Military Review

How did the Sharks go?

41
The honorary title of the world's largest submarines is still retained by the Soviet / Russian strategic missile submarine cruisers of the project 941 “Shark”. Ships with a total displacement of 48 thousand tons carried 16 intercontinental ballistic missiles and could remain at sea for six months. However, to date, as part of the Russian fleet there is only one record-breaking submarine capable of performing certain tasks. Two more submarines are waiting for the start of disposal, and will soon cease to exist.


The “Shark” project is one of the most painful topics in the context of the Russian fleet. Despite quite ambitious plans, only a few submarines with uniquely high characteristics were built. Subsequently, the specific combination of technical and operational indicators, as well as political and economic factors led to the gradual write-off of several submarines. Let us recall how it turned out that only one of the seven submarine cruisers built in the lineup remained.


SSBN TK-208 "Dmitry Donskoy" in the sea. Photo of the Defense Ministry


The lead ship of the new project 941 was laid at the Sevmash plant (Severodvinsk) in June 1976. Four years later, the boat with the number of the TK-208 ("Heavy Cruiser") was launched, and at the end of the 1981, she entered the fleet combat fleet. The first serial "Shark" with the designation TK-202 was laid in April 1978 of the year and was built until September 1982. It was handed over to the customer in 1983 year, as they say, under the Christmas tree. Two years after TK-202, TK-12 was laid. She was launched on December 1983, and transferred to the customer in about a year. TC-13 was built from the winter of 1982 to the spring of 1985. By the beginning of 1986, this cruiser entered service. By this time, the TK-17 boat, laid out in February 1985, was put to the test. In November, 1987 was handed over to the Navy. The last of the built ships, TK-20, was laid at the very beginning of 1987 of the year, launched 1988 in July and 1989 passed in September.

Initially, all SSBNs of the 941 project wore only tactical numbers, indicating that they belonged to the class of heavy cruisers. Later, some submarines received names. So, the head ship TK-208 after the repair at the beginning of the two thousandth became “Dmitry Donskoy”, TK-12 was called “Simbirsk”, and TK-17 - “Arkhangelsk”. Under the sponsorship agreement, the submarine TK-20 was named after the Severstal company. Other submarines remained nameless.

It should be noted that the first "losses" promising project 941 suffered even during construction. In the second half of the eighties, it was planned to lay the seventh boat of the series with the number TC-210. The Sevmash enterprise began the preparation of some structures, and soon the bookmark ceremony was to take place. However, it was canceled. Fulfilling the conditions of existing international treaties, the USSR decided to limit the number of "Sharks" to six units. The assembled elements of the TK-210 design were idle for some time without work, and they were dismantled in the 1990 year.


One of the "Sharks" in the sea, eighties. Photo by US Navy


Construction of large and complex ships took a lot of time, and therefore the full group of six submarines was completed only by the early nineties. During this period, our country already had certain economic and political problems that could seriously hit the armed forces and the navy.

The first problem of “Shark” - as well as any other submarines or ships of independent Russia - was the lack of funding. According to some data, in the first years after the collapse of the USSR, the operation of the 941 project ship cost about 300 million rubles per year, whereas the SSBN of the 667BDRM project cost only 180 million. In addition, there were problems with the production and supply of ballistic missiles P-39 - the main armament of the boats. Finally, it did not contribute to the continuation of the service and the political course taken by the country's leadership.

Despite all the difficulties, the fleet continued to operate six strategic cruisers; from time to time combat training launches of the P-39 missiles were conducted. For example, in August 1991, the TK-17 submarine completed a salvo launch of two missiles. In October, the 1992-th ship TK-20 simultaneously launched three missiles. Later, such shooting was carried out several times, and in March 1997, the real record was set. SSBN TK-13 attacked the conventional target with a full ammunition of 20 missiles. In December, a similar salvo was performed by the boat TK-20. It is curious that both shots were performed by just one crew who served on the TK-20.

How did the Sharks go?
"Sharks" on the base, the nineties. Photo Militaryrussia.ru


However, the result of any training firing was a reduction in the stock of existing P-39 ICBMs, the production of which has already been discontinued. The last launches of this type of missiles took place in October and December 2003 of the year, they were executed by the ships TK-17 "Arkhangelsk" and TK-208 "Dmitry Donskoy". This stock of available rockets was exhausted, which had the most serious impact on the further fate of their carriers.

It should be noted that the lack of missiles and limited funding for the fleet began to affect the group of "Sharks" for several years before the last shooting. Already in the spring of 1995, the first production boat TK-202 was withdrawn from the fleet's combat fleet and sent to the sludge. A few months later the cruiser TK-12 was brought into reserve. Shortly after the first firing of the full ammunition, the TK-13 submarine went to the reserve. Other SSBNs still remained in the Navy and continued service, albeit with limited combat capabilities.

Further operation of the entire series of submarines project 941 in the original configuration was not possible. The stock of ballistic missiles was coming to an end, and rearmament could be prohibitively expensive and virtually impossible for objective reasons. In this regard, there were various proposals for the restructuring of missile cruisers in the equipment for other purposes. It was proposed to make tankers, transport ships, etc. from “Sharks”. However, none of these proposals came out of the discussion stage and, accordingly, was not implemented.


Cruiser TK-202 shortly before being sent for breaking, 1999 g. Photo by Wikimedia Commons


Meanwhile, the fate of all six submarines built remained uncertain. However, in the late nineties, it was decided to dispose of part of the submarines left without ammunition and real prospects. In 1999, the enterprise Zvezdochka (Severodvinsk) was delivered to SSBN TK-202. In the foreseeable future, the plant was supposed to begin cutting it. The irony of fate is that this time there were problems with financing. Recycling of the submarine began only in 2002 year, with direct financial support from the United States. Work continued until 2005.

The cruiser TK-12 was the next to go. In the middle of 2005, he was towed to Severodvinsk. The following year began the process of dismantling structures, which lasted until the 2007 year. Soon there was a new contract for dismantling the submarine, now it was about TK-13. A few months later, the unloading of nuclear fuel and the cutting of structures began. By the autumn 2009 of the year, only the reactor compartment unit, intended for long-term storage, remained from the submarine. As in the case of the TK-202, the following two submarines were disposed of with the financing of foreign partners.

And yet the beginning of the two thousandth years was not for the "Sharks" exclusively grim. Some decisions made it possible to repair and upgrade one of the missile cruisers. Because of this, he was able to continue his service, and still remains in the navy. This is the lead ship of the project 941 - TK-208.


The anchor of one of the decommissioned submarines became a monument in Severodvinsk. Photo of Wikimedia Commons


Despite the known difficulties, the Russian Ministry of Defense in the nineties continued to search for ways to develop the naval component of strategic nuclear forces. It was not necessary to rely on a few P-39 missiles, and therefore it was decided to develop a new ICBM for submarines. Subsequently, this decision led to the appearance of the P-30 “Bulava” rocket. To perform some work in the interest of a promising project, an experimental vessel was required that could become a test bench.

In 1989, the Shark-type lead missile cruiser was put up for major overhaul and modernization under the 941U project. In 1991, the works were frozen indefinitely. In 1996, they were able to be restored, and now the boat had to be rebuilt according to the 941UM project. In the summer of 2002, the TK-208 was returned to the Navy for the purpose of conducting tests of a promising missile. A few months later, the ship received the name "Dmitry Donskoy".

At about the same time, there was a proposal to repair and upgrade the new boat TK-17 "Arkhangelsk" and TK-20 "Severstal", which by this time were left without ammunition and virtually no future. However, this proposal was not immediately accepted for implementation. The controversy lasted for several years, but in the middle of the two thousandth years, the TK-17 and TK-20 went from service to reserve. In the foreseeable future, the command planned to decide their fate. The possibility of upgrading or turning one of the boats into a museum was not completely ruled out, but was not confirmed either.


"Dmitry Donskoy" was modernized and continues to serve. Photo of the Defense Ministry


Over the past few years, there have been several reports of the future of two submarines in reserve. This time news did not give the slightest reason for optimism. So, officials first talked about their real plans for the 2015 year. Then it was said that two ships would have to be disposed of. In the spring of 2016, two launchers began to be dismantled from two submarines.

The latest news about the future fate of the missile cruisers and the timing of the execution of work appeared in mid-January. RIA Novosti, citing an unnamed source, wrote that in the near future, "Arkhangelsk" and "Severstal" will also be sent for recycling. The ships have already been withdrawn from service, and will be dismantled in the foreseeable future. Disposal will be carried out by the shipbuilding industry with the participation of the state corporation Rosatom. Work will begin no earlier than 2020.

Available information about the future of Dmitry Donskoy, in contrast to the news about the TK-17 and TK-20, can be a cause for optimism. Since 2016, it has been stated several times in the media that TC-208 will continue to serve after the 2020 year. At the beginning of the last decade, this boat became an experimental vessel for testing the Bulava rocket, and in the foreseeable future it may return to such work again. The Ministry of Defense is planning to create an improved version of the P-30 rocket, and an existing ship may be involved in testing experimental products of this type. Thus, in a few years, Dmitry Donskoy will receive a new opportunity to go to sea with experienced missiles on board and contribute to the strengthening of the nuclear shield.


TK-208 at the unique crane for loading rockets. Photo of the Defense Ministry


More than 208 years have passed since TK-36 was incorporated into the USSR Navy. At the same time more than 12 years, the submarine was on the repair and modernization. However, in this case, "Dmitry Donskoy" is a kind of record among the "Sharks". He remained in the service for the longest and, probably, in the future will only improve these indicators. Plans to use this SSBN in the future test program of the upgraded Bulava suggest that it will eventually be over 40 in years or even closer to 50.

Other submarines of the 941 project will not be able to boast of such service life. Two ships were put into reserve in the mid-nineties, two more - in the middle of the two thousandths. Most of them remained in the fleet combat personnel no more than 12-15 years. The only notable exception is the boat TK-17, transferred to the fleet in 1987 year and put into reserve in the 2006. However, in this case, the submarine served much less than it could in a favorable situation.

According to the plans of the distant past, prospective strategic missile submarines of the 941 "Shark" project were to replenish and strengthen the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces, significantly increasing its impact capabilities. It must be admitted that the Soviet military shipbuilding coped with the task and provided the fleet with the required number of necessary equipment. The rocket industry enterprises, in turn, have created a solid stock of the required weapons.


TK-208 "Dmitry Donskoy" will remain in service, at least until the early twenties. Photo of the Defense Ministry


While maintaining the desired capabilities and adequate funding, strategic Sharks could make the most notable contribution to ensuring the security of the country for several decades. However, the well-known events of the late eighties and the crisis of the nineties led to different results. Our country had to abandon the construction of the seventh ship of the series, and then write off and dispose of the four already built. Two submarines remain in reserve, but their fate was determined not so long ago. Only one unique submarine in all respects continues to serve, even if in a new capacity.

It is obvious that the era of the Shark-type boats is nearing its end, and they are no longer destined to become the basis of the naval component of the nuclear shield. However, even in such a situation, the command was able to find an opportunity to keep at least one ship in service. However, this can hardly be a sufficient reason for optimism. A new decade is approaching, and after 2020, the cutting of two of the three remaining submarines will begin. In the best case, the military department and the interested public will be able to turn one of the boats into a museum, but it seems that this is not worth counting on. The era of "Sharks" ends. But, fortunately, a new one is beginning - the era of “Boreyev”.

On the materials of the sites:
http://ria.ru/
http://tass.ru/
http://flot.com/
http://flotprom.ru/
http://deepstorm.ru/
https://defence.ru/
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-671.html
Author:
41 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. forester
    forester 27 March 2018 05: 15
    +12
    Hmmm .... sorry .... And I'm just happyLive that I saw this beauty alive in Kronstadt
    1. Bell pepper
      Bell pepper 28 March 2018 00: 11
      +2

      Krasava! I hope that you will make new big submarines with double herm. case!
  2. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 27 March 2018 15: 07
    +9
    It’s a pity if everyone drank, and not one gets into the museum. Unique design.
    In the United States, there are busy multimillionaire collectors who can buy.
    Only the reactor needs to be removed and the boat deactivated.
    1. avt
      avt 27 March 2018 16: 10
      +4
      Quote: voyaka uh
      It’s a pity if everyone drank, and not one gets into the museum. Unique design.

