If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Russia launches new Nuclear Sub in an effort to modernize its naval forces. In this case "modern" means construction started in 1995   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 68
    More: Interesting, New Russian, Russia, nuclear submarines, Russians, Dmitry Rogozin, nuclear deterrent, Bulava, Russian Navy  
•       •       •

5667 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jan 2013 at 1:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-12 12:14:00 PM
Welcome, CSSR Ocean Litter, may you sink in Peace.

Stick with vodak and leave the maritime biz to the Big Boys = USN
 
2013-01-12 12:35:44 PM
The thing is all full of Beanie Babies and Magic Eye posters.
 
2013-01-12 01:07:55 PM
Took that long to clear the thing of Yeltsin's empties
 
2013-01-12 01:08:55 PM
Man, they've fallen since Ramius's defection.
 
2013-01-12 01:09:09 PM
Kind of like having an airforce of planes designed in the 70s and 80s.
 
2013-01-12 01:09:17 PM
F-22: Construction started in the 1980s. So what? You think we discovered new magical materials in the meantime?
 
2013-01-12 01:09:33 PM
Mandrake, you can start by making me a dring of grain alcohol and rain water
 
2013-01-12 01:13:35 PM
i291.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-12 01:13:38 PM
How long does it take to build a nuclear submarine? 17-18 years doesn't seem that bad.
 
2013-01-12 01:14:00 PM

Oldiron_79: Mandrake, you can start by making me a dring of grain alcohol and rain water


One dring only, pleash
 
2013-01-12 01:17:00 PM

natmar_76: Kind of like having an airforce of planes designed in the 70s and 80s.


www.stratofortress.org
 
2013-01-12 01:18:02 PM
Comes complete with pre-hung poster in 2nd Captain's quaters:

imgc.allpostersimages.com
 
2013-01-12 01:20:01 PM
I'm still waking up. I read "Borei-class submarines" as "Borat-class submarines", due to the smaller typeface from the article...
 
2013-01-12 01:21:27 PM

spawn73: How long does it take to build a nuclear submarine? 17-18 years doesn't seem that bad.


It's a tad excessive. We just take a couple of years, and could do it faster if we wanted to pay a lot more in overtime costs.
 
2013-01-12 01:22:27 PM
It remindsh me of the heady daysh of Shputnik and Yuri Gagarin, when the world trembled at the shoundsh of our rocketsh. Well, they will tremble again, at the shound of our shilensh. The order ish: engage the shilent drive.
 
2013-01-12 01:24:03 PM
What's his plan? A Russian doesn't take a dump without a plan.
 
2013-01-12 01:24:08 PM

natmar_76: Kind of like having an airforce of planes designed in the 70s and 80s.


3.bp.blogspot.com

/hot
 
2013-01-12 01:25:07 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

Because a weapons system designed in the late 1940's, introduced in 1952 and the last one rolled off
the assembly line in 1961 can't be effective...
 
2013-01-12 01:25:11 PM

incendi: spawn73: How long does it take to build a nuclear submarine? 17-18 years doesn't seem that bad.

It's a tad excessive. We just take a couple of years, and could do it faster if we wanted to pay a lot more in overtime costs.


Apparently, the new missle it was originally designed to carry was a failure, so it had to be revamped.
 
2013-01-12 01:26:06 PM

incendi: spawn73: How long does it take to build a nuclear submarine? 17-18 years doesn't seem that bad.

It's a tad excessive. We just take a couple of years, and could do it faster if we wanted to pay a lot more in overtime costs.


It's not like they've been working non-stop for 17 years. This one was moth-balled for years because Russia is poor.
 
2013-01-12 01:26:12 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: F-22: Construction started in the 1980s. So what? You think we discovered new magical materials in the meantime?


Development of the F-22 began then, but once the plane was designed in full it doesn't take them 12 years to build one plane.

In this case, they laid the keel in 1996 but it wasn't launched until 2008.
 
2013-01-12 01:26:55 PM
Is this ship pre- or post- ha-gaffen?
 
2013-01-12 01:29:47 PM
That thing makes the Typhoon-class subs look pretty by comparison. Did they run out of rounded shapes when they were designing it?
 
2013-01-12 01:31:28 PM

jaytkay: It's not like they've been working non-stop for 17 years. This one was moth-balled for years because Russia is poor.


They should cut taxes then.
 
2013-01-12 01:34:12 PM
It's very common for military hardware to be in development for a decade or longer before it's introduced.  The Apache took it's first flight back in 1975, only months after Vietnam ended.
 
2013-01-12 01:35:05 PM
it's 'nuclear wessels' subby
 
2013-01-12 01:35:35 PM
jaytkay: "It's not like they've been working non-stop for 17 years. This one was moth-balled for years because Russia is poor."

Weird that a country with a space program so robust it beat America in almost every major milestone is poor. Almost as if there's no connection between tossing things in the air and how rich a country is...
 
2013-01-12 01:35:53 PM

Donnchadha: Quantum Apostrophe: F-22: Construction started in the 1980s. So what? You think we discovered new magical materials in the meantime?

Development of the F-22 began then, but once the plane was designed in full it doesn't take them 12 years to build one plane.

In this case, they laid the keel in 1996 but it wasn't launched until 2008.


Yet, it took the US Army about 12 years to build 50 Sgt York's and turn them into bomb range targets. At least the Russians apparently have a working platform for their effort.
 
2013-01-12 01:40:39 PM

spawn73: How long does it take to build a nuclear submarine? 17-18 years doesn't seem that bad.


From design to water, about eight years. Actually physically assembling the USS Virginia took about five years. Link
 
2013-01-12 01:44:20 PM

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: jaytkay: It's not like they've been working non-stop for 17 years. This one was moth-balled for years because Russia is poor.

They should cut taxes then.


Russia's got a flat-rate income tax of 13 percent for these things, I guess
 
2013-01-12 01:48:45 PM
upload.wikimedia.org
/1797
 
2013-01-12 01:49:47 PM

zerkalo: Oldiron_79: Mandrake, you can start by making me a dring of grain alcohol and rain water

One dring only, pleash


I wonder if thats gonna be the new vodak
 
2013-01-12 01:50:41 PM

TheOther: Donnchadha: Quantum Apostrophe: F-22: Construction started in the 1980s. So what? You think we discovered new magical materials in the meantime?

Development of the F-22 began then, but once the plane was designed in full it doesn't take them 12 years to build one plane.

In this case, they laid the keel in 1996 but it wasn't launched until 2008.

Yet, it took the US Army about 12 years to build 50 Sgt York's and turn them into bomb range targets. At least the Russians apparently have a working platform for their effort.


And the damn thing (Sgt. York) was micro-managed by bureaucrats and politicians who simply couldn't keep their hands out of the pie, as well as taking forever to get the various components to work at all (and they never could get everything to work all at the same time).
 
2013-01-12 02:03:21 PM

Forbidden Doughnut: natmar_76: Kind of like having an airforce of planes designed in the 70s and 80s.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 800x600]

/hot


God, how can something be so ugly and so beautiful?
 
2013-01-12 02:03:45 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: F-22: Construction started in the 1980s. So what? You think we discovered new magical materials in the meantime?


That's exactly what I was thinking. The Blackbird began its construction in the 60's. It takes a long time to make these technologically monstrous machnies. Add in validation, and beauracratic red tape...
Yeah, 1995 sounds about right actually.
 
2013-01-12 02:05:47 PM

calbert: it's 'nuclear wessels' subby


This. I'm voting for the headline to be fixed.
 
2013-01-12 02:10:07 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: jaytkay: "It's not like they've been working non-stop for 17 years. This one was moth-balled for years because Russia is poor."

Weird that a country with a space program so robust it beat America in almost every major milestone is poor. Almost as if there's no connection between tossing things in the air and how rich a country is...


I suspect that their social spending is a tad less than ours.
 
