In the US, adopted a new submarine class Virginia

The composition of the American military fleet Virginia-class USS Colorado new nuclear submarine introduced RIA News.

The solemn ceremony was held at the base in New London (Connecticut). The live broadcast was carried out in the “Twitter” of the US Navy.

It is reported that "USS Colorado was the 15 th multi-purpose nuclear torpedo submarine of the Virginia class, entered service with the US Navy."

The displacement of the boat is 7,8 thousand tons, length - about 115 meters, width - more than 10-meters. The submarine accelerates to 34 nodes in the submerged state.

The submarine is designed to "carry out anti-submarine and anti-ship operations, deliver special forces, conduct offensive operations, participate in irregular military operations, gather intelligence and carry out surveillance, as well as participate in mine operations," the report said.

Virginia class submarines are equipped with four torpedo tubes and 26 torpedoes. The crew of submarines ranges from 100 to 120 people.

Comments

[KVU-NSVD]

34 knots (46,3 km per hour)

34 node error _ is approximately 64 km / h. probably a typo. What can I say: Masha is good, but ash is not worse, .. but not enough ...

[RASKAT]

I envy black envy, 15-t of boats, and laid 19-t, by the way the boat is called Colorado.
Oh, we would have to build boats in six years, from bookmarking to adoption.

[Muvka]

1 Sarmat is cheaper. Much cheaper. It’s more efficient. Much more efficient.
And by the way, last year 21 Yars rockets were received. Tell me, what is the pace of the United States in this area? Do we need to envy them or do they need us? Maybe everyone has different priorities?

[RASKAT]

1 Sarmat is cheaper. Much cheaper. It’s more efficient. Much more efficient.

Virginia is a multi-purpose boat, primarily created to monitor the enemy, and of course to sink ships and other boats.

[KVU-NSVD]

Virginia is a multi-purpose boat, primarily created to monitor the enemy, and of course to sink ships and other boats.

Well, there are also vertical rocket launchers on board, so the boat can do almost everything except intercontinental launches ..

[onix757]

Quote: Muvka

Sarmat is cheaper. Much cheaper. It’s more efficient. Much more efficient.

Do not abuse cartoons otherwise you will cease to distinguish between fictional and real.

[KVU-NSVD]

Quote: Muvka

1 Sarmat is cheaper. Much cheaper. It’s more efficient. Much more efficient.
And by the way, last year 21 Yars rockets were received. Tell me, what is the pace of the United States in this area? Do we need to envy them or do they need us? Maybe everyone has different priorities?

You are right of course. But ICBMs are the last argument of the state, and multi-purpose boats are a tool for projecting force to solve the smaller tasks of the state ... So, I would like them too ... but there is not enough budget for everything ...

[trenkkvaz]

Well, and how many enemy ships have these sunk American ships already?
What is the point of having such a huge fleet if you do not use it.
There are no countries against which such a fleet is needed.
The United States will never fight against large countries, while such a large fleet is not needed against small countries.

[Kartur220]

Guys, you talk like children: of course, they don’t drown anyone and hardly fire at anyone, but they reinforce their financial power very efficiently and effectively, and as a result they bend the whole world, well, maybe except China, they trynd they are good in all world media. And who does not agree, get sanctions and sign your failure to resist this armada.

[RASKAT]

Of course, they don’t drown anyone and hardly fire at anyone, but they very competently and effectively reinforce their military power with the military, and as a result they bend the whole world

Former leaders of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and further on the list. I would not agree with you.

[trenkkvaz]

Sanctions are just an example of how the United States cannot use its army.
Sanctions are a sign of economic power, not military.
Do you think that if the United States had conventional forces would be weaker, then Russia would attack the United States because of sanctions? )))
Such defense spending, and such armed forces as in the US is absurd. In fact, the country is held hostage by the military-industrial complex.

Russia, with much less expenditures and a smaller size of the Armed Forces, they are still considered one of the most powerful in the world. And these forces will be enough for any operations, similar to what the United States can carry out.

Take the same US fleet. Against whom and when can they need such a fleet? Never! Against any country that is not a great power, this fleet is redundant. And they can only project power against non-great powers.

