Military Review

Media: Russia utilizes the world's largest submarines of the 941 Shark project

181
Source RIA News reports in the shipbuilding industry that it has decided to dispose of two submarines. We are talking about such submarines as the nuclear submarine Arkhangelsk and Severstal of project 941 Shark. Both submarines have already been decommissioned fleet Russia.


Nuclear submarines of the 941 project are the largest in the world (listed in the Guinness Book of Records). The total displacement of these submarines is almost 50 thousand tons with a length of 172 m and a width of more than 23 m. In total, six such submarines were built in our country. To date, only one submarine of the 941 project (more precisely, 941U) "Shark" remains in the Russian Navy. This is "Dmitry Donskoy."

From the statement of the representative of the shipbuilding industry:
Decided on their (submarine) disposal. Their further operation is unprofitable. They have already been withdrawn from the service of the Russian Navy. Rosatom utilizes them after 2020.


Media: Russia utilizes the world's largest submarines of the 941 Shark project


Three more submarines of the same project were withdrawn from the Russian Navy by 1997 year. At the same time they were in the fleet by that time no more than 13 years. Decommissioning of the fleet was explained by the lack of funds for the maintenance of submarines of this project.

The Network commented on the decision to dispose of "Severstal" and "Arkhangelsk", suggesting not to let the submarines under the knife, and turn them into museums on the water.
Photos used:
Wikipedia
181 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Theodore
    Theodore 19 January 2018 06: 50
    15
    In vain! Museums would do! Without reactors only.
    1. Spartanez300
      Spartanez300 19 January 2018 06: 54
      10
      The former thunderstorm of the Soviet Union’s submarine fleet, but what to do times are changing.
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 19 January 2018 06: 58
        36
        Quote: Spartanez300
        but what do times change.

        earlier for embezzlement of state. property was shot with confiscation of property, and now it is called a business and punishment for this conditional.
        1. LSA57
          LSA57 19 January 2018 08: 20
          20
          Quote: PSih2097
          earlier for embezzlement of state. property was shot with confiscation of property, and now it is called a business and punishment for this conditional.

          who about what, and lousy about the bath laughing and what does it have to do with ???? the boat was stolen and sawn ????
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Kent0001
            Kent0001 19 January 2018 09: 50
            0
            Well, well, you are our hegneral ...
          3. albert
            albert 19 January 2018 18: 40
            +2
            Quote: LSA57
            the boat was stolen and sawn ????

            They are going to cut both the boat and the loot. By the way, why then were they driven to St. Petersburg last year, for show-offs?
            1. jjj
              jjj 19 January 2018 21: 59
              +2
              These did not go anywhere. These are in the port
              1. jjj
                jjj 19 January 2018 22: 16
                +3


                Here they live the last days
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 19 January 2018 08: 24
          10
          And now and then this is called the wear and tear of the equipment and the replacement with a new one, especially since the size of the “sharks” is so large not from a good life. They simply could not do less.
        3. Orionvit
          Orionvit 19 January 2018 08: 27
          +4
          Quote: PSih2097
          Now it is called business and punishment for it

          Not always, they can also upgrade the service.
      2. Ushly_bashkort
        Ushly_bashkort 19 January 2018 06: 59
        13
        Times change to the fact that these boats are relevant now, but with a capolisome, damn it is not cost-effective.
        P.S. The stories of Eduard Ovechkin "Sharks of Steel" I read, offensive to Sharks.
        1. LSA57
          LSA57 19 January 2018 08: 21
          +7
          Quote: Ushly_bashkort
          It's a shame for the Sharks.

          take on content. together with the crew.
          1. Ushly_bashkort
            Ushly_bashkort 19 January 2018 11: 06
            +2
            I would love to, but not the oligarch even once.
          2. Piramidon
            Piramidon 19 January 2018 11: 55
            +3
            Quote: LSA57
            take on content. together with the crew.

            There, not only maintenance, but also repairs and modernization are needed. Cheaper is a few new builds.
            1. LSA57
              LSA57 19 January 2018 12: 23
              +8
              Quote: Piramidon
              There, not only maintenance, but also repairs and modernization are needed. Cheaper is a few new builds.

              three hours trying to prove useless !!!!!
              in one pipe, upgrade and that's it. and no reason that modernization is more expensive than building two new ones does not work !!!! the meaning is the same, the "enemies of the people" decided to cut, and steal the metal. FSE stolen, FSO sold
              1. Alex777
                Alex777 19 January 2018 17: 15
                +1
                Have you been on these ships? Personally?
                One modernized. He will remain.
          3. mac789
            mac789 19 January 2018 11: 57
            13
            And what should be the content of nuclear submarines cost-effective? Is she supposed to be profitable? It seems that our bosses have finally turned into girls with low social responsibility.
            1. LSA57
              LSA57 19 January 2018 12: 25
              +4
              Quote: mac789
              Is she supposed to be profitable?

              it must carry out a combat mission, and if it does not, and maintenance requires high costs, then it is unprofitable !!!!!
              1. mac789
                mac789 19 January 2018 15: 26
                +3
                And what, they are not able to carry out combat missions?
                1. Alex777
                  Alex777 19 January 2018 16: 30
                  +3
                  And what, they are not able to carry out combat missions?

                  Not. Unable. There are no rockets.
                  Clintonsha was once engaged in their disposal. And I received great gratitude from my Washington regional committee for this.
                  And one even began to be disposed of several years ago and the missile compartment on it has long been opened.
                  1. mac789
                    mac789 19 January 2018 18: 15
                    +5
                    Good. They started to cut one earlier, and the second? There are no missiles ... And what prevents these missiles from doing? Is it like Sineva is in arms?
                    1. onix757
                      onix757 19 January 2018 18: 18
                      +4
                      The collapse of the industry and the lack of opportunities for managers to cut down quick money are hindering.
                      1. mac789
                        mac789 20 January 2018 07: 42
                        +1
                        Well, this question is certainly difficult, but solved. Abramovich on Kukan. Let finance. In short, emperor methods should work here. For example, Peter 1 ... Or Nero ... Gathered a bunch of rich Pinocchio. Not one. We cut each handful of tasks. One submarine, another plane, a third military camp, fourth development funding ... Well, the sanctions for not fulfilling the task naturally.
        2. Grenader
          Grenader 19 January 2018 09: 10
          23
          Quote: Ushly_bashkort
          Times change to the fact that these boats are relevant now, but with a capolisome, damn it is not cost-effective.

          And what could be the profitability of a submarine? What does she earn by commercial transportation? Nonsense is complete.
          1. Ushly_bashkort
            Ushly_bashkort 19 January 2018 11: 04
            +5
            I'm exactly the same. This is from the category of nonsense about the fact that instead of beating caliber in Syria, it would be better to give out to pensioners. Immediately the question is - who was handed out: calibers or planes with ships from which the missiles were launched?
      3. johnik
        johnik 19 January 2018 07: 48
        +6
        There used to be times, but now moments ...
        1. KVU-NSVD
          KVU-NSVD 19 January 2018 08: 08
          +4
          Donskoy seems to have been decided to leave, but there is no clarity about how they will use it. From my point of view, a good option is the “KR-Arsenal”
          1. avt
            avt 19 January 2018 10: 19
            +2
            Quote: KVU-NSVD
            Donskoy seems to have been decided to leave, but there is no clarity as to how they will use it.

            bully Watching from whom,, Donskoy "Long experimental ship for testing ,, Clubs." Well, 941 will go to the dismantling and assembly of new nuclear submarines. There you can dial metal and cars with mechanisms for four boats.
        2. RUSS
          RUSS 19 January 2018 14: 47
          0
          Quote: johnik
          There used to be times, but now moments ...

          And what further proverb did not continue? laughing
    2. LSA57
      LSA57 19 January 2018 08: 19
      +5
      Quote: Theodore
      In vain! Museums would do! No reactors only

      and what money do these "museums" contain? Do you really think that in closed cities, foreign tourists will go there on crowds to go on excursions?
      1. Topgun
        Topgun 19 January 2018 11: 05
        +5
        Well, in the USA, battleships that weren’t ancient as guano of mammoths weren’t cut, but they put pom for tomahawks on them, they made “museums” of them, you don’t even have to talk about aviks - they’re storing all the “museums”, even ancient planes in the desert ...
        1. Alex777
          Alex777 19 January 2018 17: 18
          +2
          A small clarification: nuclear ships do not become museums. They must be disposed of. Everyone does it. hi
    3. Kent0001
      Kent0001 19 January 2018 09: 49
      +8
      They were not built for the museum. Ruined everything that is possible. Why is it not profitable to operate? Any military equipment is unprofitable. And in terms of deterrence effectiveness, will one Shark be like several strategic bombers, or do bombers profit from exploitation? There is simply no money for them. They are given offshore.
      1. LSA57
        LSA57 19 January 2018 10: 27
        +4
        Quote: Kent0001
        And in terms of containment effectiveness, one Shark will be like several strategic bombers,

        and if you leave the bombers without bombs? Do museums also be made of them? there are no missiles on the Sharks !!!! therefore, it is unprofitable to keep an iron pipe just like that
      2. nikolaev
        nikolaev 19 January 2018 12: 30
        +6
        in the beginning it is necessary to build a sufficient number of new ones.
        There are not enough new ones - so let's cut old ones! Damn, strategic thinking!
    4. Berkut24
      Berkut24 19 January 2018 10: 28
      +1
      In vain! Museums would do! Without reactors only.

