Project 941 "Shark". The pride of domestic submarine? Yes!

140
The heavy strategic missile submarine cruiser of the 941 project became the largest submarine in stories... The assessments of this project are opposite: from pride in what has been created to "the victory of technology over common sense." At the same time, there were no attempts to objectively analyze the project, taking into account all the conditions for its creation and application, despite the fact that in publications and literature on our shipbuilding and the development of naval strategic nuclear forces (NSNF), unfounded and unfair assessments of this project are widely circulated.


Trpk SN project 941. Photo: https://vpk-news.ru



"Claims to the project"

1. "Large weight and dimension" of the ballistic missiles of the "941" draft missile system.

Yes, it is precisely the significant mass and dimensional characteristics of the ballistic missiles of a submarine (SLBM) missile complex weapons (KRO) identified and the appearance of the entire project 941. However, at the time of the start of work on the Typhoon system with the CPK SN of the 941 project and the R-39 SLBMs of the D-19 complex (3М65 index, the code under the START PCM-52, according to NATO classification - SS-N-20 Sturgeon) the creation of a liquid-fuel submarine-launched ballistic missile with characteristics of the PCM-54 (with the highest energy-mass perfection) was not clear, it happened much later, when the creation of the Typhoon system was already in full swing. Before my eyes, there was an “American example” with its solid-propellant SSBNs, which had serious operational and combat advantages. The choice of solid fuel for the D-19 was reinforced in 1973. KRO accident in the combat service of the PKK CH K-219 (killed due to a new KRO accident in 1986).

In addition, the issue of the use of solid fuel for the Typhoon SLBMs was put at the highest level
“A great confidence of the leadership of the military industrial complex, first of all in the person of the secretary of the CPSU Central Committee on defense issues DF Ustinov and the chairman of the commission on military-industrial issues (MIC) L. V. Smirnov that we can create solid-fuel missiles no worse than American ones”,

- wrote the deputy commander in chief of the Navy in shipbuilding and armament, Admiral Novoselov.

As it turned out during the development, these hopes were “overly optimistic”, and the problem of the lag of our solid fuel from the US (primarily on the most important characteristic — specific impulse) was not solved until the collapse of the USSR. Accordingly, a large mass of all our rockets on solid fuel (significantly more than the Western counterparts).

2. "Huge displacement" and a large reserve of buoyancy of the project 941 traffic control system.

Project 941 "Shark". The pride of domestic submarine? Yes!

RPK CH project 941 and 667B. Photo: https://ansokolov39.livejournal.com

Given the source data and high project requirements (primarily for noise and the number of SLBMs and warheads), a unique constructive decision was made on the 941 project - a “catamaran” made of durable hulls, with separate compartments of the torpedo complex, control and rudder drives, and placement The SLBM in 20 mines between sturdy hulls proved to be the only possible and true.


Construction of ppr CH project 941. Photo: http://forums.airbase.ru

Moreover, the volume of robust hulls (surface displacement) was not much higher than that of the American competitor (the Ohio SSBN), the widespread “information” about the alleged 48000 and the full submerged displacement of the 941 project are false, and the actual full underwater displacement of “Sharks” is much less than 48000 tons. At the same time, a significant reserve of buoyancy ensured the possibility of breaking of thick ice.

In addition, when comparing the displacement per average-capacity warhead, the 941 project, which had an 20 SLBM with 10 warheads (of course, given the actual total displacement, rather than the “mythical” 48.000 tons) turns out to be even more economical than the 667DRM project (having 16 SLBMs with 4 warheads).

Later on, at the initial studies of the RPC CH of the 955 project with the Bark KRO (with a similar dimension and weight to the D-19 SLBM complex) they returned to the “classical scheme” of SSBNs, with the placement of the mines in one robust building (but including the depth of the canal in Severodvinsk), this turned out to be possible only with a reduction in the number of SLBMs to 12.



RPK SN project 955 with 12 SLBM Bark KRO D-XNUMHUTTH. Photo: http://forums.airbase.ru

Taking into account the available objective baseline data and the conditions faced by the developers (first of all, the general designer of the RPC CH, Kovalev SN), the adopted design decisions on the 941 project were the only possible ones.


Kovalev Sergey Nikitich, general designer of strategic submarines, chief designer of the traffic control complex of the SN project 941

At the same time, the Rubin TsMKB was able to ensure good handling of the new submarine of a very large displacement.

3. Allegedly "poor manageability" of the project 941.

A number of statements about the allegedly “poor controllability” of the 941 project have nothing to do with reality. It is interesting that at the initial stage of development there really were serious doubts and concerns about this. However, they were all successfully and beautifully resolved, incl. at the expense of pre-empting to the creation of the ship, the development of questions of its controllability on the large-scale Lotsman model (almost ultra-small submarine - a heavy autonomous NLA with a digital control system). This development for those years was simply unique, and only specialists and teachers of the Leningrad Shipbuilding Institute were able to successfully implement it.

4. Allegedly "extremely high cost" of the project.

Of course, the cost of the 941 project's traffic control system was significant. However, it was fully in line with analogs, and there was nothing “exclusive” or “very expensive” for 941 for this project. The very high unification of the equipment of the 3-th generation with other submarines, and the KRO, a significant unification of the first stage with the ICBM for the RVS (BZHRK) railway complexes, worked on the rigid limitation of the cost of the SKPK missile lines.

At the same time, having received a more effective solution (according to the criterion "efficiency - cost") in the form of upgraded RPC CH project 667BDRM with an RSM-54 SLBM, the 941 series was limited to 6 ships
"At the urgent request of the leadership of the Ministry of the Judiciary in the early 1980-s. Defense Minister D. F. Ustinov decided to build the seventh ship, although the commander in chief of the Navy and the General Staff did not consider it necessary to increase the series, at the beginning of 1985 the construction of this seventh ship was stopped.


5. Allegedly "high noise" project.

The actual noise level of the 941 was much lower not only of all our RPC CH (before the 955 project), the last 941 project hulls became, in fact, themselves low-noise generation 3 nuclear ships (while driving on low-noise moves). Here it is appropriate to quote (from the RPF forum) 941 hydroacoustical officers of the project:

“The low noise“ Sharks ”are not legends. And this is not an attempt to protect the "honor of the uniform", but experience. "Shark" to "SiVulfa" or "Ohio", of course, does not hold out. Prior to "Los Angeles" falls short, almost, if not for some discrete components. When measuring noise on the spectrum of some cases, 1-2 discretes were observed. On my last “steamship,” discretes were observed once. Due to the flap of the light body torn off. Eliminated. Spectrum without discrete leaving. Reduced noise is higher than that of the "Ohio", lower than that of the "Los Angeles".
In the middle of 90's in the White Sea, RTM Alikova clung to us. In the process of tracking, they began to find out: how does he manage to follow us ?! It turned out that the electricians had forgotten to replace the brushes of the potential removal system from the shaft line. The brush holder clicked through the shaft. After installing the brushes, RTM lost contact with us. ”


What do we have in the end? Most of the claims for this project are simply untenable. Yes, from the “point of view of the military economy”, it would be better if, instead of the 941 project, “they immediately began to do” 667BDRM with the Sineva SLBM. With one, but fundamental clarification: at the time of the start of work on the 941 project, and the general designer of the KRO, V. V. Makeev, and the general designer of the RPC CH, S. Kovalev. still did not know that a significant increase in the performance of the 667 project is possible, and in the 80-s it will be possible to create such a complex as "Blue".

Those. some “modern statements” that “better than BDRM instead of 941” are based on “after-knowledge”. Alas, “the time machine does not exist,” and the responsible officials (both in the leadership of the country and the organization of the military-industrial complex and the Navy) who were at the origin of the 941 project made well-founded decisions taking into account the information available to them at that time:

• the problem of low noise that has become extremely acute;
• the example of the US Navy with solid fuel-propelled SLBMs with high performance characteristics;
• the need to ensure subglacial use of the RPK CH;

The fact that as a result of the tremendous work it is possible to significantly reduce the noisiness of the RPK CH of the 667 project, no one has yet imagined, and the data available to the managers clearly required new (modern) requirements for low noise in the implementation of the new project.

