Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Russian bear back in the saddle

The Akula operated [in the Gulf of Mexico] without being detected for a month. [..] The submarine patrol exposed what U.S. officials said were deficiencies in U.S. anti-submarine warfare capabilities—forces that are facing cuts under the Obama administration’s plan to reduce defense spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years. Duh.


Mr roT said...

“The Akula was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews,” said a second U.S. official.
Bullshit. The Russkies were just looking for a good cabrito asado joint.

Tecumseh said...


The combination of a high-density reactor and streamlined hull contours make the Akula class capable of speeds that outperform NATO submarines. Careful study of Akulas captured on film reveals another velocity weapon. Parallel sections of small-diameter tubing running down the hull are thought to be a system that, when the need arises, can emit a polymer substance that may greatly enhance underwater speeds under combat conditions.

The Akula is quite capable of gunning as well as running. Armed with four 533mm and four 650mm torpedo tubes, Akula deploys twice as much ordnance as the Los Angeles class. Loadout consists of twenty SET 53 torpedoes, four SS-N-21 nuclear cruise missiles, four SS-N-15 nuclear torpedoes, and ten ultra-heavyweight SET 65 ASUW torpedoes. Both the SET 53 and SET 65 torpedoes are wireguided and possess active, passive, and wake-homing capabilities. The SET 65 pack a 900kg punch, enough to take out a carrier with one unit.

Don't worry, be happy, says Mr Rot. Duh.

Mr roT said...

Shaking in my boots at the thought of all those banks of vacuum tubes computing kerosene consumption of the mess.

Arelcao Akleos said...

Herr Rott still believes that Russia only has access to MANIAC. Although it is true that Russia has access to many maniacs, it is quite capable of buying the same computers the USA or China relies on.
It ain't the late 1960's anymore, Muchacho.

Mr roT said...

Nonsense. The Russians can write code and buy others' chips, but the name of the game is acceleration of the pace of innovation, not warehousing rockets.

Tecumseh said...

Boy, oh, boy, you're stuck behind the times, Mr Rot. Here's another tidbit in the news for you. $625 billion will buy lotsa new planes in the next few years. How many new fighter planes and bombers will our Air Force acquire in the meantime?

Being $16 trillion (and growing) in the hock has a price, Mr Rot. You still don't seem to realize that basic Econ 101 principle.

Tecumseh said...

Some cold, hard numbers for you:

Military expenditure by the USA, the world’s top military spender, fell by 1.2 per cent in real terms (or $8.7 billion in 2010 prices).

Russia, in contrast, increased its military spending by 9.3 per cent in 2011, reaching a total of $71.9 billion, which now makes the country the third largest military spender worldwide, overtaking the UK and France.

Further increases in military spending are planned, notably in equipment, research and development (R&D) and support for the arms and military services industry over the period 2011–20, with plans to replace the majority of Russia’s mostly Soviet-era military equipment with modern weaponry by 2020.

Mr roT said...

Tecs, as usual, misses the gist:
This is just part of the modernization of the Armed Force. Russia's leaders will spend a total of $625 billion (20 trillion rubles) on new weapons by 2020.

Just to keep this amount in perspective it is less than what the United States spends on defense in just one fiscal year ($708 billion in 2011, $668 billion in 2010).

Can I quit quaking yet, Tecs? RiF.

Mr roT said...

[...] overtaking the UK and France.

Oh shit! Our allies!!

Tecumseh said...

Herr Rott, Herr Rott (said in a heavy Rooskie accent). You argue at about the same level of logic as DWS (Debbie Wasserman Schultz).

Of course, the $625 billion figure refers to military procurement ( new weapons, in simple English) that Putin has pledged for the Red Army. The $668 billion figure (actually, it's $683.7 billion, to be precise) refers to the total US defense budget for FY 2010 (that includes pay, benefits, operations, maintenance, the works). The actual procurement budget for that year was $140.1 billion--a drop of 1.8% compared with 2009.

What's more, the trend is down--way down. There are $487 billion in cuts to the overall budget over the next 10 years, already passed. And now there may well be another $500 billion in automatic cuts if nothing is done by January. And a big, big chunk of these overall cuts will be in the area of procurement, you can be sure of that.

But hey, that's just numbers. Who needs numbers, when you can talk like DWS?

Finally, I've only mentioned Russia. Then, there is China. And Iran. And NK. And various stuff happening in the Mideast. But why worry, when we can happily swill ouzo, and make fun of the French army, instead?

Mr roT said...

An ad hominem, followed by a bit of obfuscation that would not fool a blind cat, and wrapping up with a change of subject, replacing the dealt-with idea of military spending with its derivative, assumed constant for all time, apparently.
Tecs, did you go to Harvard, UC Berkeley, or NYU? All of the aforementioned? Your training in critical thinking seems as if it were confined to wooing gullible females with pinko parents. Did your profs at least teach you to go for the rich ones?

Tecumseh said...

More hard numbers (as opposed to, you know, feelings):

The new U.S. Air Force 2013 budget proposal trims the service’s spending to $154.3 billion, down from $162.5 billion the year before.

Procurement is being slashed by some $3 billion while research and development spending is cut by $500 million.

PDE's are too hard, man! You should try CDs, for a change. Here's one more piece of data:

Change in Spending FY2012-FY2013: Total DoD O&M Procurement RDT&E MILPERS MILCON
-4.94% -3.96% -10.01% -3.13% -2.57% -15.79%

Change in Spending FY2011-FY2012: Total DoD O&M Procurement RDT&E MILPERS MILCON
-6.01% -3.72% -8.28% -11.13% -2.34% -34.37%

See all those minus signs in front of the percentages for procurement and R&D? Could they signify something?

Mr roT said...

Guts, not lame stats and CDs