Russia’s newest Yasen class submarines: US carriers' biggest nemesis?

Thanks to MANSCAPED for sponsoring today's video! Get 20% OFF + Free International Shipping + 2 Free Gifts with promo code "BINKOV20" at mnscpd.com/binkov
The quiet hunters of the deep, the nuclear power fueled submarines are often the big worry for US admirals. And after decades of lagging behind US designs, Russia has finally perfected its best hunter killer sub. The Yasen class. Is it the real carrier killer?
Images used in thumbnail:
Model Yasen-class submarine at the exhibition «Army 2016»
By LeAZ-1977, CC BY-SA 4.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/...)
USS Enterprise (CVN-80) artist depiction, By U.S. Navy, Public domain
Music by Matija Malatestinic www.malatestinic.com
Go to / binkov if you want to help support our channel. And enjoy the perks such as get access to our videos with no ads and get early access to various content.
Suggest country pairs you'd like to see in future videos over at our website: www.binkov.com
You can also browse for other Binkov T-Shirts or Binkov merch, via the store at our website, binkov.com/
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos! / binkovsbattlegrounds
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook! / binkovsbattlegrounds
Follow us on Twitter: / commissarbinkov

[@Binkov]

Get 20% OFF + Free International Shipping + 2 Free Gifts with promo code "BINKOV20" at mnscpd.com/binkov

[@christopherhoffer6643]

What if 1940 Belgium was sent back to 1914.

[@prezmrmthegreatiinnovative3235]

Do vids about bout ESTONIA vs the WORLD do a entire big video vid About Bout A Much more powerful stronger and better armed ESTONIA VS THE WHOLE WORLD with equipments from 1800s 1900s 2000s 2010s and beyond like in 1880s ww1 ww2 cold war and etc equipments aswell as having more industries factories workforce forces more manpower and etc stuff id like to see if estonia could survive and take lands and tens hundreds thousands and millions worth of stocks of armaments and etc BASICALLY SUPER MEGA TOTAL SUPERIORITY MUCH MORE POWERFUL AND STRONGER ESTONIA Make a discord server

[@thedude4795]

are you gonna do some analysis on Poland-Belarus or not?

[@BobfromSydney]

Best Manscaped promotion I've ever seen. I didnt' realise I needed to see a frog puppet promote the product ROFL

[@casbot71]

Does the manscaper work on Felt? Or is the _fabric defuzzer lint remover_ sold separately?

[@jeffreyhill1011]

The real carrier killer is the friends we made along the way

[@antimatter4733]

You can't lose a carrier if you don't have any in the first place

[@chrishanson8306]

You got a fren in me Mr hunter killer

[@ShockGammer1046]

Bro it's aircraft carrier not carier

[@MostlyPennyCat]

That's.... Actually pretty meaningful

[@Loklak59999]

Booooooom

[@Spuggky45]

To everyone in the comments section who says that there is no way for a submarine to sink a modern super carrier, keep this in mind: a submarine doesn't have to actually sink the carrier to remove it as a threat. If the sub can just damage it to the point that the carrier is listing to one side or the other and aircraft can no longer operate safety from the deck, that is still a mission kill.

[@H33t3Speaks]

It’s brutally simple to kill a large ships. If a cavity forms, at the right point of the keel of the vessel, her weight will snap her. It’s just physics. Now, getting close enough to a modern carrier…

[@Sedna063]

Actually, the mere threat of the submarine will force the enemy to significantly invest into carrier defences and contribute ships and aircraft and submarines to defend said carrier. Meaning additional expenses and lost mission capabilities. So a 2 billion dollar sub forces US assets worth 30 billion to defend a carrier.

[@looinrims]

Also there is that thing where they’re talking out of their ass, they have no idea if the subs can or can’t

[@alexnderrrthewoke4479]

@@H33t3Speaks you don't need to get close to a carrier now. There is missiles russia invented now that you can maneuver

[@verdebusterAP]

The problem there is shear tonnage of the CVN. it takes a lot of firepower to do so Secondly you have remember the skill of the crew The HMS Sheffield was hit by single Exocet and sank days later The USS Stark by 2 Exocet but remained afloat. The difference was poor damage control by the Sheffield crew doomed the ship whereas excellent damage control by Stark crew saved the ship.

[@salvinsam]

So many experts in the comments section: Generals, Admirals, and Naval Fleet Commanders. Must be nice to have security clearance in both US and Russia.

[@MrFlatage]

Can you name one? What are you talking about???

[@grixjay8620]

@@MrFlatage damn, re check the Comment section again, you will see alot of armchair warriors..

[@MrFlatage]

@@grixjay8620 What the fudge? Dude who writes 'Comment' in the middle of a sentence? Any 1st grader with a 3 digit IQ knows better. And you are a 'armchair warrior'?? Official source proving that you are what you claim you are? I never heard of any such rank in any military, lmao!

[@MrFlatage]

@Dick Izzinya Haha so you went to some kinda 'Academy'? Come on they didn't even teach you how to end sentences. When I swore the oath in my lands of the free to my flag, the mighty red, white and blue? They didn't hand out any chairs. We had to pass a written test you know.

[@grixjay8620]

@@MrFlatage my jesus christ man, what's wrong with you? O was only referring to the 'Comment section' why are u so mad? I didn't even tried to criticize you, can't believe that you got so much butthurt over a single mistake.. jeez u gotta grow up man

[@guaposneeze]

Honestly, the craziest thing in this video was that a US sub apparently recorded all their sensor data at high enough fidelity that post-mission analysis could find the Chinese sub after the fact. That implies that the physical sonar microphones are already sensitive enough to detect the quiet chinese subs, and all it takes is better signal processing. Not *that* long ago, we didn't have the ability to easily record the sensor data in super high fidelity, or at least not very much of it. At the end of the cold war, I think it still would have been basically recorded on audio tapes. And that late cold war gear stayed in service a shockingly long time. Military tends to have very long cycles for hardware refresh, so it may take a decade to deploy last year's systems. But at least in theory, it would be a lot easier to drop in some new computers with some GPU's and upgraded software than to cut the hull open and install a new sensor dome. Who knows what signal processing they are actually doing in the after-mission analyses, but there's no fundamental reason it would be impossible to run on the sub. (You've got access to plenty of power and cooling on a nuke boat. And you'd be replacing bulky 10+ year old equipment, so even the cramped space on a sub is enough for a lot of compute.)

[@daniellecamp8938]

Dood, even a windoze shtbox can do supreme audio forensics ...contrary to what was said in the idiot post about armchair generals above.

[@crazywarriorscatfan9061]

I kind of hate how the majority of comments on this channel are people thinking they know a lot while they obviously don't...

[@hermanwooster8944]

Welcome to the Internet.

[@Chrischi3TutorialLPs]

Honestly, i think the situation for US and sub detection might be even worse than y'all think it is. According to my dad (Who works for TKMS and has been involved in the design and production of the german 214 and 216 submarines, though he says a lot of things of questionable validity, and of course i'm a random stranger on the internet who cannot verify the above statement, so do take this with a grain of salt), exercises with NATO allies wherein individual NATO submarines stand in for russian and chinese subs have shown that even subs that should be easily detected by the US can get into lethal attack range by using whats essentially the same strategy the Kriegsmarine used against convoys in WW2. Position yourself infront of the fleet, hold your position in silent running, and wait until they're right above you. Then, you're free to launch an attack from within, crash dive, and gtfo before anyone has time to react to your attack. Sure, nowadays the gtfo part might not work that well anymore, but i'm pretty sure sacrificing a sub for a carrier is a net positive for the one who loses the sub.

[@phluphie]

Except for the guys on the sub.

[@chaosXP3RT]

Should the US invest even more into it's military?

[@donniebrookins6215]

Do you call your dad Comrade Dad?

[@myke5696]

Good points, but if gtfo cant work anymore, it is hard to be sure of a naval strategy in which martyrdom plays a key role

[@fluffly3606]

That tactic doesn't work as well for nuclear submarines because their relatively noisy machinery can't easily be shut down and they may find it difficult to hide in the clutter from the seafloor due to their size and the risk of clogging up the vital seawater intakes with particulates. Then again, nukes are also generally much faster so the GTFO part works better for them Also, under ideal conditions it may be possible to make a torpedo attack without the launch being heard and giving away your position, in which case you could send the enemy escorts off on a wild goose chase by programming the torpedoes to come in from a different direction than your submarine, buying time for you to GTFO

[@Veldtian1]

Kaliber, Onyx, Zirckon.. Those are some seriously bad ass missile designations.

[@tomascernak6112]

Reason why Yasen has screw, Borei has pumpjet is connected to operation depth. Borei has operation depth 450 meters, Yasen has operation depth 800 meters. Pumpjet is very inefficient in those depths compared to classic screw. Generally truning point between pumpjet/screw is around 500 meters.

[@rocketchicken5421]

OP, read this dude.

[@tomascernak6112]

@@rocketchicken5421 ?

[@ZaGaijinSmash]

Haha. When the US navy requests another budget upgrade they'll just show the politicians binkov videos.

[@rodiculous9464]

I love how most of russian strategy nowadays is to overwhelm the enemy with missile dakka

[@shorewall]

Always has been. :D

[@fluffly3606]

Well to be fair that is really your only option to get past potent air defences if you insist on using missiles

[@blackjackmack4709]

When a general puppet informs you bout taking care of balls hair... you know future is gonna be awsome

[@rajatsinha6607]

Everyone in this comment section is smoking crack

[@garyslomczynski6579]

The country to watch is India !! 🇮🇳

[@hanswurst6712]

What u mean? This is youtube comment section. Everyone is an expert here. I have never seen so many former submarine commanders and admirals before in one place. :D

[@Thetequilashooter1]

Russia got a milling machine from Toshiba. It enabled Russia to make its subs significantly quieter . It’s difficult to make any assessments about submarine capabilities as the information is extremely secretive. A positive for the US is that many of its allies have very quiet subs, which the US can test against and learn from. The Gotland is a good example. It was able to penetrate carrier defenses and repeatedly strike against a US carrier. The US ended up leasing the sub and its crew for two years to learn how to counter such technology. It’s good to have allies like Sweden that are willing to be so helpful.

[@destroyerarmor2846]

Defending yourself from European and anglosphere imperialism is unacceptable

[@shorewall]

@@destroyerarmor2846 What about defending from Russian and Chinese Imperialism? :D

[@HauntedXXXPancake]

One wonders how well the Russians will be able to hide attack submarines that are 2-3 bigger than their competitors - Specially when they get older.

