Why did Russia decommission all the Typhoons?

I know it was money and aging but I still miss it anyway.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    bullpups fell out of fashion

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It really was money. They dedicate a huge amount of their budget just to maintaining their nuclear arsenal.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Even Russians aren't mad enough to climb inside a 40 year old submarine.

      Subs are expensive to maintain, nuke subs quadruply so. Plus the sea isn't kind to any vessel, even if the Russians spent every waking second of every day replacing her tiles the sea would still slowly devour her as men have to sleep while saltwater doesn't

      Frankly I don't actually think that was mostly it, though it certainly contributed a lot, but more in this case

      https://i.imgur.com/LBwmC3L.jpeg

      I know it was money and aging but I still miss it anyway.

      >Why did Russia decommission all the Typhoons?
      Because it's obsolete as a boomer. They were cool for sure, and genuinely pretty decent in many ways for the time. But the entire point of a boomer fleet is to be ultra, ultra stealthy. Not as critical for attack subs or doing spec ops bullying thirdies or whatever, but the entire mission and justification for spending a single dime on a boomer is that it provides credible second strike capability and won't just instantly die at the start of a nuclear war. If it becomes outdated enough that it's likely to be detected and shadowed all the time it no longer has any value.

      Typhoons were at that point in the face of advancing American detection technology. Just not stealthy enough anymore. So even if they were magically rolled back to brand new and were fine for another few decades without major refurb costs (which definitely were there) still wouldn't make sense to spend huge money on them.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not like the rest of the Russian boomers are particularly stealthy, hell like half their fleet are Delta IVs.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Even Russians aren't mad enough to climb inside a 40 year old submarine.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >meanwhile taiwan is chilling with their 80 y.o sub

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        are those german subs?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          American, one in the photo is was the USS Cutlass. Was transferred in the 70s.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Launched on 5 November 1944
            grim

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Taiwan never risked a nuclear meltdown because the navy was late on the power bill and got disconnected from the civilian grid.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Taiwan should buy from south korea or germany, no reason for them to get nuclear

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You only know it form thfro.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Subs are expensive to maintain, nuke subs quadruply so. Plus the sea isn't kind to any vessel, even if the Russians spent every waking second of every day replacing her tiles the sea would still slowly devour her as men have to sleep while saltwater doesn't

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You had the chance to buy them.

    Albeit, not nuclear, I think there's a whiskey-class for sale right now.
    Pic unrelated.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It'd be like buying a used-car that's a rusting shitheap on craigslist
      >one elderly alcoholic owner
      >start going down the ladder
      >have to slam the hatch twice because it didn't latch the first time
      >have to kick all the empty vodka bottles out of the way at the bottom of the ladder
      >one of the control panels is removed, wiring everywhere
      >listing mentioned "have most of the parts to fix er up, never had the time"
      >some random kopeks from the 1970's in the drawers that used to hold the launch codes
      >the lock on the draw is broken anyway
      >try to start it, engine doesn't even turn over
      >"ran fine when I parked her"
      >been docked since 1997
      >ballast tanks are full of some weird viscous substance that smells like motor oil and feces
      >one torpedo tube is welded shut ("the others still work great") and another is filled with old fastfood wrappers
      >"I KNOW WHAT I GOT, NO LOWBALLERS, NO REFUNDS"

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Don't forget:
        >email the ad lister
        >get reply
        >"hey im posting this for my commanding officer, he doesn't use the internet. Call (dont text) him at this number between 0600-0730"

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Unironically too expensive to maintain

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Expensive and likely noisy compared to newer boats.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    steelbullet1

    >2Hz
    >(14/57+44/175+13735/5181)/3((28/114)/(28/114)-(10/909))

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    pepsi wouldn't take them

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They already lost an Oscar class (Kursk) from a lack of maintenance so keeping these commissioned would just cause them more problems on the international stage.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >cause them more problems on the international stage.
      they are terror bombing ukraine trying to destroy its infrastructure and now attempting to crack another dam on the Dnieper. They do not give a flying frick what the international whatever thinks. Any kursk style sub sinking today would be silenced up and pretend it never happened. Like that nook cruise missile test that exploded some years ago and was immediately memory holed. Kursk only got out since it was the very early days of putinism where the absolute control over media coverage had not yet been solidified. Monke was very annoyed at the news leaking back then and thought the mourning moms/wifes screaming at him were CIA plants

      as for typhoon even in its hey day it was mostly meant to squat in the arctic region and barents sea, under the complete coverage of the northern fleet from hostile attack subs and spam missiles as more of a mobile silo. Stealth was never its high point and in a war is very unlikely it would have ever wandered farther then eyesight from the vatnik union. Barents sea, okhotsk sea etc. Places where the air and navy of the vatniks could patrol the waters and try to keep westerners out. As for costs even Gorbachov singled out the Typhoon as a absolute money bawd gobbling up entire percentage points of the huge defense budget with its existence