      So all is not lost. The third side is not only not cut, but also left in the service as a stand for testing missiles.
    5. Lavrenti Pavlovich
      Lavrenti Pavlovich 19 January 2018 11: 11
      +4
      Quote: Theodore
      In vain! Museums would do! Without reactors only.

      And why not make Dmitry Donskoy No. 2 and No. 3, or do we have so many submarines? While they have not learned how to build new ones quickly, the old ones cannot be written off, the defense budget must be increased by 2–3 times, and the embezzlers and saw cutters are to the wall.
      1. LSA57
        LSA57 19 January 2018 11: 21
        +3
        Quote: Lavrenty Pavlovich
        Until they quickly learned how to build new ones,

        belay how fast is that? without following all the rules and regulations? one block to "quickly" on "Energy" hammer with a sledgehammer so what? The result is known. there are technologies that you can’t change in any way
        1. Lavrenti Pavlovich
          Lavrenti Pavlovich 19 January 2018 11: 54
          +4
          Quote: LSA57
          Quote: Lavrenty Pavlovich
          Until they quickly learned how to build new ones,

          belay how fast is that? without following all the rules and regulations? one block to "quickly" on "Energy" hammer with a sledgehammer so what? The result is known. there are technologies that you can’t change in any way

          The same Sharks were built in the USSR at an accelerated pace, thousands of enterprises worked on their creation, thousands of people were provided with work. They were built qualitatively, otherwise they would not have survived to our days. When the state’s security question is raised, it’s impossible to save and rattle. Until the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are changed, the government will not be dismissed, nothing will change, the new equipment will be supplied to the troops with a creak, the budget will be sawn, which will affect the quality (from the construction of the East, another spaceport was stolen)
          1. LSA57
            LSA57 19 January 2018 12: 31
            +2
            Quote: Lavrenty Pavlovich
            The same Sharks were built in the USSR at an accelerated pace,

            do not bullshit. This is not BAM. nobody hard work, strictly on technology
            Until the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are changed, the government will not be dismissed - nothing will change, new equipment will be delivered to the troops with a creak,

            Yes, do you even know how much our aircraft have been updated ??? what creak? everything is planned, new weapons regularly enter the troops
      2. Piramidon
        Piramidon 19 January 2018 12: 02
        +2
        Quote: Lavrenty Pavlovich
        Quote: Theodore
        In vain! Museums would do! Without reactors only.

        And why not make Dmitry Donskoy No. 2 and No. 3, or do we have so many submarines? While they have not learned how to quickly build new ones, the old ones cannot be written off ...

        Well, don’t you think that they stand at the berths in full readiness? Like, give the mooring lines and full speed ahead. To continue the operation of these boats, they must undergo repairs and modernization, and it will take so much time and money that it will be possible to build several new submarines
      3. LSA57
        LSA57 19 January 2018 12: 28
        +2
        Quote: Lavrenty Pavlovich
        before and the defense budget needs to be increased by 2-3 times,

        and leave pensioners and state employees without money at all? fool
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 19 January 2018 14: 33
          +3
          Quote: LSA57
          and leave pensioners and state employees without money at all?

          American? The Central Bank of the Russian Federation buys their own pieces of paper.
          They were sentenced back in the early 2000s in collusion with the Americans, and then their ammunition was shot, the United States was very afraid of these boats because they could not work out counteractions to them. The boat is equal in length to Ohio but wider for the ocean is a trifle. Donskoy is the oldest of them.
          They stood in Severodvinsk for 15 years, did not dare to cut new boats, and now they seem to have their age, you can write off. On Zvyozdochka, the line for repair and modernization, for Sharks, the line will do in 10 years, and by this time they will already rot. When it was possible to do something with them, we were friends with the Americans.
    6. alekc73
      alekc73 19 January 2018 14: 59
      0
      Early. Let’s stand at the pier. You can’t dispose of it in a modernized way. Put a problem in a comma hi
    7. g1v2
      g1v2 19 January 2018 15: 35
      +1
      The museum requires money for maintenance. Attendants again. Something I don’t very much believe that a flow of tourists will break in and pay for all this. Again, we still have one Shark in service, which in a few years will also need to be decommissioned. So, if anything, you can make it a museum. request
  2. Dezinto
    Dezinto 19 January 2018 06: 52
    +3
    Nooooo !!!!
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 19 January 2018 07: 08
      +7
      Logically, a lot needs to be said Nooo! But said, YES!
      And the children threw spoons! stop
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Uncle lee
          Uncle lee 19 January 2018 07: 13
          10
          Look for someone who benefits! Or maybe paid!
          1. LSA57
            LSA57 19 January 2018 08: 27
            +1
            Quote: Uncle Lee
            Look for someone who benefits.

            the state
            Decided on their (submarine) disposal. Their further operation is unprofitable. They have already been withdrawn from the service of the Russian Navy. Rosatom utilizes them after 2020.
        2. LSA57
          LSA57 19 January 2018 08: 25
          +4
          Quote: DEZINTO
          ! and it’s possible to upgrade them easily!

          and where does such knowledge come from? are you a ship engineer Have you ever seen this boat? Do you really think the SPECIALISTS did not consider such an option? or from the sofa you can see what can be modernized and what can’t? TU-160 is possible, it will be modernized
          1. Uncle lee
            Uncle lee 19 January 2018 14: 14
            +7
            But Komoedov and Kasatonov are against the disposal of Sharks. They are specialists! hi
        3. Orionvit
          Orionvit 19 January 2018 08: 47
          +2
          Quote: DEZINTO
          You can not do it this way! these are really the most awesome submarines in the world!

          It is of course, on the one hand, no words, but on the other hand, if you are withdrawn from the fleet, what now, to stare at them? We are reaping the fruits of the 90s. However, as I understand it, new ones are being built to replace them.
          to upgrade them, it would be easy!
          Where you can upgrade, for example, the nuclear missile cruiser Admiral Nakhimov.
        4. NKT
          NKT 19 January 2018 08: 58
          +3
          Already considered. Modernization of one shark - 3 borea.
          1. Kent0001
            Kent0001 19 January 2018 09: 55
            +2
            Well, if so, then it’s clear. Although somehow cool. But grandmother in the afshores that with Boreev, that with the modernization of Sharks, that with the construction of the East.
            1. NKT
              NKT 19 January 2018 10: 40
              +2
              Confused a little, the price is comparable in cost to the construction of 2 new Boreans.
          2. AUL
            AUL 19 January 2018 09: 59
            +2
            Quote: NKT
            Already considered. Modernization of one shark - 3 borea.

            Well, where are these Boreas? There is no modernization - present Borea!
            1. LSA57
              LSA57 19 January 2018 11: 22
              +2
              Quote: AUL
              Well, where are these Boreas?

              on the stocks. are under construction
        5. Piramidon
          Piramidon 19 January 2018 12: 33
          +6
          Quote: DEZINTO
          to upgrade them, it would be easy!

          How simple it is for you. They sent a plumber to Uncle Vasya and he "easily" in three hours repaired and modernized everything. You have already calculated the cost of repair and modernization with a calculator, and how long will it take? Repair "Nakhimov" only according to plan is designed for 8 years, and our plans, as a rule, are shifted upwards. Do you propose to stop building new boats and patching old ones instead?
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. RUSS
      RUSS 19 January 2018 14: 55
      +1
      What can be upgraded, something is not.
      As an example-


      The Russian Ministry of Defense intends to modernize for the Pacific Fleet four nuclear submarines of Project 2025A Antei, arming them with Caliber missiles, said Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov.
      "Repair and modernization of multipurpose nuclear submarines of the 949th project is envisaged. Old Granit missiles will be replaced by the Caliber, which proved to be good, including in the Syrian conflict," Borisov said during a visit to the Far Eastern Zvezda plant .
      In addition, part of the general ship equipment will be replaced on the boat and "in fact, the boat in the old hull will have new qualities."

      "This is used in the current and planned in the next state armament program. The Irkutsk boat is being modernized, it will be released in 2021, we are now discussing plans for the modernization of three more boats as part of the future state armament program for 2018 - 2025," the deputy head said military department.
  3. andrewkor
    andrewkor 19 January 2018 06: 53
    +3
    And what about the casino following the example of the Varyag? Or a landing submarine for landing in Alaska?
  4. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 19 January 2018 06: 56
    10
    More than once I proposed to remake them into platforms for cruise missiles similar to the American "Florida" ...
    It turned out that a better cut negative
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 19 January 2018 07: 02
      +5
      Quote: Rurikovich
      More than once I proposed to remake them into platforms for cruise missiles similar to the American "Florida" ...

      for the same money, it was possible to reanimate the work on the Bark at (R-39UTTX) or to put a liner with a mace, because the reason for the withdrawal from the crew was the absence of SLBMs for them.
    2. Per se.
      Per se. 19 January 2018 07: 25
      34
      Quote: Rurikovich
      More than once I proposed to remake them into platforms for cruise missiles similar to the American "Florida" ...

      In such mines as on the "Shark" you can insert almost any of the existing sea-based missiles (not necessarily the CD, as in the photo), the diameter of the mines is big, not small. Those who want to cut these unique arctic boats, fools or traitors. Menager, of course, is more profitable to make loot on new boats, which they will have to build for ten years, and here modernization of the existing one. How effective and talented you can do modernization is another question, but now to destroy the most advanced boats of the Soviet era is hardly a smart decision. The road is a boat for dinner, not the time to wait now, we must use these boats, whose potential is far from being exhausted. And, making the decision on destruction of boats, it would not be bad to know by sight, it is necessary to sound the names and positions of these radishes.
      1. 100502
        100502 19 January 2018 07: 52
        18
        Here is the surname Putin or do you think the tsar does not know what the boyars are doing ...
        1. LSA57
          LSA57 19 January 2018 08: 29
          +7
          Quote: 100502
          Here is the surname Putin or do you think the tsar does not know what the boyars are doing ...

          not tired yet, the cat left the kittens, is Putin to blame?
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. LSA57
              LSA57 19 January 2018 10: 39
              +6
              Quote: Varyag71
              Is P ready to die?

              Ready for Russia. and Russia chose Putin
        2. Ural resident
          Ural resident 19 January 2018 11: 23
          +3
          Conclusion - everything is against Putin and whatever happens!)
          Instead, a real smart president will surely come, understanding everything and everything, and we will immediately become all rich and strong .. Oh yes, and we will restore the Soviet Union in a week.
          1. LSA57
            LSA57 19 January 2018 12: 34
            +1
            Quote: Resident of the Urals
            A real smart president is sure to come instead,

            doggie
          2. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 19 January 2018 14: 36
            +1
            Quote: Resident of the Urals
            Instead, a real smart president will surely come, understanding everything and everything and we will immediately become all rich and strong.

            Gorbachev-2?
      2. 44Serega44
        44Serega44 19 January 2018 08: 46
        +2
        I agree about the redistribution of the mines. And what's more, they can simply be joked (one in the Crimea, the other in the Baltic, but with medium-range and short-range sea-based missiles. And the agreement has not been violated and the partners will scratch their turnips))
        1. LSA57
          LSA57 19 January 2018 09: 04
          +2
          Quote: 44Serge44
          one in Crimea

          and who will let her through the Bosphorus?
      3. Orionvit
        Orionvit 19 January 2018 08: 52
        +3
        Quote: Per se.
        The boat’s road to dinner, it’s not the time to wait now, we must use these boats, whose potential is far from exhausted.

        So use who's stopping you. Here I am, sitting on my couch, the same indignant. The news is of course tragic, but not for us to decide.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 19 January 2018 13: 19
          +5
          Quote: Orionvit
          So use who's bothering you.
          I am not the king of all Russia ... Seriously, for a start, let us remember the Americans from their Ohio.
          Ohio-type submarines are currently the only type of strategic missile carriers in the US fleet. Nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles (SSBNs) of the Ohio type were commissioned from 1981 to 1997 years. A total of 18 submarines were built.
          The first Ohio-type 8 submarines were armed with the Trident I C4 ballistic missiles, the subsequent boats received the Trident II D5 missiles. Later, in the course of the planned overhaul of the 4 submarines, the boats of the first series were re-equipped on the Trident II D5 ICBMs, and the 4 boats were also converted into carriers of Tomahawk cruise missiles.
          The main armament of the Ohio-type SSBNs are intercontinental ballistic missiles located in 24 vertical shafts, which are located in two longitudinal rows immediately behind the fence of retractable devices. The ICBM mine is a steel cylinder, which is rigidly fixed in the submarine hull. In order to be able to mount the Trident II missiles on board, the missile shaft was initially increased compared with the boats of the previous project.Its length is 14,8 meters, diameter - 2,4 meters.
          This is for reflection, in particular, about the diameter of the mine, as they say, size does not matter when it is big ... Now to the remarks, that someone knows better there, and they are smarter there than I am here on the sofa. Firstly, there is already an example of the US boats, they were rearmed, they were not cut, although they are of the same age as our Sharks. Secondly, as I asked above who made the decision to destroy the boats, what were the commissions of specialists, designers, developers, submariners themselves? What, again, solved the financiers, economists, menagery on defense? Okay, the new "Boreas" would be released, so there is no, the existing are ready to destroy, and after the "Grats" we rejoice, and we have been waiting for the ships for many years. And finally, the atomic boat, our "Shark", is not a "Beetle", which you can’t reach the Priory in modernization, as here on the topic, such analogies attract by the ears.
          1. Orionvit
            Orionvit 19 January 2018 13: 51
            +3
            Quote: Per se.
            I am not the king of all Russia.

            Well, you're an adult, what is the bulk of his childhood.
            This is for consideration.
            I'm not quite up on the subject of submarines. I am a specialist in aircraft engines. And I’ll tell you directly, there are cases that repairing the old one is not worth the resources invested in it, sometimes it’s easier to make a new one.
            1. Per se.
              Per se. 19 January 2018 14: 28
              +5
              Quote: Orionvit
              Well, you're an adult, what is the bulk of his childhood.
              I am an adult, so I had to joke on yours, “So use who's stopping you.” As to “there are cases”, there are, but they also were not in a hurry to refuse existing aircraft engines when there was a resource for modernization in them. So, who decided to cut the boats, on the basis of what expertise and calculations they became not needed? The fact that the first three of the six "Sharks" were cut by the money of Americans (which these boats were most disturbed by) is a fact, and the boats were new for that period. Why they destroyed with rockets and arsenals of their rockets, another question, where the arsenals from the remaining boats were, is the same topic. This is not the main thing, we can talk about the old and the new, but, "the one who wants is looking for opportunities, but not the one who wants the reasons", we are looking for reasons ... This is like with an aircraft carrier, for the completion of which "the whole Soviet Union was needed" and, which the Chinese bought for a penny, dragged to another part of the world, and completed, put into operation. This is how the "Gorshkov" gave the Indians in addition to the contract for the MiG-29 ... This is the cruiser "Ukraine", which could be redeemed and completed ... For all the reasons that destroy our fleet, as the most real sabotage and sabotage. Who are these "virtues" representing another's lobby, speculating tearfully on money for pensioners, on sausage in stores? Personally, I have, after all, no special faith in the objectivity of the need to destroy the boats, as there are doubts about the disposal of the remaining cruisers of the Orlan project, given that they have unique hull strengths for which there would be a more reasonable use.
              1. Orionvit
                Orionvit 19 January 2018 14: 43
                +2
                May I ask you an immodest question, who are you by profession?
                1. Per se.
                  Per se. 19 January 2018 20: 29
                  +3
                  It is possible, but only a “modest” answer, I, - a Russian soldier, a Soviet person. Otherwise, what's the difference, I do not pretend to the ultimate truth.
                  1. Orionvit
                    Orionvit 20 January 2018 08: 00
                    +2
                    Everything is clear, I have no more questions. hi
      4. The comment was deleted.
    3. LSA57
      LSA57 19 January 2018 10: 30
      +2
      Quote: Rurikovich
      More than once offered

      to whom? "couch engineers"? provide an estimate for alteration.
      1. Anyone
        Anyone 20 January 2018 21: 54
        0
        Why do you want to cut the Sharks so much? Just dozens of posts in the subject line wrote that they supposedly need to be cut, dear ones, there are no missiles, is it difficult to upgrade and so on? Self-interest? I ask that what can stand up for the destruction of warships that will still serve the country, or a person who is materially interested in this process, or who convinces others of the correctness of any actions of the authorities. I mean, what we can buy this year for a trillion rubles of American dollars through the Central Bank in order to prevent the growth of the ruble exchange rate, but we can spend 10% (conditionally - I do not know exactly how much) of this amount for re-equipping Shark missiles we can not.
        1. Golovan Jack
          Golovan Jack 20 January 2018 22: 44
          +4
          Quote: Anyone
          ... the destruction of warships that will still serve the country ...

          They are no longer fighting. The boat, which stood unattended for about 10 years, can’t be combat. A-priory.
          Quote: Anyone
          ... dear, no missiles, it’s difficult to upgrade ...

          They explained everything correctly to you. Moreover, all this was discussed 5 years ago already:

          And earlier this was also discussed. If desired, you can easily find by searching the site.
          Quote: Anyone
          this year we can buy a trillion rubles of US dollars through the Central Bank in order to prevent the growth of the ruble exchange rate

          These dollars are not going anywhere, they can and something else ... build.
          Quote: Anyone
          but we cannot spend 10% ... of this amount on re-equipment of Shark missiles

          Let the experts make the decision. Neither people nor ships ... are eternal, unfortunately.
          1. Anyone
            Anyone 20 January 2018 23: 19
            0
            Then, according to your logic, the second Orlan did not need to be modernized - it stood even more unowned ...
            Z.Y. I’m not a fleet specialist once, but a former GA flight engineer. But I know the general principles of the modern military-industrial complex, for my father has been building satellites for the Moscow Defense For 40 years, as well as power supply stabilization units for ship equipment (mainly bridge equipment). So, no economic logic in the defense industry today works. All developers / manufacturers take on any orders. Even knowing that they will not be made. The main thing is to get hold of the state contract, and there, like, it will be seen. The customer (military acceptance) only draws up pieces of paper for all occasions, so that there is something to pick the ass if they will check. The whole system of modern ordering in the military-industrial complex has an efficiency like that of a steam locomotive. Therefore, when they say "let's cut it, because it’s cheaper to make a new one than to modernize the existing one", then with a high degree of probability there will be no new ones (either they will be worse, or the price will increase at times, or the terms will be torn off - underline the necessary), and the old ones will be sawn .
            1. Golovan Jack
              Golovan Jack 20 January 2018 23: 29
              +5
              If you are really interested in the topic - look for articles on this site. In the past or the year before last, there was definitely a marvelous article with many photographs and comments, moreover, including from people "in the subject."
              That, in fact, is all I can help you with. request
              1. Anyone
                Anyone 20 January 2018 23: 34
                +1
                Thanks, I’ll definitely look. But it seems to me that most of the commentators present here tend to overestimate the capabilities of our modern military-industrial complex because of the still completely unexhausted Soviet impulse. But it ends. And I believe that in such conditions it is necessary to double try to preserve what we have. Even if you have to allocate additional funds.
              2. Gardamir
                Gardamir 21 January 2018 07: 24
                0
                That, in fact, is all I can help you with.
                but you can’t. so there’s nothing to breed blah blah.
  5. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 19 January 2018 06: 59
    +1
    The project was, of course, ambitious. But hiding such a monster was probably not easy. There are no more rockets for her, it’s unprofitable to maintain. Remaking them into an “underwater tanker” or gas carrier is unlikely. That’s what they’ll do “needles” ...
  6. Dezinto
    Dezinto 19 January 2018 06: 59
    14
    But what about the cat? he went to the seas more than anyone else! And she’s afraid to go on land!



    A couple of times we tried to endure Vasily but the will to walk. He gazed at the Universe with shy eyes and shouted at us:
    - What are you doing, fascists !!! Get me back on board immediately !!! Am I a ship cat or where ?!
    We carried him to the pier and let go:
    - Vasily, well, go see your cat there, find some, knead some rolls!
    But Vasily fled to the cabin hatch with a bullet and sat there - waiting for someone to lower him down. Aristocrats, apparently, not only do not eat rats, but also do not crawl along vertical ladders.
    1. Svarog51
      Svarog51 19 January 2018 09: 37
      +7
      Eh, Vasily, you didn’t strangle rats! Demand a new house before this is allowed under the knife.
  7. Dezinto
    Dezinto 19 January 2018 07: 06
    +3
    In addition to jokes, she wanted one thing - to leave for test missile launches!

    Not really really garbage any such power and take and cut!?!?!
    1. 100502
      100502 19 January 2018 07: 54
      +2
      Here sawed in China will collect
    2. Don
      Don 19 January 2018 08: 27
      +3
      Quote: DEZINTO
      In addition to jokes, she wanted one thing - to leave for test missile launches!

      The only rocket carrier in the 941U pr Shark, Dmitry Donskoy, has not yet been touched. Dispose of his younger counterparts in reserve.
    3. LSA57
      LSA57 19 January 2018 08: 32
      +1
      Quote: DEZINTO
      In addition to jokes, she wanted one thing - to leave for test missile launches!

      and if you read more closely?
      To date, only one nuclear submarine of project 941 (more precisely 941U) "Shark" remains in the Russian Navy. This is Dmitry Donskoy.

      Or just read the headlines?
      1. Svarog51
        Svarog51 19 January 2018 09: 47
        +5
        Namesake, welcome hi Everything is correctly written in the article. The Navy includes one, Dmitry Donskoy. Arkhangelsk and Severstal have been withdrawn from the fleet, but have not yet been disposed of. That is, while there are three boats. Apparently they can’t come up with anything sensible about rearmament, so they decided to put two under the knife. Well, like, in winter the heating system in the house was unfrozen and, instead of repairing the system, we decided to demolish the whole house. request
        1. LSA57
          LSA57 19 January 2018 10: 34
          +3
          Quote: Svarog51
          Namesake, welcome

          Hi hi like you’re saying everything correctly, but there is one subtlety, there are no missiles on them request and rearmament is more expensive than building a new one. I think there a hundred times everything was counted. just do not get out of the composition
          1. Svarog51
            Svarog51 19 January 2018 11: 09
            +3
            Seryoga, so I don’t express my opinion of an amateur. I just clarified the situation told to us in the article. Personally, I am very sorry for the boats, so much labor has been invested in them. But since they cannot carry out repairs and modernization, then so be it.
            1. LSA57
              LSA57 19 January 2018 11: 33
              +3
              Quote: Svarog51
              But since they cannot carry out repairs and modernization, then so be it.

              from wiki
              Tactical and technical design assignment was issued in December 1972, S. N. Kovalev was appointed the chief designer of the project [5]. A new type of submarine cruiser was positioned as a response to the construction of the US SSBN type "Ohio" (the first boats of both projects were laid almost simultaneously in 1976). [6] The dimensions of the new ship were determined by the dimensions of the new solid fuel three-stage intercontinental ballistic missiles R-39 (RSM-52), which was planned to arm the boat. Compared to the Trident-I missiles that the American Ohio was equipped with, the R-39 missile had the best flight range, discharged mass and had 10 blocks against 8 of the Trident. However, at the same time, the P-39 turned out to be almost twice as long and three times heavier than the American counterpart. To accommodate such large missiles, the standard SSBN layout scheme did not fit. On December 19, 1973, the government decided to start the design and construction of new-generation strategic missile carriers. The main armament is the D-19 missile system with 20 R-39 Variant three-stage solid-fuel ballistic missiles. These missiles have the largest launch weight (together with a launch container - 90 tons) and a length (17,1 m) of those adopted for service by SLBMs. The missile combat range is 8300 km, the warhead is separable: 10 warheads with individual guidance of 100 kilotons in TNT each. Due to the large dimensions of the R-39, the Shark project boats were the only carriers of these missiles. In 1986, a government decree was adopted on the development of an improved version of the rocket - R-39UTTH "Bark". In the new modification, it was planned to increase the firing range to 10 km and implement an ice-passing system. [000] The rearmament of the missile carriers was planned to be carried out until 16 - the expiration of the warranty period for the produced R-2003 missiles. In 39, after the third unsuccessful launch, the Ministry of Defense decided to stop work on the 1998% -finished complex

              so what to do with them without missiles?
              1. Svarog51
                Svarog51 19 January 2018 12: 00
                +1
                This is Dmitry Donskoy and serves as a test boat. If everything had worked out with his rearmament, these two would remain in service. But, apparently, something has grown together. request
                1. LSA57
                  LSA57 19 January 2018 12: 38
                  +2
                  Quote: Svarog51
                  But, apparently, something has grown together.

                  very expensive. Boreas are cheaper and qualitatively different. Think for yourself, the 1972 project began. progress does not stand still. Well, you can’t upgrade Lada Kopek to Lada Priory
                  1. Svarog51
                    Svarog51 19 January 2018 13: 15
                    +3
                    So I only express personal regret. It’s more like a ZIL government issued by a small party than a Zhigul. That's a pity.
  8. jumbo
    jumbo 19 January 2018 07: 12
    +3
    can hurry to cut them into needles? they would make good arsenal ships for calibers and zircons
    1. LSA57
      LSA57 19 January 2018 08: 34
      +1
      Quote: Jumbo
      they would make good arsenal ships for calibers and zircons

      Well, why do you think that all the options have not been calculated ???? or know better from the sofa ???
      1. jumbo
        jumbo 19 January 2018 17: 23
        +2
        sometimes it’s better to see yes
  9. Herculesic
    Herculesic 19 January 2018 07: 14
    10
    The United States is happy — with our own hands we have made it easier to weaken our fleet! Redo these two submarines under the same "calibers" !!!
    1. annodomene
      annodomene 19 January 2018 07: 48
      +9
      It's like that. Only reworking one ship at a cost is almost equal to building the same new one. And on labor too. One "Shark" occupies approximately 15 million man-hours during construction.
  10. faiver
    faiver 19 January 2018 07: 15
    +3
    very regrettable, this is not what our statesmen think ...
    1. LSA57
      LSA57 19 January 2018 08: 36
      +1
      Quote: faiver
      very regrettable, this is not what our statesmen think ...

      but they think that
      Their further operation is unprofitable.
      1. faiver
        faiver 19 January 2018 08: 51
        +2
        do not bring profit? laughing
        1. LSA57
          LSA57 19 January 2018 10: 34
          +1
          Quote: faiver
          do not bring profit?

