Sierra vs Akula class for PLAN

CHinese technology is making great leaps also in submarine developments, it is enough if we think about the Ming and the other ingenious developments.

Type 093 class could be another example if we could know more - apart from its bare existence. Considering the gosips that the design and thus its precieived capabilities are around Victor III (early LA class equivalent). The title is still not a lunatic idea to toy with...

Stop gap solutions sometimes can be rather cheap and both ex Soviet classes are rather cool. Technology wise they could provide plenty of engineering solutions and although their fire control and sonar suite is not the best on the globe (I do not consider here 971 imp versions - Russia would not sell them for sure).

Sierra I and early Akulas were designed for Atlantic and Arctic deep warfare to beat the SOUS and LA fighter groups nonethless these vessels could challenge even current vestern types and with proper armament (Yakhot and cavitation and/or other modern wake homing torps), could give a few surprises to any today and tomorow adversary. I do not know if titanium hulls are still interesting for fleets but the 8-900 m max depth can be a great tool for tactical advantage for the Sierras - OK maybe not in the South-Chinese waters...

The Sierra class was not built because of its very high costs. The Akula class was then built in its place as a replacement for the Victor IIIs. Now with titanium prices at an all time high, the titanium hulled Sierra class is going to cost a bomb. That's if Russia is even willing to sell the Sierra class in the first place.

Agree with you, although the price could be subject to negotiation. Those Sierras are decommissioned thus they would and up as a valuable crap otherwise...they would need an overhaul and their reactors would need new uranium slot...

Considering the Sierra II - in my view that is one of the most obscure class in the ex Soviet navy, they must had remarkable improvements from the Sierra I class but very little information is still available on that class, I would not be surprised that it could have outperformed - maybe it did - the Akulas by large...

IMO what the PLAN subs could use, are VLS launch tubes for cruise missiles (like latter Los Angeles class or Virginia class), and weapons like the Type 88R (SS-N-16) Veter with type 40 torpedo option. Traditional torpedos have very short range comparred to anti-ship missiles. The SS-N-16 w/anti-sub rocket or torpedo option can extend the engagement range.

Rather than having to silently sneak up on an enemy sub, you could just launch a missile to air-drop a torpedo on top of the other guy.

Extended-range cruise missiles is one area of weakness for the PLA/PLAN. I recall some years ago there was news that the PRC may have recovered, with Pakistani assistance, unexploded Tomahawk missiles intended for targets in Afghan. Also, last year, there was news that Ukraine may have exported 18 non-operational Kh-55's to China and Iran. The Kh-55 is known to have range up to 2,500 km, and variants modified for submarine under-water launch from 533mm torpedo tubes. It'd be interesting to see if the PLAN deploy anything similiar.

Claus: I haven't heard of any Sierra II class? There is a Project 885, aka Severodvinsk class, which is a further development of the Akula class. AFAIK, it is still not completed. Care to specify where you heard of the Sierra II from? Thanks.

Adep: Range isn't everything. Having long range missile-delivered torpedoes is meaningless without a commensurate sensor range to find the targets for those torps.

Sierra II is - was - a Sierra mod/follow up version (actually built after the first Akula prototype) but only one sub has been finished although that would have been a follow up class (Mike was rather a deep diving testben in my view).

The Sierra-II was an improved and slightly version of the 'Sierra-I' class. The 945.A project (Sierra II) differs from the Sierra I in that the sonar capability of the Sierra II is better and has a reduced acoustic signature. It is five meters longer overall, with a larger blunt sail that is six meters longer than the Sierra I sail. The enlarged sail accommodates two rescue chambers, versus the single chamber on the Sierra-I. The increased hull size provided improved living quarters and quieting measures. It was also equipped with a new American-style spherical bow sonar. This filled the bow section, and the torpedo tubes were moved farther aft and angled out from the centerline. The torpedo room was modified to accomodate the S-10 Granat strategic cruise missile. In contrast to the six compartments on the Sierra-I, the Sierra-II had seven compartments: (1) the torpedo room, and battery, (2) crew quarters, officers mess and galley, (3) sonar room and command center, (4) computer complex, and diesel generators, (5) reactor, (6) main switchboard, pumps and geared turbines, (7) electric motors, steering gear and pumps.

If Akulas are around Los Angeles a Sierra II might reach imp Los Angeles noise level with a much stronger firepower than anything PLAN has or will have in the near future...otherwise the ship is ugly as the mast is wider due to the extra technology and escape pods compressed...

Any drawings or drydocked Sierra IIs available? Always wanted to build one but I've never seen any good hull images of Sierra I or II.
Thanks