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >As for costs even Gorbachov singled out the Typhoon as a absolute money bawd gobbling up entire percentage points of the huge defense budget with its existence
        What is it about them that makes them so horrifically expensive? The reactors last for decades. A few thousand laborers working at the shipyard to maintain them is basically nothing for the USSR.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Different design philosophies regarding submarines. US submarines are single hulled while Soviet submarines are double hulled. Thus, Soviet subs are much more expensive to produce and maintain. Delving back to the Typhoon, it's massive outer hull envelopes 2 main pressure (starboard & port) hulls arranged side by side, 3 secondary pressure hulls (forward, aft, & fin). Its a massive resource hog compared to its US Ohio counterpart. The Ohio uses just a single pressure hull and was armed with 24xSLBMs pre-New START. Now compare that to the Typhoons, its like 2 Ohio sub hull equivalent conjoined together only to house 20xSLBMs.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            http://www.hisutton.com/Single-versus-Double_Hull.html
            If you are more curious

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's crazy. What was the logic?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you want a simple answer, its because soviet tech sucks ass and US was ages ahead of them.

            But for long answer, theres multiple factors. When designing a submarine, an SSBN in particular, you design the system itself around the slbms it carried. Soviet missile tech was never up to par with the US. Whereas US long fielded the first operational sold fuel SLBM Polaris thats capable of reaching intercontinental ranges in 1961, the Soviets SSBNs prior to Typhoon arrival were all armed with liquid fueled SLBMs. The first operational Soviet solid fuel Bulava SLBM would not enter service once the Typhoon enters service in 1981. Its not a complete solid fuel as It uses solid fuel for first 3 stages and liquid for the last stage. Solid fuel rockets are most suitable for military applications but they are not as powerful as liquid fuel. The Bulava was massive compared to its US Trident counterpart. The trident is significantly lighter,smaller, and could carry more warheads. The SSBN is one example of an ultimate representation of a nations respective comprehensive tech capability since it has to incorporate many keynote tech which will ultimately determine the capability of the final product. For example, the US Trident can fly further because its lighter, as result of superior materials science which meant the materials for the rocket is lighter. It flies further because its solid fuel was more powerful. It is smaller because the nuclear warheads it holds are are significantly smaller, so it not just helps keep the missile small, but the missile can hold more warheads because US warhead miniaturization tech is also more advanced. These tech also benefit the submarine itself as subs are like guns, whose sizes can be heavily dependent on ammunition size. As for why US subs use single hulls and soviets double, its a combination inferior materials science and a different design philosophy that proved to be obsolescent

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      not so much a problem with the maintenance of the sub, but carrying on using horrifically dangerous and unstable torpedoes which have a reputation for spontaneously exploding

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Same reason the UK can barely keep a single boomer at sea(and sometimes fail at that).

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >T. Disingenuous russian
      The UK has maintained a continuous ssbns presence at sea, on patrol for 55 years. Name one offer country other than the USA who can say the same.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Australia

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Australia has ssbns? News to me...

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They're sneaky c**ts alright.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              That is very true.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Having multiple pressure hulls probably doesn't help.

    Also I know that b***h is thicc but do they really need two reactors? Having redundancy in case of flooding or battle damage might SEEM like a good idea in theory but isn't better to have one good thing instead of two kinda shitty things?

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Money and money. Developing Borei subs and Bulava misssiles was enormous effort, with multiple frick ups. Both are objectively inferior to Typhoons and R-39, living proof of Russia military and infratructural degradation, but russians behave like its a huge improvement. Vatniks and pajeets are claping in excitement of wow, russia nukes are so modern and powerfull, but every true nuclear armageddon enjoyer knows that both russia and usa are shadows of their might in mid 80es.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Beautiful sub, amazing how much worse the replacements are. Russia just can't design or maintain anything like it, not anymore.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *