Military Review

Boreas and Husky. About the future of our submarine fleet

87
Recent ones news about shipbuilding programs of the future allow us to better predict the composition and strength of our underwater fleetthan we could do this in the series “Russian Navy. A sad look into the future. "


As we said before, today the fleet includes 26 non-strategic nuclear submarines, including:

1. SSGN - 9 units, including 1 units. Ash type and 8 units type "Antey" project 949A.

2. MAPL - 17 units, including 11 units of type “Pike-B” of the 971 project of various modifications, 2 units. of type “Pike” of the project 671РТМ (К) (the third boat of this type, “Daniel of Moscow”, is in a sludge, possibly - decommissioned), 2 units. Condor-type project 945А and 2 units. type "Barracuda" project 945.

In addition, the Russian Navy has a rather impressive non-nuclear submarine fleet consisting of 22 diesel-electric submarines, including 15 units. type "Halibut" project 877, 6 units. 636.3 Varshavyanka Project, 1 units type "Lada" project 677.

Thus, today the Russian Federation has the second most powerful non-strategic submarine fleet of the world, which includes 48 nuclear and non-nuclear submarines. This is a very serious value ... if you do not take into account the age of our boats.

Of the eight Antey SSGNs, the 949А project to 2030 g will have no more than four in the ranks - provided that the existing modernization programs are fully implemented, since only four of the eight existing ships are planned to be upgraded. The remaining four ships to 2030 g will have the age of 38-43, and it is more than likely that they will be removed from the fleet as four modernized ships return to service. From 17 MAPL to 2030, the system will remain good if 6 - four boats will be upgraded (if, of course, it was not cut out from the new HPV) and received the designation 971М and two more boats, one of which is undergoing at least average repair now, and the second, which should receive it in the near future (“Vepr” and “Cheetah”, respectively). From 22 diesel-electric submarines to 2030, there will be 7 - 6 recently built for the Black Sea Fleet Varshavyanok project 636.3 and one (limitedly combat-ready, if efficient at all) Lada-type boat.

Of course, there will be replenishment. It should be expected that, before 2030, 6 PLARKs of the Yasen and Yasen-M types, two XDUMX “Lada” diesel submarines of the 677 project of the 2005 project for 2006-6, will be commissioned. Pacific Fleet. Thus, to 636.3 g .:

1. The number of SSGNs will increase from 9 to 11 units.

2. The number of MAPL will be reduced from 17 to 6 units.

3. The number of diesel engines will be reduced from 22 to 15 units.

In total, the non-strategic submarine fleet of the Russian Federation will be reduced by exactly one and a half times - from 48 to 32 submarines.
And what about our "sworn friends"? Let's leave behind the brackets the European fleets of NATO in order not to multiply entities beyond what is necessary, and look at the US submarine fleet.

To date, the US Navy has 64 non-strategic nuclear submarines (diesel-electric submarines in the US Navy), including:

1. SSGN - 4 units type "Ohio", converted for shooting the CD "Tomahawk";

2. MAPL - 61 units, including 15 units. type "Virginia", 3 units. Sivulf type, and 32 units. type "Los Angeles".


Submarine "Virginia"


At the same time, the United States shipbuilding programs for submarines are as simple as a perpendicular — there are currently six Virginia submarines under construction, including two boats of this type built into 2018. Americans are going to lay down two boats a year. that by 2030, even if the average construction period of the submarine 3 of the year (today it is rather the 2-3 of the year) is quite capable of increasing the number of Virginia in its fleet to 39 boats. As a matter of fact, already today, in addition to 6, boats under construction have ordered (but not laid) 7 APLs of the Block IV modification and announced the construction of the 10 APLs of the next Block V. modification. Of course, this does not mean that the number of US submarines was commissioned. ships will grow to 88 units. Most likely, it will remain at the current level, because simultaneously with the entry into service of the newest Virginia, old ships of the Ohio and Los Angeles type will be withdrawn from the fleet.

Thus, based on shipbuilding programs announced today, which also include information on fleet modernization, as a result of a 1.5-fold drop in numbers, the submarine fleet of the Russian Navy will be related to the US as 1 to 2 (32 boats against 64).

The double superiority in the forces of the probable enemy is bad in itself, but worse, the simple numerical comparison does not take into account the disposition of our boats. Not less than eight domestic diesel-electric submarines should be left in closed naval theaters, that is, on the Baltic and Black Seas, where they will be blocked by superior forces of the European NATO fleets, even if you can bring several Varshavyanok to the Mediterranean, and in this case the Americans will be enough unleash the power of Los Angeles 3-4 (rather, even less) to confront them. Given the above, the numerical ratio of the submarine forces of the Pacific and Northern fleets in comparison with the US will be 2,5 to 1.

But the main problem of our submarine fleet is not even in numbers, but in the qualitative lag behind the American.
The US Navy is planning to build an 2030 24 generation submarine to 4 g, which will replace the previous 3 generation submarines in the fleet: "Los Angeles" and, possibly, "Ohio". Today, the Americans from the 64 APL only 18 4-generation boats (3 "Sivulf" and 15 "Virginia"), or slightly more than 28%. But by 2030, they will already be 42 (3 "Sivulf" and 39 "Virginia"), that is, the share of 4 generation atomarins, while maintaining the total number of SSGN and MAPL at the current level, will increase from 28% to 65%.

And what about us? Alas, from 14 submarines, which, according to today's data, must replenish the composition of the Russian Navy before 2030, only five YAPen-M MAPL belong to the 4 generation, because the MAPL Kazan (by the way, and “Severodvinsk”) is, rather, the “3 + generation”, since in them, to reduce the cost of construction, the backlog and equipment of the MUPL “Pike-B” were used to a large extent (and even if we leave aside a number of evidence indicating that Yasen-M does not fully meet the requirements of the 4 generation). The rest - six diesel "Varshavyanok" and two "Lada", sadly, in their capabilities still belong to the previous generation. Thus, the problem is not even that our submarines will be half as much, the problem is that from 32 our submarines and diesel-electric submarines with modern boats 3 + - 4 generation will be only about 22%.

In absolute terms, it looks like this - in case, God forbid, of course, Armageddon, our SSGNs conditionally 7 -th generation "Ash" and 4-generation "Yasen-M" will somehow have to withstand 4 "Xi Wolfe" and 3 Virginia. In the ratio of one to six. With that, generally speaking, for submarine missile carriers - carriers of cruise missiles, the main task, nevertheless, is the destruction of enemy surface groups - and the same AUG, and not anti-submarine warfare. Of course, Ash and Yasen-M are capable of fighting enemy submarines, but if we use them exclusively for these tasks, then at 39 US AUG, we still have exactly 10 SSGNs - the upgraded Anteyev of 4 project.

In other words, by 2030, the United States will have the opportunity to “stuff” the seas adjacent to our territorial waters in the north and the Far East with dozens (!) Of the latest generation 4 atomic materials, and we, unfortunately, have practically nothing to answer. As follows from the above, the American submarine fleet by 2030 will surpass ours by a multiple in numbers, and even more in quality. Without a doubt, the situation could be drastically improved by a unified state system for lighting the surface and underwater conditions (EGSSONPO), which they were planning to create a long time ago, but alas, they did not create it, and obviously they will not create it by 2030. And what else? Those few corvettes and frigates that will go into operation before 2030 will not change anything in the balance of power. Marine aviation? If (we repeat - if!) The plans for the modernization of the IL-38 anti-submarine aircraft to the IL-38N are fulfilled, then the Russian Navy will have at its disposal 28 very good patrol and anti-submarine aircraft, which can also work as radio reconnaissance aircraft. But their number is probably enough for one fleet, but certainly not for four!


Upgraded IL-38H


Thus, if everything is left as it is, then by 2030 g we will lose the ability to control the underwater situation even in the seas washing our territorial waters, which is unacceptable even from the point of view of ensuring the sustainability of the naval component of strategic nuclear forces, strategic missile submarines, carrying intercontinental ballistic missiles (SSBN). This is obviously unacceptable for us, but ... But what are we doing to correct the situation?

