Russia's new nuclear sub completes first round of sea trials

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

It is around the same length as the Delta IV, also a 16-missile boat. An Ohio crams 24 onto the same length, but it has only one ~35000HP reactor, and is a single hull design.

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.

[SUBMAN1]

It is still not as beefy looking as the monstrous Typhoon.

Did that company ever buy that one Typhoon to turn it into an underwater cruise ship?

-S

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

It is around the same length as the Delta IV, also a 16-missile boat. An Ohio crams 24 onto the same length, but it has only one ~35000HP reactor, and is a single hull design.



She almost certainly does.



No, it isn't a joke. It is typical. In addition to those 55 officers, if the boat was actually commissioned as originally scheduled, it would have had something like 30 michmanny (warrant officers). They don't have the latter now because AFAIK they are getting working on getting rid of the michman core. The ship will be only 10-20% of what we may consider "normal enlisted" or conscripts.

The important thing is to get the correct mix of qualification onto the boat, and the Russian Navy uses its officer corps much more for technical matters than say the US.

A positive way of putting it would be that the Russians have more of a single line of authority, rather than a dual line.

The negative (and stereotypical) way of saying the same thing is that they have a weak NCO corps, and this leads to overworked officers, dedvoschina, blah, blah, blah...

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.

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.

Good eyes their ET ... what does the R stand for?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

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.

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.

[XabbaRus]

Are you sure it is a single hull design? That would be a first for the Russians.

I thought it was double hulled.

The Russians are masters of jury rigging and jerry building to get out of a fix. Hell if you took the corruption out of the supply chain with the increased spending they should be able to fix things and get the parts. The problem is the corruption.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Are you sure it is a single hull design? That would be a first for the Russians.

I thought it was double hulled.

I said the Ohio was single hulled, thus it can cram a bit more into the same external volume.

[ETR3(SS)]

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.



Good eyes their ET ... what does the R stand for?

R=Radio. The US Navy in its infinite wisdom decided submarine radioman needed to be renamed, hence Electronics Technician Radio. I still put sparks on my command ballcap though.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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.

I'll concede that point. Somebody didn't do their conversion right. But being American I look at feet first and second.

[JHuschke]

Russia and Korea playing with their nuclear toys...what will happen next?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Are you sure it is a single hull design? That would be a first for the Russians.

I thought it was double hulled.

The Russians are masters of jury rigging and jerry building to get out of a fix. Hell if you took the corruption out of the supply chain with the increased spending they should be able to fix things and get the parts. The problem is the corruption.

Though there are times when this whole "new equipment" over support thing goes into a real head. Such as when they designed the Typhoon much bigger than it had to be partially to avoid having to dredge an appropriately deep channel.

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

It is around the same length as the Delta IV, also a 16-missile boat. An Ohio crams 24 onto the same length, but it has only one ~35000HP reactor, and is a single hull design.



She almost certainly does.



No, it isn't a joke. It is typical. In addition to those 55 officers, if the boat was actually commissioned as originally scheduled, it would have had something like 30 michmanny (warrant officers). They don't have the latter now because AFAIK they are getting working on getting rid of the michman core. The ship will be only 10-20% of what we may consider "normal enlisted" or conscripts.

The important thing is to get the correct mix of qualification onto the boat, and the Russian Navy uses its officer corps much more for technical matters than say the US.

A positive way of putting it would be that the Russians have more of a single line of authority, rather than a dual line.

The negative (and stereotypical) way of saying the same thing is that they have a weak NCO corps, and this leads to overworked officers, dedvoschina, blah, blah, blah...

The Ohio class SSBN boats have a shaft HP of 60,000. Are you referring to the rating of the Russian sub?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Frame57

The Ohio class SSBN boats have a shaft HP of 60,000. Are you referring to the rating of the Russian sub?

AFAIK, they used to say the S8G and its turbine sets can pump out 60000. More recent sources like Polmar's Cold War Submarines dunked that down to ~35000.

As for the Russkie, it'll probably have in the region of 80000-100000HP, assuming a typical two OKB-650 variant reactor along with the turbines...

[XabbaRus]

Reporting a single reactor...I'll see what else I can dig up.

http://www.military-today.com/navy/borei_class.htm video of her at sea.

Having the biggest is all good and all, but what price has been paid by Russian/Soviet submarine crews to be the biggest? Sub-Safe would certainly be of more value than tonnage. No?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Reporting a single reactor...I'll see what else I can dig up.

http://www.military-today.com/navy/borei_class.htm video of her at sea.

And lost 3 knots of estimated speed, down to 26 instead of 29...

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

Having the biggest is all good and all, but what price has been paid by Russian/Soviet submarine crews to be the biggest? Sub-Safe would certainly be of more value than tonnage. No?

Well, in the end, there was no war, so relative safety in operational practice became a big part of the measure. However, even in the Russian Navy, the chances of an accident is relatively small. Had it been a war, the main effect of the Sub-Safe program would have been to drive the cost up for the sub and reduce the number available for any given budget.