It is still clear when the British Empire had a huge fleet. Then there was no nuclear weapon, and there was a high probability of collision with the great powers. Therefore, as an island state, they needed a large fleet. But now the situation is different, the huge fleet has lost its relevance.

[Muvka]

For projecting strength and solving small problems, 2-3 boats are enough. Why dozens?

[voyaka uh]

"Can everyone have different priorities?" ///

That's right. Americans are building up their fleet to
confront China. Russians are building ICBM capabilities to
have a global holding back trump.

[Muvka]

Well, at least once I agree with you :)

[trenkkvaz]

What does it mean to confront China? Are they confronting now? And sank a lot of Chinese ships? )) These forces are needed only in war. But war between these powers is unlikely.
Accordingly, we again return to the fact that the US fleet is redundant.
Along the way, they dispersed during WWII, continued during the cold season, and by inertia they are obsessed with the giant fleet.

[Ascetic]

Quote: RASKAT

Oh, we would have to build boats in six years, from bookmarking to adoption.

As the legendary commander-in-chief of the Navy, Admiral Gorshkov, the fleet should be balanced on the basis of strategic tasks

"lies in the fact that all the elements making up its combat power, and the means providing them, should always be in the most advantageous combination, in which the fleet can fully realize the ability to carry out various tasks in conditions of both nuclear and any possible war."

And according to this, in modern conditions, even diesel submarines are capable of fulfilling tasks of an operational-strategic nature if they are equipped with appropriate weapons
Combat capabilities of the Russian Navy and US Navy 2017
US Navy US Navy
Ballistic missile submarines 12 (13) - 14

Cruise missile submarines
long range 6 (9) - 4

Atomic multipurpose submarines 6 (17) - 48 (51)

Diesel sub 17 (22) - 0

completely here
according to the results of 2017, which was not very successful for the Russian naval shipbuilding (the Navy received only two warships - the frigate Admiral Makarov and the perfect corvette), Russia avoided failure and even slightly improved its position compared to the previous year. during the same time, the US Navy received a new generation aircraft carrier Gerald Ford, two missile destroyers of the Arly Burke class, two multipurpose nuclear submarines of the Virginia class and three ships of the coastal zone of the LCS type. But two incidents in the US Pacific Fleet played in favor of Russia, as a result of which the Fitzgerald and John McCain destroyers were out of service for a long time.
If we take into account the ships that are in trial operation, the ships and repair and reserve boats, auxiliary fleet vessels, we can speak of an almost equal list of parties; wherein The Russian Navy continues to yield less than a third in terms of combat potential to the US Navy.

[RASKAT]

As the legendary commander-in-chief of the Navy, Admiral Gorshkov, the fleet should be balanced on the basis of strategic tasks

Nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles 12 (13) - 14
Cruise missile submarines
Long Range 6 (9) - 4
Atomic multipurpose submarines 6 (17) - 48 (51)
Diesel submarines 17 (22) - 0

The numbers are slightly incorrect, half of the boats near the piers are waiting for repair and modernization. One SRZ Zvezdochka obviously does not take out the number of boats that accumulated.

[Lord of the Sith]

And how many boats do they have at the pier?

[RASKAT]

And how many boats do they have at the pier?

From Virginia at the moment, not a single one, the first boat was transferred to the fleet in the 2004 year. They are all new. The first major repairs they will begin with 2024 year. Moreover, in that year, the BLOCK-4 modification was already laid down; this is already the fourth modernization in the series. It is clear that from series to series they are steeper and cooler.
That's why I envy them in this matter with black envy. I understand that this is not to be built, and the tasks of our fleet are different, well, at least to repair and upgrade existing ones would be quicker.

[Observer2014]

RASKAT

Oh, we would have to build boats in six years, from bookmarking to adoption.

Yeah, and we have civilians "teeth on the shelf." The USSR already ran into the wheel drive with an American printing press. Russia’s weapons do what they can afford and how much they need for their military doctrine. And to rivet the way to nowhere without clever pieces of iron.

