I see no point in having 65cm on Yasen. I do not know of any 65 cm russian torpedoes as the 65-76 type with High Test Peroxide (HTP) were withdrawn from service after Kursk. The 65cm tubes were mostly used for big, long range wake homing anti-ship torpedoes. That is a 20-30 year old designs, new and smaller torpedoes does the job better today.
The older 65cm Stallion ASW “missile” will be probably be replaced by 53cm weapons form the Klub system.
And Yasen will have VLS too..

IIRC the Israeli Dolphin class adopted four 650mm tubes and six 533mm tubes. The advantage of larger diameter tubes lies in their ability e.g. to handle swimmer delivery vehicles and to launch large(r) diameter cruise missile. These are non-torpedo uses. When fitted with a liner, the large diameter tube can be used with normal 533mm weapons.
http://www.nti.org/db/submarines/israel/index.html
http://www.submarines.dotan.net/gallery/dolphin/dol10.htm

Consequences.. Like what?

Example Dutch export of 2 Hai lung class to Taiwan and possible follow-on’s:

The Taiwanese order for these two submarines, which are variations on the Dutch Zwaardvis (2) design, was signed in September 1981. The construction of the boats was delayed because of financial difficulties of the Dutch Wilton Fijenoord shipyard but was resumed in 1983. Application for a further two boats with an option of another pair has been turned down by the Netherlands Government in 1992 after PRC (China) protested by downgrading its ties with Holland.

http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/export/export_chienlung_hailung.htm

Further:

Taiwan – Future Diesel-Electric Submarine

Dutch construction. In 1992, the Dutch Government refused to allow Dutch shipyards permission to build submarines destined for the ROCN. This action was reportedly taken to avoid offending the PRC while Fokker was negotiating a large aircraft sale to the mainland…
In the final analysis, the Dutch Government is unlikely to sanction any arms sales to Taiwan that it believes will hurt its relations with the PRC.

German construction. In 1993, the Federal Security Council blocked the export of German-built submarine hulls to Taiwan. This was probably in response to a German consortium’s effort to sell submarines (produced by Howaldtswerke Deutsche Werft (HDW) and MEKO class corvettes (produced by Blohm + Voss) to Taiwan as part of a deal valued at DM12.5B. Like the Netherlands, the German Government is unlikely to jeopardize its relations with the PRC by sanctioning direct arms sales with Taiwan.

French construction. Direction des Constructions Navales International (DCNI) has probably offered Taiwan its Scorpene design, which it sold to Chile. However, any French attempt to sell submarines to Taiwan runs in direct opposition to stated French policy (frequently violated) prohibiting arms sales to Taiwan. France also prohibits defence-related sales to the PRC as a result of the Tiananmen Square massacre, but continues civilian sales to the PRC, which is seen as a growth market. France’s official policy precludes arms deals with Taiwan, to avoid offending the PRC, even though the Taiwan defence market probably represents a larger near-term economic opportunity than does the PRC. This is a difficult policy since France’s defence industry is realizing major layoffs due to major cutbacks in French naval construction programs and decreased export opportunities. These layoffs are causing significant internal political pressure for the French Government, but France does not appear willing to risk the long-term commercial economic opportunities present in the PRC by concluding major arms sales with Taiwan that represent only short and mid-term successes.

http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/export/export_taiwan.htm

Dutch bow to china,cancel $1.5 billion Taiwan sub deal
The Netherlands stopped a $1.5 billion sale Friday of four submarines to Taiwan, saying it will abide by an agreement with China not to sell arms to the Nationalist-ruled island. Disappointment over the loss of the sale was tempered by a $250 million order from China for seven Dutch-built Fokker 100 jetliners and a promise of increased trade with Beijing.

http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/export/export_taiwan.htm

Are you implying the USA could not design and build a conventionally powered submarine?

US seeks help to deliver Taiwan submarine promise
…
In an article to be published on November 21 [2001], Jane’s says several submarine builders had submitted concept papers to the US Navy’s (USN) International Programmes Office (IPO), which supervises Taiwan’s submarine deal which was recently guaranteed by US President George W. Bush.
…
Jane’s says that “Northrop is looking at using a modified version of the Netherlands’ RDM Moray-class design that Northrop’s Ingalls Shipyard plans to build for the Egyptian Navy.”
…
The USA has not built conventional submarines for more than 40 years and designing an entirely new one would be prohibitively expensive. Therefore, the most likely solution would involve foreign participation, it says.
…
Military sources here have said Taiwan’s navy favour Germany’s 209-class or Dutch-designed Moray submarines.

But both countries have said they would not get involved in arms sales to the island, which Beijing regards as part of its territory to be unified with the mainland by force, if necessary.

A US official was cited by Jane’s as saying “such restrictions need not be insurmountable, as the US could get the blueprints from a friendly country that has bought RDM submarines and provide them to the USN.”
…

http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/export/export_taiwan.htm
Note: that “friendly country that has bought RDM submarines” is Taiwan.

