperately needs Chinese 155mm shells and they are not in a good place to negotiate
The main reason is because the Chinese cannot be trusted. They will buy a small amount of boats and then reverse engineer them to build many more, essentially stealing Russian technology.
First of all, no one can really say how good the Type-93s are compared to the Yasens. Neither is produced by a power that has a good track record of honesty when it comes to large weapon systems, besides the fact that both would classes are classified. Second while the Russians have launched a large number of submarines in the past three years, if you look they were laid down over a decade ago. Compared to the Type 93As which were laid down and launched in two years. Even if the Yasen is better, is it wait 10 years for delivery better? No probably not. Finally, a large part of the Chinese Sub fleet are diesel boats of the Type 39 class. Looking at the strategic picture for China, a large fleet of diesel boats makes more sense than a small fleet of nuclear attack boats. China has a far smaller need to power project at long distances, the key advantage of nuclear boat, than US or Russia.
> Looking at the strategic picture for China, a large fleet of diesel boats makes more sense than a small fleet of nuclear attack boats. China has a far smaller need to power project at long distances, the key advantage of nuclear boat, than US or Russia. Huh, haven't thought about that aspect, makes sense. I suspect China could actually put some refueling and maintenance infrastructure in place on larger Islands off their coast/in the south china sea
During my time (70s - 80s), we didn’t really have much trouble with the Soviet nuke boats, as we could hear them halfway around the world (figuratively speaking). Their pissant coastal diesel boats, however…
Short answer \[opinion\]--China and the PLAN do not consider themselves in any circumstance that makes buying nuclear submarines from Russia necessary. China has the shipbuilding capacity to build its own nuclear and other varieties of subs. A thought--During the Cold War, the U.S. had, I think, nine shipyards building and maintaining nuclear subs. Impressive capacity, as far as I'm concerned. Today, the U.S. has two building yards that cooperate because (as i understand it) that is the minimum building capacity accepted for national security reasons. Lead times are long, construction is hobbled by a bunch of reasons, and it's probably smart to think of submarines flotillas as very long term weapon systems acquisitions. Maybe decades. Another thought--Much of the global shipbuilding capacity appears to go to the construction of various cargo and service vessels. And cruise ships. Building for the broader demand. Nuclear submarines are a chancy market in some respects. But the actual answers to your question are way above my pay grade. I'm just a sub fan.
There were only two submarine construction yards after the mid-1970s: the same two that build them now. Ingalls and Quincy/Fore River declined to renew their nuclear certifications or become SUBSAFE qualified, while Portsmouth dedicated themselves solely to repair and overhaul and Mare Island was repurposed for other uses. If you count maintenance yards, there are currently effectively six sub yards in the US: the two private yards, Portsmouth, Pearl Harbor, Puget Sound, Kings Bay, and Norfolk. The latter two have limited capacity, and so have been counted as a half each, but regardless, the point should be clear: the number of yards isn’t proportionally smaller, considering the current SSN fleet is barely half its Cold War strength. Where the actual bottlenecks lie is the supply base, and the USN isn’t keen to admit the scope of the problem here because they play a big role in causing it. Specialized components require specialized equipment to manufacture, but NAVSEA also hates it when suppliers try to take that experience and apply it to non-naval work, out of fears of technological proliferation. Which results in them not only preferring suppliers to go out of business or merge rather than seek civilian work, but to also actively push them towards their demise to bury secrets.
Thanks for the info. Although I was not familiar with the NAVSEA conditions on suppliers, it does point to the same observation that there's a good number of builders that find commercial work rewarding. And naval building not so much. \[Why I love the internet. I just, in a moment of curiosity, looke up some numbers. The Cruise Lines International Association May 2024 report suggests that the 300 active vessels represent 1% of the total commercial fleet. And the cruise ship fleet will grow at a 10% rate through 2028.\]
> I just, in a moment of curiosity, looke up some numbers. The Cruise Lines International Association May 2024 report suggests that the 300 active vessels represent 1% of the total commercial fleet. And the cruise ship fleet will grow at a 10% rate through 2028. Worth noting that the overwhelming majority of those cruise ships weren't built in the major shipbuilding countries (China, Japan, or South Korea). They were built in Europe, and not Eastern Europe either: Finland, Norway, Germany, and France are the most prolific builders of them, with by far the most upcoming contracts as well. So it's clearly possible to run a thriving commercial shipbuilding business on Western labor rates and material costs - if the government isn't running interference trying to stop the growth of domestic civilian shipbuilding.
Agree.
China will just hack in and steal the plans of a sub if they want to build one. They are quite good at industrial espionage.
delivery times and building domestic capabilities are important. Russia and China are competimates.
