Russia-U.S. "Relations" & Maneuverings

C

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
darkbeaver said:
I have been looking into red versus white situation and am interested about a fuller development of your stated position concerning this hypothetical conventional war.
How Long Would the US Navy Survive in a Shooting War?
US Navy is a huge force but largely based around aircraft carrier groups that modern weaponry may have made obsolete
This was an original RI article first published in April of 2015. We are running it again because of the renewed discussion of a very real possible military confrontation between Russia and America, especially their respective navies. The announcement of Russia's new 'miracle weapons', only makes the thesis of the author more compelling.
America sees itself as a ruler of the world’s oceans. After all, the country — which spends 10 times more on its military forces than the following nine countries — has by far the biggest naval force. And as since the Vietnam War they have dealt only with militarily inferior opponents, they are extremely self-confident in their belief that they can defeat everything and everyone. It is not surprising that some young Americans even wear T-shirts with the logo: “United States Navy: The Sea is Ours.”

Back in the 70s, Admiral Rickover, the “father of nuclear navy,” had to answer the question before the U.S. Senate: “How long would our aircraft carriers survive in a battle against the Russian Navy?” His response caused disillusionment: “Two or three days before they sink, maybe a week if they stay in the harbor.”
The reason for the greatly reduced lifetime of the aircraft carrier in a battle against the Russians is a deadly danger below the water: modern submarines — especially Russian ones — are so powerful and difficult to locate that they can send large battleships and aircraft carriers to the bottom of the sea in the blink of an eye. The weakness of the U.S. Navy, therefore, is their vulnerability when they compete with an enemy that — using the language of the Americans — dominates the seas below the water surface. Of course, the U.S. military analysts are aware of this weakness, so one wonders why the U.S. Navy still adheres to the doctrine “the bigger the better” and continues to rely on an armada of aircraft carriers and large battleships.
Click to expand...


Nuclear subs are noisy clunkers and the Soviet ones were particularly noisy. If you want a dead quiet submarine, use a diesel sub. Those are the submarines that are best at hunting other submarines.
 
Twin_Moose

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
22,041
6,160
113
Twin Moose Creek
Trump: US is 'learning much' from Russian missile explosion

President Trump on Monday said his administration is "learning much" from a mysterious explosion in northern Russia last week that reportedly took place during the test of a nuclear missile.
"The United States is learning much from the failed missile explosion in Russia," Trump tweeted from his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., where he is currently staying.
"We have similar, though more advanced, technology," he added. "The Russian 'Skyfall' explosion has people worried about the air around the facility, and far beyond. Not good!"
U.S. officials have not publicly spoken about the blast, which occurred last week near the Nenoksa Missile Test Site. Seven people died in the incident, which triggered a spike in radiation, prompting speculation it involved a nuclear reactor.
The New York Times reported that U.S. intelligence officials believe the blast may have involved a prototype of the SSC-X-9 Skyfall, a cruise missile powered by a small nuclear reactor that allows it to travel long distances.
Officials at a research institute where five of the scientists who died worked confirmed late Sunday that a small nuclear reactor had exploded during the test.
The explosion took place roughly a week after the U.S. formally withdrew from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a decades-old arms pact with Russia credited with helping end the Cold War.
The U.S. has blamed Russia for failing to uphold its end of the treaty, but Trump has suggested that he would be interested in brokering a new deal with Moscow and Beijing to halt nuclear proliferation.


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump


The United States is learning much from the failed missile explosion in Russia. We have similar, though more advanced, technology. The Russian “Skyfall” explosion has people worried about the air around the facility, and far beyond. Not good!

63.5K
3:26 PM - Aug 12, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

27.6K people are talking about this
Click to expand...
 
H

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
^btw a test using liquid jet propulsion - because jets can only work with gas
 
Twin_Moose

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
22,041
6,160
113
Twin Moose Creek
Yep

Putin says Russia's building an unstoppable nuclear-powered missile — it's probably just a really 'bad idea'

Russia claims to be developing an unstoppable nuclear-powered cruise missile, a weapon with roots in technology the US considered too expensive, too complicated, too dangerous, and too unnecessary to pursue.
Little is known about Russia's doomsday weapon, as it has been described, but the missile has links to systems the Americans and Soviets looked at during the Cold War, systems that both sides eventually gave up on.
During the Cold War, both the US and the Soviet Union "were looking at every possible idea for how to solve this problem of assured destruction," John Pike, founder of GlobalSecurity.org, told Insider, explaining that they pursued ideas that while theoretically possible sometimes failed to close the important gap between possible and militarily useful.
In a time of renewed great power competition, the US and Russia, as nonproliferation expert Jeffrey Lewis wrote recently, "seem to be drifting into a new arms race, either out of some bizarre nostalgia or because no one can think of anything better to do."
Last year, Putin revealed a handful of weapons, some of which have been described as "doomsday weapons." Among them was the Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile, which NATO calls the SSC-X-9 Skyfall. The Russian president has stated that the aim is to defeat American missile defense systems.
"A nuclear-powered cruise missile is an outrageous idea, one the United States long ago considered and rejected as a technical, strategic, and environmental nightmare," Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program for the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, wrote in an article for Foreign Policy.
In the 1960s, the US looked at developing its own nuclear-powered cruise missiles, but Project Pluto, as the program was called, was ultimately abandoned. "It's a bad idea," Pike, a leading expert on defense, space, and intelligence policy, said. "It's a stupid idea," he added, further explaining that traditional ICBMs, like the Minuteman, were a "much simpler, much cheaper, and much more effective way to incinerate" an adversary.
Pike, who is deeply skeptical of Russia's claims, characterized a nuclear-powered cruise missile as "an act of desperation."
Hans Kristensen, the director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, told Task & Purpose recently that the US gave up on developing a nuclear-powered cruise missile because "it was too difficult, too dangerous, and too expensive."
The Americans and the Soviets also looked at the development of nuclear-powered aircraft in hopes of fielding bombers with unprecedented endurance, but these projects never panned out. For the US, these planes were going to be the Air Force equivalent of a ballistic missile submarine, Pike explained, noting that "these things could be on continuous patrol."
The problem was that nuclear-powered aircraft, like nuclear-powered cruise missiles, were "expensive, complicated, dangerous, unnecessary," Pike said, calling such technology "hazardous." He told Insider that mid-air refueling eventually made this project pointless.
Yet, here Russia is purportedly trying to revive this troubled idea to threaten the US. "A lot of technology has developed," Kristensen told T&P. "It could be some of what the Russian technicians are taking advantage of, but so far it seems like they're not doing a good job."
Indeed, testing hasn't gone very well. There have been around a dozen tests, and in each case the weapon has not worked as intended. A recent explosion at the Nyonoksa military weapons testing range that killed a handful of people is suspected to be linked to the Burevestnik, although Russia has not been particularly forthcoming with the details of what exactly happened.
Read more: New details on Russia's mysterious missile disaster suggest a nuclear reactor blew up
Russia has indicated that it was working with new weapons, and recently-released data on the cloud of inert radioactive gases created by the blast suggests that a nuclear reactor was likely involved, giving support to the theory that this may have been part of testing for a nuclear-powered cruise missile.
As for Russia's Skyfall, expert observers suspect that Russia is either bluffing and that the weapon's stated development is a deception or that Russia is covering up its failings as it tries to get a Cold War-era bad idea to fly.
Click to expand...

Because it was rejected by the US doesn't mean it isn't feasible for Russia
 
C

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
Twin_Moose said:
Yep
Putin says Russia's building an unstoppable nuclear-powered missile — it's probably just a really 'bad idea'
Because it was rejected by the US doesn't mean it isn't feasible for Russia
Click to expand...
Their history of building safe reactors is pretty dodgy. The technology appears to be more dangerous to the Russians than to us.

The "Ladas of reactors ...
 
H

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
SNC up to their elbows in BC Liberals BC Hydro site c scam.

And John Hart.

If there was ever a public inquiry that needed to happen...
 
MHz

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Curious Cdn said:
A close Engineer friend of mine took the AECL buyout when Lavalin happened along.

They won't be building any more reactors.
Click to expand...
Considering their known track record would they have cut corners on the ones they built in the past.
Just was companies do they own that is not part of 'construction'?
https://edmonton.citynews.ca/2019/0...-loss-as-assets-revalued-cuts-dividend-by-80/
The net loss included a non-cash charge totalling $1.8 billion to reflect the reduced value of its goodwill and other intangible assets.
SNC says in a statement that dropping its quarterly dividend to two cents per share from 10 cents per share is a prudent measure that will strengthen its balance sheet.
The Montreal-based company says its net loss attributable to SNC-Lavalin shareholders was equal to $12.07 per diluted share, which compared with a year-earlier profit of $83 million or 47 cents per share.
SNC’s net loss from its core engineering and construction business was $2.18 billion or $12.44 per share, partially offset by $65.5 million, or 37 cents per share, of earnings from SNC Capital.



https://globalnews.ca/news/5251875/snc-lavalin-break-up/
Executives at SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. continue to ponder a Plan B that could see the company break up ahead of a potential criminal conviction.
David Taylor of Toronto-based Taylor Asset Management, a shareholder of SNC-Lavalin, said the embattled engineering and construction firm’s CEO and chief financial officer discussed spinning off assets – which could include U.K.-based WS Atkins – at a private luncheon hosted by TD Securities in Toronto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom