Military Review

In Russia, the creation of strategic nuclear submarines of the Borey-B type began

71
Work on the creation of strategic nuclear submarines of the Borey-B type began in Russia, said the chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Valery Gerasimov.


Started work on the creation of the nuclear submarine cruiser with improved characteristics "Borey-B"
- He said at a board meeting of the Ministry of Defense.

In Russia, the creation of strategic nuclear submarines of the Borey-B type began


The Chief of the General Staff recalled that the Borey submarines had already begun to enter the composition of the naval Strategic Nuclear Forces, which made it possible to increase the share of modern submarines to 82%. Over the past five years, 102 ballistic missiles have been acquired for these submarines.

The combat capabilities of the strategic missile submarine grouping increased by 25%, the secrecy and military stability of the naval Strategic Nuclear Forces increased
- noted the Chief of the General Staff.

According to him, five boats of the type “Borey-A” are being built now. The last ship of this series, "Prince Pozharsky", was laid in December last year.

Now the Russian Navy consists of three strategic nuclear submarines of the Borey type (project 955) - Yuri Dolgoruky, Alexander Nevsky and Vladimir Monomakh. They are equipped with solid-state intercontinental ballistic missiles "Bulava", each submarine capable of carrying up to 16 such missiles.

Earlier, the commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Vladimir Korolev, announced that the Prince Vladimir, an underwater nuclear-powered missile carrier of the strategic designation of the 955A Borey project, will withdraw 2017 from the slipway in November, reports TASS
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
71 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. oleg-gr
    oleg-gr 7 November 2017 15: 19 New
    12
    Well, for the new Borey! To be quiet and formidable. Better than older brothers.
    1. Burbon
      Burbon 7 November 2017 15: 27 New
      +2
      Quote: oleg-gr
      Well, for the new Borey! To fly as expected

      laughing laughing ....

      Quote: Bronevick
      Hurry Borey-B

      on the fig, do we need this at all? ... huskies use in offices ... he seems to be both a strategist and a multi-purpose worker .... the death star
      1. Vladimir16
        Vladimir16 7 November 2017 15: 32 New
        13
        Quote: Burbon
        in general do we need it?

        You do not need !!!
        This is necessary for the Russian people so that the sky is clear above their heads. To live without war.
        1. Burbon
          Burbon 7 November 2017 15: 35 New
          +5
          Quote: Vladimir16
          Russian people need it

          fool and not Russian means not ?? fool
          Quote: Vladimir16
          then the sky would be clear overhead

          is it dirty? fool maybe all the same peaceful?
          I’m writing for you that Huskies have been using Husky for 2 years ... she’s both a strategist and a multi-purpose worker .... do you understand this? .... why produce different boats ??????
          1. NKT
            NKT 7 November 2017 15: 59 New
            +5
            And when will the first Husky go to sea? And now, do not build anything and wait for it?
            1. Burbon
              Burbon 7 November 2017 16: 02 New
              +6
              Quote: NKT
              And when will the first Husky go to sea?

              and when will the new Borey B project go to sea ???? fool
              Quote: NKT
              And now, do not build anything and wait for it?

              build Borey A ... or are you not at all in the subject, but just to post?
              1. maxim947
                maxim947 7 November 2017 16: 17 New
                0
                But how do they differ from b - do not know? Well, why be clever? without us there
                1. Burbon
                  Burbon 7 November 2017 16: 19 New
                  +1
                  Quote: maxim947
                  But how do they differ from b - do not know?

                  if nothing, then why assign an index? .... at least one A has entered the flo? t, but already about B they write .... complete stupidity
                  the difference is most likely in the number of mines + navigation and communication
                  1. Piramidon
                    Piramidon 7 November 2017 16: 55 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Burbon
                    at least one A entered the flo? t, and already they write about B .... complete stupidity

                    I somehow start. GS believe more.
                    The Chief of the General Staff recalled that the Borey boats had already begun to enter the composition of the Marine Strategic Nuclear Forces
                    1. Burbon
                      Burbon 7 November 2017 18: 08 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Piramidon
                      I somehow start. GS believe more.

                      a lot of it by the year 18 ships on ?? wassat belay ... wx guard patrols lost ... the frigate line lost ... except for the Warsaw women everywhere full of seams ...
              2. NKT
                NKT 7 November 2017 17: 05 New
                +1
                Made a reservation right by Freud. )
                How many modifications of the project 1143? Do you think you should have stayed in Kiev? But others did not think so and if it were not for the collapse of the USSR, they would have completed 1143.7.
                1. Burbon
                  Burbon 7 November 2017 17: 07 New
                  0
                  Quote: NKT
                  Made a reservation right by Freud. )

                  belay repeat fool
                  Quote: NKT
                  and if not for the collapse

                  if yes if .....
              3. Krabik
                Krabik 8 November 2017 23: 54 New
                0
                The Husky project is a piece of Ash from a multipurpose ship.

                If you don’t understand what a multipurpose ship is, I’ll explain it - it’s neither fish nor meat.
                That is, "husky" - a piece of neither fish nor meat%)

                When they will begin to do it, and even more so, when it will begin to enter the troops or whether it will be unknown at all.

                Borea is a completely different boat - this is a Topol-M clone, only an underwater version.

                What is the difference between a caliber rocket and a mace rocket?

                While the "caliber" flies to our partners, you can have time to eat and go to the movies and go to the toilet, so as not to get out of fear.

                While the "mace" flies, you have time to go to the toilet and that’s not a fact, as they say, hypersound solves;)

                The applications are also very different, Husky would be a tactician, and Boreas a strategist.

                The letter B in the name can appear because of anything, they could turn chairs in the other direction, they could replace computers with modern ones, or they could put a new modification of the reactor.

                The letter B can go into the sea when they are laid down, and possibly already laid down ships.
                If there have not been deliveries of the same computers, then you can already send new ones much more powerful and economical.
                1. Burbon
                  Burbon 9 November 2017 08: 25 New
                  0
                  Quote: Krabik
                  If you don’t understand what a multipurpose ship is, I’ll explain it - it’s neither fish nor meat.

                  laughing laughing fool
                  Quote: Krabik
                  The applications are also very different, Husky would be a tactician, and Boreas a strategist.

                  wassat fool there 2 in 1 .... really did not know?
                  Quote: Krabik
                  The Husky project is a piece of Ash from a multipurpose ship.

                  fool The 5th generation should look like this ... belay
                  1. Krabik
                    Krabik 9 November 2017 08: 58 New
                    0
                    Northwind is 2 times the theoretical Husky.

                    The Mace rockets are huge, and the Caliber rockets are small pupsks in their background.

                    As if 2 in 1, even our craftsmen to shove in not shoved are not capable of such a feat;)

                    Although they can be welded outside in containers, as was done on the Atlant series ships.
            2. Galleon
              Galleon 7 November 2017 16: 52 New
              +5
              So no one is going to build Borey-B yet! Creation work started - this is about projects. In 2016, the extreme boat of the Borey-A series was laid down - “Prince Pozharsky”. Nobody is going to lay any other Boreans.
              1. PN
                PN 7 November 2017 20: 56 New
                0
                Not the last, but the last.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 7 November 2017 16: 23 New
            +3
            Quote: Burbon
            I’m writing for you that Huskies have been using Husky for 2 years ... she’s both a strategist and a multi-purpose worker .... do you understand this? .... why produce different boats ??????

            And this is like 11356 and 22350. smile
            The Navy has already burned at new and null frigate. So while the Husky will be built, lowered and brought to mind - the Boreas will serve.
            Moreover, there will be different boats, and so - it is unlikely that the Boreas will write off immediately after the arrival of the Husky. Well, there will be three “borea” instead of two modifications - and so what? In the Union, in general, 4 modifications of the SSBNs served in parallel. smile
            1. Burbon
              Burbon 7 November 2017 16: 27 New
              +1
              Quote: Alexey RA
              The Navy has already burned itself in a new, lacking analogue world frigate

              it was burned not on the frigate, but on its air defense ... and the gas turbine as it is not for both will not be soon ...
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 7 November 2017 17: 47 New
                0
                Quote: Burbon
                burned not on the frigate, but on its air defense ...

                What an owl about a stump, what a kick about an owl. © Whatever the reason - there is no frigate in the ranks.
                If the “husky" will have problems with any of the new complexes (not even if, when) - this will also mean that the PLA will not be in service, at least until the refinement of this complex.
                Quote: Burbon
                GTU as it is not for both will not be soon ...

                For two head 22350 GTU is. But there are no ships in service.
                1. Krabik
                  Krabik 9 November 2017 00: 00 New
                  0
                  "Husky" with "Boreas" will never intersect from the word!

                  Different submarines for different applications.

                  And the Boreas will do as long as they need strategists in the ocean, regardless of other projects.
          3. NordOst16
            NordOst16 8 November 2017 23: 44 New
            0
            Oh, I'm afraid the word is universal. It may still be better to have 3 types of apl, but more specialized ones.
      2. AlexKP
        AlexKP 8 November 2017 05: 41 New
        +2
        Borey B is good, but you need to quickly build Borey BP.
        1. Krabik
          Krabik 9 November 2017 00: 01 New
          0
          And the letter of BP is deciphered ?!
    2. Going
      Going 7 November 2017 15: 30 New
      12
      The Chief of the General Staff recalled that the Borey boats had already begun to enter the naval Strategic Nuclear Forces, which made it possible to increase the share of modern submarines to 82%.


      These figures are encouraging, so would be with the surface composition.
      1. utyutkin
        utyutkin 7 November 2017 16: 04 New
        +6
        there is a very strong suspicion that 82% were achieved by decommissioning old submarines (that is, there were 5 old boats (100% of old boats) built one new and decommissioned 4 old ones, 1 new and 1 old (50% new boats)).
        1. Going
          Going 7 November 2017 16: 10 New
          12
          Statistics, of course, can be crafty, but not quite to the extent you brought.
          1. rudolff
            rudolff 7 November 2017 16: 37 New
            +5
            This may also be, but not in this case. Just 6 modernized under the R-29 RMU2 / RMU2.1 BDRMov at KSF also considered modern. Plus 3 Borea. Of the old ones, only 3 BDR remain at the CTOF. I don’t know how 2 + 1 Sharks counted.
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 8 November 2017 00: 24 New
              +3
              Quote: rudolff
              I don’t know how 2 + 1 Sharks counted.
              Rudolf, hi
              "There are three kinds of lies: lies, blatant lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain.
              If we consider that by 2050 the fleet expects to have 24 submarines (M), which (apparently) will be included in the fighter squadron, then 3 + 6 + 1 = 10, well, they cannot weigh 82%! Apparently we will have 12 rpkSN ... by 6 units in the SF and Pacific Fleet. That's all for a short time!
              IMHO.
              1. rudolff
                rudolff 8 November 2017 08: 09 New
                +2
                Hello Boa! If I understood correctly, then speaking of 82%, Gerasimov had in mind the share of modern weapons (PKK SN) today, not for the future. Where to rank TK-208 D. Donskoy with his pair of test mines, HZ.
        2. Separ DNR
          Separ DNR 7 November 2017 16: 54 New
          +2
          Quote: ututyulkin
          there is a very strong suspicion that 82% were achieved by decommissioning old submarines (that is, there were 5 old boats (100% of old boats) built one new and decommissioned 4 old ones, 1 new and 1 old (50% new boats)).

          And even so ...
          All one, old boats need to be discarded, and new, in their capabilities will be better.
  2. Bronevick
    Bronevick 7 November 2017 15: 19 New
    +3
    Hurry Borey-B
    1. Zibelew
      Zibelew 7 November 2017 15: 23 New
      +1
      And there will be Borya-E fellow
  3. 210ox
    210ox 7 November 2017 15: 21 New
    0
    I wonder what is different? Shh! I won’t .. These missile-carriers are our foundation and the guarantor of our peaceful life .. They’ll be devoured without them.
  4. gridasov
    gridasov 7 November 2017 15: 23 New
    0
    The effectiveness of the submarine is fully determined by its running capabilities. What can we talk about further if the so-called latest submarines run on screws, which in all respects are not effective in their function
    1. Stiletto
      Stiletto 7 November 2017 15: 28 New
      +1
      The proposal to throw up for the new “Northwind” is understandable - the stump is clear that it’s not for the “Elk” and “Ohio”. The question is different - let them first hand over “A” in time, and then say “B”. For some ships, funding is being cut, God forbid, so as not to touch the subfloor.
      1. gridasov
        gridasov 7 November 2017 15: 30 New
        0
        do what they cut correctly. Everything should be simpler and more reliable, and most importantly more efficient.
    2. Kerensky
      Kerensky 7 November 2017 15: 37 New
      +1
      The effectiveness of the submarine is completely determined by its running capabilities

      It seems to me no less important autonomy and secrecy. And there, at least go along the current map in a drift! The longer the boat remains undetected, the more dangerous it is. This, in fact, is an ICBM launcher. She needs a move to follow to the area and return to base.
      1. gridasov
        gridasov 7 November 2017 15: 51 New
        0
        Yes, but after all, all that you said is the derivative parameters of the ability to achieve radically higher speeds in any position above or under water. Stealth and the ability to maneuver are also derivatives of the kind of motion technology that is used. If you notice, then everything is improved within the limits of certain potential parameters of those physical processes that are used. And no one talks about new physical parameters and generally the principles of organizing them with new devices. Without physics and mathematics, everything remains trampling on the spot.
        1. utyutkin
          utyutkin 7 November 2017 16: 19 New
          +3
          Quote: gridasov
          Yes, but after all, all that you said is the derivative parameters of the ability to achieve radically higher speeds in any position above or under water. Stealth and the ability to maneuver are also derivatives of the kind of motion technology that is used. If you notice, then everything is improved within the limits of certain potential parameters of those physical processes that are used. And no one talks about new physical parameters and generally the principles of organizing them with new devices. Without physics and mathematics, everything remains trampling on the spot.

          all right. there’s just a small but :))))) for each type of weapon there are different main and secondary physical parameters. So, the speed of the main gun is usually not the main characteristic. because they are not chasing anyone :) moreover, this parameter is compensated by the speed of sea-based mbr. MBR is such a rocket that quickly flies quickly and far away. so flying hydrofoils is not necessary.
          and even harmful. and as for efficiency, let me remind you that there is a nuclear reactor on the PrKSn. and the speed there is determined by the chief designer (as he wishes it will be so :)).
        2. Kerensky
          Kerensky 7 November 2017 17: 00 New
          +1
          Yes, but after all, all that you said is the derivative parameters of the ability to achieve radically higher speeds in any position above or under water.

          Link your thought with the autonomy that I spoke of. Do not consider it work.
      2. sir_obs
        sir_obs 7 November 2017 16: 26 New
        0
        A move is needed to change and maintain depth.
    3. 210ox
      210ox 7 November 2017 15: 42 New
      0
      Offer to switch to jet thrust ..? belay
      Quote: gridasov
      The effectiveness of the submarine is fully determined by its running capabilities. What can we talk about further if the so-called latest submarines run on screws, which in all respects are not effective in their function
      1. gridasov
        gridasov 7 November 2017 15: 58 New
        0
        No and no! I propose using a simple mechanical device, but in which the processes are organized according to fundamentally new algorithms, and this allows you to get a fundamentally new quality of a real physical process. In turn, new physical parameters of using the potential energy of water are included in the process, which ultimately, on the one hand, will allow achieving higher speeds at lower speeds of rotation of the motion device, but also reaching radically higher speeds at high speeds of rotation. Moreover, the design of the movement device is located inside the hull, which allows water flows to be distributed throughout the azimuth of the outer space of the boat. In this case, everything is much simpler, in a certain sense.
        1. sir_obs
          sir_obs 7 November 2017 16: 15 New
          +2
          And why they hold the whole hydrodynamic institute, it is not clear. There are so many innovators, just take garbage containers and riveting boats, planes, tanks. This is how VNA dill.
    4. sir_obs
      sir_obs 7 November 2017 16: 13 New
      +1
      the latest submarines run on propellers that are by no means effective in their function

      Where does such an infa come from, and does the krgo-taka have effective ones? And how are they effective? How is this effectiveness determined?
      1. gridasov
        gridasov 7 November 2017 16: 39 New
        0
        The efficiency of the device that converts the energy of the hydro-gas-dynamic flow is determined by the balance of that part of the flow energy that is in contact with the expiration surface (the blades of the same screw or propeller or impeller, etc.), with that part of the energy process that we have on the rotor shaft,. which gives us the moment of rotation. Therefore, the same electric motor or any motor connected through a shaft with blades at a certain point in time is the initiating device for the movement of the entire ship, but already in the process of movement the same motor is an energy generator since the device realizes part of the kinetic energy of the stream through the conversion of already potential flow energy. Therefore, the balance of such transformative complex processes in our device has fundamentally different mathematical results than those that occur on modern devices in the form of a screw, etc.
        And I do not want to level the work of many research institutes. It’s just that they work according to standard methods of mathematical analysis of those processes that are associated simultaneously with the energy of processes in a hydro-gas-dynamic flow and in devices for converting these flows. Therefore, I always say. that complex physical processes must be analyzed with other mathematical technologies based on the function of a constant value of a number, not a variable, and which is used now and everywhere.
        1. sir_obs
          sir_obs 7 November 2017 17: 28 New
          +3
          A lot of clever words collected in a bunch, the output is what? In practice, there is nothing fundamentally new so that, together, the efficiency-value of production exceeds what already exists.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 8 November 2017 00: 38 New
            +2
            Quote: sir_obs
            A lot of clever words gathered in a bunch,
            Sir Obst, don’t take it to the goov: THIS IS THE GRIDASOV - the local madman of our site. I personally got tired of fighting it even 3 turnover ago. There was a time, it was not heard .. but apparently healed and released ... Therefore, you will have to listen to scientific bullshit for some time ... But it’s better to skip right away, otherwise you won’t clear your brain until the morning and go to work with a sore head! yes
  5. Vlad5307
    Vlad5307 7 November 2017 15: 29 New
    +3
    Quote: 210ox
    I wonder what is different? Shh! I won’t .. These missile-carriers are our foundation and the guarantor of our peaceful life .. They’ll be devoured without them.

    In order not to gobble up the external reptiles, it is necessary to squeeze the internal. Threats are growing at a frantic pace, we would have to build submarines at such a pace. And it is not necessary to reduce the military budget, but to redistribute intelligently and react correctly to the cries of liberal pseudo-patriots, and not to bend. The order inside will allow you to have a larger budget for all the needs of the country! soldier
  6. Livonetc
    Livonetc 7 November 2017 15: 30 New
    +3
    Quote: gridasov
    The effectiveness of the submarine is fully determined by its running capabilities. What can we talk about further if the so-called latest submarines run on screws, which in all respects are not effective in their function

    You would be educated about the new principles of giving the momentum to really modern submarines.
    I don’t jerk, it would just be interesting to know.
    Well, who already has this in stock.
  7. Dead duck
    Dead duck 7 November 2017 15: 35 New
    +7
    Quote: Going
    These figures are encouraging, so would be with the surface composition.

    Yeah ... encouraging.
    This is when you have them 100 pieces and 82 of them are super-duper new.
    and when 10 and 8 of them are new, then the meaning changes ...
    as is the meaning of the phrase:
    Combat capabilities of the strategic missile submarine group increased by 25%
  8. Dead duck
    Dead duck 7 November 2017 15: 37 New
    +6
    Quote: Burbon
    Husky also use in offices ... he seems to be both a strategist and a multi-purpose worker .... the death star is right underwater

    “Husky" want to make a "platform", as well as "Armata".
    At its base, with some alterations, they want to make different boats. Including strategists.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 8 November 2017 01: 03 New
      +3
      Quote: Deadush
      Husky want to make a platform

      You are right: Husky is a concept, moreover, of the 5 generation ... But we really cannot even build boats of the 4 generation.
      In addition to integrated and modular "weapons", new boats will have to have:
      - shaftless propulsion systems; - placement and launching of weapons outside a solid case; - placement along the entire length of the housing of sensors and g / a antenna arrays; - simplification of body structures with the replacement of mechanics, pneumatics and hydralics with electric actuators; - full automation of the main work processes, which will dramatically reduce the number of crew. etc. This is supposed to free up to 50% of the internal volume of the hull, which will allow to place not only ICBM / KRBD / TO / MO, but also BPA, UAV, combat swimmers and other exotic weapons of the future ...
      At least the U.S. Navy and DARPA have been working on this since 2005. I suppose our cabbage soup isn’t slurping ...
  9. Dead duck
    Dead duck 7 November 2017 15: 39 New
    +7
    Quote: Livonetc
    I don’t jerk, it would just be interesting to know.
    Well, who already has this in stock.

    The Chinese, they even have a "supersonic" submarine.
    1. gridasov
      gridasov 7 November 2017 16: 01 New
      0
      There is a big difference when someone talks abstractly about great achievements and when a simple physicist and engineer talks about a real device with radically new features.
      1. sir_obs
        sir_obs 7 November 2017 16: 19 New
        +5
        Yeah, there is a big difference when a person in a topic and all his life doesn’t get out of a solid case, but there are "wise men" who compose for craps like Popular Mezanika, all sorts of crap, drawing their conclusions again on publications in similar publications.
        1. gridasov
          gridasov 7 November 2017 17: 38 New
          0
          I am glad that you are still not so bad and you are not interested in the future. Moreover, it would be generally wonderful if humanity had remained at the level of established technologies. But! it doesn’t happen that way.
  10. UVB
    UVB 7 November 2017 15: 49 New
    0
    I dare to assume that the number of mines will finally be brought to “B” on the twenty, as was initially assumed for “A”
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 8 November 2017 01: 09 New
      +2
      Quote: UVB
      I dare to assume that the number of mines will finally be brought to “B” on the twenty, as was initially assumed for “A”

      Amy is designing new boats under 16 silos, the Angles too ... And you all play gigantism. Yes, they will not have time to release half of all ICBMs at the current level of space intelligence and SPRN! So don’t drag extra, you don’t have to use it anyway ...
      At least they think so. And they know a lot about calculations.
      Ага.
  11. Simon
    Simon 7 November 2017 16: 19 New
    +2
    Quote: Burbon
    Quote: oleg-gr
    Well, for the new Borey! To fly as expected

    laughing laughing ....

    Quote: Bronevick
    Hurry Borey-B

    on the fig, do we need this at all? ... huskies use in offices ... he seems to be both a strategist and a multi-purpose worker .... the death star

    We must have submarines of any purpose and any tactical and technical data. As they say, each submarine has its own maneuver. fool
  12. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 7 November 2017 16: 23 New
    +1
    Well, as they say with God! Such handsome men look very good off the coast of the USA.
  13. rudolff
    rudolff 7 November 2017 16: 31 New
    +5
    Roughly speaking, Boreas “blinded from what was”, simplifying the project as much as possible. Now they are trying to bring it to the originally conceived. Perhaps we will see the scope of Amphora, the onboard arrangement of the TA, the modified form of the retractable fence, the felling arrangement of the depth rudders, the modified missile deck, and the new reactor. What did not have time in Borey-A, will be brought to Borey-B. Well, the rocket will be different. Now on the way, a corrected version of the Mace under the letter "M", the correction of the jambs was called modernization. Mace-2 is promised a little later. It’s not even a fact that it will be a MIT product, possibly Makeevsky. The current creation of Solomon does not suit anyone, just talking about it out loud is not welcome.
  14. freejack
    freejack 7 November 2017 16: 31 New
    0
    Somewhere here I read that they want to transform the “mace" from 8 to 11 thousandth. Only it becomes larger in diameter. And then it is placed in a standard Borea mine without a container. In practice, this is possible, but some nuances still need to be redone anyway on the "borea". Maybe this is a "B"? Connoisseurs will correct me if that ...) hi
    1. rudolff
      rudolff 7 November 2017 16: 53 New
      +3
      Connoisseurs will not correct, because there is no reliable information on the Mace-2. It is not even known who will deal with this product: MIT or GREC Makeeva. So far, MIT has been entrusted with only bringing the Mace to mind under the nameplate of modernization, but who will sculpt a new rocket is a question. If Miass, then it’s not a fact that the Mace will remain solid fuel. Perhaps this will be the promised RMU3 for the Borean mines. Especially KBSK on Boreyey, it is a purely Makeevsky complex.
  15. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 7 November 2017 18: 28 New
    +1
    Quote: Burbon
    Quote: Vladimir16
    Russian people need it

    fool and not Russian means not ?? fool
    Quote: Vladimir16
    then the sky would be clear overhead

    is it dirty? fool maybe all the same peaceful?
    I’m writing for you that Huskies have been using Husky for 2 years ... she’s both a strategist and a multi-purpose worker .... do you understand this? .... why produce different boats ??????


    By default, a strategist will always be better than a multi-purpose strategist. The tasks are different. The huskies may be cool, but there will be less nuclear missiles than pure strategists, since they will be equipped with torpedoes and caliber / zircons, and maybe which also physically will not be able to take on board a large number of nuclear missiles. Husky will not replace the Boreans. And he will add. They will combine the capabilities of multipurpose and plark, plus the ability to carry nuclear missiles.
  16. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 7 November 2017 18: 33 New
    +3
    Anyway, now I read a little for them, they don’t even plan on placing brpl, they have a maximum caliber / zircon, maybe apple. So this is not a substitute for borea. So there should be Borea.
  17. Dead duck
    Dead duck 7 November 2017 19: 44 New
    +7
    Quote: gridasov
    I am glad that you are still not so bad and you are not interested in the future.

    I'm glad you're glad ... especially when we're glad.
    There is no future, this is all fiction.
    There is only a moment ... between the past (sometimes also fictitious) and the future (almost fabrications and fantasies).
    And here it is (instant, instant, glimmer of consciousness) called life.
    And life, as you know, is suffering and pain. laughing
  18. Old26
    Old26 7 November 2017 23: 02 New
    0
    Quote: Going
    The Chief of the General Staff recalled that the Borey boats had already begun to enter the naval Strategic Nuclear Forces, which made it possible to increase the share of modern submarines to 82%.


    These figures are encouraging, so would be with the surface composition.

    Open secret. Of course they started. "Yuri Dolgoruky", "Alexander Nevsky" and "Vladimir Monomakh".

    Quote: Bronevick
    Hurry Borey-B

    Will be soon. That year in 2025-2030.
  19. Dead duck
    Dead duck 9 November 2017 17: 08 New
    +6
    Quote: BoA KAA
    Quote: Deadush
    Husky want to make a platform

    You are right: Husky is a concept, moreover, of the 5 generation ... But we really cannot even build boats of the 4 generation.
    In addition to integrated and modular "weapons", new boats will have to have:
    - shaftless propulsion systems; - placement and launching of weapons outside a solid case; - placement along the entire length of the housing of sensors and g / a antenna arrays; - simplification of body structures with the replacement of mechanics, pneumatics and hydralics with electric actuators; - full automation of the main work processes, which will dramatically reduce the number of crew. etc. This is supposed to free up to 50% of the internal volume of the hull, which will allow to place not only ICBM / KRBD / TO / MO, but also BPA, UAV, combat swimmers and other exotic weapons of the future ...
    At least the U.S. Navy and DARPA have been working on this since 2005. I suppose our cabbage soup isn’t slurping ...

    Welcome hi
    Perhaps some of them will have, some of the above you.
    Although judging by the press they want to "reduce the cost" (to cut back on their own as the Americans) the project ... it seems a little expensive. request
  20. Anchonsha
    Anchonsha 12 November 2017 12: 47 New
    0
    I drink for new Boreas and I hope that through its actions Russia will teach the West to value its life. But we need to continue to solve global problems in order to knock out the soil from the United States and limit their actions not only in the Middle East, but throughout the world. Naturally, money is needed for this, as it is needed for internal purposes in solving social problems.