First those "new" Russian subs are not much quieter than Akulas as opposed to common belief because Russian R&D base crippled 20 years ago - so Graney and Borey subs are essentially also 1980s to early 1990s vintage technology. Second another reports claim China has also acquired Akula's technology which is now introduced in their brand-new designs after finishing development of Delta and Victor III clones. Moreover Chinese progress is very fast while Russians sit idle in their mess and lack of money. All it means both Russia and China are now almost equal in submarine technology but lag about 15-20 years behind the US (Sewolf, Virginia). Another point is numerical strength of Russian and Chinese nuclear submarine fleets is also far below US/NATO level.

How about some sources ? English or Russian, your pick.


Blah Blah Blah.
You know, you wouldn't be able to publish a single book with all the non facts you're telling us.

And what does that have to do with technical innovation ?
The 688i are the backbone of the us submarine force, and they are 40 years old. Although they have been upgraded over time, the basic design is almost half a century old. Even the Virginia is a downgrade from the Seawolf class, and only 2 of those were built before the end of the cold war killed the program. Americans are very conservative for instance in weapons design, the russians love to experiment just have a look at their extensive arsenal.

Assumptions
 

Chinese are having extensive effort ongoing to catch up, but as can be seen in other areas of the manufacturing industry, stupid copy and reverse engineering is one thing, consistent high level engineering is another one. Catching up not only with so called specialists for hire as they have done for space application, but also build up a competent engineering and workforce, as well as crews provided with doctrines, which have taken decades to develop for the western and Russian navies. Silence of a ship has a lot to do with high standards in fabrication and proper maintenance, as it has to do with a good design stolen from others. The US navy is obviously keen to avoid funding cuts and therefor is prone to create the modern day equivalent of the non existing "bomber gap" of the cold war era.

We built 3 Seawolfs, USS Jimmy Carter SSN-23 was the 3rd. ;)

Gorshkov: Buy ANY Chinese goods - and you learn what it is technology! :rotfl2:
You can learn it - only from the bad party. :D

Concerning technologies SSN (nuclear!) - Russia never gave these technologies and will not be give them in the future (As well as however and other countries).

You can pay attention - that any country, did not sell the nuclear submarines.
Once, Russia gave in rent for India Charli-1, but flatly has appeared to sell this Sub.

Yes Russia leased to India a Charlie class SSGN, it is also leasing a Akula to them soon.

Also the US gave nuclear propulsion designs to the UK for its 1st SSN. HMS Dreadnought was said to have a British front end and an American stern.

My bad. 3 it is then.

CNO CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY: House National Security Committee Testimony, 1996 Defense budget, February 22, 1995:
“... The Russians today have six submarines at sea that are quieter than the 688(I)s, our best submarine.
This is the first time since we put Nautilus to sea that they have had submarines at sea quieter than ours. As you know, quieting is everything in submarine warfare.”
But even as these words were spoken, the Soviet era had given way, and the submarine warriors had a few years to rest on their laurels. :D

Under the statement of the representatives US NAVY, on operative speeds about 5-7 kts, noise submarines such as Improved Akula, fixed means of hydroacoustic investigation, was less noise USS such as Improved Los Angeles. According to the chief of an operative department US NAVY of the admiral Jeremy Boorda, the American subs were not able to accompany Improved Akula on speeds less than 6-9 kts (contact to a new Russian sub was held in the spring of 1995 at east coast of USA.


And statement by Norman Polmar:

As the Soviet submarine force advanced in these areas, U.S. submarine leaders held to the view that the U.S. submarine force was superior because of our lead in acoustics or quieting. There were, however, ominous signs that the Soviets were making progress in submarine quieting. The Soviet Akula class, which went to sea in the mid-1980s, was far quieter than expected. The Akula's appearance led to a House-sponsored study that concluded that because of Soviet submarine acoustic quieting, "We believe that the [U.S.] Navy must, in effect, 'start over' in its approach to ASW."

Addressing specific Soviet submarine developments--called into focus by the unexpected low noise levels of the Akula--the report continued:

... it is true that the Soviets' submarine R&D [research and development] program is extremely ambitious, [it] seems to over-look no promising technologies, and--in that it dates back many years--is no flash in the pan. As a result of their years of intensive research it appears that the Soviets may well be ahead of us in certain technologies, such as titanium structures and control of the hydrodynamic flow around a submarine.

But far more important is the improvement that the Soviets have made in submarine quieting. The problem is not that Soviet submarines are now quieter than ours; they are not. But after decades of building comparatively noisy submarines, the Soviets have now begun to build submarines that are quiet enough to present for us a major technological challenge with profound national security implications.

The Improved Akula SSN, which went to sea in 1990, soon revealed that the Soviets had surpassed the U.S. Navy in some areas of acoustic quieting--the Improved Akula was quieter than our newest attack submarines, the Improved LOS ANGELES class. Admiral J.M. Boorda, the Chief of Naval Operations, told the House:

This is the first time since we put NAUTILUS to sea that [the Russians] have had submarines at sea quieter than ours. As you know, quieting is everything in submarine warfare.

