now this is being circulated:attaching 'Like' just to acknowledge the news has been already posted
by now it's in Russian wiki page of that vessel:
TV announcement:
the developing story:
The Kremlin on Wednesday refused to reveal the full story of a fire that killed 14 officers on what was reportedly a nuclear-powered mini-submarine, saying the details of the tragedy were a "state secret."
The seamen died on Monday as a result of poisoning from the fumes of the fire on a submersible in the Barents Sea in Russia's territorial waters but the disaster was only made public by the defence ministry on Tuesday.
The tragedy in the far north has echoes of the sinking of the Kursk submarine in 2000, also in the Barents Sea, that claimed 118 lives and shook the first year of Vladimir Putin's presidency.
Officials have released little information, saying the crew of a research submersible was studying the sea floor in the interests of the navy but Russian media reported the ship was a top-secret nuclear-powered mini-submarine.
andYesterday at 5:23 PM
now this is being circulated:
for example
I've read some of them held the rank of 1st Rank Captain (кап. 1-го ранга) meaning highly ranked, a Commodore more or less, don't nitpick now!
Russia's plans to build a that can travel at more than 20 times the speed of sound, and also evade US missile defenses, has predictably rattled the world. Last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin boasted that the Avangard weapons system would be ready by 2019. But some lie ahead that could impact production, CNBC reported. Specifically, the Kremlin needs to find another source of carbon fiber material to build the Avanguard hypersonic glide vehicles.
Russia's current supply of carbon fiber material is unable to withstand the extreme temperatures of hypersonic flight. According to a US intelligence report reviewed by CNBC, Russia is hunting for an alternative source of carbon fiber, but so far has had no luck. "It's expected that they will make no more than 60 of these hypersonic weapons because it's just proving to be too expensive to develop," an anonymous official told CNBC.
But one nuclear weapons expert told Engadget that 60 units is a pretty significant number. "To me the most surprising part was that someone would say that 60 units is 'a few'. I would say that 60 is rather quite a few. My take on Avangard has always been that it's a niche capability without a clear mission. I was expecting that Russia will stop after deploying maybe a dozen of them," said Pavel Podvig, a senior research fellow at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research.
Under the ABM treaty the US and Russia were allowed two ABM sites but only around one location. The Russians chose Moscow. The US Grand forks ND. The Russians kept theirs the US decommissioned theirs less than 6 months after activation.
eh. I'd say it has a particular role: to kill the missile defense sites in the US (or elsewhere). For whatever reason, the Russians have always felt very threatened by the very limited systems of limited utility the US has put in. There are like 100 interceptors in Alaska and two or three would be needed to guarantee a missile being bagged. In a nuclear war with the US, that's a trivial number of missiles taken down. The only thing it prevents is the doctrine of "escalating to deescalate." One I, personally, find dubious at best. YMMV.