Banner Ad 1

New Project 677 Lada Class images - - download while you can

This is the place to read all about submarines in the real world!

Postby Dolphin » Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:43 pm

Tom Dougherty is having technical issues here in this forum posting, so I am here to post for Tom. Images in links below.

Steve Reichmuth


These are a series of brand new links on the new Russia Project 677 Lada Class diesel submarine. It's also known as Amur in the export version. This diesel submarine is the new replacement for the Kilo class diesel attack submarine that was produced in Russia as well as being sold to a number of foreign countries. The Amur export version may soon start to turn up in the navies of several countries. Here are two sets of photo links, one with shots of the submarine in the building shed:

http://forums.airbase.ru/index.php?showtopic=30576&st=0

Note the 7 bladed propeller and what appears to be a shrouded anti-vortex device on the prop hub.

And one a very extensive photo coverage of a recent Naval military show which featured new equipment. The submarine was on display at pierside. Note these photos are thumbnails that can be enlarged to a nice size!

http://warships.ru/IMDS2005/677/index.html


Here's some general information links on the new 677 Class submarine:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/677-specs.htm

http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=588627

Tom Dougherty




Edited By Dolphin on 1120927491
Dolphin
 

Postby Gerwalk » Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:07 am

Steve,
What is the need of duplicating posts?

I think it would be nicer and less chaotic to follow my original post from the 8th of July about the very same topic instead of creating a new one and completelly ingnored my original post. Don't you think?

http://www.subcommittee.com/cgi-bin....;t=3565
Pablo
User avatar
Gerwalk
Registered User
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:39 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Postby Tom Dougherty » Mon Jul 11, 2005 4:10 pm

Wait a minute here. Steve was kind enough to post that material on my request as I have had incredible problems logging onto this forum (now solved through the help of Jeff LaRue). I believe that should be clear from his original post.

Also if you actually click the links that are posted in the message, you will see that there are many additional photos in a link NOT included in the original posting that you put up on the 8th. I asked Steve to post that material on the morning of the 9th, after struggling with website log in problems the entire end of last week. So, I didn't carefully check the boards for duplication. I'm also not sure how two postings of the same news (albeit NOT identical by any means) adds "chaos" to the board.

At this rate, I think I'm going to just stick to the pages of the SCR for any news I have to pass along....

Tom Dougherty
Tom Dougherty
Researcher for Project Azorian
Project Azorian Documentary: http://www.projectjennifer.at/
Project Azorian Book: http://www.usni.org/store/catalog-fall-2012/project-azorian
Image
Tom Dougherty
SubCommittee Member
 
Posts: 936
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Ayer, Ma

Postby Gerwalk » Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:42 pm

Tom Dougherty wrote:Wait a minute here. Steve was kind enough to post that material on my request as I have had incredible problems logging onto this forum (now solved through the help of Jeff LaRue). I believe that should be clear from his original post.

Also if you actually click the links that are posted in the message, you will see that there are many additional photos in a link NOT included in the original posting that you put up on the 8th. I asked Steve to post that material on the morning of the 9th, after struggling with website log in problems the entire end of last week. So, I didn't carefully check the boards for duplication. I'm also not sure how two postings of the same news (albeit NOT identical by any means) adds "chaos" to the board.

At this rate, I think I'm going to just stick to the pages of the SCR for any news I have to pass along....

Tom Dougherty

Tom,
I was not fully aware of the many troubles you had for posting that info and so I can understand the confusion. Also the fact that I used the Amur denomination instead of Lada could help in the confusion.

I agree that your post added new info (in particular the amazing photos from warship.ru!!) but, please, I think you can understand my own frustration:
I'm sorry but this is not the first time I had the annoying experience of posting something I considered "new" and seeing that someone else posts the same thing (or almost!)after a day or two totally ignoring my previous post.

Coincidentally I had the same feeling as you about quit posting in these forums when I saw this one posted and after seeing that nobody added a single comment to my previous one! I said to myself: What for? Nobody pays attention not even in the main general forum! Nobody wants to discuss those hatches in the lower hull? The details of the screw? The sonar array tube? etc.

I carefully scan the forums before posting and try to use old posts if they are available (for instance: instead of opening a new "Kursk color" topic I found the one from 2003 and posted there my questions and comments) I do it for two main reasons: for respect to the other members' posts
and to simplify the search (Yes: sometimes it's chaotic to find ten different topics on the same issue with more or less the same info)

Please, it was a confusion (at least this is what I understand) and I expressed my dismay at it. I think we can continue talking "submarines" in these forums and not abandon them just because a missunderstanding.

Regards
Pablo
User avatar
Gerwalk
Registered User
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:39 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Postby Tom Dougherty » Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:09 pm

####, you should have seen this place 4 years ago when we had the "old" SC website. It was like the Wild West before the marshall rode into town. The forum now is "civilized".

If you take a look, there are almost 70 views of your post, so that is hardly being ignored. In fact, other than your comments about double posting, there has been no comment on my post either. That's probably because these are primarily "informational" posts, rather than discussion type posts.
If you want to get a discussion going, simply add, for example, a line to your post like, "..and notice the doors on the lower hull in photo 4. Anyone have any ideas about those"? That's how to generate discussion.

(The doors, by the way, are for the Infinite Improbability Drive)
Tom Dougherty
Researcher for Project Azorian
Project Azorian Documentary: http://www.projectjennifer.at/
Project Azorian Book: http://www.usni.org/store/catalog-fall-2012/project-azorian
Image
Tom Dougherty
SubCommittee Member
 
Posts: 936
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Ayer, Ma

Postby Gerwalk » Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:04 pm

Tom Dougherty wrote:####, you should have seen this place 4 years ago when we had the "old" SC website. It was like the Wild West before the marshall rode into town. The forum now is "civilized".