You can, of course, expand the construction of the SSGM of the Yasen-M type or its improved version, answering at least one SSGN to two Virginias — in their waters, with the support of some surface and air components, this could perhaps ensure safety deployment areas of SSBNs. But this does not happen - instead of announcing the construction of at least 15-20 atomic (even before 2000 ... of the eleventh year), we limit the number of “Yasens” to seven units and proceed to designing “unparalleled in the world” (who doubted!) MAPL "Husky", and initially it is about the fact that we will start their construction immediately after the delivery of 7 "Ash" and "Ash-M".

What does this mean?

One out of two. Or MAPL “Yasen-M” today is no longer at the cutting edge of technical progress (it would be completely surprising, considering that the original project of “Ash” was created in the last century) and exhausted the possibilities of modernization, which cannot compete with the latest “Blocks” "Virginia". Of course, in this case, its further replication is irrational. Or "Yasen-M" is absolutely modern and suits our military to everyone, except for the price of the product. The fact is that since the time when the basic conditions were announced and the contract price for the Yasen-M series (it followed from them that the cost of one such ship was approximately 39-41 billion rubles), a lot of time had passed and 2014 crisis of the year. Taking into account inflation, it should be expected that the cost of one “Ash-M” in current prices today exceeds 70-75 billion rubles.


MAPL "Severodvinsk"


Be that as it may, the decision to create a new, 5 generation boat was made. VO readers, who are not indifferent to the state of the Russian Navy, took this news with cautious optimism - the message is certainly joyful, but who knows what will come of it in reality? It is not the good intentions of our Government that the road - the twelve-lane autobahn has long been paved to where the climate is hot, and the servants are agile, but slightly horned ...

Well, here's the recent news. One is good, the Husky-type submarines entered the state armaments program until 2027. The bad news is that the development work on this topic was not accepted, stopped by the Ministry of Defense and will be resumed only after 2020.

What is the reason for such an unexpected reversal? After all, in fact, the works were stopped at the stage of pre-sketch design, that is, at the very early stage of the formation of the appearance of the future ship. To postpone the development and construction of the “Husky” to “sometime later” in the current situation, and without having extremely weighty reasons for that, it is not that stupid - criminal. So what's the deal?

Only one thing comes to mind. You can draw anything on paper (or in the corresponding computer program), paper (hard disk) will endure everything. But no matter how wonderful the design of the boat was, it will not work without the timely readiness of its main components and assemblies. Let us explain with an example - in our country a project of the frigate 22350 was created. It provided for the placement of the newest air defense system "Poliment-Redut". The designers, designing the ship, did everything necessary to install it: provided for its location, organically fitting launchers, radar, ZRK communications into the architecture of the frigate, reserved weights for the complex, etc. etc. To them, to the shipbuilders, there were no questions and no - they created a project of a rather formidable warship. However, the fleet never received these ships - 12 years have passed since the foundation of the Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov was laid out, but due to the unavailability of Poliment-Redut, it still cannot pass state tests.

So, the only good reason for stopping the work on the Huskies is connected with the fact that the development of some key technologies that should have been used on it has been thwarted, and it’s not clear when it will be the result.

So, for example, in the comments of an article on VO, the opinion was expressed that the presence of a screw (and not a jet engine) on the MAPL "Ash" and "Ash-M" is a consequence of the fact that we cannot yet create electric motors for submarines of sufficient power, in order to provide them a silent 20-node motion. Accordingly, we are forced to use a turbine for such speeds, but in this case the water cannon will not have the advantage of a pre-screw. The author of this article is incompetent in this matter, but let's assume that this is a fact. Suppose also that the development of such engines in the Russian Federation is in full swing, and in 2016, when the development of the Huskies began, it was expected that the newest submarines would receive a water cannon. And now, let's say that work on electric motors has stalled and does not give an acceptable result. What to do designers Husky? Design a boat with a water cannon, despite the fact that in the end the newest ship can be left without a mover? Or initially put in the project is not the best design solution?

In other words - with a strong desire to come up with a logical reason for the suspension of the creation of "Huskies" is still possible. But then what? Of course, it was said that the head “Husky” will be commissioned before the end of 2027. It is difficult to say who this statement is intended for — we have planned to build serial Boreas A by 6-7 years, MAPL are much more complex technical the object and even in the most beautiful and magnificent case of the head boat of the new project we will build the 7 years. And this means that in order to introduce it into the fleet in 2027, it must be laid in 2020, we are “going to resume work on pre-sketch design at the beginning of 20's!” This means that even in the best case, before 2023-2025. There is no need to wait for the heading of the Husky, and in this case its entry into the fleet should be expected at the beginning of the 2030s.

But what about the fleet? There are no “Ash trees”, because the series is limited to seven units, “Huskies” are not, because there were problems with the design ... And who could fight the “Virginia”, what happens?

The situation could have been corrected to some extent by the deliveries of non-nuclear submarines, but the problem is that apart from the “Varshavyanok” project of 636.3, which, anyway, is no match for the newest American submarines, we have no submarines, and, again, is foreseen. The Lada project was unsuccessful, and, as can be understood from the media, not by the design of the boat itself, but because its newest systems did not reach the desired characteristics (hello Polymer Redut!). Accordingly, it can be assumed that until the issues with electric motors, lithium-ion batteries or a VNEU, sonar complex, etc., are resolved. etc. the series will not continue. And before that, it is still very far away - for example, the head of the USC, Alexei Rakhmanov, in 2017 reported that "the construction of the first Russian non-nuclear fifth-generation submarine can begin in five years." Needless to say, the words “may” and “in five years” are absolutely equivalent in our reality to the expression “When the cancer on the mountain will whistle”?

In other words, there is a persistent feeling that domestic submarine shipbuilding has gone into a deaf deadlock and it will be necessary for how many years to get out of it. The arrival of multi-purpose boats of the 5 generation is postponed indefinitely, and our submarine defense lines, which are still cracking at the seams, a decade later, will be completely exposed.

What should have been done to avoid all this? The answer is very simple. Due to the fact that the design of multi-purpose atomarins of the 5 generation is an extremely complex and time-consuming process, and the continuation of the serial construction of Yasen-M submarines, apparently too expensive, should be done in parallel with the Husky work to create a simplified and the lightweight version of "Ash-M" (let's call it "Yasen-MU", where the letter "U" means "Simplification"). It seems, for example, that the dismantling of 32 launchers of anti-ship missiles would have the most positive effect on the price of the Ash-M, and possibly on its other indicators.

The author of this article understands what shaft of criticism can cause the last sentence - alas, today's realities are such that a great number of people cannot perceive the ship as a combat at all if the Kalibr anti-ship missiles are not installed on it. But the installation of “Calibrov” on any scow, up to a non-self-propelled barge, makes this barge in the eyes of these people the ruler of the seas, in a manner capable of sweeping away all 10 AUG US from the surface of the World Ocean. And then there was a new "toy" - hypersonic "Dagger". The comments have already sounded the proposal to install the "Daggers" on ... anti-diversion boat "Rook".


One of the "Rook". To designate ships of this class, the Navy came up with the sonorous abbreviation "PDRC"


But the fact is that in order to combat enemy submarines, anti-ship missiles are completely unnecessary, and fighting them, destroying and squeezing Virginia from the deployment areas of our SSBNs is necessary - this is the most important task of the fleet. The preservation of the strategic nuclear potential is alpha and omega, the absolute priority of the Russian Navy, and all other tasks (including countering AUG) should and can be solved only after an acceptable level of safety of our SSBNs is ensured. Therefore, nuclear-powered submarines torpedoes (or rather, not purely torpedoes, since no one interferes with the use of cruise missiles if necessary, taking them instead of a portion of the ammunition torpedoes) will always have "work" in the Russian Navy.

Yes, of course, the torpedo submarine is not as universal as the boat carrying cruise missile launchers. But we must understand that by using part of the submarine forces to protect the waters of our coastal seas, we automatically sacrifice some of their functionality, because, as we have said, the strike capabilities of cruise missiles cannot be used in anti-submarine warfare. And having a project of such a boat, largely unified with Yasenem-M, we could now solve all the problems - to continue the construction of nuclear submarines ensuring the fulfillment of the fleet’s key task, but not overwhelming the defense budget. And “hurrying slowly” to design the Huskies, allowing themselves a delay of a year or three where it is really necessary, in order to eventually launch the 5 underwater nuclear-powered submarine into the series.

Alas, nothing of the kind happened to us, and we are going at full speed in the era of total underwater domination of the United States Navy - including in our coastal waters. Well, we live with this. Since this is happening, it is useless to moan and wring hands — one needs to accept this fact as a given, and make plans based on the actual state of affairs (the ostrich posture has not saved anyone in this world, including the ostrich itself). And here our further actions are seen very well: if we cannot ensure the safety of our SSBNs in the deployment areas, then we need to curtail the program for their construction until we can do it. There are more than enough available in the ranks and in the construction of eight modern BORIL and Borey-A SSBNs to prevent our fleet from forgetting what SSBNs are, save their bases, infrastructure, and so on. Until that glorious time, when we can recreate the submarine fleet of sufficient strength to revive the naval component of the Strategic Nuclear Forces in all the splendor of its formidable power.

The problem is that we do not have too many nuclear weapons - those (roughly) and a half thousand strategic nuclear warheads, which we, according to international agreements, have the right to keep deployed, are not enough for the total destruction of the United States alone. Yes, I understand that now there will be a lot of replicas “one special warhead in Yellowstone - and goodbye America”, but the truth is that the USSR had 46 000 of those very special warheads, not counting tactical ammunition. And even if we assume that the destruction of the United States and NATO with this arsenal was guaranteed with a triple reserve, then in this case our today's first strike 1500-1600 warheads look at least modest.

And this means that we simply cannot afford to lose these very warheads - on the day when Armageddon blows out, they should fall on the enemy, and not remain forever in the cold depths of the northern seas. At the same time, the death of even one SSBN, provided that each of its missiles carries all 4 warheads, will lead to the loss of 64 warheads, which will be quite noticeable 4% of the total number of deployed SNF warheads. And if the SSBN will go on the last trip, having a special BBY on the rocket on the 10?



Again, in the comments on the Higher Educational Institution, you constantly encounter such a point of view: “But why should our SSBNs deploy somewhere, if they are able to work from the moorings on the territory of the same United States?”. This is a fair observation, but you need to understand that using the SSBN as a floating battery standing at the pier completely makes senseless the very idea of ​​a submarine with intercontinental ballistic missiles on board.

The fact of the matter is that it’s really, absolutely no difference where the SSBN is located if we strike first. Only in this case, we do not need submarines at all - conventional mine installations will cope with it just as well, and they are significantly, at times (if not orders of magnitude) cheaper. SSBNs make sense only for a reciprocal nuclear missile strike, their essence is that if the enemy suddenly attacked us with all its nuclear power, then the short flight time of its ballistic missiles (of the order of 30-40 minutes) may lead to the country's leadership just do not have time to give the necessary orders in time, and ground-based missiles will be burned in a nuclear flame. And in this case, there are SSBNs - in the period of aggravation of the international situation, they leave for the sea, where their location should not be determined by the enemy. The covert deployment of SSBNs allows an attacked country to retain part of its nuclear potential for retaliatory strike.

If we leave the SSBNs at the piers in the bases, which will, of course, be the primary object of attack (and most likely the tactical nuclear forces will be destroyed even before the strategic “presents” from another continent), then there is no point in making a garden. If we have time to respond before a nuclear hell collapses, then the SSBNs are not needed and we can do with ground-based ICBMs, and if we don’t have time, then the SSBNs will be destroyed in the fleet bases without harming the enemy, and, therefore, are not needed .

In other words, SSBNs are effective only when they are covertly deployed into the sea, and for this it is necessary to be able to "squeeze" enemy multi-purpose atomarins from the deployment areas. With the forces at our disposal, we cannot and will not be able to guarantee the covert deployment of our SSBNs in the foreseeable future, which means that it is meaningless to build new boats of this class in addition to the eight Boreas that are being built and built now.

But nevertheless, this is exactly what we are going to do! Although let's be clear - for the combat sustainability of our strategic nuclear forces it would be much more useful not to build new Boreas, but to lay down at least the same Yaseny-M (with funds allocated for new Boreas) that would ensure the safety of existing and existing in the construction of boats.

Well, Russia, as always, has its own way. We decided to build SSBNs, the actions of which we cannot provide, so be it. But ... it seems to be obvious that in this case our submariners will have to act in the most difficult conditions. They will have to hide in the waters teeming with the most modern atomic enemies of the enemy, and no, let the most minimal technical advantage be for them. That is, if we are going to send our SSBNs into the mouth of a powerful enemy, then we need to build the best we can do, because only in this way can we count on some acceptable survival rate of our SSBNs before they apply their basic weapon.

Such boats were designed: after the “Boreev”, representing a certain cross between the third and fourth generation atomarines, and several improved “Boreev-A”, we were preparing to build the “Borei-B”. The author of this article is not a professional submariner, but he has heard that it is Borey B that is closest to the top, the limit of the technologies that we have today. If someone has a chance to survive on “Virginia” to 2030, and still strike when an order arrives, then this “Borey-B” is the best that we could build for our submariners.

The project is ready ... and so what? And nothing. Literally nothing. The “Borea B” project, you know, does not meet the “cost / effectiveness” criteria and therefore will not go into the series. We will build a much less advanced "Borei-A."
Author:
87 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo 6 June 2018 15: 24
    0
    The problem is that we don’t have many nuclear weapons - those (roughly) fifteen hundred strategic nuclear warheads

    1500 YaBCh is deployed, and how much is state in storage. secret.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      6 June 2018 15: 39
      +14
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      1500 YaBCh is deployed, and how much is state in storage. secret.

      I will open it to you :)))) Recently there were 1 deployed and 648 canned
      1. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo 6 June 2018 16: 15
        0
        this is the data for the US State Department, under the START 3 agreement ..... and how many actually, no one will answer
        1. asv363
          asv363 6 June 2018 18: 35
          +3
          The appendix to the START-3 treaty clearly defines the mechanism of inspection, the quantities are indicated. The only thing that is out of scope of the contract and its annexes are facilities for the production of nuclear warheads and its launch vehicles.
      2. Ruslan
        Ruslan 7 June 2018 13: 24
        0
        good article, in response to my recent thoughts. I see the French version, to build small apl on 5000-6000 tons with 4-6 and 18-25 torpedoes. the truth is in our realities and it can cost like a French barracuda :-)))
      3. Sevastiec
        Sevastiec 8 June 2018 09: 41
        0
        In general, my opinion is that we with amers, in life, have to compete not in the number of ships, but in the plane of the economy, politics and world influence. They will not fight with us. Well, there won't be a point. No American nuclear submarines will "lock" ours, it's all to Clancy's books, well, our science fiction writers. The carrier fleet, here I agree, we need, but I think that two, from the strength of the three AUGs, will be enough to prevent situations like Libyan. And yet, you can not miss the cosmos.

        In general, even if a possible conflict is allowed, then, as we know, some means are anti-ship, we have in addition to the sub-melting. The main means of attack by the Americans are large surface ships, and boats will hardly change much in terms of non-nuclear attack.

        And one more thing: who said that in counting boats, we are not preparing for the last war? It may well turn out that the hypothetical future war will not be won by the one with the most aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines? After all, history knows such examples.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  2. Sonet
    Sonet 6 June 2018 15: 32
    +18
    There is no money but you submariners, hold on.
    And anyway, what kind of 3 world nonsense is all this more important for us to put money abroad at%.
    - That's the whole figurative response to external threats from our liberals.
    1. Titsen
      Titsen 7 June 2018 08: 00
      +2
      Quote: Sonet
      There is no money but you submariners, hold on.
      And anyway, what kind of 3 world nonsense is all this more important for us to put money abroad at%.
      - That's the whole figurative response to external threats from our liberals.