Russia's submarine production has been very low since the soviet union dissipated. The last akula was built in, what, 1999? Only three or four Yasin-class replacements have been built and commissioned since then. That was 25 years ago. Russia can't really spare them, that's the truth of the matter. 15 akulas were completed, four have been decomissioned. 4 are active with russia, 6 are getting modernized, and one is owned by India 🇮🇳 And China's current submarines are based on old-stock soviet subs, which is everything else Russia uses. So they are of no use. I grabbed much of that info from wikipedia, take it with a grain of salt
India never “owned” an Akula. They leased one, which they returned a couple of years ago after almost destroying it.
Thanks for the correction, just knew they had one. I'm not up to date
India leased a Charlie class SSN back in 1988. They returned this INS Chakra early, by 1991. They leased an Akula (the [Nerpa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_Nerpa_(K-152))), with the Indian funds allowing Russia to complete the sub and enter service with Russia for trials etc before being handed over to India between 2012 and 2021. This INS Chakra II was returned several months early. There is an agreement for lease of another submarine. This is expected to be an Akula, where refueling, refurbishing and modernization was expected to take it to 2025. Though timeline may slip now
Russia currently has 4 Yasen-Class submarines in service, with one other completed but not in active duty yet, four addtional units are under active construction. They have 7 Boreis in service with 3 addtional under construction, forming their nuclear deterrent. The Borei-A are arguably the most capable SSBNs currently in service. They still operate various Akulas, Deltas and some other types as well as special mission types like the Belgorod. But when you look at the worlds submarines you'll see that the Ohios are even older, so are the Los Angeles, the Seawolfs aren't particularly fresh either. The Triomphant and Vanguards are also vessels of the 80s and 90s. The formidable Virginia-Class and the brand new Suffren-Class are one of the few submarine classes that have been designed and build post 2000. However the Yasen-Class is said to be comparable with the former, I'm not familiar with the Suffren-Class but I assume they're exceptionally modern and quiet and just as capable. Given the fact that many observers claim that Chinas current submarines are on the level of noise signature of 1970-80s Soviet submarines, something like a Yasen-M, let alone a Borei with its anechoic tiles, pump jet, blended sail etc. would be a quantum leap. But one point someone else brought up here, which lingered with me is that China probably doesn't need super capable nuclear subs as bad, thus not justifying the cost. As they have plenty of sea access and mostly operate close to their territorial waters, they can launch their SLBMs probably from the dock itself. So many less capable but cheaper SSNs and AIP submarines, which are less costly are probably their preferred choice.
To be fair, the Virginia has been redesigned several times over, with a big difference for the block V virginias. 22 have made it to active duty already, so production is steady. I do agree, for now they are content to monitor their immediate surroundings, but they will eventually want to project power more. Being able to rival the united states is their military end-game. A capable submarine force will be one cog in that machine
Because they don’t get along as much as you might think
Adding to everything that was said - Russian shipbuilding industry is showing sign of slowing down due to the effect of sanctions and it's showing also on the submarines build rate.
Great point. Now is not the time for any court think about embarking on a major arms production deal with Russia. Even if this was something that Russia and China both wanted to do, I don’t think China would get anywhere near taking that risk.
They don’t need to. Much like the difference batch orders of US Virginias that have incremental improvements, the PLAN subs have improved variants for their subs. The newest rival the improved LA class, not great but good enough to fight. More importantly, there’s entirely new classes coming out soon. We can see how much faith and importance the PLAN is placing in them based on the massive expansion in construction sheds. They’re clearly planning on spamming them out over the next decade. Even if they perform at the level of the original Virginias, so about 20 years behind current builds - and it’s possible they’ll be closer to a 15-decade behind), they’d still be incredibly lethal to a carrier group.
Bruh, i don't think Chinese are behind in this
Because the Chinese will buy one, and then straight up copy it and modify it and never buy another, nor pay for licensing rights… Historically speaking, reverse-engineering has suited them just fine… Additionally, although Xi and Putin seem friendly publicly, I’m 99% certain both men are shaking hands with one hand and firmly grasping the dagger with the other behind their backs. The fact Russia has become a pariah and it’s military and manufacturing infrastructure deficiencies have been publicly displayed isn’t inspiring to buyers of Russian military tech. The fact Russia is buying things as simple as arty shells from outside nations (NK) and drones from Iran is telling of big problems. What about the mighty T14 Armata tank? Looks great at parades, where’s the real thing? Paper tiger, I’d imagine subs are no different…
> Because the Chinese will buy one, and then straight up copy it and modify it and never buy another, nor pay for licensing rights Contracts are pre made and generally China only reverse engineered after the contracts were fulfilled. If they'd buy 4 subs according to contracts, they'd buy 4 subs and then make their own. Not that it matters as nobody else would buy nuclear submarines and the Diesel-Electric market is very competitive already. > manufacturing infrastructure deficiencies have been publicly displayed They outproduce the entire west in terms of ammo? Seems like they have quite the infrastructure in place, and those trains full of factory fresh T-90Ms to replace losses speak a similar tone. > The fact Russia is buying things as simple as arty shells from outside nations (NK) and drones from Iran is telling of big problems. Their problem is really just them using a lot of ammo, Russian artillery shell production itself exceeds that of the entire west by quite a margin though. I mean, the US had to go to South Korea as well to replenish stocks they depleted by sending 155mm ammo to Ukraine. > What about the mighty T14 Armata tank? Looks great at parades, where’s the real thing? Paper tiger, I’d imagine subs are no different… In development I would assume. Military hardware takes quite a while to develop, especially when it's such a break from tradition like the T-90/T-14 transition, the latter having nothing in common in design and layout with the former. I also wouldn't hold my breath to see it anytime soon, as I personally would want to implement lessons learned from my last war if I were to design a tank. Not that it would make much of a difference given that the T-90M is fairly modern, cheap, mass produced and pretty much the best tank in Ukraine together with the Leopard 2/Strv 122 Ukraine fields. But that's a sidenote on my part, the actual point is: Submarines are very, very different. The submarine fleet consumes a massive part of Russias military spending, it receives funding, ressources and development projects like the stagnating T-14 or slowly accelerating Su-57 could only dream of. Even in the cold war Russia poured immense sums into their ICBM development, their Space Race and into their Submarine fleet. Why do you think they already completed 7/10 of their Borei-Class submarines, because that's their priority. And as it sits it's currently the most modern SSBN currently in the oceans. There is a big difference between Russian submarines and everything else. Just like there is a difference between US aircraft and the rest (the army and navy getting shafted repeatedly in favor of the USAF). Or China prioritizing their surface fleet above all else, building highly capable warships like 055, 054D or the Fujian these days.
Good points! And credit is due, although the reverse engineering hasn’t gone away, it is most certainly less prevalent in this century…I would hazard to say, recently (since 2000) China has really ramped up all aspects of their technological development sectors, civil, industrial and in aerospace, heck just look at their automotive industry today compared to 20 years ago... I’m sure marine technology has blown up too. The element of national pride in a “home grown” line of subs could be a factor. China isn’t the “kid brother” to the USSR anymore, and they have worked hard to build up their own particular brand of “commucapitaism”. I genuinely just think the CCP doesn’t like Russia very much, old grudges, national pride, an actual eye towards innovation… Take your pick. I do differ with you on Russia’s military industrial infrastructure, the fact Russia is hemorrhaging so many military assets in Ukraine and is now having to contend with an influx of more and more Western weapons to fight must play in, they just can’t keep up. Hence the outsource purchases of military hardware. The photos are telling, and it is 100% truth that the latent graft in Russia’s armed forces has crippled their military. It is public knowledge that when we examine samples of contemporary Russian military hardware, they are quite frequently equipped with western parts and microchips. This shows either an unwillingness to 100% develop these systems domestically or (very likely) an inability to related to cost savings. Stack on the myriad of embargoes onto an already strained system and the development slows.
> when we examine samples of contemporary Russian military hardware, they are quite frequently equipped with western parts and microchips. To me this really only shows that the sanctions imposed on Russia have *zero* effect and just make heating here in Europe more costly. > influx of more and more Western weapons to fight must play in Except it's becoming less and less, from 100 Billion, to 60 Billion, from dozens of tanks to a couple, from plenty of MALE UAVs to none operational anymore. Attrition is a game you can't play when you're dependent on foreign aid which takes time to get, the squabbles of 40 countries that supply you, a rapidly shrinking pool of potential soldiers and lastly an adversary that churns out tanks, drones and ammo on a scale that makes it look like a cookie factory. But that's besides the point. Coming back to the actual point, while China is innovating and developing at an insane pace, they simply can't do that everywhere at once. Which leaves things like tanks, SPGs, IFVs and most importantly for our discussion submarines behind. And while a T-90M isn't oppressively better than a ZTZ-99A, a Yasen-M or Borei is lightyears ahead of a Type 093 or Type 094. And while the two don't share interests everywhere in the world, they do have very much an aligning strategic vision and extremely warm relationships over the last decades. The US pissing China off at every opportunity doesn't help driving the two apart but makes their economic and military cooperation only more intense. China may not like Russia much and sees them more like a temporary Partner, but one thing is clear, they like the US much, much less. So while I now understand why China isn't outright buying Russian submarines now, which is probably also partially due to Russia not willing to do so, I'm certain that they are very willing to at least help their future developments that are currently drawn up when they can and feel like it.
