Los Angeles Class vs. Oscar II submarines

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Los Angeles Class vs. Oscar II submarines

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:05 am

This is interesting. I am of the criteria that the contemporary naval superiority weapon are the SSN and SSBN. Surface ships are obsolete as naval superiority vessels and needed basically for support and escort as for landing operations. The CV and CVN are good for power projection as long the pig boats allowed them to be afloat.

If this is true, then the duel will be amongst those subs that kill other subs, or sub killer vs. sub killer.

Because Russia is going to spook (again) a sleepy western world it is obvious that the Los Angeles Class fast attack will face the Oscar II sub killer. Of course the Russians have to scrap some rust of those 2 that are in reserve, but 5 are working good. Anyway, Russia is trying to build some more.

Los Angeles Class:

Displacement: Surfaced: 6,082 tonnes (5,986 long tons)
Submerged: 6,927 tonnes (6,818 long tons)
Length: 362 ft (110 m)
Beam: 33 ft (10 m)
Draft: 31 ft (9.4 m)
Propulsion: 1 GE PWR S6G nuclear reactor, 2 turbines 35,000 hp (26 MW), 1 auxiliary motor 325 hp (242 kW), 1 shaft
Speed: Surfaced:20 knots (23 mph; 37 km/h)
Submerged: +20 knots (23 mph; 37 km/h) (official), 33+ knots (reported)
Range: Refueling required after 30 years
Endurance: 90 days
Complement: 129
Sensors and
processing systems: BQQ-5 passive SONAR, BQS-15 detecting and ranging SONAR, WLR-8 fire control RADAR receiver, WLR-9 acoustic receiver for detection of active search SONAR and acoustic homing torpedoes, BRD-7 radio direction finder
Electronic warfare
and decoys
Armament: 4 × 21 in (533 mm) bow tubes, 10 Mk48 ADCAP torpedo reloads, Tomahawk land attack missile block 3 SLCM range 1,700 nautical miles (3,100 km), Harpoon anti–surface ship missile range 70 nautical miles (130 km), mine laying Mk67 mobile Mk60 captor mines

By the way, the Tomahawk missile array is quite impresive, specially the vertical launch tubes. I do imagine that those Tomahawks could be replaced by other array of anti ship missiles. (?)

Oscar II:

Displacement: 12,500/14,700 tons surfaced
16,500/19,400 tons submerged
Length: 155 m (508 ft 6 in)
Beam: 18.2 m (59 ft 9 in)
Draught: 9 m (29 ft 6 in)
Propulsion: 2 × pressurized water cooled reactors powering two steam turbines delivering 73,070 kW (98,000 shp) to two shafts
Speed: 15 knots (28 km/h) surfaced
32 knots (59 km/h) submerged
Endurance: 120 days
Complement: 94/107
Armament: 4 × 533mm (21 in) and 2 × 650mm (25.6 in) torpedo tubes in bow
28 × 533 mm and 650 mm weapons, including Tsakra (SS-N-15 Starfish) anti-submarine missiles with 15-kT nuclear warheads and Vodopad/Veder (SS-N-16 Stallion) and anti-submarine missiles with 200-kT nuclear warhead or Type 40 anti-submarine torpedo or 32 ground mines
24 × P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) cruise missiles with 750 kg (1,655 lb) HE or 500-kT nuclear warheads

Well: the Oscar II displaces 280% more than the Los Angeles and has the same reported submerged speed of 32 -33 knots. It seems that the russian fast attack relies a lot in nuclear warhead weapons (which makes clear that for the russians nuclear weapons are just that, weapons and not only political bargaining ships. However we know the Tomahawks could be armed with nuclear warheads too). The anti ship weapon array of the Oscar seems, numerically, impresive.

If these two clash somewhere in the deeps of the Pacific or Atlantic ocean who have the edge?
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
chcrawfish
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:39 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Contact:

Re: Los Angeles Class vs. Oscar II submarines

Postby chcrawfish » Thu Jul 08, 2010 3:51 am

uh.....don't forget the SEAWOLF class....
"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."
- General George S. Patton, Jr

User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Los Angeles Class vs. Oscar II submarines

Postby Kyler » Thu Jul 08, 2010 3:58 am

I would take the Los Angeles, it's superior sonar set and being a quieter sub would allow it to have an advantage in a sub v sub battle.

Oscar II sub marines were designed to attack USN carrier groups not really other submarines. Also another classic example the Soviet's completely
over arming a naval vessel.

I think if you wanted to come up with a better duel, Los Angeles v Akula
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Los Angeles Class vs. Oscar II submarines

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:24 pm

Kyler:

Also another classic example the Soviet's completely
over arming a naval vessel.


