Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Share

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Russian Patriot on Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:34 pm

    Russia needs minimum 50 nuclear subs for fleet - Navy Vice Admiral

    RIA Novosti

    20/03/201013:58

    MOSCOW, March 20 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian Navy ideally needs to have at least 50 nuclear-powered submarines, a high-ranking Navy officer said during a live interview with Ekho Moskvy radio station on Saturday.

    The Russian Navy has some 60 strategic, multi-functional and diesel-powered submarines in its fleet that are combat ready.

    "The number of nuclear submarines in Russia's Navy should be no less than 40-50," First Deputy of the Naval General Staff Vice Admiral Oleg Burtsev said.

    He said that France, Britain and the United States have at least nine combat ready nuclear subs at sea at all times.

    "In order to counterbalance them, we need to have two or three nuclear-powered submarines. They need to know that we are prepared to respond to any strike," Burtsev said.

    In answering a call-in question of whether Russia is behind in developing its fleet in comparison with China, which builds two or three submarines a year, Burtsev said that Russia was not behind in development.

    "Trial runs are taking place with the Yasen class subs, and this year the final trial stages of the Lada class submarine will be held."

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2010/russia-100320-rianovosti01.htm

    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Pervius on Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:37 am

    Russia builds things too well.

    Virginia Class submarines were welded together with wrong welding rods. Bolts were cheap from China and weren't made right. Valves weren't tested and resulted in leaks in the Pacific..porting in Guam/Japan. Metal alloy parts for hatches and other parts weren't heat treated...

    www.theday.com/article/20110305/NWS09/303059912/1017

    www.defpro.com/news/details/22590/?SID=26a514476520053447e45abb0728a302

    No wonder Americans want to fully man two submarines with all female crews. Someone to blame when submarine sinks. Thinking outside the box isn't it?

    Luck only lasts so long. Virginia Class subs will likely be decommissioned early or limited to 200 feet diving soon according to all the bad news stories about them. US Navy wouldn't publicize things like that unless they were trying to get politicians to quit forcing them to make junk.

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  runaway on Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:28 pm

    Pervius wrote:Russia builds things too well.

    Virginia Class submarines were welded together with wrong welding rods. Bolts were cheap from China and weren't made right. Valves weren't tested and resulted in leaks in the Pacific..porting in Guam/Japan. Metal alloy parts for hatches and other parts weren't heat treated...

    Guess that relocating all manufacturing to china has its drawbacks...

    But i`m happy russia tries to make quality war materials now, those Soviet subs wasnt exactly top reliable...
    Although the delta series seems good, and so the Udaloy destroyers.


    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Pervius on Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:15 pm

    ""those Soviet subs wasnt exactly top reliable""

    Soviet Subs are just fine. Better than everyone elses.

    China and Russia can afford to put people on submarines and ships. America...no.

    1/3rd of US population dieing from old age soon. Thus why Americans are going crazy right now. Russia already restructured for this. Russia "collapse" was financial restructure to get rid of debt prevent hyper inflation of currency. Russia lives better life with less money, can afford people.

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  runaway on Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:11 pm

    Pervius wrote:Soviet Subs are just fine. Better than everyone elses.

    Well, then you have lived very sheltered and not so well informed if you think so. I cut this out for you, the 141 Kursk is not there, the design is maybe good, but the hydrogen-peroxide torpedoes were not.
    "
    A Soviet sub vanished without a trace in 1962, presumably when its external missile bays accidentally flooded. A nuclear-armed diesel-electric submarine sank off Hawaii in 1968. (Part of this was later raised by the US, whose experts were stunned at the crude technology in the vessel).

    Three Soviet subs may have been lost in 1970. One sank in shallow water near Severomorsk. While the crew died of suffocation, the vessel was later recovered. A November class submarine sank under tow -- presumably after a reactor failure -- southwest of Great Britain, and another unidentified one sank after a major naval exercise near the Faeroe Islands.

    In 1972, two subs were towed home after lethal reactor leaks (the Soviet military joke that men from the submarine fleet glowed in the dark had a strong currency). The same thing reportedly happened to a Soviet submarine in the Indian Ocean in 1977. While the Japanese didn't notice the transit of such a sub in 1977, they did in 1978. A reactor leak on another Soviet sub prompted the evacuation of 12 crewmen off Newfoundland in 1977. An Echo Class submarine was towed home from off Scotland in 1978.

