Talking bollocks thread #4

No Garry, I'm not shouting, I'm just indicating in capital letters what I think is important.

https://www.lifewire.com/why-not-to-write-in-all-caps-1173242

I believe that Russian shipbuilding is very very inefficient and I am not the only one who thinks so.

You have made your opinion very clear in several different threads that are not intended for opinions on the state of Russian shipbuilding like this one on Kilo class SSKs.

It doesn't matter about China as much as it matters that Russia needs almost 10 years to build a SSGN submarine or project 20380 corvette. The 22350 frigates are not even worth mentioning. Those frigates will become obsolete before they were build in sufficient numbers.

The problem is not them, it is you.

Your lack of understanding about what goes in to designing and building a brand new ship design.

Do you think they have a computer programme they just push a button and a brand new ship appears and they send that design to the shipyards who follow step by step instructions to make that ship and they just start cranking them out as fast as they can?

These new ship designs are fully multirole and some will be used in all five Russian fleets... Caspian Sea, Black Sea, Baltic Sea, Northern Fleet, Pacific Fleet... do you think the requirements and conditions in each of those places are the same and just one corvette will be great for all five of those places?

When you don't test them properly, what happens is that you send them on a mission with your new carrier to the Black Sea to show the Russians how tough you are and your destroyers break down because the water in the Med was too warm to cool the engines...

The complexity of making corvettes has increased 1,000 times because they are no longer one trick ponies... their current corvettes can carry a wider range of main weapons than the Kirov battle cruiser used to carry. The Kirov had anti ship missiles and anti sub missiles but it never had land attack missiles like Kalibr that a modern Corvette can carry. A modern Russian corvette can carry a 2.5 ton Onyx missile with similar speed and range to a Granit 7 ton anti ship missile, but in those same tubes it could also carry a Otvet anti sub ballistic rocket delivered torpedo, or a Kalibre land attack cruise missile, and soon it will get Zircon hypersonic mach 10 anti ship and land attack missiles.

Their Corvettes have 100mm guns which is what the first Kirov had too... later models got 130mm guns which Russia is currently putting on Frigates.

The AESA radars they are putting on their ships are pretty damn impressive too as well as optronic systems too.

That does not just happen... that needs planning and preparation and funding... but it also needs time.

They built some Frigates and tested them.... based on those tests they suggested some upgrades and improvements to the design but with ships and subs you can't just model it on a computer and expect everything will work just fine... the US built three Zumwalt destroyers and 17 LCS ships before they realised they were dogs and didn't do what they wanted them to do and have scrapped them.

Russia can't afford to build dozens of Corvettes and Frigates only to find they are shit... they need to get them right and then they can start serial production.

The first boats are effectively hand built... the people who are making them learn the best way to make them as they are making them so the second and third and fourth can be made faster assuming all the necessary bits are available and ready.

Obviously when some stop supplying engines you already paid for, or other components because Americans and Brits and the French and Germans are all total then you are going to get delays and problems, but that is not planning or shipbuilding skill problems... that is the west is a bunch of problems which are great because when the Russian solutions are found and implemented it means the Russians never have to deal with those western again.

More importantly as they develop the replacement technology they can start selling that to countries around the world too and I am sure they can make turbines cheaper and better than Germany can make in the dark cold factories they will have.

Russia has a lot of inefficiency in its navy shipbuilding.

Maybe you people don't understand the concept of inefficiency... when you are only making new designs and those designs keep getting changed there can be no efficiency because you are always solving new problems and testing new things... efficiency comes from standardisation and modularity and will show when they start serially producing designs.

That small ship with the composite superstructure... the first one they made they did each part at a time and it took 3 months to make the superstructure... by streamlining and making parts in parallel they did the second ships superstructure in 3 days... that is extreme but an example of the difference between making something the first time and getting experience to change the production steps for efficiency.

Besides Buyan corvettes were they were pumping out those fast, jt was only because they knew what they wanted. Maybe should have continued on with more of those.

It was an anti piracy design... a long range corvette for policing duties a long way from base that could replace the much much bigger ships they had been using for the job of dealing with Somali pirates.

In a way having a few more of those could be a good thing as they would be useful to give the Russian Navy a presence where it was needed on the surface.

Load a couple of Zircons and it would demand respect...

Everything is falling apart. Everything in the Russian Navy should be sacrificed, but not the nuclear submarines, that's my opinion.