[onix757]

The USSR successfully played distillation with the states. The Soviet Union ruined the crisis of elites, and not problems with the economy.

[tchoni]

Actually, there are 28 of them, it seems, to google breaking, I write as a keepsake. Rahny modifications. Plus, 30-35 Losangeles still in the ranks ... well, and three Sivulfa. . Not counting 18 ohio ... but, ento strategists There is something to envy.

[Ascetic]

Virginia class submarines are equipped with four torpedo tubes and 26 torpedoes. The crew of submarines ranges from 100 to 120 people.

In addition, it has on board two mines with a diameter of about 2,2 m with launchers of a revolver type, each of which has six Tomahawk BGM-109 cruise missiles.
Virginia type submarines are fourth-generation multipurpose nuclear submarines. It is assumed that their construction will continue until 2043 - during this time it is planned to launch 48 nuclear-powered vessels that will replace Los Angeles-type submarines built from 1976 to 1996.

[Arberes]

Quote: Ascetic

It is assumed that their construction will continue until 2043 - during this time it is planned to launch 48 nuclear-powered vessels,

“Kazan” is on its way, echoing the nuclear submarine - “Ash”. The pace of construction and financing are not subject to comparison.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Ascetic

Virginia type submarines are fourth-generation multipurpose nuclear submarines.

I welcome you, Stanislav!
All of you write correctly ... But I was puzzled by such messages of information as

The submarine is intended for “carrying out anti-submarine and anti-ship operations, delivering special forces, conducting offensive operations, participating in irregular military operations, collecting intelligence and monitoring, and also participation in mine sweeping operations ”, the report said.

It turns out that she’s going to scratch the water area ahead of her course in her active mine exploration (!) Mode, or what? Then what kind of secrecy can we talk about? For I didn’t hear about robots (UAVs) on board. Then, what about bottom mines? It seems to me, following the logic of the authors, one could still write that the submarine can participate in towing damaged NK / PL, because such a possibility also exists.
Rђ RІRѕS, about the depth of immersion - not a word, oh low noise speed the move is also silent ...HOOK range NK / PL not a word ... Oh GPA and PTZ nothing is said. But this is a showcase of Western submarine building, after all, a fourth-generation boat! ...
Moderators could also tense up on the occasion of the "holiday" ...

[beeper]

He thought that this “mine-sweeping” function had only “hooked” me, that he had completely lagged behind life, now I did not follow, and now, had missed the “sweeping” jump in the development and use of multipurpose atomarines?

[san4es]

GAS mine exploration will be in the active (!) Mode to scratch the water area ahead of the course

... Dallas weapons system contains four subsystems: information sensors (Sensor Subsystem); navigation (navigation subsystem); central computer complex (Central Computer Complex) and fire control (Fire Control Subsystem).
The subsystem of information sensors (IDN) provides: environmental monitoring, detection, tracking, recognition ("friend or foe") and classification of targets, receiving data from external sources and transmitting information to the central computer complex (CVC).

... about it / not?
http://millitari.ru/index.php/amerikanskie-podvod
nye-lodki / sistema-voorugenia-dallas.html? showall =
1

[Boa kaa]

Quote: san4es

... about it / not?

Colleague Sanchez, followed your link. Everything is very interesting, but this info refers to SSN-700 type Los Angeles, which was excluded from the submarine forces of the US Navy 15.07.2017 of the year. Article of August 2012 ... And Virgin, USS Colorado, transferred to the fleet only in 2018 year ...

[san4es]

Quote: BoA KAA

.... refers to this infa to the USS Colorado pla type Los Angeles .... USS Colorado, transferred to the fleet only in 2018 ...

