Go to page :

1 ... 11 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 26248
Points : 26794
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°451

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

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 : 7049
Points : 7198
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Canuckistan

Post n°452

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

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...

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????

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).

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...

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 : 2101
Points : 2103
Join date : 2014-08-25
Location : Melbourne, Australia

Post n°453

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

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 : 7049
Points : 7198
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Canuckistan

Post n°454

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

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 : 9506
Points : 9588
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

Post n°455

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

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 : 838
Points : 828
Join date : 2016-11-13

Post n°456

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

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 : 9506
Points : 9588
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

Post n°457

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

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 : 26248
Points : 26794
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°458

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

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 : 15030
Points : 15533
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece

Post n°459

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

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 : 15030
Points : 15533
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece

Post n°460

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

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

Rodion_Romanovic

Rodion_Romanovic: Posts : 1124
Points : 1122
Join date : 2015-12-30

Post n°461

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Rodion_Romanovic on Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:26 pm

I don't know if the question has already been asked here.

Previously, in soviet times, both diesel and nuclear submarines were built also in "Krasnye Sormovo" shipyard in Nizhny Novgorod (the last kilo class produced there was delivered in 1995 to the chinese navy) and in the Amur shipyard in the far east.

Now the nuclear subs are built only at Sevmash in Severodinsk, while the diesel electric subs at the Admiralty shipyard in San Petersburg.

Why? Is it more efficient to concentrate the production at a single shipyards, or it was done to allow Red Sormovo and Amur shipyard to focus on other products?

Probably the navy believes that the rate of production of subs is sufficient (since they have in total just 61 submarines in active service and not 270 like in 1990) and do not need additional shipyards dedicated to it.

Still, it would be interesting to know if those two shipyards have maintained capabilities to produce submarines, should the need arise. Afterall, it is dangerous to put all the eggs in one basket...

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 26248
Points : 26794
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°462

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

GarryB on Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:03 am

Well I don't know, I will say to start with, but if you think of the issue... Russia is never going to need enormous numbers of subs, and probably can't afford to produce them at an enormous rate. In terms of technology, new subs are going to be very high tech items, and the skill and technology to make them would be wasted if you want all your shipyards to produce one each.

We know that during difficult times they gave contracts for ships to different shipyards, which was criticised by a few at the time because if they went to one shipyard it could be tooled up and trained up to build that type of ship and then make more much faster and much better than four different shipyards making the same ship, but different times have different requirements... if they had one shipyard making four ships at once then there might have been some flexablity and cost saving... buying four lots of everything should make them cheaper, and if there is a hold up then they can shift resources so perhaps only one ship gets delayed instead of more, whereas if four different shipyards get one ship to make each you might find one shipyard can't get enough computer screens, while another shipyard might not be able to get something else so two ships are delayed for different things whereas if one shipyard was making four ships they could make one ship delayed with the bits they can't get at the time instead of two or more.

The thing is that while making four ships in four shipyards is less efficient, it also means four shipyards have modern work, and fund improved tooling and ship building practises, and they can get experience building new modern ships, so after the job of building one frigate for India is over they can be ready to make four frigates each for Russia.... with a total contract for say four new frigates each.

In terms of conventional submarines, I don't know what the current state of affairs is, but they want something like 6 new Lada class subs built over the next few years, plus any that might be for export, so they should be kept busy for a while I would expect.

I would think not just any shipyard can handle nuclear powered vessels, which is not to say they couldn't build a nuclear propelled vessel that could then be towed to a location where a modular nuclear power plant could be lowered into place and connected to the ship... I suspect their plans for future all electric vessels will have a plug and play powerplant, so whether it is a boiler or a gas turbine or a diesel engine or a nuclear power plant they could drop it into position and plug it in... with all electric drive there is no need for big heavy shafts etc, they could have podded engines under the hull with full 360 degree rotation for extreme manoeuvre performance...

Rodion_Romanovic

Rodion_Romanovic: Posts : 1124
Points : 1122
Join date : 2015-12-30

Post n°463

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Rodion_Romanovic on Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:35 pm

By the way, I was reading about some of the last nuclear submarines built in Nizhny Novgorod, the 2 project 945 barracuda and the 2 945A condor.

They have all titanium hulls, that are still in excellent shape.

A few years ago they planned to modernise them, but apparently this has been put on hold.

I believe I remember reading something about it in this forum...

Anyway

https://www.korabel.ru/news/comments/remont_dvuh_titanovyh_podvodnyh_lodok_proekta_945_poschitali_necelesoobraznym.html

Repair of two titanium submarines of project 945 was considered inappropriate

07/25/2018 // project 945 barracuda ,

Companies: "Ship repair center" Zvezdochka ", AO

Director of the Zvezdochka ship repair center Sergey Marichev shared his opinion on the possible repair of Project 945 submarines.

