Military Review

The nuclear baton of the US Navy (part 9)

44
According to information published in 2009 in the journal Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists (Eng. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists), approximately 1945 thousand atomic and thermonuclear charges have been collected in the USA since 66,5. In state laboratories around 100 of various types of nuclear warheads and their modifications have been constructed. Although the end of the Cold War led to a decrease in the degree of international tension and a reduction in nuclear arsenals, weapons in the US remain very significant. According to official US data, the production of nuclear materials for the assembly of nuclear weapons was discontinued in the 1990 year (at that time in service there were about 22000 warheads), but in the US there are in abundance all the necessary components that can be obtained by processing "nuclear raw materials" from recyclable warheads . At the same time, research on the creation of new types of nuclear ammunition and the improvement of existing ones does not stop in nuclear laboratories.


As of the end of 2010, the US military had more than 5100 nuclear warheads deployed on carriers and in storage (this list does not include several hundred charges removed from service and awaiting reprocessing). In 2011, 450 was armed with land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, 14 nuclear submarines with 240 ballistic missiles, and about 200 strategic bombers. As part of the implementation of the START-3 Treaty, the number of bombers will be reduced to 60, and the total number of nuclear warheads will be reduced by more than 3 times. According to official information published by the US State Department, as of 1 in October 2016, the strategic nuclear forces of the United States were 1367 nuclear warheads on 681 deployed strategic carriers, there are 848 deployed and undeveloped carriers. Approximately another 2500 warheads to be disposed of are stored in warehouses. According to the most recent data released by 5 February 2018, the US strategic nuclear forces have 1350 deployed strategic warheads. The reduction of charges occurred mainly due to the write-off of strategic bombers B-52H, which, according to the START-3 Treaty, are considered carriers of a single nuclear charge, a decrease in the number of deployed mine-launched ICBMs, and a reduction in the number of warheads mounted on the Trident-2 missiles .

As you know, up to a certain point, the main functions of "nuclear deterrence" were carried by the Strategic aviation command, and most of the nuclear weapons were deployed on strategic bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles of mine-based. In the late 70s in the United States, the number of warheads deployed on ballistic missile submarines equaled the carriers of the Strategic Aviation Command. Already in the early 80s, the basis of the American strategic nuclear forces became SSBNs equipped with individual-guided thermonuclear warheads. After the adoption of the Trident-1990 SLBM with intercontinental launch range in 2, Ohio-class submarines were able to conduct combat patrols in US territorial waters, which greatly increased their invulnerability. This circumstance contributed to the fact that in the 21st century the bias towards marine strategic carriers became even greater and nowadays it is ballistic missiles deployed on SSBNs that form the basis of the US strategic nuclear potential. High efficiency, invulnerability to a surprise attack and the relatively low cost of maintaining SSBNs armed with Trident-2 SLBMs have led naval strategic forces to take a leading position in the US nuclear triad.

According to information published on the website of the US Department of State, the 60 strategic bombers (18 B-2A and 42 B-52H) are part of the SNL - carriers of the free-falling B-61 bombs, 33 B-52H and all existing B-1B after the list, and all 129 B-86H and all existing B-416B after the list, all 38 B-30H and all existing B-21H after the list, The airborne AGM-87A and AGM-450B received "non-nuclear" status. The same source indicates 320 deployed and 133 undeveloped mine ICBMs LGM-209G Minuteman III with single-block Mk.4 combat units equipped with WXNUMX thermonuclear warheads with XNUMX CT. The US Navy has XNUMX UGM-XNUMXA Trident II missiles. XNUMX missiles are constantly deployed, each of which, according to American data, carries XNUMX warheads.


Open cover rocket mines on the SSBN type "Ohio"


All in all, the “Trident 2” is designed around 900 combat units Mk.5A with W88 and Mk.4А warheads with W76-1 warheads. A number of sources state that within the framework of the START-3 agreement in 2017, the number of mines with loaded SLBMs is limited to 20 units in the American SSBNs. Thus, the missiles in the mines of the boat of the Ohio type have at least 80 thermonuclear warheads.


USS Ohio (SSGN-726) during the overhaul and conversion into the carrier of cruise missiles

The US Navy currently operates Ohio-type 18 boats. According to the Nuclear Forces Development Program prepared by the Bill Clinton administrations in 1994, of the first eight submarine missile carriers originally armed with Trident 1, four were converted into carriers of UGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles, and the rest re-armed the Trident XNUM cruise missiles. The cost of converting one submarine to the SSGN was about $ 2 million. The re-equipment of the first four SSBNs from the Trident - 800 to nuclear-powered submarines with cruise missiles (SSGNs) occurred in the period from 1 to 2002 a year. Each American SSGN can carry up to 2008 cruise missiles.