You did say you were crazy. WTF would the Russian Navy be good for if it only had nuclear powered subs. Are you thick or something?

OOOH... I like pistols and the Russian Army is shit... they should get rid of all those stupid tanks and artillery pieces and just have SR-1M pistols because I like them....

You forgot to write that a contract was signed at "Army-2020" for two more project 22350 frigates for which the keels have STILL not been laid.

Do you know the details of the contract... does it stipulate the keels need to be laid immediately or does it stipulate that they will be laid when there is space for them available.

They might even be hard contracts for ship that will depend on whether the 22350M is successful or not so it might have to wait another couple of years so they can decide whether to build two 22350s or two 22350Ms.

Laying down a keel takes up space... if there are no engines available or the computing equipment and processors are not ready then those keels will just sit and take up space another type could be being built on.

You claim they are not planning while ignoring that planning is the very reason they are doing it the way they are doing it.

My ONLY concern is the Project 885M submarines.

So why should we give a **** about your opinion, you are an idiot... a Project 885M fanboy.

You would only be happy if all Russian shipyards started building Project 885Ms.... you are a moron.

And while the Russians farted on the media, as I quote, the statements "we are working to reduce the time period of construction", it turns out that the exact opposite is happening. It would not be good if it were like the Severodvinsk submarine.

Didn't you hear... it has been cancelled.

Freeing up rubles for artillery shells and upgrading T-62s.

And I already wrote that earlier, that is, Sevmash has the capacity and qualified workforce, as well as subcontractors, to implement the construction of both projects without delay.

Writing it on a web forum does not make it true.

And if the construction of the surface fleet is proven to be slow and miserable, then it is better to divert the money to Sevmash. I don't give a **** about corvettes and frigates, because after "Moscow" I'm not interested in a fleet of surface warships at all.

Might come as a shock dude but I doubt they care about the opinion of a deranged Serb on the internet who loves nuclear powered attack subs.

Russia has turned its back on the west, or more accurately the west has tried to force Russia to comply with its demands by cutting its ties with Russia which amounts to the same thing.

Russia can either surrender and beg for forgiveness, or it can agree to cut ties with the west and look to create ties with the rest of the world which it was already doing anyway.

To have ties with the rest of the world it needs to use the sea and it needs sea access to the rest of the world and its army and air force are not much help in this regard... this is where Russias navy is going to help them expand their economy and help develop the rest of the world and make them more comfortable and richer than they have ever been before... along with Russia too of course.

Submarines are useless for such things, and they are expensive, so cancelling upgrades and new ships makes sense... use their new technologies and new materials and design some new smaller cheaper better subs to get the job done smarter and cheaper and faster... but build their surface fleet of civilian and military ships first.

Their shipbuilding is completely incompetent when it comes to the surface fleet and they are just wasting time. All the shipyards and a good part of the subcontractors are mostly useless except for Sevmash, Admirality, Baltic (not included in military shipbuilding), to some extent Yantar, Amur, and Zelenodolsk.

Go **** yourself you turd.

Moving this shit to the talking bollocks thread.

I'm done with the Navy and I haven't posted any news about the Navy and won't until they launch the K-564.

You keep saying you are done with the Russian Navy, yet you continue to whine about it like a little bitch...

We all understand your position, you have made that very clear.

Podlodka77 wrote:
I honestly believe that the construction of multi-purpose nuclear submarines is more important than anything, except military equipment for the ground army, air defense, missiles..

More important than ICBMs and ABMs? The things that will actually be most usefull in a large scale war.

Garry, I did not speak to you in that tone and I would ask you not to do the same.
That is all.

You have polluted multiple threads about your hatred for the Russian Navy and all things except a few SSNs and SSGNs, I should be talking to you about your behaviour and continued presence on this forum.

Even this discussion is not relevant to this thread about SSKs and will be removed shortly to the talking bollocks thread.

Russians are less and less dependent on the blue navy force.

Some people who have clearly never had to manage anything or plan for things don't understand that plans change.

Part of planning is taking into consideration what you want for your plan and why you are planning... if things change like a ground war starts in Europe, then of course your plans have to change because you need to shift money and budgets around to pay for new things you did not anticipate having to pay for.

Right now the SSN and SSGN fleet are not important at all, to be clear, they don't do anything to defend Russia and are intended to intervene around the world in Russian interests, for self defence and defence from an invasion force they could interdict enemy supply lines and attack enemy ports and large ship formations but the bulk of actual defence will be SSKs and MiG-31ks with Kinzhal missiles which are much cheaper and arguably more responsive.