    A fire on another submarine killed 9 sailors off Okinawa in 1980, and yet another influx of irradiated sailors into Soviet hospitals was noticed in 1981 after an undisclosed incident in the Baltic.

    A Charlie-I submarine sank off the Kamchatka Peninsula in June 1983. In October 1986, the Soviets lost a Yankee-I submarine near Bermuda. Finally, the experimental Mike Class submarine Komsomolets sank near Norway in April 1988.

    The USSR lost at least four nuclear submarines between 1960 and 1989, and may have lost nine altogether. There were also at least another eight cases (that seem obvious) where lethal levels of contamination or fires occurred on board a nuclear submarine. "



    Now, i`m glad to say that the russian war materials i getting better and safer. The Soviet subs was well armed and dangerous, but also dangerous and lethal to their crews.






    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:19 pm

    But i`m happy russia tries to make quality war materials now, those Soviet subs wasnt exactly top reliable...

    As opposed to British subs that keep colliding with French subs or running aground and of course US navy subs that sink Japanese fishing vessels near Pearl Harbour...

    Now, i`m glad to say that the russian war materials i getting better and
    safer. The Soviet subs was well armed and dangerous, but also dangerous
    and lethal to their crews.

    The HEN boats shared a flawed reactor design (Hotel, Echo, November), which made them quite dangerous to operate, but I find it disappointing when westerners enjoy talking of the fatal failures of Soviet attempts to catch up with the militaristic west.
    I guess the deaths of those Soviet sailors serve to prove your point... BTW in several cases many of those sailors died fighting to save their boats near the waters of western countries... it is clear they should not have bothered and let the boats sink and contaminate the waters of countries that are still clearly enemies.

    It is amusing you consider the Soviet sub fleet to be crude and lethal to its crew, because the people in charge of the US Navy's subs seem to have a lot more respect for their enemy.

    You mention the loss of the Kursk to a torpedo design... US torpedo design during WWII is well documented as the worst performing of all the major powers... they still managed to do OK.

    BTW The incident with the torpedo in the Kursk was most likely caused by a failure to follow procedure as those torpedos had been in service for decades in the Russian Navy.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5665
    Points : 6071
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:34 am

    It was a leak of the liquid mono propellant Type 65 torpedo that when in contact with sea water caused it to explode and killed every one on kursk.

    Seems to be quality control/inspection issue which cause this , post that incident all Type 65 liquid propellent torpedoes are removed from service.

    I think more then the incident , the way Russian authorities behaved after it was very dissapointing , they could have saved life had they acted fast in their own backyard , they did not have a suitable DSRV to rescue the crew and they did not accept Western offer to help , leading to a certain death.

    It a very shameful incident i would say in the way politician/top naval officers played with the life of the submarine crew.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 10, 2011 5:00 am

    It a very shameful incident i would say in the way politician/top naval officers played with the life of the submarine crew.

    I don't think it is as simple as you suggest, first of all they might have thought back to when the Soviet government asked a US university for a few of its robots to assist in the clean up at Chernobyl remotely to reduce exposure of personel.
    The University agreed to help and the US government stepped in a blocked that help.

    Second the time it took the international team to get into the Kursk from the day they arrived was about two weeks, so even if they had been called the instant the blast occurred the sailors would all have been dead anyway... and it was not as if they were doing nothing till they asked for international help either.

    And the story I heard was that a torpedo started up in the tube... which is never supposed to happen... they are supposed to be launched with compressed air and with the engine running in the confined space of the torpedo tube the engine rapidly overheated as it normally scoops up sea water to keep the engine cool in normal operation. The engine overheating and "bursting" in the tube resulted in a serious fire because HTP engine relies on the reaction of HTP or hydrogen peroxide with a catalyst, which is normally a metal, but sea water would do and generates enormous amounts of heat, plus the hydrogen released reacts with the oxygen released and burns like rocket fuel to form super hot steam, plus there is surplus oxygen in the reaction which creates an explosive environment.
    This fire eventually led to a detonation of the store of torpedoes which of course crippled the whole ship.

