Fallout Studios Forums

RE: Typhoon on beach

There are many arguments towards photoshopping. For one thing, it is far too close to the beach and by extension, shallow water. It seems that despite the multiple zooms, it is the same basic profile from any distance. Also the wake should be large enough to knock the boat that seems directly behind it around. Furthermore, if my knowledge of human nature is worth anything, everyone on that beach would've been looking at the submarine.

However, the only active Typhoon class vessel is based in Severodvinsk. Balance of probability to me indicates those photos are fake, but I can't rule out that they could be true either.
Edited by AllStarZ, 04 January 2009 - 08:02.

Human nature may not apply if it's been cruising past for the previous ten minutes (they're not exactly speed demons even when surfaced) though I agree there's plenty of evidence which points toward 'shopping. Still, I don't mind as long as it's a good shot!

Subs are slower surfaced than they are submerged

While I now recall that true, logic doesn't really follow it I have to say. I've always wondered, why is this the case? Do they simply limit speed topside for some particular reason?

perhaps it has to do with air resistance? I know Olympic swimmers are known to have less resistance or drag when they're completely submerged, maybe the same logic applies to giant subs.

I'm thinking that it may not be a shop since it's been around the Internet for a bit and if it's all the way up the surface and the fact that it's still so big from a distance, it may just be a perception thing and that particular place could be deep enough for a Typhoon class sub to just barely make it though.

Razven, on 4 Jan 2009, 21:10, said:

No, air has much less resistance than water. Maybe it's water's surface tension?

Hydrodynamic =/= Aerodynamic

A few more points to consider.

1. Vessel stability at surface level, where exposed control surface cannot function at all because it is, well, not submerged.
2. Vessel maneuverability at surface level, cause is similar to above point.
3. Propeller performace at surface level. As we know it the design of a submarine propeller screw is vastly different to that of a surface ship, one possibility is that surface performance is sacrificed for better speed at depths.

It's not much of an update but this is an interesting piece of news:

The picture's terrible quality but significant; that's the first Project 955 Borei-class SSBN, Yuri Dolgoruky, taking to the water for the first time. She's the first SSBN to be built in Russia in something like 17 years following the breakup of the Soviet Union and represents a technological quantum leap for the Russian Navy, especially compared to the earlier model Deltas she'll replace. Unfortunately she's not much use for deterrent at the moment because the missile specifically built for her, the RSM-56 Bulava (SS-NX-30), isn't ready and is still undergoing testing (half of the 10 test launches so far have ended in failure, but the missile is expected to be cleared for service later this year).
On a side note it looks bloody cold there.
Edited by CommanderJB, 08 January 2009 - 04:59.

@^: I reckon it was being built at the dockyards in Arkanghelsk?

They're being built at the Sevmash shipyard in Sverodinsk.

It's freezing everywhere in Russia at this time of the year...

I know... but even looking at that picture makes me feel freezing.

In soviet russia, ice melt you!

In modern Russia, money earns you.
As global warming is unstopable (sorry Netherland or north Germany), these docks will be permanently without ice (and under water + this will last at least till 2400 (possible start of North hemisphere ice age)).
Soviet navy wasn't very strong, Russian navy is even weaker, but this can change one day. Now they have little money. More dangerous is possibility of using nukes on conventional use.
Edited by partyzanpaulzy, 13 January 2009 - 14:54.

The emphasis on the reconstruction of the Russian Armed Forces following their near-disintegration in the mid-90s has definitely been on the resurrection and rejuvenation of their nuclear triad. They still maintain a strategic bomber force that is nearly the equal of the United States' in some areas, and are constantly upgrading it with new missiles such as the Kh-555, Kh-101 and Kh-102, all of which can be nuclear-armed. Their still-gigantic fleet of 162 Tu-22M3 ('Backfires') has the Kh-22M and Kh-32 missiles which would make a naval incursion into the Barents Sea in a war with Russia effectively suicide for almost any opponent, and they are continuing the production and modernisation of the Tu-160 ('Blackjack'), which gives them almost unmatched nuclear standoff capability. Meanwhile, the Topol-M and brand-new RS-24 are slowly replacing the R-36M (SS-18 'Satan') and remaining UR-100NUTTH (SS-19 'Stiletto' Mod 3) ICBMs, adding evasive systems and missile defence countermeasures to ensure that despite conventional parity a war with Russia would still be playing dice with Earth. Bulava and Sineva, the new missile complexes for their sea-bound deterrent, have come last, mostly because a ballistic missile submarine is astronomically more expensive than any other deterrent platform. Sineva is replacing the missiles currently aboard the Project 667BDR/BDRM Kalmar & Delfin ('Delta III/IV-class') submarines, and has so far had a near-flawless track record. Bulava, the Topol-M development for the new Borei-class, has run into difficulties as mentioned above, though, which is slowing the deployment of actual new platforms.

Still, with every element of their nuclear triad receiving a massive update, you can see how seriously Russia takes their deterrent forces. This is partly why 'unconventional' programs such as ABM, lasers, and other such systems that were highly emphasised just before the breakup of the Soviet Union, have virtually disappeared - all the funding is going into offensive missile programs instead.

CommanderJB, on 14 Jan 2009, 7:17, said:

So Russia's ethos is "the best defense is best offense"?

More has to do with MAD than that.

Waris, on 14 Jan 2009, 16:22, said:

Exactly. In defence planning, the first and foremost threat to Russia is a nation is a better-armed conventional enemy (you'll never guess who). Therefore, they have decided to make completely sure that a large-scale conventional war never eventuates by ensuring their nuclear deterrent is up to scratch. Then they can focus their efforts on the rejuvenation of the conventional forces of the Russian military, with a view to providing an option as a 'guarantor of security' for other states in the same way the USA does now, mostly though strategic bombers and the navy.

JB you are a very scary person. I often wonder what you really do in RL, do you fly over Russia in AWAC everyday or something?

I wish! That would be freaking awesome...

Seriously, though, it's just as a result of me soaking up whatever I come across into my brain's seemingly limitless reservoir for useless facts (it's completely worthless when it comes to remembering actually useful stuff like people's names, telephone calls, or jobs for the day, though). Some of these analyses are not originally mine, and the rest come from my military knowledge combined with a dollop of logic and observing trends. I just have way too much time on my hands to devote to it, that's all.

who is the country?

...Pardon? Sorry but that question really doesn't make a lot of sense.

well, in ur post quoting waris on MAD, i am curious on this statement " (you'll never guess who). "

Ah, I see. Erm... the United States of America? (The 'you'll never guess who' bit was just sarcasm.) They're the only country in the world that maintains a more powerful conventional military than Russia at the moment in my opinion. China is getting there but it's not quite at a level yet.