      And the surface guards too - hold on!
  3. t-4
    t-4 6 June 2018 16: 04
    -1
    Somehow everything is smart, beautiful, logical and reasonable.
    But all this is so, if at the very beginning to pass off as an axiom a very controversial fact.
    Namely.
    In addition to the SSBN, there is no one to strike back?
    In huge Russia, at a time of aggravation of the international situation, there is nowhere to hide ICBMs? Must you climb under the polar ice?
    What about Barguzin and mobile Topol Yars? Isn't it cheap?
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 6 June 2018 16: 36
      +5
      Quote: t-4
      How about Barguzin

      BZHRK? Do they have any? The latter seems to be a joke in the middle of the zero. Amerikashki for Molodets gave 50 Triiden.
    2. spektr9
      spektr9 6 June 2018 16: 42
      0
      Yes, of course it’s cheaper, only in Korea and eastern Europe it’s probably not in vain that the missile defense system is deployed, it may not fly through Poplar and Yars ....
      And so, such cries reminiscent of the 90s, "why do we need an army at all - it is expensive to maintain it"
      1. Mairos
        Mairos 6 June 2018 22: 43
        0
        Poplar with Yars and should not fly through Europe - there is a polar trajectory. And how about about from Europositions going to intercept something starting a few thousand kilometers from them?
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      6 June 2018 16: 49
      +4
      Quote: t-4
      In addition to the SSBN, there is no one to strike back?

      Apparently no one, since for 8 SSBNs such as Borey and Borey-A, for some reason they decided to build another series
      Quote: t-4
      What about Barguzin and mobile Topol Yars? Isn't it cheap?

      Barguzin is not there, but poplars and yars are cheaper. What is the point in the article about - if we cannot provide the SSBN - let's build yars
      1. Sergei1982
        Sergei1982 19 June 2018 05: 56
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Apparently no one, since for 8 SSBNs such as Borey and Borey-A, for some reason they decided to build another series

        There was already a message that there will be a rejection of Borey-B and another 6 units of Borey-A will be built. And another 677 series will not be limited to two pledged units.
        The Russian Navy expects the completion of the construction of the fourth and fifth non-nuclear submarines of Project 677 Lada until 2025, the manufacturer is ready to build them within five years.


        "Two more will be built before 2025, but the series will not be limited to this, it will be very large," Bursuk told reporters at the International Naval Salon in St. Petersburg.

        RIA Novosti https://ria.ru/arms/20170628/1497441184.html
        In general, with all due respect to you, I think the number of 32 submarines by 2030 is clearly underestimated. IMHO should count on another 4-8 units of 677,677M or Kalina. It should also count on MAPL and SSGN after the 885M series, which, whatever one may say, will be completed until 2025, that is, it is still + 2-4 units. Again, what will Belgorod and Khabarovsk be like and whether Khabarovsk will follow ... In general, there are all chances to save 45-50 units of submarines + 14 SSBNs.
    4. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 7 June 2018 09: 41
      0
      apl is the only long arm of Moscow, for all the importance of ground-based strategic nuclear forces, it’s impossible to refuse nuclear submarines, because the enemy has air defense, and can make ground-based strategic nuclear forces ineffective
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        7 June 2018 09: 48
        0
        Quote: vladimir1155
        for the enemy has anti-aircraft defense, and can make it so that ground-based strategic nuclear forces are ineffective

        No, he doesn’t have such an opportunity
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 7 June 2018 14: 25
          0
          she may appear with no security joke
  4. barsuk
    barsuk 6 June 2018 16: 29
    +1
    Russia is a land power, and that’s why they pour more money into the army.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 7 June 2018 09: 41
      0
      they don’t pour it that way, it takes more
    2. Black sniper
      Black sniper 7 June 2018 14: 12
      +1
      Overland?!?! But what about the maritime border? RUSSIA is one of the largest sea powers!
  5. Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo 6 June 2018 16: 29
    +2
    According to Husky, there is no specific information at all, then 12 kT, then 3 kT
    I personally “FOR” reincarnation of pr. 705K Lira in pr. Husky
    3 kT, 2 hulls, depth up to 600 m., Water cannon, speed under 45 knots, onboard 6 TA for 18 Torpedoes, PLUR, 4 VPU for 16 KR, 2 Package-PL (PTZ), BPPA (Galtel type)
    such nuclear submarines can be built quickly and a lot, and not only on Sevmash
    1. NikWik
      NikWik 6 June 2018 18: 46
      +11
      Well, a speed of 45 knots is completely useless. For the entire service on pr. 705 we gave maximum speed only at the training ground, at a measured mile. At speeds above 15 knots, there is already a bucket on the head (in the sense we don’t hear anything). And in combat service - 3-4 knots. But the boat was beautiful, and what’s really there, my favorite
    2. 955535
      955535 6 June 2018 19: 19
      +7
      Quote: Romario_Argo

      such nuclear submarines can be built quickly and a lot, and not only on Sevmash

      Only in your wet dreams. Qualified specialists and production facilities apparently live there.
      1. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo 6 June 2018 19: 34
        +2
        Only in your wet dreams. Qualified specialists and production facilities apparently live there.

        V.V. the Krasnoye Sormovo plant in N. Novgorod was reanimated, this is the one that produced MPLATRK, pr. 945 Barracuda - 9,6 kT, pr. 945A Condor - 10,4 kT.
        * Condors (2) and Barracuda (1), by the way, in the combat structure of the Navy
        1. TermNachTer
          TermNachTer 6 June 2018 21: 20
          0
          So far, yes, but alas, their prospects are very vague.
        2. 955535
          955535 9 June 2018 20: 14
          0
          Krasnoye Sormovo produces nothing from military products, except for the production of torpedo tubes. The river-sea RSD bulk carriers are being built there, the technology of construction of which is simply ridiculous to compare with the construction of nuclear powered ships
          1. Romario_Argo
            Romario_Argo 12 June 2018 16: 52
            +1
            Factory "Red Sormovo". Over 75 years, more than 300 submarines and rescue vehicles were built and modernized, including 25 nuclear, and about 2000 civilian vessels.

            In this closed heated boathouse, it is possible to build a Husky submarine year-round (!)
            1. frog
              frog 13 August 2018 21: 00
              0
              From the point of view of construction, it would be better to forget about Krasnoye Sormovo of any submarine. This is, regardless of any political views, a dull real. Once upon a time they really did, and not bad ones. And now .... Even jackets are built in such a way that .... once they already explained to me for euphemisms)) ....
              And even for the construction of boats at the factory, there are no wet dreams. At one time, even Gaster was brought in for the construction of "bricks".
              Again, the main problem is not in the cabinet, but in the filling. But with her, more precisely with its production, it’s a complete disaster. So, sorry, it's easy to break, but to restore ....
  6. gorgo
    gorgo 6 June 2018 16: 52
    +2
    It also seems to me that comparing the naval component of Russia and the USA is not entirely correct.
    These are fundamentally different geopolitically relics: continental and marine. By definition, they cannot build the power component of projecting their power from the same positions. The land component is more important for Russia, and the ocean component for America.
    Although, the author of the article has a lot of common thoughts. Although I am also that submarine strategist, but ... the questions seem right. Where to get the answers? ...
    1. arkadiyssk
      arkadiyssk 6 June 2018 17: 40
      +5
      And we have nowhere to go - we are forced to compare, precisely because America is a sea power and they will fight with us by the fleet. As a result, the author is right, even if we take us for a land power, you still have to build attacking boats to defend the strategists and to neutralize the ACG that the Americans can sail to us. And these boats are physically gone after the next 15 years, and they get 1-2 Virginia ships every year.
  7. sevtrash
    sevtrash 6 June 2018 17: 11
    +3
    The economic condition determines the state of the armed forces and the navy as well. One state of California produces more products than Russia, sort of like 50 percent. This is not to mention the technological component, basic and applied research. The simplest example is Elon Musk and Roskosmos. The ash-tree MU proposed by the author, even the Ash-tree MUU (greatly simplified) or, for example, Borey BU, is hardly an option. There is probably a concept for the development of the Navy - perhaps it involves the creation of concepts, not series.
    1. NikWik
      NikWik 6 June 2018 18: 50
      +4
      I agree - most likely there are concepts. That's just there is no money for them and will not be soon. And the author raised the topic correctly. Despite some errors and simplifications to him +
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 6 June 2018 19: 19
        +2
        The author did not note a small detail. Mattress workers have to control huge water areas, and the Russian fleet only what is adjacent to Russia. And besides, the amers have enough problems without Russia and they continue to create them.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          6 June 2018 20: 20
          +4
          Quote: TermNachTER
          The author did not note a small detail. Mattress workers have to control huge water areas, and the Russian fleet only what is adjacent to Russia.