Repair of two titanium submarines of project 945 Karp and Kostroma was suspended indefinitely,director of the Zvezdochka ship repair center Sergei Marichev said in an interview with TASS.

“The contract for the repair of these ships was concluded in 2012 and, at the direction of the customer, was suspended in 2015. There have not yet been a decision to take an inventory of orders. From the point of view of technology, in my opinion, the decision was right - the feasibility of repair and modernization of titanium ships seems doubtful, "said Marichev.

The head of the enterprise noted that these are unit submarines, and therefore problems with equipment are inevitable. At the same time, work with titanium cases requires special conditions.

“Objectively speaking, it will be more expensive and more difficult to repair them, to operate and maintain technical readiness - too, and the ship’s characteristics will not exceed other multi-purpose submarine projects,” said Marichev

Last year the director of Zvezdochka ship repair center said that it would not make much sense to spend money modernising them.

It is not clear if this is true, or if he said that only because his shipyard does not have the technology and the capabilities to work with titanium hulls.

To me, it seems a bit like the fable of The Fox and the Grapes.

In that case, maybe the shipyard that build them retained some of those capabilities. Even if not, it could be worth to invest in restoring those.

Afterall Russia, in order to restart the construction of the Tu-160 strategic bomber, just restored certain production technologies such as electron-beam welding or titanium work reportedly lost after the termination of serial production in 1992.

George1

George1: Posts : 15030
Points : 15533
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece

Post n°464

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

George1 on Mon Sep 09, 2019 10:33 pm

Russian Navy to get four nuclear subs next year — shipyard

In 2020, for the first time since 1992, the Russian Navy will get six submarines: four nuclear-powered and two diesel electric subs

SEVERODVINSK /Arkhangelsk region/, September 9. /TASS/. The Russian Navy will get one nuclear submarine by the end of 2019 and four more - in 2020, Sevmash shipyard Director General Mikhail Budnichenko told reporters on Monday.

"We will deliver one nuclear sub this year and four more - next year, strictly in line with the contract," he said.

Russian Deputy Defense Minister Alexei Krivoruchko said that next year, Sevmash is to deliver the special-purpose Belgorod nuclear-powered submarine, Project-955A (Borei-A class) Knyaz Vladimir strategic submarine and two Project 885M (Yasen-M class) nuclear-powered cruise missile submarines, the Kazan and the Novosibirsk.

In July, Budnichenko said that the Knyaz Vladimir strategic submarine will be delivered to the Russian Navy by the end of 2019.

A defense industry source earlier told TASS that in 2020, for the first time since 1992, the Russian Navy would get six submarines: the four nuclear submarines mentioned by Krivoruchko plus two diesel electric subs: the Volkhov submarine of Project 636.3 (improved Kilo-class) and Project 677 (Lada-class) diesel-powered attack submarine, the Kronshtadt.
Additional contracts

Besides, the Russian Defense Ministry plans additional deliveries of two Project 885M (Yasen-M class) nuclear-powered cruise missile submarines and two Project 955A (Borei-A class) Knyaz Vladimir strategic submarines for the Russian Navy, Krivoruchko said.

"During the Army-2010 forum, we signed a contract for an additional delivery of two Yasen-M and - the decision in principle has already been made on that - will sign a contract for two Borei-A class subs," he said.

Borei Project

Project 955 and Project 955A underwater cruisers are referred to the fourth generation of nuclear-powered submarines and are part of Russia’s nuclear triad. Borei submarines are armed with Bulava solid-propellant intercontinental ballistic missiles. Each submarine is capable of carrying up to 16 such ICBMs. The submarines will replace third-generation 667BDR strategic missile-carrying submarines in the Pacific Fleet and 667BDRM subs in the Northern Fleet.

The Project 955 and 955A submarines have been developed by the Rubin Central Design Bureau for Marine Engineering. The Sevmash Shipyard continues building four Project 955A submarines (the Knyaz Oleg, the Generalissimus Suvorov, the Emperor Alexander III and the Knyaz Pozharsky).

According to open sources, Borei-A submarines feature an upgraded hull, new electronics and better stealth technology compared to their predecessors.

Yasen Project

Russia’s Sevmash Shipyard has built and delivered the baseline Project 885 Yasen-class submarine Severodvinsk to the Navy. It has entered service with Russia’s Northern Fleet. The improved Project 885M Yasen-M lead submarine Kazan is currently undergoing trials. Five more Project 885M submarines are at various stages of their construction. The Project 885 and Project 885M submarines have been developed by the St. Petersburg-based Malakhit Marine Engineering Bureau.

https://tass.com/defense/1077381

slasher

slasher: Posts : 95
Points : 95
Join date : 2015-09-28

Post n°465

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

slasher on Sun Oct 27, 2019 11:13 pm

Thought this should be placed here on this thread.
Grom-2019: What went “wrong” in recent exercises of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation?