[@ddlithuania819]

They wont and their navy is a joke

[@icecold9511]

Subs have always been the biggest threat to carriers. That's why at lest one multi billion dollar sub is assigned to protect it, more if the threat is higher, and that anti submarine capabilities are part of the air wing

[@sprret]

Reading the comments where people are disparaging Russian military hardware I am reminded of something CNA Russian Analyst Michael Kofman had to say when he talked about the poor performance of Russia in Ukraine: "For most of my career I had to try and convince people that the Russian military is not 12 feet tall, now I need to convince people that the Russian military is not 4 feet tall". Dismissing Russia because of the disaster in Ukraine is very shortsighted (after all, are we going to say that the US military sucks because of its disastrous retreat from Afghanistan?). Russia is still a very capable adversary and, no doubt, will learn from its mistakes in Ukraine (which it seems to have already done looking at their recent performance in the Donbas Region).

[@jolness1]

Agreed. I think there are some holes in Russian strategy (seem to still be using the Soviet technique of throwing bodies at the problem) but to treat them as if they would not be a capable adversary is foolish.

[@anguswaterhouse9255]

Decent is still only 5ft tall man

[@xsad7250]

The difference is nearly 200k american soldiers in Afghanistan would’ve kept the taliban out of power meanwhile nearly 200k Russians can barely make pushes due to terrible logistics among many other problems

[@xsad7250]

Also one more thing to keep in mind only a few thousand Americans died in Afghanistan over the course of YEARS! Russia has more then tripled that number in less then a few months

[@sprret]

@@xsad7250 Good points. I must, however disagree a little bit (but only a bit). The quality of the Ukrainian military should not be ignored. I don't think it's too controversial to state that the Ukrainians are infinitely better fighters than the Taliban ever were. In my view the Russians' failure in Ukraine has far more to do with extremely poor intelligence (that is to say they didn't bother to understand that Ukraine in 2022 is not the same Ukraine as in 2014) than with any material defects that the Russian army may be suffering. Also, the Russians went for a high risk high reward strategy: They went straight towards Kyiv, ignoring logistic constraints, poor road quality etc with the hope of deposing the Ukrainian government. Once this strategy failed, the Russians were basically screwed. I don't think Russia has any realistic hope of winning the war now. The best they may manage is capturing Donbas and then suing for peace.

[@KnightsWithoutATable]

Um, the US has 67 of 82 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Needing 6 per each of the 9 carrier strike groups currently in service would be 54 destroyers. That does cut down on the number of spare ones for other flotillas, so maybe the US Navy should look at building more destroyers. Did you take into account the presence of one to two US subs per carrier strike group being present for detection?

[@abc64pan]

I agree, too bad they burned lots of dollars with the worthless littoral combat ship program.

[@KnightsWithoutATable]

@@abc64pan It didn't turn out completely worthless, but they should have done a tech demonstrator for the whole next generation of ships instead of diving right into production. Currently, they have a design that works and will be produced, but they are a niche ship for the US Navy and are basically a replacement for light frigates. The tech in them, now that it has been ironed out, is actually pretty good and results in less crew, more function, and more flexibility. The branch that really won out on the littoral ships is the US Coast Guard. They needed a new class of ships and these will work nicely for them, especially since they use less crew. BTW, the crew quarters modular units for them are damn spacious for a military vessel. The enlisted have bigger quarters than most officers on other ships.

[@Themusicalguitarist]

I would love to see A Military comparison between India and Pakistan ❤ and your videos are very informative 👍👍💯

[@supermario2583]

As much as I like your videos I don’t really agree with all.. Russia really wasn’t lagging behind in terms of subs, the akula class was a sub ahead of his time

[@jpro3730]

Types of people in the comment section: 1. Military freaks 2. US patriots 3. Haters (most against China) 4. Trolls

[@iemozzomei]

What the popcorn is for, you get extra content in the comments!

[@chaosXP3RT]

Really? Because so far I've only seen the Russian Patriots and Anti-Americans. You must be reading a different comment section

[@icecold9511]

@@chaosXP3RT I personally enjoy the ones that think Russia has God weapons. Same with China. These missiles make carriers obsolete! Proceeds to start building their own carrier capabilities.

[@lape2002]

@@chaosXP3RT LOL! Look harder boy. There's a legion of "USA Strong" fanboys in here.

[@wolfgangjr74]

@@icecold9511 Exactly. I dont get the nonsense either. IF they are dead then why "copy" and build them? It's not like the USA if we lose a carrier is just gonna throw its hands in the air and say "You got us." and give up. We have plenty of alternative options and the money to wield them. If USA loses a carrier then Russia and China can rest assured they will lose a lot more tonnage for its lose.

[@lillyanneserrelio2187]

1:42 to skip ad

[@revolter7094]

In an actual war Russia would probally just use missiles with nuclear tips to deal with aircraft carriers.

[@anguswaterhouse9255]

The US virginia block V is going to be the best attack sub in the world. It's having a size increase to 140 meters giving it larger and more torpedo tubes, it's also getting four extra VLS tubes to carry missiles. The best feature is it will get the HAWC and LRHW giving it hypersonic anti ship and land attack abilities. Similar too the Yassen. US and Russian subs are the best in the world. And British too I guess, since they get to use our tech.

[@QuadroVF]

Designer: so how quiet you wanna be? Yasen: Yas

[@joserodriguezjr.6422]

Great tech and stuff but limited quantities as usual for Russian military stuff lol. They always brag and never can mass produce lol.

[@arandomcrusader-9355]

@@joserodriguezjr.6422 They already built 4 out of a class of 10, on top of this a successor is already in design. Do you just pull things from your ass and hope for it to be true?

[@joserodriguezjr.6422]

@@arandomcrusader-9355 that's a first....besides nukes, vodkas, and AKs...😆

[@QuadroVF]

@@joserodriguezjr.6422 Agree, coz Zumwalt, LCS, Seawolf, such hitech, much produced, wow

[@googleyoutubechannel8554]

The quiestest Yasen subs of all were those that were ordered and not delivered...

[@meisterproper8304]

Was any new weapon system ever delivered on time outside a war?

[@fredlandry6170]

There’s something that was so funny with Binkov talking next to a box that said your balls will thank you.

[@caseymauldin8396]

Binkov talking about ball deodorant made me spit out my coffee.

[@thecatalyst6212]

Binkov manscaped ad is cursed

[@glennchartrand5411]

Carriers arent "front line assets" against peer or near peer adversaries. Against a major power their job will be defensive, they wont be forward deployed. America is going with long range ,land based aircraft and attack subs for controlling the seas during a hot war. So while Russia and China are fixated on countering Carrier strike groups , it will be land based B-21's sinking their ships and P-8's dropping torpedos on their subs. Given the large number of P-8's already in service around the world , and the large number of orders on the books ( Australia already has 14 ) submarines are going to have difficulty operating beyond their own countries air cap.

[@jasonbrittain3316]

Armed with 3m32 zircon & 3m54 Kaliber cruise missiles it is a Carrier killer a barrage of both means by by Carrier

[@myke5696]

Kaliber should be relatively easy to shoot down with Aegis and with last ditch Phalanx, unless a very large number are incoming. Zircon would be a different story - if it works as well as advertised.

[@jasonbrittain3316]

@@myke5696 a barrage of both

[@charlesparr1611]

Brave man, to speak confidently of any Russian weapon actually functioning against a first world adversary. They can't get most of their missiles through to hit targets in Ukraine, a nation slaughtering the Russians with mostly tech from the eighties. The bulk of the weapons in use are not, actually, modern NATO weapons, but the same old obsolete soviet stuff. And Russias vaunted modern miotary supertech is falling flat on it's face. Also, Carriers are protected by a far more effective thing. The USA has announced that US carriers are to be regarded as 'American soil', meaning they will treat an attack upon a carrier the same as they would treat an attack on an American town or city. Imagie what will happen to the nation that lands a 'missile barrage' on 1/12 of the American carrier fleet? The phrase 'apocalyptic overkill retaliation' comes to mind. What protects carriers more than anything else is that you can't kill them all, and the ones you don't get are coming for you. Along with a whole lot more, and all of it determined to ensure that since some moron was dumb enough to 'fuck around', they will now 'find out' in ways that people will speak of in hushed tones for generations.

[@jasonbrittain3316]

@@charlesparr1611 dream on if you think the URAINIANS ARE KILLING 1000S of Russians it is propaganda Ukraine has lost 110,000 dead there have not been that many Russian troops in Ukraine until last month,Doug mac Gregor knows more than u plus i have mates on the ground both former special forces killing nazis in Ukraine they know more than u

[@charlesparr1611]

@@jasonbrittain3316 Sure. We all believe you. Run along, I think I heard your mum calling you.

[@logicplague2077]

"We're still years ahead of the Russians and Chinese, they don't even have gender neutral bathrooms" - the people running the US Navy

[@warrior3614]

That the biggest problem in American military when their solders have a difficult in choosing the right bathroom to use or trying to figure out if they are a male or female.

[@getgaijoobed6219]

1:39 “Balls not included in the package” *Ah I see what you did there…*

[@dirckthedork-knight1201]

*We are off to the comments lets see what tue "experts" have to say*

[@tiagodagostini]

I don't know why people are SO focused on "Carrier Killers" when they see a new Russian weapon. carriers are NOT their main concern! Carriers are just mobile airbases. If the war is goind to happen in YOUR territory or adjacent to yours, then a traditional airbase is superior! Carriers are NOT the main target of Russian, and never were of Soviet navy. Their target are the TRASNPORT forces. To move US army to europe in full force takes time and the role of soviet navy always was to DELAY that. To waste time tryign to kill carriers when nato has HUNDREDS of airstrips is stupid!

[@vectorvictor6181]

Airstrips are useless if you can't fly far enough to reach target and back. Carriers project power by transporting Air superiority anywhere it is needed.

[@florinivan6907]

@@vectorvictor6181 For Russia the main concern is Moscow second Saint Petersburg. A carrier would have to operate either close to Crimea or in the Baltic to reliably threaten those. The North is expendable in russian eyes. So a carrier is not as big an issue for them when NATO has plenty of airfields reasonably close to them or which can be converted to military use.

[@Vanyali]

I see your point, BUT, carriers are just very big city ships after all, so they often ARE the transport ships that carry extra soldiers/equipment (like tanks) smaller gear usually gets flown over in those Galaxy planes, they can carry lots of personnel on top of light armored vehicles etc there is reason people mostly use the short name of those ships: "CARRIERS" not aircraft carriers, but just carriers, as they can carry lots of equipment, not only planes

[@szt1980]

@@Vanyali Galaxy C5 can fly tanks too, but it's up to 2 M1 Abrams, AFAIR.

[@szt1980]

@@vectorvictor6181 On the other side, carriers can't fly strategic bombers. And airstrips are somewhat easier to protect: there are no underground subs (not that it matters a lot nowadays)

[@TheWebstaff]

The real carrier killer is reality of trying to get anything through Congress and the Senate without a lot of haircuts..

[@halilzelenka5813]

Apparently it has not interfered that much because the US has by far the most carriers of any country. Never mind that the price of one of those monstrosities would be enough to solve world hunger

[@RustedCroaker]

So having military spendings 10 times of the next 10 countries combined and external debt the planet never seen ever is not enough? Ironically, you will need to borrow more money from China for that.