... I am in the know ... By links from US naval sites (on the USS Colorado SAC) this came out ... Everything I found ... Probably from "Los Angeles" was transmitted

[voyaka uh]

Her speed is still 25 knots, not 34.
Dives 240 m
12 Tomahawks + torpedoes.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: voyaka uh

Her speed is still 25 nodes, not 34. Dives on 240 m

Alex,
I would like to correct you a little, but at the same time apologize to the forum users for my "crooked" Old: Bloc-3 Virginia still intends to use autonomous underwater vehicles to search for (destroy?) Mines. With autonomy up to 18 hours. Here is the info:

Unmanned automatic vehicles with battery life of up to 18 hours and high-resolution sonar are used to detect mines on Virginia-type submarines. The speed of these submarines is 34 node, maximum immersion depth - up to 488 m, crew - 100 – 120 people, surface displacement - 7800 m, length - 114,9 m, hull width - 10,5 m, power plant - atomic type GE S9G.
In service with boats 4 torpedo tubes, 26 torpedoes; 12 vertical launchers for Tomahawk sea-based cruise missiles (2 vertical launchers for Tomahawk 6 cruise missiles).

https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2017/03/19/10583849.sh
tml? updated # page3

[Herculesic]

The crew will be recruited from the Colorado beetles, they will sail the boat! Confused with a giant cortophilin!

[Muvka]

It seems to me that your brain is dying :)

[Herculesic]

Judge by yourself, for yours already rested as an eternal sleep! Someone else's comments do not need to comment a lot of mind, according to the article, as I see it, there is clearly nothing to tell you, so they jumped on a smart guy!

[Muvka]

I wrote a long time ago what I have to say about the article. But apparently a dying brain cannot perceive information. Everything is much worse than I thought ...

[Herculesic]

Could write nothing at all, and pass by! So do it next time! !!

[Mountain shooter]

Ash will be abruptly. It is a pity there will be few of them. By the 20th year there are only seven. Well, as much as we can - as much as we do.

[Kartur220]

In fact, their pace of construction of nuclear submarines - 14 months (from bookmark to the start of sea trials) is simply amazing. Our shipbuilders have a lot to learn from their counterparts across the ocean. Not only do we build nuclear submarines for 4-5 years, but also the deadlines are constantly moving to the right. But it is precisely with multipurpose submarines in our fleet that is full of seams. I don’t even want to talk about technology (low noise, HACs and VNEU).

[Muvka]

Quote: Kartur220

In fact, their pace of construction of nuclear submarines - 14 months (from bookmark to the start of sea trials) is simply amazing. Our shipbuilders have a lot to learn from their counterparts across the ocean. Not only do we build nuclear submarines for 4-5 years, but also the deadlines are constantly moving to the right. But it is precisely with multipurpose submarines in our fleet that is full of seams. I don’t even want to talk about technology (low noise, HACs and VNEU).

They have different principles of construction, if I do not confuse. At the tab, they have already created all the electronics and the case is ready in parts. And here, under the tab, the beginning of work is meant. Correct if not so.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Kartur220

In fact, their pace of construction of nuclear submarines - 14 months (from bookmark to the start of sea trials) is simply amazing.

Fantasy something! The first Virginia - 84 months were built ... Read this:

The U.S. Navy has reduced the timing of the commissioning of submarines. According to the military, shipbuilders have already gained experience in building a new series of submarines. In the United States, they traditionally rely on the model of laying, building and putting into operation the fleet of submarines with a gradual reduction in terms and cost for each subsequent unit in the series. So, the construction period for the first four Virginia boats (Block I) was 84 months. For the next six (Block II) - already 74 months. For eight submarines under construction from Block III, an 66-month period is set. For the submarines of the final Block IV, it will be reduced to 62, and then to 60 months.

https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2017/03/19/

[Kartur220]

At the expense of seven ash trees by the year 20 - not a fact.

[donavi49]

Seven by 20 year will not be - count together:
Severodvinsk
Kazan
Novosibirsk
Krasnoyarsk

Further already in question. And certainly 165 and 166 will not be in time for the 20 year, because they were laid in the year before last and last year.

Really 4 - optimistic about 5. Against 19-20 Virginia.

