Talking bollocks thread #4

There is a thread for trash talk and all this personal drama should go there.

Podlodka77 wrote:To GARRY B..

No, I don't care about your rules if someone provokes me.
And what is unclear to you?
You do your way, while I will do mine. How do you get the right to call me "hot headed nature", even though I am timid ?!
You refer to "other members", i.e. Regular, Firebird and the like with whom I have been in discussion from the beginning.
Have a little more dignity, you are the main administrator after all.  
I have no problem even writing to you that you are my enemy after what you wrote when you blocked me for 3 months. What are you, the Gestapo, to hand out blockades as you like ?

And as for Firebird, I didn't call him the first, he called me. I can't stand that person. I also blocked him a long time ago, but every time I see his message when I log out... And what now, should I be silent because of the "rules"?

Come on dude you just came back LMFAO.

No, I don't care about your rules if someone provokes me.
And what is unclear to you?

You don't need to care about the rules, just like you don't need to believe in gravity, what I would like to make clear to you is it is my job to enforce those rules and you have been warned before and fully understand the rules so you have no excuse when you break them again for me banning you for it.

If you don't care about that then there is no problem at all. If you do care about being able to post here then follow the rules.

You don't have to like them or agree with them.

You do your way, while I will do mine. How do you get the right to call me "hot headed nature", even though I am timid ?!

So now you are timid. The definition of timid is someone that does not respond to attacks or abuse.

You refer to "other members", i.e. Regular, Firebird and the like with whom I have been in discussion from the beginning.
Have a little more dignity, you are the main administrator after all.

When I tell other members to behave within the rules they normally comply even if they don't agree.

There are many who don't like to do as they are told, and lets be honest, I could easily abuse my power and just ban people who annoy me even for the slightest reason, but I try to make bans a last resort when I am not getting through.

There are not any people on this forum I don't actually like or cannot agree about anything with them. I don't enjoy banning people because I have been banned plenty of times on plenty of western controlled websites for pathetic reasons too.

The rules are pretty clear and simple, if someone abuses you then you report them to me or George1, if you want to respond in kind or choose to start the abuse as preemptive self defence then there is a good chance that the people getting a time out will include you.

Some people who don't like you might even exploit that and get you wound up on purpose.

The Democrats did that to Donald Trump with all their Russiagate and Putins Puppet bullshit and they succeeded in breaking relations between Russia and the US worse than they had been before under Obama. DT didn't realised he had been played but the Democrats were overjoyed because they wanted bad relations with Russia and China and Iran because it is good for the arms industry and then Biden gets in and a war starts...

But by all means do as you please, I can't stop you from behaving as you please, but if you break the rules I can and will stop you posting.

I have no problem even writing to you that you are my enemy after what you wrote when you blocked me for 3 months. What are you, the Gestapo, to hand out blockades as you like ?

See, you learned the wrong lesson... if I was your enemy why would I make it 3 months when I could just as easily have made it a permanent ban then and saved myself this discussion?

Moving this stuff to talking bollocks shortly.

And as for Firebird, I didn't call him the first, he called me. I can't stand that person. I also blocked him a long time ago, but every time I see his message when I log out... And what now, should I be silent because of the "rules"?

If you and everyone else read the rules you will see that it says you are not to abuse other members. It does not say the first to post abuse gets the punishment and everyone else gets a free card to abuse back with no problems.

reporting what the headline says, the simple fact is he served in the NAF and he was a elected MP, so Hindustan news refers all politicians as aides

That might be why most western media think Putin has Aids.

This video, is supposed to discuss the state of the Russian Navy, and can't even put a proper video of the Admiral Grigorovich in it at 3:06, let alone properly mention nuclear submarines or whatever. A video that also basically ignores Project 20380/5 while devoting an inordinate time on the Buyan corvette in comparison. Some of the comments manage to be even worse than the video.

@m0rpheus_red
Slava class and Kuznetsov class were built in Mykolaiv, Ukraine, so no chances they will get more of those anytime soon

@StrangerHappened
They do not want them. New shipyard facilities can make even bigger ships but Russia is not eager to make them.

@khiem1939
The Moskva was built in the Ukraine, Russia cannot replace it since they don't have the ability to make engines big enough for a Cruiser!

@abrahamdozer6273
The Moskva was a museum piece. Why would you bother?

Infallible logic really. And these people never heard of NPO Saturn M90FR engines apparently. Not to mention the nuclear power plants like the RITM-200 that is used in the icebreakers.

Not to mention the nuclear power plants like the RITM-200 that is used in the icebreakers. wrote:

Now they probably even have RITM 400 ready?

Arrow wrote:Now they probably even have RITM 400 ready?

That is too large to put in a cruiser. RITM 400 is something you would use in a carrier.
The first RITM 400s are being made as we speak, to be used in the Leader icebreaker. But the RITM 200 has already been in service for many years.

Lancelot do modern Russian naval reactors for submarines 955A, 885M use very highly enriched uranium? Up to about 95%. Thanks to such enriched fuel, the reactor can operate without fuel replacement for over 30 years. I know that they use highly enriched fuel on new Western submarines. Similarly on the FORD aircraft carrier.

Arrow wrote:Lancelot do modern Russian naval reactors for submarines 955A, 885M use very highly enriched uranium? Up to about 95%. Thanks to such enriched fuel, the reactor can operate without fuel replacement for over 30 years. I know that they use highly enriched fuel on new Western submarines. Similarly on the FORD aircraft carrier.

Alright, because I thought I read somewhere that the civilian reactors RITM 200 and RITM 400 needed extensive overhaul for refueling every 6-10 years in comparison to submarine reactors which can operate for 25 years.

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Small_nuclear_reactors_for_power_and_icebreaking_0710112.html

The new model will be based around the RITM-200 pressurized water reactor, a design developed by OKBM Afrikantov that integrates some main components into the reactor vessel and produces 55 MWe for the motor-driven propellor. The same design is foreseen as being incorporated in floating power plants.  It would operate on fuel enriched to less than 20% uranium-235 and require refuelling every seven years over a 40-year lifespan.

And what about the KN3 reactors of the Kirov class Battlecruiser?

Each kirov has 2 KN-3 reactor installed for a total of 300 MW of thermal power.

Ulyanovsk supercarrier was supposed to have 4 KN-3 reactors.

Btw the KN-3 reactor uses 55% to 90% enriched u235

The French also use reactors which need refueling in the Charles de Gaule.
I don't know what is the big deal with needing to be refueled. It is not like the carriers don't need to go into periodic maintenance periods in the first place.

The refueling is infrequent to begin with. And sharing infrastructure with the icebreakers means they can minimize the cost for making the fuel and designing the reactors.

Refuelling would be scheduled to happen during a major overhaul which very large ships periodically go through anyway... not a huge deal.

The refueling frequency is another fanboi obsession. Supposedly "superior" western reactors require less frequent refueling.

This is marketing and expense translated into "technology". The reason that western companies hype the refueling frequency
"advantage" is because of the rotten, extortion level cost of doing such maintenance in the west. Russia has inherited the
USSR era culture of doing it as often as needed since it still has not degenerated to the western level of $7,000 (1980s US dollars)
toilet seats in military procurement. I vaguely recall that to refuel one of the US carriers was something like a $200+ million dollar
operation. This is absurd.

I would say that the refueling frequency is dictated by the design parameters of the Russian naval reactors. So it is really a choice
and not a problem reflecting inferiority. Russia is a world leader in nuclear reactor technology. If it wanted it could design reactors
with 20 year refueling cycles. Nothing about US technology makes it superior.

I wonder if the reactor refueling cycle design choice is linked to the overhaul schedule for nuclear powered ships. It would make sense
to align them and Russia can do this.

Probably every 5 years you are going to look at your major ships and examine any new threats or new technology that might be incorporated into the design that was not previously considered or not previously possible and think about adding these changes during the next major overhaul.

