+84

TMA1

ALAMO

Arkanghelsk

Krepost

Mir

Podlodka77

owais.usmani

ult

lancelot

limb

Kiko

magnumcromagnon

Rasisuki Nebia

lyle6

andalusia

LMFS

miroslav

xeno

ultimatewarrior

thegopnik

Rodion_Romanovic

miketheterrible

Labrador

mnztr

Ned86

franco

hoom

PapaDragon

walle83

KiloGolf

Hole

verkhoturye51

Tsavo Lion

Peŕrier

Singular_Transform

Arrow

Project Canada

Honesroc

Tolstoy

Singular_trafo

SeigSoloyvov

Isos

nastle77

slasher

Svyatoslavich

Big_Gazza

artjomh

Morpheus Eberhardt

JohninMK

GunshipDemocracy

Stealthflanker

RTN

jhelb

Kimppis

Dima

Werewolf

mack8

flamming_python

eridan

kvs

Zivo

sepheronx

max steel

Austin

chicken

par far

Mike E

KomissarBojanchev

Flyingdutchman

collegeboy16

etaepsilonk

navyfield

calripson

Vann7

George1

dionis

TheArmenian

Hachimoto

TR1

Viktor

GarryB

runaway

Admin

Russian Patriot

88 posters

Go to page :

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 20 ... 35

Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

flamming_python

flamming_python: Posts : 8988
Points : 9050
Join date : 2012-01-30

Post n°121

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

flamming_python Sat May 02, 2015 9:52 pm

TR1 posts Russia WEAK! trolling to counter-balance Vann's Russia STRONG! trolling; and the end result is that neither picture painted is particularly correct and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

But why should a guest coming into this thread have to figure this out first, and analyse both sets of posts just to get an accurate appraisal of the situation? What's wrong in just posting the truth or what's likely to be the truth - as opposed to running circles around it or taking angles just for the lulz?

The point is that this is a serious discussion, on a serious sub-forum; can we please stop with the dick-swinging and personal rivalries? We should be focused on objectivity, and sober assessments; baseless optimism or needless cynisism may have a place in the more hypothetical political discussions where no-one can really guess what's going to happen anyway; but when it comes to discussions of Russia's naval build-up running through to 2020 - it should really be possible to arrive at a consensus in half the words.

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°122

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

TR1 Sat May 02, 2015 10:04 pm

Oh, I am making crap up eh?

The entire Block II line took 1-2 years for each boat to be laid down, finished and commissioned.
The first was laid down in 2007. The last was commissioned in 2013. That series was composed of 6 boats. 6 nuclear attack boats in 7 years. Remind me when that has happened in Russia last?

Blah blah blah blah will speed up blah blah blah.

Yeah, it will increase over the first ship.
By how much? Anywhere close to US speed?

Project 955:
1st ship: a century to finish. We know why.
2nd ship: 9 years.
3rd ship: 9 years.
4th ship: 3 years and counting. Won't be commissioned for a while at best.

Project 885:
1st ship: two decades. We know why. Still in only experimental service.
2nd ship: 6 years, still has not hit the water or started trials.

Will it likely go faster? Sure. Not enough to make Vann's stupid point any closer to reality however.
Especially in attack submarines, there won't be a "closing in numbers" between the two.

The whole discussion utterly pointless. 4 submarine under construction is much better than a dozen that take a decade to get anywhere. I am exaggerating, but only slightly.

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°123

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

TR1 Sat May 02, 2015 10:07 pm

flamming_python wrote:TR1 posts Russia WEAK! trolling to counter-balance Vann's Russia STRONG! trolling; and the end result is that neither picture painted is particularly correct and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

But why should a guest coming into this thread have to figure this out first, and analyse both sets of posts just to get an accurate appraisal of the situation? What's wrong in just posting the truth or what's likely to be the truth - as opposed to running circles around it or taking angles just for the lulz?