          Believe me, on the threshold of Armageddon, the tasks are more important than the destruction of our SSBNs they will not have. And then - what does it mean - control over vast territories? Tell us where the US nuclear submarines are needed in anticipation of a nuclear war - not only in general terms, but with specific locations
          1. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer 6 June 2018 21: 23
            +1
            They have the whole Atlantic, the Pacific Ocean and the Indian, and all this must be controlled. And Russia has enough of the Barents Sea and the waters adjacent to Kamchatka. In shallow water, submarines have certain chances against nuclear submarines.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              7 June 2018 00: 08
              +4
              Quote: TermNachTER
              They have the whole Atlantic, the Pacific Ocean and the Indian and all this must be controlled

              Do not. What do you want to control in the Atlantic? :))) What needs control there? We won’t bring our submarines there - there’s nothing to withdraw, and even if we withdraw, then you compare the damage from several submarines in the Atlantic and from one SSBN on a combat course :)))) In addition, the best way to control the Atlantic is to lock the SF in The Barents Sea - which, in fact, will happen. The same is true for the rest of the regions you named.
              Quote: TermNachTER
              In shallow water, submarines have certain chances against nuclear submarines.

              They have in the ocean - if the nuclear submarines stumble upon it by accident. Only here is the probability of this meeting. not so great, and Varshavyanka will have a very hard time fighting against Virginia
              1. TermNachTer
                TermNachTer 7 June 2018 18: 28
                0
                Is it if in the ocean, but if in the Barents Sea? There, the probability of meeting increases at times. The sea is not very large and the depths are very suitable specifically for the DPL. If you “lock up” the Russian fleet in the Barents Sea and near Kamchatka, then this is exactly what is required. SSBNs can calmly shoot back.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  7 June 2018 18: 31
                  +2
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  Is it if in the ocean, but if in the Barents Sea? There, the probability of meeting increases at times.

                  Just taking into account the fact that we have 6 Varshavyanks at the World Cup, and 6 more are planned in the Far East, then by 2030 there will be only one Lada of Project 677 in the Northern Fleet. Or as many as three if they are left without the BF submarine. Let's fight?
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 7 June 2018 09: 49
      +2
      America produces less than China, or India, and almost as much as Russia. Almost all of the US economy is blown up on paper, just calculate by capitalization coefficient, if in the United States the coefficient is 60, in China 1, and in Russia 2.5, then the US economy needs to be divided by 60 compared to China and 30 will from Russia. The capitalization coefficient takes into account the difference in cost prices and non-economic exchange rates. For example, if in Russia a brick is sold for 6 rubles, in China for 3, and in the United States for 40 rubles .... why are they taken into account unequally in the economy? After all, brick is brick. The Americans build their submarines on the money that Nabiullina sent to them, and the money that they received from China, Saudi Arabia and all countries of the world using dollars
  8. Tests
    Tests 6 June 2018 19: 52
    +4
    Andrey, there is a route almost forgotten by our submarines at Cape Horn. From South America to North, the Mace will fly no less beautiful than from the White Sea to the Kura training ground. That's just who and where, after such a long voyage, the ship in the Far East will be put in order ... Alas, the Russian Federation is not the USSR ... When the USC created a reasonable proposal that it would be possible to transfer specialists from any research institute or plant inside the Corporation, if necessary , from St. Petersburg, N. Novgorod, Severodvinsk, for example, in Komsomolsk-on-Amur. Specialists out, from the "Red Sormov" began to forget how the boats look. But the USC, it seems, about five or seven years was imprisoned only for laundering attendants and seating in comfortable warm chairs of DOR, LOR and LOR ...
    Almost a topic, but our strategists, it is clear that with fighters and tankers, they should at least once a quarter go on combat duty with missiles to Cuba, the Philippines, Vietnam, Angola, Cape Verdi. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should recall that the USSR had experience ... It seems that Kazan promises to roll out a new strategist from the shops at least once every 3 years. You look and reduce the threat of missile defense at our borders to launch missiles from boats at piers and Strategic Missile Forces missiles.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      6 June 2018 20: 21
      +2
      Quote: Tests
      Almost a topic, but our strategists, it’s clear that with fighters and tankers, they should at least once a quarter go on combat duty with missiles to Cuba, the Philippines, Vietnam, Angola, Cape Verdi

      Let's hope that they will! hi drinks
    2. NikWik
      NikWik 6 June 2018 21: 27
      +7
      There was another good route. True, they visited them only once: from the north around Greenland through the Baffin Sea and the Davis Strait. I was not lucky in my youth, but my father’s crew passed. Dad said the trip was very difficult, but then the amers were well wiped off their amers.
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 6 June 2018 21: 50
        +5
        K-524 Protopopova in the 85th?
        1. NikWik
          NikWik 7 June 2018 10: 22
          +3
          Quote: rudolff
          K-524 Protopopova in the 85th?

