Russian Yasen class attack submarine Severodvinsk k-329 [1200 × 798]

Your assessment that the Typhoons were retired for economic reasons only, would stand on a more stable foundation, if one of two hadn't been used as a test bed which means that there had to be a crew for it. The Kirovs that didn't have reactor problems are either still in service 1 or being refitted 1. Two may never see service again, but the issue here is the reactor. For the Alfas it's exactly the same story with the added bonus that once they are retired there is no turning back. Also this was done in 1990, with a single exception.

If cost had been the primary issue for Russian SSBNs then they would have used the Delta design and wouldn't have designed a completely new missile. The first Borei did not use an Akula hull. That was number 2 and 3. Both of these are with the Pacific fleet. In the end it will be either 6-6 or 5-5 and all Deltas will be retired. The Pacific fleet will be first to receive Boreis. The only reason that one currently stays with the Northern fleet are missile issues. Which leads to a higher number of tests which have to be conducted from the Northern Fleet shooting to the east. All SSBNs have always been designed with self-defense in mind. While one might not want to have to fight an SSN it can't be ruled out. It therefore is better to have a capable submarine even when it's significantly more expensive than just using an older design as is the case with the Boreis. Using a few parts of older ships will not drive down costs, as can be seen with the Borei, where the ones that used Akula hulls actually turned out more expensive. To have all SSBNs in one or two general areas makes the game for the attacker easier not harder, which is why you always want some as far away as possible. The more complex the task is the less likely a first strike.

Why Milchkühe? The answer is rather simple Russia faces two potential adversaries: China and NATO. Both are dependent on trade through the Indian Ocean. Russia does not have a base there. It's a cheap way of forcing an adversary to commit a large amount of resources in the Indian Ocean. At worst Russia would lose a few submarines while the majority of the enemy's assets are tied up as far away from Russia as possible and the enemy would run into oil shortages quickly.

Virginia's are just overhyped LAs made worse by losing focus on the mission and turning them into multipurpose vessels, which negatively impacts the design especially of the future versions (Virginia Payload Madness). The US has two capable SSNs, and one crippled Jimmy Carter, that is likely still better than the Virginias. Yes, Virginias have better sonar than their Russian counterparts but that could have been put in better more focussed boats, too.

The Yasens are very clearly fleet submarines. Extremely expensive ones at that I might add. They are designed to excel at both the ASuW and ASW role. Yes US boats may have still the better sonar, but everything else about them is out of focus. Now, Yasens aren't better at ASW than an updated smaller SSN of which Russia has several classes and SSK-AIP can easily play the ASuW role for bastions, which would be a scenario very similar to the ones where the US tends to lose their carriers when they play with us. Why would a country that has economic issues, as you have mentioned several times, go for a design that is so unbelievably expensive instead of buying two more focussed classes, which together would be cheaper. It's like 5 updated Ladas per Yasen and probably one and a half newly built Akulas. The class doesn't fit into the bastion doctrine. It is detrimental to it since it reduces the number of more focussed submarines that could have been bought instead.

/r/WarshipPorn Thread Parent Link - i.imgur.com