The point is that this is a serious discussion, on a serious sub-forum; can we please stop with the dick-swinging and personal rivalries? We should be focused on objectivity, and sober assessments; baseless optimism or needless cynisism may have a place in the more hypothetical political discussions where no-one can really guess what's going to happen anyway; but when it comes to discussions of Russia's naval build-up running through to 2020 - it should really be possible to arrive at a consensus in half the words.

There is absolutely nothing factually innacurate in what I posted.

People can feel free to refute the points in my argument.

Really I don't even have one, aside from Vann's claims being dumb.

That chart is particularly hilarious because :
It has two 677 boats that have been under construction since.....2005 and 2006.
Xabarovsk which is a special service sub, and is an unfinished submarine from decades ago.
Kazan, under work since 2009.

And of course, we are comparing Russian attack and boomer subs to just US attack subs. The US is not replacing Ohio's right now, it deems them adequate.
And they maintain a larger force of active boomers than Russia does in any case, but that is beside the point.

If we actually compare type vs type, (even allowing for diseal subs) the notion that Russia is massively outproducing the US (or outproducing...at all) is just delusional and Russia-strong bullcrap.
Don't expect me to not call out BS for what it is.

I would MUCH rather Russia lay down 4 boats and finish them within 5 years than the current situation.

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°124

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

TR1 Sat May 02, 2015 10:13 pm

flamming_python wrote:but when it comes to discussions of Russia's naval build-up running through to 2020 - it should really be possible to arrive at a consensus in half the words.

Sure- the planned 955 and 855 numbers are BS, wont be met, and the Russian Navy will be lucky to get a combined 10-11 of both SSN and SSBN types by 2020.

I am not sure why so many posters here need to be comforted with vague nonsense like "it will be super duper sped up, you'll see!" when we can by now make fairly decent predictions of the speed of work.
Particularly for the 955s.

kvs

kvs: Posts : 15130
Points : 15267
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada

Post n°125

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

kvs Sat May 02, 2015 10:17 pm

The BS revisionism TR1 is peddling is that "Russia" doesn't have the capability. The facts are something else.
The 1990s economic implosion under the US-backed Yeltsin regime halted many projects dead in their tracks
and degraded Russia's economy and productive capacity by over 50%. In the case of the military it was
actually closer to 80%. I am talking about productive capacity and not existing equipment and
underpaid men experiencing long term disappearance of military capacity like in Ukraine.

Clearly, only a hater troll would conflate the economic disruption with "Russia's ability". Thanks to Putin's undoing
of Yeltsin's nightmare Russia has managed to restore its productive capacity to a high level. It is less than it was
in the good old days in some ways, but better in others. It took about 8 years from 2000 to 2008 to restore Russia's
productive capacity to a reasonable level so you have do add an additional few years for project delay. A good
15 years of project paralysis is what Russia experienced.

A 15 year delay in construction due to the post 1991 transition has no relevance for any project started
after 2008 and today. TR1 was already attacking me for posting that the six Project 636.3 diesel-electric subs
would be finished as planned with his usual pulled from the a** truthiness and chutzpah. Eat this:

http://www.janes.com/article/42571/russia-launches-third-improved-kilo-submarine-commissions-first

Three of them delivered already last year.

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°126

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

TR1 Sat May 02, 2015 10:20 pm

dionis wrote:

Once they are 4-5 units in, we'll see how long it takes them to build.

Oh sure, after 4-5 units, then how many will even be left in the series?
The average build time will still be ass.

And anyone thinking the rate will drop bellow (at best) 4-5 years from start to commissioning is fooling themselves.
That's not even a bad rate, only the US is a true outlier when it comes to large nuclear submarine construction speed.

Vann7

Vann7: Posts : 5385
Points : 5485
Join date : 2012-05-16

Post n°127

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Vann7 Sat May 02, 2015 10:22 pm

TR1 wrote:
I would MUCH rather Russia lay down 4 boats and finish them within 5 years than the current situation.

As was explained to you the delays were funding and technology problems.
Did you saw my post when i told you Seawolf class took 14 YEARS!!!!!! to make???????
from 1983 to 1997..!! is that fast to you? Laughing

The first Submarine always takes more time IDIOT.. and US have infinite more money to
slap more workers and speed things.. But even with all their money they experience in their
first model delays.. Virginia is a dumbed down version of the seawolf class is effectively
a sea wolf light.. a more cheaper serial production of Seawolf. So US had no made any brand new submarine since they released the Seawolf!!!.. instead what they have done is cheaper versions of it ,called Virginia class and upgrading components here and there..nothing new ,using old obsolete tomahawks/harpoon weapons. So thats why it takes less time Because is not a new submarine ..is a serial production of a submarine desgined in the 80s. and they not even build new weapons.. Ohios still using the tridents from the 70s.. go figure out.. and Virginia the tomahawks of the 80s.. lol1

Now i will like to see in 2020 this thread again ,to see how fool you are.. and all those 14 new submarines Russia have in schedule being done. that will throw away your 1 decade bullshit to build one submarine by Russia shipyards. Serial production dude is always faster. get over it..
if there is no funding problems ,serial production of the subs will be done on time as simple as that.

Last edited by Vann7 on Sat May 02, 2015 10:28 pm; edited 1 time in total

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°128

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

TR1 Sat May 02, 2015 10:24 pm

kvs wrote:The BS revisionism TR1 is peddling is that "Russia" doesn't have the capability. The facts are something else.
The 1990s economic implosion under the US-backed Yeltsin regime halted many projects dead in their tracks
and degraded Russia's economy and productive capacity by over 50%. In the case of the military it was
actually closer to 80%. I am talking about productive capacity and not existing equipment and
underpaid men experiencing long term disappearance of military capacity like in Ukraine.

Clearly, only a hater troll would conflate the economic disruption with "Russia's ability". Thanks to Putin's undoing
of Yeltsin's nightmare Russia has managed to restore its productive capacity to a high level. It is less than it was
in the good old days in some ways, but better in others. It took about 8 years from 2000 to 2008 to restore Russia's
productive capacity to a reasonable level so you have do add an additional few years for project delay. A good
15 years of project paralysis is what Russia experienced.

A 15 year delay in construction due to the post 1991 transition has no relevance for any project started
after 2008 and today. TR1 was already attacking me for posting that the six Project 636.3 diesel-electric subs
would be finished as planned with his usual pulled from the a** truthiness and chutzpah. Eat this:

http://www.janes.com/article/42571/russia-launches-third-improved-kilo-submarine-commissions-first

Three of them delivered already last year.

You have an amazing ability to be wrong every time you post.

1.)I said Russia takes longer to build the big ships, and that is the reality. End. Of.Story. Unless funding magically explodes, it won't be making boats much faster.
2.) Three kilos were NOT delivered. Only two. Delivery occurs after trials. You would know this if you have any clue what you were babbling about.
3.) Take a nice hard look at the period of construction for the Kilos.
The first took 39 months.
The second 31 months.
Hell, even by now we are down to a good figure, under two years.....thats the time it takes the US to make and commission a MUCH LARGER nuclear boat.
RUSSIA STRONG11!11111

And the notion that the same massive increases in speed that happened with Kilos, will happen with 955s and 885s are the kool-aid of children.
The diseal boats were constantly under production for export, are a well mastered series, and are tiny and cheap in comparison.

Once again, for you extra-slow folks:
yes, the construction speed of the 955s and 885s will be faster than the first half of the series.
No, it wont be as fast as the US pumps out the Virginias.

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°129

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

TR1 Sat May 02, 2015 10:26 pm

Vann7 wrote:

TR1 wrote:
I would MUCH rather Russia lay down 4 boats and finish them within 5 years than the current situation.

As was explained to you the delays were funding and technology problems.
Did you saw my post when i told you Seawolf class took 14 YEARS!!!!!! to make???????
The first Submarine always takes more time IDIOT.. and US have infinite more money to
slap more workers and speed things.. But even with all their money they experience in their
first model delays.. Virginia is a dumbed down version of the seawolf class is is effectively
a more cheaper serial production of Seawolf. So US had no made any brand new submarine
since they released the Seawolf.. instead what they have done is cheaper versions of it called Virginia and upgrading components here and there.. So thats why it takes less time Because is not a new submarine ..is a serial production of a submarine desgined in the 80s.

Now i will like to see in 2020 this thread again ,to see how fool you are.. and all those submarines Russia have in schedule being done. that will throw away your 1 decade bullshit to build one submarine by Russia shipyards. Serial production dude is always faster. get over it..
if there is no funding problems ,the subs will be done on time as simple as that.

The only idiot here, like always, is you.

You have absolutely no idea what you are babbling about.

I am done responding to you.

And each Seawolf took 1-2 years to make. Cry more about that.

And don't worry. I will be sure to laugh at you when in 2020 Russia hasn't commissioned anywhere close to 8 Borreis and 8 Yasens or whatever BS the media peddles.

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°130

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

TR1 Sat May 02, 2015 10:34 pm

kvs wrote: TR1 was already attacking me for posting that the six Project 636.3 diesel-electric subs
would be finished as planned with his usual pulled from the a** truthiness and chutzpah. Eat this:

Show me where I attacked you.

Further, let's look at what you said, last year:

" Each boat is supposed to take about 1.5 years to complete and all six will be delivered by
the end of next year."

https://www.russiadefence.net/t3419p255-russian-military-reforms-command-structure

Hmmm. Its 2015, and I don't see all 6 being delivered by the end of this year.

Wrong like always.

Vann7

Vann7: Posts : 5385
Points : 5485
Join date : 2012-05-16

Post n°131

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Vann7 Sat May 02, 2015 10:41 pm

TR1 wrote:

And each Seawolf took 1-2 years to make. Cry more about that.

lets see again ..
1)Seawolf class..
Design work began in 1983

laid down.. 14 September 1992
Launched 1 September 1997
Commision 11 December 1998

2)Yasen class...
Laid down .. 21 December 1993
Launched ... 15 June........ 2010
Commision... 30 December 2013

So the Seawolf took 6 Years to make !!!!!!!!!
Now you need to take into account Russia economy default when Yasen was being made..
Contrary to USA.. that didn't experienced any default.. So delays of Russia have been largely
economy. Now to believe that it will take Russia 10 years to build each submarine can only come from an ignorant , that do not understand anything of how building process works and how much faster things become when already mastered and produced in series. So actually US took 6 years to build their first Seawolf class.. and they just cut it down in half in features ,in half its features and build a (Seawolf light) called Virginia.. thats how they produce them faster.. is called Experience and .. that happens after you do the same things over and over. It also helps when the Submarine is significantly less featured than the original Seawolf class.

Last edited by Vann7 on Sat May 02, 2015 10:53 pm; edited 2 times in total

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°132

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

TR1 Sat May 02, 2015 10:47 pm

Ooops, I misread that as the first flight of Virginias.

I am not above saying I was wrong about that point.

However, the US proceeded to pump out Virginias at under 2 year paces. Repeatedly.

Russia ain't touching that, sorry.

And no, I never said it will take TEN YEARS TO MAKE EVERY SUBMARINE.

Though, as we have seen, there have been plenty of ~decade long examples.

That 14 submarine chart is stupid and meaningless, end of story.

4 submarines that take 5 years to make >>>>> the mess that Russian submarine building is today.

Your claim about Russian sub fleet approaching that of the US is baloney, through and through.

The fleet will drop in numbers in reality.

mack8

mack8: Posts : 1039
Points : 1093
Join date : 2013-08-02

Post n°133

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

mack8 Sat May 02, 2015 10:53 pm

You know, i've hardly had reason so far to doubt TRs naval knowledge, despite his "reputation" on this forum, but i can see now that he is literally trolling this topic and posting absolute rubbish. American subs like Seawolf or Virginia took only 1-2 years to build and finish?!!! Try again, more like 5 or 6. Provide proof Seawolf took 2 years to build.