The nuclear baton of the US Navy (part 9)

Mine launcher with cruise missiles "Tomahawk" on board the SSGN type "Ohio"

In each converted mine is 7 KR "Tomahawk". From 24, the 22 rocket mines were converted to cruise missiles. The two mines closest to the wheelhouse are converted into airlock chambers to ensure the exit of the combat swimmers from the submerged boat. ASDS mini-submarines (Eng. Advanced SEAL Delivery System) or DDS extended docks (Eng. Dry Deck Shelter - Dry Deck Shelter) dock to the lock chambers.


USS Georgia SSGN (SSGN-729) with an external DDS camera dock


These external tools can be installed both together and separately, but with a total of no more than two. In addition, each installed ASDS blocks three rocket mines, and DDS - two. In total, on board a submarine on a long hike, they are capable of being up to 66 combat swimmers or marines with light weapons. In the case of a short stay on a boat, this number can be brought to an 102 person.


Launch of UGM-109 Tomahawk CR from board the USS Florida SSGN (SSGN 728) submarine

Representatives of the US Navy have repeatedly stated that all UGM-109А КР with thermonuclear warheads are currently decommissioned. However, due to the ability to fly at low altitude, Tomahawk type cruise missiles are very difficult targets even for a modern air defense system, and even being equipped with conventional combat units, they can be used to solve strategic tasks thanks to their high accuracy of hitting.


USS Florida SSGN (SSGN 728) in the vicinity of Kings Bay Naval Base


In 2001, during the reign of George W. Bush (junior), boats were distributed according to fleets: eight SSBNs should be in the Pacific Ocean (in Bangor, Wash.), six in the Atlantic (Kings Bay, WG). The infrastructure of each naval base allows serving up to 10 boats. At the same time, out of the fourteen available in the combat structure of SSBNs, two boats are in scheduled overhaul.


Satellite image of Google Airport: Ohio-type SSBNs returning from combat duty on the approach to the Bangor naval base

The naval component of the American nuclear triad is the most efficient part of it, the American boats are at sea 60% of the time in a year (ie, about 220 days per year), so 6-7 American SSBNs are usually on combat patrols. More 3-4 missile boats can go to sea within a day. According to statistics, the US Navy underwater strategic missile-carriers conduct an average of three to four combat services a year. According to data published by 10 years ago, in the 2008 year, the US Navy SSBNs performed 31 combat service with a duration from 60 to 90 days. The record for the duration of combat patrols in 2014 was set by USS Pennsylvania (SSBN 735), which was at sea for 140 days. To ensure such intensive combat use, each strategic missile carrier is equipped with two crews - the “blue” and the “gold”, alternately carrying combat duty.

According to American sources, at the present time, boats for the most part are patrolling off their shores. Combat duty is carried out in areas for which there are accurate hydrological maps. Due to this, the SSBN navigation system, which is on submarine combat patrol, receives all the necessary data from the onboard sonar complex to correct the error in tracking its coordinates.


Satellite image of Google Earth: US submarines parked at the pier of the Guam Naval Base, near supply supply boats

However, approximately 30% of the time spent at sea, the carrier boats of cruise and ballistic missiles are located in remote areas of the world's oceans. During these trips, SSBNs and SSGNs, to replenish stocks of fresh food, small repairs and short-term recreation of crews, visit the naval bases of Guam and Pearl Harbor.


Satellite image of Google Earth: US submarines in the parking lot of the Pearl Harbor naval base

Until recently, Guam’s naval base permanently housed a supply vessel, in the holds of which there was spare ammunition of missiles and torpedoes, as well as fresh water, food and various supplies of consumables. Such vessels were created during the Cold War and could support the combat activity of the submarine fleet not only in ports, but also in the open sea. The missiles are reloaded on board with a crane with a lifting capacity of up to 70 t.

According to the time spent by submarine missile carriers in the sea, the US Navy far exceeds the Russian fleet. Initially, the boats were usually operated with a 100-day cycle - 75 days on patrol and 25 days on base. Our PBXs typically patrol no more than 25% of the time per year (91 day per year).


Satellite image of Google Airport: Ohio-class SSBNs at Kings Bay


At the design stage, the service life of Ohio-type boats was calculated for 20 years with one reactor recharge. However, a large margin of safety and considerable modernization potential allowed extending the operational resource to 1990 years by 30. In 1995, a phased modernization program was launched during the two-year overhauls combined with the replacement of nuclear fuel. In the course of the implementation of this program and the survey of submarine-supplied boats, experts concluded that existing SSBNs can operate 42-44 of the year. In this case, the replacement of nuclear fuel should be made once in 20 years.


Satellite image of Google Airport: Ohio-class SSBNs at Bangor


The high operational resource, in addition to the well-thought-out design of the American “Ohio” type SSBNs, is largely due to the excellent maintenance and operational base and the maintenance and repair process worked out to the last detail. Kings Bay and Bangor have piers with cranes, large covered slipways and dry docks. Given that both US bases are located in areas with a much milder climate than similar Russian facilities in Gadzhiyevo and Vilyuchensk, this causes acute envy among our submariners.


Structures for repair and maintenance of SSBNs at Bangor


Separately, it should be said about the US naval arsenals of nuclear weapons and missile service points. According to information published in the US media, the program to modernize and extend the life of Trident II D5 missiles to the level of Trident II D5LE is conducted in the territory of the Bangor home base. The first Trident II D5LE rockets were loaded into the SSBN missile mines in February 2017. They should gradually replace all existing “Trident - 2” on American and British boats.


Satellite image of Google Earth: a rocket arsenal and a nuclear weapons storage point at the Bangor home base

In the past, the location of the SSBN Bangor was an independent naval base. In the 2004 year, in order to “optimize” by merging the Bremerton naval base and the Bangor submarine base, located on the western and eastern shores of the peninsula, the Kitsap base was formed. Part of the Kitsap naval base, known as the Bangor Trident Base, is the largest active arsenal of US strategic missiles. It is here that diagnostics, maintenance, repairs and upgrades are carried out after unloading UGM-133A Trident II missiles from SSBNs. In addition to microclimate hangars, where dismantling is performed during routine maintenance, repair and modernization, in this part of the base there is about 1200 reinforced bunkers and separate underground storages with missiles and thermonuclear warheads in the area of ​​approximately 500X70 meters. A permanent exchange fund of missiles and warheads is formed in the storages, which, if necessary, can be quickly installed on boats preparing to enter combat patrols.


Satellite image of Google Earth: a rocket arsenal and a nuclear weapons storage facility on the territory of the Kings Bay naval base

A similar object is also available at the Kings Bay home base, on the US Atlantic coast. However, in contrast to the Bangor Trident Base facility, the Trident - 2 retrofit is not carried out here, but only current maintenance and minor repairs are carried out. The missile arsenal is also available in the vicinity of the Pearl Harbor naval base, but it seems to be used on a much smaller scale and only as an emergency replacement point for missiles.


Satellite image of Google Earth: American nuclear submarine moored near the torpedo-missile arsenal at Pearl Harbor

According to published plans, the withdrawal of the first Ohio-type boat from service is scheduled for 2027 year, the last boat of this type should be decommissioned in 2040 year. The Ohio type submarines will be replaced by the Columbia type SSBNs.


Estimated appearance of the Columbia type SSBN


The design of a promising SSBN, also known as SSBN (X), in collaboration with the Newport News Shipbuilding shipyard, is being implemented by Electric Boat Corporation (all Ohio-type 18 boats were built with the participation of Electric Boat). A total of 12 boats are planned for construction, the construction of the main SSBN should begin in the 2021 year. Although the underwater displacement of a Columbia-type boat will be approximately 1500 tons larger than that of the Ohio SSBNs, the new missile carrier will only carry 16 mines with Trident-II D5LE submarine-launched ballistic missiles, in the future it will be replaced by Trident E-6.

The longest boat length is 171 m, the hull width is 13,1 m — that is, in size, the projected missile submarine is close to Ohio-type boats. It can be assumed that the increase in submarine displacement is due to the fact that during the entire life cycle of the SSBN of the “Columbia” type there is no provision for recharging the reactor. In this case, the boat must serve at least 40 years. It is believed that a larger volume inside a robust case should provide the necessary modernization stock during the entire service life.


The internal layout of the designed SSBN SSBN (X)


The design of the SSBN type "Columbia" is supposed to apply a number of advanced technical innovations:
- X-shaped feed handlebars
- underwater scooters installed in the superstructure
- All-mode rowing motor instead of turbo-gear units and economical stroke motors
- equipment designed for Virginia-type submarines, including water-jet propulsion, sound-absorbing coatings and a wide-aperture nasal HAS
- A combat command and control system in which communications will be combined: sonar, optical surveillance, weapons and defense systems.

At the Maritime, Air and Space Exhibition, held in 2015, a model SSBN of the Columbia type with a water-jet propulsion unit, visually similar to the Virginia-type propulsion boat, was presented. According to information published by the company-developer of the missile compartment of General Dynamics Electric Boat, this part of the boat will also be used on the British promising SSBN of the Dreadnought type (being developed to replace the Vanguard type boats). Water jet propulsion, the abandonment of turbo-gear units and the use of new multi-layer sound-proof materials should increase the secrecy of the boat in an economical mode on combat patrols.