Quite a damning picture. Lot of work needs to be done rather than persisting with stubborn denials and burying heads in sand.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 26248
Points : 26794
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°466

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

GarryB on Mon Oct 28, 2019 10:16 am

Well it seems to revolve around the fact that they launched older missiles instead of new one suggesting Bulava (Mace) can't be fired under ice... yet this is just speculation from the author.

As mentioned in the comments below the article it was an exercise... why not use up old missiles instead of burning new ones?

Production of Borei class subs continues so more Mace platforms are being created while older SSBNs are getting near the end of their lives so new production old missiles really doesn't make sense.

They will know how many missiles they have and of which types and I am pretty sure they will have excess older missiles for the few Delta IIIs left in service. They will know when the new Boreis are coming in to service and will know how long they need to operate Delta IIIs and their missiles... and I suspect with all the DIIIs retired they have quite a few spares there that need to be used and carried by operational subs... but as the number of operational DIIIs dwindle then the need to large supplies of the older missiles becomes problematic... they need some to carry on those subs while they are operational but they wont need dozens of missiles because they wont be in service forever... so using up old missiles during exercises makes a lot of sense... and in no way indicates a lack in the newer missiles which were tested a month or two ago anyway.

Sounds like a storm in a teacup to me.

Big_Gazza

Big_Gazza: Posts : 2101
Points : 2103
Join date : 2014-08-25
Location : Melbourne, Australia

Post n°467

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Big_Gazza on Mon Oct 28, 2019 10:21 am

slasher wrote:Quite a damning picture. Lot of work needs to be done rather than persisting with stubborn denials and burying heads in sand.

Pfftt... Chicken-Little sky-is-falling BS from people who should know better but clearly have unstated agendas. censored

off.

Tsavo Lion

Tsavo Lion: Posts : 4665
Points : 4661
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA

Post n°468

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Tsavo Lion on Mon Oct 28, 2019 2:49 pm

Well it seems to revolve around the fact that they launched older missiles instead of new one suggesting Bulava (Mace) can't be fired under ice... yet this is just speculation from the author.

Even if they could, as he also states, the US/UK SSNs can still get them there. So regardless, it comes down to having robust ASW capability & a balanced fleet.
OTH, a sub can break through the ice with her haul & with the aid of torpedoes- no need to spend time searching for a polynia to launch her BMs.

PapaDragon

PapaDragon: Posts : 9506
Points : 9588
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

Post n°469

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

PapaDragon on Mon Oct 28, 2019 10:22 pm

GarryB wrote:Well it seems to revolve around the fact that they launched older missiles instead of new one suggesting Bulava (Mace) can't be fired under ice... yet this is just speculation from the author....

As someone who is not above taking a piss at Russia when they screw up I have to ask:

WHO WRITES THIS SHIT?

Bulava can't be fired under the ice? Nothing can be fired under the ice!

Launching SLBM through the ice is the best way to nuke yourself.

Even Typhoon AKA Satan's Cathedral SSBN had to break through the ice before launching the missile.

Some obsolete missile on obsolete submarine reported error so they scrubbed the launch. Big deal, now at least they finally know exact expiration date for average SLBM.

Only conclusion to be drawn from this is that they should just order more Borei subs.

Seriously, who writes this shit? Was it the same clown who said ''US plane can find 12 subs in one go, must build carriers instead?''

Was it him?

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 26248
Points : 26794
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°470

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

GarryB on Tue Oct 29, 2019 2:20 am

The purpose of an exercise is to test things work as intended for real scenarios and realistic jobs, so if they have found some problems then that is a good thing.... the idea of exercises is to prepare for real war so if you find problems then you need to solve them rather than ignoring them and hoping no one will notice.

In this case however it seems to be more pointing out a problem that isn't actually a problem... which is just anti navy propaganda.