If you take a look, there are almost 70 views of your post, so that is hardly being ignored. In fact, other than your comments about double posting, there has been no comment on my post either. That's probably because these are primarily "informational" posts, rather than discussion type posts.
If you want to get a discussion going, simply add, for example, a line to your post like, "..and notice the doors on the lower hull in photo 4. Anyone have any ideas about those"? That's how to generate discussion.

(The doors, by the way, are for the Infinite Improbability Drive)

OK you got me with that Infinite Improbability Drive...but don't forget to brig a towell with you!!

And you know what? You are right with the punch lines.
Let's discuss those pics here!

Using the old Babelfish (another HHGTTG reference!!) I couldn't really understand what our russian fellows were saying but I found a better translator and it seems that one of the guys said those hatches are all along the hull and are just "valves"... What are they?

Another interesting thing is the hiding the wake attenuators instead of the whole prop!

As for the modelers out there: I was analizing and suffering the 1/144 Trumpeter Kilo model: the model's hull is not as a real Kilo hull (which has a tear drop shape) and neither the very high deck but it resembles better a Lada/Amur than a Kilo!!! (of course the conversion would involve some modifications but is very tempting!) From the plans I have the Lada has a cylinder shape hull as the Kilo from Trumpeter and it's deck is much higher than the Kilo (almost as the Trumpeter Kilo!)

I think that we have enough info now to try that conversion. I have a Kilo almost finished but I stopped just because I was pissed off when I learnt about the real hull shape. Now I can re-start the model as a Lada! (BTW I think that there is no way to correct the Trumpeter's Kilo hull shape)
Pablo
User avatar
Gerwalk
Registered User
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:39 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Postby Tom Dougherty » Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:37 pm

As for the modelers out there: I was analizing and suffering the 1/144 Trumpeter Kilo model: the model's hull is not as a real Kilo hull (which has a tear drop shape) and neither the very high deck but it resembles better a Lada/Amur than a Kilo!!!


It seems to be the consensus that Trumpeter often gets "close, but no cigar" with their models. The Seawolf kit is another example, with many items such as the bow, sail, and even the decals not quite there in terms of accuracy. Some items I can understand (e.g. pumpjet details), but there are plenty of pictures around of the submarine underway, so details like the sail should be correct. Also, there are some decent ones from EB of the submarine before it was lowered into the graving dock, so the bow shape should also be right. And, that submarine is now 10 years old!

The surface.....uhhh... skimmer modelers had major angst when Trumpeter blew the bow shape badly on the WWII Hornet aircraft carrier model a few years back. Apparently it was waaayy wrong, and people spent lots of time correcting it with major rebuilds and putty attempts.
Tom Dougherty
Researcher for Project Azorian
Project Azorian Documentary: http://www.projectjennifer.at/
Project Azorian Book: http://www.usni.org/store/catalog-fall-2012/project-azorian
Image
Tom Dougherty
SubCommittee Member
 
Posts: 936
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Ayer, Ma

Postby Dolphin » Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:07 am

Thanks Tom. You guys are so funny. Glad to help...I think.

Steve
Dolphin
 

Postby Gerwalk » Tue Jul 12, 2005 11:16 am

Tom:
Not to mention Trumpeter's Romeos... :angry: with incorrect torps tubes hatches, incorrectly possitioned prop shrouds, etc. And they were reproducing a local (chinese) model!! They even have a Romeo museum!! And the the hatches errors are really apparent in the very same photos from their own box!!

My Seawolf will be my first RC model. I don't want to correct all those things and it seems that people is more tolerant with incorrect RC models than with static ones :)

Actually, and this should be just coincidence, the Trumpeter's Kilo resembles a lot the new chinese diesel design Yuan class(which is clearly based on the Amur/Lada) What do you think?
My almost finished seudo-Kilo:

Image

This a good comparison between the Kilo and Yuan classes:

Image




Edited By Gerwalk on 1121181742
Pablo
User avatar
Gerwalk
Registered User
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:39 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Postby FX Models » Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:22 pm

The Yuan class is a Kilo. There is very little engineering in the Yuan that was not stolen Kilo technology. The Chinese are really good at stealing.

You would be amazed to see what they are stealing from us right now!

M
User avatar
FX Models
Registered User
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 12:17 am
Location: Lat: 41 Deg 33M Long -72.3 Deg

Postby Gerwalk » Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:06 pm

FX Models wrote:The Yuan class is a Kilo. There is very little engineering in the Yuan that was not stolen Kilo technology. The Chinese are really good at stealing.

You would be amazed to see what they are stealing from us right now!

M

Leaving aside your rather xenophobic (or in this case is sinophobic?:D ) comments I would like to learn a little bit more on what you are saying:

Why do you call the Yuan class a steal? Do you know for sure that the Russians are not involved in this? It would be surprising if not since they have a construction program of Kilos for China being carried out in Russia. I have to agree that the Yuan is clearly a modified Kilo design but the Lada is also based on the Kilo IMHO and maybe there was some sort of cooperation between China and Russia on this.

Everything depends on the point of view!: Can we call all the American and Russian submarine designs based on the German Type XXI stealing (and we are talking of a BIG deal in technology here!!)? What about the rocket programs based on German technology? No, of course not!! They won the war and so they were entitled to copy their former enemy technology.

Is the Brazilian Type-209 Tupi class stealing since they modified the original design? No: they have a license aggrement with HDW and so they can improve their subs...

You seem to know somethings that we don't : there was a violation of a licence agreement with the Russians?

What are the chinese stealing from the US right now? (I would like to be amazed!!) :cool:
Pablo
User avatar
Gerwalk
Registered User
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:39 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina


Return to Subs in the News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot]

cron