Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:21:56 UTC No. 16444822

>>16444820
>cargo submarines
Why?

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:24:43 UTC No. 16444833

>>16444820
Malinvestment
Russians are self destructive. Sabotage themselves.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:26:32 UTC No. 16444836

>>16444822
Because in the arctic its easier to go below the ice than travel on the surface and bust your way through all the ice.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:27:01 UTC No. 16444838

> Russia is building
Nah, I don't think so.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:45:03 UTC No. 16444865

>>16444820
Ah, these will be useful for opening the Canadian arctic to trade, after Alaska falls to the VDV and monke is declared Grand Protector of North America.

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:55:15 UTC No. 16444889

>>16444836
Just make a big truck

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:56:03 UTC No. 16444892

Sounds pretty cool to be perfectly desu

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 04:16:57 UTC No. 16445290

>>16444838
Russia is the world's leader in nuclear powered transport and in civilian uses of nuclear power. They are the only nation which doesn't greedily restrict nuclear powered transportation and keep it exclusively for their own military uses.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 04:22:46 UTC No. 16445298

>>16445290
And how is that working out for them?

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 06:12:43 UTC No. 16445359

>>16445298
They can afford to have all the western world seething about eastern Ukraine and Crimea (been about 10 years) while keeping China at bay (even actually befriending them). On a strict geopolitical upkeep, i'd say they're doing great.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 10:51:04 UTC No. 16445563

>>16445290
>Russia is
Replace that with "Soviet Union was". Russia inherited old soviet stuff, and not much development has happened since. Even the newest nuclear ice breakers, like Ural which entered service in 2022, is a result of a soviet project from the 1980s.

Civil nuclear transport probably hasn't seen much popularity in market economy because it does not make financial sense. In a planned economy, it does not have to make sense. Perhaps it makes sense in the future

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 11:26:54 UTC No. 16445578

>>16444820
Good
Russia and China will defeat the Zionist Western world, pray to God

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 11:39:13 UTC No. 16445586

>>16445359
>phull support saar
Just admit you're brown

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 11:48:21 UTC No. 16445587

>>16445563
>In a planned economy, it does not have to make sense.
It needs to make sense in a planned economy. Malinvestment reduces the total available capital stock, its something you can live with if the damage can be absorbed by the productivity of other sectors, its still bad and malinvestment is still bad when done by the private sector.
Heres a typical private sector malinvestment: Office towers, in an era when everyone has home computers and personal phones. Its just something you take for granted today but would have been a techno miracle 70 years ago.
People still drive and wear out 2000 pound machines to work, burn fuel, use mechanic repair services, wear out the roads, spend 2 hours a day on the road (20% of their awake time), congest the road for everyone else, uses billions of tons of steel and concrete to build offices and parking lots... just to talk to someone and read email

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 12:41:31 UTC No. 16445624

>>16445586
>pale catholic
Being educated enough to understand looking at geopolitics with a single facet of the prism is a crucial mistake and does not define skin color.
Obviously you're missing that ability and it should legally dismiss you from being able to have an opinion (or worse, express it) on important matters.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 12:58:50 UTC No. 16445631

>>16445359
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:27:58 UTC No. 16445659

>>16444822
Most submarines are military, so they need to be stealthy, making little noise and having a small profile. Since these will be cargo ships, they don't need to be quiet and can be giant. Water resistance will be the main factor pushing the size down.
Cargo subs won't be able to compete with traditional cargo ships that run on the surface but given Russia's geography and that arctic shipping is a huge PITA half of the year, for some cargo loads this will make sense. It probably will also be useful for bypassing various sanctions imposed by the "Rules Based International Community" as even with a massive size and noise, the various sonar-nets and patrols won't be able to consistently track these subs from port to port, especially when there are a large number of them operating. Those resources are needed for tracking actual military submarines, which also means these cargo subs will be a useful distraction in conflict situations.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:40:38 UTC No. 16445675

>>16445659
Russian subs also have the tendency of imploding and it's significantly easier for foreign nations to sabotage or destroy a sub and not get caught.

It is a retarded idea anyways since I don't see what civilian cargo could be shipped that's worth the expense.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:44:23 UTC No. 16445683

>>16445675
Also the idea that most/all russian submarines are not already tracked is funny, along with the idea line that civilian russian subs will not be tracked. By your own plan they 'dont need to be quiet and can be giant' but then they would be detectable, and they still need to surface in ports to take on cargo where they will be detected, meaning that it cannot be deniably used for sanction-skipping.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 16:43:03 UTC No. 16445946

>>16445683
Holy shit it is so over for Russia
Why do they even try to live?
USA truly invincible

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 19:40:44 UTC No. 16446219

>>16445675
>It is a retarded idea anyways since I don't see what civilian cargo could be shipped that's worth the expense.
Its always oil

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 22:59:26 UTC No. 16446482

>>16445946
It's been over for russia since 1991.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 01:43:13 UTC No. 16446647

>>16445563
>is a result of a soviet project from the 1980s.
the f-35 is the result of a project from the 90s ('93) which happened because projects from the 80s weren't good enough to implement. it's also a project planned to last 70 years. the f-22 project began in the 80s. it's not as big an own as you think it is.

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 02:12:58 UTC No. 16446679

>>16445659
>arctic shipping is a huge PITA half of the year
12 months of the year, there are only ice free lanes available occasionally in july-october, but even then its a matter of luck to get one. meanwhile below the ice its always clear and you can steer any course

🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 01:05:51 UTC No. 16448135

based russia moving the ball forward on an exciting new technology project, can't believe nuclear cargo subs seems to make so many ppl on /sci/ upset

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:08:41 UTC No. 16449846

>>16446482
1991 was when Russia was back

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 23:17:59 UTC No. 16451364

>>16444889
you think they didn't think of that? subs are better than trucks

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 23:28:57 UTC No. 16451380

>>16444820
Is this a joke? Russians don't even have domestically produced car other than the loaf van with tech from the 60s.
How are they gonna research, design and build a submarine like in the op

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 00:45:58 UTC No. 16451446

>>16451380
it's not a terrible idea when you consider that a civilian cargo submarine would only need to go a few meters deep, just enough to get under the ice
it doesn't need to be particularly strong to survive deep dives, or quiet to avoid detection

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 00:57:51 UTC No. 16451461

>>16451446
It would need to go deeper because the ship itself would be fairly tall then there has be enough clearance between the ship and the ice above it. Also a cargo sub would have to be massive just like cargo surface ships are, to build a submarine like that is beyond russias capability(or pretty much anyone elses), and more importantly is simply cheaper to use existing modes of transportation.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 05:25:43 UTC No. 16451763

It's been 20 years of news like these, of mythical Russian wunderwaffen that never turn out to be true, you mfs never learn eh?

Remember Russia was going to mass produce these stealth fighters (announced 15 years ago), which were supposed to be better than the F-22? Never happened. They were nowhere in sight on the skies of Ukraine.

We learned on the Ukraine War that their rusty planes don't even have a working GPS (GLONASS which is supposed to be the Russian version) top kek

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 07:09:44 UTC No. 16451841

>>16445563
Nowadays they seem to mostly use it for icebreakers so maybe something about icebreakers encourages nuclear powering more than other ships

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 08:56:32 UTC No. 16451900

>>16451763
soviet artillery + retarded FABs are doing the job though
this is the real lesson from this war: expensive high-tech is only good in asymmetric situations, cheap mass production is the way against near-peers

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:19:07 UTC No. 16451952

Well considering about floating on top are in the water has to compensate for a massive cargo load they have the tendency to cap size and on top of that it'd be more aerodynamic and the weight wants to go in the water anyways you know what I mean and then when it's underwater n***** Somalian pirates can't do s*** about it they can't even get to it you know what I mean they should make all f****** cargo ships like underwater submarines

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 04:00:42 UTC No. 16453178

>>16451763
>stealth fighters
>They were nowhere in sight
just as keikaku

Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 08:09:31 UTC No. 16453329

>Russia is building--
Lmao please shut the fuck up.