Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Share

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3349
    Points : 3469
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Vann7 on Sat May 02, 2015 9:25 am

    TR1 wrote:Building subs like no tommorow rofl.

    Why don't you go look at the pace of Russian nuclear boat construction.

    You are high if you think the Russian navy sub fleet will be close in size to the US navy by 2020.
    It can't even keep half of its attack subs operational today, with a much smaller overall fleet.
    If anything a reduction in the fleet size is 1.) absolutely inevitable, particularly with nuke boats and 2.) probably makes a whole lot of sense instead of a bloated force that is barely operational.

    To be fair most countries take much longer than the US does to spit out nuclear boats as well.

    Vann gonna Vann.

    EDIT: Also,t here are planned to be 18 or so Virginias before 2020.
    They don't need to lay the boats down a decade in advance since...construction actually moves fast.

    And, another 10 Block IV boats by 2023.

    So don't worry, the numbers won't be anywhere close, even if some cuts happen along the way.

    US navy is building 4 new submarines..  Russia is building 14 new Submarines.. including diesel electric. no idea how you don't see the significant more submarines Russia is building.. is far more than US navy..

    according to Global Firepower.. 2015..

    http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=United-States-of-America  

    Already Russia have 55 Submarines.. and US 72..
    if all Submarines remain in service until 2020.. and the new ones in construction finished .
    Then Russia will have 55 +14 submarines = 69   and US will have 72+4 = 76.
    So that is very close to me.. this is not counting how there are conflicting reports
    that the Navy wants 8 to 10 Borei submarines.. if they build 8,then we will be in the 71 vs 76.

    But for sure some will be decommissioned after 2020 from both sides , "Ohios already have 40 years in service) .. so Russia should be even above 60 subs.. and US in 70 or less. This is only
    about Submarines.. not about Surface warships.. that Russia is far behind in terms of destroyers and cruisers.. still Russia manage to balance by the significant number of corvettes they have.
    with very capable anti ship missiles. that can defeat any destroyer or cruiser.
    counting destroyers/cruisers/Frigates and corvetters.. US navy have 72 warships (not including aircraftcarriers) and Russia navy have 90 warships..

    Russia navy looks pretty dam good ,for only having 10% of the budget of the US navy..
    And if Russia is building 14 brand new state of the art submarines ,vs 4 new subs that US navy is building. then i consider that very impressive. how much more Russia is doing.
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5718
    Points : 5756
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on Sat May 02, 2015 9:38 am

    It doesn't matter how many subs you are building it once.

    The US takes a few years to make a boat at most.
    Russia has taken a decade in many cases.

    This is so simple I am shocked even you don't get it.

    Your numbers are grossly off.

    Are you trying to troll?

    Russia is modernizing only a small part of its submarine force total.
    It won't just add on boats, good grief.

    I've posted the entire Russian submarine invantory here before. Don't be lazy, go look.

    Russia having 60 operational (and I count in repairs as operational, as long as its not "waiting for repairs" for a decade like half the fleet has been) submarines is a pipe dream.

    Complete fantasy.
    Even counting diseal boats, which are ofc of much smaller tonnage than the nuke subs.

    http://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/93198.html

    Here is the painful reality, not your delusional fantasies.


    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5718
    Points : 5756
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on Sat May 02, 2015 9:41 am

    How many new nuclear attack submarines has Russia gotten in the past 15 years Vann?
    1. and it is in experimental service to date, not even regular.

    How many operational diseal attack boats Vann?
    Two. And a barely operational Lada, the Petersburg.


    Yep, pumping them out like no tomorrow alright!

    eridan
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 131
    Points : 139
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  eridan on Sat May 02, 2015 12:34 pm

    TR1 wrote:

    http://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/93198.html

    Here is the painful reality, not your delusional fantasies.



    Since i can't use translator on an image, can i get some help with the spreadsheet? At first i thought green rows represent active ships but then i realized that can't be right, as just a few subs would be active. So is there an easy way to tell (for a non-russian speaking person) which of the ships on the list are active duty ships? (even if they're undergoing refit)
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5718
    Points : 5756
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on Sat May 02, 2015 7:59 pm

    eridan wrote:
    TR1 wrote:

    http://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/93198.html

    Here is the painful reality, not your delusional fantasies.



    Since i can't use translator on an image, can i get some help with the spreadsheet? At first i thought green rows represent active ships but then i realized that can't be right, as just a few subs would be active. So is there an easy way to tell (for a non-russian speaking person) which of the ships on the list are active duty ships? (even if they're undergoing refit)

    Yeah I have my own list using this source (among others, if I consider any more reliable), once I update it with the latest info I will re-post it.