In addition, even in a deeply modernized form, the 667BDRM project was significantly inferior in terms of the secrecy of the “likely enemy” PLA. Collision 20.03.1993 of the RPC CH K-407 and the Grayling submarine that monitored it: the newest RPC CH of the Navy was tracked by the US Navy's 1968 SSN (with subsequent upgrades, with a significant decrease in noise, new acoustics and weapons, in the USSR Navy the type had a "semi-official" name "Sturgeon-M").


Collision pattern of the K-407 and the US Navy “Grayling” submarine. Source: https://www.liveinternet.ru/users/3422645/post376110905/

Conclusion: taking into account all the initial difficult conditions, the 941 project turned out, and it is, of course, the pride of domestic shipbuilding.

Here we should not forget about the “status factor” - the rivalry between the two superpowers, and this rivalry was extremely acute not only on the scale of states, but also on officials of different sizes in the USA and the USSR.

An active and relevant response from the rostrum of the XXVI CPSU Congress from the Secretary-General LI Brezhnev to the active public relations of the new submarines of the Ohio was:
"The Americans created a new submarine" Ohio "with Trident missiles. We have a similar system, "Typhoon". "


The excitement of fierce competition was not only among the leaders, but also the direct performers, to the extent that the youth on the construction of the head "Shark" in Severodvinsk "quietly" listened to the Voice of America (not in terms of "dissidence", but that the competition went practically parallel to the “teams” of the creators of the head bodies “Sharks” and “Ohio” were actively discussed there).

Management issues were resolved quickly and decisively:

“The scandal was immense. R.P. Tikhomirov as plenipotentiary representative of the Gidropribor management. After leaving the office after the meeting, which was held by the minister of the shipbuilding industry, he called the general director of the NGO in Leningrad:
- Radiy Vasilyevich! They demand you personally, but you do not come. Here you can enter the office of the director, and leave as the youngest research assistant.
“Maybe we should demand that ...?” I gave the command ...
- Nothing is needed anymore. We were given one month, ... ordered to modify. I said it is unreal. Well, they made it clear to me that if this is unrealistic under the current leadership, they will have to change it.
So, on June 26 of the 1981 of the year, Isakov gathered in his office specialists who, in his opinion, are able to solve the task set by the Minister ...
And you made a [new data entry system in torpedoes]! Not in a month, of course, in two. Maybe a little more. ”

(R.A. Gusev. Such is torpedo life.)

Yes, not everything turned out as they wanted ...

The most serious "failure" occurred in torpedoes and countermeasures (anti-torpedo protection). Our 3 generation did not receive the torpedoes “Tapir” laid on the nuclear-powered ships, and the UST-A torpedoes (USET-80) had a number of critical problems, were not only limited in combat capability, and the torpedoes themselves didn’t last up to the second half of 80's It was.

"Sharks" went to the fleet with outdated and extremely ineffective means of hydroacoustic counteraction (SGPD) such as MG-34M and GIP-1 ...

However, this was not the fault of the developer - Rubin Central Design Bureau. Moreover, they put in projects the application of the most promising protection complexes, which have not lost their relevance today.

There is a lot of sense to return to some “forgotten in 80-ies” development even today - to equip Borey SSBNs (and other Navy submarines).

Admission to the fleet and service 941

The head of the KPP-208 CPA joined the 29.12.1981 Navy, and immediately began to be intensively exploited, according to the actual research program (including performance and combat services), to study the possibilities of the new project and to develop methods for its effective use.

The second building, К-202, entered into operation 28.12.1983, the third, ТК-12, - 26.12.1984, the fourth, ТК-13, - 26.12.1985. The fifth and sixth orders of the 941 project were based on a modernized project, incl. with the installation of a new digital GAK "Skat-3" and entered into service TK-17 15.12.1987, and the last building TK-20, - 19.12.1989,


TRPK CH project 941 in the database (Nerpichye lip). Photo: http://forums.airbase.ru

During the construction of the entire series, noise reduction measures were implemented.

A special direction of the use of the missile system of the 941 project was to carry out combat services under the ice of the Arctic and the White Sea. In 1986, such a long combat service was carried by TK-12 (and with a change in the middle of the life of the crew from the icebreaker). At the same time, the almost absolute invulnerability of our SRP SN was provided (“from above” it was covered with ice cover, and the breakthrough of the US Navy PLA into the White Sea is extremely difficult due to the small depths of the White Sea throat).

The specifics of the use of KROs from under the ice in the Arctic is well described in the memoirs of the commander of the PKK CH K-465 (project 667B) captain 1 rank VM. Bataeva:
“Launching rockets from under the ice is impossible by definition. When sailing under the ice, the launch order cannot be fulfilled on time, because There is not always an objective opportunity for launching rockets - there may be no ice or weak ice over the SSBN. The launch can be made only from the surface position into the polynya or having broken the ice with the ship hull, having cleaned the rocket deck from it before launch. ... multiply the length of the rocket deck by its width, take the ice thickness in 1,5 - 2,0 m, multiply by the ice density at least 0.8 - 0.9 and get the weight of ice fragments on the rocket deck. ... draws tons of 1000-1200 ... With the help of hydraulic drives to open the lids of the shafts, you can't move the ice, break off the drive traction. You will not envy any crew if ice fragments fall into an open mine. ”


In the process of developing the Arctic theater, methods were developed that ensured a sharp decrease in the residual amount of ice on the rocket deck, but this problem was completely resolved and was not.


TK-202 in the Arctic, photo: https://vk.com/@submarineru-tk-202-vtoroi-korpus-akul-eksperimentalnyi-pohod-pervyi-i-po

In May, 1998 was an experimental campaign of the CH K-202 tplk to investigate the possibilities of using the 941 project in severe ice conditions. Remembers one of the crew members:
“... we will press the Arctic ice to the maximum possible thickness for this ship project. They started breaking ice from the 1 meter and so moved closer to the pole. They found suitable ice, took measurements and emerged, breaking the ice through the hull. They emerged, replenished the supply of VVD and moved on. Easily broke the 2 ice meter, floated in the ice 2,5 thick. The thicker the ice, the more the supply of VVD was spent, the more time it took to replenish it. Ice in the Arctic is very durable. Once they floated up a long time when the Central City Hall was blown through (tanks of the main ballast), the boat was shaking as if in a fever, the strong hull creaked and cracked. But surfaced. Some retractable devices did not slide out because they led the cutting structure. Many dents on the hull of the boat, jammed cover rocket mines. All plastic fairings were broken. After this campaign TK-202 did not go to the sea anymore. ”



Damage to the housing TK-202, photo: https://defence.ru

On the fracture

We destroy the nuclear of the Fatherland sword
"Typhoons" will soon die at the pier,
don't shoot us, cut off our heads,
at least it probably won't be enough ...


(Vice Admiral Motsak, 1997 g.)

[media = https: //www.youtube.com/watch? v = J9Ho7P_C9bY || Admiral Motsak speech after the destruction of the P-39 missiles by shooting, 1997 g.]

With the adoption of the KRO D-19, work began immediately on its further improvement, the KRO D-XNUMHUTTH.

Admiral Novoselov:
“In the process of shaping the appearance of this complex, a further prospect for the development of marine BRs was determined. The lead developer, Design Bureau of Mechanical Engineering and the Navy Arms Institute, proposed the creation by the end of the twentieth century. two solid-propellant missiles, one of which was equipped with the RSChIN (code “Ost”), the second - a monoblock, flight-controlled warhead (code “West”). These intentions are reflected in the draft Arms Program (PV) fleet for 1991-2000, which also provided for the design and construction of new missile carriers of project 955 ... in the second half of the 1980s. RSM-52 production was discontinued, since the missile carriers were to be converted. ”


Given the subsequent upheavals and the collapse of the country, the cessation of the production of SLBMs had fatal consequences for the 941 project. Hoping for a new KRO D-XNUMHUTTH and re-equipment of ships on it ...