      The design is really unique - no doubt, but there are no missiles for them, but to turn them ..... it’s better to build 955 with this money. “Don” still resembles a pilot ship, all the more so since there are enough spare parts and accessories for disassembled for nago. Well, metal, cars and mechanisms from utilized will go through the property fund to new ones. It’s unnecessary to keep “water carriers”. This will result in three types of strategists in service. It’s enough until the 667s, and the 955s to replace them. Regarding the museum from ,, Donskoy ”sometime later .... well, first you need the first K-3 627 project, such as a full-fledged museum.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 27 March 2018 23: 28
        +2
        rockets for them could be found, even a mace, even a caliber, and maybe a blue-liner would fit
  3. exo
    exo 27 March 2018 16: 14
    +22
    The pace is amazing: 5 years on a boat. Now, I don’t even know what to call a frigate, they’ve been building for 10 years !!! And this is not the final deadline. Colossal degradation in shipbuilding.
    I remember that my elder brother, having arrived from practice from the North (finishing the Submarine named after Len.Komsomol), mentioned a secret two-hull submarine. Of course, without details.
    And these ships never reached Kamchatka. I didn’t see it live.
    1. agate
      agate 27 March 2018 18: 14
      +11
      For the construction of such boats in Severodvinsk, a special workshop of the 55th was built at the NSR. Just gigantic. Somehow, on a weekend, I literally got lost in it, it was necessary to take some substance from our warehouse - sewed, which now should be hidden. It seemed to be a couple of times, but with an accompanying colleague, and here they sent as the youngest and still sober. such a bummer, people are waiting, but I could not find an hour. Almost torn to pieces. I went on it. Civilian specialist. BIUS. They slept on the rocket deck near the Mines of Others. They didn’t let them go there, but we did it too, only in another department, therefore, there was permission.
    2. NEXUS
      NEXUS 27 March 2018 19: 21
      +7
      Quote: exo
      The pace is amazing: 5 years on a boat. Now, I don’t even know what to call a frigate, they’ve been building for 10 years !!!

      TARK Nakhimov (Kalinin) - Laid down on May 17, 1983, December 30, 1988 went into operation. It’s been built from scratch for 5 years. And how much is its modernization going on?

      Quote: saturn.mmm
      Later, such firing was carried out several times, and in March 1997 a real record was set. RPKSN TK-13 attacked the conditional target with a full ammunition of 20 missiles
      Cyril may it make sense to correct the inaccuracy in the article?

      In December 1997, under the command of A. S. Bogachev, he fired missiles in full ammunition. In the same year, the TK-20 crew, under the command of A. S. Bogachev, fired missiles at full ammunition on the TK-13 of the same type. These firing was a way of disposing of ballistic missiles that had served their time, by the method of blasting in the air.
  4. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 27 March 2018 17: 21
    0
    Ships with a total displacement of 48 thousand tons carried 16 intercontinental ballistic missiles and could remain at sea for six months.

    Later, such firing was carried out several times, and in March 1997 a real record was set. RPKSN TK-13 attacked the conditional target with a full ammunition of 20 missiles

    Cyril may it make sense to correct the inaccuracy in the article?
    1. agate
      agate 27 March 2018 18: 21
      +6
      Twenty, twenty, he himself believed when he climbed, Trap was placed closer to the nose and the entrance was on the side of the wheelhouse, and to get to the upper cabin hatch you must first climb the stairs on the 3rd floor along the stairs.
  5. igorspb
    igorspb 27 March 2018 18: 02
    +4
    Sharks made of steel ....
  6. garri-lin
    garri-lin 27 March 2018 19: 54
    +5
    The tragic fate of these handsome men. The heroes who did not receive the opportunity to fulfill themselves. A sort of "death star" in Soviet, pure force.
  7. engineer74
    engineer74 27 March 2018 20: 05
    +3

    I understand that "the victory of technology over reason", but still sorry - ships of the Empire.
  8. Olegi1
    Olegi1 27 March 2018 20: 14
    +2
    Eh, at least one - but the museum is necessary. Such boats are unlikely to be built. The unique thing.
    1. tima_ga
      tima_ga April 2 2018 18: 03
      0
      That would be one to put in a park in Kubinka. Delivery, of course, is not easy, but if desired ...
  9. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 27 March 2018 20: 28
    +6
    I just will not say anything, it’s a pity that for the collapse of the country, the Army and the Navy, so far none of the bastards of shit has yet answered according to the Law. Our laws are not for those imprisoned. Now the time has come for the new Stalin, I hope that this will be the GDP. There will still be, at a meeting with our ships at sea, for half a mile, adversaries, lower their flags!
  10. Sergey985
    Sergey985 27 March 2018 20: 52
    +3
    That's why writing about six months, there were simply no such autonomous vehicles. For more than a hundred days, it’s simply impossible for medical reasons, irreversible changes in the body occur. This is always adhered to. As for the 941 project, the author correctly pointed out: excessively expensive. Instead, it would be better if the BDR and BDRM did more. There rockets were much more successful. Shark looks, of course, majestic, but contain it .... You can, of course, disagree with me, but in this case you need to think rationally. We have no extra money. Although I remember how the Americans were shining with happiness, with what joy they gave money so that they could start sawing it with needles. One of the delegation (who in Severodvinsk in the beginning of the 90s, went in a succession) admitted that this was his dream and it came true.
    1. jjj
      jjj 27 March 2018 21: 05
      0
      BDRMy and began to build after 941
      1. Sergey985
        Sergey985 27 March 2018 21: 10
        +3
        Then they came out of the BDR. The first one was nearly overwhelmed by tests. Urgently had to cut the scuppers.
    2. NikWik
      NikWik 27 March 2018 21: 30
      +12
      Well, why, we had one combat service 121 days. And so you are right, the standard is 90 days.
    3. tima_ga
      tima_ga April 2 2018 18: 07
      0
      And how they rejoiced when they cut the Oka ...
  11. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 27 March 2018 21: 07
    +5
    Colossal ship. But it’s very big. It is impossible to make such a whopper inconspicuous. Missiles are out of date during the development process. The USSR lagged behind in solid rocket fuels. Because rockets are so huge turned out. And the boat under it had to be done. Alas, an engineering dead end ...
  12. Tests
    Tests 27 March 2018 21: 53
    +12
    Dear Mountain Shooter, all those who served on the Sharks and surfaced in the ice did not consider their ships to be too noisy and noticeable. Even in the small White Sea, “Shark” ran in winter under the ice from Severodvinsk to Kandalaksha Bay, then to Solovki, then to Severodvinsk and again to Kandalukha. The adversary didn’t see her under the ice and didn’t hear her, then the forces of the submarine could block the throat of the White Sea ... So the Sevmash steamer made a reliable and comfortable crew ... They offered to make a tanker of them, but it would have been too expensive for transportation . And as a carrier of drones or for the installation of sonar stations, both Severstal and Arkhangelsk could serve Russia.
    1. tima_ga
      tima_ga April 2 2018 18: 11
      0
      Many different thoughts were on the conversion. Imagine four dozen Onyxes, in one salvo, yes in AUG ...
  13. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 27 March 2018 23: 25
    +2
    very sorry, really it was impossible to repair them .......
  14. navy33
    navy33 27 March 2018 23: 30
    +3
    Greetings to all! Colossal Ship! He served in the 90s in Zapadnaya Litsa, they were based in Malaya Lopatka Bay. Our RTM is a boat compared to Shark. They said that Kamaz is deployed on the upper deck.
    1. domnich
      domnich 29 March 2018 20: 31
      +4
      Quote: Navy33
      they are based in Malaya Lopatka Bay