At the same time, critics of the Columbia SSBN program point to its extremely high cost. Thus, more than $ 5 billion was allocated for design work and the creation of the necessary technologies. The cost of building the first boat in 2018 prices of the year is estimated at about $ 9 billion, excluding the costs of armament, personnel training and arrangement of basing sites. The cost of maintaining the life cycle of 12 boats is estimated at $ 500 billion. Completion of the construction of the first SSBN Columbia is scheduled for the 2030 year, and entering the fleet in the 2031 year. The construction of a series of 12 boats should be completed by the 2042 year, their service is scheduled before the 2084 year.

Based on:
https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/rls/2016/266384.htm
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2018.1438219
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/ohio-ssbn-726/
https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/ssbn-x.htm

Articles from this series:
The nuclear baton of the US Navy (part 1)
The nuclear baton of the US Navy (part 2)
The nuclear baton of the US Navy (part 3)
The nuclear baton of the US Navy (part 4)
The nuclear baton of the US Navy (part 5)
The nuclear baton of the US Navy (part 6)
The nuclear baton of the US Navy (part 7)
The nuclear baton of the US Navy (part 8)
Author:
Articles from this series:
The nuclear baton of the US Navy (part 1)
The nuclear baton of the US Navy (part 2)
The nuclear baton of the US Navy (part 3)
The nuclear baton of the US Navy (part 4)
The nuclear baton of the US Navy (part 5)
The nuclear baton of the US Navy (part 6)
The nuclear baton of the US Navy (part 7)
The nuclear baton of the US Navy (part 8)
44 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. bistrov.
    bistrov. 21 November 2018 07: 05
    +1
    Yes, a dangerous adversary.
    1. Comrade Kim
      Comrade Kim 21 November 2018 12: 44
      +2
      We have something to answer, to put together in a fist the yachts and the Faberge of moneybags, and the American Navy:
  2. Professor
    Professor 21 November 2018 07: 37
    14
    For the sake of such articles, I go to VO. good
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 21 November 2018 08: 26
      +9
      Quote: Professor
      For the sake of such articles, I go to VO.

      Oleg, for the sake of those who read such articles, Seryozha writes. Only the impression that readers are getting smaller.
      A couple of days ago in the "history" section there was a publication dedicated to Soviet military aid in repelling American air raids on Vietnam. The reliability of the information in this publication is very low, and besides, there are a lot of technical errors. Seryozha, hardly spat at the monitor while reading it. However, the "ideologically correct" article, despite its near-zero informational value, aroused a lot of enthusiasm among the "patriots."
      1. Professor
        Professor 21 November 2018 08: 46
        +5
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        Oleg, for the sake of those who read such articles, Seryozha writes. Only the impression that readers are getting smaller.

        This is not an impression; it is a harsh reality.

        Quote: zyablik.olga
        A couple of days ago in the "history" section there was a publication dedicated to Soviet military aid in repelling American air raids on Vietnam. The reliability of the information in this publication is very low, and besides, there are a lot of technical errors. Seryozha, hardly spat at the monitor while reading it. However, the "ideologically correct" article, despite its near-zero informational value, aroused a lot of enthusiasm among the "patriots."

        Why go far? Here today:
        https://topwar.ru/150024-indijskaja-jadernaja-triada-nazemnaja-i-vozdushnaja-komponenta.html
    2. Korax71
      Korax71 21 November 2018 17: 19
      +2
      It’s a pity. Therefore, there’s no one adequately with whom to discuss in the news section hi
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 21 November 2018 18: 12
        +5
        Quote: Korax71
        there’s no one to adequately discuss with you in the news section

        Very rarely I look somewhere except for the weapons section. And then as in a minefield.
        1. Korax71
          Korax71 22 November 2018 14: 13
          +2
          Here I am talking about. With whom it is possible to argue with argument and find out something new for oneself, and now you can usually find them in articles of a very limited circle of authors.
  3. Amurets
    Amurets 21 November 2018 07: 41
    +5
    Sergey, thanks. In principle, nothing has changed. The Americans, on a new level, are polishing all the best, organizationally, that they began to use on the first missile carriers such as George Washington. I’m not talking about new technical and technological solutions at the modern level, because of course everything moves and develops in new turns time.
  4. Wildcat
    Wildcat 21 November 2018 08: 24
    +3
    Excellent article, thank you! hi
    Accidentally there is no information (or have I missed it?) On non-nuclear tomahawks: there seems to be no separate agreement, but in the 90s the Presidents of the Russian Federation and the USA exchanged letters that nuclear weapons would be removed from non-strategic carriers? And information on the methods of mutual control over the observance of agreements on strategic nuclear forces, in particular, naval? American sources did not come across, but from ours only humorous recollections that "the Americans came to count the warheads on the rocket, and in the open shaft they removed the head fairing, and underneath it on one of 4 warheads .. it is drawn (please do not scold, because albeit from memory hi ), because the one who touched her before with his hands was also thinking about the Americans, and then, because of the cold, frost appeared on her in unladen places. "
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 21 November 2018 08: 31
      +4
      Quote: Wildcat
      Accidentally there is no information (or did I miss it?) On tomahawks in a non-nuclear version:

      There was already an article about "Tomahawks".
      1. Wildcat
        Wildcat 21 November 2018 15: 02
        +2
        Yes, I re-read the article, but there (and in the comments) I did not find a text about the reasons for the removal of nuclear tomahawks (it seems to me that if this was not the subject of written agreements within the framework of START, for example, then the "return potential" of tomahawks can be very significant). Somewhere rudolff wrote about this story, but I still did not understand the picture as a whole. hi
        Hurray article about With 75!
        More articles and success in the family business!
        hi
        1. Bongo
          21 November 2018 15: 11
          +6
          Quote: Wildcat
          Yes, I re-read the article, but there (and in the comments) I did not find a text about the reasons for the removal of nuclear tomahawks (it seems to me that if this was not the subject of written agreements within the framework of START, for example, then the "return potential" of tomahawks can be very significant).

          EMNIP had an agreement on this, although CD with nuclear warheads were formally considered "tactical". At the moment, all W80 thermonuclear warheads with a stepped adjustment of the explosion power, previously installed on the BGM-109A (Tomahawk Block I) CD, have been disposed of. In response, nuclear cruise missiles and torpedoes were also withdrawn from the warships of the Russian Navy.
          Quote: Wildcat
          Hurray article about With 75!

          Two parts ...
          Quote: Wildcat
          More articles and success in the family business!

          Thank you! drinks
  5. irazum
    irazum 21 November 2018 08: 56
    +5
    As always with Sergei, just SUPER!
  6. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 21 November 2018 09: 20
    +5
    Plus, as usual
  7. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet 21 November 2018 10: 07
    +5
    Super, I’m sitting and wondering what new topic Sergey writes, and most importantly hypocritically and selfishly conjures so that there are more cycles, so that beautiful schemes and drawings, and letters are a dime a dozen, forgive me, Sergey and Olga, thanks again.
    1. Bongo
      21 November 2018 13: 29
      +9
      Quote: merkava-2bet
      Super, I sit and wonder what new topic Sergey is writing

      The next article will be about foreign copies of the C-75 air defense system. Well, I’ll tell you a little about the differences between 10-cm CA-75 and 6-cm C-75. And then some authors who write about the Vietnam War do not know this. hi
      1. Aibolit
        Aibolit 22 November 2018 23: 37
        +2
        Quote: Bongo
        The next article will be about foreign copies of the S-75 air defense system. Well, I’ll tell you a little how the 10-cm SA-75 and 6-cm S-75 differed.

        No no...
        Let's still be part of 10.
        I would like to talk about the prospects for the Lyas.
        hi
        ==============
        C-75 is still an old woman ...
        And it is unlikely that the chebureks succeeded, something better than the Volkhov-5 ROC (S-75M5)!

        1. Bongo
          23 November 2018 03: 14
          +3
          Quote: Aibolit
          No no...
          Let's still be part of 10.

          Will not be enough. The guard was tired ...
          Quote: Aibolit
          C-75 is still an old woman ...

          Duc, frankly, I'm tired of reading the "masterpieces" of "journalists" and "analysts" about how during the reflection of one raid the Vietnamese C-75 shot down 31 B-52 wassat And who do not understand the difference between CA-75, C-75 and HQ-2.
          Quote: Aibolit
          And it is unlikely that the chebureks succeeded, something better than the Volkhov-5 ROC (S-75M5)!

          It did not work out even better than C-75М4, although very few of these complexes were built.
          And I also have a question for you, haven't you performed under the nickname "opus" in the past?
          1. Aibolit
            Aibolit 23 November 2018 11: 53
            +2
            Quote: Bongo
            Will not be enough. The guard is tired ..