          no use to them without rockets
      2. Nehist
        Nehist 19 January 2018 09: 46
        +7
        LSA57 Dear, let it be known that cost-effective military equipment does not exist! She (the technician) has slightly different evaluation parameters and profitability in them, if it is included somewhere in the last place
        1. LSA57
          LSA57 19 January 2018 10: 37
          +2
          Quote: Nehist
          LSA57 Dear, let it be known that cost-effective military equipment does not exist! She (the technician) has slightly different evaluation parameters

          a boat that has no weapons and does not constitute a combat unit and for the maintenance of which huge amounts of money are spent, what should I call? Does the word profitability not fit?
  11. annodomene
    annodomene 19 January 2018 07: 15
    +9
    Ships are always a pity ... But times go on, technology does not get younger from this, and now - the logical result. I just wait with a shudder for the moment (and I want it not to come) when they take on the Granites, and in particular for my favorite “last imperial cruiser” “Smolensk” ... It's all sad.
    1. starpom
      starpom 19 January 2018 08: 37
      +5
      Quote: annodomene
      Sad it all

      Lesha, nothing lasts forever in this world. The road is young. And they will be in our memory.
      1. annodomene
        annodomene 19 January 2018 10: 44
        +6
        I agree, Vadim! Just the same - sad ... How many thousand miles did you and I walked four hundred and ten?
  12. Dezinto
    Dezinto 19 January 2018 07: 24
    +2
    Ships are always a pity ...


    https://cs9.pikabu.ru/post_img/big/2018/01/10/11/
    151561401918788109.jpg







    1. Greenwood
      Greenwood 19 January 2018 08: 21
      +6
      The ruins of an ancient civilization.
  13. AVGUST
    AVGUST 19 January 2018 07: 25
    +9
    It’s sad, sorry for such projects, if they would put it on hold, but set it up as a museum, there wouldn’t be a hang-up for those who wanted to walk on this ship, they would drive it to Sevastopol, in the summer not only a bunch of tourists would come, and foreigners would take a look than not business ........
    1. LSA57
      LSA57 19 January 2018 08: 39
      +1
      Quote: AVGUST
      would drive her to Sevastopol,

      by air? Turks through the Bosphorus will not be allowed
      Yes, and foreigners would stare than not a business ........

      what are the foreigners in Sevastopol ???? Navy base of the Black Sea Fleet, closed city
  14. next322
    next322 19 January 2018 07: 32
    +7
    The military shipbuilding of the Russian Federation is degrading .... In 2017, only two (!) Warships went into operation: the frigate Admiral Makarov and the perfect corvette, which is not understaffed with weapons (see “Is there a new Tsushima waiting for us”, “NVO” "From 22.12.17). Another fleet was replenished with 8 special-purpose combat boats of project 03160 Raptor and anti-sabotage project 21980 Rooks with a displacement of 23 to 140 tons. You can also add 6 10-ton assault assault boats of Project 02800 to them. It’s quite sparse. And that’s all!
    1. albert
      albert 19 January 2018 18: 53
      +1
      There will be no Tsushima, we don’t have enough fleet for her .. This is a complete skiff ... am
  15. SOF
    SOF 19 January 2018 07: 56
    +2
    ...very sorry... recourse
    It remains to be fed up that the "source" of RIA "NEWS" is not so informed.
  16. Nemesis
    Nemesis 19 January 2018 08: 06
    +4
    In vain. The boats are not the oldest and are structurally adapted for long trips and service in the Northern Fleet ... It would be better to repair them and rearm them with new types of missiles ...
    1. LSA57
      LSA57 19 January 2018 09: 07
      +2
      Quote: Nemesis
      It would be better to repair them and rearm them with new types of missiles ...

      the modernization of one "Shark" is equal in value to the construction of 3 "Boreev"
      1. Nemesis
        Nemesis 19 January 2018 09: 55
        +5
        Well, let them build Boreas ... And then it’s not Boreev, nor Sharks, only the Ulyukaev’s yachts ....
        1. LSA57
          LSA57 19 January 2018 10: 41
          +2
          Quote: Nemesis
          Well, let them build the Boreas.

          are building. and enter the fleet.
    2. LSA57
      LSA57 19 January 2018 11: 36
      +2
      Quote: Nemesis
      In vain. Boats are not the oldest

      from wiki
      Tactical and technical design assignment was issued in December 1972, S. N. Kovalev was appointed chief designer of the project

      very young
      1. Nemesis
        Nemesis 21 January 2018 17: 10
        0
        There have already been articles on how to build and how much to build. You can read.
  17. xtur
    xtur 19 January 2018 08: 27
    +5
    it has been said more than once what to make of them a platform for launching the Kyrgyz Republic, so that Europeans could be encouraged to become independent from the states. Such visual stimulation will pay off any money.

    In general, cutting ships, in conditions of their general shortage, is simply a crime.
    1. annodomene
      annodomene 19 January 2018 10: 49
      +9
      Alas ... The cost of operation, and specifically - maintenance, is very high. As the biggest problem, this is the state of cable routes. They are not eternal, and replacing them is too expensive. That's it...
      1. xtur
        xtur 20 January 2018 16: 22
        0
        > Alas ... The cost of operation, and specifically - maintenance, is very high.

        independence is always expensive, but it is always cheaper than dependence on others. And the ships of this project are a very powerful argument in upholding independence
  18. EvilLion
    EvilLion 19 January 2018 08: 43
    +3
    Since there is a predictable howl and cry in the comments, it would be nice to look at least at Wiki:

    Tactical and technical design assignment was issued in December 1972, S. N. Kovalev [5] was appointed the chief designer of the project. A new type of submarine cruiser was positioned as a response to the construction of the US Ohio SSBN (the first boats of both projects were laid almost simultaneously in the 1976 year). [6] The dimensions of the new ship were determined by the dimensions of the new R-39 solid-fuel three-stage intercontinental ballistic missiles (RSM-52 ), which was planned to arm the boat. Compared to the Trident-I missiles that the American Ohio was equipped with, the P-39 missile had the best flight range, cast mass and had 10 blocks against the Trident's 8. However, at the same time, the P-39 was almost twice as long and three times heavier than the American counterpart. To accommodate such large missiles, the standard SSBN layout scheme did not fit. On 19 of December 1973, the government decided to start the design and construction of a new generation of strategic missile carriers.


    Size will show off to the girls. Of course, in the presence of more compact rockets, making such monsters of desire decreases.

    As for the utility of boats at the moment, one instance is redone under the "Mace", the remaining survivors simply stand without missiles. They can be blown up and nothing from this country will lose, except for metal. It is possible to remake it under the “Mace”, but is it still economically feasible compared with the construction of the “Boreas”, the “Boreas” in 2 times less. Yes, and the new, usually better than the old.

    Typically, no one will build aircraft carriers in the fleet just to be able to masturbate on the couch, and indeed the fleet is an expensive toy of non-obvious utility (aviation is much more useful for the same money), but no one is going to abandon the Boreas .
    1. faiver
      faiver 19 January 2018 08: 55
      +2
      what prevents arsenals from making two sharks? the Americans did ...
      1. annodomene
        annodomene 19 January 2018 10: 52
        +8
        The state of the metal PC and cable routes.
    2. SOF
      SOF 19 January 2018 09: 40
      +3
      Quote: EvilLion
      fleet is an expensive toy of non-obvious utility (aviation for the same money is much more useful)

      ... a very controversial statement, designed for the doctrine of WE ONLY DEFENSE, but even defense, by its logical conclusion, involves the defeat of the enemy.
      Tell me, how would we have won in the last war if it hadn’t been Hitler who attacked us, but Roosevelt?
      Armada armada through the Bering Strait would be driven by fords ??? Or thirty-four military transport aircraft of the 40s transferred?
      ... planet Earth does not end with the coasts of the Eurasian continent ...
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 19 January 2018 16: 07
        +3
        If Roosevelt attacked us, then in the case of realistic scenarios of the Red Alert 2 and 3 level, with supplies from bases across the ocean or landing the Japanese near Leningrad, it would be impossible to win. Purely economically. But then Red Alert with its cheerful, sweeping cretinism and cranberries, for which he is loved. In reality, it would not be easy to smuggle a couple of million soldiers into Europe. So a whale fight with an elephant is possible in very limited conditions.

        One might as well ask what if the aliens suddenly attack, and we cannot even fly to them. Well, they will enslave us, since they have such technologies, but we do not.

        As for the cost, if the frigate costs 17-30 billion rubles ... For 30 billion, you can build 15-30 fighters, which will have incomparable combat power and range.

        To argue that it would be good to walk in the Indian Ocean is possible, but economically it is unrealistic, respectively, the tasks of the fleet, in addition to the Boreas, will be limited to a couple of thousand kilometers from the borders in the coming decades. If you want to go further, get ready to increase its power by tens of times, and destroyers and transports, because the destroyer is needed only for the transports to go. No colonies - see the fleet. Therefore, in Britain, it rotted as soon as the colonies rained down, it did not become needed.