          Done right. K-524
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. rudolff
    rudolff 6 June 2018 20: 34
    +9
    About movers. If a ship on a BS spends two-thirds of the time on several nodes, then it’s a screw for his eyes. If the maximum silent 10-15 knots and above, it is time to think about a water cannon. At low speeds, it is ineffective. Comparison with aviation is appropriate. Where speed is not important, there is a screw. Where there is speed, there is a turbojet engine.
    In general, the article is good. And the conclusions are correct. Well done! I can throw another article topic. The effectiveness of the use of existing ship composition. Compare KOH for atomic submarines among Americans and ours. Why in them it never fell below 0,5, sometimes reaching 0,7, while in our country it never exceeded 0,5. Now 0,15-2. They currently have more than half of the ships at sea, and we have a couple of pieces for both fleets. That in Soviet times they did not really know how to exploit the equipment that now. And further. Look at the average number of combat patrols during the operation of American submarines and the number of BS on a ship with us. Pay attention to Antei. Is there still a country in the world where billions are ruined on a ship that has only seen the sea a couple of times in its life? I’m not about the exercises or passing the objectives of the BP course, I’m about BS. Do you know why they gave Hero the elder on board and the commander for the inter-naval transition from the North to the Pacific Fleet? Or Lyachin for Middle-earth? For not drowning!
    1. rudolff
      rudolff 6 June 2018 21: 51
      +4
      Strange, one comment was deleted.
    2. Simeonov
      Simeonov 23 November 2018 21: 55
      +1
      We didn’t have 0,5 ... We pulled 0,4 and then due to the bestial attitude towards the crews, the Big Circle, Indian-Quiet-Kamran. Or a floating base. Wash and sleep normally.
      RR reported, Americans sent applications from an aircraft carrier often for the arrival of families from the United States to Yokosuka (for example). If the aircraft carrier is more than a certain time. Families flew at the expense of Moscow Region and this brightened up the trip. I don’t know about boats. But hardly families called for them))).
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 24 November 2018 07: 36
        0
        I mean KOH for submarines, atomic. Families certainly weren’t taken anywhere. But on diesel-electric submarines, crews sometimes changed directly to the BS. But they also had BS sometimes up to a year.
        1. Simeonov
          Simeonov 24 November 2018 07: 47
          0
          I have a different diploma))) Yes, and our 182 brigade only went to the Kuril Islands. What is there to change? These are 675 "travelers".
          1. rudolff
            rudolff 24 November 2018 12: 38
            0
            What about the 641st? Also running.
            1. Simeonov
              Simeonov 24 November 2018 13: 55
              0
              With me they began to shove them into Magadan, and whom in Primorye. In Bichev, 877 remained.
              1. rudolff
                rudolff 24 November 2018 14: 27
                0
                I started reading Non-traditional. Carried away.
                1. Simeonov
                  Simeonov 24 November 2018 15: 02
                  0
                  Yes, well .. (((..In general, it was a banter .. Joking and neighing. I got better stories. And this ... It turned out the other way around and Canadians have already begun to print the first part. Then they requested continuation ...
                  The stories are better, the truth is 95%. And in the story, well, 70-75 ...
                  You’re re-reading now, well, bullshit. Although, the search technique is almost true. Well, life and characters are all real. Virtually everything.
                  1. rudolff
                    rudolff 24 November 2018 16: 42
                    0
                    The beginning reminded me of Moscow-Petushki Erofeev.
                    drinks
                    As I understand it, we are colleagues in pencils, rulers, cards ..? VVMUPP named after Lenkom, the third navigational factor.
                    1. rudolff
                      rudolff 24 November 2018 16: 47
                      0
                      It was always interesting how much one "curtain" from the RSL-1 costs in terms of money. They are passive, they threw in "packs".
  12. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 6 June 2018 21: 18
    +2
    Everything is so: sad and true. Well done, Andrey, respect!
  13. exo
    exo 6 June 2018 23: 11
    +3
    Sad, but correct, said. A country with an inefficient economy cannot create and maintain a fleet. Believe in the "victory in the construction of the fleet (and the Air Force)," by 2030, can only a narrow-minded person. I’m afraid that by the indicated date, there will be problems in the country in which the construction of the armed forces goes to second (or third) roles.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 7 June 2018 09: 52
      +1
      to drive to Siberia Nabiullina and the entire "elite" as in 1937 until it is too late, there is no other way
  14. lopvlad
    lopvlad 6 June 2018 23: 44
    +2
    if everything is left as is, then by 2030


    you don’t know what tomorrow will be, but the author about the year 2030. I remember what decadent moods were in the middle of the zero about the surface fleet of Russia, they wrote that by 2015 we would be completely without a fleet. But a certain non-symmetrical answer was given in the form of small ships equipped with winged long-range missiles.
    The biggest stupidity is to “tear out” the development of one type of weapon and develop your own fabrications, build a concept only on the basis of the number of these weapons in a given country at a certain point in time.
    Simply, if the enemy has a guaranteed means of determining the location and destruction of your submarines, then a mechanical increase in their number will not help you defeat.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      7 June 2018 18: 28
      +3
      Quote: lopvlad
      I remember what decadent moods were in the middle of the zero about the surface fleet of Russia, wrote that by 2015 we will be completely without a fleet

      so we basically stayed
      Quote: lopvlad
      But some non-symmetrical answer was given in the form of small ships equipped with long-range cruise missiles.

      Which of the Black Sea (6 Warsaw, yes) of course will melt all the enemy nuclear submarines in the North Seas in the Far East.
      Thank you, you just gave a great illustration for the article.
      But the installation of "Caliber" on any scandal, up to a non-self-propelled barge, makes this barge in the eyes of these people the ruler of the seas, capable of walking and with one left sweep away all 10 USG from the surface of the oceans.

      Quote: lopvlad
      The biggest stupidity is to “tear out” the development of one type of weapon and develop your own fabrications, build a concept only on the basis of the number of these weapons in a given country at a certain point in time.

      Given the fact that the author considered the stability of the marine component of the strategic nuclear forces, taking into account the condition of the DEPL and MAPL fleet, what does your "thoughtful" statement have to do with the article?
      Quote: lopvlad
      Simply, if the enemy has a guaranteed means of determining the location

      ??? We do not have EGSONPO.
      1. lopvlad
        lopvlad 7 June 2018 18: 40
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        EGSONPO we do not have


        we have a lot of things now, but you are also making plans beyond the horizon of 2030 and not today.
        therefore
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          7 June 2018 19: 23
          0
          Quote: lopvlad
          we have a lot of things now, but you are also making plans beyond the horizon of 2030 and not today.

          I described the state with EGSONPO here.
          In short - it’s still worse than with the naval staff
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 7 June 2018 07: 26
    0
    In general, as I understand it, we are talking about a new series of pr.971 with elements of hydroacoustics, control systems and noise reduction systems from "ash trees" ...
    X / z, in my opinion, if you build a series of nuclear submarines "with a higher number, cheaper price," it would be better to make the project as unified as possible with nuclear submarines. Perhaps with full electric movement - the reactor in this case will only work on the generator. Lose in speed, win in simplicity. Well, this is my opinion, knowledgeable comrades may criticize as heresy irrelevant.
  20. Hole puncher
    Hole puncher 7 June 2018 09: 06
    +1
    If there are no dies .... to set aside, modern mine-sweeping forces and equipment, all these calculations are worthless, the fleet will be locked in the bases by setting up the fields of bottom mines, which the enemy has in abundance and not a single submarine or SSBN can reach the specified line .
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      7 June 2018 09: 47
      0
      Quote: Puncher
      If there are no dies .... set aside, modern mine-sweeping forces and means, all these calculations are worthless

      One doesn’t interfere with the other, but I already wrote about the state of our skinny
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 7 June 2018 18: 32
        0
        How do you imagine a mine setting right next to the naval base? And it’s not very smart to put bottom mines at depths of more than 50 meters. The likelihood of serious damage is minimal.
  21. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 7 June 2018 09: 36
    0
    extremely important topic! clear analysis! the problem, in my opinion, should be solved with the money that goes to the USA by billions. it is necessary 1 to equip underwater lighting systems for the situation in all water areas adjacent to the Russian Federation; 2 to increase the pace and volume of commissioning of submarines of all types. 3 Modern dueling is much cheaper than apl, and can provide coastal security no worse than a nuclear submarine; 4 increase the number of strategic ones to 33; 5 increase the number of PLO aviation; and AWACS 6; stop laying new surface ships except minesweepers, to solve all problems with underwater conditions, with submarines and coastal aviation
  22. Tektor
    Tektor 7 June 2018 11: 22
    +2
    But what about the fleet? There are no “Ash trees”, because the series is limited to seven units, “Huskies” are not, because there were problems with the design ... And who could fight the “Virginia”, what happens?
    In connection with the development of ultra-sensitive magnetometers, the sensitivity of which at SQUIDs is at the level of FEMTOTESLA at the temperature of liquid hydrogen, which is several orders of magnitude more sensitive than with the best geophysical magnetometer, ANY piece of iron becomes visible at the depths available today for the Virginia and Sea Wolfs. That is, by creating a system of drones with magnetometers in SQUIDs, such as Orion, from hundreds of UAVs with an interval in the rank of 350 m at an altitude of 50 m and above, you can control the sea depths up to 500 m along the front of 35 km in one flight (the interval can be increased twice and the front of the line will be 70 km). Orion can take up to 200 kg of payload and fly with it 24 hours at a speed of 100 km / h, overcoming 2400 km per day, at a distance of up to 250 km from the operator. But nothing prevents the operator from landing in the A-100 or IL-38. This will be a super effective way to control and illuminate the underwater environment of critical areas of the oceans!
    1. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 7 June 2018 21: 47
      0
      Here are just micro-drones with the desired detectors, you can’t create. Where to stick a cryogenic "body kit"? She is heavy and dimensionally zelo. And squid assemblies, by the way, are also not small. And one more thing: with similar sensitivity parameters, it is necessary to hang out on balsa rafts, and not on pepelats with a "steel hot tube" :) As an option, balloons :)
    2. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 7 June 2018 21: 49
      0
      "... out of a hundred UAVs with an interval in the rank of 350 m at an altitude of 50 m and above, you can control the sea depths up to 500 m along the front of 35 km in one flight (the interval can be doubled and the front of the line will become 70 km) ... "- the mutual interference of this detector swarm makes it disabled, alas.
  23. Ros 56
    Ros 56 7 June 2018 11: 35
    +2
    And where did I get, by chance not at a meeting of the operational department of the General Staff of the Russian Federation, is it not Shoigu who pretends to be Andryusha from Chelyabinsk? soldier You are grown men, who will tell you how it really takes place? I read and wonder where in VO they put a machine gun on hanging noodles on the ears. In my opinion, dear all your speculations come from a simple ignorance and misunderstanding of the strategy of modern warfare due to the lack of access to the highest state military secrets. It would have been so easy to destroy us, believe the arrogant Saxons would have done it, all the more with such an advantage, and especially in the late 90s and early 00s.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      7 June 2018 12: 11
      +5
      Quote: Ros 56
      You are grown men, who will tell you how it really takes place?