            It is a pity.
            I would like to gossip about radical methods of counteracting this
            Quote: Bongo
            US Nuclear Club

            there are a lot of interesting things left
            Quote: Bongo
            how during the reflection of one raid the Vietnamese S-75 shot down 31 B-52

            I am weak in the subject on this issue.
            Quote: Bongo
            It did not work out even better than C-75М4, although very few of these complexes were built.

            started the 80s ...
            And so yes S-75M3 ("Volkhov-8", with revision according to item No. 103, bulletin BtVl23U, No. 4603) was good:
            Image intensifier 0,3m ^ 2 (without L. lens) up to 835 m / s at 12 km and a lower boundary of 100 m, probability 0,55-0,85 (SAM 5Y23).
            / B-755, of course, nothing saved.
            Have you played under the name "opus" in the past?

            recourse
            - Did you take Shpak’s apartment?
            - Shpaka?
            - Yes!
            - Kazan took, Astrakhan took ... Revel took, Shpaka - did not take ...

            What is his name?
            1. Bongo
              23 November 2018 14: 16
              +2
              Quote: Aibolit
              What is his name?

              Well, it means not you ... request
              1. Aibolit
                Aibolit 24 November 2018 02: 51
                +1
                Quote: Bongo
                Well then it’s not you.

                And this is important?
                What I did not please you?
                1. Bongo
                  24 November 2018 04: 27
                  0
                  Quote: Aibolit
                  And this is important?

                  Well, with Anton, we have had mutually beneficial cooperation in the past, and I really miss his fundamental knowledge.
                  Quote: Aibolit
                  What I did not please you?

                  On the contrary, I appreciate your competent comments! good
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 23 November 2018 23: 38
      +2
      Quote: merkava-2bet
      Sergey and Olga, thanks again.

      Guys, thank you so much for systematically collected and presented material. Got a real pleasure to read. Gathered new pro coastal infrastructure of both the Navy.
      Thank you! drinks
  8. faiver
    faiver 21 November 2018 10: 12
    +4
    As always an article on the top five with a plus good
    Damn what prevented our pair of 941 "Sharks" from remaking them for calibers? One boat would control all of Europe
  9. Tektor
    Tektor 21 November 2018 11: 38
    -2
    For me, a cognitive shock has now come ... The article claims that the new Colombia will have a jet propeller and its profile with a completely ordinary screw inside the cylinder is given ... Moreover, it is known that such a design does not save from covitation noise at high speeds of submarine movement . I still refused to believe these pictures, because I was always sure of a completely different design of the water cannon. For example, this:

    This is a model: it has an inlet and outlet nozzles, i.e. When installed inside the boat, somewhere on the side in the side of the hull there should be a water intake hole (or several), and at the end, along the boat axis, there should be an outlet opening that pushes out the water flow. And in this case there should be no extraneous sounds at high speeds of the boat. This is exactly what I once saw the drawing of Sea Wolf.
    1. Aibolit
      Aibolit 21 November 2018 18: 06
      +7
      Quote: Tektor

      A cognitive shock has come for me now ... The article claims that the new Colombia will have a water-jet propulsion and its profile is given with a completely ordinary screw inside the cylinder

      nifigae "normal" ..
      There will be a virginia class propulsion system (United Defense pump jet propulser)

      quite myself ...
      Quote: Tektor
      For example, this:

      This is a screw compressor, a pneumatic ...
      screw compressors are widely used in oil production, gas processing, at chemical and petrochemical enterprises for cooling hydrocarbons, compressing natural and several other gases, as booster equipment.


      Atmospheric air enters through the suction valve and is cleaned with an air filter. Through counter-rotation of the driving and driven rotors, it is sucked into the cavity of the screw pair, where it is mixed with previously refined oil. The air-oil mixture is then pumped into the separation zone to separate the oil. Entering the zone of a special radiator, the purified air is cooled.

      Do you want them sea to drive water?
      Provide them with a 29.84MW shaft. And carrier speed 25kt *
    2. san4es
      san4es 21 November 2018 18: 39
      +6

      Propulsive water-jet propulsion submarine of project 877V "Halibut" hi
  10. san4es
    san4es 21 November 2018 11: 39
    +3
    hi ...Thank.
    In each converted mine there is 7 CR “Tomahawk”. Of the 24 missile silos, 22 were converted to cruise missiles.
    USS Florida SSGN 728
  11. Korax71
    Korax71 21 November 2018 17: 45
    +3
    Sergei hi many thanks for another great article. here and comments are unnecessary good As always, the biggest plus. Thank you for your work.
  12. Old26
    Old26 21 November 2018 18: 54
    +5
    According to information published on the website of the US Department of State, the 60 strategic bombers (18 B-2A and 42 B-52H) are part of the SNL - carriers of the free-falling B-61 bombs, 33 B-52H and all existing B-1B after the list, and all 129 B-86H and all existing B-416B after the list, all 38 B-30H and all existing B-21H after the list, The airborne AGM-87A and AGM-450B received "non-nuclear" status. The same source indicates 320 deployed and 133 undeveloped mine ICBMs LGM-209G Minuteman III with single-block Mk.4 combat units equipped with WXNUMX thermonuclear warheads with XNUMX CT. The US Navy has XNUMX UGM-XNUMXA Trident II missiles. XNUMX missiles are constantly deployed, each of which, according to American data, carries XNUMX warheads.

    Sergey, thanks for the article, or rather for the cycle. I will supplement some more recent exchange data for July 2018

    <br>• ICBM "Minuteman-3"
    = Number of deployed ICBMs - 400, the number of undeployed ICBMs is 278
    = Number of deployed and not deployed silos - 454 (400 deployed 54 not deployed)
    = Number of silos designed for testing - 4

    <br>• SLBM "Trident-2"
    = Number of deployed SLBMs - 203, the number of non-deployed SLBMs is 231
    = Number of deployed and not deployed silos - 280 (203 deployed 77 not deployed)
    = Number of silos designed for testing - 0

    <br>• Strategic bombers
    = The number of deployed strategic bombers B-2A - 13, the number of not deployed
    B-2A - 7
    = The number of deployed strategic bombers B-52N - 36, the number of not deployed
    B-52H - 10
    = The number of deployed "non-nuclear" bombers B-52H - 41
    = Number of test bombers - B-2A - 1 unit, B-52H -2 units.
    1. merkava-2bet
      merkava-2bet 21 November 2018 20: 07
      +1
      And what about the B-1B Lancer bomber has already received all non-nuclear status, for me it is nonsense and desa?
      1. merkava-2bet
        merkava-2bet 21 November 2018 20: 15
        +2
        And most importantly, the B-1B bomber is being actively and extensively modernized.
        In 2012, the US Air Force has 66 B-1B bombers [1], the average age of which is 24,1 years [13]. In this regard, these bombers have passed and are undergoing a series of upgrades.

        The Conventional Mission Upgrade Program (CMUP) is a program that began in 1993 to re-equip the B-1B to equip them with conventional weapons [14].
        The program included the following upgrades:
        Block B - software update for on-board systems.
        Block С - equipping with cluster bombs CBU-87/89/97.
        Block D (1993-2003) - equipping the towed fiber-optic system of false targets AN / ALE-50, communication system AN / ARC-210, adding GPS navigation support to avionics, equipping GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munition with highly accurate corrected bombs ( JDAM).
        Block E (1996-2004) - modernization of information systems to support a wider range of weapons, integration with weapons such as Wind Corrected Munition Dispenser (WCMD), Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW), and Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM )
        Block F (1997-2008) - equipped with electronic warfare equipment AN / ALQ-214 IDECM and radiation warning system AN / ALR-56M.

        Cockpit Upgrade Program (CUP) - program for updating the cockpit. As part of the program, LCDs and other more advanced electronic devices were installed on the B-1B.
        Link-16 is a program for equipping airplanes with the Link-16 communication channel, which allows automatic data exchange with other aircraft in real time.

        During the modernization of the B-1B, the US Air Force plans to keep these aircraft in service until 2038 [
      2. Hole puncher
        Hole puncher 22 November 2018 04: 07
        +2
        Quote: merkava-2bet
        And what about the B-1B Lancer bomber has already received all non-nuclear status, for me it is nonsense and desa?

        They have long been taken out.
        1. merkava-2bet
          merkava-2bet 22 November 2018 04: 13
          0
          And what prevents them from turning into nuclear carriers, a couple of hours, the installation of a receiving and matching unit with a telecode system, and given that they have undergone extensive modernization and digitalization, it has become even easier, because they did not sew up bomb compartments and deprived of a refueling system in the air , and also did not cut electric cables, as the USSR did at one time.
          1. merkava-2bet
            merkava-2bet 22 November 2018 04: 17
            0
            To understand that this is bullshit, I'm talking about the status of B-1B "nuclear-free", then I laid out the B-1B modernization programs above, especially look at Block B and Block E, and everything will be clear at once.
            1. Bongo
              22 November 2018 05: 17
              +2
              Quote: merkava-2bet
              To understand that this is bullshit, I'm talking about the status of B-1B "nuclear-free", then I laid out the B-1B modernization programs above, especially look at Block B and Block E, and everything will be clear at once.

              It is clear that B61 thermonuclear bombs on В-1В will not be returned for long. But it seems to me that the leadership of the Russian Federation deliberately pretended not to notice this. On the other hand, the reduction of US ICBMs and SLBMs is much more significant. There are not so many chances to break through to targets in the depth of the territory of the Russian Federation in B-1B in the variant of carriers of free-falling bombs, with not destroyed control systems and air defense.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 22 November 2018 08: 57
                +3
                Quote: Bongo
                It is clear that the return of the B61 thermonuclear bombs to B-1B is short-lived.