    Considering it was carrying 24 Granits I think it says a lot about the SAFETY of a double hulled sub an her design that had the 7 ton Granits in the hull space between the inner and outer hull.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5665
    Points : 6071
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:57 am

    Well its by now a known fact that Russian government did not take international help and sat on the request for 2 weeks before taking a decision , time lost was life lost.
    bringing some Soviet Union argument 10 years after its demise does not much help.

    They did tried with their DSRV , but their DSRV was not adqueately equipped for the role nor was it sophisticated enough to do this complicated job.

    The Russian Government dealt with the issue with extreme high handedness and lack of sensitivity for the life of the crew or family , I saw a video where a wife was subdued with some medicine when she bagan to question the government in a town hall meeting.

    We certainly know atleast those at the rear end was alive for few days and were hoping for a rescue which never came up.

    The fact that when the next Russian sub some special subs got stuck in the sea the Russian Government quickly acted and asked for international help which was quickly provided and crew was rescued , proves that they badly mismanaged the Kursk incident and played with the life of people.

    I would think this is a shameful way to deal with serious issue involving life of people and is a bolt on them which is Putins government and some senior Naval officers.

    I wish they could save as many life as possible them , Kursk RIP

    I just hope they are better prepared this time around and have the necessary DSRV available to quickly provide rescue if such incident every occur , hopefully it doesn't though.


    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Pervius on Thu Mar 10, 2011 9:00 am

    American military have lots of nuclear accidents. They don't tell you in America when they happen. Trying to keep clean record is to not scare other countries from letting nuclear ships into port.

    Only now do you know a nuclear warheaded missile burned in it's silo at Fort Dix in New Jersey in the 1960's. US Capitalist economy can't have people stop buying or moving away. So they decide to not tell people when bad things happened. How many Americans died from radioactive contamination from nuclear fallout from nuclear warhead burning in New Jersey?

    US has had many nuclear accidents. US public knows nothing of them. Using Google you can find US Govt reports on some of them. American public never heard them on US news.



    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  runaway on Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:05 pm

    GarryB wrote:I guess the deaths of those Soviet sailors serve to prove your point... BTW in several cases many of those sailors died fighting to save their boats near the waters of western countries... it is clear they should not have bothered and let the boats sink and contaminate the waters of countries that are still clearly enemies.

    Enemies? i for one dont count Sweden or GB for enemies to russia, maybe you still live in the -80`s

    [quote="GarryB"]
    It is amusing you consider the Soviet sub fleet to be crude and lethal to its crew, because the people in charge of the US Navy's subs seem to have a lot more respect for their enemy.

    I recent this, and your comment about i prove my point by the deaths of soviet sailors. Its not amusing at all.
    In fact, i have served in Swedish Navy, and we had the outmost respect for the russians, but not for their often inferior equipment. Its no big secret the designers didnt care much for crew comfort or survivebility when they designed warships, or tanks.

    [quote="GarryB"]
    And the story I heard was that a torpedo started up in the tube... which is never supposed to happen...

    Not really, the torpedo was dropped on the kay, and against protocols loaded into the sub. Where it ignited on the ready racks in the torpedo room.

    Austin wrote:I think more then the incident , the way Russian authorities behaved after it was very dissapointing , they could have saved life had they acted fast in their own backyard , they did not have a suitable DSRV to rescue the crew and they did not accept Western offer to help , leading to a certain death.

    It a very shameful incident i would say in the way politician/top naval officers played with the life of the submarine crew.

    Agree, totally.

    Pervius wrote:American military have lots of nuclear accidents. They don't tell you in America when they happen. Trying to keep clean record is to not scare other countries from letting nuclear ships into port.

    Only now do you know a nuclear warheaded missile burned in it's silo at Fort Dix in New Jersey in the 1960's. US Capitalist economy can't have people stop buying or moving away. So they decide to not tell people when bad things happened. How many Americans died from radioactive contamination from nuclear fallout from nuclear warhead burning in New Jersey?

    US has had many nuclear accidents. US public knows nothing of them. Using Google you can find US Govt reports on some of them. American public never heard them on US news.



    Mm, but this is hardly an issue is this submarine topic...

