Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21429
    Points : 21979
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat May 25, 2019 3:43 am

    Papa... comparing any near future date to the serious economic collapses of the 1990s is stupid... Russia technology is in nothing like the state it was then... it had inherited some stuff from Soviet times and found a lot of the stuff they made was built from components now made in foreign countries like the Ukraine and Belarus and the other former soviet states.

    The situation even today means they have near western level equipment and in some cases better than average western equipment, and higher and higher percentages of materials and components are Russian made.

    In fact the majority of American military material is not made and cannot be sourced from US manufacturers because US companies have outsourced production to cheaper labour offshore... they don't even have tent fabric made in the US...

    At current levels and based on current agreements Russia needs about 500 SLBM warheads, and they have easily enough SSBNs to carry those... everything else the navy does is gravy right now... but in the near future they want to expand it to reach around the world for trade and economic reasons mainly and a cruiser or a 20K ton destroyer send a much clearer message than the suggestion that their might be an SSGN lurking around the place...
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 4534
    Points : 4649
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  kvs on Sat May 25, 2019 2:48 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    it will make 90s look like the good old days

    Now you're just being a twat...  FFS...  Suspect


    For pointing out numbers?

    No, for being relentlessly pessimistic and pushing a narrative...  here's an example:

    Problem is downtime: there were no new subs ordered or laid down in nearly a decade and they already have 3 empty slots on production line (Kazan, Knyaz Vladimir, Belgorord) and soon to be 4 (Khabarovsk)

    You must be joking????  Laughing

    5x Yasens laid down between 2013-17.  5x Borei laid down between 2012-16.  Khabarovsk laid down in 2014. 8x Varshavyanka laid down between 2010-17.  Lets also add another 8x export 636.1 between 2012-18 (not for Russian service, but still built in the "antiquated, shoddy and collapsing" Rusky shipyards).    thumbsup

    BTW the accursed Seppostani continuum don't build SSKs, so ignoring them when comparing US and Russian build rates is at best careless, at worse its downright deceitful. US still builds a lot more than Russia, but thats to be expected from a ruthless global hegemon that needs to leverage the planets wealth and resources in a failing bid to shore up the ticking timebomb of debt inflation and excessive financialisation of a failing economy.

    As for RuN sub numbers, when the Yasens enter service, and the 3x 971s under active repair re-enter the fleet, the relative strength of RuN SSN force will be hugely greater than its current level. But no....  you'd prefer to run around with yer arse in yer hands screaming about the how sky is falling...  tongue

    Yasen + modernised Akulas + Husky to follow (when ready), plus Oscar carrier-killers and a pair of Sierras.  Sounds like a reasonable defense force to me.  The last thing Russia needs is to adopt US style global megalomania and the savaging of national financial health that it brings.  Russia is on the right path these days, and they don't need to repeat the mistakes of the (Soviet) past.


    The often cited "fact" that the USSR "bankrupted" itself with military spending is a western myth. Capitalist economy metrics are used to evaluate a command economy
    with the predictable BS conclusions. The USSR could allocated any amount of resources to any set of tasks without any price costs. That is what a command economy
    does. It operates by directive and not prices and payments. The ruble was a nominal voucher for controlling the distribution of consumer goods, food, etc. Costs imbalances
    and inflation in command economics appear as shortages and low quality. There was no indication that the 1980s USSR military was a burden that it could not bear.
    There were plenty of resources and people left to run the rest of the economy. And any figure you see estimating the size of the military in the USSR's GDP is not
    credible since it is based on estimating prices. I have seen a figure of 30% of the USSR's GDP being allocated to the military. This figure is complete nonsense. It
    would imply that over 25% of the population was working for military industrial complexes. That is between 1 and 4 and 1 in 3. That does not agree with any first
    hand experience I or my relatives have in the USSR. And even if by some fluke this number was real. I don't see how that would undermine the USSR. The USSR
    was fully capable of automating production lines and did not need 100% of its working age population to man production lines. It is clear to me that all the "bankruptcy"
    claims are pure BS based on a total lack of understanding of the Soviet economy and its actual "costs" for doing any economic activity.

    The USSR was brought down by rot from the top. Soviet elites felt themselves too poor compared to their western equivalents (which is an indication that the USSR
    of the 1980s was not all that bad) and set out to regime change themselves in the guise of perestroika that bootsrapped a capitalist parasite class (which included
    Khodorkovsky and Berezovsk) that was sitting and waiting for the inevitable privatization and shock therapy voodoo. The notion that the USSR accumulated some
    sort of debt from its military "expenditures" (no such thing) is utterly absurd. The only way it could have "bankrupted" itself would have been for the military economy
    to crowd out the civilian economy. There is precisely zero evidence for this having happened.
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1562
    Points : 1564
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sat May 25, 2019 6:11 pm

    kvs wrote:
    The often cited "fact" that the USSR "bankrupted" itself with military spending is a western myth.   Capitalist economy metrics are used to evaluate a command economy
    with the predictable BS conclusions.   The USSR could allocated any amount of resources to any set of tasks without any price costs. 