While we are told that the SEAWOLF is the quietest submarine in the world, one wonders if we have "all" the data needed to evaluate the acoustic signature of the Akula II, and the potential noise level of the Russian SEVERODVINSK, now on the building ways. If the past is any guide to the future, it is likely that the SEVERODVINSK will be significantly quieter than the Akula series--and quieter than the SEAWOLF, which was designed several years before the SEVERODVINSK. Discussions that I have had with senior officials of Russia's Rubin and Malachite design bureaus reinforce the view that future Russian submarines will be quieter and have significantly improved performance.

True, the size of the Russian submarine force has been cut in half; relatively few submarines are going to sea; and the construction of new submarines is proceeding at a sluggish rate. But the Russian submarine force remains, in the words of the U.S. Director of Naval Intelligence, the "technological pacing challenge."

And possibly that is why Russkie military industry buys now Chinese machine tools because their own machine industry bellied-up. Go somewhere else propagate your BS about Russian "R&D power", buddy. :rotfl2:

PS. Russia is now finished as modern military and industrial power. It is decades behind the West in new technologies. Again and again refurbished the same old Soviet junk is the best proof of deplorable Kremlin's position. Now Russkies go to the West cadging for new weapons and equipment (warships, UAVs, TIs and so on) because their own stuff is ridiculous or non-existent. So don't tell us about Russian lead in submarines - Chinese not only bought from Russia what they needed but also robbed Russia from "top secret" technologies, too. Now China has five times bigger military budget than Russia and they do not have such overwhelming mess as it is present in Russia so the result of such technological race is rather obvious.
You also apparently confused Russian Navy with US Navy because the latter in fact decreased submarine fleet two times since the Cold War. Yet Russian Navy shrinked about ten times from 362 subs in 1985 to about 35 seaworthy subs now. Well, this is not surprising if you remember on average Russkies introduce now one sub every ten years instead of several ones yearly then. However US military still twaddle to Congress some Sci-Fi stories about "powerful Russian subs" most probably to get more funds to counter fictional threats. Yeah, and many new Mr. Boeings are happy to give them money...do you remember "missile gap" and race to the Moon? That is how this machine works. :)

So go to fool naive public showing them stuff from the Red Square parades with Brezhnev's era junk! My advice to you is to watch much less Putin's TV news about "resurgent Russian power" and similar idiocy. :rotfl2:

yea sure, explain why the US Atlas V rockets use Russian Proton Engines? Or why the Russian moonship the Soyuz is still flying as the shuttle is about to bite the dust?

A Ukrainian firm Antonov is about to drop it hat in the the ring for the USAF's new tanker. Politics will dictate that they don't get it but Antonov heavy lift aircraft are just as good if not better than our Lockheed C-5s. In fact the An-124 ships a lot of US and European aircraft and space gear around like the Centaur stage of the aforementioned Atlas V.

Great post there GrayOwl, we used several Norman Polmar publications as source material. :up:

Lets us not be driven to sterile and sometimes offensive comments here. We are all glad the the game improves due to a joint effort of the community, whether we are from US, Russia, Belarus, various European countries or others, and the forums allow us to debug and exchange on the game, let us not waste them for one-sided arguments. We French people have always been listened to and had the chance to convince RA team to issue a new French playable, We have also exchanged with both RA and Lwami teams for sound levels and so on, but we respect their ultimate decisions, they are the one who do the hard works, it is easy to criticize, but without them and their availability, DW would still be in infancy and abandoned by Sonalysts.:yeah:

- First think about lamentable end of such thing like...Buran. :rotfl2:

- Second you should know after USSR's collapse US also robbed Russkies from some interesting pieces of Soviet technology for testing or their own use. Nothing strange here because in few selected areas Soviets possessed good stuff.

- Third think about MIR space station's fate and who was sending in outer space so called "space tourists" and why. :)

Yes, An-124 is as good as C-5 but unfortunately it appeared 25 years later. Well, another example of Russian lead in high-tech...by the way Russkies still cannot produce powerful high-bypass turbofans engines because the sole such engine's producer - a "Motor-Sich" factory - remained on Ukraine. Well, US designed such engines during C-5 program about 45 years ago and now third generation of HBR engines is in use in the West. :)

The Buran was killed due to funding not to any technical or deisgn flaw, in fact it was in many ways a more refined design than the STS.

We didn't steal the Russian engines for the Atlas V, it was good so Rocketdyne partnered with the Russians to build them.

What about Mir? The lessons learn from it will prove useful in any future Mars missions- that was part of its purpose. So they sent some paying customers up for a ride? They beat Branson too it! :yeah:


Something to be said about letting the other guy make all the screw ups for you. ;)