
[
[/quote]
Thanks for the information. A few points. The missiles carried by the Typhoon are .5 meters wider then those carried by the Delta IV. That would account for an increase in beam of about 2 meters, not 10. Your description of how the boat is divided into sections sounds pretty standard procedure for modern submarine construction. The Germans started building U-Boats in sections in WWII.
As I said Russian double hulls are designed to take torpedo hits, and operated under ice. The American strategy is not to get hit by torpedoes. Hoping that a double hull will help a sub survive a hit from a MK-48 is a poor bet. If the anti-torpedo bulkheads on WWII Battleships couldn't protect them from major compartment flooding double hulls won't help Russian submarines ether. Perhaps their hoping to only be hit by light ASW torpedoes like the MK-54.
It's unclear to me based on your diagram where on the boat the reactors are placed? Are they bigger then the reactors on the Delta IV? How are they laid out? Side by side? Stacked? Fore, and aft?. What is the logic of using two reactors on a submarine were space is at a greater premium then on surface ships? We usually see Russians doublings up on shipboard systems incase one brakes down. Is that the logic of two reactors?
Also could you address the poor safety, and reliability issues with Russian reactors. What would make us think a Russian CVN would be anymore reliable, or safe then the Kirov's have been? Could they achieve 30 plus knots without a supplemental steam plant?
I think the reason they want a CVN, rather then a CV is tanker support. A CVN with a very low tempo of air operations, and only a couple of escorts could deploy anywhere in the world with a minimal number of tankers. Russia just doesn't have much of a fleet logistical train. Look what happened with the Kuznetsov during her last Mediterranean deployment. Not very impressive.
The main armament is the D-19 missile system with 20 three-stage solid-fuel ballistic missiles R-39 "Variant". Because of the large dimensions of the P-39, the Shark project boats were the only carriers of these missiles.
A special feature of the boat's design is the presence inside the light hull of five habitable solid shells. Two of them are basic, have a maximum diameter of 10 m and are parallel to each other, according to the principle of a catamaran. In front of the ship, between the main strong bodies, there are missile shafts, which were first placed ahead of the felling. In addition, there are three separate sealed compartments: a torpedo compartment, a control module compartment with a central post and a stern mechanical compartment. Removal and placement of three compartments in the space between the main buildings allowed to increase the fire safety and survivability of the boat
In order for the boats to be able to keep watch at high latitudes, the fencing enclosure is very durable, capable of breaking ice 2-2.5 m thick.
The crew is located in a comfortable environment. On the boat there is a lounge for relaxation, a sports hall, a swimming pool 4 × 2 m in size and 2 m deep, filled with fresh or salt seawater with the possibility of heating, a solarium, an oak-planked sauna, a "living area".
P.S "It is difficult to find the most advanced Russian Akula class submarines when they operate at tactical speed or less," Admiral Jeremy Boorda said.
[/quote]
Thanks for the information. A few points. The missiles carried by the Typhoon are .5 meters wider then those carried by the Delta IV. That would account for an increase in beam of about 2 meters, not 10. Your description of how the boat is divided into sections sounds pretty standard procedure for modern submarine construction. The Germans started building U-Boats in sections in WWII.
As I said Russian double hulls are designed to take torpedo hits, and operated under ice. The American strategy is not to get hit by torpedoes. Hoping that a double hull will help a sub survive a hit from a MK-48 is a poor bet. If the anti-torpedo bulkheads on WWII Battleships couldn't protect them from major compartment flooding double hulls won't help Russian submarines ether. Perhaps their hoping to only be hit by light ASW torpedoes like the MK-54.
It's unclear to me based on your diagram where on the boat the reactors are placed? Are they bigger then the reactors on the Delta IV? How are they laid out? Side by side? Stacked? Fore, and aft?. What is the logic of using two reactors on a submarine were space is at a greater premium then on surface ships? We usually see Russians doublings up on shipboard systems incase one brakes down. Is that the logic of two reactors?
Also could you address the poor safety, and reliability issues with Russian reactors. What would make us think a Russian CVN would be anymore reliable, or safe then the Kirov's have been? Could they achieve 30 plus knots without a supplemental steam plant?
I think the reason they want a CVN, rather then a CV is tanker support. A CVN with a very low tempo of air operations, and only a couple of escorts could deploy anywhere in the world with a minimal number of tankers. Russia just doesn't have much of a fleet logistical train. Look what happened with the Kuznetsov during her last Mediterranean deployment. Not very impressive.