I remember a while back seeing a video about a Russian invention for buses, and the core problem it was trying to help with is that a bus is a big heavy vehicle that uses lots of power to accelerate and also to slow down, but a bus in an urban environment is stopping and starting all the time, which is incredibly inefficient in terms of fuel consumption and energy use... you burn extra fuel to accelerate and then might get a red light and lose all that power when you put on your brakes to stop, or use brakes to slow down to turn corners or pick up passengers or drop them off.

They came up with an enormously heavy wheel inside the bus. When you accelerated the power from the motor went to the wheels, but when you had to slow down or even stop then part of the energy was lost in the brakes but a lot of the energy... the forward momentum of the bus was transferred to the wheel by spinning it up... every time you stopped the bus you transferred momentum to that spinning wheel so when you started off again you used the engine but you could also use energy from the spinning wheel mass which meant you used less fuel... you used the engine less and you could use the captured energy in the wheel to accelerate the bus. Sometimes the traffic is congested so you don't pull out from the side of the road and accelerate away, you just join the traffic so you might only move a few metres so you might just use a bit of energy from the spinning wheel and not blast the cars around you with a huge cloud of diesel smoke.

The point is that adding a momentum wheel to a helicopter carrier or an existing carrier would be relatively cheap and simple... the system is not super complex with high energy steam systems or super magnets... it likely wont allow a helicopter carrier to operate MiGs or Sukhois but it might make heavy drone operation possible, while for the Kuznetsov it might allow heavier loads to be carried from the shorter takeoff points meaning more fuel for better flight range or perhaps a heavy air launched anti ship missile could be added to the weapon options.

After the SMO experience I am sure they will take air defence even more seriously and beef that up for all ships they operate...

I remember a western expert explaining why the short hours of Russian planes and engines was never a problem they thought needed fixing... he first of all mentioned that Soviet and Russian aircraft tend to operate from fairly rough airfields that are not walked three times a day looking for foreign objects that could be ingested and damage an expensive engine, they design their aircraft for war which means during a war they are almost zero maintenance unless they get damaged so fuel and lubricants and a pilot and weapons and off it goes to combat. A 1,000 hours between overhauls is meaningless because between those overhauls the checks and tests are minimal and most of the parts will really last 3,000 hours but are replaced at 1,000 hours because it is simpler and cheaper because you don't need to examine for micro cracks or take the aircraft to pieces to examine it. The western expert basically said the Soviet and Russian aircraft are designed to be rugged and are designed to be useful in war time, which made them a little expensive in peace time because engines were replaced more often and early on those engines were cheap but that didn't matter but later on they became more expensive and it started to become and issue... but now of course they have the diagnostic systems and other support features western aircraft have, but they still manage to be cheaper because their MIC is not profit driven.

So you end up with a Russian tank that does rather well in combat, while the first model Abrams tanks need to have their filters cleaned twice a day in operation or you destroy the engines, which are very very expensive and not located under the engine trees that Kiev grows in its garden... the proximity of the Jungle effects its growth.

The "solution" for buses has been hybrid electric. They can save enormous amount of energy by dumping it into a battery during breaking and using it
again during acceleration. Of course, there is not 100% recovery, but it most of the way there. The flywheel scheme is OK, but it looks heavier than
a battery, so that makes it less efficient even if it is cheaper and safer than the combustion risk lithium ion batteries.

The Abrams filter story smells of corruption. The engineers must have known about such a limitation, so it is their corporate bosses pushing for
such literally high maintenance solutions to bilk the government out of more money. The cost of repair for the F-35 is absurd as well, as posted in
another thread. Russian/Soviet tanks were designed in a different culture. They lack the veneer of "sophistication" because they do not need
it and it is a western scam. The same goes for any other weapons system. I can't think of anything definitively superior produced by the US
MIC.

for the ones interested, i have an account on Twitter now.

https://twitter.com/Airbornewolf86

Very interesting what this author says about Russia and Iran teaming up for Pearl Harbor 2.0:

https://benjaminbaruch.net/america-babylon/