CV32

aviator, here is a list of Soviet nuclear powered submarines that were commissioned by 1990 and which were serving with the Northern Fleet at the time:

Project 627 (NATO November) SSN: K-3, K-5 (decommissioned in January 1990), K-11, K-21, K-50; decommissioned in April 1990: K-11, K-21, K-50

Pr 658 (Hotel) SSBN: K-16, K-19 (in reserve since 1979, decommissioned April 1990), K-33, K-40, K-145, K-149 (went into reserve fleet in March 1990)

Pr 667A (Yankee) SSBN: K-32 (did not deploy after 1986 due to reactor accident), K-137 Leninets (on missile patrol in the North Atlantic from 19 October to 31 December 1990), K-140 (out of service by 17 December 1990), K-214, K-228, K-241, K-245, K-249, K-253 (Yankee Notch conversion), K-395 (in drydock for Yankee Notch conversion), K-403 (sea trials of towed array pod), K-411 (completed Yankee Stretch conversion in 1990), K-418 (removed from active service in 1989), K-420 (Yankee Sidecar SSGN conversion, but torpedoes only by 1989), K-423, K-426, K-444; decommissioned in April 1990: K-32, K-140, K-426

[Note: In 1988 the director of US naval intelligence Adm Studeman told Congress that Yankee class SSBNs had ceased patrols off the US coast in late 1987 and were instead conducting "combat service patrols against theater targets" (i.e. staying close to home), presumably to compensate for the loss of the SS-20 under the INF Treaty.]

Pr 667B (Delta I) SSBN: K-279, K-385, K-447, K-450, K-457, K-460, K-465, K-472, K-475

Pr 667BD (Delta II) SSBN: K-92, K-182, K-193, K-421

Pr 667BDR (Delta III) SSBN: K-44 (in post drydock sea trials), K-129 (had powerplant failure in June 1989, may not have been available), K-424, K-449 (went to Pacific Fleet in November 1990), K-487, K-496

Pr 667BDRM (Delta IV) SSBN: K-18, -51, -64, -84, -114, -117, -407 (not commissioned until late November 1990)

Pr 670M (Charlie II) SSGN: K-209, -452, -458, -479, -503, -508

Pr 671 (Victor I) SSN: K-38, -53, -69, -147, -306, -323, -367 (did not deploy again after a reactor accident in 1985), -370 (may not have been available for deployment), -398, -438, -462, -481

Pr 671RT (Victor II) SSN: K-371, -387, -467, -488 (never returned to sea after 1988 drydock), -495, -513, -517

Pr 671RTM (Victor III) SSN: K-218, -244, -254, -298, -299, -358, -502, -524, -527

Pr 671RTMK (Improved Victor III) SSN: K-292, K-388, K-138 (operational from January 1990), K-414 (not commissioned until 30 December 1990)

Pr 675 (Echo II) SSGN: К-1 (may not have deployed after 1989), K-22, K-28, K-35 (final deployment in 1989), K-47 (in refuel and overhaul, did not return until 1992), K-74, K-104, K-125, K-128 (not in active service after 1989), K-131 (did not deploy after 1984), K-170 (may not have been operational after turbine accident in 1988), K-172 (stayed in port after reactor leak in June 1989); decommissioned in 1990: K-28, K-74, K-128, K-172 (in April)

Pr 705 (Alfa) SSN: K-123 (received a new reactor in 1990, probably not operational until 1992), K-316, K-373, K-432, K-463, K-493 (all but K-123 decommissioned in April 1990)

Pr 941 (Typhoon) SSBN: TK-12, TK-13, TK-17, TK-20, TK-202, TK-208

Pr 945 (Sierra I) SSN: K-239, K-276

Pr 945A (Sierra II) SSN: K-534 (not commissioned until 26 December 1990)

Pr 949 (Oscar I) SSGN: K-206 Minsky Komsomolets, K-525

Pr 949A (Oscar II) SSGN: K-119, K-132 (transferred to Pacific Fleet in late October 1990), K-148, K-410 (not commissioned until 22 December 1990), K-442 (not commissioned until 28 December 1990)

Pr 971 (Akula) SSN: K-154 (commissioned but reportedly not operational until December 1993), K-157 (commissioned but reportedly not operational until November 1995), K-317 Pantera (not commissioned until 27 December 1990), K-328 (commissioned but reportedly not operational until December 1992), K-461 (commissioned but reportedly not operational until December 1991), K-480

I will further update this list with information about which boats might have actually been available for service.

1 hour ago, Byron said:

Agree on all the above...but the question was related to a strategic outcome and Harpoon is a tactical simulation. Further, anyone who believes they can use Harpoon as a real world tactical simulator will have to have be able to not only modify the database to achieve real world capabilities but to also force the AI side to model real world actions and unfortunately the AI is not capable of doing this. Harpoon is as close as it gets, very true. But the question was asked as if Harpoon modeled real world and it does not.

 

Byron

It isn't a truly realistic tactical or strategic simulation. And that's not talking smack about a sim I have loved and spent an inordinate amount of time with. It's just the truth.

2 hours ago, TonyE said:

Byron talked about how Harpoon is frankly useless at suggesting a real life outcome of a tactical engagement.  That expanded to what it will do is teach lessons such as don't radiate in many situations, logistics is king in WestPac, stealth and stealth-denial is important.

I have yet to find a commercially available simulation that can come anywhere close to realistically modeling the real life outcome of any military clash of arms on the kind of scale approached by sims such as Harpoon. That includes Command.

These sims are far too mechanical, too regimented, too structured to realistically simulate the swirling multi-factorial chaos that is war.

But they rank among the best we have, for the moment.

aviator, what's the setting date for your scenario?