[@Truthseiker87]

Lol you're so wrong, ask the israelis

[@Scruffy-LookingNerfHerder]

@@RustedCroaker comparing the amount of money the US spends compared to China or Russia is a bad comparison due to needs as well as the difference in the cost of things in the US vs Russia and China.

[@Scruffy-LookingNerfHerder]

@@RustedCroaker it’s like comparing the cost of living in CA versus West Virginia.

[@crbielert]

I think the reason they dropped the 650mm is because it sank more russian subs than the russians sank anything at all during the cold war.

[@Vanyali]

I don't think anything was sunk during the cold war, it wouldn't have been a cold war if there were sinking's

[@crbielert]

@@Vanyali that is literally my point.

[@KrK007]

Talking up threats from advanced Russian Submarines sounds like a good way to make sure the budget for military spending remain flush with cash.... just sayin'

[@caltonfollows2168]

Well done Binkov. This could well be your best analysis I've seen.

[@wkgurr]

Here's my point: What gets overlooked by many commentators and also the presenter of this video is the fact that in order to lead you must act and not react. The presenter and many commentators here only talk in terms of how and to what extent Russia's subs might or might not threaten US naval assets. But this is reactive thinking, tacitly assuming that Russia must respond to the challenges the US sets. An active approach on any side (and here we're talking about the Russian side) would be not to respond to standards or challenges set by others but to set own challenges by creating own solutions from scratch, thereby setting a pace that needs to be outsmarted by a possible adversary. One example might be the pump jet configuration. Here the argument goes like this: many NATO subs have pump jet configuration, which is apparently super cool. So shouldn't the Russian subs have it too? Why not? Perhaps pump jet configuration is simply a fad like the supposed invincible stealth of the F-35. Perhaps it is a fad one can do very well without and not an essential property of a successful submarine which may lay elsewhere. A historic example of that I mean is the Maginot line. The Nazi approach to this challenge was not to develop sophisticated means of breaching this fortification but to simply walk around it. Perhaps the presenter of this video could have addressed the issue from the opposite point of view by asking how and by what means to US could and should respond to the challenges set by the newly emerging Russian subs. This might have been a fruitful approach.

[@georgeousthegorgeous]

Russia can't challenge us, only react and keep them spending because we don't have enough money to build carrier strike groups, but we have enough to destroy them. As a russian citizen.

[@jamesdugher763]

Is there not a requirement for carrier based anti-submarine fixed wing aircraft? I know this was the case during the cold war with the s-2 tracker and later s-3 Viking but they have left service without a replacement - probably because the threat lessened after the fall of USSR. Would there be a benefit of a next generation version let's say and "S-4" with sophisticated ASW capabilities and potentiaially unmanned?

[@YaMomsOyster]

The Swedes hunted and killed a carrier with a diesel sub, it can’t be that hard .

[@darrylmuse9948]

That sent our Navy into meltdown mode with that exercise Lol

[@Veldtian1]

That wasn't out in an oceanic scenario, the Baltic is a shooting gallery with a lot of clutter, in the blue water things are very, very different and a diesel sub is largely a sitter. Also America completely owns LEO above any of it's battle groups, it'll be hard dangerous work getting an accurate shot off on a air group steaming around at 70 kmph, or more.

[@myke5696]

Yup good point. Hopefully we've learned from that, and one tactic I've thought about is get expendable unmanned drones and have them go active sonar in a threatening environment. I think active sonar would allow trianguation onto diesel subs.

[@tariqsyed445]

Very interesting discussion about naval technologies, and current advancement !

[@michaelray688]

Enjoyed this video very much great job look forward to seeing more like this one

[@mahmoodiqbal6666]

Manscape is a con waste of money I learned the hard way

[@w0mblemania]

The future for submariners is grim. Underwater drones, capable of loitering on the sea bed for months, listening for subs... suddenly attacking you. Nightmare scenario.

[@general_alexus2533]

The infantry men and tanker have a similar fate with loitering ammunition flying around waiting to suicide bomb you.

[@timkey_4542]

Tbh I can't wait for androids to take over

[@dhurjatinarayangiri1590]

Not actually

[@CMDRSweeper]

Well that already exists and isn't a drone... The US Navy had the CAPTOR mine, basically a single shot torpedo launcher that can be deployed, and then fire at a noise source passing by, weather that be a ship or submarine. Of course, all of these fall under mine agreements, and so I would guess would be the same for any modern drone developments.

[@ryanbailey6401]

Binkov, as always, excellent video

[@SRJohnnyGat]

Rubin makes seriously impressive vessels. I'd be worried about that line of submarines for sure.

[@nightwaves3203]

Peace through superior firepower always works :)

[@sharkwithnotoes3051]

the cold war never really ended did it?

[@russellmiller212]

Excellent presentation.

[@JerryWDaviscom]

Damn good presentation. That Yasen class sub is one handsome SOB.

[@williamnot8934]

Every new and improved Russian Submarine comes with it’s own US SSN Escort.🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣🤣😎

[@rickchua6646]

all carriers are seating ducks. its useful to intimidate before war. once war starts it got sunk like in WW2 Battle of Midway.

[@firstduckofwellington6889]

sunk by carriers?

[@Ok-but]

Carriers are seating ducks but they are no where near useless thats why you allways see a task force accomponying the carrier

[@bobdillon1138]

Subs are a threat but multiple missile attacks are a lot harder to defend if you shoot enough some will get through the destroyer defensive screens aircraft carriers were a good idea 70yrs ago now they are just huge liabilities.