Just a cursory reading on the subject indeed shows unexplainable under 2 years construction for the latest Virginias, but i bet anything you want that the explanation is simple: they are "cheating", as in building the modular sections first and counting keel laying when they start assembling the modules. There is no *** way they can built something like that from scratch in 2 years or even less. I will admit being wrong on this if an unbiased naval expert here (not TR1 obviously) says so.

Anyway, don't want to disrupt this topic discussing about the damn yanks, just wanted to point out the blatant hypocrisy in TR1's post, not to mention that he has the guts to keep to insulting other members here by claiming his (largely false) information is correct.

Last edited by mack8 on Sat May 02, 2015 11:04 pm; edited 1 time in total

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°134

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

TR1 Sat May 02, 2015 10:55 pm

Like I said, I made a mistake because of the flurry of people I was replying to.

However, the point stands regarding Virginias.

If I had to point out every single time you clowns were wrong about something, I would have a book.

But go ahead, miss the larger point and focus on the one mistake.

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°135

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

TR1 Sat May 02, 2015 10:56 pm

mack8 wrote:You know, i've hardly had reason so far to doubt TRs naval knowledge, despite his "reputation" on this forum, but i can see now that he is literally trolling this topic and posting absolute rubbish. American subs like Seawolf or Virginia took only 1-2 years to build and finish?!!! Try again, more like 5 or 6. Provide proof Seawolf took 2 years to build.
s topic discussing about the damn yanks, just wanted to point out the blatant hypocrisy in TR1's post, not to mention that he has the guts to keep to insulting other members here by claiming his (largely false) information is correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine

I know the reality hurts, but go ahead.

You can check it all.

The rate of Virginia construction is unparalled, compared to Russian nuclear boat building.

Vann7

Vann7: Posts : 5385
Points : 5485
Join date : 2012-05-16

Post n°136

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Vann7 Sat May 02, 2015 10:58 pm

TR1 wrote:Like I said, I made a mistake because of the flurry of people I was replying to.

.

Of course you are mistaken ..
Seawolf in 2 years.. lol1

Yasen serial production in 10 years? Rolling Eyes

there is one commisioned now how much you want to bet 3-5 Yasens will be made
before 2020? that is in just 5 years?

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°137

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

TR1 Sat May 02, 2015 10:59 pm

mack8 wrote:

Just a cursory reading on on the subject indeed show unexplainable under 2 years construction for the latest Virginias, but i bet anything you want that the explanation is simple: they are "cheating", as in building the modular sections first and counting keel laying when they start assembling the modules. There is no *** way they can built something like that from scratch in 2 years or even less. I will admit being wrong on this if an unbiased naval expert here (not TR1 obviously) says so.

You keep showing how little you know about naval matters. And you have the gall to point out ONE mistake I made?

Let's see, where to start.

1.) By your standard, Russia cheats as well. Why? Because The Knyaz Vladimir and Knyaz Oleg started work @ Sevmash well before their official lay-down dates. Due to some cock-ups with the contract, the official lay down date is well after the work really started.

2.) No way it can build something like that in 2 years ? Orly?
Would you believe the USSR built AND COMMISIONED project 971 boats within the span of a SINGLE YEAR?
So yes, it can be done.

Accusing me of bias, in the midts of this Russia strong circlejerk is too much.

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°138

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

TR1 Sat May 02, 2015 11:02 pm

Vann7 wrote:

TR1 wrote:Like I said, I made a mistake because of the flurry of people I was replying to.

.

Of course you are mistaken ..
Seawolf in 2 years..

Yasen serial production in 10 years?

there is one commisioned now how much you want to bet 3-5 Yasens will be made
before 2020? that is in just 5 years?

I never said Yasen serial production takes 10 years.

It won't ever take 2 years though.

So far the Borrei serial's have taken 9 years to make. No squirming will change that.

Should I bring up how completely wrong you were regarding the current Russian sub fleet? 55 boats or whatever nonsense you posted?

