#The National Interest

[xtruss]

Russia's Typhoon-Class Missile Submarine Is Something the Navy Can't Match

Russia's Typhoon-Class nuclear submarines were a vessel the U.S. Navy could never match in terms of size and total tonnage. They carried a massive amount of Nuclear Missiles.

— By Peter Suciu | Monday January 22, 2024

Image: Shutterstock

A Big Deal: The Russian Navy's Typhoon-Class — Nearly a year ago, Russia decommissioned the Project 941 Akula (NATO reporting name Typhoon) heavy nuclear-powered missile-carrying submarine cruiser Dmitry Donskoy several years earlier than expected. In fact, it had been only three years ago that the Kremlin announced the boat would remain in service until at least 2026, even as its role was reportedly limited to that of a weapons test platform for the new Borei-, Borei-A-, Yasen-and Yasen-M-class submarines.

In February 2023, it was officially confirmed that Dmitry Donskoy was decommissioned in February due to cost considerations. The submarine had served for more than 40 years in the Northern Fleet.

Initially designated the TK-208, she was the lead vessel of the Soviet third-generation Akula-class (Russian for "Shark"). She entered service in 1981 with the Soviet Navy, and after a 12-year overhaul and refit that began in 1990, she reentered service in 2002 as the Dmitry Donskoy, named after the Grand Duke of Moscow Dmitry Donskoy (1359–1389), the reputed founder of Moscow.

According to Russian media, Dmitry Donskoy initially carried D-19 strategic intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) as its basic armament. Following its upgrade under Project 941UM, it was involved in the tests of the seaborne Bulava ICBM.

Typhoon-Class: Project 941 Boats: The Sevmash Shipyard built six of a planned seven Project 941 submarines for the Russian Navy, and all were operational with the Northern Fleet. Though the oldest of the submarines, the Dmitriy Donskoy was also the last of the class to remain in service.

The TK-202, TK-12 – later renamed the Simbirsk – and T-13 were withdrawn from active service between 1996 and 2009, and scrapped with the financial support of the United States. Two other boats: the TK-17/Arkhangelsk and TK-20/Severstal remained in service until they were decommissioned circa 2013. A seventh boat, TK-210, was laid down but scrapped before completion.

With a displacement of 48,000 tons, a length of 175 meters (nearly 600 feet), a 23-meter beam, and a 12-meter draught, the Typhoon-class was the largest class of submarines ever built. Developed with multiple pressure hulls, including five inner hulls situated inside a superstructure of two parallel main hulls, the Typhoon-class was also wider than any other submarine ever built. The submarines were powered by OK-650 pressurized-water nuclear reactors, two 50,000 horsepower steam turbines, and four 3,200 KW turbogenerators and this provides the boat with the ability to sail at a speed of up to 22.2 knots on the surface and 27 knots whilst submerged.

Each contained nineteen compartments, including a strengthened module, which housed the main control room as well as an electronic equipment compartment above the main hulls and behind the missile launch tubes. It even was reported that there was a sauna on board as well as a small swimming pool for the crew. The sheer size of the submarines was likely welcomed by the approximately 160 sailors who called the submarine home on voyages lasting 120 days or longer, oftentimes without surfacing for months at a time.

The Typhoon-class subs were designed to counter the United States Navy's Ohio-class subs, which were capable of carrying up to 192 100-kiloton nuclear warheads. By contrast, the Soviet Typhoons could carry a primary cache of 20 RSM-52 SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles), each of which contained up to 10 MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle) warheads.

Though the Dmitriry Donskoiy has been decommissioned, in 2021, a new sub of the Borei-class has already begun construction; and when launched, will bear the name of the legendary founder of Moscow.

— Peter Suciu is a Michigan-Based Writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Republicans are obsessed with insuring that primary and secondary schools produce Republican voters—through a process of GOP political indoctrination drawing on Leninist methods. Jonathan Chait: Republicans have begun saying things about American schools that not long ago would have struck them as peculiar, even insane. 

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has called schools “a cesspool of Marxist indoctrination.” Former secretary of State Mike Pompeo predicts that “teachers’ unions, and the filth that they’re teaching our kids,” will “take this republic down.” Against the backdrop of his party, Donald Trump, complaining about “pink-haired communists teaching our kids” and “Marxist maniacs and lunatics” running our universities, sounds practically calm.

More ominously, at every level of government, Republicans have begun to act on these beliefs. Over the past three years, legislators in 28 states have passed at least 71 bills controlling what teachers and students can say and do at school. A wave of library purges, subject-matter restrictions, and potential legal threats against educators has followed.

Education has become an obsession on the political right, which now sees it as the central battlefield upon which this country’s future will be settled. Schoolhouses are being conscripted into a cataclysmic war in which no compromise is possible — in which a child in a red state will be discouraged from asking questions about sexual identity, or a professor will be barred from exploring the ways in which white supremacy has shaped America today, or a trans athlete will be prohibited from playing sports.

[posttexasstressdisorder]

[pscottm]

One of the most distinctive and important features of the American political economy is the power differential between business and labor. Not only is the former vastly larger and wealthier, it also commands respect and attention from the political system that the latter could never dream of. A small window into the differential can be seen in comments made by Mitt Romney the other day at the hearings for Julie Su, the Biden administration’s nominee for Labor secretary.