The cutting of ties with the west means western shipping companies that used to make lots of money shipping Russian goods to the world are now not being used or are being sold to Russian companies and continuing shipping the same stuff but with non european ownership, and the same with insurance.

Those old ships will need to be replaced and the Russian shipyards are going to have to massively increase their production rate for civilian and military products over the next decade, but it wont be SSNs and SSGNs that will be mass produced, it will be Buyans and perhaps the light original frigates might be modified to become long range patrol ships while the heavier upgrades will serve in each fleet as the standard frigate design, because policing and anti piracy duties are going to become a core role of the future Russian fleet, and their new helicopter landing craft will give them the capacity for a landing force operating anywhere in the world too... so the Russian Navy is certainly going to expand, but not the way you want it to.

Eventually a new SSGN/SSN design will be put into service... we have seen models... but this is not the thread for this.

The way I see it is that the Russian Navy is at a critical turning point at the moment. Almost all the combat ships and submarines that are being built right now can be considered "Interim Designs". Yes - even the Pr.885M! The rug was pulled from underneath the Russian Navy in the early 90's, but I expect BIG changes over the next 5 years with plenty new designs. Pipe dream? No I don't think so if you consider the new naval doctrine.

I can agree with Pods in that submarines will have to be the cornerstone of any future Russian Navy, but it will need a pretty good Blue Water Navy as well. Not huge in numbers, but sufficient to do the job effectively. This will have to include a couple of aircraft carriers and at least a solid number of destroyer sized ships.

Very shortly we will see the new classes of Laika and Kalina submarines. Rubin is even developing promising mini-submarines of both nuclear and conventional propulsion and may well find it's way into the Russian Navy. The Kalina is apparently being developed by Rubin without government funding atm, but there is no doubt that they will have to replace the Pr.636 at some point.

I think some people are underestimating how complex and expensive the new ships and subs they are building are, they require lots of modern electronics and new equipment and weapons and sensors at a time when most of the import of such things is now banned so domestic production has to cover everything.

They have not just kept building cold war crap, the new ships are state of the art vessels as good as anyone else can even make and yet there are still complaints that the country whose entire defence budget matches the budget of the CIA manages to still produce and develop new technologies no one else has in service today.

The Russian Navy was never critical to the defence of Russia, even though it had one arm of the nuclear triad it was the thinnest weakest arm that was mainly a deterrent rather than something they actually wanted to use.

The future looks rather brighter because they will need to open up international sea lanes of communication and trade for Russia and her trade partners and pirates and criminal organisations will do their best to stop them, which is why surface ships will be important in the future.

Ironically with US ABM systems sprouting up all over the place the natural solution of Poseidon and Thunderbird means the future of SSBNs might change and every modern Russian Sub might have two launch tubes for unlimited range cruise missiles (Thunderbird) that fly under western air defences to get to their targets... when tensions are high then SSGNs could also be armed with such weapons too... which would make them a good deterrent.

New nuclear power plants can be smaller and with electric drive instead of propelling ships or subs they can just generate energy and electric propulsion moves the ships and subs more efficiently, this might make NPPs into something like plug and play batteries and even very small subs could be nuclear electric drive...

Very shortly we will see the new classes of Laika and Kalina submarines. Rubin is even developing promising mini-submarines of both nuclear and conventional propulsion and may well find it's way into the Russian Navy. The Kalina is apparently being developed by Rubin without government funding atm, but there is no doubt that they will have to replace the Pr.636 at some point.

The Yassen class is right up there with the best US subs in the world. Far better actually, if you look at how much smaller the crews are because of more automation. But we aren't allowed to say that now are we... Don't want to hurt any feelings.

The Yasen class has a crew of 85 on project 885 and 64 on project 885M, suggesting a high degree of automation in the submarine's different systems. The newest U.S. Virginia-class submarines, has a crew of 134 in comparison.

Just think of how much better a small crew is on a sub. Less food requirements, less noise, less water usage, less energy wasted ect ect ect. And Russia is surly using the same technology on its surface ships as they use on the subs.

But hey what does Russia know... 2nd rate navy har har.

And even more than that, a sub has to operate 24/7 all year round when it is at sea so those 64 crew for the 885M will likely have a base crew of 5 or 6 who are doctors and dentists and assistants and command like the captain etc, and the remaining 58-60 crew members will be split into three groups each working 8 hour shifts so you work 8 hours and then get the next 16 hours off of which 8 hours will be sleeping, so really at any one time it will have 24 or so people running the sub with another 20 or so sleeping and a further 20 off duty reading a book or having a sauna or filling in their time some other way...

