It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Russia to launch new nuclear submarine Sunday - Ivanov

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 12:49 PM
Looking for info on the apparent bogus articles on planned Apr 6 attack on Iran by the USA, and came across this, so I'm posting it for U Submarine buffs.
Sorry I can't add much comment as I'm a layman on subs, but am interested in them.

MOSCOW, April 9 (RIA Novosti) - "A fourth-generation strategic nuclear submarine will be launched during a special ceremony at a shipbuilding yard in northern Russia Sunday, a first deputy prime minister said Monday.

The Yury Dolgoruky, a Borey-class nuclear missile submarine, was built at the Sevmash plant in the northern Arkhangelsk Region. It will be equipped with the Bulava ballistic missile, which is adapted from the Topol-M (SS-27)".



mod edit: added external quote tags

Quote Reference (review link)
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ** (review link)

[edit on 11-4-2007 by UK Wizard]

posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 02:53 PM
What Russia needs least is another money-sink, let alone one that will, most-likely, sit in docks for years, with no reason to use.
It could be argued that the Russian Federation is following a trend where military-defense spending trumps domestic-social, however in their case, they need it most.

posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 12:26 AM
More from the above article:

The Yury Dolgoruky, a Borey-class nuclear missile submarine, was built at the Sevmash plant in the northern Arkhangelsk Region. It will be equipped with the Bulava ballistic missile, which is adapted from the Topol-M (SS-27).

Sergei Ivanov said at a government meeting that the submarine will undergo sea trials in 2007 and will be fully equipped with weaponry in 2008. After that, it will be commissioned by the Russian Navy.

The submarine has a length of 170 meters (580 feet), a body diameter around 13 meters (42 feet), and a submerged speed of about 29 knots. It can carry up to 16 ballistic missiles.

Two other Borey-class nuclear submarines, the Alexander Nevsky and the Vladimir Monomakh, are currently under construction at the Sevmash plant, with a fourth submarine on the future production schedule list.

So its a new SSBN with the famous Bulava SLBMs.
The class is the Borey Class and 3 more are to be constructed.
So thats a pretty decent deterrent. I wonder what fate awaits the Deltas.

posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 12:56 AM
They've already run into major problems with the design. It's years behind schedule because they had to redesign it to accommodate the missiles. I wouldn't be surprised if we only see 1-2 built. It seems like it's a good sub, and it's definitely needed for the Soviet Navy, but unfortunately with their economy the way it is, I can't see them spending the money to make all 4 they said they would make.

posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 09:41 AM
I seem to remember reading somewhere that Russia has about $US170 billion in foreign currency reserves and this is only set to increase with teh demand of their strategic commodities such as LNG.
So fielding 4 subs is definately affordable.

posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 11:04 AM
To my knowlege this too is the economic status of Russia today...substancial currency reserves due to exports of gas and oil.

However projects like this one and social programs use up alot of capital and very quickly.

I looked up that site where in is the Novosti News Article on this boat. I was a bit taken back by the photo of the submarine in the upper left hand corner.

To my limited knowlege the Russians do not favor dive planes or what we call Fairwater Planes on the side of the sail structures. Thier preference is for retractable dive planes in the bow of thier boats. Makes me wonder why they would use this technique.

Even we here in the USA are going away from this type of fairwater plane and going back to the retractable type located in the bow.

I can only deduce that if this is a Russian type boat in the photo that it is a early boat on which this design was experimented and not current designs.


posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 10:05 PM
Pictures usually never match that of the pieces being described; esp if its a new strategic asset.
I remember a news report on the completion of the miniturization of the IN ATV SSN reactor and they kept showing some weird foxtrot class SSK(not even a Kilo). The never specifucally called that sub the ATV, but it was quite ridiculous.

posted on Apr, 11 2007 @ 12:04 AM
Here is a picture being floated around as the Borei class, although the Borei was meant to have a "humpback" which might be added went construction is complete. Its one massive looking submarine

[edit on 11-4-2007 by chinawhite]

posted on Apr, 11 2007 @ 02:53 AM
YOur joking about that photo of the assemblys in the top picture you posted yes?? Have you ever been in a shed where a submarine was assembled??
Can you point out to me which assembly is the ICBM missle section??
How about the torpedo room?? Which section is the nuclear reactor section??

These sections dont even look to me like they go on the same submarine.

Look at the artists conception in your lower photo. What you see is a foreward section front of the sail portion with the fairwater planes on them. Then look at the after is the same diameter as the foreward section. The only exception to this is where the hull gets smaller the very bow and then the stern..where it tapers to the propellor. If you look very closely ..the missle section is actually the same just has a added turtle back on it which is also faired in by the hump you see with the missle tube covers to make it smooth.

That long line you see down the side below the missle tubes this is a opening where water can flood in to the upper section fo the turtle back. THe turtle back is actually a flooded add on. The hull is actually the same diameter most of the length of this boat. The missle tubes actually stick up out of the hull and are faired smooth by this flooded turtleback section.

Now look at the hull sections in your first photo They dont even match in size. Three of them do..but the other three do not.

The other thing is that modern submarine sections are not left out in the open like this. They are built and assembled in sheds for enviornmental control of the welding can see right through certain sections of the inner hulls ...see the equipment before the hulls are welded together. YOu do not see any equipment in these hull sections. They are closed up..meaning they are weatherproofed. These hull sections are in storage. Work has stopped on them.
Modern submarines are moved into the open ..outside of thier protective sheds when they are being built ...only long enough to move them to another protective shed.

Also you do not see any cranes close by..nor support equipment. Service bazookas are not in evidence nor hooks on the tops of the hulls where electic lines are temporarily hung air manifolds. No protective handrails for the safety of people.
You dont even see any people around these sections. They are in storage. Work has stopped.

by the way...the dark piece in the background of the looking with little windows in it is the sail structure where all the telescoping antennas are mounted. You especially dont leave this section outside of enviornmental controls and protections of a shed. THe amount of equipment which goes in this very tight section is considerable and the amount of machining needed to mount this equipment is also considerable. This meaning you dont need weather factors making the job difficult in these close confines. This sail structure is in a storage area too. It is not in a assembly area. An unprotected storage area.

One more thing..that is a gate in the lower right hand bottom of the photo. Judge how big the gate is by the size of the blocks in the wall. HOw big are those sections of submarine??

Just thought you would like to know this about your photo.


posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 05:32 AM
I heard that some cement plugs were put into some silos on the Ohio class sub to meet some treaty requirement. Is this true, and if there are new ballistic subs coming out of Russia, are we going to "Pull the plugs"?

posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 02:10 AM
russia's currency reserves are actually at 346 billion dollars as of today plus a stabilization fund of about 110 billion dollars.

The borei class submarine will replace the delta III/(IV) class submarines, so they won't be additional but replacement subs. Both the us and russia are obliged to reduce their nuclear arsenal to 1700-2200 warheads till 2012. And i haven't seen any indications that russia won't do that. They're modernizing their delta IV fleet, they get new equipment and missiles. I've read that they plan to build four of this "series", and sometimes i read they want to build 8 till 2015. But i think they don't know themselfes what to do, i think it depends on missile defence and the world situation how far they go. Russia's nuclear arsenal will be smaller, but does it matter when just 10 nukes on us cities would not just cripple the us but the whole world economy ? I doubt the us will build 500 replacment missiles for the minuteman, and 14 ohio class replacements. The us has giant debts, and a lot of other problems(iraq, afghanistan). Russia would financially be able to be on par with the us as far as nuclear forces are concerned, but i think for them economic growth is more important.

By the way, russian budget surplus in 2006 was 76 billion dollars.

posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 12:36 PM
Seems to me that the Russians instituted a massive tax reform some years back which had effects immediately.

It was touted as a Flat Tax. Yet when you type in Russian Tax system you see anything but the term Flat Tax used.

You have to type in Russian Flat Tax to find it.

THe main thing this tax system seems to have brought in is Foriegn Investment. This is what is needed here in the USA.

Whatever it is ..they definitely dont want it instituted here in the United States. OUr system is so politically skewed it would be a disaster to certain entrenched and politicallly affluent buisnesses to institute such a overhaul.
This overhaul has been discussed time and time again over the last 40 years but once I understood the political side of this I realized that no matter who is in power this would not take place for reasons never made clear to the public but understood once you see the political side of the tax house. Out tax system is political ...not for the purposes of collecting tax moneys. Political meaning control.

I have actually seen treasury agents/personel state on public television that under flat rate systems the government would take in more moneys than they have ever taken in. I deduced by these, at the time strange statements, that the purpose of the current income tax is not to collect moneys but some other reasons not explained to the public..but it was not to collect tax moneys needed by the government.

THe Government takes in more moneys they can stop this insane borrowing from commercial banks..ala Federal Reserve and increasing the national debt.

But dont hold your breath.


posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 07:55 PM
By need it most, what do you mean? Social and domestic spend? Or military? Speaking from what I've seen of part of Russia, a little infrastructure would a really long way. Maybe a few more hospitals out on the Steps. I don't really see as how a new boomer is help them much. Specially on account of how the last big SSBN class they came up with barely saw service, sitting as you said, at dock most of the time.

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 09:16 PM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

A little infrastructure goes along way in any country.
The problem with social programs is that they produce little long term benefit. They are often used to insure votes for certain political parties to maintain their power base by the purchasing of votes. We are going to see and witness this here shortly in America....again big time.

Someone here in America is deliberately dismantling our infrastructure by a planned debauchery of our currency. Translate that to mean the loss of purchasing power of our moneys.

Investing in infrastructure is the long term way to go. It will reap benefits for everyone over time. What infrastructure will not do over the long term is buy votes needed for certain political parties to continually maintain office.

Also in America..contrary to often touted beliefs and distortions ...we pay far more for social programs than we do for defense..across the board. This knowledge is carefully hidden from most Americans while pleading "victimization" politics.

Russia, like America, will have to learn to improve their submarine fleet considerably ...boomers as well. They have a ways to matter what the news and information outlets distort for us. The Chinese as well.
Capital has always been one of their problems..not enough moneys for reliable equipment and spares...across the board..all the branches of their military. THey are solving this capital problem quickly with their new income tax structure. This informations is being deliberately kept from the American public such that we will not attempt to follow this method.


posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 09:25 PM

Originally posted by backtothelight23
russia's currency reserves are actually at 346 billion dollars as of today plus a stabilization fund of about 110 billion dollars.

And stil, it's Norway alone paying for the decomissioning of older russian nuclear subs, security checks on russian nuclear plants AND for the heavy metal cleansing around the nikel factory in Murmansk....that's just sad.

new topics

top topics


log in