Quote:
Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)
Actually an Ohio is 560ft long, a Delta IV is 544ft, and a Typhoon is 562ft and has 20 missile tubes. So at 580ft long, we have a new record holder for longest submarine.
|
Look at the Meters, not the Feet. It is 170m long. Multiply by around 3.3. 510+51=561 feet (a bit less because it is 3.281, not 3.3). If it is the longest it will be by an insignificant margin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geetrue
You sure know a lot ... what else do you know? I've been out of the rotation of classified information for 38 years now, back when I had the inside track on Russian submarines we were led to believe their weak spot was in the chain of supply. If something broke they were not always able to fix it right away. I'm sure they learned how to adapt just like we did with the time tested methods of jury rigging.
|
Actually, everything I've just mentioned is pretty much open source these days. Try
The Naval Institute's Guide to the Soviet Navy, Young's 1980s paper on the
Storozhevoy (more interesting in these aspects than his 2005 or so book, though the career progression he describes seem to be about the average officer; elite cadets seem to be placed on entirely different tracks). Or just read the
Kursk's roster to see what one of their real lists looks like.
As for the part about a weak chain being logistics is almost certainly true, now and in Soviet times. Certainly things like corruption play a role here but the core issue is the sheer difference in the percentage of money placed on the support issues.
Some bad-mouth Gorshkov for this, but I don't really agree. Given the missions he's assigned and the situation he faces, emphasizing on working on new stuff, and building as much of that as funds allow was the way to go. With the tech lag, even an older asset (say a
Permit) might be useful for the United States and thus worth maintaining, but a Project 627 Kit of similar vintage? Let it rot. On war day, start it up and see if it can move a little.