        As a result, we have what we have, ships of the 2 rank, something there at the level of chatter about new destroyers to replace Ave. 1164, which seems to be nice to have, and close to the uncompromising development of aviation and Borea, because without destroyers we’ll live, but without planes and strategic submarines there isn’t.
    3. annodomene
      annodomene 19 January 2018 10: 51
      +5
      On the issue of size - at that time our SSP was not yet able to roll the shell of a PC of 11-meter diameter, only 9 m.
    4. albert
      albert 19 January 2018 18: 57
      +2
      Quote: EvilLion
      Typically, no one will build aircraft carriers in the fleet just to be able to masturbate on the couch, and indeed the fleet is an expensive toy of non-obvious utility

      That's just what the Chinese aircraft carriers and destroyers are building, how stupid. They obviously do not count on planes alone!
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 19 January 2018 22: 24
        +1
        Since it doesn’t reach, I explain that all trade in China goes through the Indian Ocean, it will rise if the Malak Strait and its environs overlap, and the United States is just a big island, which aircraft carriers, however, are also needed only to increase the number of admiral posts, since wherever there is a base.
  19. Stoler
    Stoler 19 January 2018 08: 49
    +2
    "Their further operation is unprofitable" ???? - And when were the nuclear submarines "profitable" ??? request what
    1. LSA57
      LSA57 19 January 2018 09: 09
      +2
      Quote: Stoler
      And when was the nuclear submarine "profitable" ???

      when they were on guard duty. these are not capable of this, there are no rockets for them
    2. annodomene
      annodomene 19 January 2018 10: 53
      +6
      When they complete all the tasks assigned to them, according to the TTZ.
    3. annodomene
      annodomene 19 January 2018 10: 54
      +4
      And not the Premier League (this is an EMERGENCY submarine lock), but the land!
  20. Sands Careers General
    Sands Careers General 19 January 2018 09: 05
    +1
    Goodbye, "Shark" ....
  21. bald
    bald 19 January 2018 09: 06
    +3
    It’s not for us to judge things like cap. repair, modernization, etc. - calculated to the smallest detail by project specialists, and if it is more profitable to disable, than to update, then it is necessary. And with a museum - not a bad idea, only here's how to get to the place. The mooring city is closed to the general public, and its size !!! - Although it is possible to transfer to St. Petersburg - there it will take its rightful place and will continue to work for the good of Russia.
    1. LSA57
      LSA57 19 January 2018 10: 43
      +1
      Quote: bald
      Although it is possible to transfer to St. Petersburg - there it will take its rightful place and will continue to work for the good of Russia.

      do you think the cruiser Aurora pays for itself? another collar around the neck of the city?
      1. bald
        bald 19 January 2018 13: 15
        +1
        Honestly, he got sick of it. Yes, and he was interesting for generations, somewhere until the 90s. And then the super submarine - that all foreigners will go look and touch the Russian super boat, which terrified them, Sergey, for some reason I have no doubt.
  22. groks
    groks 19 January 2018 09: 13
    +4
    This cannot be justified with debilism - there are no such people at the top. Just for them, "partners" without quotes are written. What the government says is so at odds with what it is doing - this is no longer funny. Cornets for Rosguard and Shark for cut.
    What can mean "unprofitable" in relation to nuclear submarines? It seems to me that recycling will not cost much cheaper than continuing to operate. By the way, “partners” of Ohio extended. And ours, in which case they will express concern.
  23. Engineer
    Engineer 19 January 2018 09: 43
    +1
    How many calibers could be placed on these arsenal boats, but the land regional power would have enough boats with 6 pieces on board.
    1. faiver
      faiver 19 January 2018 09: 55
      +2
      on the American Ohio 154 tomahawk, well, let at least a hundred sharks on the sharks are the same starlet to everything ...
      1. faiver
        faiver 19 January 2018 10: 51
        +5
        although based on the size of the mines under p-39, at least 8 calibers can be installed in each mine, and as a result we get 160 missiles ...
  24. sub307
    sub307 19 January 2018 09: 43
    +3
    [quote = Ushly_bashkort] Times are changing to the fact that these boats are relevant now, but with a capolisome pancake is not cost-effective.
    P.S. Eduard Ovechkin’s stories I read “Sharks of Steel”, offensive for Sharks. “Do you want to change the political system? Well ...“ dreaming is not harmful, ”firstly, secondly, the content of such“ monsters ”is not profitable under any circumstances, that the USSR and proved, in fact, having torn himself off on an arms race and plentiful gratuitous help to other supposedly adherents of communism. Of course, Putin’s terminology wasn’t without the “help” of his current partners. However, “you won’t erase words from a song,” sang "then in the first presidential election.
    1. onix757
      onix757 19 January 2018 09: 48
      10
      No USSR arms race was torn. Torn from the incompetence of Gorbachev and outright betrayal.
      1. onix757
        onix757 19 January 2018 09: 51
        +5
        And bad dancers will always find a thousand reasons why they have everything in one place.
      2. TRP
        TRP 19 January 2018 11: 11
        +2
        Gorbachev - was an agent of the State Department, they had been leading him like Merkel for a long time. Incompetence does not smell. Betrayal.
  25. Alex-a832
    Alex-a832 19 January 2018 09: 53
    +6
    Time is changing, strategy is changing. Under the new strategy, optimization is carried out. The submarine is a purely offensive type, well, even as a weapon of retaliation. Now, as I see it, all the emphasis is on defensive systems. In offensive and as a weapon of retaliation, the development of nuclear warhead delivery vehicles that must be guaranteed to overcome missile defense in order to cause unacceptable damage to a potential enemy. In this case, flight time is not so important. Re-equipment of these two nuclear submarines for the deployment of the Kyrgyz Republic does not give any advantage. In the zone of our interests, we will reach anyone from our territory, and for remote coasts the number of missiles on these missile carriers will be insufficient. As a result, we get that it is better to direct money to the development of its missile defense and air defense systems, as well as the development and production of more advanced ICBMs, than to restore or modernize nuclear submarines, even the most powerful in the world in armament. For the same reasons, the construction of aircraft carriers for Russia, to put it mildly, is a dubious occupation. No need to compare with the United States. To attack countries on other continents, they need a very powerful and numerous fleet, which makes no sense in competing with them - we lose in all respects. We have a strategy for our geographical and economic conditions.
  26. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 19 January 2018 10: 41
    +4
    From the statement of the representative of the shipbuilding industry:
    It was decided on their (submarines) disposal. Their further operation is unprofitable
    .

    1. Representative of the MTR, what kind of animal?
    2. Have you already accepted a replacement of 2x50 tons?
    3. Not cost-effective ..... Someone reminds me of this ..... Oh, Chubais and Taburetkin in one bottle.
  27. bratchanin3
    bratchanin3 19 January 2018 11: 02
    +1
    The big giraffe knows better! There are competent people - they will figure out what is needed and what is for scrap.
  28. TRP
    TRP 19 January 2018 11: 08
    +4
    It is interesting to read the opinions of couch statesmen here. Did you lose the Cold War in 1991? The result of the loss was the collapse of the USSR. They lost their sovereignty ... In 1993, they adopted the colonial constitution? And according to it, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation is a branch of the IMF / Fed. And it does not obey the Russian Federation from the word "absolutely." Fulfills IMF orders.
    Where is the money?
    So you have to pay an exorbitant tribute and think about pensioners about construction and maintenance ...
    To return sovereignty - then there will be enough money. In the meantime, we have external management - you won’t get much use.
    1. Golovan Jack
      Golovan Jack 19 January 2018 20: 38
      +8
      Quote: TRP
      In 1993, the colonial constitution was adopted? And on it the Central Bank of the Russian Federation - the IMF / Fed branch

      Where is it written in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, enlighten?
      Quote: TRP
      And does not obey the Russian Federation from the word "absolutely"

      Well, okay...
      We have not read the Law on the Central Bank, National Banking Council? No not heard request
      And we heard Kotonosov (and Kotoglazyev), who told us everything laughing
      Quote: TRP
      Fulfills IMF orders

      In your dreams ...
      Quote: TRP
      In the meantime, we have external management

      We slept 25 years and woke up? External management ended in the early 2000s.
      Before you write something, learn the materiel. And it’s impossible to read, laughter parses ... homeric wassat
      1. TRP
        TRP 19 January 2018 21: 24
        +1
        In the 2000s, Putin tried to nationalize the Central Bank, the Duma drove him ... then there were more attempts, and in 2014 the last. The Duma rolled it. So turn your Godsep training manual into a tube and ... in general, you know the direction.
        1. Golovan Jack
          Golovan Jack 19 January 2018 21: 46
          +5
          Quote: TRP
          In the 2000s, Putin tried to nationalize the Central Bank, the thought drove him ... then there were more attempts, and in 2014 the last. Duma swept it

          Blah blah blah ... where are the answers to completely specific, emphasize questions?
          And neta request
          Quote: TRP
          So turn your Godsep training manual into a tube ...

          This is you tell the mirror. Repeatedly and with expression. So it will be ... right.
          Quote: TRP
          in general, you know the direction

          Are you trying to be rude? It’s in vain, it harms, you know, karma yes
  29. Gogia
    Gogia 19 January 2018 11: 16
    +1
    Why not zafigachit 200 caliber on them?
  30. alma
    alma 19 January 2018 11: 33
    +4
    I’m not a ship engineer, but in my opinion, with such a size, the use of small submarines as a carrier suggests itself (Well, there, arrange a sabotage in the other hemisphere, or steal someone and transport ...)
  31. Tishka
    Tishka 19 January 2018 11: 50
    +4
    Of course, breaking is not to build, breaking is easier, but with the construction, complete disaster! Or maybe it’s worth just thinking a bit, and instead of cutting America, they installed glasses and cruise missiles in the launch mines, it turned out to be a launcher, on a bunch of cruise missiles, with minimal modernization.
  32. Old26
    Old26 19 January 2018 14: 18
    +9
    Quote: DEZINTO
    Some nonsense! You can not do it this way! these are really the most awesome submarines in the world! and it’s possible to upgrade them easily! And in a couple of years we would have nifigovye submarine missile carriers! But there wouldn’t be .... they decided to cut it!