[san4es]

USS Colorado is the 15th Virginia-class submarine built by the Electric Boat shipyard in Groton, Connecticut. Class and type: Virginia-class submarine
Displacement: 7800 t
Length: 114.9 meters
Width10,3 m
S9G Reactor
Speed: 25 knots (46 km/h),
Depth test: more than 800 feet (250 meters)
Crew 134

[Zomanus]

Of course, there are a lot of boats in the USA, well, that's why they are a sea power.
They have no other way but to adapt to
that there are two oceans, plus some states, again in the middle of the ocean.
And all this needs to be protected and defended if something happens.
Well, they only have seafaring affairs, and we have railway transportation, aviation and maritime affairs.
At the same time, our marine affairs are northern. And then you need to count then in the aggregate,
and not just the marine component.

[Palagecha]

Well done Americans !!! They love their fleet, respect and care about it without any cartoons.

[Galaxy]

The GDP believes that dear Russians, since childhood, have been crazy about cartoons and have not yet come out of this (kindergarten) age (and this will help to gain more “likes” in the elections) and judging by the reaction of “idiots”, he is absolutely right in this.

[Old26]

Quote: Muvka

1 Sarmat is cheaper. Much cheaper. It’s more efficient. Much more efficient.
And by the way, last year 21 Yars rockets were received. Tell me, what is the pace of the United States in this area? Do we need to envy them or do they need us? Maybe everyone has different priorities?

A Kalashnikov assault rifle is even cheaper ...
Damn, what a habit of comparing the incomparable. Well, I would understand if we would compare the cost and effectiveness of Ash and Virginia. But where does "Sarmat" have to be - you probably know only you.
How much did they get ICBMs last year? Not a single one. Your logic is somehow non-standard. So, if in 8-10 years we complete rearmament with the Sarmatians and the Clubs, and the Americans only begin to put into service the new Trident E-6 and Minutmen-4, we can ask how many missiles are about us Russia received, while the USA, for example, received 2028 in 50. And it may turn out that we will have zero.

And we need to envy. In relation to their military shipbuilding. We build a frigate as much as they are an aircraft carrier. And during the construction of our nuclear boat they manage to build 2 or 3. That's what you need to envy, and not turn everything into priorities.
By the way, during the times of the USSR, up to 3 PGRK divisions were sometimes rearmament during a year, not counting hospitals. And this is at least almost 90 missiles for PGRK plus HZS for silos. Now we rearm 2-3 regiments a year, at best. So where are the priorities then ???

Quote: trenkkvaz

Well, and how many enemy ships have these sunk American ships already?
What is the point of having such a huge fleet if you do not use it.
There are no countries against which such a fleet is needed.
The United States will never fight against large countries, while such a large fleet is not needed against small countries.

Do you think it makes sense to build up the fleet only during the onset of conflicts? They did not ask a question, why there were no serious wars after the Second World War? Maybe because no one wanted to contact either the USA or the USSR precisely because of the size of their fleets and armies?

Quote: Kartur220

And who does not agree, get sanctions and sign your insolvency to resist this armada

And not only sanctions. Take the same Iraq. They rolled it out of necessity. And with the help in particular of such boats from the Kyrgyz Republic. Like Yugoslavia. There will be a question with Iran - Iran will be rolled out. It is the projection of their power that leads to the fact that no one can and does not want to contact you precisely because of this ...
And if you always remember exclusively “Sarmatians”, then alas, this is not always an indicator of the power of the state. To give an example, a weapon whose probability of use will be about 0,5% (this is how the probability of a US war with Russia is regarded) is not the best option. Wars are fought mostly with conventional weapons. We fought Chechnya not with the Voivode or Topol, but with divisions and brigades of the ground forces. If God forbid the fleet of Ukraine would surpass the Black Sea Fleet of Russia several times in power, the fate of the Crimea would be unknown. But it turned out that Ukraine There was nothing to project in the waters of the Black Sea

Quote: Ascetic

Combat capabilities of the Russian Navy and US Navy 2017
US Navy US Navy

Nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles 12 (13) - 14
Nuclear submarines with long-range cruise missiles 6 (9) - 4
Atomic multipurpose submarines 6 (17) - 48 (51)
Diesel submarines 17 (22) - 0

Stanislav! Of course, I understand that you have nothing to do with this table, but allow me to correct your table a little in relation to our side (therefore, the numbers will be corrected in relation to us)

