That is one big boat!

I think it was a good design for its mission, but that's all it was good for.

I still get a kick out of those pictures. 25 years ago we would have killed for those pictures. Now they are on the internets tubes.

twas ever thus..

:)

So very true.

---

They were veritable mammoths but always lacked in keeping up with US technology.

Well, it helped that IIRC the SOP during wartime would have been for them to sit in the noisy Arctic ice until the order came to launch. Not the easiest of places to track boomers, and there would have probably have been an Akula or Victor III sitting nearby to spice things up.
Either that or they've have bastioned them and put them in the protection of a minefield, but I suspect they would have done that more with the Deltas.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Armour/ShepDoDPix/SLBM.jpg

The late Deltas were absolutely superior to the Typhoons.

What do you base that opinion on?

Aside from the technical data, which you can look up yourself, the fact that the Delta IVs remain in service while the most of the Typhoons are rusting off Polyarny. A design that cannot be efficiently serviced is a poor design.

I would tend to agree and base this upon age (Last 'phoon commissioned in 89, last Delta IV commissioned in '92), size (smaller equals less flow noise and easier/cheaper to maintain), and the fact that all of them are still in service.
A submarine that you cannot afford to run is as useful as a Type II uboat in 2010.
Although, I do concede that the Typhoons were more survivable and carried more ordinance than the Delta IVs, but operational statistics speak for themselves. :yep:

Links to prove your point. But it is your opinion either way. Its like saying women are prositutes. So they are in servince.

Links? We use books when talking about our submarines on SubSim:

Cold War Submarines--The Design and Construction of US and Soviet Submarines, Norman Polmar/K. J. Moore, ISBN 1-57488-594-4, Pgs 194-199, 297-305, 307-336.

Jane's Submarines--War Beneath the Waves, Robert Hutchinson, ISBN 0 00 710558 4, Pgs 172-175, 184-193.

The Naval Institue Guide to the Soviet Navy, 5th Edition, Norman Polmar, ISBN 0-87021-241-9, Pgs 23-36, 38-45, 92-115, 413-430.

Or, if you are too lazy for all of that, you could look for some scraps on http://www.fas.org/

OK. Where are your books? :)

I gave you the pages and ISBN numbers. That's print media. It trumps web media. But, you just want to be a pain, right?

Do you have anything productive to add to the discussion, or were you just looking to trash the place? In the case of the latter, please just move on. We're trying to talk submarines here.

I love the fact that you bend over for me. Allentown.

No problem, wastey. :up:

Anyhow, back to topic:

Oberon, I concede that the Typhoons are certainly better for strict operations under the ice. There are certainly some design features that make the boats very capable. Still, as you said, the service record speaks for itself.