A Lada class SSK with a crew of 35 is another case in point... probably 5 with duties that are irregular like the dentist and doctor and their seconds and the captain and senior officers, plus three shifts of 10 crew to run the sub... which would include cooks because the kitchen would be running 24/7 to feed everyone during their 8 hours time off each day... eating and cleaning and reading...

Backman wrote:
The Yassen class is right up there with the best US subs in the world. Far better actually, if you look at how much smaller the crews are because of more automation. But we aren't allowed to say that now are we... Don't want to hurt any feelings.

Yes I agree - the Yasen is a superb design BUT it's roots dates back to 1993 (80's tech if you apply the R&D) - so that makes it a rather old design. Granted the design has been improved significantly with series construction, which was common Soviet practice as well. Much the same thing is happening with the somewhat younger Virginia class. The point is the Russians will have to look at a completely new design if they want to maintain the critical edge, that's just the way it is, otherwise they're going to be left behind.

As far as automation is concerned - this was also common practice during Soviet times - so nothing new really. The Lira/Alpha subs is an excellent examples of automation with a crew of only 31!

@Arrow

Looks like you did not read any further than the first line

Second sentence reads: "Granted the design has been improved significantly with series construction"

But Russian subs are vastly inferior to US wonders. The "whole world knows it".

Mao was right, the west is a paper tiger. It is generally true that empires are built on perception of power and not actual realization of such power.
The clowns in Washington and the oligarchs who own them may think they can fight China and Russia at once, but that does not mean that they
have the ability.

Arrow wrote:
Ok, my point was that the 885M is not a 80's project

R&D takes quite a bit of time (it is a continuous effort from one class to another though) - so if the first ship was laid down in 1993 you can bet your bottom dollar that the research and development must have started way back in the 80's.

In fact RU-Wikipedia claims that it started as early as 1977! "The creation of the appearance of the fourth-generation nuclear submarine began back in 1977. It was planned to create a single multipurpose boat capable of solving the widest possible range of tasks to replace several types of boats at once."

Russian delays are due to economic collapse and system-change. What are the excuses for the USA? I do not see any evidence of 10x faster progress
in submarine design in the USA.

Exactly. The US design philosophy with the Los Angeles was to design a boat that could reach 30-35 knots to keep up with the Soviet subs. Despite all their gazillions of R&D money the best they could come up with was to reduce the thickness of the hull's steel and by doing so the submarine was unable to dive very deep. This decision instantly rendered them pretty useless in terms of countering any Soviet submarine threat.

[quote="Mir"]

Backman wrote:
The point is the Russians will have to look at a completely new design if they want to maintain the critical edge, that's just the way it is, otherwise they're going to be left behind.

As far as automation is concerned - this was also common practice during Soviet times - so nothing new really.  

Ah so Russia has to look at a "completely new design". In other words, instead of evolutionary design that actually works, Russia has to start making the same mistakes as the US. Only then will it keep up with the US in having its head up its ass. Brilliant idea.

Why have a stealthy F-16 when you can have an F-35 at 10x the price that doesn't work?

As far as automation is concerned - this was also common practice during Soviet times - so nothing new really.

There is nothing new under the sun. But things improve over the years. Bicycle brakes are far better now than they were in the 1980's. That doesn't mean bicycle brakes are anything new. The same principle applies to the systems in a sub.

Just stop digging. You wanted to do the usual superiority lecture to Russia, and it fell flat on its face.

Backman wrote:

Ah so Russia has to look at a "completely new design". In other words, instead of evolutionary design that actually works, Russia has to start making the same mistakes as the US. Only then will it keep up with the US in having its head up its ass. Brilliant idea.

If you follow my post to where I started this conversation I was referring to the Laika design as the "completely new design" - meaning that they will not continue building the Yasen but rather invest in the Laika - which is currently under development.

We know very little about the Laika but it may well be an evolutionary design just as the Yasen was developed from the Gepard, but if the Arktur concept has anything in common with the Laika (which might well be the case) it may be revolutionary indeed - just like the T-14.

Just stop digging. You wanted to do the usual superiority lecture to Russia, and it fell flat on its face.

Don't know WTF you're talking about - but keep going if it makes you happy