    And as we have some experience of chasing subs, maybe russian ones, we know they are well armed and guided by daring and brave sailors.

    The U137, was something of a mistake, drunk, sloppy or malfuntion in the nav aids. No, i dont think they came to spy on our naval base in a 35 year old, big boat, and making good speed in the shallows.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:57 am

    Well its by now a known fact that Russian government did not take
    international help and sat on the request for 2 weeks before taking a
    decision , time lost was life lost.

    I am sure that is what CNN would say. Fox News would probably say they wanted their sailors to die for the international sympathy. I think Russia Today would say that they let their own navy do everything it could to try to release the remaining crew and that evidence inside the sub suggests they did not last very long at all.
    From what I have read the walls were all blackened as if there was a fire in the rear compartment where the survivors had gathered and it was decided that someone had let an oxygen making candle touch seawater which would have made it burst into flames and rapidly consume any remaining breathable air in the compartment.
    It took them two weeks to get into the damaged escape hatch so even if they had started the rescue an hour after the explosion the sailors would have already been dead.

    bringing some Soviet Union argument 10 years after its demise does not much help.

    Even now NATO does not trust Russia to be part of an ABM shield in Europe... why should they trust them with a secret submarine back then?

    They did tried with their DSRV , but their DSRV was not adqueately
    equipped for the role nor was it sophisticated enough to do this
    complicated job.

    They were in 300 feet of water... they didn't need a DSRV. What they needed was for the explosion to have not damaged the outer hull so much and jammed the escape hatch at the rear of the vessel.

    The Russian Government dealt with the issue with extreme high handedness
    and lack of sensitivity for the life of the crew or family , I saw a
    video where a wife was subdued with some medicine when she bagan to
    question the government in a town hall meeting.

    And your suggestion would be to drag her away in handcuffs? Beat her? I would think sedating her if warranted is rather compassionate... it is normal procedure in most hospitals for people in distress so they can't hurt themselves or others and so force does not need to be used against them to counter their actions.

    We certainly know atleast those at the rear end was alive for few days and were hoping for a rescue which never came up.

    We know they were probably already dead after a day or so. We also know that after the international team arrived it took a further 2 weeks to get into the sub.

    The fact that when the next Russian sub some special subs got stuck in
    the sea the Russian Government quickly acted and asked for international
    help which was quickly provided and crew was rescued , proves that they
    badly mismanaged the Kursk incident and played with the life of people.

    That incident involved a mini sub that was caught in cables, there was no catastrophic explosion on board. They were in touch with the crew and knew they were still alive. It was the type of deep diving mini sub used by whatis name Cameron to find the titanic... so it wasn't secret.

    I wish they could save as many life as possible them , Kursk RIP

    They did.

    I just hope they are better prepared this time around and have the
    necessary DSRV available to quickly provide rescue if such incident
    every occur , hopefully it doesn't though.

    After the Kursk incident they bought the equipment the British team used to eventually open the hatch. When the second incident occurred the only crew trained to operate it were not available, and being a much smaller vessel there was much less time available.

    Enemies? i for one dont count Sweden or GB for enemies to russia, maybe you still live in the -80`s

    If I do I am not alone... I am sure Great Britain would stop offering asylum to Russian criminals and Chechen terrorists if they weren't enemies.

    Its no big secret the designers didnt care much for crew comfort or survivebility when they designed warships, or tanks.

    Obviously they don't see war as a game, where the most comfortable player wins.
    I am sure the Sheffield was a very comfortable vessel to crew, yet the impact of one small anti ship missile managed to sink her despite it being known the warhead didn't even explode on impact.
    You are a navy man and therefore I don't have to explain fire is a real danger on ships and submarines and a fire in a torpedo ammunition rack would do the same to any western designed sub.

    Not really, the torpedo was dropped on the kay, and against protocols
    loaded into the sub. Where it ignited on the ready racks in the torpedo
    room.

    Wow... so you admit that you knew it was a failure to follow procedure yet you still blame the torpedo.

    What does that say about you... AK-47 explodes injuring person firing the weapon = crap design made by designers that don't care about the users safety or comfort... then it turns out the rifle exploded because the ammo was picked up on the battlefield and it happened to be booby trapped ammo.
    I am sure western equipment is always safe whether you follow handling procedures or not. Rolling Eyes

    Agree, totally.

    Of course you would... second rate equipment and evil government... Just like pride made George Bush jnr turn away offers of aid when Katrina hit America... ask the people in the region hit how well America coped with that one.

    And as we have some experience of chasing subs, maybe russian ones, we
    know they are well armed and guided by daring and brave sailors.

    I doubt it:

    http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=cN-ETroO0zEC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=swedish+sub+sightings&source=bl&ots=nj9acbcoXf&sig=lk4hK-ShOoAP2JRgXcZmEWgJ2Cw&hl=en&ei=fo15TZquLY71rAHYvqDmBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

    And:

    www.fredsakademiet.dk/library/tunander.pdf

    And they do this to allies...

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:07 pm

    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.

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  runaway on Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:11 pm

    GarryB wrote:Wow... so you admit that you knew it was a failure to follow procedure yet you still blame the torpedo.

    What does that say about you... AK-47 explodes injuring person firing the weapon = crap design made by designers that don't care about the users safety or comfort... then it turns out the rifle exploded because the ammo was picked up on the battlefield and it happened to be booby trapped ammo.
    I am sure western equipment is always safe whether you follow handling procedures or not. Rolling Eyes

    Of course you would... second rate equipment and evil government... Just like pride made George Bush jnr turn away offers of aid when Katrina hit America... ask the people in the region hit how well America coped with that one.

    Yes, i blame the torpedo. The west discontinued the use of theirs because of this:
    "
    On the morning of 16 June 1955, Sidon was moored alongside the depot ship HMS Maidstone in Portland Harbour. Two 21-inch Mark 12 High test peroxide-powered torpedoes, code-named "Fancy", had been loaded aboard for testing. Fifty-six officers and crewmen were aboard.

    At 0825, an explosion in one of the Fancy torpedoes (but not the warhead) burst the number-three torpedo tube it was loaded into and ruptured the forward-most two watertight bulkheads. Fire, toxic gases, and smoke accompanied the blast. Twelve men in the forward compartments died instantly and seven others were seriously injured"

    And the USS Scorpion also seems so be a victim of her own torpedo:

    "Dr. John Craven mentions that he did not work on the Mark 37 torpedo's propulsion system and only became aware of the possibility of a battery explosion twenty years after the loss of Scorpion. In his book The Silent War, he recounts running a simulation with former Scorpion Executive officer Lieutenant Commander Robert Fountain, Jr. commanding the simulator. Fountain was told he was headed home at 18 knots (33 km/h) at a depth of his choice, then there was an alarm of "hot running torpedo". Fountain responded with "right full rudder", a quick turn that would activate a safety device and keep the torpedo from arming. Then an explosion in the torpedo room was introduced into the simulation. Fountain ordered emergency procedures to surface the boat, stated Dr. Craven, "but instead she continued to plummet, reaching collapse depth and imploding in ninety seconds — one second shy of the acoustic record of the actual event."



    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.


    Although i enjoy discuss with you, stop be so agressive. I havent said they have a evil goverment, nor do i think so.
    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.

    Vladimir79 wrote: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.

    Agree, the costs of these warmachines is getting astronomical, as they keep getting more advanced and multirolled.

    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.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:37 am

    runaway wrote:

    Agree, the costs of these warmachines is getting astronomical, as they keep getting more advanced and multirolled.

    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.

    Project 855 is probably obsolete to Western nuke subs now it took so long to launch Severodvinsk. The Kazan is going to be so heavily updated, it is said it will not even be of the same class.

    Bulava is as good a missile as we could ask for... when it works. The Borei uses the technologies of the Akula II which are outdated now as well. When we are willing to lease the Nerpa when we are short of advanced SSNs, it must point to some obsolescence. The French Le Terrible is the most advanced SSBN now.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 12, 2011 4:47 am

    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...

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  runaway on Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:46 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    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...

    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.

    True, the designs were in some cases very good and forseeing, the problems was that they pressed some new designs in service to quick and old obselete boats served too long. And they had quality problems with the manufacturing and equipment supplied, not necessarely the design itself.
    The one thing that has made the soviet equipment lagging behind is electronics. That has been the akhilles heel in many systems. And as it guides the boat, weapons and sensors, its have had a big impact.


    I agree, the US has alot of blood on their hands. They have supported various dictatorships around the globe for their own benefit. They practicly owned the entire south america and cuba, made great profits at the expense of the peoples in those countries.
    Now their satelitte states are in trouble, Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi arabia etc.

    But back to subs, i think i speak for many when i say that the west have had great respect for Soviet-Russian subs. They have surpassed wests subs in many areas, and have always made important technological leaps, not to speak of shkvall. Which to now dont have any comparable system in west.
    The Soviet-Russian problem has been quality, electronics and safety, and that seems to begin to be a problem of the past.

    Now, when we talk about comfort, whose subs have decadent swimming pools inside? Smile

    And Gary, its ok to get agitated, that shows heart and soul.

    Vladimir79 wrote: The French Le Terrible is the most advanced SSBN now.

    Maybe, like their cars. But as they break down all the time, certainly not the best, nor most useful.


    As for Swedens type 2000 torpedo, they are 533mm aircraft killer weapons, wonder why we have them, as the carriers dont swarm in the baltic?
    Really, they are longe range weapons, and leathal to any ship. And i guess the HTP in them makes the crew and technicians really careful and thouroughly when dealing with them.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 13, 2011 1:46 am

    True, the designs were in some cases very good and forseeing, the
    problems was that they pressed some new designs in service to quick and
    old obselete boats served too long. And they had quality problems with
    the manufacturing and equipment supplied, not necessarely the design
    itself.
    The one thing that has made the soviet equipment lagging
    behind is electronics. That has been the akhilles heel in many systems.
    And as it guides the boat, weapons and sensors, its have had a big
    impact.

    I took exception to all Soviet subs were obsolete death traps made by unfeeling designers... the above comments are much more accurate... they didn't have super subs, they had a range of vessels and equipment from mediocre to very good. I don't have to tell you that the sea is a very dangerous place and that nothing we can make is completely safe in it.

    But back to subs, i think i speak for many when i say that the west have
    had great respect for Soviet-Russian subs. They have surpassed wests
    subs in many areas, and have always made important technological leaps,
    not to speak of shkvall. Which to now dont have any comparable system in
    west.

    I almost agree... I would suggest that those that respect the Soviet-Russian subs were those that went against them, but the general western public think that Soviet or Russian made goods are inferior sight unseen... they are inferior because they think the Soviets/Russians do everything wrong... or if it is any good it is a copy of western stuff.

    BTW in regard to Shkvall, RAT-55 should be mentioned... they have had rocket powered torpedoes for a very long time... they just kept them secret.

    It was the same in aircraft... the west felt BVR was unreliable and that was OK with them because their excellent training and WVR skills would win the day in dogfights... then they sent their best against german pilots after the reunification and suddenly realised that helmet mounted sights and high off boresight AAMs make WVR combat lethal for them and they rushed the development of the AMRAAM etc al.

    The Soviet-Russian problem has been quality, electronics and safety, and that seems to begin to be a problem of the past.

    The Sheffield was sunk by a missile whose warhead didn't explode. She didn't fire a single Sea wolf to protect herself because a ship in the group was using a satellite relay to talk to the UK and the Sea wolfs radar interfered with the transmission so they turned it off.

    I notice I have the most problems with what you say when you generalise... the British had problems with electronics and the Soviet military electronics were not that far behind the west... their Legenda satellite targeting system for large antiship missiles was unique. The missiles themselves could communicate to each other in a network and transmit targeting information to each other and via satellite back to the launch vessel. You say they had problems with electronics... I would say they didn't. Their electronics were big and bulky compared to the western equivalent, but they did the same job... a supersonic 700km range Granit missile is not 7 tons because of the electronics it carries... it is mostly fuel and warhead. Putting more compact western electronics would not have changed performance, it might have reduced weight by 50kgs, but overall I doubt that matters. They might have made it fully land attack capable as well, but they already had weapons to attack land targets so it was not necessary either.

    And Gary, its ok to get agitated, that shows heart and soul.