      Well, the Shark wouldn’t fit in the Small Shovel. They stood in Nerpicha’s lip. We often went to the Western Face to service buoys and shore signs.
      1. navy33
        navy33 29 March 2018 22: 50
        +2
        Greetings Dear! You are absolutely right, thanks for the amendment. I forgot already.
      2. agate
        agate April 3 2018 14: 46
        0
        Yes, it would be difficult for them to squeeze into the Big Shovel. . And in Gadzhievo or Gremikha easily.
  15. Bell pepper
    Bell pepper 28 March 2018 00: 09
    +2
    Beautiful submarines! It is necessary to modernize them, and not cut for scrap / old iron.
    A huge place for armament, you can put containers with the krill of a rocket / RCC / Bulava / Sineva.
  16. andy 110
    andy 110 28 March 2018 02: 07
    +1
    "The largest in the world" is certainly great, but the Ohio ammunition is one and a half times more.
    1. 11 black
      11 black 28 March 2018 04: 46
      +5
      Quote: andy 110
      "The largest in the world" is certainly great, but the Ohio ammunition is one and a half times more.

      Firstly, not one and a half. Secondly, our missiles have much more powerful warheads.
      1. mvg
        mvg 28 March 2018 14: 16
        0
        Have you joked about war blocks? 10x100 for the rs-39 or 14x100 for the bourgeois, with a starting mass of one and a half times smaller, and the Trident's cast mass is greater and the CVO is less. And the English versions and warheads are more interesting. And the launch statistics are crazy.
        The mace does not reach the Trident, from the word at all, well, apart from the fact that it does not fly.
    2. vvvjak
      vvvjak 28 March 2018 08: 22
      +6
      Quote: andy 110
      "The largest in the world" is certainly great, but the Ohio ammunition is one and a half times more.

      And the point of this large ammunition if it can launch one missile during a campaign (max. Volley of US submarines 4 missiles). A "Shark" all 20.
      1. mvg
        mvg 28 March 2018 14: 19
        0
        Only the idiots in a single trip release a fortune into the white light. Imagine the cost of pc-39? And now Kuzya enters the exercise to shoot air defense missiles. And the composition of the air group is ridiculous.
        1. vvvjak
          vvvjak 28 March 2018 14: 51
          +5
          Quote: mvg
          Only the idiots in a single trip release a fortune into the white light. Imagine the cost of pc-39? And now Kuzya enters the exercise to shoot air defense missiles. And the composition of the air group is ridiculous.

          R-39 has no value since withdrawn from service (the last back in 2004 from memory). But it costs a lot of money to dispose of them. Here is the command of the Navy (in this case, not at all) and combined business with pleasure. I recommend to get acquainted with the work of E. Ovechkin "Shark of Steel" you will find there are many more interesting things. But US submarines have cracks in the hull and therefore they do not shoot in volleys and nothing to do with money.
  17. 11 black
    11 black 28 March 2018 04: 31
    +1
    Ships with a full displacement of 48 thousand tons carried 16 intercontinental ballistic missiles

    By xnumx rockets. The author, probably, confused with the Dolphins or Borei - there is 20.
  18. geniy
    geniy 28 March 2018 18: 21
    0
    Submarine Carriers 2018 03 28

    But there is an idea to rebuild all three of the existing “Sharks” into submarine aircraft carriers. Of course, everyone immediately has

    idiosyncrasy with the phrase "underwater aircraft carrier" because everyone saw thousands of photographs of conventional aircraft carriers

    with dozens of aircraft openly standing on their upper decks. And since a submarine aircraft carrier, in principle, cannot

    to be such that the aircraft stood on the deck for a long time, then all people think that, in principle, an underwater carrier cannot

    to build. But in fact, for conventional aircraft carriers, the below-deck hangars are designed in such a way as to accommodate

    absolutely all aircraft inside the ship, and not from above. That is, the deck parking is used simply for

    convenience and laziness to constantly lower them and raise them from the hangars to the deck and back. But in case of a hurricane or storm

    all the same, all planes from the upper deck descend into the hangar.
    And underwater cruisers have such a unique property: that they are KATAMARAN! That is, each of

    There are TWO parallel hulls, and this is a rather large width. So - it’s very easy to make these ships

    even wider flight deck (due to camber during rebuilding), and achieve a deck width of about 40

    meters - that is, almost like a conventional surface aircraft carrier.
    And also all experts have an understanding of the usual aircraft carrier with a diagonal deck, which for underwater

    an aircraft carrier is also unacceptable. But the diagonal deck is a relic of the past, like biplanes in aviation. Diagonal

    The deck was invented by the British to ensure the simultaneity of two operations at once: both takeoff and landing of aircraft.

