The size of Russia's economy is very similar to Canada's but our population is 1/4 theirs. We have a hard time getting 4 diesel subs to sea, but Russia is going to build and operate 8 "state-of-the-art" nuclear subs? Really?
They can evidently afford to build the subs, but it remains to be seen if they can also afford to maintain the subs adequately or go to sea regularly to maintain an effective submarine force.
These subs look good on paper, but I'd bet that they come nowhere close to living up to the hype.
Far too easily exploitable. The ability to detect the 'stealth' of a caterpillar drive was discovered in the early 90s and would now be possible for even the greenest of sonar operators. Not to mention the software glitch of considering the subtle sound of the drive a magma displacement would have long been rectified. Hell, you could probably isolate the noise and speed it up 10x on an iPhone never mind a highly sophisticated NATO defense network.
Spending the money on such an obsolete and ineffective (and easily sabotaged) propulsion system would be financially irresponsible. Really the proponents of the caterpillar drive are only clinging to the merits of it as stealth technology to try and limit the potential replacement candidates for aging sub fleets.
Last edited by Roughneck; 01-12-2013 at 01:33 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Roughneck For This Useful Post:
The size of Russia's economy is very similar to Canada's but our population is 1/4 theirs. We have a hard time getting 4 diesel subs to sea, but Russia is going to build and operate 8 "state-of-the-art" nuclear subs? Really?
They can evidently afford to build the subs, but it remains to be seen if they can also afford to maintain the subs adequately or go to sea regularly to maintain an effective submarine force.
These subs look good on paper, but I'd bet that they come nowhere close to living up to the hype.
The difference between Russians and North Americans and most other Europeans aisde from those close to Russia, is that we see people as a resource to be nurtured. They see them as commodities to be used.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The size of Russia's economy is very similar to Canada's but our population is 1/4 theirs. We have a hard time getting 4 diesel subs to sea, but Russia is going to build and operate 8 "state-of-the-art" nuclear subs? Really?
They can evidently afford to build the subs, but it remains to be seen if they can also afford to maintain the subs adequately or go to sea regularly to maintain an effective submarine force.
These subs look good on paper, but I'd bet that they come nowhere close to living up to the hype.
A. Russian general during the height of the cold war said that offense was immoral and defense was moral. The Russians have been attacked and invaded and seen millions of their citizens exterminated. The Russians still see the Chinese and Americans as a major threat. They see these subs as a major defence platform via deterrence and do an extent first strike capability. This new build up by Putin is very cold war thinking
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Far too easily exploitable. The ability to detect the 'stealth' of a caterpillar drive was discovered in the early 90s and would now be possible for even the greenest of sonar operators. Not to mention the software glitch of considering the subtle sound of the drive a magma displacement would have long been rectified. Hell, you could probably isolate the noise and speed it up 10x on an iPhone never mind a highly sophisticated NATO defense network.
Spending the money on such an obsolete and ineffective (and easily sabotaged) propulsion system would be financially irresponsible. Really the proponents of the caterpillar drive are only clinging to the merits of it as stealth technology to try and limit the potential replacement candidates for aging sub fleets.
He didn't slip on his tea, did he Captain?
__________________ https://www.reddit.com/r/CalgaryFlames/
I’m always amazed these sportscasters and announcers can call the game with McDavid’s **** in their mouths all the time.
The Following User Says Thank You to ricosuave For This Useful Post:
Far too easily exploitable. The ability to detect the 'stealth' of a caterpillar drive was discovered in the early 90s and would now be possible for even the greenest of sonar operators. Not to mention the software glitch of considering the subtle sound of the drive a magma displacement would have long been rectified. Hell, you could probably isolate the noise and speed it up 10x on an iPhone never mind a highly sophisticated NATO defense network.
Spending the money on such an obsolete and ineffective (and easily sabotaged) propulsion system would be financially irresponsible. Really the proponents of the caterpillar drive are only clinging to the merits of it as stealth technology to try and limit the potential replacement candidates for aging sub fleets.
I don't believe the caterpillar drive went beyond the prototype stage in the 60's. While it was fairly efficient in terms of eliminating the wear and tear of moving parts, The drives themselves were very slow, they required a engine to drive a large generator which would create the current which would pass through the sea water, because of that requirement the caterpillar was expensive and while the drive itself was quiet adding a additional generator to a submarine generates noise.
In terms of mounting one on a submarine I don't believe it got passed the theoretical stage, a surface ship however was created with a caterpillar drive.
While the drive itself could be quiet (no moving parts) the passing of currents through sea water would create gasses and water flow noise. It would also create an electromagnetic field within the duct which would be detectable by a MAD sensor.
The U.S. Navy got better results by simply shrouding a submarines propeller which would literally act like a silencer on a gun.
Interestingly enough the Virginia Class submarine completely abandoned the use of propellers and went with a virtually silent pump-jet propulsion system
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
These things are only good for ending life on earth as we know it,one would think the Russians would find a smarter way to spend over $6 billion considering they already have enough ballistic subs to end the earth 10x over.
These things are only good for ending life on earth as we know it,one would think the Russians would find a smarter way to spend over $6 billion considering they already have enough ballistic subs to end the earth 10x over.
Almost all of Russia's naval capabilities before these new classes are outdated tech that Americans are very likely to find very easily. Existing ballistic subs are built in the cold war and have been poorly maintained during the lean years since. Due to neglect, poor maintenance and lack of funding during these years, the material deterioration of the Russian navy put it on the near verge of collapse by the early 2000s. Close to one in three ships were considered seaworthy at that point and the others were either in long term maintenance of being cannibalized for parts. Not to mention that Soviet's major shipbuilding facilities, at least the major ones, were all located in the Ukraine so fixing the issue became a top priority in Putin's revived defense minded Russia.
This isn't so much a source of new military buildup so much as just putting ships to sea so the shipbuilding industry will be revived and so they can maintain a proper navy before their Cold War era boats rot into oblivion.