      Do you think that information about the submarines in the fleet or plans for modernization or GPV 2020 is secret? :)))))) Yura, were you born yesterday? Google banned you?
      Quote: Ros 56
      In my opinion, dear all your speculations come from a simple ignorance and misunderstanding of the strategy of modern warfare

      From there come your pink glasses.
      Quote: Ros 56
      It would be so easy to destroy us, believe naglosaksa would do it

      And who are you to believe in you? :))))) In addition, can you tell me how my predicted position for 2030 could help the Anglo-Saxons destroy us in the 2000th, or when you gathered there?
      Logic today is definitely not in fashion, alas
    2. Simeonov
      Simeonov 23 November 2018 21: 48
      0
      Now there is enough literature and pence, remembering how it was. And as it is, there is someone to follow. I'm about the Navy. But the collective farm is voluntary. There is something to say, speak on business.
  24. g1v2
    g1v2 7 June 2018 14: 44
    +1
    Interesting numbers of course. But let's see what is in real life. The USA has 14 Ohio strategists. The youngest of them is 21 years old. By the 30th year, he will be 33. The oldest of them will be 46 years old. That is, they need to deploy a number of strategists now in order to change them planned. Naturally to the detriment of pr-woo maple. Here is what they wrote a few years ago.
    "The shortage of submarines will force US Navy submariners to increase the duration of autonomous navigation. This is evidenced by official documents of the Navy and Navy Times sources in Congress and the military-industrial complex. According to the current US Navy procurement plan for 30 years, the fleet of multipurpose submarines in 2022 will be less than acceptable a minimum of 48 boats, and after only 6 years there will be only 41 submarines. The shortage of multipurpose submarines will last in the US Navy until 2034. Replacing 12 submarines with ballistic missiles, provided for by the plans of the Navy, will also not be painless.
    If the fleet does not receive a $ 80 billion subsidy from Congress, which is likely to be requested in the coming months, procuring nuclear missile carriers for 14 years will eat up almost half of the shipbuilding's annual budget. Because of this, the shipyards will reduce the construction of multipurpose submarines: as a result, in 2028, 40 multipurpose submarines will remain in the US Navy, and only 2040 will join them by 4. "
    Now the situation has changed. And instead of 14, Ohio plans to purchase 12 Colombia. But the project is not yet ready and their construction will be in fact to the detriment of the Virginia. And again, Congress is dissatisfied with the price, including how much they will buy in real life - it is not yet clear.
    Maple It is believed that by the 30th year, all boats of the Los Angeles type will be withdrawn from the Navy, as they will be from 34 to 49 years old. About refitted Ohio generally silent.
    0 The contract for the virgins is concluded at 10 block 4. By the 30th year they will be built. New contracts for block 5 are not yet visible. That is, for the time being we can only talk about 28 Virginia and 3 Sivulf in the 30th year. Not about 39, but about 28 and 3. Since we are talking about what is already clear. wink
    Antheam from 30 to 22 years old. The oldest ones are undergoing modernization. What prevents the others from modernizing? And we get 8 Anteev and 7 Ash, plus pieces of 5 pike-b and 15 -16 diesel-electric submarines. request
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      7 June 2018 16: 55
      +1
      Quote: g1v2
      It is believed that by the 30th year, all boats of the Los Angeles type will be withdrawn from the Navy, as they will be from 34 to 49 years old.

      And 18 MAPLs still will not overcome the 40-year threshold, that is, they can very well be kept in the fleet
      Quote: g1v2
      0 The contract for the virgins is concluded at 10 block 4. By the 30th year they will be built. New contracts for block 5 are not yet visible. That is, for the time being we can only talk about 28 Virginia and 3 Sivulf in the 30th year. Not about 39, but about 28 and 3. Since we are talking about what is already clear.

      And why are the contracts for block 5, if they have not mortgaged block 4 yet? Taking into account bookmarks of 7 pcs per year, they should put the first block 2 on the slipway in 5. And I do not see a single reason for stopping the construction of Virginia after block 2022. Well, except for our ardent desire, it’s unlikely that they will accept into account
      Quote: g1v2
      Antheam from 30 to 22 years old. The oldest ones are undergoing modernization. What prevents the others from modernizing?

      Irkutsk, Chelyabinsk, Vilyuchinsk and Omsk - they are not nearly the oldest. And it is not known how many years they will stay in repair, in fact, it is not known whether the new GPV will have enough money for all 4. And by 2025 (this is the deadline by which it was supposed to be completed, and it will move 100% to the right) the remaining boats will be 33- 36 years old (only Tomsk - 29). What is there to upgrade?
      1. g1v2
        g1v2 7 June 2018 21: 33
        +1
        Well, that moose will be written off by the 30th year. Americans said more than once in the press. Block 5 does not yet have a contract, just as there is no Husky contract yet. PM are the same categories. We do not take into account the Husky - that means we do not take into account the contract for block 5, as it is not there yet. request
        The reason may be simple - lack of funding. The battle for funding they have in Congress never subsides. And Trump is trying to break through the congress an increase in the fleet to 350 ships. And the construction of Colombia is necessary for them. Plus, they urgently need to re-equip the strategic nuclear forces. Plus a bunch of necessary things. There is no contract so far - there’s nothing to talk about.
        In fact, Irkutsk is the oldest - 88 years old. Voronezh, Oryol, Tomsk and Smolensk recently underwent repairs, so it’s logical that they didn’t take them for modernization with repairs. And Vilyuchinsk - which is Tver now? So he’s in the ranks like now. But since he underwent repairs in the 90s, it is logical that he will leave next for repairs with modernization.
        But the most important thing is that only Antei and Yaseni meet the modern ideas of the fleet and the leadership about what kind of maple it needs. Therefore there will be no cheap cut-out compartments. And torpedo boats in the ranks will remain for a short time. I think that even relatively new Pike-bs will be written off earlier than Anteev.
        In general, it’s too early to talk about anything specific. Everything will depend on whether it will be possible to create a normal project, for example. It is just a cheap alternative to torpedo apl. Apparently there are some successes there, as the admirals say that 2 more Frets will be ordered. And Lada was a transitional project from conventional to non-volatile dapels.
        But in general, I am for ordering another 6 Varshavyanks at the Black Sea Fleet and Pacific Fleet to replace the old Halibut. Yes, and on the SF would also be useful replacement. In my opinion, there would be quite appropriate for 12 new dap there. And for the Baltic to overtake Lada. They are more appropriate there and not far from the factory if that. hi If necessary, the Admiralty shipyards may well issue a couple of boats a year and reach the construction time of 2-2,5 years. And if you expand their construction somewhere else, then by the 30th year you can quite have time.
        1. rudolff
          rudolff 8 June 2018 17: 51
          +1
          "But the most important thing is that only Antei and Yaseni meet the modern ideas of the fleet and the leadership about which mapples he needs." Antey? MAPL? You are joking?
  25. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 7 June 2018 15: 02
    +3
    Thanks Andrew! I’ve talked with submariners and the conclusions are very similar to you, people are telling us that now we need about 20 Ash-trees as a minimum. I, too, am not a professional submariner, but a very close relative of the old man who served on the nuclear submarines and the conclusions and thoughts are very similar to yours.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      7 June 2018 16: 41
      +1
      Thanks so much for sharing this information!
    2. Simeonov
      Simeonov 23 November 2018 21: 44
      0
      So it was. Even more. 2 divisions per fleet. Multi-purpose. And two strategists. And two SSGNs. And two crews per boat.
      But! Arsenals, accommodation for drugs and families. Training center as in Paldiski. For example.
      In short, the cost of iron is one third of the NORMAL infrastructure. You can partially fit into the old one. Partially. Sailor retired. Left? Or sits waiting for housing? The apartment is gone.
      In general, this is ridiculous.
      Now the task of the Russian Federation is to keep what is, and not to land troops and build new boats. A submarine is part of the aircraft. What is the concept? She is not there. If already in the doctrine scored, the first nuclear strike.
  26. alexmach
    alexmach 8 June 2018 23: 11
    +1
    Hello Andrew, thanks for the interesting article. The only thing that is not clear - but where does the conclusion come from, that "cutting" PU cruise missiles significantly reduce the cost of "Ash"? Is PU itself so expensive?
  27. Newone
    Newone 24 June 2018 03: 22
    +1
    The author in this article is again too keen on drawing conclusions based on his personal opinion.
    In particular, the author, for some unknown reason, believes that only MAPL is the main means of combating enemy submarines. Therefore, the author does not at all take into account 63 available special anti-submarine helicopters KA-27. While 20 such machines, for example, are able to organize combing of a rectangle of 200 * 400 km with active sonars at a speed of 60 km / h, and this is for a second the entire water area of ​​the White Sea. At the same time, there is NO anti-carding means by submarines for combing by active sonar, and even theoretically nothing can be done against combing in echolocation mode. Therefore, the author greatly exaggerates the inability to control the water situation in the areas where combat patrols are launched and, in fact, in the areas of combat patrols when strategic missile carriers enter the threatened period.
    The author’s proposal to build specialized nuclear submarines for “Virginia extrusion” is also puzzling. How this extrusion was possibly demonstrated to us by the Kursk catastrophe. Despite the fact that even theoretically we can’t even reach parity for MAPL. The Americans will remain quantitative (1 2) and high-quality (Si Wulf) superiority, but we’ll master the budget.
    At the same time, the combat patrol areas of the SSBNs are located within our naval bases and are known and controlled by us, not by the enemy, and in essence represent an ideal situation for ambush hunting. Those. ideal situation for the application of diesel submarines. At the same time, DEPL, as the author acknowledges in other articles, has the ADVANTAGE over the submarine in terms of noise and, accordingly, it detects the enemy’s MAPL faster than it detects the DEPL itself. Moreover, provided that we control the airspace, the process of escorting, extruding and, if necessary, destroying the enemy nuclear submarines can be carried out by anti-submarine aviation without the risk of losing submarines in a duel.
    It should also be noted that DEPL costs 10 times less than MAPL and is built much faster.
    To the obvious question "Why aren’t we building DEPL at an accelerated pace?" The answer is no less obvious: for the full functioning of the DEPL / anti-submarine aviation bundle (helicopters for detection in combing mode and / or maintaining contact upon detection, and aircraft for destruction, in general), coastal infrastructure is needed, which is now being actively built.
    In addition, the long-awaited progress in VNEU, as well as certain successes in lithium-ion batteries, simply force the development of diesel-electric submarines and subsequent construction, taking into account all these achievements. Those. to build diesel-electric submarines according to old projects - to build obsolete diesel-electric submarines - to throw money away.
    1. Simeonov
      Simeonov 23 November 2018 21: 35
      0
      You flatter Ka-27. Departure, hovering, dipping, sending ... it will take 10-15 minutes. DISPLACEMENT ... what 60 km are there. Where do you take so many WORKERS CASKS? TRAINED CREWS FOR SEARCH BUILDING. The boat will leave after the first package, or maneuver. Kashki used to force out on someone. There is NBDA. (Was). There is a load on the crew. Flight conditions, weather, sea condition. Ice.
      To be honest, the Plošnikov turntables were always like .. I don’t want to swear))) In the Baltic, Mi-14 yes. But not in the north. Their main task is to search by call or check the contact of the ship's hull.
  28. Diverter
    Diverter 25 June 2018 12: 28
    0
    I as an "artist" are very annoyed just by the huge variety of all kinds of projects in the fleet (((((
    I am sure that this is wrong!
    I offer (number calculated with the condition, 4 pieces are always under repair / maintenance):

    1. To approve the list of UNIFIED projects required by the fleet.
    Those. strategists in the same building of the ARC and torpedo ones (unification is profitable !!!!), diesel-electric submarines (1 project!).
    Provide the opportunity to build these projects at ALL shipyards.

    2. To approve a comprehensive boat construction program.
    For example, each strategist is accompanied by 2 torpedo ones (as a guard).
    12 diesel-electric submarines per fleet (base defense, cleansing of areas, ensuring the exit of strategists, etc.). Plus 8 at the naval base of Tartus and generally create on it a full-fledged Mediterranean fleet).

    3. PLARKS I think you need to have 24 pcs. It’s no longer necessary (their task is to keep the ovs and their henchmen in good shape. That is, they periodically light up near all sorts of English, Canada and others.

    4. Special boats also 12 pieces

    5. Given that there is no money but you are holding on, you need to start with diesel-electric submarines (1 project and in different shipyards !!!))).
  29. Simeonov
    Simeonov 23 November 2018 21: 23
    0
    ...... squeeze Virginia out of our SSBN deployment areas ...)))
    Andrey, let's read it before publishing. Find a naval officer at the level opera (NK, PL, NSh.)
    I understand, I cling .. But I have a sore throat from such combinations ... A lot of "blunders".
    I would be hung up like Pinocchio, if I had so reported.
    It's as if the doctor said, "Prostate adenoids."
    If you decide to write sane staff language, read a lot of relevant literature.
    but in general a lot of water.
  30. nikant
    nikant 5 August 2020 11: 30
    0
    from the triad, the main hopes are on ground forces: mine, mobile installations and railway complexes. It is best to have 30-50 railway complexes: all the time "on wheels", it is not easy to track, the launch is almost quick and from any point on the route ... and so on. etc. but they were treacherously turned down and now well-known friends of the people do not want to launch into the series ... let's return to the underwater component and around ... there is no modern surface support a priori: there is no naval aviation, the auxiliary fleet and escort ships are in the corral and in theory, coastal infrastructure - in the same place ... torpedo and anti-torpedo armament "from the time of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea" ... weasels and huskies, even by definition, cannot swim and dive normally: they have a different canine purpose (analogy with a mace) ... general electronics (acoustics, processing of noise and signals, etc.) is already lagging behind Japan, China, Korea, Denmark, Sweden, Germany ... Two main bases (in space, air, on water and under water) are very tightly controlled. .. It's no secret that almost all missile carriers "graze" the Yankees ... to hope that at least one survives and has time to shoot - it's just not serious ... under the ice of the Arctic Yankees have long been walking as they want, doing a lot of scientific and research work - sec ret for those who DO NOT want to know about it ... it's really hard to understand the leapfrog with these upgrades, various project projects ... someone gave a hint about the naval commanders, OGO! and where are they, and when was the last time they were seen live? there is a link between the military-industrial complex and the fleet - in the higher offices ... now hold on, adversary !!! Moral: to strengthen the coastal zone, launch railway complexes on the most powerful stream and only then decide on everything else (on the way, force the oligarchs and all this poor rag-tag to return the loot from the people). Everything else looks like surrender ... captivity or slavery ...
  31. Tutashkhia date
    Tutashkhia date 10 August 2020 19: 12
    +1
    In short, in one word,