trident subs will lose thir invisibility cloak! - Page 4

urmomma158 · 07-03-2006, 20:31 PM

What wouldwe dowithout our SLBM'S!!!!!!!!

ArmchairGeneral · 07-03-2006, 21:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urmomma158

yea but you wouldn't be churning up as much water(barely any) due to the fact you're going slow and won't make it all the way up.

Agreed. As I said, "Of course, going slow would minimize the disturbance, and possibly going deep would too, but it's hard to say, as deeper water is colder, so you might make it worse."

ArmchairGeneral · 07-03-2006, 21:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Man, I hate hijacking threads...

Man! That's one mother massive ship. I had no idea the B-36 was that much larger than the B-29.

urmomma158 · 07-03-2006, 21:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

Agreed. As I said, "Of course, going slow would minimize the disturbance, and possibly going deep would too, but it's hard to say, as deeper water is colder, so you might make it worse."

Still wouldn't make itm all the way up and not as much going up.

Besides that's why i provided that link in my previus post!

Anyway there might be a depth that's just right sorta like the 3 bears story with goldilocks.

Francois · 07-03-2006, 21:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SRB

This Francois is funny man.
submariner I would take Typhoon.

I am not making any assertion here.
You should read some books like "Concepts in Submarine Design" from Cambridge Ocean Technology or even the paper Professor Peter N Joubert from issued by DSTO earlier this year.
It is not worth a hydrodynamic course as in my old days, but worth reading to understand and avoid saying things without knowing.

1- The hull shape is very bad and really prone at noise creation.
2- The double propeller is a mistake that ALL western countries have given up after WWII. Hence, the new Borei is to be be one-screw one-shaft boat.
Less drag and more power then double screw.
3- The planes aft of the screws is a bad design abandonned by Western fleets after the German type 201.
It is very noisy and not that efficace.

and go on...
Beside this, the huge size make it really unmanoeuvrable.

Except in a sucuidale attempt, I would not board a russian nuke in my life, never. Even it has a massage room and free ** on board!

The assertion about the dosimeters is that russian nukes are leaking radioactivity at miles around, not a device's issue.

I am happy you think I am funny.

**TopHatter** · 07-03-2006, 21:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francois

I am happy you think I am funny.

Don't know about anybody else, but you aren't. Not by a long shot.

Francois · 07-03-2006, 22:14 PM

Fine here, never meant to be anyway.

Was an answer to the indian guy's comment.

Again, here is a thread from a friend of mine who is really appointed with several ppl in the RuN, and you should read his vision.

No, the Russian Navy is not in a good shape, and not soon going to be!
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=32083

SRB · 07-04-2006, 10:24 AM

Couple of questions for francois:

First as I know Borie have two shaft and two propellers.

So this professor Peter N Joubert build a model of Typhoon and test it in pool?
Or it was only computer simulation?
I would go for model rather than simulation.

What sub in the world can break ice as good as Typhoon? Rember it prime mission is North Pole, no satellite no hydrophones only couple of Los Angeles which are blind (it is funny that on Discovery US submariner commander said that they always know were are Typhoons, and in that time USSR had navy codes of USN, I just like Discovery)

If something was abandonned by West it doesnt meant it is poor design, look about close cycle rocket engine or full presuressed astro suits.

I dont have hydrodynamic course in my program, but I will try to find out about moving big cigarete body through water because I read some where that it have advantage over smaller body.

Some link please about dosimeters, because this is 2006 and Russia is free conutry there must be some link if new Russian nuclear cores are leaking, if you meant on K-21 it was in 1964 and there was incident close to US coast in 80's, this is all I know.
It is very strange that I can find easy every data about Russian sub but about Ohio nope, on wiki there isnt even a year in which first was laid,also very poor data about design, hm it seem that US became USSR, always hiding something even when USSR is dead.
About Petar Veliki it is simple example how to get money to repair ship, you just need to sey it will blow and nuke half of Russia !?

Francois · 07-04-2006, 11:20 AM

Some respect please:

Quote:

Peter Joubert has had a long and distinguished career which has taken him well beyond his position as Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Melbourne. He is a Member of the Order of Australia and a Fellow of the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering and has been working at the University of Melbourne since 1953. Peter Joubert has made substantial contributions to the Science of Mechanical Engineering through his long record of research into the mechanics of flow in surface boundary layers and turbulent flow. He made many original contributions to the science and art of the prediction of boundary layer development and the fundamental frictional effects it gives rise to. He continues to show great innovation in his work, investigating currently separated flow over submarine hulls when manoeuvring by the use of innovative curved wind tunnel models. He has advised the Australian government in relation to the severe flow and noise problems experienced by the Collins class submarines and has introduced a modified design of the superstructure fin which have alleviated these problems significantly. He has developed other novel techniques in recent times, such as the innovative use of rotating wind tunnels to investigate the effect of rotation on boundary layer motion. It can be said that he laid the foundations of many successful research programs conducted at the University of Melbourne through his leadership over a long period of time when the Department of Mechanical Engineering was developing its research directions in the post war era. In this respect he showed great vision in identifying fundamental issues and in finding means of resolving them and thus contributing substantially to Australian participation in world class research. .