    That is, only take-off is carried out from the front section of the deck, and only landing is on the diagonal deck. But on

    this is actually very bad. You can come up with a completely different architecture - so that the take-off and landing of all aircraft

    would be carried out only on parallel runways, without any diagonal ones.
    The fact is that during takeoff the aircraft can stand almost close to the side, even hanging one wing overboard, but

    so that the planes do not fall into the sea, then of course you need to have a small bulwark (approximately

    half a meter). And then, taking off planes can be located in two pieces close to the edge of the side, and between them

    there will be free space for the landing deck with a width of about 20 meters - enough for landing

    aircraft strictly along the longitudinal plane of the ship.
    In addition, and conventional surface aircraft carriers, aircraft hangars have a huge volume and cyclopean height -

    about 8-11 meters. And in any submarine it is necessary to strictly limit the volume. And it is easy to do.

    to do if you apply the principle of folding parts of the aircraft in height. Firstly, any modern aircraft

    retractable landing gear (i.e. folding inside an airplane glider). And this alone greatly reduces the height

    the plane. And if you use special carts that would allow the aircraft to fold the landing gear and at the same time

    carts would transport a folded plane to any desired place - to the elevator to the hangar and vice versa, then this alone is very strong

    would reduce both the required height and volume of hangars. And besides, all modern carrier aircraft have

    folding wings. But there is no engineering difficulty except folding wings and folding

    keels of all aircraft. And then, given the retracted landing gear, the height of any fighter jet will not

    more than 2,5-3 meters, and therefore the interdeck height in the hangar will be sufficient only 3,5 meters. And that means that

    Shark-type submarine carrier in the spirit of the hulls could accommodate about 200 (TWO-HUNDRED) fighter aircraft

    for example, the MiG-29 type or the latest MiG-41. Although of course you can imagine a combination of an air wing of 100 MiG-41 and + 50

    Su-33.
    Thus, the Russian submarine aircraft carrier of the Shark type could carry about 150-200 modern

    jet fighters. But this is much more than any American surface nuclear carrier,

    each of which has no more than 90 airplanes. And it’s clear that such a Russian aircraft carrier in a duel alone on

    one can easily sink any American. And the fact that the Americans carry no more than 90 aircraft - so they

    insolent from excess money - they don’t even think that it is possible to install aircraft in a hangar with folded landing gear and keels.
    If you have idiosyncrasy to build an underwater aircraft carrier, then understand that Russia simply does not have

    another way out. If for the Russian fleet ordinary surface nuclear aircraft carriers will be built, then this will stretch to

    tens of years, and moreover, the Americans now have 13 aircraft carriers (this is not counting dozens of landing helicopter carriers) -

    against one Russian. But for underwater aircraft carriers, this ratio no longer plays such a role. The fact is that

    all surface ships are easily visible from space from reconnaissance spacecraft. And if Russia build surface

    aircraft carriers, then in case of war they will be easily tracked by US forces and easily destroyed. And here

    underwater carriers will secretly be able to come anywhere in the world’s oceans - even to the shores of the United States - and inflict

    a mortal blow, and then immediately plunge and sail away in an unknown direction.
    In addition: all connoisseurs need to understand that aircraft in terms of physics are just ordinary

    cargo. And like an ordinary cargo, all planes in the port can be removed and any other cargo put in their place: for example

    heavy tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery pieces, boxes with shells and ammunition, containers with

    food and fuel, and in the corners of all compartments to place thousands of soldiers or sailors for landing. And then this

    the underwater carrier immediately turns into an underwater tank landing ship, and you can leave it in one or two

    compartments of a dozen two fighter jets to protect the landed troops from enemy air raids. AND

    an underwater landing ship has a huge advantage: firstly, it can take on board about 200 heavy

    tanks and armored personnel carriers, and secondly - secretly and invisibly for the enemy to transport to the coast of any coastal

    country.
    And one more property: airplanes are easy to take off and take any other load in their place. And then the "Shark"

    turn into underwater transport. Few experts know that underwater transports are very necessary for

    any fleet of the court. For example, in Germany during the First World War, built a couple of large submarines

    for transport purposes - and they transported rubber, zinc and tin from America in the initial period of the war. And during

