Oscar II SSGN Modernization

Oscar-class SSGN, Undated (U.S. Department of Defense)

A few weeks ago a colleague passed me a Google translation of a TV Zvezda report on the Russian Navy’s plans for fielding advanced cruise missiles . Written in reaction to ADM William Gortney’s Congressional testimony in March that touched on Russian cruise missile threats to North America, the article initially highlights how Yasen-class attack submarines will carry up to 24 3M-55 Oniks (SS-N-26) ASCMs or 3M-14 Kalibr LACMs; presumably the sub can also carry 3M-54 Klub (SS-N-27) ASCMs. This information is not new in open source reporting.

What was new, at least to me, was the article’s assertion that the surviving Oscar II SSGNs’ 3M-45 Granit (SS-N-19) ASCM launchers will be replaced with “universal launcher” cells that can each contain up to three Oniks or Klub missiles. In doing some online digging, there have been rumors on non-authoritative sites for the last few years that Oscars undergoing modernization will receive this upgrade. The Zvezda report is the first one that is authoritative.

It’s impossible for me to say whether a launcher cell that can house three Oniks or Klub missiles can actually be integrated within the former space occupied by a Granit cell. That kind of question is never as simple as ‘does the peg fit in the hole?’ For the purposes of this piece, though, I’m going to assume that the hull and mechanical implications of the change can be readily accommodated.

The takeaway is that an Oscar II with the new launcher cells would be able to carry up to 72 advanced cruise missiles. That’s very impressive. Not only would the sub pose a formidable threat to naval battleforces, but it could also pose a medium-range land-attack threat. It is reasonable to interpret Oscar IIs with these capabilities as ‘gapfillers’ that account for fiscal or technical difficulties building out the Yasen-class.

A key follow-on question, though, concerns the means by which a modernized Oscar II would receive over-the-horizon anti-ship targeting cues. The Cold War-era method for doing this was fraught with exploitable vulnerabilities. A more modern approach would still likely be dependent upon cues from reconnaissance aircraft, space-based sensors, or perhaps a shore-based fusion apparatus. None of these are devoid of exploitable vulnerabilities, either. While there is no guarantee that a U.S. or NATO battleforce would be able to effectively blind, deceive, or otherwise degrade Russian oceanic surveillance-reconnaissance-strike systems in the event of a conflict, there is no guarantee that those systems would be able to successfully target their prey either. The principles I proposed last fall for maritime scouting and anti-scouting competitions would almost certainly apply.

Another question concerns their patrol areas. I have never seen any open source reporting of an Oscar deployment outside Russia’s maritime periphery. From their 1980s introduction through the present, their principal task has been serving as part of the Russian homeland's ‘outer layer’ defense against U.S. carrier strike groups. Oscars simply could not conduct over-the-horizon anti-ship engagements very effectively outside the coverage of Russian oceanic surveillance-reconnaissance systems. With a notional land-attack capability, however, modernized Oscars could conceivably be deployed further forward. For example, modernized Oscars might be used to threaten land targets reachable from the southern Norwegian Sea, the North Sea, the Sea of Japan, or the Northwestern Pacific. This bears watching.

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and are presented in his personal capacity. They do not reflect the official positions of Systems Planning and Analysis, and to the author’s knowledge do not reflect the policies or positions of the U.S. Department of Defense, any U.S. armed service, or any other U.S. Government agency.