This would of considerable help in trying to find the right size of your proposed submarine deployment.

Even though the Soviets fielded a large number of submarines, the classes and members of those classes that would have been available at any given time would be considerably smaller. Many units of a given class, for example, would have been under construction, under refit or repair, not on deployment (for any number of reasons), or deployed outside the Northern Fleet at any given point in time.

I would be happy to help you narrow the field (in terms of trying to achieve the best workable solution for both realism and game play) if you have an idea of the date of your scenario.

Scenarios are the lifeblood of the game!

Sorry I could not make it this time around. Previous commitment. Next time!

What Else Haven’t We Been Told about China’s Hypersonic and Nuclear Capabilities? (Real Clear Defense)

China's Mysterious Hypersonic Weapon Can Stay In Orbit According To Space Force General (The War Zone)

China's New Y-20U Tanker Joined Dozens Of Other Warplanes Flying Near Taiwan (The War Zone)

22 hours ago, Palex80 said:

It worked now, thank you! 

Glad to hear it. Let us know how it goes.

Astute Versus Virginia: Which Nuclear-Powered Sub Is the Best Fit for Australia? (Strategist)

Already posted here by TonyE but another reminder won't hurt. 🙂

Investigation made final conclusions on Kursk submarine tragedy — Kremlin (TASS)

14 hours ago, Retro Viator said:

I'm trying to decide if Don Gilman would find it enjoyable to read through an attempt at capturing the past, or perhaps he closed the door when he shut down AGSI.  Any thoughts?

Don is here on the forum (Uncleharpoon) so I expect he would enjoy it.

US Air Force Tests StormBreaker ‘Smart’ Munition on F-35 (Defense Post)

Recently discussed in the DB forum.

China’s Growing Aircraft Carrier Force (Real Clear Defense)

1 hour ago, Byron said:

ROFLMAO! The only place they could backfit would be forward of the deckhouse. Everywhere else is pack full of stuff.. I spent 9 miserable months on New York. Like to have killed my legs, me and everyone else that had to work in the main spaces, it was two ladders up from the entrance port deck to the second deck and 5 decks down to each of 4 engine rooms and 3 aux machinery rooms..

That's one of the characteristics of naval ships in general - they tend to abhor empty or unused space.

1 hour ago, Byron said:

I will say this: when New York entered Mayport for the first time, her -22s were flying around in formation. They are the loudest aircraft you’ve ever heard, there is no helo even close to the noise those huge props make a lthundering low pitch roar. If they decide to use these for ASW aircraft on carriers every sub within two CZs is going to hear it when it hovers to drop a dipping sonar. Even a low pass is going to be very bad. Just an FYI.

 

We get a fair bit of military traffic - aircraft and ships in particular - in this part of the world. I have been privy to a low pass overhead by several Ospreys in formation. It is certainly a memorable sound.

You came to the right place for the info. 😀

37 minutes ago, Byron said:

And the details are things that I can’t talk about. Not that an old yardbird knows diddly about radar or weapons but I do still have to be careful about what I talk about. I will tell you this in case you guys want to add it to a Db: the San Antonio class LPD has a space below the main deck forward of the deckhouse that arraingement drawings (not drawings to build by) that shows a VLS. There is talk that the next subclass will have a VLS in this space. 

Yes, a 16 cell Mk 41 VLS was part of the original LPD-17 design.

And Hughes let slip at a Navy League show circa 1996 that there was also room for more VLS cells forward of the bridge.

IIRC, the original DB entry for the LPD-17 included the 16 cell VLS.

One tends to collect this kind of information as a DB editor. 😉

20 minutes ago, Byron said:

Mea culpa… at 70 I really shouldn’t try to watch TV, talk to my wife and keep up with a thread. Sorry, Brad, I shot my mouth off before reading your post correctly. You guys are as professional as anyone in the business, more so, and I should have trusted what you said 

No worries. And no apologies necessary.

There are a undoubtedly a multitude of details that only a shipyard worker would know, and which impact the real life capabilities of a warship, but which never make it to a Harpoon database.

Unfortunately, because I truly love the details! 🙂

1 hour ago, TonyE said:

Brad is pointing out that that Flight II ships don't have hangars.  The follow-on Flight IIA Burkes such as Farragut do have the hangar bays.

 

Correct.

2 hours ago, Byron said:

Brad, I have walked, climbed and crawled all over the Farragut and have been in both hangar bays. You going to believe a picture or someone has, you know, been on the actual ship?

In this case, it has to be the photo, because that is how USS Mahan (DDG-72) - like other Flight II Arleigh Burkes - is configured. No hangars, just the pad.

USS Farragut (DDG-99), meanwhile, is a Flight IIA Arleigh Burke, with the pad and the dual hangars.

China’s Hypersonic Mystery Weapon Released Its Own Payload And Nobody Knows Why (The War Zone)

The pessimist in me thinks 'warhead', and more particularly, potentially an EMP weapon.

15 hours ago, Byron said:

I'm writing a scenario with the database that came with the game and I discovered that the Flight II Burkes could not carry Helos. Since I've actually been aboard the Farragut, I can attest to the fact that it has two helo hangars  Starting with the Mahan they all have helo hangars.

Byron

USS Mahan (DDG-72) certainly has a helicopter pad but perhaps have a closer look at the aft end of that destroyer. 😉

USS Farragut (DDG-99), btw, is a Flight IIA Burke. 🙂

12 hours ago, Byron said:

What killed me was 16 Phoenix with no hits (from two different flights of 3 each) and the last ditch was a pair of Sparrows and the Sparrows did the trick.

 

Unlucky die rolls. 😊