Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

here's an interesting link about that vessel which caught fire recently:
Секреты «Лошарика»
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



an automatic translation should work, if some chunk didn't make sense, post it here and I'd take a look
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
Wow what a line up from twitter

AqJmkGj.png
 
Yesterday at 5:23 PM
attaching 'Like' just to acknowledge the news has been already posted

by now it's in Russian wiki page of that vessel:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


TV announcement:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


the developing story:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
now this is being circulated:
inx960x640.jpg

for example
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I've read some of them held the rank of 1st Rank Captain (кап. 1-го ранга) meaning highly ranked, a Commodore more or less, don't nitpick now!
 

anzha

Senior Member
Registered Member
The Kremlin on Wednesday refused to reveal the full story of a fire that killed 14 officers on what was reportedly a nuclear-powered mini-submarine, saying the details of the tragedy were a "state secret."

The seamen died on Monday as a result of poisoning from the fumes of the fire on a submersible in the Barents Sea in Russia's territorial waters but the disaster was only made public by the defence ministry on Tuesday.

The tragedy in the far north has echoes of the sinking of the Kursk submarine in 2000, also in the Barents Sea, that claimed 118 lives and shook the first year of Vladimir Putin's presidency.

Officials have released little information, saying the crew of a research submersible was studying the sea floor in the interests of the navy but Russian media reported the ship was a top-secret nuclear-powered mini-submarine.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

anzha

Senior Member
Registered Member
Russia's plans to build a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that can travel at more than 20 times the speed of sound, and also evade US missile defenses, has predictably rattled the world. Last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin boasted that the Avangard weapons system would be ready by 2019. But some
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
lie ahead that could impact production, CNBC reported. Specifically, the Kremlin needs to find another source of carbon fiber material to build the Avanguard hypersonic glide vehicles.

Russia's current supply of carbon fiber material is unable to withstand the extreme temperatures of hypersonic flight. According to a US intelligence report reviewed by CNBC, Russia is hunting for an alternative source of carbon fiber, but so far has had no luck. "It's expected that they will make no more than 60 of these hypersonic weapons because it's just proving to be too expensive to develop," an anonymous official told CNBC.

But one nuclear weapons expert told Engadget that 60 units is a pretty significant number. "To me the most surprising part was that someone would say that 60 units is 'a few'. I would say that 60 is rather quite a few. My take on Avangard has always been that it's a niche capability without a clear mission. I was expecting that Russia will stop after deploying maybe a dozen of them," said Pavel Podvig, a senior research fellow at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


eh. I'd say it has a particular role: to kill the missile defense sites in the US (or elsewhere). For whatever reason, the Russians have always felt very threatened by the very limited systems of limited utility the US has put in. There are like 100 interceptors in Alaska and two or three would be needed to guarantee a missile being bagged. In a nuclear war with the US, that's a trivial number of missiles taken down. The only thing it prevents is the doctrine of "escalating to deescalate." One I, personally, find dubious at best. YMMV.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


eh. I'd say it has a particular role: to kill the missile defense sites in the US (or elsewhere). For whatever reason, the Russians have always felt very threatened by the very limited systems of limited utility the US has put in. There are like 100 interceptors in Alaska and two or three would be needed to guarantee a missile being bagged. In a nuclear war with the US, that's a trivial number of missiles taken down. The only thing it prevents is the doctrine of "escalating to deescalate." One I, personally, find dubious at best. YMMV.
Under the ABM treaty the US and Russia were allowed two ABM sites but only around one location. The Russians chose Moscow. The US Grand forks ND. The Russians kept theirs the US decommissioned theirs less than 6 months after activation.
100 missiles each. As for the rest of your population well them is the breaks.
The Russians never liked ABM. Throughout the Cold War they were lacking in numbers of weapons until late war. If the threat of nuclear strikes were rendered obsolete against their counterparts then they argued (along with a large number of westerners) the threat of war increases out of desperation.
Personally the idea that we maintain a standoff for peace sounds like abject insanity.
 
Top