Tsavo Lion

Tsavo Lion: Posts : 4665
Points : 4661
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA

Post n°471

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Tsavo Lion on Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:26 am

Nothing can be fired under the ice!

it was 1st done back in 1983 by a Delta II:
https://books.google.com/books?id=HjMsDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT158&lpg=PT158&dq=fired+under+the+ice+ballistic&source=bl&ots=XVQOf_D1vA&sig=ACfU3U00hExVxN57hhmff40ZAnx30mYOAg&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3gaX4rMDlAhWOtZ4KHb6PBjUQ6AEwBHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=fired%20under%20the%20ice%20ballistic&f=false

Since the Bulava is shorter range than the Sineva, & for better protection from enemy ASW, it would help to have under ice launch capability; therefore, the article isn't wrong about criticising the alleged lack of it. They have a protecting shield to survive reentry & would be even more strengthened to break ice. Their warheads r designed to detonate only at certain altitude, so the impact of hitting ice won't cause it.
Some years ago, 1 armed SLBM was dropped on a pier during its offloading in the US, & nothing happened.

kvs

kvs: Posts : 7049
Points : 7198
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Canuckistan

Post n°472

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

kvs on Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:58 am

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Nothing can be fired under the ice!

it was 1st done back in 1983 by a Delta II:
https://books.google.com/books?id=HjMsDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT158&lpg=PT158&dq=fired+under+the+ice+ballistic&source=bl&ots=XVQOf_D1vA&sig=ACfU3U00hExVxN57hhmff40ZAnx30mYOAg&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3gaX4rMDlAhWOtZ4KHb6PBjUQ6AEwBHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=fired%20under%20the%20ice%20ballistic&f=false

Since the Bulava is shorter range than the Sineva, & for better protection from enemy ASW, it would help to have under ice launch capability; therefore, the article isn't wrong about criticising the alleged lack of it. They have a protecting shield to survive reentry & would be even more strengthened to break ice. Their warheads r designed to detonate only at certain altitude, so the impact of hitting ice won't cause it.
Some years ago, 1 armed SLBM was dropped on a pier during its offloading in the US, & nothing happened.

It was certainly not done when there was a solid layer of 3 meters of ice. It wasn't done through 1.5 meters of ice either. It was
pure show-off theater through what amounts to slush. The technical definition of "ice cover" does not assume contiguous ice but
includes ice cube pieces floating the the water forming a layer.

The operating procedure for US subs to fire their missiles at the USSR/Russia is to first break through the ice. And even under this regime
of operation they cannot break through 3 meters of ice without a lot of damage. So the US navy funded a sea ice thickness forecast
system to choose the thinnest ice to break through (http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/).

Tsavo Lion

Tsavo Lion: Posts : 4665
Points : 4661
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA

Post n°473

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Tsavo Lion on Tue Oct 29, 2019 5:13 am

It was certainly not done when there was a solid layer of 3 meters of ice. It wasn't done through 1.5 meters of ice either.

have u been there during that trial?
Most of ice cover is less than 3m thick; the thickness varies & a sub can find thinner ice in less than an hour or 2, unless it patrols under multi-year pack ice.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 26248
Points : 26794
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°474

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

GarryB on Tue Oct 29, 2019 9:52 am

The ice pack is getting smaller and smaller... running 40 odd ice breakers in the region means they could simply have their SSBNs shadow some ship convoys going about their normal business and to surface in the slush trail to launch their missiles.

Soviet subs have upward looking sonar systems to check ice depths rather precisely... they should be able to emergency surface at a steep angle so any damage occurs to the bow and front of the sail... which should allow normal missile launches.

Their only subs with the missiles in front of the sail are the Akula (Typhoon) which are actually designed to surface through solid ice up to 3 metres thick.

owais.usmani

owais.usmani: Posts : 377
Points : 377
Join date : 2019-03-27
Age : 34

Post n°475

Re: Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

owais.usmani on Wed Oct 30, 2019 6:58 am

PapaDragon wrote:

GarryB wrote:Well it seems to revolve around the fact that they launched older missiles instead of new one suggesting Bulava (Mace) can't be fired under ice... yet this is just speculation from the author....

As someone who is not above taking a piss at Russia when they screw up I have to ask:

WHO WRITES THIS SHIT?

Bulava can't be fired under the ice? Nothing can be fired under the ice!

Launching SLBM through the ice is the best way to nuke yourself.

Even Typhoon AKA Satan's Cathedral SSBN had to break through the ice before launching the missile.

Some obsolete missile on obsolete submarine reported error so they scrubbed the launch. Big deal, now at least they finally know exact expiration date for average SLBM.

Only conclusion to be drawn from this is that they should just order more Borei subs.

Seriously, who writes this shit? Was it the same clown who said ''US plane can find 12 subs in one go, must build carriers instead?''

Was it him?

I am not Russian, but reading that article through machine translation, I got the impression that the author actually wanted to say that the Borei subs cannot break through Arctic ice to fire Bulava slbm should such need arises, and are dependent upon ice free stretch of ocean for this job. Any native Russian speaker can clarify if I am correct here or mistaken.

Russia Defence Forum

Russian Nuclear Submarine Force: Discussion

Russian Navy to get four nuclear subs next year — shipyard