Yes, Russia doesn't need as many SSNs as the US.
You can't say that though.
Russia needs rather more SSKs than the US does, so why does it not need as many SSNs?
How many SSNs does it need?
Is the number of US SSNs a factor in how many Russia needs or is it totally irrelevant?
What does Russia need SSNs for?
What are its future plans?
Correct, just pointed out that's it's BS.
And keep doing that... when you just ignore their bullshit you are accepting their lies as truth... and you become as wrong as them.
Well, if someone here gets fooled by it, then it's his problem, not mine. I think that most of us in this forum are somewhat immune to western propaganda, and learnt to take articles like this one with a grain of salt.
So if I start calling you a liar after a year or so it will be OK because only a fool would be fooled by it because everyone else would have known you long enough to know you don't lie on purpose?
Navyreco is run by french analysts and editors, so I can't really blame them, but there is one thing that they are doing good most of the time.
So you are supporting my view... if it is OK for a western website to promote anti Russian propaganda... and you can't blame them for that, then as a mod on a pro Russian website I need to remonstrate any poster who posts their propaganda bullshit so casual members who don't know any better see this crap for what it is.
Can't blame me for that now can you...
The author of this article has all rights to write down what he/she thinks about Russia, but in this case there are things that he/she isn't entirely correct about. Maybe he/she lacks enough knowledge about this and that about Russia, or maybe it is mandatory to him/her to slam Russia time to time.
Indeed it might be a requirement for them to keep their job to tow the party line and post crap.
I can say that Vlad is a good boss and does not tell me what I can or cannot say, so when I say this is anti russian propaganda I do it for love not money.
And if you keep beleieving it, your mental capabilities are questionable.
Not true... if you keep hearing it but no one counter acts the signal then it is normal to think that way. All the western media outlets talk about stories from all angles and not picking sides, but none of them actually deliver on those promises. Simply checking Russia Today or Aljezera will show there are different points of view that CNN and the BBC do not cover, so even if RT and Aljiz are bullshit at least they prove CNN and the BBC can't be telling the truth because they clearly aren't showing the Russian or Arabic view... right or wrong.
If you can't access those different media you would never know however.
Propaganda works best on people with little to no common sense, but it hardly affects the ones with knowledge and logical thinking.
Actually the whole idea of common sense is silly... for millions of years it was common sense that man could never fly, or the world is flat.
Propaganda works best on people without the time or interested to investigate things themselves... which is often the majority these days, though the internet is a good tool against that.
If you still get upset by it, then it is your fault, propagandists have achieved their goal with you.
The propagandists want me to shut up and accept their bullshit as truth... it is you and others who accept their crap that are bound in their spell. When you ignore it and even repeat it you are spreading their word... doing their work.
It's not my, neither your responsibility to say to someone that what is right and what isn't, everyone should come up with his own version, and maybe he will start to discuss it, maybe not. One thing is common in most members of this forum that we are like-minded about Russia, and we tend not to listen to western naysayers.
If someone says all blacks are dumber than whites I will also point out that this is wrong, or that all Americans are fat lazy bastards, who lie cheat and steal from everyone else on the planet to sustain their extravagant lifestyles... the reality is there are some very smart and some very dumb people and most of us are average, and that is all colours and races, and it is the 1% of Americans that are the enemy... but also the 1% of Britains and even 1% Russians... money is power and power corrupts... no matter when you come from... give me 20 billion dollars and I would probably become a paranoid asshole that builds walls and hides money so I could keep it all to myself... no... actually I would probably end up giving most of it away to people who actually need it... there are more than enough of those.
You can see one good reason for going all the way on the surface, noise. No-ones going to build a new noise profile with that amount of wave and wash.
there are some places where surface transit of submarines is required to show lack of malicious intent. I know when exiting the Black sea subs must be surfaced too.
Nato has already it's noise signature. Same for Russia and Nato boomers.
I remember reading about an incident during the Cuban Missile crisis where the situation escalated and the Soviet subs went "operational" and disappeared, suggesting peace time noise levels and war time noise levels...
The old Soviet subs sounding like a bag of hammers... might have actually had a bag of hammers attached to something in peace time... in war time the hammers come out of the bag and silence is a goal...
To be fair, considering ruble's current exchange rate, the dollar figures can be very misleading... Also, considering the fact that they are simultaneously building like 6 Yasens, it's IMO likely that a single sub doesn't even cost 1 billion dollars, let alone 2 or 3. Again, with the current exchange rate. Of course, to get a more "accurate" number you can probably almost double that (i.e. use 2013-14's exchange rate), but there's no way that even then the cost is anywhere close to $3.5 billion. That would make them totally unaffordable.
Of course the obvious factor is that the MIC in Russia is largely government owned so even enormous amounts of money spent is just money being shifted between departments, whereas western subs, the money goes into the pockets of CEOs of private companies...
Another factor is that the cost is spread over a decade or so that they took to build the damn things... 400 million a year for ten years is 4 billion...
Of course that is 4 billion dollars spent on Russian production and R and D capabilities in naval technology, so it is not just a defence purchase, but also an investment in technology that can be used in other areas too.
Since 2000 they could have easily built 2-3 more Akula SSNs and 2 more Oscar II SSGNs.
They could have built 500 Foxtrots, but they are a shrinking navy that needs quality, not large ship numbers.
Are you saying PAK FA is a mistake and the Russian AF should just build lots more Su-35 and MiG-35 aircraft?
The fact is that you keep on improving and new stuff costs... that is why it is called the (B)Leading edge.
That would have been better for them. More Oscars, Akulas and even Deltas. Refine them, sure. Go for something completely new? No. Well they did that and now they have a tiny fleet of new boomers and a collection of obsolete Soviet-era dinosaurs that require unreasonable amount of crew and maintenance.
Your suggestion is that they build more obsolete soviet era dinosaurs that require large crews and heavy maintainence instead of new modern vessels like Yasen-M... contradict yourself much?
And yeah, the single active Typhoon (merely an experimental test-bed, not active in patrols/deterrent), makes very nice videos across the Jutland.
What is your problem... it is a test vessel. Deal with it.
It's a frickin sideshow for a country that considers itself a global power. Barely at the level France and the UK.
It is a global power because it CAN level France and the UK...
One refined Oscar could have delivered 5 and 10 times that firepower and loiter for months, then fire again, whenever deemed necessary. Try loitering the high seas on them gunboats/corvettes for 2-3 months
They ARE converting Oscars to Onyx missiles... and having every gunboat/corvette being more powerful than NATO frigates (which one specifically has land attack capability right now?) is a weakness? Really?
I'm not sure if it qualifies as either strategic or cruiser.
Can kill a lot of people 30 minutes after launch, qualifies to me as Strategic... it is already more powerful than the strategic bombing fleets of both UK and France combined... even just with one test missile fitted...
In fact it is more powerful than the strategic bombing forces of all of NATO except the US combined... with one Bulava missile.