    What they awesome - no one argues. The biggest ones. Nobody argues. But let's look at the realities, not through pink glasses.
    Both TK-17 Arkhangelsk and TK-20 Severstal were put into reserve in 2004. That is, in reserve more THIRTY YEARS OLD. And TWO last years - the boats were IN THE BACK. I hope all competent people here and understand that with these ships, which are in reserve 13 years and the last two years - in BACK. What means TWO YEARS IN THE SILLS ????? This means that even those minimal activities that were carried out while in reserve TWO years are no longer held. I don’t even ask myself a question, but what was left on these boats, what kind of cars and mechanisms were removed. The fact that the reactor is unloaded is understandable. What's next? What are your plans for these floating boxes that have been standing at the pier for 13 years ???

    Make of them nifigovye missile carriers as the comrade suggests Dezinto? What kind of missile carriers may I say?
    Let's take a look. Make of them ballistic missile carriers - stupid and short-sighted. Have to completely rebuild the boat and what will we get? Boats in which one hull is already 30 years old and the other 28? Add another 3-4 years for repairs and upgrades. That is, they will come into operation aged 32-34 years. What is the condition of the corps after 2 years of sludge and plus 11 stays in the reserve, can anyone of those who advocate turning them into new missile carriers say? Personally, I don’t know.

    Further. Russia is limited by the START-3 treaty on the number of deployed carriers. Add more 40 launchers - means to cut off or such a component as the Strategic Missile Forces, putting a bold cross on the same "SARMATAH", "ABROADS" and all beloved BARGUZINE, or cut off almost completely the aviation component. Leaving one and a half dozen TU-160 and as many TU-95MSM as air strategies. What do you choose?
    Personally, I choose the Strategic Missile Forces and the new aircraft instead of two old boats, the repair of which will cost as much as the construction FOUR new missile type BOREAU

    Further. The desire of many to see in these boats carriers of cruise missiles. As an option - yes, theoretically possible. And the tasks would be found. But here again the question arises of the case. The Americans converted their combat boats into arsenal boats with all the ensuing consequences. We want to use, sorry rubbish, two years in the crap. This is the first.
    And the most important thing - ammunition for such boats. In the shaft of this boat you can enter approximately 14 TPK (TPN) cruise missiles. This means that the total ammunition for two boats must be at least 560 missiles. I will repeat this figure again. FIVE HUNDRED AND SIXTY ROCKETS. Considering what we get from industry for half a year approximately 60 caliber rockets, then to create one ammunition will need MORE THAN NINE YEARS. ONE AMMUNITION. And this with the condition that we will not put such missiles on any other ship from the word at all
    .
    Question. Not even counting the enormous financial costs of re-equipment, is the game worth the candle ???? Or will we leave Caesar Caesarean? These boats are the stage of our submarine fleet, but endlessly shed tears that they can be written off may still not be worth it ??

    As for the museum, the idea is not bad, but extremely expensive. It is unlikely that there will be such colossal funds in the municipalities of cities to maintain these boat museums in good condition. Although, of course, it would make sense to maintain at least one boat as a museum

    Quote: PSih2097
    for the same money, it was possible to reanimate the work on the Bark at (R-39UTTX) or to put a liner with a mace, because the reason for the withdrawal from the crew was the absence of SLBMs for them.

    Reanimate "BARQUE"? This is to make Makeevites specially for two boats new monster missile? Scoring to create the same SARMATA? Any other rocket - the "Mace" or "Liner" - this is the same alteration of the boat. The question is, why?

    Quote: 44Serge44
    I agree about the redistribution of the mines. And what's more, they can simply be joked (one in the Crimea, the other in the Baltic, but with medium-range and short-range sea-based missiles. And the agreement has not been violated and the partners will scratch their turnips))

    And from the north, will you drag a boat through the river network to the Black Sea? How are barge haulers in due time? And what kind of missiles are you ready to load these boats ???
    Announce the entire list of short and medium range sea-based missileswhich are you going to put there ???
    1. aKtoR
      aKtoR 19 January 2018 18: 26
      +2
      Very good answer! :-)
      One can only add that the SSBN is heard far and therefore the type of covertly is out of the question ...
      I am also a strategist, new submarines (as much as we can financially build) and the rest of the weapons production plans (within reasonable limits)))
    2. xtur
      xtur 20 January 2018 16: 20
      +1
      > I will repeat this figure again. FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY ROCKETS. Taking into account that we receive from the industry about 60 missiles of the "KALIBR" type in half a year, it will take MORE THAN NINE YEARS to create one ammunition load. ONE AMMUNITION

      According to the latest GPV, the main objective is formulated as the deployment and development of the ability to non-nuclear deterrence. 2x560 non-nuclear restraints, even for Europe, is not bad at all, and for Japan, which just took to revive the samurai spirit, in general, just right. Therefore, if there is not enough capacity for production, they need to be increased, this is obvious.

      The reason for the cancellation of the ships of this project, as I see it, lies not in a rational plane, not in military necessity. It is in the same plane as the presence in the country of a Central Bank that does not obey the government / president, in money / reserves / various funds that are stored in the USA, instead of investing in production in the Russian Federation, in the same plane as the sale of RD-180 a country that already at the doctrinal level has called the Russian Federation an enemy, on the same plane as teaching its enemy the basics of building orbital stations and creating the conditions for his enemies to gain medical experience of prolonged exposure to zero gravity.

      In a word, these are all manifestations of the limited sovereignty of the Russian Federation. There are underground obligations of the country, caused by the fact of the collapse of the USSR by its elites for some unclear goals (this was recently officially announced by Klintsevich, for example).

      Among these obligations, apparently, is also sawing the ships of this project.
  33. gromoboj
    gromoboj 19 January 2018 14: 56
    +3
    Oh how!, Unprofitable. They would also say it does not bring profit.
    Oh, stupid Americans are in no hurry to cut their Ohio.
    And if we cut our submarines, then there is much more hope for missile defense.
    But it’s not interesting to modernize it, it’s more interesting to cut it, the Americans will stroke the head and give green wrappers, as has already happened more than once.
  34. kaschey
    kaschey 19 January 2018 15: 32
    +3
    This is called simply - organized crime groups on a national scale.
  35. Lesorub
    Lesorub 19 January 2018 16: 24
    +4
    Nuclear submarines Arkhangelsk and Severstal of project 941 Shark. Both submarines have already been withdrawn from the combat strength of the Russian Navy.

    Shame! Shame! after such information, only such thoughts !! These boats have a huge modernization potential! "bent" under the "Amerikosov"! with all the consequences.
  36. Lexus
    Lexus 19 January 2018 17: 52
    +1
    Media: Russia utilizes the world's largest submarines of the 941 Shark project

    Sad end. Very sorry.
  37. 501Legion
    501Legion 19 January 2018 18: 20
    +4
    And I feel sorry for them. I remember a documentary film about them, I was impressed and watch live on such giants
  38. Old26
    Old26 19 January 2018 18: 29
    +7
    Quote: 501Legion
    And I feel sorry for them. I remember a documentary film about them, I was impressed and watch live on such giants

    I'm sorry too. But alas. We do not have and do not even seem to try to have a naval museum from existing ships. This has been written about in various publications for about 50 years, but things are still there. But with the air museum not everything is clear, but here the sea. It will require a gigantic area, and huge investments. Although, of course, in the same Crimea, such a museum could have been created ...
  39. Old26
    Old26 19 January 2018 19: 07
    +6
    Quote: gromoboj
    Oh how!, Unprofitable. They would also say it does not bring profit.

    Of course unprofitable. But what can I say when something only consumes, without bringing any benefit at the same time. Just imagine that you have several ships (submarines, no difference). Well, such as, for example, the Ukrainian unfinished cruiser "Ukraine". And you have a couple of such boats. They have neither weapons nor engines. There is no use for you. But there are expenses for maintenance. Are such ships profitable for you ??? Or can they make a profit performing their combat functions? Or are they profitable and profitable?

    Quote: gromoboj
    Oh, stupid Americans are in no hurry to cut their Ohio.

    Why would they cut their Ohio? They are all running. But what is characteristic of the boats of previous projects, they “drank”, And “George Washington”, and “Iten Allen”, and “J. Madison”.

    Quote: gromoboj
    And if you cut our submarines, then there is much more hope for missile defense ..

    And about missile defense. In fact, this bike has been used for so long that it’s been finished with holes ... There will be these boats, there won’t be any difference. In any case, the missile defense has an almost zero probability of interception. At least ICBMs, at least SLBMs

    Quote: gromoboj
    But it’s not interesting to modernize it, it’s more interesting to cut it, the Americans will stroke the head and give green wrappers, as has already happened more than once.

