Russia wants to dismantle nuclear subs by 2010
- Thread starter mysterious
- Start date
- Status
hg
I agree with what I have just read. I have one additional question though: what is the use of keeping so many submarines for the US with the russian fleet in so bad a shape ? Can we afford the cost ?
The US are maintaining a global presence and this affects fleet composition and dislocation. The Russians are not the one and only justification for maintaining a large submarine fleet. Please keep in mind that while the Russian fleet is declining in presence and severely so at the moment, other powers do not. The Chinese are perhaps the most significant example, others are following.
Even so the US sub fleet is shrinking and some argue that at a long-term perspective the US presence in submarines might face some serious challenges, if this would continue. As for affordability, I think there are greater challenges for funding present in USN procurement. The Virginias are actually a positive example in procurement and maintenance costs, as far as I recall. Also the reduction in SSBN numbers served to offer some more flexibility and capability for the fleet by means of the Ohio-SSGNs.
PS:
Feanor:
The russian navy said in an official statement in June that TK-17 and TK-20 are being put in reserve, "awaiting modernisation", whatever that means. The use for special operations or the like was indicated, but rather as an idea than a concrete decision. Those two are the only Typhoons left besides Dmitri Donskoy.
Last edited:
971
New Member
As far as the Typhoons are concerned:
On the 9th of February, RIA Novosti cited the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian navy Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky about Severstal and Arkhangelsk:
"So far, they have not been decommissioned from Russian Navy. There are still enough missiles for them as well as other colossal potentials, so the Akula-class subs will remain in operational force as nuclear weapon carriers"
He added:
"Speaking of the third submarine, SSBN Dmitry Donskoy, she will remain a testing platform for SLBM Bulava"
On the 9th of February, RIA Novosti cited the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian navy Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky about Severstal and Arkhangelsk:
"So far, they have not been decommissioned from Russian Navy. There are still enough missiles for them as well as other colossal potentials, so the Akula-class subs will remain in operational force as nuclear weapon carriers"
He added:
"Speaking of the third submarine, SSBN Dmitry Donskoy, she will remain a testing platform for SLBM Bulava"
971
New Member
It’s not about you in personal. It’s just that statements like yours challenges me to give them an “ear pulling” every time I meet them. Words which are seemingly just thrown without regard to whatever larger picture there might exist!
Your shock was ones who like to be shocked by things like these due to an uneducated perspective. Without going to length, two things that you might accustom yourself with:
1. The poor state of Projekt 941’s hardware (and other 3d Gen. boats’) is/was attributed to the financial turmoil (among other things) which Russia encountered after 1991. By that time the Typhoons were in their 10th year of service. In short, if you don’t afford to allocate funds anymore for refit and/or maintenance, things get to degrade at that level. Have you seen how the boomers looked back in ’81 when they were new? As a note: if things were swapped, how well do you think the Ohios would’ve looked today?
2. Russians always did things their way. In those years, due to the socio-political establishment of the Soviet Union, a military equipment had not only to be effective but also “political correct” (I suggest you read John Jordan’s book “Soviet Submarines – 1945 to the present”; one hell of a piece…).
A Russian pilot once said:
“Our aircraft are built for war. Not like the Western ones to just stay there and look pretty". An American one added: "We build them like fine watches; they build them like tanks".That – especially during the Cold War days – was the general mind-frame of the Russian arms manufacturing. And naval hardware was no exception.
Nowadays, Russia finally allocates more attention to different design approaches, things more eye-friendly than before. Pursuing potential purchasing clients is also a factor for this. And the fact that Kremlin’s face is quite changed and money seem to be found these days.
Funny your use of the word bluff. But I’m sure that Washington never saw it that way. Or that 688i boat’s Captain tracking the first Schukha-B’s deployment back in ’83-‘84 who suddenly and shockingly discovered how it was to be placed at "the bottom end of the food chain”. Look at Projekt 955 or 885 the Boreis and Yasens. I would under no circumstance consider them a bluff. Not for a second.
Be more malleable next time.
Responding to a post that was done 3 years ago suggests that you're engaging in either thread necrophilia - or trawling
Your comments about non russian build philosophies are just as ridiculous as SoCalSooners comments about Soviet/Russian build quality
Thread closed for good
Nationalism and parochialism has a short currency value in here
Your comments about non russian build philosophies are just as ridiculous as SoCalSooners comments about Soviet/Russian build quality
Thread closed for good
Nationalism and parochialism has a short currency value in here
- Status