gbu48098 wrote:
What is the that ship in the 2nd pic in the right corner behind the sub?
Everyone's favorite aircraft carrier...
gbu48098 wrote:
What is the that ship in the 2nd pic in the right corner behind the sub?
Hmm, I wasn't sure from the angle the flat ramp from head on looks too triangle like so thought its something else but the height makes it either kirov class or kuzfranco wrote:
Everyone's favorite aircraft carrier...
franco wrote:Everyone's favorite aircraft carrier...
gbu48098 likes this post
LMFS wrote:franco wrote:Everyone's favorite aircraft carrier...
Nakhimov
LMFS likes this post
Big_Gazza wrote:The most potent SSGN/SSN on the planet is finally in service! Ура!
Now we just need another 6-8 laid down, and metal bent for the 1st hull of the Husky class, with another 14-19 to follow
Big_Gazza and TMA1 like this post
I guess its possible if START does not get extended or worse more limiting and the number of older attack subs projected to retire...PapaDragon wrote:Big_Gazza wrote:The most potent SSGN/SSN on the planet is finally in service! Ура!
Now we just need another 6-8 laid down, and metal bent for the 1st hull of the Husky class, with another 14-19 to follow
Hey, if they lay down just 4 more they are golden
If they actually do another 6-8 they can put Husky on the back burner some more because they will have monster fleet coming up
GarryB, Big_Gazza, slasher, Hole, lyle6, Backman, TMA1 and like this post
kvs wrote:The operational depth of the Virginia is 320 meters compared to 520 for the Yassen. This is also a limitation of the Virginia's size. Even
though it has a maximum dive depth of 500 meters (600 m for the Yeassen), that is a dicey dive depth and not a real tolerance level.
The final detail is the cost, the Yassen is substantially cheaper because Russia is not diseased with MIC rot like the USA.
Big_Gazza likes this post
Big_Gazza likes this post
Big_Gazza, slasher, Hole and TMA1 like this post
lancelot wrote:kvs wrote:The operational depth of the Virginia is 320 meters compared to 520 for the Yassen. This is also a limitation of the Virginia's size. Even
though it has a maximum dive depth of 500 meters (600 m for the Yeassen), that is a dicey dive depth and not a real tolerance level.
The final detail is the cost, the Yassen is substantially cheaper because Russia is not diseased with MIC rot like the USA.
US submarine depth limits are a mirage.
https://news.yahoo.com/feds-company-provided-subpar-steel-203534466.html
They were built with subpar steel due to corruption of their MIC.
Big_Gazza and x_54_u43 dislike this post
SeigSoloyvov wrote:No evidence exists that steel was ever used, and even that it was only a very small portion of the steel delivered.
Don't lie and if you wanna prove me wrong, show me evidence the steel was used otherwise you're talking out your ass.
Big_Gazza and TMA1 like this post
dino00, Big_Gazza, kvs, lancelot and TMA1 like this post
lancelot wrote:SeigSoloyvov wrote:No evidence exists that steel was ever used, and even that it was only a very small portion of the steel delivered.
Don't lie and if you wanna prove me wrong, show me evidence the steel was used otherwise you're talking out your ass.
Read the goddamned article.
gbu48098 likes this post
dino00, Big_Gazza and x_54_u43 dislike this post
Both countries sport excellent subs and they follow their strategies and are reflected in their designs and may come off as pros for one and cons for other....only simpletons seem to diss by reading articlesSeigSoloyvov wrote:
on the other hand....I can find plenty of Russian submarine accidents has a result or incompetence.
No evidence exists that steel was ever used, and even that it was only a very small portion of the steel delivered.
Don't lie and if you wanna prove me wrong, show me evidence the steel was used otherwise you're talking out your ass.
kvs, Backman and TMA1 like this post
SeigSoloyvov wrote:lancelot wrote:SeigSoloyvov wrote:No evidence exists that steel was ever used, and even that it was only a very small portion of the steel delivered.
Don't lie and if you wanna prove me wrong, show me evidence the steel was used otherwise you're talking out your ass.
Read the goddamned article.
I read that article over a year ago.
That said, no evidence any submarine was affected by what happened.
I have yet to see evidence it was. Only people like yourself making the claim without any facts behind it.
on the other hand....I can find plenty of Russian submarine accidents has a result or incompetence.
GarryB and Backman like this post
kvs wrote:
Nice video debunking all the usual anti-Russian drivel about the inferiority of Russian submarines and how Russia takes forever to build
them. In this case the four year construction period (which is serial and not start-up) is trotted out and compared to the 12 year
construction frame of the first Yassen class submarine. Apples and avocados.
The delay on the of the Yassen construction was actually a good thing since there was substantial modernization that was not envisaged
in its 1980s and 1990s design. This included the Kaliber missiles and sonar tech. The hyped Virginia has fewer tubes for the obsolete
Tomahawk missiles. It also lacks any supersonic and hypersonic missile systems. And the Virginia is supposed to be newer than the Yassen!
The touted Virginia has twice the size crew of the Yassen but is much smaller. This is a serious issue since the small size of the Virginia makes
noise damping solutions harder to implement or not at all. Its crew size also requires living space which reduces the available space for
submarine technology including sound damping.
I'm a phone poster and frankly tho I am a millennial I am a boomer when it comes to tech. Is there a way to get auto translate to work on phones? Cannot get it to switch to english
The operational depth of the Virginia is 320 meters compared to 520 for the Yassen. This is also a limitation of the Virginia's size. Even
though it has a maximum dive depth of 500 meters (600 m for the Yeassen), that is a dicey dive depth and not a real tolerance level.
The final detail is the cost, the Yassen is substantially cheaper because Russia is not diseased with MIC rot like the USA.
thegopnik likes this post
You are way off in your take....I have my own way to look at things. Not really sure what you are referring against Garry and me, nothing personal against garry or anyone. I will reiterate that I have no agenda and will comment if something peeks my interest...TMA1 wrote:
At first I thought you guys were just voicing dissent in good faith which is always good to cut down on cognitive dissonance. But you and gbu seem to feed on one another and there is a bitter sharpness and unwholesomeness to the posts you guys make. Especially a few days back with how you guys treated garryb. You both have made some great posts so I dont get it. Please cool it.
SeigSoloyvov wrote:
I read that article over a year ago.
That said, no evidence any submarine was affected by what happened.
I have yet to see evidence it was. Only people like yourself making the claim without any facts behind it.
on the other hand....I can find plenty of Russian submarine accidents has a result or incompetence.
Pretty serious claims on a country that played hide and seek during cold war one upping each other....no navy releases this kind of operation, not sure which tabloids you are reading,Singular_Transform wrote:
Half of the Virginias built up to 2018 had hull that failed cold temperature tests.
Means they can't operate in Arctic conditions, or if any affected ship had arctic voyages with surfacing in ice then the given ship is not safe to operate any more, or would have severe restrictions regards of diving deep.
USA has serious accidents and near miss as well, it is simple luck and very low operation requirements to not to have anything more serious.
x_54_u43 and limb dislike this post
SeigSoloyvov wrote:"Half of the Virginias built up to 2018 had hull that failed cold temperature tests."
This first line alone shows you don't know what you're talking about and making baseless claims.
There is more than one submarine metal fabrication plant in the US, so that half number is complete horse shit only repeated by people looking to make shit up.
ONCE MORE, I have yet to see ONE SHREAD of proof from people like you said metal was used wide-scale or even had any remote effect.
Another BS claim you made, Virginia do and have operated in the artic and there is no data anything you are saying about deep diving restrictions being true.
Just false statements form pro-russian fanboys, Show me proof not "well Imma take this fact out of my ass".
As for accidents sure we have some but they are super rare and if you wanna go there the Russians have lost droves of men far far far far above the US in submarine accidents, so yeah I wouldn't go there.
Also did you honestly just say "low operational requirements?" Bruh are you serious we operate more submarines then the Russian and operate them all around the globe and we haven't had five percent of the **** ups the Russians have had.
Get off them drugs buddy they are clearly messing with your head.
kvs, x_54_u43, LMFS, lyle6 and TMA1 like this post
TMA1 wrote:
I'm a phone poster and frankly tho I am a millennial I am a boomer when it comes to tech. Is there a way to get auto translate to work on phones? Cannot get it to switch to english
lancelot and TMA1 like this post
x_54_u43 and limb dislike this post