Peter Joubert is well known for his active involvement in ocean racing and has been an annual competitor in the Sydney to Hobart race for a very long time. He has shown great strength of character in this endeavour, diverting to give assistance to other vessels in difficulty and surviving the immense storm that beset the 1998-9 race. He has combined his interest in sailing with his work through another current research program investigating the forces caused by slamming impact on yacht hulls. . He has been a very successful yacht designer with a large number of yachts (over 100) built to his designs. These have included successful race winners and an innovative ultra high-speed catamaran.

Peter Joubert has also been widely sought as a consultant, and is known for his long interest and expertise in road safety. He is commonly consulted as an expert witness in road accident cases. He has been an advisor on road safety to national and state governments and has been a member of the committee responsible for the Australian vehicle design rules. He has chaired a specialist committee dealing with truck braking and safety. It is significant to note that he was active in the early promotion of the legislation for the compulsory use of vehicle seat belts. Not only does this demonstrate that he correctly assessed the problem when many would have been uncertain, it also demonstrates his preparedness to advocate rational and considered legislation in the public arena when to do so might not have won him support in all quarters. Further, seen from today’s standpoint, this is a tribute to the length of time that he has been a dynamic influence in engineering related matters.

Peter Joubert can rightly be regarded as one of the elder statesmen of academia in Australia and has occupied his chair at the University of Melbourne with commitment and distinction. He has been the recipient of a substantial number of grants for his research which continue to the present day and continues to publish actively.

The rest is irrelevant.
The dissuasion in Russia is given by the Delta IV, nothing else.
But you know more, so why loose my time, uh?

sparten · 07-04-2006, 12:26 PM

With the end of the Cold war so much more is known about the Russian Side that our old source of information Thomas Clancy is no longer reliable. Anyway I sometimes feels that he purposly downplays Russians. In the Bear and the Dragon for example he states the Su-27's endurance as 1 hour!

The error on the Typhoons back in the 1980's was understandable, the Sovs were not exactly known for their creature comforts.

SRB · 07-04-2006, 17:38 PM

National geographic site:http://www.nationalgeographic.com/k1...tion_main.html

The remains of two U.S. and three Soviet nuclear subs, including reactors and in some cases nuclear-tipped torpedoes, all rest in deep water on the bottom of the Atlantic; any removal efforts would be extremely difficult and costly.

Within a thousand years, most of the radioactive material will likely decay before it is released. Soviet and Russian reactors have similar safety features, and nuclear-tipped torpedoes also have protective shielding.

This solve dosimeters.

So Francois which sub will you prefer if level of radiation is same:
Ohio or Typhoon of course in peace.

**TopHatter** · 07-04-2006, 18:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SRB

Within a thousand years, most of the radioactive material will likely decay before it is released. Soviet and Russian reactors have similar safety features, and nuclear-tipped torpedoes also have protective shielding.

This solve dosimeters.

So Francois which sub will you prefer if level of radiation is same:
Ohio or Typhoon of course in peace.

I can't speak for the Typhoons specifically but Soviet reactors generally were notorious for their lack of shielding compared to Western reactors, not to mention their safety record.
Probably comes from the lack of value placed on human life by the Soviet hierarchy when it came down to safety versus performance.

SRB · 07-04-2006, 18:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TopHatter

I can't speak for the Typhoons specifically but Soviet reactors generally were notorious for their lack of shielding compared to Western reactors, not to mention their safety record.
Probably comes from the lack of value placed on human life by the Soviet hierarchy when it came down to safety versus performance.

It is general opinion.
But there is a little problem, if your core is leaking that your crew is ill and you start to lose submariners(especially experienced ones which are long in sub) and many people will try to evede submarines.First generation of subs very dangerous, but later models no way. Incidents were happed but it seem that Soviets try some new stuff.
Also in cleaning after Chernobil soliders had lead shields for protection, if live wasnt so important there will not be shields.

**TopHatter** · 07-04-2006, 20:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SRB

Also in cleaning after Chernobil soliders had lead shields for protection, if live wasnt so important there will not be shields.

Naïve ...very naïve. Look at the people on that bus and tell me how protected they are. They more like lambs being led to the slaughter to me.

