Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/9/2007 8:06:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2007 8:34:37 PM EDT by E-95]
Russian Navy counts on new ICBM in '08


MOSCOW (AP) — The Russian Navy plans to commission a new intercontinental ballistic missile next year after completing its tests, its chief said Sunday.
Adm. Vladimir Masorin said that the Navy was to conduct another two test launches of the Bulava-M missile this year and complete its testing program next year, Russian news wires reported.

"We have no doubt that the testing of the Bulava-M missile system will be completed successfully," Masorin said, according to the Interfax news agency. "We have no other alternatives. We hope that the missile will be adopted by the Navy in 2008."

President Vladimir Putin has hailed the Bulava as a key component of the nation's nuclear forces for years to come and boasted about its ability to penetrate any prospective missile defenses.

However, three consecutive test launches of the Bulava last year ended in failure, raising doubts about the missile's future. The failures threatened to derail government plans for commissioning new submarines, the first of which was to join the navy next year.

The missile's most recent test in June was successful, allowing officials to sanction the start of serial production of the missile's components, Masorin said.

"The manufacture of the units and stages that proved reliable will begin, and by the time the new strategic nuclear submarine ... is commissioned, we will have a new missile," Masorin was quoted as saying.

According to published Russian reports, the Bulava is designed to have a range of 6,200 miles and to carry six individually targeted nuclear warheads. It is expected to equip three new Borei-class nuclear submarines that are under construction.

The missile is being developed by the Moscow-based Thermal Technology Institute, which designed the new ground-based Topol-M missile and had no previous experience in building submarine-based missiles.


The first in the Borei class SSBN, the Yury Dolgoruky:






















E-95
Link Posted: 8/9/2007 11:59:36 PM EDT
Looks so classically Russian. Beat to fit, paint to match. It just doesn't "look" quiet...
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 12:01:24 AM EDT
Women LOVE submarines! They're long, hard, and full of seamen!
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 12:03:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By killswitch1982:
Women LOVE submarines! They're long, hard, and full of seamen!



You forgot...black.
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 12:04:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By M4MikelA3:

Originally Posted By killswitch1982:
Women LOVE submarines! They're long, hard, and full of seamen!



You forgot...black.


True...my bad...
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 12:09:52 AM EDT
What a piece of junk. A-typical Russian power!
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 12:17:45 AM EDT
It's no match against tannerite depth charges.
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 12:25:20 AM EDT
Whats those side ports? Calipiter, slient running
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 12:26:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Pontius:
Looks so classically Russian. Beat to fit, paint to match. It just doesn't "look" quiet...


"perfection is the enemy of good enough."
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 12:50:17 AM EDT
Hand rails?!

I also like the close up picture of what looks like duct tape. Is it really that?
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 12:57:26 AM EDT
Maybe they won't blow this one up.
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 12:59:54 AM EDT




I also like the close up picture of what looks like duct tape. Is it really that?


Gotta hold the damn thing together with something!
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 1:04:15 AM EDT
The boat I was on looked newer than that and it was commisioned in 1987...
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 3:32:25 AM EDT
that thing looks like a big POS
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 3:38:32 AM EDT
Nice pics. Thanks.

Still a POS.

Link Posted: 8/10/2007 4:00:16 AM EDT
They need a better body shop. Paul Revere hammered out stuff that looked better than that.
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 4:07:30 AM EDT
I've shat better designs than that.
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 4:07:33 AM EDT
Not so fast guys...not so fast. All she has to do is sit in home port to launch. Bulava missile is the replacement for the currently deployed SS-N-20 SLBM.

That said, she looks a bit rough, but that is due partly to the enormous amount of anechoic rubber tiles all over her. Probably a pretty stealthy boat. Now the new Americanski attack boats will have something to do besides hump SEALs all around the world.
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 4:13:21 AM EDT
Looks like it was built on an episode of American Hot Rod
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 5:45:49 AM EDT
The thing is probably quiet as hell. Do a little reading on the Walker spy ring.
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 5:58:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Pontius:
Looks so classically Russian. Beat to fit, paint to match. It just doesn't "look" quiet...


Thinking the same, not sleek
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 6:05:48 AM EDT
Wouldn't the jagged edges cause turbulence which in turn creates noise?

I'm not a submarine engineer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 6:14:27 AM EDT
The thing that worries me isn't so much the submarine as the warheads it is carrying. The newest US warhead came off the assembly lines in 1992 (IIRC) and the rest are significantly older then that. The US is currently the only nuclear power that can not produce additional warheads, this is not a good position to be in.
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 6:54:37 AM EDT
Where are the bow planes. They're going to have a hell of a time controlling depth and trim if there are none.
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 6:55:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
The thing that worries me isn't so much the submarine as the warheads it is carrying. The newest US warhead came off the assembly lines in 1992 (IIRC) and the rest are significantly older then that. The US is currently the only nuclear power that can not produce additional warheads, this is not a good position to be in.


Serious question: WHY THE FUCK NOT?!?
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 6:58:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Pontius:
Looks so classically Russian. Beat to fit, paint to match. It just doesn't "look" quiet...


The Russians have changed their propeller technology. Note the props are concealed under canvas. Worse, much worse, the Russians are hiding their missile boats in the ice where 'quiet' is not as important. Very difficult to hear with all the grinding ice noise.

Still, 'quiet' absolutely matters and we will have to wait and see about this new boat.

5sub
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 7:01:29 AM EDT
They're naming their submarines now?
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 7:01:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2007 7:02:49 AM EDT by wolfdentd]
just looked at the photos again. That is going to be one noisey sum-bitch.
I would have loved to do TMA on that piece of shit.
And people look at me crazy when I tell them the frickin Russians aren't done yet and there is still more of the cold war to go.
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 7:02:26 AM EDT
That thing looks like it was built by "Eliminator Boats".
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 7:02:42 AM EDT
That should blow up nicely.
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 7:15:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GSPatton:

Originally Posted By illini52:
The thing is probably quiet as hell. Do a little reading on the Walker spy ring.


Crypto codes from the early eighties have jack shit to do with current sub design.


That's not all he sold. A good Cold War submarine read is "Blind Man's Bluff"


Eventually, with the help of key information supplied by the Walker-Whitworth espionage ring, Soviet intelligence learned of the existence of SOSUS and its remarkable success in tracking Soviet submarines at long range. Thus, beginning shortly after John Walker’s first treasonous revelations in 1968, the Russian navy embarked belatedly on a rapid submarine quieting program, and within five years, the radiated noise levels of their first-line boats had begun to drop recipitously. By the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s, Russian submarines were much closer to their U.S. equivalents, and the ability of IUSS to detect and track them at long range had deteriorated significantly.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_25/sosus2.htm
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 7:21:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By illini52:

Originally Posted By GSPatton:

Originally Posted By illini52:
The thing is probably quiet as hell. Do a little reading on the Walker spy ring.


Crypto codes from the early eighties have jack shit to do with current sub design.


That's not all he sold. A good Cold War submarine read is "Blind Man's Bluff"


Eventually, with the help of key information supplied by the Walker-Whitworth espionage ring, Soviet intelligence learned of the existence of SOSUS and its remarkable success in tracking Soviet submarines at long range. Thus, beginning shortly after John Walker’s first treasonous revelations in 1968, the Russian navy embarked belatedly on a rapid submarine quieting program, and within five years, the radiated noise levels of their first-line boats had begun to drop recipitously. By the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s, Russian submarines were much closer to their U.S. equivalents, and the ability of IUSS to detect and track them at long range had deteriorated significantly.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_25/sosus2.htm



That's not all he sold. A good Cold War submarine read is "Blind Man's Bluff"


We submarine sailors - present and former - could never talk about what we did.

Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage by Sherry Sontag and Christopher Drew


This book revealed quite a bit that I never thought would be public.

5sub
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 7:22:42 AM EDT
So many burns against the Russians in this thread...
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 8:08:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WinterBorn:

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
The thing that worries me isn't so much the submarine as the warheads it is carrying. The newest US warhead came off the assembly lines in 1992 (IIRC) and the rest are significantly older then that. The US is currently the only nuclear power that can not produce additional warheads, this is not a good position to be in.


Serious question: WHY THE FUCK NOT?!?


The EPA shut down and then demolished Rocky Flats in Colorado so we now no longer have a facility to produce new fissile core assemblies.

The plan is to reestablish this capability at Sandia National labs in before 2012, but the DOE's plan for stockpile stewardship and replacement warheads is in a state of flux with the new congress.
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 9:27:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:

Originally Posted By WinterBorn:

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
The thing that worries me isn't so much the submarine as the warheads it is carrying. The newest US warhead came off the assembly lines in 1992 (IIRC) and the rest are significantly older then that. The US is currently the only nuclear power that can not produce additional warheads, this is not a good position to be in.


Serious question: WHY THE FUCK NOT?!?


The EPA shut down and then demolished Rocky Flats in Colorado so we now no longer have a facility to produce new fissile core assemblies.

The plan is to reestablish this capability at Sandia National labs in before 2012, but the DOE's plan for stockpile stewardship and replacement warheads is in a state of flux with the new congress.


Sandia just produced the first pit in over a decade about 3 months ago and IIRC has produced several more for a new class of weapons.
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 9:31:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2007 9:32:03 AM EDT by mjohn3006]
So how much reserve O2 does it hold when it is stuck on the bottom of the ocean with no power?
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 9:34:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mjohn3006:
So how much reserve O2 does it hold when it is stuck on the bottom of the ocean with no power?


I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess: Not enough.
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 10:21:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2007 10:29:59 AM EDT by GrumpyM4]
So, as a person who works on such items for a living, I look at the pics and have a few observations.


Ruskie sound dampening tile seems to be simple rubber sheeting glued to the hull. Silly ruskies. I've seen ours, and it's most impressive (and that's all I have to say about that).

The outer design of the ruskie sub dosn't stand out as anything new and improved. It has an unusually short "turtleback" section (free flood covered area where the missile tubes rest in the hull) and appears to have been designed as a mix of half boomer ,half fast attack. Interesting....

Those grates on the aft underside are not for some mythical cattipillar drive, but are rather water intakes and vents for the reactor.


The one thing about nuke subs is that they cannot ever go complete quiet because of cooling pumps. That's why the ruskies like hiding under the ice pack. It's the one place that it's impossible to track them. Because of this, i'm sure that all oftheir subs are ice hardened for breaking through the ice.

Notice the lack of forward (sail mounted) dive planes. While there have been subs with sail mounted planes that have broken through the ice, they are greatly limited to the thickness of ice that they can break through.

As to the comment about lack of dive planes, the member who said that the sub would be hard to control without them obviously dosn't know much about sub designs. That being said, most modern boomers do NOT have bow planes. No need.

The most striking pic was the pic of the torpedo room. They are using standard conventional technology and design. I don't see these subs as even comming close to all their going to be hyped up to be by the russian govt. in the media.

all in all,.....not impressed.


Edited to add: for those who made comments on the "look" of the outer sub hull, don't forget that this is a new sub. Supposedly the latest and greatest design that the russkies have come out with. Do you really think for a second that they are going to let the public view be unaltered and complete? We do the same thing. The observations of somthing that looks like duct tape, the weird step downs on the outside of the hull, my noticing of pad-eyes on the outside of the sail, all things that would make this sub not work so well under water, are all signs that the sub is still being built, and was just prettied up for some photo op. There is still a lot of work still to be done on that boat before it ever hits the water.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that even the russians would drop a total piece of shit into the water without at least TRYING to do the best they can. Just because historically their best hasn't always cut the mustard, they DO try.


Link Posted: 8/10/2007 10:24:49 AM EDT
Wow... That looks like one beat up tar-turd.
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 10:27:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By realwar:
That thing looks like it was built by "Eliminator Boats".


Are you a Hallett guy?
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 1:25:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GrumpyM4:
So, as a person who works on such items for a living, I look at the pics and have a few observations.

<snip>



Thanks for the insight Grumpy. Yea, it doesn't look as clean as our boats but by the same token it doesn't look ready for sea trials either. And considering the keel was laid down in 1996 . . . God only knows when or if she (do the Russkies call them she?) will ever be operational.

My intent here was to see where the discussion ran concerning what appears to be an increase in the puffing of Russia's arms chest recently.

E-95
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 1:33:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 5subslr5:

Originally Posted By illini52:

Originally Posted By GSPatton:

Originally Posted By illini52:
The thing is probably quiet as hell. Do a little reading on the Walker spy ring.


Crypto codes from the early eighties have jack shit to do with current sub design.


That's not all he sold. A good Cold War submarine read is "Blind Man's Bluff"


Eventually, with the help of key information supplied by the Walker-Whitworth espionage ring, Soviet intelligence learned of the existence of SOSUS and its remarkable success in tracking Soviet submarines at long range. Thus, beginning shortly after John Walker’s first treasonous revelations in 1968, the Russian navy embarked belatedly on a rapid submarine quieting program, and within five years, the radiated noise levels of their first-line boats had begun to drop recipitously. By the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s, Russian submarines were much closer to their U.S. equivalents, and the ability of IUSS to detect and track them at long range had deteriorated significantly.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_25/sosus2.htm



That's not all he sold. A good Cold War submarine read is "Blind Man's Bluff"


We submarine sailors - present and former - could never talk about what we did.

Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage by Sherry Sontag and Christopher Drew


This book revealed quite a bit that I never thought would be public.

5sub


As the nav would ask during a security briefing "If sherry Sontag contacts you and asks what you did, what is your answer?"

The correct answer was "We do not discuss submarine operations."

My answer: "Go fuck yourself."
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 2:22:41 PM EDT
Call the Dutch, they are going to have another Russian sub to recover from the bottom of the sea.
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 7:48:58 PM EDT
Wow, those pics are a far cry from the old days when all we could see were mysterious, blurred, black & white photos of new Russian hardware.
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 9:51:51 PM EDT
Don't fret for the Red Rats.