    It's not a question of "price" costs. Its about "opportunity" costs. Using resources and manpower on building a huge submarine fleet means that you can't use those resources for purposes that improve your peoples lives. An aircraft carrier doesn't generate economic returns, while a new train line does.

    The USSR didn't put enough attention to improving the lives of its citizens (mainly because of the belligerent threat of the US) and people became disillusioned into thinking the grass was greener on the other side (it wasn't, unless you like being a serf working to enrich a selfish ruling class of elitist c_nts).

    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 4534
    Points : 4649
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  kvs on Sat May 25, 2019 6:30 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    The often cited "fact" that the USSR "bankrupted" itself with military spending is a western myth.   Capitalist economy metrics are used to evaluate a command economy
    with the predictable BS conclusions.   The USSR could allocated any amount of resources to any set of tasks without any price costs. 

    It's not a question of "price" costs. Its about "opportunity" costs. Using resources and manpower on building a huge submarine fleet means that you can't use those resources for purposes that improve your peoples lives. An aircraft carrier doesn't generate economic returns, while a new train line does.

    The USSR didn't put enough attention to improving the lives of its citizens (mainly because of the belligerent threat of the US) and people became disillusioned into thinking the grass was greener on the other side (it wasn't, unless you like being a serf working to enrich a selfish ruling class of elitist c_nts).


    I do not agree. The USSR did produce consumer goods and produced them in needed amounts and with the right characteristics. It is
    yet another western propaganda trope that Soviet goods were all crap. Shiny crap is what you have now totally dominating western
    markets.

    As with food shortages, consumer goods shortages were deliberately engineered to facilitate regime change. I already posted on the
    dumping of food in massive amounts during the late 1980s. The same thing happened with consumer goods. So this was not a natural
    outcome from both policy and capacity of the USSR command economy. It was pure intrigue and corruption. When the authoritarians
    in charge decide to change economic systems, there is nothing the grass roots can do but go for the ride. People think that
    revolutions are easy and spontaneous. No, they are expensive and organized. Nobody was organizing any resistance to Gorby's
    perestrokia since it was supposed to make people's lives better. The whole system fell apart too fast for any organized resistance
    to the shock therapy economics that came after 1991. People were confused about the source of the shortages and the crisis.

    As for today, Russians got lucky that they got "tyrant" Putin. No system can stay functional without the right people in charge.
    This is not understood by the vast majority of the humans on this planet. They have swallowed the BS that magical self-regulating
    political and economic systems exist. In the real world we have the total farce of the "checks and balances" in the USA. The
    rot is permeating the whole system and it is now a self-defeating joke. Only if key positions are staffed by people who do their
    jobs and can do them well that you get functional systems. This is a real challenge when most people are easily tempted by money
    and will cheat to get it if they have a chance. And it is even worse, since corruption is an organized crime like process where
    there is a slow infiltration of compromised and networked individuals in key positions. There are no checks and balances for such
    decay.

    When Putin leaves the scene, Russia may get some bureaucratic nobody who will not engage in the required "tyranny". And things can
    go south just as fast if not faster as in the case of the USSR during the late 1980s.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8158
    Points : 8244
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat May 25, 2019 8:14 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    The often cited "fact" that the USSR "bankrupted" itself with military spending is a western myth.   Capitalist economy metrics are used to evaluate a command economy
    with the predictable BS conclusions.   The USSR could allocated any amount of resources to any set of tasks without any price costs. 

    It's not a question of "price" costs. Its about "opportunity" costs. Using resources and manpower on building a huge submarine fleet means that you can't use those resources for purposes that improve your peoples lives. An aircraft carrier doesn't generate economic returns, while a new train line does.

    The USSR didn't put enough attention to improving the lives of its citizens (mainly because of the belligerent threat of the US) and people became disillusioned into thinking the grass was greener on the other side (it wasn't, unless you like being a serf working to enrich a selfish ruling class of elitist c_nts).




    USSR didn't tank because they were investing in nuclear deterrent (it was one thing they were mostly smart about) they tanked because they were wasting money and resources on overbloathed and redundant conventional military

    They already had nukes but they still wasted money on huge pointless conventional force that they would never get to use because whole thing would have gone nuclear anyway

    They should have just put nuclear component on 24/7 hair trigger alert, make sure other side knows the score, disband everything but basic conventional units and redirect the money into economy

    But they didn't do that because they had idiotic irrational fear of nuclear war while Americans were never afraid to press the red button on moment's notice, better dead than red and it paid off big time

    Instead of accepting reality and focusing on welfare of their people they were just coward pussies who thought that some tanks would stop the inevitable

    They should have put responsibility for Armageddon on other side and moved on with their lives, instead they telegraphed their weakness and were called on their bluff

    Nuclear submarines are part of naval component that keeps you safe not some overpriced bathtubs that do nothing of relevance and are just sending message that you don't plan on pulling the trigger when it matters



    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 739
    Points : 731
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat May 25, 2019 10:18 pm

    [quote="PapaDragon"]
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    The often cited "fact" that the USSR "bankrupted" itself with military spending is a western myth.   Capitalist economy metrics are used to evaluate a command economy
    with the predictable BS conclusions.   The USSR could allocated any amount of resources to any set of tasks without any price costs. 