                As far as I know, B-61 pass as TNW and is not included in the limitations of strategic offensive arms. As well as their carriers, including F-16.
                Quote: merkava-2bet
                And what about the B-1B Lancer bomber has already received all non-nuclear status, for me it is nonsense and desa?

                Received, since the only KR with Special WB in service now is the AGM-86B ALCM, NNP. This rocket is only integrated with the B-52. Adding it to the B-1B is probably not difficult (just like making a new warhead for the AGM-158 JASSM), but somehow there is no need.

                On the other hand, the option to turn each Lancer (in START is counted as one carrier, regardless of the number of CDs) into a Christmas tree hung with 36 nuclear weapons (8x3 drum, 6x2 pylons) should be borne in mind.
                1. Bongo
                  22 November 2018 15: 53
                  +2
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  As far as I know, B-61 pass as TNW and is not included in the limitations of strategic offensive arms. As well as their carriers, including F-16.

                  Not certainly in that way. B61 is a whole family of thermonuclear bombs. They differ in mass, energy release, method of application and carrier. EMNIP B61-4 and B61-7 are intended only for long-range bombers.
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Received, since the only KR with SpecBCH in service is now AGM-86B ALCM

                  According to American data, these missiles are decommissioned.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 22 November 2018 19: 16
                    +2
                    Quote: Bongo
                    EMNIP B61-4 and B61-7 are intended only for long-range bombers.

                    As far as I am guided in the START3 text, the type of bomb is not taken into account, only the carrier.
                    Quote: Bongo
                    According to American data, these missiles are decommissioned.

                    Write different
                    Even with the SLEP, the remaining AGM-86s were to reach their end of service by 2020, leaving the B-52 without a nuclear mission. However, in 2012, the USAF announced plans to extend the useful life of the missiles until at least 2030.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86_ALCM
                    Sorry for the source
                    However, the START3 text itself lists all aircraft with a range of 8K + km
                    c) the existing types of heavy bombers are:

                    i) for the United States of America, B-52G, B-52H, B-1B and B-2A;

                    ii) for the Russian Federation - TU-95MS and TU-160;

                    http://kremlin.ru/supplement/512

                    What was further taken into account and what was not taken into account is, as I understand it, a complicated story.
  13. NF68
    NF68 21 November 2018 22: 44
    +2
    Interesting article.
  14. andrey-ivanov
    andrey-ivanov 22 November 2018 12: 39
    +3
    Sergey, thank you very much for your articles! In the last few years it has frankly "faded". But while there are still materials similar to yours, I will go in and read with pleasure.
  15. db1967
    db1967 22 November 2018 14: 47
    +2
    Well - Ohio changers already have the official name Columbia (SSBN-826) class.
    Well and at the prices - the author is a little mistaken wink - KMK report to the Congress will be more precise. Google Ronald O'Rourke - Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program.
    R&D = $ 13 billion
  16. Old26
    Old26 22 November 2018 23: 51
    +4
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    And what about the B-1B Lancer bomber has already received all non-nuclear status, for me it is nonsense and desa?

    Long enough. Of course, we had questions regarding non-nuclear status, but most likely the Americans settled this question ...

    Quote: merkava-2bet
    And most importantly, the B-1B bomber is being actively and extensively modernized.
    In 2012, the US Air Force has 66 B-1B bombers [1], the average age of which is 24,1 years [13]. In this regard, these bombers have passed and are undergoing a series of upgrades.

    Andrew! You have correctly described the modernization options for V-1B in chronological order. By the way, the B-2A is also being modernized and equipped with a Link-16 communication channel, which allows automatic data exchange with other aircraft in real time. In this regard, the Americans are great. They try to use the capabilities of the aircraft to the maximum

    Quote: merkava-2bet
    And what prevents them from turning into nuclear carriers, a couple of hours, the installation of a receiving and matching unit with a telecode system, and given that they have undergone extensive modernization and digitalization, it has become even easier, because they did not sew up bomb compartments and deprived of a refueling system in the air , and also did not cut electric cables, as the USSR did at one time.

    In principle, nothing prevents. It's just that the time required for these procedures is much more than a couple of hours ...
    The bomb bays were not "sewn up", but the movable partition, as far as I remember, was installed and fixed. As a result, it cannot use AGM

    Quote: Bongo
    According to American data, these missiles are decommissioned.

    Honestly, I have not heard this. They plan to remove it after 2020. Now the number has been reduced to 528 EMNIP.

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    As far as I am guided in the START3 text, the type of bomb is not taken into account, only the carrier.

    The media is taken into account. Moreover, the one that until recently could carry ALCM. In particular, B-2A. But B-1B is not included in the classification system