[@MrFlatage]

My dog can defend against a 'multiple missile attack'. So pretty easy really. He's a good boy. He bites people who edit and do not stand for their word like men too.

[@effexon]

getting those planes and helicopters in deck damaged is good benefit for attacker

[@MA_KA_PA_TIE]

Honestly the only real threat these subs pose is if they sell them to China and China reverse engineers them. Russia simply doesnt have the economy to produce these at the scale they need to matter. Hopefully Russia has learned from the Sukhoi bootlegging experience.

[@rhodium1096]

Dont worry!..just one of them armed with tsirkon hipersonic is enough to wipe off an entire US Naval battle group included the air carrier....

[@sophoniasmessele]

They've built 2 so far, are building 5 and plan 3 more before 2030. They planned 10 in all. That's more than enough man...economics doesn't matter when it's national security. They have the money if they want to, they're just going thru a stagnation

[@HydratedBeans]

Yasqueen submarine

[@1XX1]

Thank You For Reminding Me

[@tobiwan001]

Gotland class, S80 and U212 class submarines have sunk US carriers inside strike groups in many simulations. AIP submarines are less noisy than nuclear subs so they remain the bigger threat to carriers although they would not be able to pursue strike groups at thigh speeds over long distances.

[@adamgamba6673]

i think the US rented it from norway or whoever uses them to learn how to get better at avoiding them

[@myke5696]

That's a good point. Maybe the US will adapt by having more expendable drone platforms that can use active sonar at times of threat. Probably active sonar would find those deisel subs.

[@charlesparr1611]

You understand that those exercises don't actually show that Sweden holds the carrier's life in their hands right? Those simulations and exercises have very specific setups designed to examine specific characteristics. The AIP subs are impressive, but they also had to nerf the carrier group and load artificial advantages on to the subs to get the scenarios they needed to test specific things. Yes, they are VERY quiet. They also have top speeds of 5-10 knots at most while being quiet. The boats did not have to penetrate a moving carrier group. Good thing, as that would be completely impossible. That carrier can do 45-50 knots when it wants to. An AIP sub cannot just steam up to a carrier and blow it out of the water, and that infamous event doesn't begin to claim it can. The only thing it showed was that AIP subs could be quieter than some people thought, and it was worth looking at. Otherwise, it has as much to do with actual naval capabilities and tactics as the famous gun-range dogfights between f22 and f35 and the f16 had to do with setting up tactics for modern air combat. Ie zero. Yes the f16 is a great dogfighter, and yes it made mincemeat out of the new expensive stealth fighters. This is not all that shocking, since they were designed to fight the battles they will actually see, and have already been seeing for a decade or more, and simply will not engage in a gunfight under any circumstances. Pilots kill each other from much further distances nowadays, and while the f16 still has utility, in the presence of modern BVR stealth platforms it is no longer a predator, but at best a missile truck. It's going to enjoy it's twilight years in a support role, hauling ordnace and firing it so the Lightnings (damnit, my sleek p38 gave it's name to the ugliest fighter I know of? Travesty!) can assume control of them in BVR combat. Carrying extra fuel for the new hotness, being sent on errands... it's the lot of the obsolete. I'm sure that, if they've been good, they will be allowed to go for a run and shoot down some second world legacy bogs once in a while, and yarn about the old days...

[@trevormappley]

Nothing that astute class submarine couldn’t take care of 🇬🇧

[@almazblanco6676]

On December 30th 1969, Captain Golubkov Filipovich took K-162(Project 661) on a test run seeking to push the titanium sub to its limits. After overriding engine safety controls, the missile submarine attained a world record of 44.7 knots (51 miles per hour) using 97 percent of reactor power while sailing 100 meters under the surface. This speed was repeated on a second test on March 30, 1971 using 100 percent power, though the crew had to abort the third leg of the test as the turbines began to fall out of control. The turbine failure that occurred in the submarine was during chasing an American carrier task force across the Atlantic, surfacing just once during its eighty-day deployment. It moved so fast that the american carrier crew thought they were two submarines. Project 661’s impressive speed, however, came with major shortcomings, maximum speed resulted in intolerable noise levels of 100 decibels for the crew. When 35 knots was exceeded, it was like the noise of a jet aircraft. In the control room was heard not simply the roar of an aircraft, but the thunder of the engine room of a diesel locomotive. Its principal armament was meant to be ten seven-meter-long P-70 Amethyst cruise missiles (NATO codename SS-N-7 Starbright) mounted in flooded, slanted tubes along each side of its bow. These were the first cruise missiles designed for underwater launch (SLCMs) ever deployed. It remained inactive for twenty-four more years before it finally was scrapped in 2015.

[@ycplum7062]

A major black box are teh algorithms used to filter noise and increase the signal to noise ratio. This a top secre and rarely discussed component of sonar analysis, possibly because only a few mathematicians truly understand it. Techncially, you do not need more escort ships to protect the carrier, but ships that can carry more aircraft with deployable sonar buoys or helicopters with both deployable sonar buoys and dipping sonar (or possibly teh more complex variable depth towed array system). A catapult carrier has teh advantage with regards to heavy fixed-wing aircraft with lot sof expendable sonar buoys and long endurance.

[@cosmicmuffet1053]

I heard a yasen sub recently. It definitely sounded like 90 decibels to me. But I am a penguin and not well versed in science.

[@likemostthings]

Binkov, you're the best!

