Ok. I agree with the points in your post above. I also want to add that the Soviets had good designs, but lackluster quality controls in production due to the flaws in the Gosplan system. I do recognize Soviet Dual-reactor designs are on the whole louder than western ones, but the Soviets used those designs for…

Ok. I’m not going to debate this anymore with you. This is starting to sound like a similar argument that I had with someone else about the merits of Soviet autoloaders vs armored ammunition bustles. That, and this, all boiled down to different design philosophies and doctrine. One system has advantages the other…

Hmmm good points but im still not entirely convinced maybe a single reactor design is better but im still skeptical since soviet engineers used it for so long and had knowledge of the way we designed our own nuclear submarines ig their engineers felt our design was truly superior why then didnt they change in the…

I’m sorry, but the Soviets put two+ reactors in their subs because they could get more power out of multiple reactors than a larger one. This was a calculated engineering design put in place for the very reason I have just described above, so on that, you are patently wrong

The Soviet Brand of Communism is simply fascism with the black swastika on a white field swapped for a yellow hammer and sickle on a red field. True communism is a utopian ideal, and, like ALL other utopian ideals, utterly unachievable.

All I’ve got to say is: WHEEEEEEEE!!!!!

And you’ve just shown the same misunderstanding of Russian/Soviet equipment he was talking about. The T-72s used by the Iraqis were crap tanks *Because those were NOT Russian ones*. They had no composite armor, three decade old decommissioned steel sabots, and two-decade old optics/thermal imagers. The Soviets called…

Good sources, But I’m still skeptical it is an over arching flaw in Russian/Soviet nuclear vessel designs. If you’ll notice, the “Lenin” was designed, launch and built before the K-19 disaster, and the Soviets were shocked into realizing they needed better reactor protection. Most of the Newer Russian nuclear vessels…

The reason why we have NATO reporting names is because we didn’t know what the Soviets themselves called the equipment, they kept that very secret. So we made up names for them so we could identify them easier.

Compared to what US missile? the Tomahawk? That thing is SUBsonic and has about half the range a HYPERsonic P-700 Granit does. Not to mention a smaller warhead, and no swarm capability.

the reason why the Russians call the Kuznetsov a “Heavy Aviation Cruiser” is because the Russian don’t like leaving their carriers defenseless if caught alone, the Kuznetsov has Cruise missiles and so many SAMs and CIWS it makes a Nimitz green with envy, all the Nimitz has to beat the Kuznetsov is a larger Air wing…

Good luck getting that thing to lock on when the ECM pods those su-24's had can blind even the aegis system.

You know whats funny? the Soviets/Russians have been doing the whole APS “shot gunning missiles out of the air thing” since the mid-1980s with the Shtora-1 system. The Israelis, and even more so the USA, are a little late to this party.

the “Star Wars” ABM network does not exist, for several reasons. The lift capacity need to put power units for antimissile lasers (I believe that’s what Star wars was supposed to use) greatly exceeds/exceeded our orbital lift capacity, not to mention that lasers with the capability to melt steel are only just now…

That is actually a myth. The Russians/Soviets put just as much shielding over their reactors as we did/do. The real reason why you hear that kind of thing is the Russian economy tanked so hard after the USSR fell that they couldn’t repair or maintain those reactor shields properly. Now they need replacing, but the…