Well, I will never regard over arming as a problem (only if it brings down armor by doing that). Over arming is good, that means that the skipper has multiple choices and options.

Also your post brings light on the anti surface vessel capability these guys have: the carrier battlegroups have a powerfull foe that could strike from afar.

But you are right, in order for a sub killer vs sub killer we can have the Los Angeles vs. the Akula. The Akula specs are:

Type: nuclear-powered attack submarine
Displacement: 5,700-8,140 tons surfaced
7,900-9,100 tons submerged
7,900-12,770 tons submerged (Akula-II)
Length: 108.0 - 111.7 m (sources vary)
Beam: 13.6 m
Draught: 9.7 m
Propulsion: one 190 MW OK-650B/OK-650M pressurized water nuclear reactor
1 OK-7 steam turbine 43,000 hp (32 MW)
2 OK-2 Turbogenerators producing 2,000 kW
1 seven-bladed propeller
2 retractable electric propulsors for low-speed maneuvering at 3 knots (6 km/h)
Speed: 11,6 knots (37 km/h) surfaced
33 knots (65 km/h) submerged
Endurance: 100 days
Test depth: 480 m operational depth
600 m test depth
Complement: 73
Crew: 73
Sensors and
processing systems: MGK-540 active/passive suite
Flank arrays
Pelamida towed array sonar
MG-70 mine detection sonar
Electronic warfare
and decoys: Bukhta ESM/ECM
*MG-74 Korund noise simulation decoys (fired from external tubes)
MT-70 Sonar intercept receiver
Nikhrom-M IFF
Armament: 4x533mm torpedo tubes (plus 6 external 533mm tubes on Improved Akulas and Akula II's; 28 torpedoes) 4x650mm torpedo tubes (12 torpedoes)
1-3x SA-N-10 Igla-M Surface-to-air missile launcher fired from sail (surface use only)
Notes: Chiblis Surface Search radar
Medvyedista-945 Navigation system
Molniya-M Satellite communications
MGK-80 Underwater communications
Tsunami, Kiparis, Anis, Sintez and Kora Communications antennas
Paravan Towed VLF Antenna
Vspletsk Combat direction system
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Los Angeles Class vs. Oscar II submarines

Postby Bgile » Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:01 am

The effect of "over arming" Soviet naval vessels seems to have been that at least a few of the systems were working at any given time. Usually.

My experience in the 70s was that US submarines were far superior technologically than Soviet submarines. We were quieter and had better sonar. They seldom detected our presence. Of course I don't know what it's like now, but my impression is the Russians allowed what capability there was to deteriorate and they aren't close to getting it back. One endemic problem is their two year draft, where only people with no political connections serve and are badly mistreated by the ncos. The farce of the conversion of the carrier for India implies that their ship building capability may have deteriorated significantly as well, which wouldn't be surprising. Corruption seems rampant, which of course it was in Soviet times as well. The French ships they are buying will start out in good shape but they will have to maintain them.

US system reliability isn't as good as a few years ago because the spending on the war has cut back on maintenance. I doubt submarines have suffered as much because they have a higher priority for parts due to the inherent danger of submarine operations.

I'm more worried about the Chinese.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Los Angeles Class vs. Oscar II submarines

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:16 am

Steve,

This is not the first time we heard these stories about the russian chaos. I reckon that all texts refer the US electronic superiority and that the crews were also superior to those of Russia.

Construction has been questioned also, many times (remember that movie with Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson of K 19 or something alike?)

My impression is that the russian designs were, in reality, quite good and in some aspects superior to the US ones, but the mentioned issues brought down all advantages the design had.

Now, what now? The russians are open to comercial exchange, buying ship from western europe and selling stuff. And they don't have the numbers they had during the communist regime, maybe they are thinking in improvinf quality.

I really do not know anything about the quality of training or crew morale now, which could be interesting to find out.

Regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Los Angeles Class vs. Oscar II submarines

Postby lwd » Mon Jul 12, 2010 5:24 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:...I really do not know anything about the quality of training or crew morale now, which could be interesting to find out....

The Soviets lacked a profesional NCO component to their military. The crew on most Soviet naval vessels were 3 year draftees for the most part (as opposed to 2 years for the army). They did try to compensate to some extent by having more officers on board. I don't think I've ever heard of an incident on a US vessel where a cook put the ship out of commission for years. The Russians now seem to be trying to develop a longer serving professional military but not haveing an easy tome of it. Search around at: strategypage.com and you'll find more.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Los Angeles Class vs. Oscar II submarines

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Mon Jul 12, 2010 8:45 pm

Lee;

Thanks on the info. Will see it later tonight.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill


Return to “Hypothetical Naval Scenarios”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests