Military Review

Russian Navy. Sad look into the future

176
In this series of articles, we will try to assess the state of the current shipbuilding programs of the Russian Federation and try to understand what our navy expects in the next decade, including in the light of the new state armaments program for 2018-2025.


A year and four months ago, we completed the publication of the series “Shipbuilding Program of the Navy of the Russian Federation, or Very Bad Premonition”, where we examined the prospects of our naval construction. Without a doubt, it was already clear then that the program for updating the Russian Navy had failed and would not be carried out on ships of all classes, with the possible exception of strategic missile submarines and "mosquito" forces. We also examined the most serious system errors that were made when trying to revive the domestic fleet in the framework of the GPV 2011-2020. In the current series of articles, we will recall them again and see what has been done and what is being done to eradicate them.

Unfortunately, there is no complete information about what will be included in the new HPV 2018-2025, so far there are only thoughts of experts and an interview with the commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Vladimir Korolev, in which he said:

"Also within the framework of the state armament program, new and modernized ships of the distant sea and ocean zones will continue to enter the Navy. The most modern ship in this segment will be a modernized frigate of the 22350M project, equipped with high-precision weapons".


In addition, the admiral announced the supply of ships and boats near the marine zone with improved efficiency and combat capabilities, equipped with precision weapons.

As a matter of fact, a little less than a little has been said. But still, in combination with the information announced in other sources about the construction of our submarine fleet, the repair of ships, etc., the words of the commander-in-chief quite clearly describe the immediate prospects of the Russian Navy.

Let's start with the least problematic part of our shipbuilding program: the submarine nuclear missile fleet.

Until now, six submarines, strategic missile submarine cruisers (SSBN) of the Delphin project 667BDRM, form the basis of our naval component of nuclear forces.



Ships of this project were commissioned by the Soviet Navy during the 1984 - 1990 period, and today their age is 27-33. This is not so much as it may seem: the leading American SSBN “Ohio” was transferred to the fleet in the 1981 year, and its withdrawal from the US Navy is scheduled for the 2027 year. Thus, the life of the Ohio is calculated in 46 over the years. The next generation of American "city killers" for the project will have a lifespan of 40 years.

Probably, the “wild nineties” to some extent affected the SSBN of the 667BDRM project, but now the boats of this type are consistently undergoing repair and modernization. In 2012, the director of the “CS Zvezdochka” Nikitin talked about extending the life of the “Dolphins” to 35 years, that is, up to 2019-2025, but most likely they will be exploited further. It is likely that ships of this type will be able to remain in service at least until 2025-2030. Of course, the "Dolphins" are no longer the top of technical excellence and these are not the most silent submarines in the world. Nevertheless, they became the first, truly “invisible” SSBNs in the USSR. According to some data, the range of detection of the “Dolphin” by means of an American submarine of the type “Superior Los Angeles” does not exceed 30 km in ideal conditions, which are almost never observed in the Barents Sea. Under normal conditions, the northern hydrology of the SSBN of the 667BDRM project may be undetected for 15 km, which, of course, greatly increases the survival rate of boats of this type.

"Dolphins" are armed with very advanced weapons: ballistic missiles R-29RMU2 "Sineva" and R-29RMU2.1 "Liner" (development completed in 2011g). The “liner”, being a modification of the “Sinevy”, is the apex of the domestic liquid “underwater” rocket production. This rocket has impressive combat power and is capable of carrying up to 10 combat units of individual guidance in 100 CT, (or 4 500 CT unit) to a range of 8300 – 11500 km., While the radius of deviation does not exceed 250 m. And Liner and The Dolphin SSBMs themselves are very reliable weapons, such Kalashnikovs of the sea depths. In 1991, during the operation “Begemot”, K-407 “Novomoskovsk” SSBN from a submerged position launched a full load of P-29РМ missiles (of which Sineva and Liner were modified) with an interval of 14 seconds. The operation ended in complete success, and this was the first time in the world storieswhen a submarine in one salvo spent 16 missiles. Prior to this record belonged to the boat project 667A "Navaga": she carried out launches in two series of four missiles with a small interval between them. The American "Ohio" never fired more than 4 rockets.

On the whole, the “Dolphin” project 667BDRM today, although not the most modern, but reliable and formidable weapon, can ensure the security of the country until the next generation of submarine missile carriers are commissioned.

SSBN project 955 "Borey". These are the boats of the next, fourth generation going to replace the "Dolphins". Unfortunately, the data about them is not as much as we would like.



The first thing to note is that when designing the fourth generation SSBNs, a lot of work was done to reduce the noise of the boat and its physical fields. The director of the Rubin Design Bureau stated that the noise of the Borey SSBN is 5 times lower than that of the multi-purpose Shushka-B submarine and 2 times lower than that of the newest American Virginia. Probably, such an impressive success was achieved, among other reasons, because the jet propulsion complex was used for the first time in domestic practice on the boat.

Also, the 955 project ships received modern hydroacoustic armament: the Irtysh-Amfora-B-600 MGC-055B, which is a universal complex that performs not only the standard SAC functions (noise and echo-directionalization, target classification, hydroacoustic communication), but also the measurement ice thicknesses, search for polynyas and streaks, torpedo detection. Unfortunately, the characteristics of this SAC are unknown, the open press shows the ability to detect targets at a distance of 220-230 km (in other sources - 320 km) and accompany 30 targets simultaneously. But for analysis, these data are useless, since they cannot be compared with the latest American sonar systems. There is an opinion that the Irtysh-Amphora is not inferior in its capabilities to the SAC "Virginia" of the US Navy, but it is hardly possible to say something here for sure.

During the Cold War, American submarines were superior to the Soviet in the quality of their sonar complexes, despite the fact that our boats still made more noise, and this put the USSR submariners in a very disadvantageous position. But towards the end of the twentieth century, in the issues of noise, the Soviet multi-purpose Shushka-B submarines not only reached the level of "Improved Los Angeles", but also probably surpassed it. According to some reports, the noise of the “Schuk-B” is intermediate between the “Improved Los Angeles” and the “Virginia”. It is also known that during the creation of the “Boreev” their noise was significantly reduced relative to the “Shchuk-B”, so it cannot be excluded that, according to this parameter, the Russian Federation achieved parity with the United States, and perhaps even took the lead.



As for the SJC, here it is necessary to consider the following. The USSR had a very numerous submarine fleet, including submarine rocket carriers - carriers of heavy anti-ship missiles, which became the "calling card" of the Soviet Navy. But, of course, for firing PKR over long distances, submarines needed external target designation.

In the USSR, the Legend system of space reconnaissance and target designation was created for this, but, unfortunately, for a number of reasons, it did not become an effective tool for issuing DDs to missile submarines. At the same time, aircraft carriers with radar detection aircraft based on them, which the USSR could have solved this issue, also did not have. The TU-95РЦ target designators built in the 1962 year were outdated by the 80 years and did not guarantee the lighting of the surface situation.

In the current situation, the idea arose of creating an “underwater early warning system” - a specialized submersible watch and illumination submarine boat (with the beautiful abbreviation GAD OPO), the main weapon of which would be an ultra-powerful hydroacoustic complex capable of covering the underwater environment many times better than the GAK of our serial rocket and multipurpose submarines. In the USSR, the boat GAD OPO was created in the framework of the 958 project "Afalina".

Unfortunately, the Russian Navy never received this boat, although there were rumors that work on this topic was continued in the Russian Federation, and for the GAD OPO boat the task was to confidently control the underwater situation at a distance of 600 km. Of course, if such performance characteristics are possible, then the boats of GAD OPO will revolutionize naval armaments. In this case, the same carrier strike groups will be the "legitimate loot" of submarine detachments, including the GAD OPO boat and a pair of anti-ship missile carriers. But it should be understood that the creation of such powerful GAK is hardly possible yet, especially since their range very much depends on hydrological conditions: for example, GAK submarines capable of detecting the enemy at 200 km in ideal conditions somewhere in the same The Barents Sea may not notice the same enemy on 30 km.

Well, in the case of the project “Afalina” 958, only one thing can be said: its sonar complex was conceived as much more sophisticated and powerful than the GAK of our submarines of the Antey and Pike-B types. But it was on the basis of this complex that the Irtysh-Amphora State Joint-Stock Company was created, which is now being installed on nuclear submarines of the 4 generation Borey and Ash Tree!

Therefore, it can be assumed that the characteristics of the Irtysh-Amphora are significantly higher than those of the Soviet 3-generation boats. At the same time, the newest American "Virginia" in the part of the SJC began, if I may say so, "step on the spot" - having created the magnificent (but insanely expensive) "Sea Wolfe" atomic ships, the Americans later wanted a cheaper, even if somewhat less sophisticated weapon. As a result of this, Virginia received the same AN ​​/ BQQ-10 HSC, which was on the “Sea Wolf”, while using lightweight side acoustic antennas on the “Virginia”. In general, of course, there is no doubt that Americans are improving their SJC, but they haven’t yet got anything fundamentally new.

According to the statements of our shipbuilders, the Irtysh-Amphora is not inferior in its capabilities to the SAC of the American Virginia. It is difficult to say whether this is true or not, but it is very similar to the fact that Borey-type SSBNs are quite comparable with the latest American nuclear-powered icebreakers in terms of noise and detection ranges.

It should also be borne in mind that SSBN of this type is constantly being improved. The first three boats built into 1996, 2004 and 2006 were built according to the 955 project, but the next five hulls are being created using the new, modernized Borey-A project. This is absolutely not surprising, because the 955 project was created in the last century and today we can create more sophisticated boats. But, besides this, information appeared in the press about the development of the Borey-B and it is possible that the next (and last) two boats of this series will be built on an even more advanced project.

It can be assumed (although this is not a fact) that the first boats of the 955 project did not show in full what the sailors expected to see from them, due to their construction during the time of the 90's timelessness and the beginning of the 2000's. For example, it is known that when building the Yuri Dolgoruky, Alexander Nevsky and Vladimir Monomakh, hull structures from unfinished boats such as Schuka-B and Antey were used, it can be assumed that some of the equipment was not that laid on the project. But in any case, one should expect that the boats of this type will be much more perfect than their predecessors, the 667BDRM Dolphin SSBN, and the subsequent Borei-A and Borei-B will fully reveal the potential of the project.

However, no matter how good the submarine is, by itself it is just a platform for the weapons placed on it. The 955 SSBNs received a fundamentally new weapon for our fleet, solid-propellant ballistic missiles R-30 "Mace". Before the Boreev, all the SSBNs of the USSR were carried by liquid-fuel-fired rockets.

In fact, it is impossible to talk about a global advantage of solid-propellant missiles over "liquid-fuel" ones. It would be more correct to say that both of them have their own advantages and disadvantages. For example, liquid-propellant rockets have a large impulse and allow you to provide a longer range or throw weight. But at the same time, a number of advantages of solid-propellant rockets make them preferable for placing on submarines.

Firstly, solid-propellant rockets have smaller dimensions than liquid ones, and this is certainly very important for a submarine ship. Secondly, rockets with solid fuel are significantly safer during storage. Liquid rocket fuel is extremely toxic, and in case of physical damage to the hull of the rocket threatens the crew of the submarine. No matter how sad it is, anything happens at sea, including collisions of ships and vessels, so it is impossible to guarantee the absence of such damage. Thirdly, the acceleration section of a solid-fuel rocket is smaller than that of a liquid rocket, and this makes it difficult to defeat a flying ballistic missile - it is difficult to imagine, of course, that the American destroyer will be in the launch area of ​​our ICBMs, but ... And finally, fourth, that solid-propellant rockets are launched from SSBNs by the so-called “dry start”, when the powder gases simply throw the ICBMs to the surface, and the rocket engines are already activated. At the same time, liquid rockets, due to the lower strength of the structure, cannot be launched in this way, they are provided with a “wet start”, when the mine of the rocket is filled with sea water and only then is the launch started. The problem is that filling the rocket mines with water is accompanied by strong noise, respectively, SSBNs with liquid-propellant rockets unmask themselves directly in front of the volley, which, of course, should be avoided by all means.

Therefore, the strategic idea of ​​switching to solid-fuel missiles for our fleet should be considered correct. The only question is how successful such a transition has been in practice.

The Bulava missiles have probably become the most criticized weapon system in the entire post-Soviet period. By and large, there were two main complaints against them, but what about them!

1. The Bulava missiles in their performance characteristics are much inferior to the Trident II ballistic missile in service with the US Navy.

2. The Bulava missile has extremely low technical reliability.

On the first point, I would like to note that the characteristics of the “Bulava” are still classified to this day, and the data that are from open sources may not be accurate. For example, for quite a long time it was assumed that the maximum range of the Bulava does not exceed 8 000 km, and this was a reason for criticism, because the Trident II D5 flew on 11 300 km. But then, in the course of the regular tests, the Bulava slightly refuted open sources, hitting targets more than 9 000 km from the launch point. At the same time, according to some data, the Trident II D5 has a range over 11 thousand km. only in the “minimum configuration”, and, for example, the load in 8 warheads can deliver no further 7 800 km. And we must not forget that the American rocket has far more weight - 59,1 t against 36,8 t "Bulava".

Comparing the Bulava and the Trident family missiles, we must not forget that Americans have been developing solid-fuel missiles for submarines for a very long time, but for us this is a relatively new matter. It would be strange to expect to immediately create something “which has no analogues in the world” and “superior opponents in all respects”. It is more than likely that the Trident II D5 is indeed inferior in terms of the number of parameters of the Mace. But any weapon should be evaluated not from the position of “the best in the world or completely useless”, but by the ability to accomplish the task for which it was created. The tactical and technical characteristics of the P-30 "Bulava" allow it to ensure the defeat of many targets in the United States, and the latest missile defense technology, including maneuvering warheads, make them extremely difficult for American antimissiles.

As for the technical reliability of the Bulava, it became the subject of wide public discussion as a result of a number of unsuccessful rocket launches.



The first two launches went smoothly (the very first “throwing” launch of the weight-dimensional layout is not taken into account), but after that three launches in a row in 2006 g were unsuccessful. The developers took a short timeout, after which one launch in 2007 and two launches in 2008 were successful. Everyone who was interested breathed a sigh of relief when suddenly the ninth (end of 2008) tenth and eleventh launches (2009) turned out to be abnormal.

And then it was the tsunami of criticism of the project. And, it should be noted, all the reasons for this were: out of eleven launches, six were emergency! Since then, the P-30 "Mace" in the public consciousness forever stuck the label "rocket, not flying against the wind."

But it should be understood that the tests of the Bulava did not end there. After the last series of failures, 16 launches were also carried out, only one of which was unsuccessful. Thus, 27 launches were made in total, of which 7 turned out to be unsuccessful, or almost 26%. Bulava launch statistics are even better than missile tests for our “supergiants”, the 941 “Shark” submarine cruisers. Of the first 17 rocket launches of the P-39, more than half failed (according to some sources, 9), but only two of the following 13 launches were unsuccessful. Thus, from 30 start-ups, 11 was unsuccessful, or almost 37%.

But with all this, the P-39 rocket subsequently became a reliable weapon, which was confirmed in 1998 g, when our Typhoon SSBN in a single salvo fired full ammunition - all X-NUMX P-20 missiles. The launch took place regularly, despite the fact that, according to the author, missiles with an expired shelf life were used.

It must be said that the results of the Bulava tests are not too different from those of the American Trident II D5. Of the 28 launches of the American rocket, one was recognized as “non-test”, four were emergency, one was partially successful. In total, it turns out, at least five starts were unsuccessful. Our P-30 ratio is slightly worse, but given the conditions in which the enterprises — the creators of the Bulava after the “wild 90's” and the meager funding of the state defense order before the HPO 2011-2020 — worked, one could hardly have expected more .

Based on the foregoing, it can be assumed that the Bulava nevertheless has become a formidable and reliable weapon, in line with its carriers - the 955 Borey SSBN.

In general, it should be stated that the Russian Federation was completely successful in the planned replacement of submarine missile carriers with ships of the new generation. Three SSBNs of the 955 project are already in service, and the completion of the construction of five ships laid down on the 955A project is expected in the period from 2018 to 2020. And even if we assume that these dates will in fact be greatly shifted to the right, say, to 2025, then there is still no doubt that the eight newest ships will be commissioned long before the last boats of the 667BDRM “Dolphin” project have left the current fleet. And if we assume that the remaining 2 of the ship (probably already on the project 955B) will be laid before 2020, then all ten.

If the same could be said about other ships of the Russian Navy! ..

According to the materials of the open print

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
176 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. komvap
    komvap 19 December 2017 06: 15 New
    13
    The most important thing is that the pilgrim-thieves mafia could not advertise aircraft carriers unnecessary to Russia and other quirks that could be approved only by patients with megalomania.
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 19 December 2017 06: 46 New
      11
      . In 1991, during the operation “Behemoth” of the SSBN K-407 “Novomoskovsk”, from a submerged position it launched a full ammunition of R-29RM missiles (the modifications of which were Sineva and Liner) with an interval of 14 seconds.
      Andrey Chelyabinsky, hi I’m all imagining this operation ... after the launches, the Commander, lighting a cigarette, turned to the crew: "Congratulations ... there are no more states!" laughing hi
      1. komvap
        komvap 19 December 2017 06: 55 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrew Y.
        ... after the launches, the Commander, lighting a cigarette, turned to the crew: "Congratulations ... there are no more states!" laughing hi

        is it a smoking ad?
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 19 December 2017 07: 09 New
          +7
          Quote: komvap
          Quote: Andrew Y.
          ... after the launches, the Commander, lighting a cigarette, turned to the crew: "Congratulations ... there are no more states!" laughing hi

          is it a smoking ad?

          No, this is an advertisement for our SSBNs ...
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        19 December 2017 08: 58 New
        22
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        Having lit a cigarette, the commander turned to the crew: "Congratulations ... there are no more states!"

        Well what can I say?
        1. Lexus
          Lexus 19 December 2017 15: 08 New
          +4
          Andrey, thanks for the article!

      3. opus
        opus 19 December 2017 11: 29 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        The commander, having lit a cigarette, addressed the crew: "Congratulations ... there are no more states!"

        If the SSBN was at the launch points in the waters of the Barents, Kara, Okhotsk seas or the Arctic, and there were no US military hunters' submarines ... then yes.
        And so he even can not shoot ammunition.

        1. The sanction for the use of nuclear weapons (we have), even with SSBNs, is the exclusive prerogative of the supreme commander. And this is not just from the end, it is a long process, tension in the world, etc. and so on.
        2.To accurately pulnut (at least one, not to mention the volley all ammunition), for the ICBM you need to EXACTLY know the launch coordinates + weather conditions in the launch area, on the "route" and at the points of destination.
        But for submarines this is not a trivial task.
        3. I doubt that the "usual" command of the ballistic missile defense system with the BR, and not with the mock-ups, will be able to carry out a full-fledged launch of the ammunition.
        1. lieutenant colonel
          lieutenant colonel 19 December 2017 17: 09 New
          12
          1. This answer is not "long", but is quite calculated in minutes and seconds.
          2. The coordinates of the target (set) are already laid in the on-board computer complex of the missiles (US Navy bases, missile wing launch positions, administrative centers, command centers, megalopolises, etc. And if the task of retargeting occurs (this is a poor planning of hostilities), then it is performed in a fairly short time.
          "Weather conditions on the highway" - this is generally nonsense. Modern rockets do not fly along the trajectory of an abandoned stone, have their own independent orientation and ... in general, they reach the target, despite the wind and rain. And this is a "trivial task", but not for SSBNs, but for a rocket.
          3. Do not hesitate ... and the "ordinary" and even unusual commands will be executed.
          1. opus
            opus 19 December 2017 20: 44 New
            +1
            Quote: Lieutenant Colonel
            1. This answer is not "long", but is quite calculated in minutes and seconds.

            we have a decision to shoot down an intruder of airspace, taken several hours, and only about a nuclear strike ...
            2. The coordinates of the target (set) are already laid in the on-board computer complex of the missiles (US Navy bases, missile wing launch positions, administrative centers, command centers, megalopolises, etc. And if the task of retargeting occurs (this is a poor planning of hostilities), then it is performed in a fairly short time.

            fool
            said not a boy but a colonel in retirement, you see in the host part ...
            SU launch SLBMs solve questions related to:
            - with the provision of constant readiness for the launch of a ballistic missile (BR) from any previously unknown part of the oceans, at any time of the year and day with a short pre-launch preparation time and high firing accuracy;
            -With BR launch control from the shaking base;
            - with the stabilization of the BR at the initial, including in the underwater and transitional sections of the rocket;
            - with a pre-launch orientation of the complex of command devices (PSC) of the control system - in azimuth and horizon and in this connection - coordination of the coordinate systems of the navigation system of the submarine (submarine) and the control system (SU) BR;
            with definition the initial speed of the BR at the time of launch with a moving submarine;
            - with minimization of the volume of the initial data for flight control calculated before the launch in order to ensure the possibility of operational calculation before the launch of the flight missions for all the missiles of the volley;
            -providing extremely small and flexible pre-launch preparation times and intervals between rocket launches to optimize the total firing time in order to ensure the safety of the submarines.

            -Using flight trajectory correction based on the results of measuring the coordinates of navigation stars (astrocorrection), which makes it possible to compensate for the effect on the accuracy of firing of the main factors specific to SLBMs.
            - Correction of the flight trajectory according to the results of navigation measurements of the motion parameters of the BR with respect to the artificial satellites of the Earth included in a single space navigation system.
            -The introduction of the so-called direct methods of determining the current predicted miss in flight; based on the calculation of the prolonged trajectory to the point of incidence, which made it possible to reduce the methodological control errors and reduce the amount of calculations during the prelaunch preparation.
            -The use of terminal (boundary) control methods, where, as the final conditions for controlling the BR, along with traditional criteria (deviations of the drop points from the target), additional conditions are set (complete fuel burnup, flight time, angle of entry into the atmosphere, etc.).
            -The introduction of calibrations of accuracy parameters of the PSC SU with their constant use or with periodic inclusions, which made it possible to reduce the impact on the accuracy of firing of changes in the parameters of the PAC during the operation of the SLBM and to improve the accuracy of firing in all operating modes of the SS.
            -The use of statistics of optimal systems for processing all navigation information both during pre-launch preparation and during flight.
            -The adoption of special measures to improve the accuracy of fire in inertial mode (IR) of the SU.


            I tell you about the uncertainty of the starting point (geo-coordinates, roll, speed, depth), the uncertainty of the pitch angle, the azimuth when the ICBM leaves the water, the lack of a meteorological station (as opposed to the standard position) and connection with the “Hydrometeocentorm” and you sing a nightingale about
            Rocket wing launch sites, administrative centers, control centers, megalopolises, etc.

            Well, that is, Moscow? al no?

            * SLBL firing accuracy should be provided taking into account errors of the navigation complex of the submarine in knowing the coordinates, the direction of the meridian and the speed of the submarine at the starting point;
            ** shooting in advance Unknown routes have, as a rule, an increase in the error of geodetic support at the starting point and along the flight path;
            ** strict requirements for mass-dimensional characteristics (MGH) command devices create difficulties in ensuring their precision accuracy;
            *** prelaunch orientation, periodic and prelaunch calibration of the CCP are carried out in the conditions of pitching submarines, which requires compensation for the corresponding dynamic errors of the casting systems and calibration of the CCP.
            Quote: Lieutenant Colonel
            then it is performed in a fairly short time.

            Which is a special for SLBMs
            what are the terms, in minutes, hours, seconds.
            No need to puff here, as in the Komsomol meeting.
            I still recall the specifics:
            Severe restrictions on the size and weight of the equipment of the SU SLBM, high requirements for reliability, lack of access to onboard missile equipment
            preachin 'you our in
            Quote: Lieutenant Colonel
            in a fairly short time.


            Quote: Lieutenant Colonel
            "Weather conditions on the highway" - this is generally nonsense.

            Well, this could extract current
            Quote: Lieutenant Colonel
            Modern rockets do not fly along the trajectory of an abandoned stone, have their own independent orientation and ... generally reach the target, despite the wind and rain.

            Well ka more detail about the "orientation"
            Quote: Lieutenant Colonel
            Do not hesitate ... and the "ordinary" and even unusual commands will be executed.

            for uo ... "team" implied: combat crew / crew, not a political instructor team "At the old, Warning, Start)
            1. lieutenant colonel
              lieutenant colonel 20 December 2017 10: 30 New
              +3
              You talk about the work of the BTsVK, like digging trenches, you list and enumerate - and this, but this ... and acceleration of gyromotors, arresting ... Only a cyclogram of rocket preparation and launch is calculated in minutes and seconds, and not hours and days. ..
              Tasks, air defense control methods - this is not a strategic nuclear weapons control system.
              Specific times of performance standards for the combat mission and the order of execution are classified as ss ... Or didn’t you know about this?
              At the start, attention, the march is at the stadium))) the Nachfiz commands. In combat calculations, several other teams.
              The deputy politicians (deputies for educational work) do not conduct combat training launches.
              It’s better not to comment on your other comments ...))) funny "smart" uncle
          2. IgorS
            IgorS 20 December 2017 15: 17 New
            0
            Weather conditions in space? :))
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 19 December 2017 22: 19 New
          +9
          Quote: opus
          And this is not just like that with a kondachka, it is a long process, tension in the world, etc., etc.
          Hello, hello. The system for bringing the combat control signals to the rpksn on the database and in the autonomous system was developed back in my time. Now we are introducing (or have already implemented) the system of central bank control systems from the Central Bank of the Navy or the RF Ministry of Defense. In fact, a signal comes to release the lock from the head and start in the prelaunch machine. The commander enters the launch corridor and holds the speed allowed for the launch of the BR.
          For the commander, a signal to increase readiness earlier was the transition to higher communication programs, up to a continuous one. Then everyone "sweated" and changed clothes "for the first term" ...
          Quote: opus
          For ICBMs, you need to EXACTLY know the coordinates of the launch + weather conditions in the launch zone, on the “highway” and at the destination.

          For rpkSN there is such a thing as "the accuracy of the storage of their place." (Rudy remembers this very well). Now NavK store a place up to 8-9 days. SLBM when entering space can choose an error in the place of the carrier to 10km and in the direction to 3,0 * ... Our rK P-21, ancient, could launch a BR with 40m at a speed of boat 4,0 knots and sea condition 5 points. But that was in the era of my naval youth. Today they shoot at sea swell up to 8 points, from depths up to 50 m. For amans it is much more modest: the pace is -15-20s, the launch depth is only 30m, the sea is up to 6 points. And this is the vaunted Trident!
          Quote: opus
          I doubt that the “usual” SSBN command with a BR, and not with mock-ups, will be able to carry out a full-fledged ammunition launch.
          In vain ... In essence, the role of officers is reduced to observing "transporters" so that they light up in time and do not burn "red." The machine does the rest, excluding the "human factor" with its psyche and moral prohibitions ...
          On that and stand.
          1. opus
            opus 20 December 2017 10: 51 New
            +1
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            Oleg, hello. The system of bringing combat control signals to rpksn on the database and in the autonomous system was worked out even in my time.

            Hey. Anton (and not Oleg, although it does not matter).
            That's right, something like this, though not a melt.
            I will formulate my idea more precisely:
            - the Americans have no decision on whether to take a BR with a submarine (although limited) by the submarine commander.
            And the time to make a decision about a strike is by no means
            Quote: Lieutenant Colonel
            calculated in minutes and seconds.

            also mine should be filled


            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            For rpksn there is such a thing as “the accuracy of storage of its place.” (Rudi remembers this very well). Now NavK store the place to 8-9 days.

            This is what I wrote all the difficulties.
            "Colonels in retirement" consider:
            Knowledge of the coordinates of the launch site is not important, the main thing is to know where he is this New York
            Quote: Lieutenant Colonel
            Rocket wing launch sites, administrative centers, command and control centers, megalopolises, etc. And if the task of retargeting arises (this is in the case of poor planning of hostilities), then it is carried out in a fairly short time.


            More and can retarget
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            And this is the vaunted Trident!

            he has nothing to do with it.
            1. Dry start, after each start filling
            2.PAS with coolant cooled before entering the mine. This is a cycle and it takes time.
            3. The error is increasing.
            The result of these "vaunted" Tridents has a QUO in 2-2,5 times less.



            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            In vain ... In essence, the role of officers is reduced to the observation of "transporants"

            I here that meant (can tongue-tied)
            A regular submarine team (not trained, not at the training) is unlikely to be able to start the entire ammunition (immediately)
          2. Andrey NM
            Andrey NM 20 December 2017 11: 35 New
            +2
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            In essence, the role of officers is reduced to observing “transporters” so that they light up in time and do not burn “red”. The machine does the rest, excluding the "human factor" with its psyche and moral prohibitions ...

            Well, sometimes give a command to tighten the limit switches with screwdrivers, if suddenly the signal did not come.

            Our poem went:
            Comrade Commander, Reporting!
            From Washington ash and ash!
            But if I hadn’t driven the drive with a sledgehammer,
            Our rocket wouldn’t go in life.
    2. Chertt
      Chertt 19 December 2017 09: 47 New
      +6
      So far, from the first part, articles by Andrey from Chelyabinsk hi I did not see a “sad look”. As the saying goes, “With away” With incompatible military budgets of the United States and Russia, our underwater component of the Navy looks quite worthy and promising. For which our sailors, scientists and designers, many thanks
      1. Oleg Tolstoy
        Oleg Tolstoy 19 December 2017 17: 53 New
        +1
        Yes, to be honest. remembering not so long ago a Russian submarine in civilian’s blog read about how they launched a power plant of two Typhoons in order to overtake them to “inspect” freshly appointed EreFia defense officers for 80 km, because kerosene was used to transport Mr. Minister to MI-8 was not, now I breathe a sigh of relief. NOT everything is fine in Russia. but there is already hope that the rumors of her death were greatly exaggerated! hi
        1. NikWik
          NikWik 19 December 2017 20: 19 New
          +4
          Apparently, you read one of the stories of Eduard Ovechkin, KIPovets with TK-20. Type in net "Sharks of Steel", go to his book. He writes interestingly, with humor, but the main thing is that everything is true. And with regards to the case you described, we then went to Severomorsk, then appear to the then Minister of Foreign Affairs Kozyrev.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            19 December 2017 22: 04 New
            +5
            Quote: NikWik
            select in net "Sharks of Steel", go to his book.

            They gave it to me. I couldn’t tear myself away, read all night, periodically frightening the neighbors (then was on a business trip) with explosions of thundering laughter ... Especially how they embroidered the flag ...
            a very strong book, in places - piercing to can not. You’re laughing here, but I want to cry through the page
  2. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 19 December 2017 07: 07 New
    14
    The main problem in fact of almost all countries of the world is financing and the economy. At the moment, only one country in the world is capable of touching any crazy (and not only) ideas in metal - America. The Fed's machine printing green candy wrappers spits on any dogma of the economy. request
    The fleet is only a hostage to the political system in the country and its associated economy hi
    There was socialism - there was also the Navy. Capitalism has become - the fleet has gone repeat
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 December 2017 08: 59 New
      11
      Quote: Rurikovich
      There was socialism - there was also the Navy. Capitalism has become - the fleet has gone

      Alas, but you seem to be right
      1. Chertt
        Chertt 19 December 2017 10: 30 New
        +5
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        There was socialism - there was also the Navy. Capitalism has become - the fleet has gone

        And how do countries that lack socialism but have a fleet fit into your theory?
        1. Ivanchester
          Ivanchester 19 December 2017 12: 05 New
          +7
          Actually, in our country before socialism there was a fairly large and modern fleet ;-)
          1. Anton Yu
            Anton Yu 19 December 2017 18: 54 New
            0
            Before the revolution, we had a large fleet. Not all ships were powerful and modern, but built mainly abroad.
        2. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 19 December 2017 18: 06 New
          +1
          Quote: Chertt
          And how do countries that lack socialism but have a fleet fit into your theory?

          Question - what are the capabilities of this fleet? wink
          Maybe a country on the seashore has its own fleet, but does it have such a fleet as the USSR had? wink
          Does Portugal have a comparable fleet? Do Spain?
          Any country can have a fleet, whether socialist or capitalist. But what tasks can that fleet accomplish?
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 19 December 2017 12: 44 New
        +5
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Alas, but you seem to be right

        Let's look at it all slightly from the other side ... the fleet is being updated extremely slowly for many reasons: financing, subcontractors and suppliers, lack of domestic components, import substitution, etc. ...
        What do we have today? On surface ships, there is a clear tendency to strengthen the coastal and marine zones. We are building RTOs, corvettes and frigates. At the same time, domestic gas turbines are not yet in a series. There is a project of a frigate of increased displacement, project 22350M, which, most likely, should become a niche for non-nuclear destroyers. But here everything is still quiet, even though we need 4 to 5 ships per fleet for 10 fleets.
        The new rearmament program speaks of the construction of ships of the coastal zone, but there is not a word about surface ships of the first rank. That is, you can’t even dream about the construction of the Leader up to the age of 27. Although YaSU in metal for him already is RITM-200, which stands on the Arctic icebreaker. With the modernization of the Nakhimy, everything is also foggy and when this disgrace is completed it is not visible. About the new arsenal, radar systems, etc. I will not say anything.
        And in the construction and modernization of nuclear submarines, there is a clear quantitative bias towards the SSBN towards multipurpose ones. The same Pike-B half are waiting for repairs or upgrades. At the same time, about vertical PUs that ask for Pike-B, no one stutters from the word at all. The modernization of Baracud was postponed until better times. We build ash trees extremely slowly. And as a result, our SSBNs do not have proper cover by the multi-purpose.
        In this regard, I am convinced that one of the ways to somehow rectify the situation is by designing a nuclear submarine with a displacement of up to 3000 tons of the Hunter class, of the Lyra type. Which can be built much faster than Ash, and which part of the tasks of multi-purpose nuclear submarines will be able to take on.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          19 December 2017 12: 51 New
          +9
          Quote: NEXUS
          What do we have today? On surface ships, there is a clear tendency to strengthen the coastal and marine zones

          Yes, the Lord is testing with you. Where from? !!! We continue to weaken literally in all directions
          Quote: NEXUS
          The new rearmament program speaks of the construction of ships on the coastal zone, but there is not a word about surface ships of the first rank

          Frigate 22350M :)))) We get to it a little later :)
          Quote: NEXUS
          And as a result, our SSBNs do not have proper cover by the multi-purpose.

          Absolutely agree
        2. ZVO
          ZVO 19 December 2017 15: 29 New
          0
          Quote: NEXUS
          There is a draft frigate of increased displacement, project 22350M


          There is no such project. Absolutely not.
          Neither an advance design, nor even a design assignment.
          And even if they design it, before 2025 he will not be destined to stand on the slipway.
          Alas.
        3. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 19 December 2017 15: 37 New
          +3
          Quote: NEXUS
          And as a result, our SSBNs do not have proper cover by the multi-purpose.

          Pfff ... as the well-known mina regularly writes, in order for there to be someone to cover up for, our SSBNs and multi-purpose soldiers still have to somehow get out of the bases. And with this, everything is bad - due to the almost complete absence of modern mine defense forces. Sketches the adversary of self-transporting and homing mines at the bases - and that’s it, hello Sevastopol in June 1941. sad
        4. Anton Yu
          Anton Yu 19 December 2017 18: 58 New
          0
          The Leader and Storm projects have already been shelved. They will design smaller ships.
      3. shahor
        shahor 19 December 2017 13: 10 New
        0
        there was socialism, there was no country and navy
    2. astankard
      astankard 19 December 2017 18: 32 New
      +1
      Even I do not see delirious ideas in the Navy among amers. Aircraft carriers? Quite capable ships, for a given application strategy.
      A couple would not hurt us, but we are not building destroyers, and aircraft carriers would be with strike weapons ...
      "Zamvolt"? I see no reason to taunt - a powerful enough ship ... Price? So enough amers ...
      Well, not only the USA can build ...
      For example, China, now. SIMULTANEOUSLY, building 15 destroyers and 4 frigates, not to mention the coastal trifle ...
      That's who has swiftness!
  3. Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 19 December 2017 07: 15 New
    +9
    Russia does not need to spend trillions on aircraft carriers and other heavy cruisers. All the same, Russia will not fight the United States with conventional weapons as in World War II, but simply shandarahnet the Yankees with nuclear ICBMs and missiles from submarines. In addition to the United States, Russia has no potential enemies overseas. The potential enemy, the European Union, has land borders with us, so a war fleet is also not needed for a war with the EU. A war with China is unlikely, but still likely, and a war with China also does not need a fleet. No one else poses a threat to us. Therefore, I believe that it is necessary first of all to develop the submarine fleet, which is a deterrent weapon, and in the event of a war with the United States, cruisers could secretly swim to the US coast and destroy New York, Los Angeles and other large cities on the coast. Well, you can build frigates and light cruisers for small local wars like 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX.
    So I fully approve the strategy of the Ministry of Defense, which has relied on the submarine fleet and on coast guard ships. Russia is a continental country, bordering many countries, so you need to pay attention and funds to the ground forces and aviation, rather than spraying huge amounts of money on unnecessary aircraft carriers and heavy cruisers. As the experience of the First and Second World Wars showed, the Russian fleet is not particularly needed.
    1. Soho
      Soho 19 December 2017 07: 22 New
      +4
      Cat_Kuzya Today, 07:15
      secretly swim to the shores of the United States and destroy New York, Los Angeles and other major cities

      to destroy them does not require sailing to the shores of America
      build frigates and light cruisers for small local wars like 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX

      why are there frigates and cruisers?
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 19 December 2017 07: 26 New
        +2
        In order not to intercept the US missile defense. The closer missiles are launched from the coast, the more difficult it will be to intercept them.
        Well, not boats of any Bendery and spratniki to drive!
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 19 December 2017 10: 43 New
      +2
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      Russia does not need to spend trillions on aircraft carriers and other heavy cruisers. All the same, Russia will not fight the United States with conventional weapons as in World War II, but simply shandarahnet the Yankees with nuclear ICBMs and missiles from submarines.

      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      Therefore, I believe that it is necessary first of all to develop the submarine fleet, which is a deterrent weapon, and in the event of a war with the United States, cruisers could secretly swim to the US coast and destroy New York, Los Angeles and other large cities on the coast. Well, you can build frigates and light cruisers for small local wars like 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX.
      So I fully approve the strategy of the Ministry of Defense, which has relied on the submarine fleet and on coast guard ships.

      There is only one small question - how swim to the coast of the USA with the complete domination of the enemy in the air and at sea? The “Coastal Fleet” is not an assistant in breaking through the boundary of the PLO, it will have to be covered up. As a result, the enemy’s PLO will be untied, and even at the front lines it will operate in greenhouse conditions without any opposition. I’m afraid that the situation of the “Battle for the Atlantic” of 1944 will be repeated.
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 19 December 2017 11: 16 New
        +1
        Submarines of the Northwind class are silent and cannot be detected.
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 19 December 2017 15: 27 New
          +3
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          project of frigate of increased displacement, project 22350M


          Pour such grass ...
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 19 December 2017 19: 43 New
          +3
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          Submarines of the Northwind class are silent and cannot be detected.

          Where did the firewood come from !? belay
          By the way, a log in the sea, splashing in the wave and then makes a characteristic "white" noise! yes
          Thoughts seem to be “silent”, and telepaths were found on them ... Therefore, any “heterogeneity” in the electrolyte can be detected by secondary (parasitic) fields ... This is me, by the way, for the seed of “non-acoustic” ways to search for submarines. bully
          Ага. smile
      2. dauria
        dauria 19 December 2017 15: 44 New
        +3
        There is only one small question - how to swim to the coast of the United States with the complete domination of the enemy in the air and at sea?


        Another question - do you have to swim? They seem to get from Severodvinsk to any city in the United States. Yes, in principle, only one thing is now required from any launcher - the ability to move within plus or minus 100 km. This is a guarantee that they will not immediately cover, and then do not care. Therefore, I would still lean on rocket trains. But the fleet of the open sea will wait, there is really not enough money and industry for everything.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 19 December 2017 15: 51 New
          +3
          Quote: dauria
          Another question - do you have to swim? They seem to get from Severodvinsk to any city in the United States.

          Well, the top starter wants to launch from short distances with a short approach time. wink
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          In order not to intercept the US missile defense. The closer missiles are launched from the coast, the more difficult it will be to intercept them.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 20 December 2017 01: 27 New
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            the harder it will be to intercept them.

            Does anyone seriously believe that intercepting an SSBN is more difficult than SLBMs? Yes, even from the strategic bastion of trampling to Long Island?
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 20 December 2017 10: 28 New
              +1
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Does anyone seriously believe that intercepting an SSBN is more difficult than SLBMs? Yes, even from the strategic bastion of trampling to Long Island?

              There are no obstacles to patriots! © smile
  4. Odysseus
    Odysseus 19 December 2017 07: 18 New
    +9
    There are no questions about this article, in my opinion everything is correctly written, unless 2020 as the deadline for introducing 8 Boreev into the fleet seems completely unrealistic. Yes, and the technical reliability of the Mace is still exaggerated, it is unlikely that two projects for its modernization appear at once / and new ballistic missile ..
    But in general, why a sad look into the future? Did not complete GPV-20? So now we have the century of PR, unfortunately, such programs are not written in order to execute them. For example, according to the ground forces, it has not been implemented to no lesser extent.
    Will there be no ocean fleet in Russia? But Russia is not the world hegemon of the cap. World as the United States and is not a socialist country with the first economy of the world like the PRC, so proceeding from what production, personnel and financial capabilities should it have an ocean fleet? And what is he for her?
    It is clear that it is better to be healthy and wealthy, and I also want Russia to have 20 nuclear carriers and bases in Canada, but now this is unfortunately not realistic.
    Under the current conditions, the fleet has only two tasks: to ensure the deployment of an SSBN and the protection of its coastline and its territorial waters. All. And as a nice option, the opportunity to attack with Caliber from the coastal zone. Based on this, ships are being built, and so far, unfortunately, even for solving these limited tasks at a very slow pace.
    To solve other problems, we need a different policy and a different economy.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 December 2017 09: 02 New
      +7
      Quote: Odyssey
      unless 2020 as the deadline for introducing 8 Boreev into the fleet seems completely unrealistic.

      In general, yes, that’s why he extended it to the right until 2025. But maybe they will manage to do it earlier, yet the extreme - Pozharsky - was laid in 2016.
      Quote: Odyssey
      But in general, why a sad look into the future?

      Because a more or less blissful picture on only with the SSBN
      Quote: Odyssey
      Will there be no ocean fleet in Russia? But Russia is not the world hegemon of the cap. World as the United States and is not a socialist country with the first economy of the world like the PRC, so proceeding from what production, personnel and financial capabilities should it have an ocean fleet? And what is he for her?

      We need forces sufficient to represent our interests in the oceans. At least some
      1. Soho
        Soho 19 December 2017 09: 27 New
        +2
        At least some

        at least some does not make sense. Only spray funds.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          19 December 2017 09: 32 New
          +8
          Quote: Soho
          at least some does not make sense. Only spray funds.

          On the contrary. The fleet is, first and foremost, an instrument of politics and today in this form it is more justified than in any other (except for the cover of the SSBN)
          1. Soho
            Soho 19 December 2017 10: 46 New
            +3
            in modern realities, the economy becomes the main instrument of politics. And as a demonstrator of power in the ocean / far sea zone, our fleet is unlikely to imagine anything. Well, if it is possible to create an NK grouping that allows us to solve the main tasks - when the “X-hour” arrives, cover the deployment zones of our SSBNs and create obstacles to the developing enemy forces.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              19 December 2017 10: 57 New
              +6
              Quote: Soho
              in modern realities, the main instrument of politics is economics

              Tell us about its impact on the situation in Libya and Syria.
              Quote: Soho
              And as a demonstrator of power in the ocean / far sea zone, our fleet is unlikely to imagine anything.

              Which, in fact, is bad
              1. CTABEP
                CTABEP 19 December 2017 11: 48 New
                +1
                With all my agreement with your point of view about the fleet and its tasks, it should be noted that if there is a strong economy, there will be a fleet. We are not a sea power of the 17-18th century, when everything was the other way around :).
              2. Soho
                Soho 19 December 2017 11: 49 New
                +1
                Andrey from Chelyabinsk Today, 10:57 ↑
                Quote: Soho
                in modern realities, the main instrument of politics is economics
                Tell us about its impact on the situation in Libya and Syria.

                Well, the water closet situation with the collapse of the USSR is also not the best indicator. Then it was the collapsed economy that practically put us in a kneeling position.
                But Syria and Libya would not have been saved by any armed forces. How Iraq did not save the millionth army. The scale is not the same. NATO’s military expansion can only be stopped by the threat of nuclear weapons. And then in the case of the DPRK it is 50/50.
              3. avt
                avt 19 December 2017 20: 41 New
                +2
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Tell us about its impact on the situation in Libya and Syria.

                That would be great to have this koekaker about
                Quote: Soho
                in modern realities, the economy becomes the main instrument of politics.