    And then what's about USA?
    They spent 7-10% of GDP for military back then, for conventional military mainly.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8158
    Points : 8244
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat May 25, 2019 10:56 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    The often cited "fact" that the USSR "bankrupted" itself with military spending is a western myth.   Capitalist economy metrics are used to evaluate a command economy
    with the predictable BS conclusions.   The USSR could allocated any amount of resources to any set of tasks without any price costs. 


    And then what's about USA?
    They spent 7-10% of GDP for military back then, for conventional military mainly.


    What about it?

    The moment they try to use it is the moment world ends. Simple as that.

    If they want everything to go up in flames that would have been out of USSR's hands (and it was)

    Live your life and let fate decide, same thing I would advise current Russia.





    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21429
    Points : 21979
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 26, 2019 4:09 am

    It's not a question of "price" costs. Its about "opportunity" costs. Using resources and manpower on building a huge submarine fleet means that you can't use those resources for purposes that improve your peoples lives. An aircraft carrier doesn't generate economic returns, while a new train line does.

    A huge submarine fleet would be worse than an aircraft carrier in terms of wasted resources... it is a bit like having 40,000 tanks and all the necessary supporting vehicles when there is no interest in invading europe... it makes rather more sense to have maybe 6,000 tanks that can be moved rapidly to where they were needed plus having enough IRBMs to obliterate any armoured threat coming from Europe or elsewhere.

    Having no tanks makes you vulnerable... an eggshell... either all or nothing, so you need some conventional might.

    It is the same at sea, you need to be able to operate anywhere in the world... and if you want to operate away from mainland Russia or allied countries you need an aircraft carrier to support your operations.

    It doesn't need to be a US designed 100K ton super carrier... if they can make that multihull 45K ton carrier with slightly better aircraft capacity than the Kuznetsov then that would be perfect... as long as they can put a decent AWACS platform on it and modern capable fighters... ie Su-57 rather than Yak-41.

    USSR didn't tank because they were investing in nuclear deterrent (it was one thing they were mostly smart about) they tanked because they were wasting money and resources on overbloathed and redundant conventional military

    They already had nukes but they still wasted money on huge pointless conventional force that they would never get to use because whole thing would have gone nuclear anyway

    They should have just put nuclear component on 24/7 hair trigger alert, make sure other side knows the score, disband everything but basic conventional units and redirect the money into economy

    But they didn't do that because they had idiotic irrational fear of nuclear war while Americans were never afraid to press the red button on moment's notice, better dead than red and it paid off big time

    Instead of accepting reality and focusing on welfare of their people they were just coward pussies who thought that some tanks would stop the inevitable

    Interesting that you think they went full cycle... from Stalin saying Russia was backwards and will be crushed by the west if they don't upgrade, to out producing the west in conventional military means and destroying themselves...

    The real question is... at rather more than a trillion dollars a year in "defence" with US demands for more spending by their allies, is NATO headed the same way?

    Right now 4% of GDP is the gravy... it is the extra money you can spend on healthcare and education and parks and people to make life better and more comfortable for everyone...

    When balancing a budget you pay the critical things first and luxury items last but it seems the military spending is doing away with the luxury items and the saving which is both uncomfortable and short sighted.

    Nuclear submarines are part of naval component that keeps you safe not some overpriced bathtubs that do nothing of relevance and are just sending message that you don't plan on pulling the trigger when it matters

    Bullshit.

    The only subs that really matter are SSBNs and with the numbers of missiles they carry and the number of warheads on each missile they need less than a dozen to do the job... everything else is bullshit... they could simply block off the ports with nets and mines or sail their SSBNs up rivers and do the same and just launch... once the missiles are launched which would take less than ten minutes they have no further value.

    How is an SSN supposed to save an SSBN from being attacked?

    Jump in the path of a torpedo like some bullshit hollywood movie?

    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13418
    Points : 13905
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:59 am

    Russian Nuclear Submarines status (UPDATE)

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 19 87533_original


    Last edited by George1 on Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13418
    Points : 13905
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:33 pm

    The Zvezda Ship Repair Center in the Russian Far East has launched repairs of the Project 949A nuclear-powered submarine Irkutsk and the Project 971 nuclear-powered underwater cruiser Magadan that are in service with Russia’s Pacific Fleet, the Zvezda press office reported on Tuesday.

    https://tass.com/defense/1071009

    Sponsored content

    Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:47 am