Explaining that point in detail, see also here: Sustaining U.S. nuclear submarine design capabilities by John Frederic Schank page 76 ‘design of conventional submarines’

Which can also be used to locate ships in wartime… unless there is a special circuit that disables the system if the owning country declares war on someone? :rolleyes:

Surface combattants stand a better chance to find a surfaced sub than v.v. (if only because their radar kits are more power full and placed much higher up above sea level)

How can the US sell a German product?? Wouldn’t Germany be selling the submarines to Taiwan? I wonder how they decided on the Type-214.

Simple.

A) Germany provides a design/a license. The subs are built in the US by a US company. Which then sells it to Taiwan, with US government approval.

or

B) Greece refuses to accept German subs. German company which is stuck with them then sells them to the US government/company. US re-exports them (with German government approval) to Taiwan.

The shaped charge ensures penetration and damage against hardened parts of the carrier. Imagine this thing trashing the catapults, then penetrating inside into the aircraft carrier, starting fires and explosions there?

Complete mission kill.

That’s what I said: shaped charge ensure penetration (but you might also penetrate out the other end 😉 As for mission kill: recall the difference between Yorktown and Kaga/Akagi/Soryu/Hiryu at Midway? Vast differences in ability to prevent fire/explosion and in damage control practices certainly played a role.

Your first part is pretty spot on. The delivery of a 2200lb warhead at Mach 3 – 4 makes all the difference, not to mention the Kh-22M/Kh-32 carry a shaped charge.

This missile is essentially the size of a small aircraft (missile dimensions are length x height x wing span: 11.65 x 1.81 x 3.0 m). It is the 2.5 tons of material other than the warhead (including fuel) hitting at mach 3-4 that significantly adds to the damage, not so much the warhead (though this is 4x the weight of the warhead of a missile like AGM-84 Harpoon) or the speed itself. The shaped charge warhead helps target penetration but doesn’t add to explosive power.

I will begin by stating the obvious:
The sooner you interupt an attack the better, and the later the worse.

In a CBG vs Tu-22 attack that translates into:
Best option – shoot down the Tu-22 before it launch the deadly Kingfish!
Worst option -absorb the impact of ditto!

The 2nd most obvious is a Carrier struck by a giant missile such as kingfish, altho not likely to go down due it’s own size, is utterly unlikely to launch an aircraft again before extensive repair in port.

If that theory holds,-it’s better the more AWAC’s and fighter’s that can be kept in air,
and the conclusion would then be a Nimitz CBG is by far more survivable then anything else afloat.

The warhead of the Kingfish missile isn’t all that more than the weight of a 2000lb Mk84 GP bomb, which serve as the warhead of a variety of precision-guided munitions, including the GBU-10 and GBU-24 Paveway laser-guided bombs, GBU-15 electro-optical bomb, GBU-31 JDAM and Quickstrike[2] sea mines

Consider:

On July 29, 1967 the USS FORRESTAL was operating on Yankee Station off the coast of North Vietnam conducting combat operations. This was the fifth such day of operations and at 10:52am the crew was starting the second launch cycle of the day, when suddenly a Zuni rocket accidentally fired from an F-4 Phantom into a parked and armed A-4 Skyhawk. The accidental launch and subsequent impact caused the belly fuel tank and a 1,000 pound bomb on the Skyhawk to fall off, the tank broke open spilling JP5 (jet fuel) onto the flight deck and ignited a fire. Within a minute and a half the bomb was the first to cook-off and explode, this caused a massive chain reaction of explosions that engulfed half the airwings aircraft, and blew huge holes in the steel flight deck. Fed by fuel and bombs from other aircraft that were armed and ready for the coming strike, the fire spread quickly, many pilots and support personnel were trapped and burned alive.
Fuel and bombs spilled into the holes in the flight deck igniting fires on decks further into the bowels of the ship. Berthing spaces immediately below the flight deck became death traps for fifty men, while other crewmen were blown overboard by the explosion.

The crew heroically fought the fire and carried armed bombs to the side of the ship to throw them overboard for 13 hours. Secondary fires below deck took another 12 hours to contain.

Once the fires were under control, the extent of the devastation was apparent. The ship proceeded to Cubi Point in the Philippines for temporary repairs. In only eight days enough repairs were made that she could start the long trip back to her home port of Norfolk, Virginia for permanent repairs. On her way home she was capable of operating aircraft if needed.

FORRESTAL would spend seven months in the yards being repaired, she was re-built from the hanger up and forward to aircraft elevator number four, this accounts for about 1/5 the ships length and 5 decks.

http://www.navysite.de/cvn/cv59.htm#acc

Looks very much like a shortened Cavour.

Na, more like a San Giorgio on steroids. Cavour is totally different (and much nicer to the eye). Assault ships are so boxy!