So
Nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles 12 (13)
For 2017, were in service
• 3 SSBNs of the Borey type
• 6 SSBNs of project 667BDRM (in fact, specifically in 2017 there were 5 boats in service, because one was under repair, but since the Americans have the total number, even those who are under repair - leave the number 6)
• 1 (maximum 2) boats of project 667BDR (boat K-223 "Podolsk" was decommissioned in 2016, boat K-433 "St. George the Victorious" in 2017. But since there is no data when exactly it was decommissioned, that's why I write the maximum 2)
TOTAL SSBN 10 (maximum 11)

Nuclear submarines with long-range cruise missiles 6 (9)
To be honest, the most dubious of all that is. From 6 to 9. Long-range missiles are missiles with Caliber. How many boats are equipped with this missile system? With a guarantee only "Severodvinsk". All the others that are now with the Kyrgyz Republic are Antei with a range of about 400-600 km. They cannot be assigned to the "long" range. For the Americans, the number 4 of the boat corresponds to missile boats with the Tomahawk on board

Atomic multipurpose submarines 6 (17)
No comments. It is just necessary in reality to consider what is and what is not.

Diesel submarines 17 (22)
Most likely true

[Northern warrior]

It is unfortunate that project 885 is not being built as fast. Seven Ashes against two dozen Virginia and three Sivulf - this is nothing! All “Loafs” and “Pikes” will be written off in ten years, and there will simply be nothing to replace them with. There is no hope for the rapid construction of the 5th generation Husky, so it would be nice to continue laying the Ash trees, rather than investing in the modernization of junk and the construction of diesel engines. One of the main problems of the Russian fleet is the huge variety of ship projects, which leads to a slowdown in the pace of construction and repair.

[Xscorpion]

Quote: Old26

Quote: Muvka

1 Sarmat is cheaper. Much cheaper. It’s more efficient. Much more efficient.
And by the way, last year 21 Yars rockets were received. Tell me, what is the pace of the United States in this area? Do we need to envy them or do they need us? Maybe everyone has different priorities?

A Kalashnikov assault rifle is even cheaper ...
Damn, what a habit of comparing the incomparable. Well, I would understand if we would compare the cost and effectiveness of Ash and Virginia. But where does "Sarmat" have to be - you probably know only you.
How much did they get ICBMs last year? Not a single one. Your logic is somehow non-standard. So, if in 8-10 years we complete rearmament with the Sarmatians and the Clubs, and the Americans only begin to put into service the new Trident E-6 and Minutmen-4, we can ask how many missiles are about us Russia received, while the USA, for example, received 2028 in 50. And it may turn out that we will have zero.

And we need to envy. In relation to their military shipbuilding. We build a frigate as much as they are an aircraft carrier. And during the construction of our nuclear boat they manage to build 2 or 3. That's what you need to envy, and not turn everything into priorities.
By the way, during the times of the USSR, up to 3 PGRK divisions were sometimes rearmament during a year, not counting hospitals. And this is at least almost 90 missiles for PGRK plus HZS for silos. Now we rearm 2-3 regiments a year, at best. So where are the priorities then ???

Quote: trenkkvaz

Well, and how many enemy ships have these sunk American ships already?
What is the point of having such a huge fleet if you do not use it.
There are no countries against which such a fleet is needed.
The United States will never fight against large countries, while such a large fleet is not needed against small countries.

Do you think it makes sense to build up the fleet only during the onset of conflicts? They did not ask a question, why there were no serious wars after the Second World War? Maybe because no one wanted to contact either the USA or the USSR precisely because of the size of their fleets and armies?