Captain 1 rank V.V. Zaborsky:
“... the task was to surpass the US Trident-2 rocket in combat properties. If it is necessary to preserve the dimensions of the rocket and the missile mine, as well as the level of the starting weight, the multiple increase in combat effectiveness was ensured by switching to middle-class combat units, increasing the accuracy of shooting four times, increasing the resistance of the unit to damaging factors 3 – 4 times, and equipping with anti-ballistic missile defenses and realizing firing at maneuvering trajectories (flattened, mounted, randomly diverted in an arbitrary plane, etc.) with dilution of combat blocks in any area ... and increased in 1992, the completed testing of propulsion and auxiliary rocket motors. A ground-based experimental testing of the control system was performed. Prior to the start of flight tests from a ground test bench, the following were carried out: flight test tests of “throwing” missiles from a floating platform, 7 launches; working out the depreciation system of the depreciation missile system in 4 launches on full-scale mockups; working out the processes of separation steps; testing of middle class power units 19 with K65М-Р carrier launches. Joint flight tests of missile launches from a ground stand were launched in 1993, in November 1993, December 1994 and in November 1997. three launches were carried out, which became unsuccessful ... The technical readiness of the complex at the end of 1997 was 73%, the readiness to reequip the missile carrier according to the 941Y project - 83,7%. However, in September 1998, at the state level, the proposal of the Ministries of Economy and Defense to stop the development of the D-19UTH complex with the R-39UTTH rocket was adopted. ”


Now it is obvious that this decision was a mistake, the formal “basis” for which were:
• “unrecoverable dimension problem”;
• “unification of the sea rocket with land complexes” (“interspecific intercontinental ballistic missile).

The thesis on “unification” of the new Bulava SLBM with Topol is still found in our media, although it not only has no technical basis, but simply did not have any sense at that time (we could have new missiles with separable warheads only on marine carriers).

“Dimensional” problems also did not exist: the launch of the P-39 was ensured even with the upgraded diesel-electric submarines of the 629 project (which was used for throwing trials), the first version of the 955 project provided for the deployment of the 12 new SLBMs of the D-19UTX complex. At the same time, in order to evaluate various options, it was correct and objective to compare not the number of missiles, but the warheads (the total throw-in weight).

As a result of the 1998 solution, the development of the practically finished KRO D-19UTTX was discontinued, and the development of a new one, the Bulava, began, which was extremely delayed.

In this situation, the 941 ships were left without ammunition, the service life of which was coming to an end. In addition, the possibilities of extending the timeframe of the existing P-39 missiles were not fully utilized, which became the subject of an unprecedented conflict in 2004:

Commander of the Northern Fleet, Admiral GA Suchkov:
"Russia may lose a whole class of strategic missile submarines - the 941 project."


Commander of the Navy Kuroyedov VI:
“... the perfect fiction is the admiral's statements regarding the combat readiness and prospects of the North Siberian fleet of the Shark class troop carrier units.


In recent years (until the complete elimination in 2012) of the P-39 missiles, the last missile lines of the 941 project were carried with far from complete missile ammunition of the last remaining missiles.

And here the question arises: what have we lost due to this error?

The first is a lot of money and time to create a new AOC.

Obviously, if the P-19UTTH complex continued, by the end of the 2000-s it would have been in service and put into service (on the upgraded traffic controllers of the 941 designation system and on Borey).

Secondly, the modernization of the 941 project automatically took over the modernization of the entire 3 generation of nuclear-powered vessels (due to the very high equipment unification), and the savings on the Bulava ensured the start of such modernization in the mid-to-late 2000's. Obviously, in this case, now we would have had at least a dozen of the 3 generation nuclear ships (949A, 971, 945 (A)) in the Navy ranged past ten or more. It is particularly necessary to emphasize that “some statements” at the enormous cost of such a modernization are unfounded. For the GEM and 941 general ship systems, the project is close to the 949 project (with a more powerful missile system and a weaker torpedo complex).

