America can hardly afford 50 nuclear subs, we don't have a prayer
getting that many. We will be fortunate to get 8 SSBNs and 16 SSNs.
He doesn't say 50 new nuke subs.
He says that they already have 60 subs of nuclear and diesel propulsion that are combat ready.
He also says that they need 40-50 nuclear boats to fulfil their role so if they do get 8 SSBNs and 16 SSNs and have a few existing boats upgraded or converted to keep them in service that would be enough.
So, as you can see for yourself, the western equipment isnt always safe, nor have i ever said that.
Only Sweden still uses it as a proppellant in torpedo 2000.
Compared HTP powered torpedoes were widely experimented with... by western navies as well as the soviet navy. There was one incident that shouldn't have happened if proper procedures were followed and your reaction was to say the Soviet Navy didn't care about its sailors. Well if the British and the US navies tested them and had them on board their vessels why don't you say the same about these navies? What about a Swedish navy that keeps HTP torpedoes on their books even to this day?
Those sailor hating Russians withdrew that type of torpedo from their inventory, yet the comfort driven Swedish navy who hold Sailor safety above all else keeps them in the inventory.
The Kh-22M uses Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid (IRFNA) that is mixed with hydrazine fuel as a liquid propellent that is far more dangerous than HTP. The chemicals inside most SLBMs as propellents are just as deadly and dangerous... and that includes the solid fuelled missiles.
Some weapons just happen to be dangerous to handle... the point is that there are procedures in place to make them safe... when sailors ignore the handling procedures that make them safe they suddenly become very dangerous... a Type 65 torpedo has large amounts of HTP to carry it up to 100kms to a target and it also carries a very large warhead of HE that will burn rapidly in an oxygen rich environment created by an HTP reaction.
I just don't agree with your comments that they had inferior equipment and the designers didn't care about the crew.
Although i enjoy discuss with you, stop be so agressive.
I am sorry you think I am being aggressive, I have no problem with you personally, but some of the things you have said I do object to.
Things like this:
Its no big secret the designers didnt care much for crew comfort or survivebility when they designed warships, or tanks.
They have an enormous force and kept obsolete items in service well after a much smaller force like the Swedish forces could afford to do. There was nothing wrong with their Tango and Kilo class conventional subs in the 1980s, but they certainly still had much older vessels still in service at that time and I think you are thinking about the older subs they still had in service rather than the newer boats they also had in service that were used for more pressing roles than sail around Sweden.
The Soviet designers didn't make their tanks small to save on materials... they made them small to make them harder to hit. If they didn't care about the crew why would they bother doing that?
The discussion of the Soviet subs weak quality is one you cannot win, no
matter what. You are just wrong here, admit. That said, the Soviet subs
did have their advantages.
The Foxtrot was an excellent class, and the Romeo was seriously underrated, as was the Tango class. The Kilo has international export sales to prove it is no death trap. Charlies, Victors, Typhoons, Akulas, Sierras, Alphas and even the Oscars were excellent submarine designs that are capable vessels even today.
Of the problem vessels there were the Novembers, Echos, Yankees in the SLBM role largely because of sea water and SLBM fuel, and Hotels... the only modern subs to have problems were the largely unknown Mike class which was a single prototype vessel and the Kursk that fell victim to an improperly handled torpedo that exploded in the torpedo room full of live torpedoes... which super safe super western design sub could survive an explosion inside its torpedo store?
A rumor said the russian navy wouldnt put the Project 885 Yasen sub in
line production, because of the high cost, still nr 2, the Kazan is
being built. Maybe it ends there and they switch to a cheaper design.
The Borei though, is being built at a rate of one sub per year. The sub is probably state of the art, as the missile Bulava
as soon as they work out the kinks.
They are minimising costs by unifying components including propulsion etc, though sonar equipment will be different for SSN and SSBN. Though the SSNs are actually going to be SSGNs and more flexible in armament.
There was talk I have read somewhere of a new long range supersonic weapon which maybe a further improvement on the Vulkan which will replace the Bazalt and Granit in vessels fitted with those missiles... with the exception of the Kuznetsov which is having the Granits removed to make more hangar space for aircraft during a refit to start when the admiral gorshkov is finished and sent to India.
The French Le Terrible is the most advanced SSBN now.
Most advanced SSBN means nothing. The question is not how advanced it is, but can it do its job.
The Boreys will do a fine job for the next few decades.
I would like to repeat Runaway, I take exception to some of the things you have said, but I don't have anything against you personally, and if you have taken offense at anything I have said then I apologise. I do appreciate that some of the things you said were in reply to some interesting comments from other posters, but I would suggest to you that the designers in the Soviet Union had children that were eligible for conscription so I rather doubt they didn't care about the people using the equipment. Some of it wasn't as safe or as comfortable or easy to use as its western equivalents, but shortcuts need to be made when your enemy is the entire western world made up of various colonial powers made rich from their colonies around the globe.
Brazil is told it must save the rain forests, but western countries already chopped down their forests and made farms and then industries and made their wealth off the land and they have the balls to tell Brazil it must save the rain forests...
Yes, I have a chip on my shoulder about the west and the hypocrisy... ignore the language and read the article posted by Lulldapull http://www.russiadefence.net/t1326-shitbilly-ray-allen-davis-in-context
Ray Davis is the CIA agent who killed some Pakistanis and has been arrested in Pakistan for it, the article is written by a guy who had a similar role in South East Asia 30 years before and his job was basically to make people who are not actively working in Americas interests disappear in foreign countries...
Imagine if I went to the US and started killing government officials who couldn't find New Zealand on the map and didn't act in our interests!!!! I would need a lot of ammo, and also think of the US reaction when I was arrested. What would their reaction to me claiming to be a diplomat and protected under diplomatic immunity and that I should be sent home. They would demand I was executed and to be perfectly honest I would totally agree. The thing is that the CIA has been doing this all round the world (asia and pakistan and central and south america they get away with a lot more than in "western" countries I would guess) and no one is doing anything about it.
So can you understand when I get a little agitated when someone suggests the Russian government doesn't care about sailors or Russian designers are incompetent or western stuff was better blah blah blah...