Quote: Kartur220

And who does not agree, get sanctions and sign your insolvency to resist this armada

And not only sanctions. Take the same Iraq. They rolled it out of necessity. And with the help in particular of such boats from the Kyrgyz Republic. Like Yugoslavia. There will be a question with Iran - Iran will be rolled out. It is the projection of their power that leads to the fact that no one can and does not want to contact you precisely because of this ...
And if you always remember exclusively “Sarmatians”, then alas, this is not always an indicator of the power of the state. To give an example, a weapon whose probability of use will be about 0,5% (this is how the probability of a US war with Russia is regarded) is not the best option. Wars are fought mostly with conventional weapons. We fought Chechnya not with the Voivode or Topol, but with divisions and brigades of the ground forces. If God forbid the fleet of Ukraine would surpass the Black Sea Fleet of Russia several times in power, the fate of the Crimea would be unknown. But it turned out that Ukraine There was nothing to project in the waters of the Black Sea

Quote: Ascetic

Combat capabilities of the Russian Navy and US Navy 2017
US Navy US Navy

Nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles 12 (13) - 14
Nuclear submarines with long-range cruise missiles 6 (9) - 4
Atomic multipurpose submarines 6 (17) - 48 (51)
Diesel submarines 17 (22) - 0

Stanislav! Of course, I understand that you have nothing to do with this table, but allow me to correct your table a little in relation to our side (therefore, the numbers will be corrected in relation to us)

So
Nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles 12 (13)
For 2017, were in service
• 3 SSBNs of the Borey type
• 6 SSBNs of project 667BDRM (in fact, specifically in 2017 there were 5 boats in service, because one was under repair, but since the Americans have the total number, even those who are under repair - leave the number 6)
• 1 (maximum 2) boats of project 667BDR (boat K-223 "Podolsk" was decommissioned in 2016, boat K-433 "St. George the Victorious" in 2017. But since there is no data when exactly it was decommissioned, that's why I write the maximum 2)
TOTAL SSBN 10 (maximum 11)

Nuclear submarines with long-range cruise missiles 6 (9)
To be honest, the most dubious of all that is. From 6 to 9. Long-range missiles are missiles with Caliber. How many boats are equipped with this missile system? With a guarantee only "Severodvinsk". All the others that are now with the Kyrgyz Republic are Antei with a range of about 400-600 km. They cannot be assigned to the "long" range. For the Americans, the number 4 of the boat corresponds to missile boats with the Tomahawk on board

Atomic multipurpose submarines 6 (17)
No comments. It is just necessary in reality to consider what is and what is not.

Diesel submarines 17 (22)
Most likely true

As for the ICBMs, you are right that none of the amers had a new one. Even in the last 30 years. The last ICBMs were made in the 70s. In the 20s of this century, the last of them expire, and many already on the way. Then we’ll see how they will make hundreds of missiles a year, which are not even in real plans. In comparison with the past 8 years, we’ve put more than a hundred Yars on the DB. We will have problems with the fleet. Until the Strategic Missile Forces 100 percent with new missiles. And then they will take up the fleet, do not hesitate. So do not need so pessimistic ki to look at the situation. We have an expanded threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. And believe me, in the event of a large-scale war, nothing will depend on the Supreme or the Minister of Defense, the rockets will fly. The stories about the children of officials abroad because of which the missiles did not come up were invented by people who did not have attitude to the army in general. Because people will enter access codes, on average, with the rank of major and lieutenant colonel, about fifty people have this right. They have no children abroad.

[wicked pinnochio]

why do the statesmen name their ships and boats in honor of the states, well, is there oklahoma colorado virginia?

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Angry Pinnochio

why do the statesmen name their ships and boats in honor of the states, well, is there oklahoma colorado virginia?

On 13 July 2012, the Fleet submitted to the US Congress a report on the 73 page, which outlined its policy and methods for choosing the names of ships to be included in its composition.
The rules for naming the ships of the U.S. Navy, developed over time and changed in accordance with the development process of the Navy. But the Navy, all this time, tried to be systematic in the designation of its ships - certain types of names were assigned to certain types of ships.
Torpedo submarines, for example, at first, were called like fish, later, like cities, and recently I call them the names of the states, while cruisers, at one time, were named after the cities, later - the states, and even later - the names of the battles . The names of the states were assigned to battleships, later cruisers with a nuclear power plant and submarines with ballistic missiles, and now they are called multipurpose submarines.
The names of the US Navy ships are traditionally selected and announced by the Secretary of the Navy. But it was not always so.