    World War II when Sevastopol was surrounded, and many submarines of the Black Sea Fleet instead of combat

    carried out purely transport flights - bringing shells to Sevastopol, and the wounded soldier was taken away. Also in the Baltic

    one of the Pravda boats set out on a transport trip in order to evacuate soldiers from the Hanko Peninsula. So

    that submarines are very needed. For example, in order to secretly transport thousands of tons of cargo

    friendly Cuba, or Vietnam, or India, Argentina, Venezuela, the Philippines, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Angola, or

    even to supply ammunition and food, Russian troops landed on remote islands. And best of all it

    could make rebuilt submarine cruisers like the Shark.
  19. Doliva63
    Doliva63 28 March 2018 21: 16
    +6
    For a long time, somehow, under the "TV" - cognac with beer, a man from such a boat praised her very much. For the boat! drinks
  20. Old26
    Old26 29 March 2018 20: 01
    0
    It seems like no Friday to take the excess on the chest. And not Sunday (Laughter Day). Maybe fiction was re-read or the site "Alternative History" carefully studied ????

    Quote: geniy
    Firstly, any modern aircraft has a retractable landing gear (that is, folding inside an airplane glider). And this alone greatly reduces the height of the aircraft. And if you use special carts that would allow the aircraft to fold the chassis and at the same time carts would transport the folded plane to any desired place - to the elevator to the hangar and vice versa, then this alone would greatly reduce the required height and volume of hangars. And besides, all modern aircraft carriers have folding wings.

    Well, put the plane on the cart. What's next? You will have to have such a powerful and sophisticated trolley that it can lift the aircraft to a height where you can lower the landing gear. And you will need to understand 20 tons at least (For MIG-29). And nothing difficult to do and folding in three or four places the fuselage. In general, the compact will be ....

    Quote: geniy
    This means that the Shark-type submarine carrier in the spirit of the hulls could accommodate about 200 (TWO-HUNDRED) fighter aircraft

    Why so little? don’t be shy, take 4 hundred at once. The concept of the linear size of an airplane is empty for you. Try to place planes (on the same scale) in the diagram "Sharks" ...

    Quote: geniy
    for example, the MiG-29 type or the latest MiG-41. Although of course you can imagine a combination of an air wing of 100 MiG-41 and + 50 Su-33.

    About 100 MIG-41's. Fence is seen in your thing that you consume ...

    Quote: geniy
    Thus, the Russian submarine aircraft carrier of the Shark type could carry about 150-200 modern fighter jets. But this is much more than any American surface nuclear aircraft carrier, each of which has no more than 90 aircraft wings.

    A lot more. It's just that they carry these 90 aircraft, and in your "project" they are from the flashlight. "
    Indelicate question. And where are you going to place thousands or even tens of thousands of liters of fuel and ammunition ??? And the staff ???? I'm not talking about where you are going to attach the catapult ...

    Quote: geniy
    Moreover, you can leave in one or two dozen compartments two dozen fighter jets to protect the landed assault forces from attacks by enemy aircraft. And the underwater landing ship has a huge advantage: firstly, it can take on board about 200 heavy tanks and armored personnel carriers, and secondly, it can secretly and invisibly transport the enemy to the coast of any coastal country.

    I will not comment further. The concept of buoyancy must be understood too much for you. I can only say that we once had a project for such a submarine-transport. Displacement of 18000 tons and a length of 190 meters with a nuclear power plant. so, the maximum that this transport could carry was 10 amphibious tanks PT-76 and 10 armored personnel carriers. And not 200. And even a dozen two fighter jets.
  21. Kair501
    Kair501 30 March 2018 16: 52
    0
    As always! Better to put on needles than to think how to use. In Russia, two troubles are fools and roads, damn it .....