second hand US nuclear sub. for Romania???

I see you actually haven't read what I wrote. The "ship in being" means that by having even one sub, your enemy needs to defend against it and resources on this, more than you do by owning one. See the case of Delfinul between 1941-42.

As for the nuclear subs it is indeed stupid to buy one, because smaller, quieter subs are what we need for the Black Sea.

Aha, I think I understand a little what you mean. But I am still not convinced it will justify the money spent both to buy and to maintain it.

Nice to see how well informed is AlexC. Well, SSK like Kilo and other much modern ones are much quiet then Los Angeles. Sturgeon class for us? Bleah! Old ones will eat much money year by year for the purpose of ship in being.

Maybe our leaders think about some ships under romanian flag who will join in STANAVFROMED or whaterver the name is of this multinational task force in Med. For that, two modernized frigates and one nuclear submarine will be enough for our image in the world eyes as a good and active NATO member. 100 % sure Turkey will let us to move our sub from Black Sea to the Med for that purpouse.

Why not at least one (if we are in so much need to be a really capable submarine user, i thinlk we need 3 - 2 in permanent service and one in base) new Scorpene type SSK who is quite stealhy. French DCN offer AM-2000 variant with MESMA (Module d'Energie Sous-Marine Autonome) module. This will be superior of some series of Los Angeles in technology and systems and will be much quiet.
Chile (2), Malaysia (2) and India (6) opted for Scorpene and not for U-212/214 even this bring some controverse in India.

Why we don't try to buy a Rubis from French? Is smaller, is perfect for small sea like Black Sea. Is noisy enough to scarry the enemy ships...

Etc.

So: Gotland, Scorpene, even one variant of the new Lada/Amur...

Iama

I think a second hand SSN and 2 SSKs would be a great combination.

Our Kilo is one of the first versions. In any case, the repairs for it would cost estimated 200 Mil. Way too much . Only latest Kilo's are more silent(they got milling machine from Norway in a nice inteligence operation) .

US navy trained with a lot of SSK's ... That's why they are the best navy they train with all potential enemy subs.
SSN would be quite a solution, we will cut the fuel costs and maintenace of expensive acumulators . Well they will need to wear Lead Underwear .

regarding Ukraine fleet's sub, well they have a old Foxtrot one .
But like Victor said, a SSN would be important as Ship in being (I think we should be used by now with this fact ). For that matter , any kind of operational submarine.

and if is for Free ... why not ?

But is not our No1 priority
Anyway "vrabia malai viseaza"

Kilo history sort of:

Project 877 (NATO: Kilo)
Project 636 (NATO: Improved Kilo)

Conventional submarine, constructed at the following yards:

Krasnoye Sormovo, Gorkiy (Nizhniy Novgorod): 17 Project 877 (18th completed as Project 636M)
Komsomolsk-na-Amure: 15 Project 877
Admiralty Yard, Leningrad (St. Petersburg): 11 Project 877 and 7 Project 636 (still bldg.)
Severodvinsk: 2 Project 636 (bldg)

Project 877M: modernized version, last 8 built to this standard (probably B-459, B-471, B-177, B-464, B-494, B-187, B-190 and B-345)
Project 877LPMB: new screw and escape hatch, additional acoustic equipment
Project 877V: experimental water jet, instead of standard screw
Project 877E: export model for Poland and Romania
Project 877EK: export model, not built
Project 877EKM: export model for tropical waters

Project 636: modernized Project 877
Project 636M: equipped with 6 ZM-54E Klab anti-ship cruise missiles [SS-N-27]



877 ----> 877E (Export for WP countries)
----> 877EK (Export for capitalist countries, never built)
----> 877EKM (Export for capitalist countries, improved, built *)
----> 877V (Alosra, pump-jet testbed)
----> 877LPMB (Prototype for improved noise reduction measures)
I
I
I------> 877 (last 8 Rus boats), they received benefits from 877LPMB sometimes called 877M
I
I------> 636 class for China, derived from last VMF boats. Club-S, MGK-400EM, etc.
I
I------> 636M improved with better batteries, improved machenry, new optronics mast, etc.



877EKM
I
I
----> Modified in Russia with improved sensors, Club-S and machenry, it stills have 6 blade propellors. Different Countries (!?)
I
I
I---------> Indian Boat with Pachendriya Combat Systems

This post has been edited by tomcat1974 on March 30, 2006 08:58 am

USA trained even with turretllesse tank of Sweden.

In my previous post i made a joke "Why we don't try to buy a Rubis from French? Is smaller, is perfect for small sea like Black Sea. Is noisy enough to scarry the enemy ships... "

For a small sea, we need smaller and quiet submarine, not a Sturgeon. The "little" Gotland will be perfect for us.

Iama

I dont know what you understand by too big for a small sea. The Sturgeon is around 100 meters for crying out loud. Since when is an 100 meters long object too big for a 422,000 square km sea with a depth of as much as 2 km?
I think the decision will be taken by professional persons and they will know what and why they'll buy.

take care

After all Captain Basescu didn't considered Black Sea small for his Oil Tanker

Anyway we would do other better things not a submarine .

This post has been edited by tomcat1974 on March 30, 2006 10:48 am

I dont know what you understand by too big for a small sea. The Sturgeon is around 100 meters for crying out loud. Since when is an 100 meters long object too big for a 422,000 square km sea with a depth of as much as 2 km?
I think the decision will be taken by professional persons and they will know what and why they'll buy.

take care

Hey, Sturgeon class had "4,250 tons standard, except SSN 678-687 4,460 tons
4,780 tons submerged, except SSN 678-687 4,960 tons" according to FAS, and this is what i have in mind when i say - it is big for Black Sea. Remember, for ex, what tonnage have had the german and soviet subs use in Black Sea in ww2. Comparing to them, even the first Delfinul was big with his cca. 900 tons. Ok, our enemy were scarryed about Delfinul 4 inch deck gun..., the most powerfull from the subs in Black Sea...

And, another disatvantage is the reactor S5W, who is designed in 1959...

Rubis SSN of the Marine Nationale had 2500 tons, i think.

Iama

I agree, a submarine is a useful weapon, a submarine will be OK for Romanian Navy etc. But why a nuke ?

Yes, yes, take whatever number you like, length width weight, that sub is not too big for the Black Sea. Maybe it is a big sub compared to other subs in the region, but a sub can never be considered too big for a 422,000km2 sea (a huge volume of water). The Black Sea isnt Lacul Morii.

BTW, that weight is like 70 Abrams M1A1.

take care

Imperialist, I don't understand about M1...


About the subject of this topic, i have some smiles thinking about a new pole like the one for fighters... one of the options to be "one locally projected and builded sub"... nuclear or not...

Iama

iama don't start

[edited by admin]

Obviously, volume is not measured in square meters. It is , obviously , the cubic meter in which volume is expressed. Also , obviously, we are talking about metric system.
But volume isn't everything, neither surface when we speak submarines. If a relatively big submarine is used, that one must have room to move, if the bottom of the sea isn't too deep then maneuvering it is a problem. I don't recall what is the deepest point, but definitely , it is nothing compared with the big ocean, or North Sea, or Mediterana.
As I said, if we get one for free,then it's OK, as Victor said, ship in being. That's fine with me. We can use the money somewhere else, like building another reactor at Cernavoda,or something else.

tomcat1974, please watch the language.