    It is more frustration... the tide has not turned... most people in the west still view Russia as the enemy... in many ways the Gene Roddenbery stereotype of the Russians as the Klingons holds true in the west. The irony is that no one points out that the west is more like the Borg, except they are a Borg that thinks it knows everything it is the centre of knowledge now and no longer adds new material into the collective from the outside by assimilating it. The purpose of expansion is simply to share the glory of what they are now with the savages of the universe.

    And i guess the HTP in them makes the crew and technicians really careful and thouroughly when dealing with them.

    Ironically HTP just looks like water... you can wash your hands in it... as long as you are not wearing rings as it reacts to most metals. The reaction is intensely superheated steam and pure oxygen... the ideal material to propel a torpedo... squirt it through a silver mesh directly into a turbine engine for propulsion... you don't need extra oxygen bottles for the reaction as it is contained in the HTP.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Mar 13, 2011 2:37 am

    And Gary, its ok to get agitated, that shows heart and soul.

    It is more frustration... the tide has not turned... most people in the west still view Russia as the enemy... in many ways the Gene Roddenbery stereotype of the Russians as the Klingons holds true in the west. The irony is that no one points out that the west is more like the Borg, except they are a Borg that thinks it knows everything it is the centre of knowledge now and no longer adds new material into the collective from the outside by assimilating it. The purpose of expansion is simply to share the glory of what they are now with the savages of the universe.[/quote]

    Just to correct that, most people in the west either: 1. Don't care 2. Hate China or 3. Hate NK/Iran. To us, Russia is just a subdued bear.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 13, 2011 2:48 am

    To us, Russia is just a subdued bear.

    It is not a friend or ally like Japan suddenly became and Germany suddenly became.

    Get rid of communism and be welcomed into the international community... yeah right.

    You might hate the Chinese, but your actions regarding trade show there has been zero benefit for going through the process of changing from communist to democracy for Russia.

    Wikileaks shows us the actual diplomats doing the work for the US still think in cold war terms and stereotypes...

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Mar 13, 2011 3:37 am

    It's only been almost 20 years since the Cold War. A new generation of Americans has grown up and you can guess what they care about, sex drugs and rock and roll. Like Russia, and like Japan/Germany after WW2, there are still those degenerate Cold-war grampas lingering around in the Govt. Give it 3 decades and Russia/CIS will be apart of the EU.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:00 pm

    Give it 3 decades and Russia/CIS will be apart of the EU.

    Hey there is no need to be nasty... Smile

    I would think Russia would be a bit like Britain and rather mistrust being ruled by Brussels.

    Personally I would think... and hope that Russia remained separate from Europe in a political sense and kept its Asian options open. It doesn't have an agenda or political structure to impose on the world any more so why hitch their horse to the EU?

    The purpose of the EU is for lots of little countries to gain economic power and security through joining a group with shared interests. The point is that Russia gains little economic or political power by joining the EU and loses a lot of political control for that privilege.

    Unless there is a conflict between the EU and the US and therefore the EU or the US will gain from a direct alliance with Russia I don't think they will want it either.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:20 pm

    A common currency and other such economic similarities will only help Russia. Albeit, the Russian military is on par if not superior to the EU's military, but a joint force and technology exchange will also only help Russia. In 30 odd years, who knows, maybe China would join SEATO? Who knows, maybe in a 100 years we'll all just, get along.

    But enough of those hippy dreams, back on topic!

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:40 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:A common currency and other such economic similarities will only help Russia. Albeit, the Russian military is on par if not superior to the EU's military, but a joint force and technology exchange will also only help Russia. In 30 odd years, who knows, maybe China would join SEATO? Who knows, maybe in a 100 years we'll all just, get along.

    But enough of those hippy dreams, back on topic!

    Bold part is typicial Western misconception. We lived on our own without this, and didn't die.

    On topic:

    I would actually be content with somewhere around 40 modern subs, we really don't need that much submarines to defend our waters. Much more sense in stronger surface fleet as of now!

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:48 am

    GarryB wrote:

    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.

    He says Russia needs 40-50 nuke subs and no less. It is irrelevant what we have when it was all built during the Soviet. They are on their way out. When we get those new subs, those old subs will be long gone leaving a huge gap. 40-50 is impossible to afford on our budget.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:28 am


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:28 am