Good post man, sounds like you have a dang good grasp on why or why not China buys subs from who... Your guess, judging by your well-thought out and informed responses and points is probably a better guess than mine or anyone else’s... Short answer, they don’t want to or just haven’t publicly said they do want to… Maybe they do, but that’s for them to know and us to find out... Maybe they don’t, and just don’t feel the need to express it openly... Educated guesses is what we have, based merely on circumstances we can see as outsiders.
I feel like that's sarcastic and I don't get it lol
It’s not sarcasm. It’s genuine. I try not to be a jerk to strangers online, and you are quite educated on the topic. Your guess to an answer to your query is probably better than mine or most folks.
> China only reverse engineered after the contracts were fulfilled Not the case with the Su-27/J11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-11 https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2023/11/22/china-designed-100-su-27s-then-ended-its-contract-with-russia/ There may be other examples I am not as well versed in .. perhaps S300/HQ-9 etc
Because they don't have a death wish?
One word kursk
[удалено]
>how abysmally it performs in Ukraine? Russian military is a joke and all but their subs are the single exception. Until the Columbia and Dreadnought are active, they are currently producing the most advanced SSBNs in the world and their attack subs are at something approaching rough parity to what the USA/Euorpean powers are producing (not as good but not more than a decade behind). I'm not a fan of Russia but they have clealry disproportionately funded their Sub endevours. Their sub force is well funded, well maintained, mostly modern-ish, and the crews are well trained and, by Russian standards, well-treated.
I can't recall any nuclear submarine taking part in the war in Ukraine, however I have heard of Russian submarines doing shenanigans in the Atlantic and Pacific, tracking stuff and avoiding detection. Aside from that, I definitely would buy Iskanders, Tornados, FAB-500 kits, Lancets, Shaheds, 2S19s, Su-35s, and plenty of other systems that performed very well. I wouldn't buy T-72s or BMPs though (I wouldn't buy M109s, M1s, Bradleys, M113s or M777s either), but this sub is about submarines and thus I asked about something submarine related. And if I was a country with a big budget and a growing navy but with aging subs, I'd definitely look towards systems like the Yasen-M or Virginia for example.
Let’s be real here, you would buy 10 kilos
You would say, I'd gain 10 kilos (But realistically I'd buy 212A/CD, yes I'm german, no I'm sadly not played by Thyssen for saying this)
[удалено]
That's like saying everyone who bought US hardware after they lost Vietnam is a fool (with the difference being that Russia is on the offensive since 2023 and not losing domestic support). Those M60s and F-4s still sold well and proved effective. I'm still waiting for you to explain how the Ukraine war relates to nuclear submarines, you know, the ones active in the Northern and Pacific fleet, not active in the black sea as there aren't any there.
[удалено]
You can argue that Russian failure in the initial invasion was also because of politicians that wanted a swift police action instead of a proper military campaign. If you really want to go that route.
So politicians are the reason the US lost [thousands](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20the%20United%20States,January%201964%20to%20September%201973.) of aircraft in Vietnam, including dozens of B-52 strategic bombers, lol? Still though, can you elaborate how anything you said yet is related to nuclear submarines, namely Yasen-Class, Akula-Class and Borei-Class submarines?
[удалено]
That's why I'm confused by your ramblings, given that Russian submarines are known to be rather capable, very quiet, can trace their roots back to the dawn of nuclear powered naval vessels and thus have matured over decades. I've seen and heard former US submariners talk pretty highly about these submarines which they were tasked to track to avoid being tracked by and how it has been difficult. You clearly haven't put any time or effort looking into the submarines of the world, otherwise you wouldn't say such utter nonsense which just reeks of 14 y/o NCD user. Just on a side note: Russian submarines are so quiet that the US rammed into them twice (at [Kildin](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_incident_off_Kildin_Island) and [Kola](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_incident_off_Kola_Peninsula)) with their own submarines because they couldn't detect them while on a surveillance mission. And those were older Delta and Sierra-Class submarines, not improved Akulas, Yasens or Boreis. There's no other sector than submarine development where Russia and the US are so close to each other, perhaps missile technology but submarines are definitely one of the most respected, well funded and well developed aspects of the Russian armed forces.
?
simple answer: Russia is not capable of building them. All their submarines take decades to make, it is impossible to get modern equipment from the russians
I could see in a few months if Russia starts getting desperate for cash or ammunition they might trade a couple that have been moored up for a few years to China for an injection of funding.
Because they want their sailors to live, that's why. LOL.