Last edited by TR1 on Sat May 02, 2015 11:08 pm; edited 1 time in total

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°139

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

TR1 Sat May 02, 2015 11:05 pm

TR1 wrote:Oh, I am making crap up eh?

The entire Block II line took 1-2 years for each boat to be laid down, finished and commissioned.
The first was laid down in 2007. The last was commissioned in 2013. That series was composed of 6 boats. 6 nuclear attack boats in 7 years. Remind me when that has happened in Russia last?

Blah blah blah blah will speed up blah blah blah.

Yeah, it will increase over the first ship.
By how much? Anywhere close to US speed?

Project 955:
1st ship: a century to finish. We know why.
2nd ship: 9 years.
3rd ship: 9 years.
4th ship: 3 years and counting. Won't be commissioned for a while at best.

Project 885:
1st ship: two decades. We know why. Still in only experimental service.
2nd ship: 6 years, still has not hit the water or started trials.

Will it likely go faster? Sure. Not enough to make Vann's stupid point any closer to reality however.
Especially in attack submarines, there won't be a "closing in numbers" between the two.

The whole discussion utterly pointless. 4 submarine under construction is much better than a dozen that take a decade to get anywhere. I am exaggerating, but only slightly.

I am gonna keep reposting this.

Any further discussion is utterly pointless and a waste of my time.

Oh, and to add to that:
2 of the 677 submarines on Vann's chart........both laid down in 2005 and 2006.
Khabarovsk is a rebuilt project 949A special purpose sub. Also in construction for decades.

But yeah, catching up to the US navy any day now!

TR1

TR1: Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06

Post n°140

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

TR1 Sat May 02, 2015 11:10 pm

Vann7 wrote:
Already Russia have 55 Submarines.. and US 72..

Then Russia will have 55 +14 submarines = 69 and US will have 72+4 = 76.

Just to make sure this does not get burried. 100% baloney that Vann won't own up to.

Since no doubt half the posts will be people harping "you were wrong about Seawolfs!"...a fair mistake that I admit, while ignoring the drivel I was responding to.

Werewolf

Werewolf: Posts : 5915
Points : 6104
Join date : 2012-10-24

Post n°141

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Werewolf Sat May 02, 2015 11:25 pm

Jesus, come down. You do know the forum rules and spamming is against the rules, instead of posting 5 comments just edit it and add it to your previous comment, just making it horrible for people to even answer to what you have said when you do it in this unorganized manner.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38984
Points : 39480
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°142

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

GarryB Sun May 03, 2015 2:57 am

So lets take the devils advocate position and choose to view things the way TR1 does.

The US.... untouched by economic sanctions and economic collapse, and having never had major components like engines and transmissions produced in what is now a foreign country, with modern state of the art facilities that are funded by the largest military budget on the planet that exceeds all other budgets combined can make more SSNs than Russian can.

Hooray.

BUT.

The Russians are making more SSBNs and SSKs than the US is.

Considering SSBNs are strategically important and SSNs are not... I say the Russians are getting the best value for money.

Why do we have to compare with the US when we are constantly told Russia is a third world country with the GDP of Portugal... in that situation the Russian shipyards are doing an outstanding job... Twisted Evil

BTW any more personal attacks or abuse and this thread will be locked and the offender will get a two day break to think about why they come here.

Dima

Dima: Posts : 1222
Points : 1233
Join date : 2012-03-22

Post n°143

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Dima Sun May 03, 2015 9:05 pm

Thought about posting some timelines for US subs from wiki. Hope it helps. Approx time in years given, corrections are welcome.

Main difference between Russian and US production to be note is the contract and procurement. This is where it all makes the difference. In addition, the keel laying in most cases are not just the ceremonial hull plates like we see with Russian yards, but in cases its completed hull sections nearing 50-60% of hull and the reason why we see smaller completion timelines of 2yrs or below.

I think the blame for non-performance or lack of construction pace should rest with the political and military decision makers rather than Sevmash yard. Let them correct the planning, funding and procurement part and I can bet my arse on Sevmash delivering at a faster pace and the entire ship building industry moving to a higher level. But that said, the likes of Severnya yard which have the monopoly to build pr.22350 and pr.20380 need to be broken at the earliest and parallel construction lines needs to be started. Their monopoly is harming and will only continue to harm the Russian Navy than doing anything good.

Block-I
Block I boats were built in 10 modules with each submarine requiring roughly 7 years (84 months) to build.

USS Virginia (SSN-774)

Contract - 30 September 1998, Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics Corporation
Keel laid - 2 September 1999
Launched - 16 August 2003
Delivered - 12 October 2004
Commissioned - 23 October 2004

Time from keel to delivery/commission - 4yrs/5yrs
Time from contract to delivery/commission - 5yrs/6yrs

USS Texas (SSN-775)

Contract - 30 September 1998, Northrop Grumman Newport News shipyard
Keel laid - 12 July 2002
Launched - 9 April 2005
Delivered -
Commissioned - 9 September 2006

Time from keel to delivery/commission - /4yrs
Time from contract to delivery/commission - /8yrs

USS Hawaii (SSN-776)

Contract - 30 September 1998, Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics Corporation
Keel laid - 27 August 2004
Launched -
Delivered - 22 December 2006
Commissioned - 5 May 2007

Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - 2yrs/2.4yrs
Time from contract to delivery/commission - 8yrs/8.4yrs

USS North Carolina (SSN-777)

Contract - 30 September 1998
Keel laid - 24 May 2004
Launched - 5 May 2007
Delivered -
Commissioned - 3 May 2008

Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - /4yrs
Time from contract to delivery/commission - /10yrs

Block-II
Block II boats were built in four sections rather than ten sections, saving about $300 million per boat.

USS New Hampshire (SSN-778)

Contract - 14 August 2003, Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics Corporation
Keel laid - 30 April 2007
Launched - 21 February 2008
Delivered - 28 August 2008
Commissioned - 25 October 2008

Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - 1.25yrs/2.5yrs
Time from contract to delivery/commission - 5yrs/5yrs

USS New Mexico (SSN-779)

Contract - 14 August 2003
Keel laid - 12 April 2008
Launched - 18 January 2009
Delivered - 29 December 2009
Commissioned - 27 March 2010

Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - 1.75yrs/2yrs
Time from contract to delivery/commission - 6.3yrs/6.5yrs

USS Missouri (SSN-780)

Contract - 14 August 2003, Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics Corporation
Keel laid - 27 September 2008
Launched - 20 November 2009
Delivered -
Commissioned - 31 July 2010

Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - /1.75yrs
Time from contract to delivery/commission - /7yrs

USS California (SSN-781)

Contract - 14 August 2003, Newport News Shipbuilding
Keel laid - 1 May 2009
Launched - 14 November 2010
Delivered - 7 August 2011
Commissioned - 29 October 2011

Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - 2.25yrs/2.5yrs
Time from contract to delivery/commission - 8yrs/8.2yrs

USS Mississippi (SSN-782)

Contract - 14 August 2003, Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics Corporation
Keel laid - 9 June 2010
Launched -
Delivered -
Commissioned - 2 June 2012

Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - /2yrs
Time from contract to delivery/commission - /9yrs

USS Minnesota (SSN-783)

Contract - 14 August 2003
Keel laid - 20 May 2011
Launched -
Delivered - 6 June 2013
Commissioned - 7 September 2013

Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - 2yrs/2.25yrs
Time from contract to delivery/commission - 9.8yrs/10yrs

Block- III
Block III subs feature a revised bow with a Large Aperture Bow (LAB) sonar array, as well as technology from Ohio-class SSGNs (2 VLS tubes each containing 6 missiles). The horseshoe-shaped LAB sonar array replaces the spherical main sonar array which has been used on all U.S. Navy SSNs since 1960. The LAB sonar array is water-backed—as opposed to earlier sonar arrays which were air-backed—and consists of a passive array and a medium-frequency active array.

North Dakota (SSN-784)

Contract - 14 August 2003
Keel laid - 11 May 2012
Launched - 15 September 2013
Delivered - 29 August 2014
Commissioned - 25 October 2014

Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - 2.25yrs
Time from contract to delivery/commission - 11yrs

John Warner (SSN-785)

Contract - 22 December 2008
Keel laid - 16 Mar 2013
Launched - 10 September 2014
Delivered - contract for delivery in August 2015
Commissioned -

Time from keel laying to delivery/commission -
Time from contract to delivery/commission -

Illinois (SSN-786)

Contract - 22 December 2008
Keel laid - 2 June 2014
Launched -
Delivered - under contract to be delivered in August 2016
Commissioned -

Time from keel laying to delivery/commission -
Time from contract to delivery/commission -

Russian nuclear submarine timelines.

Pr.955 Yury Dolgorukiy

Contract - Sevmash
Keel laid - 2 November 1996
Launched - 13 February 2008
Delivered -
Commissioned - 10 January 2013

Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - /16yrs
Time from contract to delivery/commission -

Pr.955 Alexander Nevsky

Contract - Sevmash
Keel laid - 19 March 2004
Launched - 6 December 2010
Delivered -
Commissioned - 23 December 2013

Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - /9.75yrs
Time from contract to delivery/commission -

Pr.955 Vladimir Monomakh

Contract - Sevmash
Keel laid - 19 March 2006
Launched - 30 December 2012
Delivered -
Commissioned - 19 December 2014

Time from keel laying to delivery/commission - 8.75yrs
Time from contract to delivery/commission -

Pr.955A Knyaz Vladimir

Contract -
Keel laid - 30 July 2012
Launched -
Delivered -
Commissioned -

Time from keel laying to delivery/commission -
Time from contract to delivery/commission -

Pr.955A Knyaz Oleg

Contract - Sevmash
Keel laid - 27 July 2014
Launched -
Delivered -
Commissioned -

Time from keel laying to delivery/commission -
Time from contract to delivery/commission -

Russia has a long way to go in terms of numbers but it is very well doable and within the capacity and capability of the yards. But yards taken in isolation is nothing, as said earlier there has to be a proper plan with solid funding and procurement process so that yards can do what it is meant to do and not hindered by these two which are the single most factor for lack of pace from Russian yards. Blaming the yards and design bureaus for all the fault while letting go the political and decision making arseholes wont do any good and is akin to burying head in sand to the obvious problem that was the norm past decades.

PapaDragon

PapaDragon: Posts : 13272
Points : 13314
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

Post n°144

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

PapaDragon Sun May 03, 2015 9:43 pm

Dima wrote:

Try yandex translate.... https://translate.yandex.com/translate

Thanks Dima, I bookmarked that baby. thumbsup

Vann7

Vann7: Posts : 5385
Points : 5485
Join date : 2012-05-16

Post n°145

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Vann7 Sun May 03, 2015 9:45 pm

there you go. .2 years !! to build virginias.. Laughing

Is looks like 10 to me.. lol

Russia had problems that US didn't like economy default in the 90s.. and having to build a 100% new Submarine with 100% new weapons , that experience problems like Bulava those things delay project.. is normal.. But i don't think that once Russia master the process of building a Submarine.. that they will have to go through all the trial and error again.. DUH!

Also TR1 completely ignores that in Soviet times ,the 1 year submarines they produced were significantly more easier and simple to make.. and world war 2 submarines were just a piece
of closed metal with a snorkel .even less time took to make for soviets and germans.

Fortunately Russia is not cutting corners in their Yasen or Borei Submarines and each one of them is head and shoulders over their Seawolf/Virginia and Ohio submarines.. in terms of technology .. Ohios are 40 years old technology with about 40 years old tridents nukes.. for example and depends of escorts to protect it. while Borei can defend itself. and is using state of the art technology.. that Americans do not have.

Russia Defence Forum

Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Similar topics

Similar topics