[@desert_jin6281]

Well, redesign a Flower-class frigate for dedicated anti-submarine work and this time, name one of them Pansy for crying out loud.

[@derricktaylor470]

Binkov, great advertising dude! I followed the link and ordered to help support your channel 👍🏾

[@TheMadVulpen]

I wonder what real Russian And American military analysts would be thinking about the comment section of this video

[@guestimator121]

"I thought I knew something about military, but I'm gonna resign now" - that one chief analyst from the Pentagon reading this comment section

[@StarJackal]

The Virginia class has had VLS tubes since the start, the class didn't just start getting them with Block V.

[@christianbeske2417]

Nothing like watching videos of what might kill me just before I ship out.

[@piotrd.4850]

With quantitative diminishment of ASW capability to being with, SIGNIFICANTLY increased background noise and ocean warming, even tracking late '90s proj.971 would become more difficult. In any case - solution is quite obvious. While using passive sonar on carrier is counterproductive in most cases, as is silencing it.... these still should have something that would use carrier's own noise as sounding signa and use e.g. Italian minitorpedoes (or even MU-90 impact with anti-torpedo option) for self defence, last chance underwater RAM/Phalanx if you will. In time, perhaps, supercaviating rounds....

[@bertkoerts3991]

Very informative!! 😊👍

[@sulla1537]

Submarines and missiles. Aircraft carriers are reaching the phase of obsolete.

[@nikolaivasilev7371]

Not really....For one,their role against a Super Power like USSR were of no real importance since 70s and Regan found out that when his military advisors told him of how little use they were in such conflict.But that was all out conflict.In side conflicts and proxy wars it was and is of great importance.Smaller military powers of medium ones that are lacking in modern military systems needed to counter them are still prey for it.

[@szt1980]

These are subs that have already reached obsolescence. Their detection is plain simple with the new tech.

[@nikolaivasilev7371]

@@szt1980 Yasen class reaching obsolescence? Ahaha,nice joke. Considering US and NATO Has hard time tracing even Varshavyanka subs.

[@ayushthosar6005]

*Hardbass submarine 9000*

[@somewhere6]

Very good and informative presentation. (except the ad)

[@katsarosfiat]

As an 80s kid i think the typhoon was the meanest motherf...ink sub that ever existed. Yes its old, its loud etc but the fear factor and coolness of the typhoon will never be matched. They were beasts.

[@stevesutton3182]

Yes it may have been cool but as a submarine it was big slow and loud! Easy to find even easier to kill!

[@southernlass1781]

I think the Military Industrial Complex has been talking up Russia's capabilities since WW2, and we are realising maybe we have been overspending in the West... and along comes China.

[@manishkumarpandey9702]

Nope, Indian Navy which operates Russian Made Submarine killed an US Aircraft Carrier in Naval Excercise in 2019....... Not literally killed, it was shell torpedo (without warhead)

[@craftpaint1644]

A puppet talking about shaving balls, legendary

[@Urkinorobitch]

The fleet could just buy a bunch of trawlers retrofitted with radar stealth in mind that would simply drag a net around the fleet.

[@lutzbernhardt5995]

I just stumbled into your channel for the first time today. A very sympathetic voice, good and I think balanced content. Thank you very much. Kind regards from Germany and by the way: I fully agree to your last sentence. PEACE!

[@Kruemel98]

Brinkov could you do a analysis about the South African Boarder War in Namibia against Angola?

[@jasperzanjani]

We need to see a collab with Sub Brief, or at least a reaction video

[@nikitatarsov5172]

Pumpjets have several pro's and con's to regular propellers, and russian have went into some different ideas about what is best for them. About efficency in the end i just could guess russians have developed the 212A-class with the germans and surely toke some ideas back home - and the 212A, the most silent sub at the time, also still has a propeller(so russiand and germans at last come together on this idea of what is most efficent, and it's not only tradition or something like that).

[@robertfrost1683]

Aircraft Carriers do not operate without attach submarines in the battle group. Your scenario How about a god video of Yasen vs Virginia with an emphasis on how undersea combat actually works. You have good explanations here.

[@rzu1474]

May wanna look up the Gotland.

[@hiteshadhikari]

1 or 2 subs, and its not sufficient mostly, the best asw defence ships have are asw heli and TAS etc. 1 or 2 Subs cant cover the fleet and the cover isnt necessarily sufficient for a sub waiting to hit an ac

[@rzu1474]

@@hiteshadhikari Exept if a sub is quiet enough that doesn't matter now does it

[@hiteshadhikari]

@@rzu1474 tbh back when gotland hit the carrier in excercise it was time when american ASW was at its piss poor state, they had for years not invested in asw as soviet threat was no more. It taught america a lesson back then and they invested heavily on asw with p8 and what not but yeah, subs alone arent a big game changer

[@hiteshadhikari]

Against sub attacks on ac that is

[@Dweller415]

As an American Army veteran it always cracks me up that there are so many people that comment here that so easily dismiss Russian and/or American military capabilities. The Russians make formidable naval ships and boats in addition to air assets. It’s more difficult to assess Chinese capabilities since much of their defense capabilities are based on intellectual theft and reverse engineering. But I think it’s prudent to have a healthy respect for Russian capabilities and the threat it posses to U.S. and all Western navies.

[@MrFlatage]

Always cracks me up the Stolen Valor losers who actually believe there is an 'American Army'. There is no such thing. No need to think. We know that is a crime under US Federal Law and a violation of the US Constitution.