The next democrat president will give them the best technology we have.
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 10:19:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GrumpyM4:
So, as a person who works on such items for a living, I look at the pics and have a few observations.

Notice the lack of forward (sail mounted) dive planes. While there have been subs with sail mounted planes that have broken through the ice, they are greatly limited to the thickness of ice that they can break through.

As to the comment about lack of dive planes, the member who said that the sub would be hard to control without them obviously dosn't know much about sub designs. That being said, most modern boomers do NOT have bow planes. No need.???



I may not be an engineer and deal with the original design of submarines, But I did earn my DOLPHINS and I had the pleasure of driving that big black pig for the first year on my Boat.

I can tell you this, the design of boats have gone from bow planes to fairwater planesback to bow planes. You need that surface to change depths rapidly without having a drastic up or down bubble. The stern planes will not do it alone, unless your walking on the bulkheads.
The chief of the watch can change depths by moving water from tank to tank (called trimming) or during hovering manuvers at P.D.

So if someone knows why there are no foward planes on that Boat, please educate me.
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 10:27:31 PM EDT
so... where do i sign up for the "when will the russians accidently sink it" pool?
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 6:55:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2007 7:00:34 AM EDT by sphoneix]
Anyone else like the look of the Typhoon class better. It least it look like a modern sub design. This look like the hatchet job the George Washington class were.






Link Posted: 8/11/2007 12:47:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 5subslr5:
The Russians have changed their propeller technology. Note the props are concealed under canvas. Worse, much worse, the Russians are hiding their missile boats in the ice where 'quiet' is not as important. Very difficult to hear with all the grinding ice noise.


The Russians putting their Boomers under the ice is nothing new. They've been keeping them up there since they had missile boats. Much like the History Channel I think you give these Russians more credit then they deserve.

The Russians produce a piece of shit submarine. It may be fast, it may go deep. But its loud. And when it comes down to it, loud kills. No matter how fast they go, or how deep they dive, they can't out run our torpedos.

This most recent masterpiece looks like it got hammered together by a bunch of retarded pre-schoolers. No offense to any retarded pre-schoolers.

The russians have about as good a track record with their submarine fleet as they do with their space program.
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 1:04:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2007 1:07:14 PM EDT by injun-ear]

Originally Posted By GrumpyM4:
So, as a person who works on such items for a living, I look at the pics and have a few observations.


...snip...

The one thing about nuke subs is that they cannot ever go complete quiet because of cooling pumps.

...snip...



I guess that water flowing in, around whatever has to be cooled, and then out by the motion of the boat--I forget what the effect is called--is impractical?
Link Posted: 8/11/2007 1:08:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2007 1:41:16 PM EDT by 5subslr5]

Originally Posted By Flakchak:

Originally Posted By 5subslr5:
The Russians have changed their propeller technology. Note the props are concealed under canvas. Worse, much worse, the Russians are hiding their missile boats in the ice where 'quiet' is not as important. Very difficult to hear with all the grinding ice noise.


The Russians putting their Boomers under the ice is nothing new. They've been keeping them up there since they had missile boats. Much like the History Channel I think you give these Russians more credit then they deserve.

The Russians produce a piece of shit submarine. It may be fast, it may go deep. But its loud. And when it comes down to it, loud kills. No matter how fast they go, or how deep they dive, they can't out run our torpedos.

This most recent masterpiece looks like it got hammered together by a bunch of retarded pre-schoolers. No offense to any retarded pre-schoolers.

The russians have about as good a track record with their submarine fleet as they do with their space program.




The Russians putting their Boomers under the ice is nothing new. They've been keeping them up there since they had missile boats. Much like the History Channel I think you give these Russians more credit then they deserve.



The Russians have NOT been putting their subs under the ice since

they had missile boats .




The Russians produce a piece of shit submarine. It may be fast, it may go deep. But its loud. And when it comes down to it, loud kills. No matter how fast they go, or how deep they dive, they can't out run our torpedos.


Let's take an old Alpha Russian boat. He's been up communicating and we catch him with a down bubble forcing his screws into even more shallow water causing some brief cavitation that we detect. This boy has been given a GET THERE QUICKLY order and puts the petal to the metal. We classify him as an Alpha and have detected at 45,000 yards . He has a port 100 deg angle on the bow and is building speed to 50 knots and going down to 2500 feet.

We quickly have a firing solution and send two MK-48 's out to chase. We're never going to catch him nor will our torpedoes catch him before they run out of juice. YES you can, given the right circumstances, out run torpedoes.

Your post shows a lack of knowledge on this subject. Probably you are among those here who believe the Kilo conventional sub the Russians are exporting is no problem ??

I NEVER underestimate my adversary.

5sub


Edited to add: NOT meant to be rude.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top