    Do you see the machinations of Americans in everything? Do not look for the green men sent by the Americans under your bed?
    Pancake. Boats are 13 years in reserve, of which 2 years have sucks, that is, roughly speaking in a landfill. To upgrade one means not to build two new Boreas. So no, Yaroslavna’s crying with couch experts. Everywhere the machinations of Americans see
    1. Okolotochny
      Okolotochny 20 January 2018 00: 23
      +5
      For the museum from the submarine. Was in the 2000s on the cruiser "Kutuzov" in Novorossiysk. In appearance - well swell. The little bells are seasoned and all that. They climbed into the inside of the cruiser - it became uncomfortable. You are right, the maintenance of such a submarine as a museum exhibit is worth the normal money. And the contents of the fleet?
  40. the monastery
    the monastery 19 January 2018 20: 38
    +2
    as the famous cartoon character used to say (before you sell something you don't need, you need to buy it you don't need) before you ditch the boat you need to build a new one and go on, and then a museum or something else. otherwise we’ll have a drink and the fleet will remain with a bare ass.
  41. the monastery
    the monastery 19 January 2018 20: 40
    +2
    my opinion is Sabotage!
  42. Metallurg_2
    Metallurg_2 19 January 2018 21: 40
    +1
    "I'm not going to fight with anyone!" Do not remember who said?)
  43. Dedall
    Dedall 19 January 2018 23: 20
    +3
    As for the submarine itself, I will not say anything, but as for the alteration to museums, that’s all right here. At one time, thousands of Il-2 tanks crushed, and then it turned out that for museums there is not a single authentic copy. And in the same USA there are about 130 aviation museums and a dozen of three museum ships.
    I remember that on May 9, 2010 I ended up in the St. Petersburg Naval Museum at the moment when the captain of the American destroyer was brought there. He looked at the I-16 suspended from the ceiling and asked: "The plane is not American and does not look like English. Was it really done in the USSR?" And then he asked why the USSR entered the war with the Axis countries so late. And this was said by a military man who studied naval history!
  44. Megamarcel
    Megamarcel 20 January 2018 11: 14
    0
    The very presence of such ships at the mooring wall is a powerful argument in a dispute with any enemy. What is technological not possible alteration of the cruiser mace or caliber is not clear? Yes, you have to work on the mines, but it is clearly cheaper than the construction of Borea. Another question. Why did they wait for so many years, but then they suddenly decided? Yes. The boat is not new, but its ability to work from under the ice and its enormous dimensions give it unique potential. Russia will not be able to build this from scratch for a long time.
    1. onix757
      onix757 20 January 2018 11: 23
      +1
      Russia will not be able to build this from scratch for a long time.

      Probably from the word never. The argument of the local "false patriots" is iron. When asked why we are disposing of them, there are no missiles, no money, and nothing in general. You ask what this power did in order to have rockets, money, personnel - they do not respond and fall into a stupor.
  45. Old26
    Old26 20 January 2018 15: 56
    +2
    Quote: Okolotochny
    For the museum from the submarine. Was in the 2000s on the cruiser "Kutuzov" in Novorossiysk. In appearance - well swell. The little bells are seasoned and all that. They climbed into the inside of the cruiser - it became uncomfortable. You are right, the maintenance of such a submarine as a museum exhibit is worth the normal money. And the contents of the fleet?

    Have you taken the "museum" route? Yes, those rooms that are museum - nothing yet. And now including (was in 2015). They simply didn’t let us go further. But those of friends who were able to visit and inside talked about not very good condition. as far as I DO NOT KNOW.
    Transforming a boat into a museum - billions will be needed. And how much is needed to maintain it in a museum condition - it’s even impossible to imagine. Will need at least federal funding. Directly. And not frail.

    Quote: onix757
    Russia will not be able to build this from scratch for a long time.

    Probably from the word never. The argument of the local "false patriots" is iron. When asked why we are disposing of them, there are no missiles, no money, and nothing in general. You ask what this power did in order to have rockets, money, personnel - they do not respond and fall into a stupor.

    And such (as the 941st project) Russia will never really build again. No one needs a monster-shaped boat with equally monstrous rockets, which is unlikely to enter most military ports. There will be boats of the Borey class or something a little larger if there are not 16, but for example 20 or 24 missiles. But such a whopper will certainly not be built.

    You ask what the authorities did to have rockets? For about 8 years, this "power" has transferred the entire chain of cooperation to the territory of Russia. Cooperation has become exclusively Russian. Aiming systems and guidance systems began to be issued on the territory of Russia and our missile forces (no matter sea or land) are now independent of the whims of neighbors from Ukraine.

    There was money - there were deliveries of new weapons and equipment. For better or worse, but the key areas - strategic nuclear forces are still trying to finance without sequestration.
    The time has come - domestic solid-fuel rockets have also appeared, fortunately not as huge as before. There will be a need - they will replace it with a new rocket, again a solid fuel with higher performance characteristics. And to cry that after 15 years of reserve and sludge boats are written off - well, I want to - cry.
    The boat, as a masterpiece of Soviet shipbuilding, is a pity, maybe later the Donskoy will become a museum. And these two - it's time to rest

    Quote: MegaMarcel
    The very presence of such ships at the mooring wall is a powerful argument in a dispute with any enemy. What is technological not possible alteration of the cruiser mace or caliber is not clear? Yes, you have to work on the mines, but it is clearly cheaper than the construction of Borea. Another question. Why did they wait for so many years, but then they suddenly decided? Yes. The boat is not new, but its ability to work from under the ice and its enormous dimensions give it unique potential. Russia will not be able to build this from scratch for a long time.

    You, comrade, seem to have driven the idea once and for all that these boats "Just Must" exist - and try to support this idea.
    No one says that there is no technological possibility of altering these cruisers. There will be funding and TTZ - they will make at least a flight deck, at least a dance floor instead of mines.
    Remake under the "Mace" - but no problem. We remade TWO mines on the Donskoy under the Mace ... But what do you prefer. To have one old (in terms of hull) boat, the hull of which is almost 3 decades old, with a huge displacement, which after many years of modernization will serve another 10 years, a maximum or to have TWO new missile carriers for the same money? As a result, 2 old boats in service minus 4 Borey missile carrier. Is this a logical approach to solving the problem?

    "Gauges." Look on the Internet on the supply of various types of weapons to the Armed Forces of Russia for six months to a year. For six months of 2017, the industry delivered 60 Caliber missiles. Now let's take it further. New Ash-class boats are on the way. Ammunition needed? Necessary and not in the singular. We are building corvettes with Caliber - missiles are needed - are needed. God forbid, frigates will go soon. "Gauges" are needed - are needed.
    If you rebuild these boats according to caliber, then taking into account the diameters of their shafts (approximately 3 meters) and the diameter of the launch cup (launch container) "Caliber (514 mm), about 14 TPNs can be entered in the shaft volume, in contrast to 7 for Ohio. That is, one boat can carry about 280 missiles.Two boats, respectively, 560. To create one ammunition for these boats alone, you will need MORE THAN NINE YEARS. Provided that we will not deliver these missiles to other ships. Let's spit on the Boreas and instead of building 4 Boreas, we will upgrade TWO of these boats. These boats will remind the hunter who went hunting but instead of the bandolier the hunter has only two cartridges in the trunk, and there is no more BC. Write yourself that boats are far from new. If they could do something, letting their R-39 out from under the ice, then this will not work with the KR. Their guidance system is such that it should be guided by an electronic map of the area. And no one has yet invented electronic maps of water or ice. And what should the boat do? And do the same as the carriers of the Tomahawks. Approach the distance where the error of the ANN will allow you to get into the first correction zone and then exactly at the target. But not so - released and forgot. And where it gets - it doesn’t matter
  46. gig334
    gig334 21 January 2018 21: 03
    0
    Over the past 18 years, we have cut the rocket train missile trains under the supervision of the Americans, drowned the Mir space station, gave the islands to the Chinese, etc. And now we again have to spend money to restore the missile trains. Is this a reasonable military policy? When the Crimea was returned, the offense for this went by the wayside, but when I found out that the boats would be cut, I remembered all this again. And once again about Shark submarines, they don’t have money for maintenance, it’s impractical to keep them, who are you soaring for? . You will shock your corrupt people, this money is full, they have stolen them so much that they clog their apartments. Here you have the money for maintenance and modernization. Can you imagine how many cruise missiles could be installed in these boats? We already have problems with ships and long-distance boats, only the nuclear fleet can do this. The new atomic submarines are minuscule, mostly diesel now, but these are coastal boats. But they did not build any new nuclear warships at all, we are modernizing the Soviet atomic cruisers. Stop cutting, build a new one, and then cut it. In general, for the Communist Grudinin to vote unambiguously, the Communists will definitely not let them be cut. And yet, to develop the country's military doctrine only on defense, as it is understood by current liberals, is stupid. Because in the word defense, implies the destruction of the enemy in his nest. And it will have to be destroyed not only off its shores, if that, but also on its far borders, and for this, a long-range nuclear fleet is needed, the very fleet that is now called inappropriate and is being tried under the knife.