[Old26]

Quote: Xscorpion

As for the ICBMs, you are right that none of the amers had a new one. Even in the last 30 years. The last ICBMs were made in the 70s. In the 20s of this century, the last of them expire, and many already on the way. Then we'll see how they will make hundreds of missiles a year, which are not even in real plans ..

Here you are not quite right. Yes, it hasn’t left the US plants over the years NOT A NEW MINIMAN. But this does not mean that all deadlines have either expired or will expire in the near future. Since the beginning of the previous decade, they began and carried out a large-scale modernization program for their ground-based missiles. This is the so-called LEP program - a program to extend the life of weapons.
They replaced everything on MINIMEN. Guidance and aiming systems, warheads, changed fuel, having carried out a large-scale operation, which no one could have done before. And it cannot now. With individual samples, by the way, we can also do this, but here we can’t replace whole-bonded charges with new ones - alas. They did it. where there were steel cases, they simply washed solid fuel charges and replaced them with new ones. Where this could not be done, the plastic enclosures simply carried out the replacement of these enclosures. These missiles are in arsenals, well, let's say, in the form of car kits, that is, in a disassembled state. And to take from the arsenal a new third step is not particularly difficult. According to the latest data, they have in their arsenals about 280 "machine sets" of MINIMENTS. So the warranty periods of operation have been extended for about 20 years, that is, almost until 2040
As for the TRIDENTS, they regularly order them. I can say that in 2012-2012 fiscal years 24 TRIDENT was ordered under EMNIP. The older ones they shoot at exercises, the new ones gradually replace the oldest. The life of the TRIDENTS is somewhere until 2035. Over the next few years, they can elementary not only develop, but also test new missiles to replace TRIDENTS and MINIMENTS. So they will not have a hurry to replace. In the same way, the program also operates with respect to extending the life of their warheads ....

Quote: Xscorpion

For comparison, over the past 8 years, more than a hundred Yarsov have been put on the database.

But at the same time they wrote off almost a hundred TOPOLES, 3 dozen "SOTOK" and two dozen VOEVOD. The speed of setting on the database is not comparable with the write-off rate. WE put into service the YARS mine regiment at best for the year
We consider the PGRK regiment to be put on the database provided that the division and the PKP are deployed. As a result, we put the division into service in 2-3 years

Quote: Xscorpion

We will have problems with the fleet. Until the Strategic Missile Forces are 100% re-equipped with new missiles. And then the fleet will be engaged, do not hesitate ..

.
We have problems with the fleet anyway, and not so much because the plant is single and provides about one ballistic missile launcher per year. Speed ​​in building new boats. Right now, at the beginning of 2018, the number of our missile carriers compared to the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017 decreased by two boats. . In fact, now in the Pacific Ocean the fleet of our missile carriers has been reduced to THREE. And it is possible that by the end of the year it will be reduced to two at all. If we don’t build boat missiles now, we’ll find ourselves in a situation like with Dolgoruky, when the boat was already in operation, and there were no missiles on it. If we expect that we will 100% equip the Strategic Missile Forces with new missiles, this will be about 2026 (as the Commander-in-Chief of the Strategic Missile Forces about 100% of new missiles). As a result, we will have all the boats of the Borey class, of which there will be three combat ready, and for the rest there will be no missiles. No, this option is not suitable

Quote: Xscorpion

And then they will take up the fleet, do not hesitate. So you do not need to look at the situation so pessimistically ..

How do you suggest watching? To smack that all is well?

Quote: Xscorpion

We have an expanded threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. And believe me, in the event of a large-scale war, nothing will depend on the Supreme or the Minister of Defense, missiles will fly ..

Will fly. but at the same time it is not out of place to know how much. And if necessary, the PGRK division will conditionally shoot all 27 missiles, and not 9, since the regiments are not 100% rearmed

Quote: Xscorpion

Tales about the children of officials abroad for which missiles would not fly came up with people not related to the army at all. Because people will enter access codes, on average, with the rank of major and lieutenant colonel, about fifty people have this right. They don’t have children abroad.

And here I agree with you on all 1000%