Quote:

THE LIQUIDATORS are those people who were recruited or forced to assist in the cleanup or the "liquidation" of the consequences of the accident. As a totalitarian government the Soviet Union forced many young soldiers to assist in the cleanup of the Chornobyl accident, apparently without sufficient protective clothing and insufficient explanation of the danger involved. Over 650,000 liquidators helped in the cleanup of the Chornobyl disaster in the first year. Many of those who worked as LIQUIDATORS became ill and according to some estimates about 8,000 to 10,000 have died from the radioactive dose they received at the Chornobyl Power Plant. This group apparently includes those who built the containment building over the destroyed reactor No. 4 which is called the SARCOPHAGUS.
http://www.infoukes.com/history/chornobyl/gregorovich/

Francois · 07-04-2006, 22:46 PM

It's ok TH, don't need to sweat too much.
Useless, I gave up.

It is evident in the eyes of this indian boy, the Russians and the S-U was few decades or centuries ahead in ANY field to the West.

Sooo smart!

07-03-2006, 20:31 PM	#46 (permalink)
urmomma158 the real plastic *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 03-05-06 Location: NJ Turnpike Posts: 938 Country:	What wouldwe dowithout our SLBM'S!!!!!!!! __________________

07-03-2006, 22:14 PM	#52 (permalink)
Francois *Defense Professional* Join Date: 08-18-05 Posts: 129	Fine here, never meant to be anyway. Was an answer to the indian guy's comment. Again, here is a thread from a friend of mine who is really appointed with several ppl in the RuN, and you should read his vision. No, the Russian Navy is not in a good shape, and not soon going to be! http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=32083 Last edited by Francois : 07-04-2006 at 04:11 AM.

07-04-2006, 12:26 PM	#55 (permalink)
sparten Actus Reus *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 04-10-04 Location: You would like to know would'nt you? Posts: 1,695 Country:	With the end of the Cold war so much more is known about the Russian Side that our old source of information Thomas Clancy is no longer reliable. Anyway I sometimes feels that he purposly downplays Russians. In the Bear and the Dragon for example he states the Su-27's endurance as 1 hour! The error on the Typhoons back in the 1980's was understandable, the Sovs were not exactly known for their creature comforts. __________________ "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Trident Vote	PubFather	Political Discussions	0	11-24-2006 16:34 PM
'Cloaking device' idea proposed by British scientists.	Boltonian	Science & Tech	22	10-20-2006 14:04 PM

07-04-2006, 10:24 AM	#53 (permalink)
SRB Contributor Join Date: 05-19-06 Location: Belgrade Posts: 414 Country:	Couple of questions for francois: First as I know Borie have two shaft and two propellers. So this professor Peter N Joubert build a model of Typhoon and test it in pool? Or it was only computer simulation? I would go for model rather than simulation. What sub in the world can break ice as good as Typhoon? Rember it prime mission is North Pole, no satellite no hydrophones only couple of Los Angeles which are blind (it is funny that on Discovery US submariner commander said that they always know were are Typhoons, and in that time USSR had navy codes of USN, I just like Discovery) If something was abandonned by West it doesnt meant it is poor design, look about close cycle rocket engine or full presuressed astro suits. I dont have hydrodynamic course in my program, but I will try to find out about moving big cigarete body through water because I read some where that it have advantage over smaller body. Some link please about dosimeters, because this is 2006 and Russia is free conutry there must be some link if new Russian nuclear cores are leaking, if you meant on K-21 it was in 1964 and there was incident close to US coast in 80's, this is all I know. It is very strange that I can find easy every data about Russian sub but about Ohio nope, on wiki there isnt even a year in which first was laid,also very poor data about design, hm it seem that US became USSR, always hiding something even when USSR is dead. About Petar Veliki it is simple example how to get money to repair ship, you just need to sey it will blow and nuke half of Russia !?

07-04-2006, 17:38 PM	#56 (permalink)
SRB Contributor Join Date: 05-19-06 Location: Belgrade Posts: 414 Country:	National geographic site:http://www.nationalgeographic.com/k1...tion_main.html The remains of two U.S. and three Soviet nuclear subs, including reactors and in some cases nuclear-tipped torpedoes, all rest in deep water on the bottom of the Atlantic; any removal efforts would be extremely difficult and costly. Within a thousand years, most of the radioactive material will likely decay before it is released. Soviet and Russian reactors have similar safety features, and nuclear-tipped torpedoes also have protective shielding. This solve dosimeters. So Francois which sub will you prefer if level of radiation is same: Ohio or Typhoon of course in peace.

07-04-2006, 22:46 PM	#60 (permalink)
Francois *Defense Professional* Join Date: 08-18-05 Posts: 129	It's ok TH, don't need to sweat too much. Useless, I gave up. It is evident in the eyes of this indian boy, the Russians and the S-U was few decades or centuries ahead in ANY field to the West. Sooo smart!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)