Romney complained that Su has met frequently with unions, but only recently with business. This means, he complained, she is not “an unbiased, neutral arbiter”

The “unbiased, neutral arbiter” standard is an interesting one. It is not a demand that is normally made of other Cabinet secretaries. The Commerce secretary is understood as a representative of business. The Treasury secretary is supposed to have at least the respect of Wall Street. They are not generally pressed to demonstrate a record of cooperation with labor. So should all Cabinet secretaries be neutral between business and labor, or just the Labor secretary?

And if this expectation of neutrality applies to just the Labor secretary, should it apply to all of them, or just Democratic ones? Because Republican Labor secretaries generally adopt uncompromising pro-management positions.

Donald Trump’s last Labor secretary, Eugene Scalia, came from a corporate law firm, where he bitterly fought unions over workplace-safety protections. The AFL-CIO called him a “lifelong union-buster” who “has yet to find a worker protection he supports or a corporate loophole he opposes.” Romney votes for his nomination.

Trump’s first pick to run the department, fast-food executive and right-wing ideologue Andrew Puzder, was equally loathed by unions. (His nominations ultimately failed in the face of credible domestic-abuse allegations.) But even after other Republicans abandoned Puzder, Romney — at the time just a concerned private citizen — stuck his neck out to write a Facebook post endorsing the embattled nominee.

Romney��s concept of neutrality means, in practice, “What’s mine is mine, and what’s your is ours.” Labor is a special interest, and management is just “the economy.”

[liberaleffects]

Twitter owner Elon Musk used to be hated by conservatives, but now they love his right-wing conspiracy theories. He blames Anthony Fauci for the pandemic, not China—a country he praises repeatedly & with which he has billions of dollars of business.

[volukyrja]

Icelandic miku 🇮🇸❄️🌋

[worfsbarmitzvah]

there’s such an attitude among ex-christian atheists that religions just spring up out of the void with no cultural context behind them. like ive heard people say shit like “those (((zionists))) think they own a piece of land bc their book of fairy tales told them so!!!” and they refuse to understand that no, we don’t belong there because of the torah, it’s in the torah because we belong there. because we’re from there. the torah (from a reform perspective) was written by ancient jews in and about the land that they were actively living on at the time. the torah contains instructions for agriculture because the people who lived in the land needed a way to teach their children how to care for it. it contains laws of jurisprudence because those are pretty important to have when you’re trying to run a society. same for the parts that talk about city planning. it contains our national origin story for the same reason that american schools teach kids about the boston tea party. it’s an extremely complex and fascinating text that is the furthest thing from just a “book of fairy tales”

[suntails]

echo

[stillgotscars]

maybe it’s just me, but expecting taylor to have come out with a statement already is a bit insensitive. this entire situation — knowing her concerts were the target of a thwarted terrorist attack, knowing thousands of people came close to being physically harmed or losing their lives — is terrifying, and would be difficult for anyone to grapple with. for all we know, intelligence agencies may have advised her to not say anything right now in order to keep herself, her team, and all of us safe. first and foremost, please keep in mind that she’s taylor, an actual human being before she’s taylor swift, the brand. give her some much-needed space to process this and sort through her emotions. if you think she doesn’t care, you don’t know her well at all.

[athina-blaine]

I'd like to take a moment to point out to detractors of ships involving Laios who feel that "Laios wouldn't take any interest in people!" that he'd hyperfixated on Shuro so badly it was ruining the man's life lmao

[sketchingstars03]

a struggle us ink fans know all too well

I’ve said enough

[royaltea000]

He’s like the worlds shittiest Madonna to me

[pscottm]

For a while, Obama’s perspective mostly carried the day. But as the new Republican-led House seeks to renew the effort to use the debt ceiling as a hostage, a revisionist interpretation has taken hold: This isn’t a new or dangerous tactic, it’s just how Congress operates.

“The House Republicans’ insistence on negotiations and compromise is not hostage taking. It is the ordinary stuff of politics,” claims law professor Michael McConnell. “A standalone clean debt ceiling is dead on arrival … In modern times, the debt ceiling is raised with negotiations,” asserts Punchbowl’s Jake Sherman.

Andrew Prokop of Vox argues, “Historically, it hasn’t been the case that the debt ceiling is a sacrosanct thing that shouldn’t be subject to typical political horse-trading. In 2017, Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer bragged to the New York Times that he had used the debt ceiling as ‘leverage’ over President Trump.”

This is all totally false. These arguments conflate negotiation, which is historically common in debt-ceiling bills, with extortion, which isn’t.

[liberaleffects]

The biggest loser of the 2022 election other than Donald Trump was Kyrsten Sinema. The Arizona senator and now-former Democrat desperately needed Democrats, especially fellow senator Mark Kelly, to lose. Only such a setback would make the party desperate enough to tolerate her continued presence. Kelly’s reelection made it certain that Sinema would face, and lose, a primary challenge in two years.

Sinema’s declaration of independence from the party is a ploy to avoid the primary and keep her job. Democrats could still run a candidate against her in the general election, of course, but they would face an extremely difficult prospect of winning. So her calculation in leaving the party is that she can bluff it into sitting out the campaign altogether, endorsing her as the lesser-evil choice against the Republican nominee.

It may work. If it doesn’t, it is because Sinema has underestimated just how much ill will she has generated across the breadth of the Democratic Party by reconceptualizing her role as the personal concierge of the superrich.