[@thatdude3938]

@@MrFlatage gimme couple of links to read about it

[@MrFlatage]

@@thatdude3938 Haha nah you can namecall like a complete childish little boy who cannot end sentences? No one with a 3 digit IQ needs any link to the US Constitution, lmao!

[@Dweller415]

@UCLcojN1WbYEqIVyGgGxb4Rw o.k. Einstein, whatever you say. Call it whatever you want, U.S. Army, American Army or Continental Army. It doesn’t make one bit of difference, the comment still stands and no I don’t believe for a second that you’re in any position to judge others on their military service, so piss off.

[@MrFlatage]

@@Dweller415 Hehe the comment went poof and does not stand. And while a real man takes the oath stands for his words? You edit them. So we cannot trust your words. Your own actions judge and condemn you. In my lands of the free where the great red, white and blue flag flies? We stand for our word like men. What s-hole nation are you from? I know China edits their propaganda. Russia does. North Korea, Iran ... Remember under US Federal Law you can call it one thing only. And what you call it? Is stated in the U.S Constitution. Since you do not uphold it? We know you are a total fake. I will stand with my oath to my flag and defend from foreign and domestic attacks from enemies.

[@servicekid7453]

2 in service and one in sea trials. There’s a lot of ocean to cover with only 3 hulls!

[@andrewmorke]

Keep these super videos coming please

[@nunessilva2162]

good stuff. thanks for that

[@johnsit5743]

With the rise of underwater drones, I suspect they'll have expendable drones that serve as active sonar pickets to detect submarines because what can the sub really do about them?

[@szt1980]

Even commercial ship lidars can "see" ~3km deep. Same submersible device mounted on a helo won't leave any chance for a sub. And it looks like aerial lidars now have enough power to "see" deep enough.

[@sub3ero984]

American is 40 year plus in tech but still got slap 👋 by Talibans with Ak47 wearing flip flops 🩴

[@Kurena]

So did the Soviet Union

[@Darkpara1]

Afghanistan is known as "the graveyard of empires" for a reason.

[@RR-us2kp]

Hard to fight an enemy that looks exactly like the people you're there to help

[@aqep]

@@Kurena storm 333

[@CosmicValkyrie]

@@Kurena But wasn't the soviet union poor? The USA is super filthy rich with $800 billion annual defence budget. Still got its cheeks clapped.

[@SpazzyMcGee1337]

The US Military needs to develop a tachyon detection grid.

[@abc64pan]

The US military needs to start winning wars against illiterate peasants and stop letting them win. Oh, and the real enemies are domestic, that's why America is politically and ideologically divided.

[@SpazzyMcGee1337]

@@abc64pan Okay, Schizo.

[@konradkarlovich5801]

Hi from Severodvinsk )😎✋

[@John-lp8me]

"Y'know, I seen me a mermaid once. I even seen me a shark eat an octopus. But I ain't never seen no phantom Russian submarine." ---Master Chief Petty Officer Watson, COB, USS Dallas Top notch content as always Binkov!

[@Grubnar]

Jonesy: **Slowly raises his hand**

[@aesop8694]

John. Poor John just how do you expect to see a phantom Russian submarine?

[@D64S]

Russian subs are best tactical nuclear waste placed in the bottom of the sea.

[@AirGaboon]

Morning Binkov, You made a mistake in your video at the 9:08 mark. Dedicated VLS capabilities are integrated into Virginia Block III variants from SSN-784 and onwards. There are two payload modules near the bow of the submarine in which six Tomahawks are carried in each module.

[@georgeantabi6025]

Wait really? I thought it could carry 7, one in the middle and 6 around it in each VLS cell.

[@mrizkic]

Wait Virginia BLK 3?

[@csk4j]

Ha ha...BINKOV commercials Rock...best commercial Ive seen in ages

[@thegrinch8161]

Before my younger sister crossed over due to non Hodgkin's lymphoma she used to come out with some funny one liners, now similar to this video that we were watching she pointed the flag on its mast and the emblem at the bottom of the sail. She said and I quote, that's feckin daft having a flag on a sub, oh Marion sometimes you came out with some beauties.

[@InternetResearch]

She had a good head, sorry to hear John. I hope you will both reunite one day

[@DEJAELVICIO507]

I feel that aircraft carriers are useless in a future war just a fire and all planes are useless.

[@tomtdh4903]

How would Russia launch any of it's long-range bombers with at least 5 Carriers, 60 planes on each within 500km of it's borders? It almost feels like the next war has begun. I just hope the Russian trolls on here think for themselves. Russia 🇷🇺 is not a superpower and constantly overestimate its abilities. While nato countries keep their secret. Biggest question is why are Russians so much poorer than pretty much any developed country? there is a reason they have the most alcoholics in the world.

[@tomtdh4903]

@Alien Reject So why are Russians so much poorer? Is Russia a super power? Your thoughts?

[@erflorida]

Great Video! Even with the puppet, I like it way better that those other ones thrown to together with fake data and fake AI voice overs.

[@josephrogers8213]

No ship is invincible

[@williebruciestewie]

The Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carrier; the USS America took 4 weeks of pounding by air-to-surface missiles, surface-to-surface missiles and torpedoes. There were no onboard crew to conduct damage control. They were unable to sink it, but they used the information and incorporated it into the design of the new Ford-class supercarriers to increase it's survivability.

[@blainesitter9110]

remember the good old day's when secrets were kept and opposition stayed up nights wondering what the other side had !

[@mynameisntpatrick1476]

If this puppet has this info then Im sure the governments have better info.