2013-01-12 02:11:57 PM
Now, on the one hand, the beast is built from some of the strongest alloys known to man. But you gotta believe that corrosion has made its way into some very tough to find areas....
 
2013-01-12 02:30:53 PM
I hope that they did not put any screen doors on this one like they did the Kursk.
 
2013-01-12 02:32:42 PM

natmar_76: Kind of like having an airforce of planes designed in the 70s and 80s.


upload.wikimedia.org
/hot
 
2013-01-12 02:40:20 PM

Donnchadha: Quantum Apostrophe: F-22: Construction started in the 1980s. So what? You think we discovered new magical materials in the meantime?

Development of the F-22 began then, but once the plane was designed in full it doesn't take them 12 years to build one plane.

In this case, they laid the keel in 1996 but it wasn't launched until 2008.


They bought it on layaway.
 
2013-01-12 02:47:13 PM

computerguyUT: Quantum Apostrophe: F-22: Construction started in the 1980s. So what? You think we discovered new magical materials in the meantime?

That's exactly what I was thinking. The Blackbird began its construction in the 60's. It takes a long time to make these technologically monstrous machnies. Add in validation, and beauracratic red tape...
Yeah, 1995 sounds about right actually.


USS Virginia, first in her line for the new attack sub class, started construction on September 2nd, 1999 and was delivered to the Navy on October 12, 2004.
 
2013-01-12 02:56:44 PM
Only Russia would bring a watch to a nuclear war.
 
2013-01-12 03:06:05 PM

GAT_00: computerguyUT: Quantum Apostrophe: F-22: Construction started in the 1980s. So what? You think we discovered new magical materials in the meantime?

That's exactly what I was thinking. The Blackbird began its construction in the 60's. It takes a long time to make these technologically monstrous machnies. Add in validation, and beauracratic red tape...
Yeah, 1995 sounds about right actually.

USS Virginia, first in her line for the new attack sub class, started construction on September 2nd, 1999 and was delivered to the Navy on October 12, 2004.


That's incredibly fast....
Still 5 years. Doesn't put the Russians too far behinnd the curve...
What's 12 years between comrades?
 
2013-01-12 03:08:22 PM

sporkme: [upload.wikimedia.org image 300x283]
/1797


I own a piece of that one! I hope to own a piece of that Russian sub someday too!
i220.photobucket.com">
 
2013-01-12 03:12:16 PM
I suspect nowadays a F16, first released in 1974, is a more effective weapon than the F35.
 
2013-01-12 03:42:30 PM

jaytkay: incendi: spawn73: How long does it take to build a nuclear submarine? 17-18 years doesn't seem that bad.

It's a tad excessive. We just take a couple of years, and could do it faster if we wanted to pay a lot more in overtime costs.

It's not like they've been working non-stop for 17 years. This one was moth-balled for years because Russia is poor.


They finally realized that you can run up the credit card on weapons and get away with it, because national security and SHUT UP THAT'S WHY.

Just what our planet needs; another arms race.
 
2013-01-12 03:52:56 PM

olddeegee: sporkme: [upload.wikimedia.org image 300x283]
/1797

I own a piece of that one! I hope to own a piece of that Russian sub someday too!
[i220.photobucket.com image 576x499]">


Very cool. The best I can claim is a leaf from the Council Oak, some Civil War regalia and a distressed Pennsylvania rifle.
 
2013-01-12 03:57:51 PM

jaytkay: incendi: spawn73: How long does it take to build a nuclear submarine? 17-18 years doesn't seem that bad.

It's a tad excessive. We just take a couple of years, and could do it faster if we wanted to pay a lot more in overtime costs.

It's not like they've been working non-stop for 17 years. This one was moth-balled for years because Russia is poor.


i.telegraph.co.uk: И цоме фром Руссие; ыоу нот саы Руссие поор!
 
2013-01-12 04:04:44 PM
Just another nuke to abandon on the Kola Peninsula.

They shouldn't be allowed to have nukes until they learn to decommission them properly.
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report