    And yeah it is fairly accurate. He might be off on 1 or 2 971 boats, but overall the picture is correct. Keep in mind yellow contains ships that are generally active, but are in repairs right now, and are expected to be back before long.
    It also includes boats that have been sitting at dock for a decade waiting repairs, and only recently got a modernization project.
    And ofc it includes boats that have been out of active service, and are not under any serious repairs likely to yield service any time soon barring a sudden financial miracle.

    Some differences of opinion are for example (from 971s):
    He thinks Tigr is out. Other decent sources indicate it could be in service right now, assuming the planned technical work happened. So, the status is unclear.
    Gepard is under dock repairs, but they are fairly light and might soon be finished. Something like that I generally count as active, but he gets a little more detailed.


    Which is why I am flabbergasted at the feces coming out of Vanns mouth. 60 boats.......a third of the nuclear attack fleet isn't even operational right now.

    avatar
    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2774
    Points : 2832
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Mike E on Sat May 02, 2015 8:29 pm

    TR1.... It may take decades because of unseen problems etc etc. The first Borei took almost two decades, I wonder why...  Wink

    Once they get in the hang of things, production will speed up and get more consistent. 

     - This forum is exploding... Record is now 380 at one time!  Smile

    dionis
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 63
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  dionis on Sat May 02, 2015 9:14 pm

    TR1 wrote:It doesn't matter how many subs you are building it once.

    The US takes a few years to make a boat at most.
    Russia has taken a decade in many cases.


    Now you are just making crap up.

    The US took 4 years to build the first Virginia, and 1 year for the latest.

    "Many cases" - what cases? 2? Sure, the first 885 and 955 subs might have taken "a decade" - but these numbers are for the FIRST nuclear subs Russia ever made post USSR, and they WILL (forget 'are expected to') drop significantly.

    Kazan underwent modifications, so it will also take a while longer to build.

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

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3349
    Points : 3469
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Vann7 on Sat May 02, 2015 9:52 pm

    TR1 obviously do not know the difference between Time it gets a brand new
    Submarine from scratch never done before vs the time to build submarines already mastered
    its production and done on serial..  

    The delay of first Borey and also first Yasen have been for lack of fund and also the weapons not finished BUlava for example its failure issues significantly delayed the Borei.. now all those problems have been sorted..

    Building a new Submarine from zero always takes a lot more of time.. but once you master it.
    is can be significantly done far more faster. The believe that Russia will take a decade to build a submarine can only come from pure ignorance ,that do not see the difference between building a brand new submarine ,with lots of research and testing  and building a model in serial that already is proven and tested.

    US is building 4 new subs and Russia 14.. that shows a singnificant difference is speed ,and that RUssia as i said is building subs like there is no tomorrow.

    Since TR1 says Russia is "slow" and US is "fast".. lets see how long it took US to build
    its first ever Seawolf Class Submarine.. a new model never done before..

    Design work of Seawolf began in.... 1983
    then laid down .... 1989
    then launched in 1995
    and then finally commissioned in ......1997

    So you have there how much? 14 years!!!!!! for building a new submarine.. from scratch.
    Naturally first time things takes much more TR1.. but once all problems sorted out ,in funding
    and in technology issues.. the following submatines takes far less time.. a year or two. This is pretty simple concept that anyone can understand.. somehow TR1 not.

    Borei is a brand new submarine.. Yasen and brand new submarine.. too.. and Borei have brand new weapons ,same with Yasen. and both had problems with the technology and funding ,just like USA.. usually the estimated price is always lower than the real one.. because technology when is new , it needs to be tested and experience issues.. and such delays increase the cost.
    but once all is sorted out.. the serial production becomes much faster ,since they are not testing anymore new things but reproducing them.


    Last edited by Vann7 on Sat May 02, 2015 10:09 pm; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3196
    Points : 3312
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  flamming_python on 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.
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5718
    Points : 5756
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on 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.

    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5718
    Points : 5756
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on 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.
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5718
    Points : 5756
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on 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.
    avatar
    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2849
    Points : 2974
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  kvs on 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.
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5718
    Points : 5756
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on 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
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3349
    Points : 3469
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Vann7 on 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
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5718
    Points : 5756
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on 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.


    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5718
    Points : 5756
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on 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.
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5718
    Points : 5756
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on 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."

    http://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
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3349
    Points : 3469
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Vann7 on Sat May 02, 2015 10:41 pm

    TR1 wrote:

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

     Rolling Eyes


    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
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5718
    Points : 5756
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on 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.
    avatar
    mack8
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 954
    Points : 1014
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  mack8 on 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
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5718
    Points : 5756
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on 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.
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5718
    Points : 5756
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on 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
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3349
    Points : 3469
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Vann7 on 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?
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5718
    Points : 5756
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on 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.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon May 29, 2017 11:27 am