                He would have told it ... well, if not to the Friend of Athletes, then at least Laurentius kind of ... in June after the 22nd day of 1941. I would have conducted a comparative analysis of the economy of the USSR and other European communities.wassat
              4. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 20 December 2017 01: 29 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Tell us about its impact on the situation in Libya and Syria.

                And to whom, excuse me, surrendered Libya and Syria? Or is it important to get into everything Mr. that the Americans got into?
            2. avt
              avt 19 December 2017 20: 38 New
              +3
              Quote: Soho
              in modern realities, the economy becomes the main instrument of politics.

              wassat How did they get the parrots, thoughtlessly repeating the sermons of liberalizing intellectuals with a smart look. Well, about - ,, Politics is a concentrated expression of the economy ",, D .... B ...." -Lavrov. Koeckaker! I appeal to you! You want to be mitrofanushki in life, it’s your business. But is it really stupid too lazy to work as a search engine and still UNDERSTAND, having found the source, WHO talked about this in a dispute with Trotsky and Bukharin and WHAT REALLY he really meant! I understand with my mind that folk wisdom is right and - ,, Fools to teach - only to spoil "Well again
              Politics is a concentrated expression of economics, I repeated in my speech, because I had already heard this unacceptable, in the mouth of a Marxist, absolutely unacceptable rebuke for my “political” approach.
              Politics cannot but have primacy over the economy.
              To argue otherwise is to forget the ABC of Marxism.
              Well, at least find out who the author is. At the same time, look for even older people, mountain-a-a-az-dou are smarter than you current Internet-co-workers, wrote
              Ultimate ratio regum
              , and most importantly, WHAT. I give a hint - not on economic treatises.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                19 December 2017 22: 02 New
                +3
                I welcome you categorically! hi drinks
                1. avt
                  avt 19 December 2017 22: 47 New
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  I welcome you categorically!

                  hi drinks
              2. Soho
                Soho 20 December 2017 04: 52 New
                +4
                avt Yesterday, 20:38 ↑ New
                Quote: Soho
                in modern realities, the economy becomes the main instrument of politics.
                wassat How did the parrots get, thoughtlessly repeating the sermons of liberalizing intellectuals with a smart look. Well, about - ,, Politics is a concentrated expression of the economy ",, D .... B ...." -Lavrov. Koeckaker! I appeal to you! You want to be mitrofanushki in life, it’s your business. But is it really stupid too lazy to work as a search engine and still UNDERSTAND, having found the source, WHO talked about this in a dispute with Trotsky and Bukharin and WHAT REALLY he really meant! I understand with my mind that folk wisdom is right and - ,, Fools to teach - only to spoil "Well again

                it’s not the parrots that got you, but your own indefatigable butchert. Put yourself some kind of candle that relieves itching and burning. And quench your emotions, not in the back room communicate with drinking buddies.
                And about your enchanting speech with a bunch of exclamation points and a capsloc, I’ll just ask you a question: finance a powerful army, build ships, produce tank planes and other C500s that can intimidate a enemy, and, if necessary, stumble in his own den, you, dear Will you be on what shisha? Throw a cry to collect SMS for war like our insane neighbors? A strong army can be afforded only by a strong economy. And all your efforts to prove that this is not so - just a butt and balabolstvo, as I said above.
                1. Romulus
                  Romulus 20 December 2017 04: 58 New
                  0
                  Quote: Soho
                  - just a butt and balabolstvo, as I said above.

                  Absolutely right! By the canopy and the hat, apparently you need to explain how to small children with the help of simple examples - if you have a salary of 15 tyrov, then you can not buy a Lexus without undermining the family budget))
                2. Nikk
                  Nikk 20 December 2017 09: 57 New
                  0
                  https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/96610/
                3. avt
                  avt 20 December 2017 10: 01 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Soho
                  Put yourself some kind of candle that relieves itching and burning.

                  Experience your own satisfaction and getting an orgasm.
                  Quote: Soho
                  not in the back room talking with drinking buddies ..
                  I am not at all interested in the place where you receive such satisfaction, nor your partners in such actions.
                  1. Soho
                    Soho 20 December 2017 12: 07 New
                    +1
                    Experience your own satisfaction and getting an orgasm.

                    translation of shooters in the spirit of cheap internet trolls? Well now your level is clear negative
                    and to the question asked that they could not say anything "thoughtful"? Or the imagination wasn’t enough to explain to the coekaker what the reason for the failure was even a very modest (based on the real needs of the army and navy) GPV 2011-2020. And if the economy is not important as a basis, then why don't we write bolder Wishlist in the GPV 2018-2025? And then let's take a walk.
                    Dazzling prospects unfolded in front of Vasyukin lovers. The room has expanded. The rotten walls of the horse-breeding nest collapsed, and instead a thirty-three-story glass palace of chess thought went into the blue sky. Thoughtful people sat in each room, in every room, and even in elevators passing by a bullet and played chess on inlaid malachite boards. Marble stairs really fell into the blue Volga. Ocean Steamboats

                    Andrei is not in vain writing about the sad prospect of our Navy in the new state program. And the reduction in our military budget is by no means connected with the peacekeeping position of the government or the calming of the geopolitical situation
                    1. avt
                      avt 20 December 2017 16: 42 New
                      0
                      Quote: Soho
                      translation of shooters in the spirit of cheap internet trolls?

                      Statement of fact
                      Quote: Soho
                      and to the question asked that they could not say anything "thoughtful"?

                      Well, so about
                      Quote: Soho
                      some kind of candle that relieves itching and burning.
                      You need to go to a proctologist, and then to a specialized specialist - a sex therapist. Since a sinful medical diploma does not have a traditional orientation either.
                      1. Soho
                        Soho 21 December 2017 04: 19 New
                        +1
                        avt Yesterday, 16:42
                        You need to go to a proctologist, and then to a specialized specialist - a sex therapist. Since a sinful medical diploma does not have the orientation of a traditional

                        watching you like to exaggerate only the "ass" topic (see hurt for the living lol), but there is no desire to answer an uncomfortable question (on which you understand it is safe to guess)? Well, well ... stay with the sim, Mr. balabol-switchman
  5. oracul
    oracul 19 December 2017 07: 18 New
    +3
    And thank God that the analysis is based on open sources. Where do some people get this itchy to private information. So I want to ask - who are we working for, gentlemen !?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 December 2017 09: 03 New
      12
      Quote: oracul
      Where do some people get this itchy to private information

      From there, which in my opinion today is a lot of re-classified, i.e. hide information that is not secret
    2. ZVO
      ZVO 19 December 2017 15: 32 New
      +4
      Quote: oracul
      And thank God that the analysis is based on open sources. Where do some people get this itchy to private information. So I want to ask - who are we working for, gentlemen !?


      Where (with so many 1 departments) did our sailors read the reliable characteristics of Soviet Weapons from the English almanac called Jane?
      1. domnich
        domnich 19 December 2017 20: 50 New
        +3
        Quote: ZVO
        our sailors read the reliable characteristics of the Soviet Arms from the English almanac called Jane


        A year in 1979-80, as a senior lieutenant, he read "Jane" in the technical library of Sevastopol, having previously issued a permit for the unit. The neck of this "Jane" was somehow informal, it seems "Polyhedron".

        So even this foreign source was under the stamp and was not available to the general public.
  6. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 19 December 2017 07: 21 New
    +2
    Probably, such impressive success was achieved, among other things, because the jet propulsion system was used for the first time in domestic practice on a boat.

    A jet propulsion device was installed on Alrosa. Thank you for the article.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 December 2017 09: 05 New
      +5
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      A jet propulsion device was installed on Alrosa.

      Yes, I forgot to add that to the SSBN :)
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      Thank you for the article.

      and thank you!
  7. xtur
    xtur 19 December 2017 09: 18 New
    +1
    1) Throwing weight for any rocket is a fundamentally important parameter, no matter how hard-rocket rocket supporters are engaged in demagogy, and according to this indicator, the “Mace” is just a useless toy when compared with the “Liner”
    2) Wet start is not an advantage of solid fuel rockets, there were articles in which it was said that liquid rockets either have already learned, or may well learn
    3) At the discussion of the last GPV on bmpd, the mine stated that it was not by chance that the first Boreas were sent to the Pacific Ocean, as if hinting at their unreliability, but he did not open the brackets
    4) The same mine said that the modernization of missiles for 941, if the Makeyevites were given the opportunity to finalize their missile for the Boreev, would have pulled the modernization of other submarines of this generation, he regards the Mace as a diversion against the fleet.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 December 2017 09: 36 New
      +5
      Quote: xtur
      Wet start is not an advantage of solid fuel rockets, there were articles in which it was said that liquid rockets either have already learned, or may well learn

      They can. “Bark” wanted to do with a dry start. The weight of the rocket with the appropriate equipment is 90 tons. Do we need it?
      Quote: xtur
      At a discussion of the last GPV on bmpd, the mine announced that it was not by chance that the first Boreas were sent to the Pacific Ocean, as if hinting at their insecurity, but he did not open the brackets

      Unclear. Generally speaking, it is better to keep unreliable boats on the Northern Fleet, since there repair is at hand
      Quote: xtur
      The same mine said that the modernization of missiles for 941, if the Makeyevites were given the opportunity to finalize their missile for the Boreev, would have pulled the modernization of other submarines of this generation

      Only here is the exploitation of these monsters ...
      1. xtur
        xtur 19 December 2017 10: 01 New
        +1
        > The weight of the rocket with the appropriate equipment is 90 tons. Do we need it?

        It all depends on the tasks that are being addressed. You can improve the characteristics of the rocket, and use the reserves of thrown weight for some other purpose that enhances the survival of the BG. And you can do something completely different - to make them a bus of the GB BG of ultra-low power, as they are trying to do with Sarmat, but implement the same idea for other purposes (Sarmat has a bus of GB BG, but, of course, not ultra-low power)

        > It is not clear. Generally speaking, it is better to keep unreliable boats on the Northern Fleet, since there are repairs at hand

        maybe he meant that the Far East is closer to the United States, and this is exactly the distance that these boats fly without an accident. Or the fact that it’s on the Far East that the least modernized submarines and even Borei are reliable in their background ... Honestly, I didn’t fully understand most likely it can better comment on one of the submariners

        > Only the exploitation of these monsters ...

        Everything has its own + и -. After the modernization of missiles and submarines, one could find another use for them, but having a problem with useful VI in the fleet, dismissively call the existing reserve a “monster” and refer to the high cost of operation when there are a bunch of urgent security tasks, I immediately remember a joke about a dagger and a watch
        1. The Siberian barber
          The Siberian barber 19 December 2017 12: 47 New
          0
          Probably, Andrey, he meant the great stability of the fleet.
          Agree that the KSF, "heavier" will be compared with the ToF)
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 19 December 2017 20: 03 New
          +4
          Quote: xtur
          maybe he meant that the Far East is closer to the United States, and this is exactly the distance that these boats fly without an accident.
          Dear MINA said exactly as much as he wanted to say then ...
          About "why the first Boriki went to the Pacific Fleet."
          In-1's, so that the 35 dPL did not finally bend in the combat strength of the forces.
          And 2, Pacific Fleet (Vilyuchensk) is perhaps the only fleet with an open access to the sea with the corresponding depths. To deploy rpkSN - that's it!
          B-3's, political factor: not to stand with pants down in front of the DV neighbors, when everyone in the region pumps muscles before a possible fight ...
          Something like this, however.
          1. xtur
            xtur 20 December 2017 02: 47 New
            0
            > Dear MINA said exactly as much as he wanted to say then

            I just tried to understand to the best of my knowledge and expressed all possible explanations :-)

            > Firstly, so that the 1 DPLs do not finally bend in the combat strength of the forces.

            perhaps my assumption "Either that it’s on the Far East that the least modernized submarines and even Boreas are reliable against them" with your 1st point is more or less consistent

            > Something like this, however

            it seemed to me that he still connected it with the poor-quality work of the "Mace". But, in any case, much of what he said, without being a sailor / submariner, is impossible to understand.

            Thank you for the clarification
  8. Old26
    Old26 19 December 2017 10: 08 New
    +6
    Andrew! Thanks for the article, but there are two small points.

    1. This missile possesses impressive combat power and is capable of carrying up to 10 individual guidance units of 100 kt, or 4 units of 500 kt at a range of 8300–11500 km.

    if we recalculate the weight characteristics and range, then at its record range the missile carried by no means four combat units, but the EMNIP only two

    2.In 1991, during the operation “Behemoth” of the SSBN K-407 “Novomoskovsk”, from a submerged position it launched a full ammunition of the R-29RM missiles (the modifications of which were “Sineva” and “Liner”) with an interval of 14 seconds.

    The operation was called "Hippo-2", and not just "Hippo", this is the first. The second - there was no shooting of the entire R-29RM ammunition. Yes, 16 items were shot to check if the boat would survive, but there were only two combat missiles. the remaining 14 are simulators that had fuel for several seconds of flight
    Although this of course does not downplay the significance of the operation itself
    1. Town Hall
      Town Hall 19 December 2017 11: 17 New
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      The operation was called "Hippo-2", and not just "Hippo", this is the first. The second - there was no shooting of the entire R-29RM ammunition.



      Hello. Hippopotamus-1, if I am not mistaken, ended in complete failure. For Hippopotamus-2 they were preparing purposefully for several years. And this was a pretty ostentatious event, nothing to do with the real capabilities of a regular boat with an ordinary crew having no. In the sense of such a launch in real conditions it’s impossible to use a regular combat boat. At least it’s highly risky. You can easily ruin a boat. In a naval environment, the Behemoth-2 was called a “campaign for medals” or something like that.





      Quote: Old26
      Yes, 16 items were shot to check if the boat would survive, but there were only two combat missiles. the remaining 14 are simulators that had fuel for several seconds of flight



      Shooting simulators can be equated to shooting real missiles. In the sense there is enough confidence that if it worked out with simulators it will work out with missiles. Or are these quite different things?

      Thank you.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        19 December 2017 11: 52 New
        +7
        Quote: Town Hall
        In the naval environment, the Hippopotamus-2 received the name "campaign for medals" or something like that.

        You “mixed up” a little, because the name “campaign for medals” was given to the failed Behemoth-1. And, according to some reports, the problem there was not in the boat and not in the rocket, but in its simulator
        1. Town Hall
          Town Hall 19 December 2017 12: 07 New
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Quote: Town Hall
          In the naval environment, the Hippopotamus-2 received the name "campaign for medals" or something like that.

          You “mixed up” a little, because the name “campaign for medals” was given to the failed Behemoth-1. And, according to some reports, the problem there was not in the boat and not in the rocket, but in its simulator



          Hippopotamus-2 was no different in this respect from the Hippopotamus of the first. And was started with exactly the same goals, ostentatiously medal. Because it had nothing to do with the real combat readiness of combat boats.

          It’s just that in the second fathers the commanders after nearly ditching the boat with the crew in the first, showed a hardware-bureaucratic trick and didn’t climb the boat directly. But the holes in the tunic were prepared in advance.


          PS Missiles on the SSBN are the same part of the boat as all other mechanisms and systems. You won’t argue that the tank is combat-ready and the crew is good if the tank does not fire a gun.
  9. Serg65
    Serg65 19 December 2017 10: 39 New
    11
    hi Welcome the advanced pen and ink! laughing
    Sad look to the future

    A sad look into the future, Andrei, was in the late 90s when gentlemen officers fired entire detachments from the fleet, when the competition at the Naval Schools was 10 places for one applicantWhen senior assistant commander RCC "Moscow" died of a heart attack, moonlighting while unloading a carriage with cabbage - then there was a sad look into the future !!!!
    Now I would say "a look of hope." Fleet Under construction, how and at what pace is another question, but note ... if the ship is not ready, the deadline is calmly shifted to the right and the unfinished ship is not handed over to the fleet under the Christmas tree with subsequent orders and bonuses - this is for an outstanding worker in the forest industry and a lover of cutting
    Quote: Soho
    at least some does not make sense. Only spray funds.

    bully So ...
    In general, it should be noted that the Russian Federation completely succeeded in the planned replacement of submarine missile carriers with new generation ships.

    The devil is not so terrible as his mother-in-law!
    And thanks for the article drinks
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 December 2017 11: 54 New
      +3
      Quote: Serg65
      Welcome the advanced pen and ink!

      Hello to you, too! hi
      Quote: Serg65
      Now I would say "look of hope"

      “Hope dies last,” Vera said. And shot love
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 19 December 2017 12: 10 New
        +9
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        “Hope dies last,” Vera said. And shot love

        laughing
        Enthusiasm is the daily bread of youth, skepticism is the daily wine of old age!
  10. rudolff
    rudolff 19 December 2017 11: 06 New
    +6
    Mace 37 tons starting weight, Sineva 40 tons. The difference is small. In this case, the cast weight of the first is 1,15 tons, of the second 2,8 tons. Backfill question: What would be the starting weight of Sineva at 1,15 tons of pollutants? Hence the next question, which rocket is actually lighter?
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 19 December 2017 12: 12 New
      +6
      hi Hello my friend!
      bully Here you are, and the admiral! At the same time, the position itself obliges to change the green shoulder strap to black wink
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 19 December 2017 14: 07 New
        +2
        Hello Serge! Yes, it’s somehow sweeter and closer to my heart two gaps on the shoulder straps. I have not grown to admirals.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 19 December 2017 14: 09 New
          +6
          Quote: rudolff
          I somehow sweeter and closer to my heart two gaps on uniform

          laughing So I'm already calm about this .... I’m probably getting old what
        2. Svarog51
          Svarog51 22 December 2017 05: 53 New
          +4
          Rudolph, I welcome you hi I wildly apologize for squeezing into your conversation.
          Yes, it’s somehow sweeter and closer to my heart two gaps on the shoulder straps.

          There is no such function on the site and I can’t even imagine as a result of what actions the vice admiral can be demoted to captain 1st rank. request
          I have not grown to admirals.

          You are mistaken, your epaulettes on VO are an assessment of you by other site participants. Now only forward to the fleet admiral.
          At the same time, the position itself obliges to change the green shoulder strap to black

          But with this I can tell you: click your avatar in the upper right, select "view profile", with your profile click the epaulet and select the one you need. This will help other forum participants to understand that they are talking with a naval officer. good soldier
          1. rudolff
            rudolff 22 December 2017 09: 37 New
            +3
            Thank you, Svarog, for the advice, but alas! I click on the epaulet, but nothing happens.
            1. Svarog51
              Svarog51 22 December 2017 14: 57 New
              +5
              Strange, but I see that you have the epaulette table of the vice admiral, and not the lieutenant general. If only the KAA Boa would have changed its own, it probably also doesn’t know how. Can you tell him yourself?
              R.S. My name is Sergey. hi
              1. rudolff
                rudolff 22 December 2017 15: 07 New
                +2
                Thank you, Sergey! From the second time it turned out with another browser. If in the near future I will cross with the Boa constrictor, I will definitely say. I think people will quickly guess that shoulder straps can be changed. Already, "aviation" flashed.
                1. Svarog51
                  Svarog51 22 December 2017 15: 15 New
                  +5
                  Yes, I don’t seem to be at all, at first they introduced it for subscribers, and then they distributed it to everyone. Only many do not know about this, so I try to help. The aircraft have their epaulettes only to the colonel general, the fleet - to the fleet admiral, and then again land.
  11. doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 19 December 2017 11: 07 New
    +1
    Before the Boreevs, all of the USSR SSBNs carried liquid-fuel rockets.

    Ehhhh ... Ave 941?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 December 2017 11: 14 New
      +3
      Quote: doktorkurgan
      Ehhhh ... Ave 941?

      Partially solid fuel, the warhead engine remained liquid
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 19 December 2017 12: 24 New
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        the warhead engine remained liquid

        This is not a "warhead engine", but a BB breeding stage. Of course, it is "liquid", the same thing requires multiple inclusion of steering engines.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          19 December 2017 21: 59 New
          +3
          I see. Thanks. Well then, I was wrong! hi
  12. rudolff
    rudolff 19 December 2017 11: 11 New
    +4
    "" Bark "wanted to do with a dry start. The weight of the rocket with the appropriate equipment is 90 tons."
    Invalid example. Bark, this is the development of the P-39 complex. Both rockets are solid fuel and both a priori with a dry start.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 December 2017 11: 26 New
      +3
      Quote: rudolff
      Both solid rockets

      as far as I understand, they are not fully solid fuel
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 19 December 2017 11: 35 New
        +3
        Andrei, what is the third step for Bulava?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          19 December 2017 11: 45 New
          +3
          Quote: rudolff
          Andrei, what is the third step for Bulava?

          There is no exact data, but if made by analogy with Topol - solid fuel
          1. rudolff
            rudolff 19 December 2017 12: 10 New
            +2
            In Bark, as in the main R-39, all three marching stages are solid fuel. LRE only on the "bus" - stage divorced BB.
            1. rudolff
              rudolff 19 December 2017 13: 02 New
              +2
              Bulava has all three solid fuel stages, the breeding platform (stage) was originally planned in two versions, including the LRE from Yuzhmash. The final version is solid fuel. In Mace M, a different arrangement is also possible.
  13. rudolff
    rudolff 19 December 2017 11: 18 New
    +7
    Making a liquid rocket with a dry start is not a problem. Take a look at the "land" ICBMs, the technology has long been worked out. In fact, Miass proposed the R-29 RMU3 of Sinev 2 to replace the Mace for the Boreya missile silos with a dry start. The prospective SLBM, which is engaged in Makeeva mall with a high degree of probability, will be liquid.
  14. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 19 December 2017 11: 20 New
    +3
    Hello, Andrey. So from Moonsund you abruptly switched to the current state of our fleet. Ordinary readers don't keep up with you :)).
    The topic voiced by you is very interesting and voluminous, and there is very little open and accurate information. But now it’s clear that GWP 2011-2020, especially in its “marine” part, has failed in almost all respects. And GWP 2018-2025 an attempt to do what has not been done before. You can try to calculate which ships and submarines can be included in the fleet in the period from 2018 to 2025.
    Submarines: pr. 955A - 5 units, pr. 885M - 6 units, pr. 636.3 - 6 units, pr. 677 - 2 units (+ 2 likely), pr 09852 - 1 unit, pr. - 09851- 1 unit.
    On surface ships, frigates, pr. 22350-4 units, pr. 1135.6-3 units. (probably), pr. 22350M-? units, corvettes, etc. 20385 - 2 units. (+ 2 likely), ex. 20380-5 units. (+2 likely), etc. 20386 - 1 unit. (+2 likely), patrol ships, pr. 23550-2 units, pr. 22160-5 units. (+1 likely), RTOs pr. 21631-5 units. (+2 likely), pr. 22800-7 units. (+11 likely), RCA pr. 1241.8- 2 units, TSC pr. 12700- min. 6 units, BDK pr. 11711 - 2 units CER pr. 18280 - 1 unit (+2 likely), des. box "Surf" - 2 (probably). To this can be added the modernization of old ships. pr 949AM- 2 units (+2 likely), pr. 971M- 4 units, aircraft carrier pr. 1143.6- 1 unit, TAKR pr. 1142M- 1 unit. (+1 likely), RKR pr. 1164 - 2 units. (probably), BOD pr. 1155.1-1 unit, BOD pr. 1155-1 unit. (+ 7 likely).
    The data are inaccurate and can vary both upward and downward.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 December 2017 21: 58 New
      +4
      Quote: VohaAhov
      Hello, Andrey. So from Moonsund you abruptly switched to the current state of our fleet. Ordinary readers don't keep up with you :)).

      Good evening!
      And who said that I switched? :)))) I’m just finishing the Moonsund ending :))))
      Quote: VohaAhov
      You can try to calculate which ships and submarines can be included in the fleet in the period from 2018 to 2025.

      Thank you very much, I will certainly verify my numbers with what happened with you! hi
  15. rudolff
    rudolff 19 December 2017 11: 26 New
    +7
    Andrew, no offense! I am always pleased to read your articles, but these arguments of the advantages of solid-fuel rockets over liquid feet have been growing from the 60s, when liquid ones were really difficult and dangerous to maintain, they cried. Now this is nothing. There are no benefits to SLBMs. But Solomonov need less listen, a kind of academician-businessman merging raw goods.
    1. opus
      opus 19 December 2017 12: 51 New
      +1
      Quote: rudolff
      when liquid was really difficult and dangerous to maintain, wept.

      they are (liquid) roads. where already to go.
      Well, not as long as they "catch up" with solid propellant rocket motors. Longer.
      Tse objective reality, given to us in a sense
      Characteristic feature


      против
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 19 December 2017 13: 18 New
        +6
        Well ... Not really. Miass proposed in his RMU 3 to reduce the length and increase the diameter of the first and second stage. I myself counted with a pencil. If you steal a couple more cm on the machine’s mounting system in the TPK, it all fits together. Well, maybe only the abandoned will be a little less. This is precisely the Makeevka office that designed KBSK on Borey, not MIT.
        About the humps. They explained it to us on the fingers at the school. Look at the diameters of the sturdy casings of the Americans and ours. Very big difference. Their hull swallows the rocket almost entirely, the rest is on an easy superstructure of the rocket deck. And we have double hulls. If we made a strong one of the same diameter, plus it’s still light ... Hump is better than such a loaf. Now, with bicompensity, they have begun to be wiser.
        1. opus
          opus 19 December 2017 13: 49 New
          +5
          Quote: rudolff
          About the humps.

          P-29 * = Length 13,2 + 1-1,2 adapter?
          MSBS M1 / M20 = 10,67 m
          UGM-73 = 10,36 m

          UGM-133 Trident II and yes 13.579 m

          Quote: rudolff
          If we made durable of the same diameter, yes, plus more light ..

          Well, there is not a very big difference in diameter / volume and therefore in the area of ​​wetted surface



          All the same, 24 launchers oppose 16.
          Quote: rudolff
          Miass suggested in his RMU

          Miass has now proposed a completely different piece for the BR on the LRE.
          I think implement soon.
          Only this fuss (MIT + bulova) hurts the cause.
          In general, the “original” idea of ​​unifying a land-based ICBM (mobile) with an ICBM of an underwater launch has come into someone's stupid head.
          Not otherwise the economist was, like Nabiulina or Gref
          1. rudolff
            rudolff 19 December 2017 15: 00 New
            +6
            The largest width and the same diameter of the robust Ohio hull is 13 meters. The largest width of pr. 667 BDRM in a light body (!) Is 11,7 meters. Knead a couple of meters, get the diameter of the durable. That’s the whole explanation. If we had been able to build such sturdy cases of such a diameter as the Americans, and if we had not gone too far in two-hulls, then we would not have had any humps.
            1. opus
              opus 19 December 2017 17: 13 New
              +1
              Quote: rudolff
              That's all the explanation.

              not on the body is clear.
              But
              Quote: opus
              P-29 * = Length 13,2 + 1-1,2 adapter?
              MSBS M1 / M20 = 10,67 m
              UGM-73 = 10,36 m

              1. rudolff
                rudolff 19 December 2017 17: 30 New
                +2
                Is it worth comparing with these dinosaurs? The same Poseidon, in fact, is a medium-range missile. If you compare, then with Trident 2.
        2. Mikhail Zubkov
          Mikhail Zubkov 19 December 2017 20: 23 New
          0
          Two-hulls are more promising, and three-hulls will be a breakthrough in general. Estimate yourself with a pencil, bearing in mind the “freezing” and “lying on the ground” modes with maintaining the transverse and longitudinal launch verticals.
    2. The Siberian barber
      The Siberian barber 19 December 2017 12: 56 New
      0
      I agree completely! Even an accident with 219 will not convince, because the reasons are still different, somewhat
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 19 December 2017 21: 08 New
      +2
      Quote: rudolff
      these arguments of the advantages of solid rockets over liquid feet grow from the 60's,

      Volchara, hello! hi Rudolph, saying “A”, say “B”. The rockets on the train are encapsulated, but the fuel equipment has not gone away, and these are dozens of KGs for the STZ missiles ... Then, although they have been worked out, they have “rubbing” parts, which means they can refuse on occasion. A "checker" - it burns itself and burns. I injected additives into the channel - here’s the change in the flow rate ... 4 generation mixed fuels based on butadiene and other crap with metal additives where they are energetically savvy ... But the most energetically powerful fuel (hydrogen) diffuses even through the metal ... Here you’ll think: what is more profitable, what our science and technology have “reached”, and what remains beyond the horizon of events ...
      Anyway, we need a short OUT! And so far only RTDT can give it. Here colleagues argue about where it is better to shoot SLBMs ... In the Baltic, there was 16 DPL with 629A, the "three-barrel". So their small shaves were more afraid than the northern BDRs. Flight time was 5-7 minutes - to LONDON! Therefore, when the amami created a mobile naval missile defense area from Arliks, I’m afraid we may not get into a “high orbit”: they’ll kill me at AUT, unchrist!
      Therefore, the "cabman" needs a speed, rather than a slow heavyweight. Moreover, today’s accuracy has increased significantly: instead of 500 already 50, and some are talking about 10-20m ... Therefore, you need to look not only at the LTX SLBMs, but also at the tactics and methods of their application.
      If not right - correct! Respectfully, drinks
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 19 December 2017 22: 46 New
        +2
        Good evening, Boa! Correct actually and there is nothing, just add. A liquid rocket, as an engineering design, is certainly more complex than a solid rocket. But after all, a complex device can be brought to perfection Swiss watches. R-29 RMU2, this is the Swiss watch in rocket science. Solid fuel is simpler in design, but demanding on fuel quality, maintaining the microclimate in the TPK. The former are likely to fail "iron", the second "chemistry". If we compare Sineva with Trident-2 in terms of reliability and safety of operation - complete parity. The Americans were stronger in "chemistry", we are in rocket engineering. Trying to keep up with the Americans in everything, we did not go our own way, first creating the P-39 monster, and then this Mace. Moreover, having the obviously worst chemical industry, we were initially doomed to lag. To compare the Mace with Trident 2 now is simply not serious.
        1. xtur
          xtur 20 December 2017 02: 27 New
          +2
          > The first is likely to fail "iron", the second "chemistry".

          In many ways, the situation was similar with the designs of the latest generation of nuclear reactors. Passive security systems are considered more reliable, but ultimately, the probability of failure decides everything.

          The Americans designed their reactor mainly on passive safety systems, Rosatom, mainly on active ones, although the probabilities of failure seem to be comparable, but this should be confirmed by practice

          But ... the Americans could not make their reactor, and Rosatom could. And all issue resolved by industry, what can I say now that passive safety systems are more reliable, in theory
    4. avt
      avt 19 December 2017 22: 55 New
      +1
      Quote: rudolff
      the arguments of the advantages of solid rockets over liquid legs have been growing since the 60s, when liquid rockets were really difficult and dangerous to maintain, they cried. Now this is nothing.

      We don’t want to say anything for the Britanov’s boat? But in fairness - Makeev brought the car to perfection. Ustinov personally gave him the order, “pencils,” to him, saying that at 667 BDRM, “liquid” will be the last.
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 20 December 2017 12: 42 New
        +2
        Rocket R-27 development of another 60s. Of those who "cried." As for the ship of Britonov himself, they screwed everything up there. And the command and the crew itself.
  16. Conductor
    Conductor 19 December 2017 11: 33 New
    0
    Thanks to Andrey for the article, but so far their 1 parts are not visible. that there’s absolutely no prospect of a submarine fleet. Yes, tense, but not critical, sort of. But all who we measure with the United States, but we forget about the strengths of the Angles and Gauls, but they are. Yes, and japas, it seems, stated that they would collect nuclear weapons, only whistles.
  17. opus
    opus 19 December 2017 12: 25 New
    +1
    Quote: Author: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    while the deviation radius does not exceed 250 m.

    surprised Andrew with a new term.
    wink
    Of course, I don’t understand that Circular Error Probable in the same units as the radius is measured, however
    "deviation radius" somehow does not sound in Russian (and not in English)

    Oh well.
    It would be better to write about:
    why do we have 250
    and opponents 60-90m CEP

    ?
    and then the answer is in astrocorrection (which Andrei tried so hard to push into the land ICBM, which is not needed now)
    The SSBN is moving, launching from under the water, after the BR has emerged from the water, has a pitch angle, roll (for Americans it does not matter) and yaw.
    And here brings the astrocorrection unit 3Н30 and BTsVM (A-15AP based on Risc MP: 1890ВМ2Т probably)

    Quote: Author: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    For example, liquid-propellant rockets have a large impulse and allow you to provide a longer range or throw weight.

    specific momentum.
    Tk. impulse (greater) probably still have solid propellants
    p = m * v
    V outflows in LREs are more on 10-30%, but the second mass is more "rejected" by the solid propellant rocket motor, actually by this
    Quote: Author: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Thirdly, the accelerating section of a solid-fuel rocket is smaller than that of a liquid rocket, and this makes it difficult to defeat a flying ballistic rocket.

    mk traction more (limited by the imagination of the designer and the dimensions of the starting glass for SSBNs (or transport capabilities for solid propellant rocket engines in general)

    Quote: Author: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And finally, fourthly, the fact is that solid-fuel missiles are launched with SSBNs by the so-called “dry start”, when powder gases simply throw in ICBMs to the surface, and there the rocket engines are already activated. At the same time, liquid rockets, due to the lower strength of the structure

    absolutely the opposite.
    With a wet start:
    - the phenomenon of water hammer when starting the engine in water, leading to significant pressure peaks on the rocket; / The water hammer problem is solved mainly with the help of stepped output of the cruise engine to the mode. /
    - a large level of lateral hydrodynamic forces when a rocket moves in a mine and under water.
    This was ONE of the reasons for the transition from the start method from the flooded mine to the start from the submerged (dry) mine and the use of the effect of cavitation.
    Wet start is simply easier to technically organize (as Andrei from Chelyabinsk would say (shrug of shoulders), hinting at a tautology)

    Wet start-no intensive thermal effects on the rocket, the launch shaft and the submarine, which is important especially for liquid rockets and allows one to dispense with the use of a heat-shielding coating for the rocket body, the launch shaft


    It’s not so easy to dry with:
    - effects of an underwater shock wave on a rocket moving in water with a gas cavity;
    - post-launch flooding of the mine with water;
    - the intersection of the gas-liquid traces and cavities from the previously launched rockets by the rocket;
    - force impact on rockets in the neighboring open mines;

    / Therefore, the Americans and do not make a full volley of all ammunition /

    and the latest technology to overcome missile defense, including maneuvering warheads


    It is unlikely that the P-30 / 3М-30 / PCM-56 has maneuvering blocks (only one can and is unlikely)

    Weight thrown - kg 1150 (data START-1)
    The mass of the combat unit (in the 6 RGCH IN configuration) kg 95

    Frequent maneuvers during the flight will require several hundred kg of fuel.
    mass of LRE shunting ~ 100 kg. Or some small ~ 10 kg of weight, such as Pif-Paf

    monoblock is able to maneuver under the action of shear force in 10 000 N.

    It takes ~ 100 maneuvers - yaws from side to side, each lasting ~ 1 seconds, to “escape” from the EKV

    The specific impulse of rocket fuel (hydrazine with nitrogen tetraoxide) is more than 3 000 m / s, then for 1 a second thrust in 10 000 N 3.33 kg of fuel will be spent.

    In order to overcome 2 000 km to the target, under the missile defense attack, ~ 300 kg of fuel (fuel components) will be spent.
    Even if these estimates on the knee are overestimated 2 times, we estimate with the bastard, REQUIRED
    150 kg of fuel and 50 kg shunting remote control = 200 kg

    in 95kg of each of 6 RGCH IN, well, how not to shove 200 kg.
    These same 200 kg are very difficult to cram into a single block in 900-1000kg
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 19 December 2017 15: 56 New
      +3
      Quote: opus
      in 95kg of each of 6 RGCH IN, well, how not to shove 200 kg.

      A maneuvering warhead with its own liquid propellant rocket engine was tested on the P-36 rocket, where, as it is not difficult to notice, the cast weight is significantly greater. The tests were successful, but he did not receive a real distribution for completely different reasons. On the P-36, it would just be possible to put several maneuvering BBs - the weights and dimensions made it possible. Here is another. The number of such blocks (legitimate and false) is not large on the rocket in any case. And it is already impossible to cover them with passive interference in the form of dipoles or inflatable LCs. Because a maneuvering BB against the background of non-maneuvering SSCs instantly unmasks itself. It’s easier and more efficient to “hammer” a picture into the opponent by shoving instead of ten maneuvering warheads into the cast weight, ten ordinary airborne warheads and 30-40 inflatable LCs and scattering around the dipole. And try to figure out in this mess where the real BB is, and where the garbage is. The task is practically unsolvable, because Inflatable LECs now imitate the true BB in all emission spectra, and even if you look at the optics, you will not find any differences.
      1. opus
        opus 19 December 2017 16: 16 New
        +1
        Quote: Alex_59
        Maneuvering BB having its own LRE was tested on the R-36 rocket

        This is 15Ф178

        And why only for 15А18М?
        15Ф154 - the separable head of the individual guidance of the XBUM 15А15
        15Ф355 - the separable head of the individual guidance of the XBUM 15А35
        15Ф453 - the separable head part of individual guidance with three BB 15Ф452 BRSD 15Ж45
        15Ф452 / АА-74 ББ РГЧ 15Ж45, 15Ж53 Combat block РГЧ И ББДД, charge АА-74 / Р-781-Г (with the "Tar" system
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 December 2017 18: 12 New
      +3
      Quote: opus
      surprised Andrew with a new term.

      Spelling or death? laughing But yes, I'm sorry, KVO, of course
      Quote: opus
      specific impulse

      Yes, it's true. Alas, not strong in physics
      Quote: opus
      absolutely the opposite.

      And here is something strange
      Quote: opus
      the phenomenon of water hammer when the engine starts in water, leading to significant pressure peaks on the rocket;

      That is, it is better to give such a magic Pendel, in which a rocket will fly out of the mine with a bullet, gaining kinetic energy for "jumping" out of the water? This is something new in physics.
      Quote: opus
      a high level of hydrodynamic lateral forces during rocket movement in the mine and under water.

      And with a dry start, it is less, or what? :))))
      Quote: opus
      It’s not so easy to dry with:

      We look
      Quote: opus
      the effects of an underwater shock wave on a rocket moving in water with a gas cavity;

      You said that sho hydrodynamic side much stronger? :)
      Quote: opus
      - post-launch flooding of the mine with water;

      This is critical, but it will be AFTER the start, i.e. the ship has already completed its mission
      Quote: opus
      missile intersections of gas-liquid traces and caverns from previously launched missiles;

      If they start from the stern, and the SSBN does not reverse, what will be the intersection?
      1. opus
        opus 19 December 2017 19: 34 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        That is, it is better to give such a magic Pendel, in which a rocket will fly out of the mine with a bullet, gaining kinetic energy for "jumping" out of the water? This is something new in physics.

        there is no pendel.
        -When a "dry" start from a depth of several tens of meters, the cover of the launcher or the transport-launching cup (TPS) with the rocket in them should be opened, and the TPS with water itself should not be flooded
        - As soon as the rocket begins its forward movement, the sealing in the front of the rocket is broken (the Trident's membrane simply collapses). Open annular gap between the rocket and the TPS, where water begins to flow in the case of reduced pressure in the TPS compared to the hydrostatic pressure of water at the starting depth. Such water inflow causes gas compression in the annular gap, which can lead to a sharp increase in pressure on the side surface of the rocket and the development of an emergency situation, such as crushing the rocket body.

        To prevent such a development of the event (to avoid water inflow), an increased pressure of powder gases (as in the D-11 complex) is provided in the annular gap between the rocket and the TPS. or steam gas (for example, for the Trident rocket).

        In the launch of the Trident rocket, the temperature of the vapor gas in the annular gap is deliberately reduced by passing the powder gases GG through the water.
        And she is so calm in her gas bubble and goes up

        But with the "liquid" start vice versa

        kick, therefore, and use multimode.

        Liquid (water) she know whether any collisions are not compressible and arise


        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And with a dry start, it is less, or what? :))))

        Yes. It as if in a bubble pops up, takes off of course.
        Makeevtsy worked on the cavern

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        You said that sho hydrodynamic side much stronger? :)

        so if the other rockets were launched and the gas cavity went from the TPS (PL) to the surface, this "liquid trail did not go far.
        So he is working on the next launching ICBM (on the e1 bubble), well, like circles on the water from an abandoned stone
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        and the SSBN is not reversing - what is the intersection there?

        and they tend not to rise vertically
        it all depends on the movement of a layer of liquid (well, sea water) on a segment of the PL-surface
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          19 December 2017 21: 54 New
          +4
          Yeah, thank you very much for the clarification! I'll know hi
          1. rudolff
            rudolff 20 December 2017 13: 02 New
            +3
            Indeed, caverns are far from always used for underwater launch. It was only on the P-39 that ARSS was jammed on the head. There was generally an interesting start. Mixed. The PAD pushed the rocket out, but the first-stage marching engine began work immediately after the rocket left the mine, i.e. still under water. Traditionally, with a "dry" start, the PAD throws a rocket above the water and the marching is already switched on there.
            1. opus
              opus 20 December 2017 14: 22 New
              +2
              Quote: rudolff
              After all, caverns are far from always used for an underwater launch.

              I know. about sim and wrote
              Quote: rudolff
              There generally was an interesting start.

              Yes
              When starting from a submerged shaft and using the cavitation effect, an attached gas cavity is pressurized by pressurizing the area of ​​low dynamic pressure on the rocket surface and fixing the leading front of the cavity on the cavitating nozzle of the rocket, which has sharp edges for the liquid jets. The cavern covers a large part of the rocket body and isolates it from the incoming flow of water.


              If the length of the cavity is more than half the length of the rocket, then the movement of the rocket under water is steady: the angular velocity of the rocket decreases sharply. The exit of the rocket from the water in the cavitation mode, as well as in the case of a continuous flow, is accompanied by the deformation of the free surface, while it faces upwardly convex. Thereby, the path of the rocket in the water increases by 1-2 caliber. The pressure at the critical point begins to drop even before the nozzle approaches the undisturbed water level, which causes a decrease in the drag coefficient of the rocket. Analysis of the photographs shows that the nasal cavity retains its shape when it leaves the water for some time due to the jets of liquid carried away from the free surface, forming a “vitreous body”, the shape of which resembles the profile of a cavity in the liquid and which then turns into a thin film collapses.




              Quote: rudolff
              Traditionally, with a “dry” launch, the PAD ejects a rocket above the water and already there the main flight is activated.

              Since the impact of powder gases (or products of solid propellant solid propellant rocket motors) on the side surface of the rocket has negative sides. For example, the high temperature of gases is clearly undesirable because of the possible overheating of the rocket body.

              Americans steam gas (chilled and)
              we have powder pressure accumulators (PAD)

              Another problem is the pressure jump (if the march run (.RDTt is not the LRE, it is difficult to organize multimode
    3. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 19 December 2017 21: 32 New
      +1
      Quote: opus
      It’s not so easy to dry with:
      - effects of an underwater shock wave on a rocket moving in water with a gas cavity;
      - post-launch flooding of the mine with water;
      - the intersection of the gas-liquid traces and cavities from the previously launched rockets by the rocket;
      - force impact on rockets in the neighboring open mines;
      / Therefore, the Americans and do not make a full volley of all ammunition /

      And why on 941 did?
      1. opus
        opus 20 December 2017 10: 58 New
        +1
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        And why on 941 did?

        And what did you do?
        SSB TK-13 pr.941
        For the first time, a SSNB from pr. 941 with the first crew of the TK-20 successfully launched a salvo with all its ammunition (20 missiles) under the program dismantlement of submarine airborne P-39


        SSB TK-20 pr.941
        Successfully executed a volley of all ammunition (20 missiles) under the program attilization SLBM P-39 blasting in the air


        They would not hit Kamchatka either, not like Kura.

        This video would be gorgeous ....
        But?
        1. rudolff
          rudolff 20 December 2017 13: 21 New
          +2
          Why? Immediately after exiting from under the water, the rocket refines its location and adjusts flight parameters. This eliminates the majority of negative start conditions. If the deviation still happened, this is a glitch of the rocket itself. To send all twenty cars to Kura, this would be an unjustified risk.
          1. opus
            opus 20 December 2017 14: 09 New
            +2
            Quote: rudolff
            This eliminates the majority of negative launch conditions.

            I know, therefore, at the SLBM QUO is many times more than that of the land, and they use astrocorrection (there is no longer any land)
            Quote: rudolff
            Sending all twenty cars to Kourou would be an unnecessary risk.

            no question
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            And why on 941 did?

            On P-39 hints "Saturn" on
            Quote: opus
            / Therefore, the Americans and do not make a full volley of all ammunition /

            the essence of the manipulation and bragging salvo full ammunition:
            shoot off immediately, deal damage and hide.
            But if it is
            Quote: rudolff
            Sending all twenty cars to Kourou would be an unnecessary risk.

            Why brag about it? ("have no analogs in the world)
            ?
            wink
            1. rudolff
              rudolff 20 December 2017 15: 19 New
              +3
              Hippos were held on the verge of a foul. The point is not even the number of missiles in the salvo, but in the interval of missile launches. Shot with the lowest possible in 12-14 seconds. That is, with the launch of the first rocket, then the process is actually not controlled, on the machine. If, intellectually, the interval must be increased to at least 40-60 seconds, in order to give the rocket time to leave, work out the automation, and evaluate the situation. Or shoot in series in a volley. Four missiles with an interval of 20-30 seconds, a pause of a minute or two, the next series. So safer.
            2. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 25 December 2017 08: 58 New
              0
              Quote: opus
              On P-39 hints "Saturn" on

              She is about the same age as Trident 2.
              Quote: opus
              shoot off immediately, deal damage and hide.

              And not bragging to carry 24 missiles on board and be able to launch only 4 in a salvo, then for a long time to calm the boat before the second salvo?
              Quote: opus
              Why brag about it? ("have no analogs in the world)

              The Russian fleet, in comparison with the state fleet, cannot afford to produce ammunition for hours.
  18. Alex_59
    Alex_59 19 December 2017 12: 30 New
    +3
    latest missile defense technologies, including maneuvering warheads,

    There are some doubts about this. The fact is that overcoming the missile defense has so far been built in disguising the BB against the background of the SSC. LCs are such inflatable cones that in appearance, EPR and trajectory of movement simulate a real BB. The latter disguises itself in a cloud of false targets. It is almost impossible to select a true BB in this swarm. Moreover, they even began to make "quasi-heavy" BBs that can imitate a real BB even at the entrance to the atmosphere, where simple inflatable LCs collapse and begin to fall with obvious differences from the real BB.
    And what does the maneuvering BB give in such a picture? This is a big question. Because as soon as he does the slightest maneuver, he immediately declassifies himself. He begins to move with an acceleration different from the LSC. The meaning of disguising him in a flock of LCs is lost. Or it is necessary to do LTSO not inflatable, but the same maneuvering. But you can’t put a lot of such LCs on a rocket, because their dimensions and weight are equal to real BB. The maximum can be crammed onto the Mace then 2-3 real blocks and 2-3 false. And inflatable can be put a few dozen. In the first case, missile defense must bring down 5-6 targets. In the second 25-30. As if there is a difference.
    And there’s no reason to maneuver in the BB atmosphere. From 30 km to 0 km, a drop takes 20 seconds.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 19 December 2017 15: 47 New
      +5
      Quote: Alex_59
      And what does the maneuvering BB give in such a picture? This is a big question. Because as soon as he does the slightest maneuver, he immediately declassifies himself. He begins to move with an acceleration different from the LSC.

      EMNIP maneuvering BB was done to overcome the last echelon of missile defense - before entering the atmosphere, when the herd of LCs began to lag behind the BB and it was already possible to distinguish the BB from the simulator. And then the BB was defended by a maneuver that disrupted the guidance of anti-missiles on it.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 19 December 2017 21: 37 New
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        when the herd of LC began to lag behind the BB and it was already possible to distinguish the BB from the simulator.

        For this, “quasi-heavy” LSCs were created. They are slightly more complicated than inflatable ones, and weigh more, and in the payload they can be placed less than inflatable ones. But then they imitate BB to dense layers of the atmosphere. The bottom line is that they simulate the "severity" of the BB due to its own recreational engine. Inflatable LCOs lag behind and collapse, and the "quasi-heavy" begins to give in to traction, going along with the real BB. And gives traction to the atmosphere until it collapses mechanically. Those. the essence of its own rocket engine thrust is smoothly changing to maintain a falling speed equal to the falling speed of this BB.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 December 2017 18: 00 New
      +4
      Quote: Alex_59
      And what does the maneuvering BB give in such a picture? This is a big question.

      as I understand it, he does one thing - he does not fly along a ballistic trajectory, which makes it extremely difficult to calculate the intercept point. But I could be wrong, of course
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 19 December 2017 21: 45 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        as I understand it, he does one thing - he does not fly along a ballistic trajectory, which makes it extremely difficult to calculate the intercept point.

        It is, but for frequent changes in the trajectory, a large supply of fuel is needed. Above opus wrote. And if you comply with reasonable restrictions avoiding gigantomania, the BB can only do a few counting maneuvers, and not very energetic, because in order to drastically correct the trajectory, a sufficiently heavy and dimensional engine is needed, and this is hardly possible in the size of the BB. In essence, these will be small thrust engines - impulses. They can be steered, changing the path to small angles. In principle, such a maneuvering creates sooooo great difficulties for missile defense, but in principle it is solved by increasing the speed of the computing power of the missile defense and correction of the interceptor. But in the case when the BB flies in the heap of the SSC and even the dipoles, it’s not realistic to understand where to shoot. In any case, even if maneuvering warheads are created, it’s not for the Mace (the mass to be thrown is small), and they are used clearly separately from the inflatable conventional LCs, because this is not logical.
      2. ZVO
        ZVO 19 December 2017 21: 57 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

        as I understand it, he does one thing - he does not fly along a ballistic trajectory, which makes it extremely difficult to calculate the intercept point. But I could be wrong, of course


        Here are the silly arguments.
        There is a starting point.
        There is a touchdown point.
        There is a breeding point warhead.
        All of them are required to obey ballistic formulas.
        The main thing is the touchdown point.
        At any place after the apogee - its entire trajectory must comply with ballistics.
        Any hopping. non-linear change in the coordinates of the warhead - leads to the disruption of ballistics and the impossibility as a result of reaching the touchdown point. It’s just that the energy costs of reshaping new ballistics to their original landing point are so huge. that will not fit in the CU.
        In addition, besides the creation of the rotation of the warhead - there is not a single operating mechanism for stabilizing the warhead in motion, especially when entering the atmosphere.
        Accordingly, all maneuvering is within the tolerances of the ballistic trajectory.
        A maximum half-second deflection of the nose of the warhead with inevitable subsequent straightening into the cone of the ballistic trajectory.
        Maneuvering ballistic warheads in the atmospheric sector is basically impossible without losing the touchdown point by orders of magnitude incompatible with those. what's called quo. There will be tens and hundreds of kilometers.

        I have a conclusion - maneuvering is not the essence of what is meant by anti-ballistic maneuvers.
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 19 December 2017 22: 42 New
          +1
          Quote: ZVO
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

          as I understand it, he does one thing - he does not fly along a ballistic trajectory, which makes it extremely difficult to calculate the intercept point. But I could be wrong, of course


          Here are the silly arguments.


          Stupid in the sense of mine ...
          I'm talking about my thoughts.
          Andrey does not apply to you ...
          I reread, I realized that I immediately wrote in two ways understood by different minds.
        2. opus
          opus 20 December 2017 16: 05 New
          0
          At any place after the apogee - its entire trajectory must comply with ballistics.
          Any hopping. non-linear change in the coordinates of the warhead - leads to the disruption of ballistics and the impossibility as a result of reaching the touchdown point. It’s just that the energy costs of reshaping new ballistics to their original landing point are so huge. that will not fit in the CU.
          In addition, besides the creation of the rotation of the warhead - there is not a single operating mechanism for stabilizing the warhead in motion, especially when entering the atmosphere.


          guided combat unit of an ICBM P-36М2 (15А18М) RC 15П018М
          The first launch of UBB 15F178 was carried out on 9 on January 1990 in unmanaged mode along the internal route. Subsequent flight tests of UBB were conducted in a controlled manner. There were three launches on the internal highway and three launches as part of the 15А18М rocket.




          Quote: ZVO
          Maneuvering ballistic warheads in the atmospheric sector is basically impossible without losing the touchdown point by orders of magnitude incompatible with those. what's called quo. There will be tens and hundreds of kilometers.



          stabilization of UBB in pitch and trot angles due to the property of statistical stability of UBB

          The system of angular stabilization is a system of sedation, orientation and stabilization (EMS)


          The executive bodies of the ESMS in the extra-atmospheric region, as a rule, are the gas-jet rudders (control points via the pitch, yaw, roll / rotation channels)
          At the atmospheric site, aerodynamic surfaces and (or) gas-jet rudders are used.


          Quote: ZVO
          I have a conclusion

          After all, it is possible to maneuver the "" block in a different way (at no cost to the TC).
          Change the center of mass of the BB and that's it. the point of application of power will change and everything will change
          wink
          good now urgently:BB cooling due to flattening and other maneuvers
          and yes

          Quote: Opus
          It is unlikely that the P-30 / 3М-30 / PCM-56 has maneuvering blocks (only one can and is unlikely)
          Weight thrown - kg 1150 (data START-1)
          The mass of the combat unit (in the 6 RGCH IN configuration) kg 95
          Frequent maneuvers during the flight will require several hundred kg of fuel.
          mass of LRE shunting ~ 100 kg. Or some small ~ 10 kg of weight, such as Pif-Paf
          monoblock is able to maneuver under the action of shear force in 10 000 N.
          It takes ~ 100 maneuvers - yaws from side to side, each lasting ~ 1 seconds, to “escape” from the EKV
          The specific impulse of rocket fuel (hydrazine with nitrogen tetraoxide) is more than 3 000 m / s, then for 1 a second thrust in 10 000 N 3.33 kg of fuel will be spent.
          In order to overcome 2 000 km to the target, under the missile defense attack, ~ 300 kg of fuel (fuel components) will be spent.
          Even if these estimates on the knee are overestimated 2 times, we estimate with the bastard, REQUIRED
          150 kg of fuel and 50 kg shunting remote control = 200 kg
          in 95kg of each of 6 RGCH IN, well, how not to shove 200 kg.
          These same 200 kg are very difficult to cram into a single block in 900-1000kg
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall 20 December 2017 16: 29 New
            0
            Quote: opus

            guided combat unit of an ICBM P-36М2 (15А18М) RC 15П018М
            The first launch of UBB 15F178 was carried out on 9 on January 1990 in unmanaged mode along the internal route. Subsequent flight tests of UBB were conducted in a controlled manner. There were three launches on the internal highway and three launches as part of the 15А18М rocket.




            TTT provided for the combat equipment of the rocket with four types of warheads:


            two monoblock warheads with a "heavy" and "light" BB;


            RGCh with ten uncontrolled BB;


            MIRV of mixed configuration consisting of six unguided and four controlled BBs with a homing system using terrain maps.


            The guided combat unit 15F178 was developed for mixed-grade homing. Made in the form of a biconical body of minimal aerodynamic drag.

            A deflectable conical stabilizer, for pitch and yaw, and roll aerodynamic rudders, were adopted as UBB flight control executive bodies in the atmospheric section.

            In flight, a stable position of the block pressure center was ensured with a change in the angle of attack.

            The orientation and stabilization of UBB outside the atmosphere was ensured by the installation of reactive traction operating on liquefied carbon dioxide



            In the course of SLE, it was decided to exclude from the obligatory composition of combat equipment the “heavy” BB and RGCh of mixed configuration.

            A warhead with a "heavy" BB was preparing for production, but was not subjected to flight tests.

            The mixed-grade homing rifle was tested as part of the 15A18M rocket with launches in the Kura region (3 launches).

            To continue the flight tests, two 15A18M missiles, two 8K65MR carriers and a full set of warheads were prepared.

            However, after 1991. UBB works were closed.

            The same fate befell the work of the CPSU on penetrating warheads.
  19. slm976
    slm976 19 December 2017 12: 42 New
    +1
    Good afternoon. A good objective article, as a matter of fact, always by this author))! True, the essence of the narrative does not quite fit with the name, but, as I understand it, the whole "sad look into the future" will be when the author goes to surface combat ships.
  20. The Siberian barber
    The Siberian barber 19 December 2017 12: 59 New
    +1
    Author plus)
    True, to me, optimistic, a few.
    Although, against the background of the other components of the Navy, it probably looks like this
  21. Breard
    Breard 19 December 2017 13: 13 New
    +2
    Many words ...
    There is only one conclusion ... The Soviet could and did. And the USSR had a fleet!
    ... hmm, the current "Vasherashentsi" can also ... but only draw pictures, talk a lot and "beautifully" .. well and most importantly - "bablosiki saw"
  22. ZVO
    ZVO 19 December 2017 16: 16 New
    +1
    Andrey, thanks for the article.

    I do not agree in one.
    I must say that the test results of the "Clubs" are not too different from the similar results of the American Trident II D5. Of the 28 launches of the American missile, one was recognized as “off-grade,” four were emergency, and one was partially successful. In total, it turns out that at least five starts failed.


    Amers, until they began to experiment with the modernization of non-modernizable control systems of the second Trident - had almost 160 successful launches in a row.
    What is incomparable at all at times with the Mace ...

    And yet - Mace - an analogue of the first Trident.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 December 2017 17: 58 New
      +4
      Quote: ZVO
      Amers, until they began to experiment with the modernization of non-modernizable control systems of the second Trident - had almost 160 successful launches in a row.

      Like yes, but I’m talking about the statistics of test launches, but it’s comparable :))
      Quote: ZVO
      And yet - Mace - an analogue of the first Trident.

      Again - I do not argue. It seems to be able to carry out its tasks, and this, in my opinion, is the main thing, and what is inferior to Trident 2 is unpleasant, but not fatal
  23. demo
    demo 19 December 2017 17: 19 New
    +1
    When reading such articles, it is difficult for me, as a specialist, to navigate in the direction of the author’s thoughts.
    And what's good and what's bad here?
    But if the author believes that things are going to a negative end, then it is reasonable to present their thoughts or conclusions to specialists vested with state power. At least to the deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation. Safety committee. Or in the sun.
    And to prove to them that we wandered into the wrong garden.
    And a fiasco awaits us.
    And then you feel like a first-grader to whom a professor from the Bauman MVTU on Higher Mathematics lectures.
    Unclear. But exciting.
    Is it worth it? Or not? It is not clear.
  24. The comment was deleted.
  25. Santor
    Santor 19 December 2017 17: 36 New
    0
    Not even funny ... based on open press ...
  26. Yuriy Malyshko
    Yuriy Malyshko 19 December 2017 17: 44 New
    0
    Comparing the “Mace” and the Trident family missiles, one should not forget that the Americans have been developing solid fuel rockets for submarines for a very long time, and for us this is a relatively new business. It would be strange to expect to immediately create something “that has no analogues in the world” and “surpasses opponents in all respects.”

    Let me ask you, what fuel did the R-39 have on the Sharks?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      19 December 2017 17: 56 New
      +4
      Quote: Yuri Malyshko
      Let me ask you, what fuel did the R-39 have on the Sharks?

      In general, I thought that since her breeding platform (stage) is not solid fuel, it is impossible to read her solid fuel, but they already explained to me in the comments that I am mistaken
      1. Yuriy Malyshko
        Yuriy Malyshko 19 December 2017 23: 36 New
        0
        Ah, Andrew! .. Never the knowledge obtained from the Internet, newspapers and magazines, will not replace the knowledge acquired in special universities and during the long years of service. Whatever "article cycles" you write.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          20 December 2017 07: 07 New
          +5
          Quote: Yuri Malyshko
          Ah, Andrew! .. Never the knowledge obtained from the Internet, newspapers and magazines, will not replace the knowledge acquired in special universities and during the long years of service. Whatever "article cycles" you write.

          Do not replace. Excuse me? For some reason, those who served are somehow not generous with articles of this nature.
      2. opus
        opus 20 December 2017 16: 37 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In general, I thought that since her platform (step) of breeding is not solid fuel, her solid fuel cannot be read,


        what

        Strange logic. Then the LGM-30G Minuteman III is also not solid, tk.
        LGM-30A / LGM-30B / LGM-30F / LGM-30G
        Breeding stage Rocketdyne RS-14 LRE (MMG + AT 1: 1,6)


        and Titan IIIE is not liquid, namely, TE-M-364-4 (Star-37E)RDTT,


        if not in the know- he pulled out the missions "Voyager-1", "Voyager-2" by doing what he could not accomplish with "two-half-step"
        Liquid "Titan", and liquid "Centaur", reaching 15,2 km / s, even despite the error AACS

        Shl. its payload type, remote control and fuel in it) no relation to the characteristics of the rocket have this is mon.

        LGM-118 is the same
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        since her platform (step) of breeding is not solid fuel, her solid fuel cannot be read

        belay
        ?

        wink
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          20 December 2017 17: 08 New
          +3
          I actually explained the reasons for my mistake, and did not persist in it
  27. Santor
    Santor 19 December 2017 17: 54 New
    +4
    Quote: Breard
    There is only one conclusion ... The Soviet could and did. And the USSR had a fleet!

    Wuhu .... 1981 year, there are exercises of the BOD group on the traverse of the island of Naissaar ... Three ships are enthusiastically looking for an "enemy" submarine, locators are spinning, helicopters are noisy ... And then bam ... a mule flies from under Spitz - nearby the fagot chauvin is already spinning with you already from Germany .... They bristled - and no result, until the Reduktor boat came up, the fishing seiner looked like an ordinary sailor, and they found the adversary within a minute as ordinary midshipman.

    Ships were to hell - there was no fleet.
  28. Vasily Kuznetsov
    Vasily Kuznetsov 19 December 2017 18: 01 New
    +1
    honest unvarnished and blasphemous article thanks Andrew!
  29. Oleg Tolstoy
    Oleg Tolstoy 19 December 2017 18: 08 New
    +1
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    Russia does not need to spend trillions on aircraft carriers and other heavy cruisers. All the same, Russia will not fight the United States with conventional weapons as in World War II, but simply shandarahnet the Yankees with nuclear ICBMs and missiles from submarines. In addition to the United States, Russia has no potential enemies overseas. The potential enemy, the European Union, has land borders with us, so a war fleet is also not needed for a war with the EU. A war with China is unlikely, but still likely, and a war with China also does not need a fleet. No one else poses a threat to us. Therefore, I believe that it is necessary first of all to develop the submarine fleet, which is a deterrent weapon, and in the event of a war with the United States, cruisers could secretly swim to the US coast and destroy New York, Los Angeles and other large cities on the coast. Well, you can build frigates and light cruisers for small local wars like 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX.
    So I fully approve the strategy of the Ministry of Defense, which has relied on the submarine fleet and on coast guard ships. Russia is a continental country, bordering many countries, so you need to pay attention and funds to the ground forces and aviation, rather than spraying huge amounts of money on unnecessary aircraft carriers and heavy cruisers. As the experience of the First and Second World Wars showed, the Russian fleet is not particularly needed.


    From which it logically follows that Russia does not need a fleet “like in America”, but needs a perfect and high-quality road network like in America (almost) and a large, independent one. a prosperous and evenly spread nationwide nation, not a chewing cart "population", without the moron "10 agglomerations" !. If you drive all the Russians into these agglomerations, there will be no Russians left. and there will be only Russians .. And this is perhaps more important than aircraft carriers, the SSBN and any other military-strategic popsni .. Without PEOPLE, without a man of long will, the technician is nothing !!!
  30. Mikhail Zubkov
    Mikhail Zubkov 19 December 2017 18: 24 New
    +1
    Quote: komvap
    The most important thing is that the pilgrim-thieves mafia could not advertise aircraft carriers unnecessary to Russia and other quirks that could be approved only by patients with megalomania.

    If ALMOST at the exit are super-pilot UAVs that can be included in the modified projects of nuclear submarines under construction, then it’s logical to slow down the completion of the nuclear submarines and wait for the development of drones. It is possible to sob at the same time, but feignedly. If the submarine has a hull with a detection range of Virginia from 500-600 km, then the noise of our submarines is secondary - the effective effective range of its weapons is primary. “Virginia” is mean because it has a “freeze” mode at an almost maximum depth of 30 days, in an almost soundless state. From this icy “ambush”, it can abruptly jump out into a section of clean water and launch, after which it again goes under the ice and again hangs, or creeps off in low speed almost silently. This tactic must be refuted somehow! Virginia must be grazed continuously at the exits from the bases, for which it would be logical to have parity in the number of nuclear submarines with the Americans, surpassing them in the quality of the SAC and SAD. And also have this mode of underwater “hovering” in the arsenal of our nuclear submarines. MANDATORY !.
  31. Eflintuk
    Eflintuk 19 December 2017 19: 01 New
    +2
    About plans and real opportunities - according to the previous rearmament program, in 2018 there should have been 8 boreas, we have only 3.
    At the same time, about the "Irtysh-Amphora" - it was installed for testing and running on the nuclear submarine of project 09780 20 years ago, i.e. figure it out when it was designed. Of course, many people think that nothing better was invented than the radio tubes, but you should not look so optimistic at the possibilities of domestic electronics. Or using imported electronics at home, do you think that TAM-TO is different for us? Or maybe a fitter at a tank factory that has been walking for 40 years with the same screwdriver in the workshop with the same old machines is thinking, looking at the “super modern” submarines in the zombie’s tank - here they are, where our breakthrough technologies are! Not knowing that the installer on Sevmash had the same picture in his head only about tanks! Or maybe all is well with airplanes? It remains to be hoped that this urapatriotic propaganda is not only for domestic consumption, but really has something real underneath - after all, the enemy will judge our power not by the broadcasts of the TV channel.
  32. NikWik
    NikWik 19 December 2017 19: 57 New
    +4
    “But with all this, the R-39 missile subsequently became a reliable weapon, which was confirmed in 1998, when our SSBN Typhoon fired full ammunition in one salvo - all 20 R-39 missiles. The launch went smoothly, despite the fact that that, according to the author, expired missiles were used. "

    Let me clarify a little: not just expired, but served TWO expiration dates. So, I think the “Mace" will gradually be brought to mind.
    The article is good. A PLUS
  33. tihonmarine
    tihonmarine 19 December 2017 20: 12 New
    +1
    I don’t know what’s going on at the Pacific Fleet, but in the Northern Fleet the entire infrastructure that was created for decades was destroyed, especially the fleet suffered during Serdyukov’s, so the creation of the fleet cannot go against the infrastructure. The BF and the Black Sea Fleet of the closed sea fleet have no big role.
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 20 December 2017 02: 06 New
      0
      At KTOF I can assure you even worse. Since it even in the days of the USSR did not have priority and was serviced by a residual principle.
  34. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 19 December 2017 21: 10 New
    +1
    I’ll say one thing about the nuclear submarines, well, but not enough, you need to have more of them, but the idiotic AB, UDC and Destroyers (the size of a battleship) are nonsense invented by the thieves-mafia mafia
  35. sasha54
    sasha54 19 December 2017 23: 55 New
    +2
    The strange title of the article. It was a lot sadder. As for the R-39 and the Typhoon launches, we would have served longer, but the Americans paid and we, as the "goblins" with their representatives, destroyed all the ammunition of these missiles by launching from the submarine with subsequent self-destruction, and we reported to the amers under the visor. And they put crosses in a notebook. One consolation, they were in complete shock from the power they saw.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 December 2017 07: 07 New
      +3
      Quote: sasha54
      The strange title of the article. It was a lot sadder.

      So ahead of it ... will be
  36. Dmitry Kuzhilney
    Dmitry Kuzhilney 20 December 2017 08: 52 New
    0
    Posted by Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    I immediately remembered the old joke about the intelligentsia from Chelyabinsk. smile This I mean that I did not see anything sad in the article. Everything is weighed, specifically, without tantrums. But with the headline misunderstanding. Or is it specially done to attract widespread attention, or will the outcome of the drama be in the third series? Okay then.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 December 2017 09: 06 New
      +2
      Quote: Dmitry Kuzhilney
      But with the headline misunderstanding.

      But he wrote in the article
      Let's start with least problematic parts of our shipbuilding program: submarine nuclear missile fleet.

      If the same could be said about other ships of the Russian Navy! ..
      1. Dmitry Kuzhilney
        Dmitry Kuzhilney 21 December 2017 08: 41 New
        +2
        No offense, comrade. I read at work, "diagonally", some details are lost. I re-read it in the evening - I understood everything.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          23 December 2017 16: 31 New
          +1
          Quote: Dmitry Kuzhilney
          No offense, comrade.

          No offense! drinks
  37. Vadim Sh.
    Vadim Sh. 20 December 2017 11: 06 New
    0
    Another analyst and couch strategist from Chelyabinsk, probably even Retuzov did not serve as a soldier.
  38. Nemesis
    Nemesis 20 December 2017 11: 50 New
    0
    If the government of the Russian Federation continues to spend the money of the Russian Federation on the republics of the former scoop and allow the Chubais to rob the Russian Federation and export everything abroad, then Russia has no future with such a government.
  39. sasha54
    sasha54 20 December 2017 14: 53 New
    +1
    Andrew! Continue to write, do not pay attention to criticism, know that "there is no truth, there are only opinions." Consider just such articles do not miss people with a sea soul. I agree with the proverb "Hoping for the best, get ready for the worst." I really hope that such a betrayal which was in the 90s close in time will not happen again. Keep in mind that weapons change, so tactics and strategy change, there is the concept of “reasonable sufficiency”. I think the future is for robots, automation. Pay attention to the launchers of bottom-based, already in the ranks of the submarine uterus. It is possible to build such a stockade of such installations around the American continent, no missile defense will help. Putting and removing on prevention is not noticeably possible. There are other developments, and it will not be necessary to torment people in autonomous regions. I used to carry another R-27.
  40. Andrew
    Andrew 20 December 2017 17: 58 New
    0
    Unfortunately, our nuclear submarine fleet will be kept for another 15-20 years on Soviet submarines ... There were those that were built in the 90s under Russia, but these submarines will be one of those lucky ones that the latter will retire, but replace them with the number that are now modern submarines - will not be able to. The Americans already have 14 nuclear submarines of 4 generations (11 Virginia and 3 Simulfa). They have more than half replaced Los Angeles (similar to Pike and Pike-B) with modern Virginia. The construction interval for these submarines is no more than a year. And we have - 4 years 1 submarine "Ash" and "Ash-M". While Americans give birth to submarines in a year, with us they have only reached the stage of embryo. Everything can be decided if we have a 5th generation Husky nuclear submarine. But it will be difficult even before them ... The Germans have a Project 214 diesel-electric submarine with an air-independent installation, with it the submarine may not surface for more than 30 days, if not even more! And the autonomy of swimming is 84 days. It has autonomy 2/3 of the time of our heavy submarines! More than even Barracuda. Why don't we focus on creating such diesel-electric submarines in the coming years? Great ocean-going analogue of the submarine. And I’ll add:
    We are engaged in the design of the 5th generation Husky nuclear submarine, do not you think it looks kind of silly? Okay, the Americans started this, they have experience in building 4-generation nuclear submarines and experience in using them, but we are with two 4-generation submarines ... One of which was built with grief in half from the 90s ...
  41. Andrew
    Andrew 20 December 2017 18: 00 New
    0
    Unfortunately, our nuclear submarine fleet will be kept for another 15-20 years on Soviet submarines ... There were those that were built in the 90s under Russia, but these submarines will be one of those lucky ones that the latter will retire, but replace them with the number that are now modern submarines - will not be able to. The Americans already have 14 nuclear submarines of 4 generations (11 Virginia and 3 Simulfa). They have more than half replaced Los Angeles (similar to Pike and Pike-B) with modern Virginia. The construction interval for these submarines is no more than a year. And we have - 4 years 1 submarine "Ash" and "Ash-M". While Americans give birth to submarines in a year, with us they have only reached the stage of embryo. Everything can be decided if we have a 5th generation Husky nuclear submarine. But it will be difficult even before them ... The Germans have a Project 214 diesel-electric submarine with an air-independent installation, with it the submarine may not surface for more than 30 days, if not even more! And the autonomy of swimming is 84 days. It has autonomy 2/3 of the time of our heavy submarines! More than even Barracuda. Why don't we focus on creating such diesel-electric submarines in the coming years? Great ocean-going analogue of the submarine. And I’ll add:
    We are engaged in the design of the 5th generation Husky nuclear submarine, do not you think it looks kind of silly? Okay, the Americans started this, they have experience in building 4-generation nuclear submarines and experience in using them, but we are with two 4-generation submarines ... One of which was laid with grief in the 90s and put into operation in 2014 ...
  42. sasha54
    sasha54 20 December 2017 23: 02 New
    +1
    How much I digged with us: 3 pcs. project 671 RTMK "Pike", 2pcs. 945 "Condor", 8pcs. 949 "Antei", 11pcs. 971 "Pike-B", 1 pc. 885 "Ash." The Russian Navy also has 10 combat-ready SSBNs. Among them, 5 - Project 667 RBDM with SLB R-29RMU2 “Sineva” and R-29RMU2.1 “Liner” (80 launchers), 2 - Project 667BDR with SLBMs R-29R (32 launchers), 3 - Project 955 with SLBMs R-30 "Mace" (48 launchers). Also, at present, the program for the construction of six Submarines 885M is being implemented at Sevmash’s capacities, namely: K-561 Kazan, laid down in 2009 - launched in 2017, K-573 Novosibirsk, laid down in 2013 - under construction, K-571 "Krasnoyarsk", laid in 2014 - under construction, K-564 "Arkhangelsk", laid in 2015 - under construction, K-? Perm, laid in 2016 - under construction, K-? Ulyanovsk, laid in 2017 - under construction. I do not know exactly how much in reserve, I myself saw 3pcs of 941 Typhoons out of 6 left, the Americans did not have time to cut them, 2pcs of 945 Baracuda, there probably is more. Varshavyanka, etc. in the ranks did not count. So for RESPONSE so far enough. Americans in the 90s didn’t lick our ass, unlike our former leadership of the country, and they didn’t cut our fleet and ammunition and did not sell them for a penny. As of 2017, the US Navy includes thirty-three boats of the 3rd generation of the Los Angeles type, three boats of the 4th generation of the Sivulf type, four boats of the 3rd generation of the Ohio type converted in the Kyrgyz Republic Tomahawk "and thirteen 4th generation Virginia boats. In 15-20 years there will be another deterrent weapon, so the quantity will go into quality. The US Navy still controls the open sea and strategic bottlenecks, but these forces are becoming less and less important, especially in the context of local wars. In addition, the U.S. Navy is still stubbornly focused on carrier groups, which only suggests that strategic vision goes somewhere far, far behind bureaucratic inertia. You should not compare military budgets and write about it for a long time, but there is much more corruption than ours, and the lion's share goes to cut.
  43. German1314
    German1314 23 December 2017 14: 02 New
    0
    Before starting!