The large displacement and reserves for the modernization of the 941 project made it very effective options for various special-purpose submarines at its base.

Alas, today the grouping of the CPK CH of the 941 project is lost. The last ship in the ranks (he is the first in construction), the TK-208 "Dmitry Donskoy", today has no combat significance and is used only to ensure the testing of new submarines. In 2017, the “Dmitry Donskoy” took part in the Main Naval Parade.

Summing up

The creation of Project 941 ships was by no means a “mistake” (as stated in a number of works), it was a worthy project created within the strict framework of the objective conditions and capabilities of its time (and timing!). The life of the ships of this project was short, not because of imaginary "shortcomings", but of the shocks that the country suffered during these years.


The heavy cruisers "Peter the Great" and "Dmitry Donskoy" follow on the Main Airborne Forces-2017. Photo: https://dambiev.livejournal.com

And the last. Now the last ship, TK-208 "Dmitry Donskoy", remains in service, and it would be fair and proper after its withdrawal from the Navy to tow it to Kronstadt for deployment in the Patriot fleet. At the same time, taking into account the normal radiation situation on the ship, there is no need to cut the reactor compartments, it will be enough to extract the reactor cores. “Dmitry Donskoy” can and should become a worthy monument to a great country and its creators, and the 941 project is rightly the pride of our shipbuilding industry.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

140 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +45
    19 March 2019 18: 06
    Just brilliant submarines. The USSR could and did. Alas, everything is in the past, and for everything Soviet, the current government has heartburn.
    1. +13
      19 March 2019 18: 20
      Project 941 "Shark". The pride of domestic submarine? Yes!
      this is the pride of the USSR submarine building, from which people are now distancing themselves, so no need to grease, now no one will build a "shark" ..
      1. -1
        24 March 2019 19: 54

        no one will build a "shark" now

        And thank God. The author can shout many times "It's not so, because I said so!", But 941 project is at least controversial.
    2. -61
      19 March 2019 18: 23
      "Shark" was just an unprecedented work gloomy teutonic genius Kremlin senility - after American friends rolled out the Ohio and Trident, the old people had a fit of anger, and the designers were given Armenian cognac from the reserves of Comrade Stalin. Only this (as well as the dimensions of the P-39) can explain the presence of two large durable hulls and the displacement in 50 000 tons ...
      1. 0
        21 March 2019 12: 33
        and drooling why splash around? what does not suit you?
        1. -5
          21 March 2019 13: 41
          Quote: promsol
          and drooling why splash around? what does not suit you?

          Unsuccessful submarines, the creation of which was justified only by the desire to catch up and overtake. The creation of a submarine with 20 missiles was too weak a counterweight to the US Ohio, which has 24 missiles. At the same time, "Ohio" has a displacement of half. Hence the loss in noise. Not to mention the cost of ownership. So the uniqueness lies only in the catamaran design and size. But the sub is not a residential building, its mission is stealth. Minus, minus laughing if you still had arguments ... yes where there ...
          1. +1
            22 March 2019 11: 49
            Noisiness - when applied to these boats, this concept is about nothing. In the 70-80s, and even in the early 90s, the PMNDs did not have boats capable of actually operating under the ice of the Arctic, as well as real means of detection and tracking. The task of the Sharks was: to leave the area of ​​action, hide for an indefinite time and wait for the launch command. Moreover, as correctly indicated in the article, the inner White Sea could also be the combat area. And the keen desire of the ovs to get rid of these boats (by paying for disposal) directly confirms their fears about the Sharks. And a full salvo of 20 missiles, and it was the salvo that was tested for the first time on these boats, "erased" from the life of the USA the square 1000 * 1000 km, just.
            1. 0
              23 March 2019 18: 30
              Quote: promsol
              In 70-80, and even at the beginning of 90, the pmndos did not have boats capable of actually operating under the ice of the Arctic, as well as real means of detection and tracking

              Were
          2. -1
            23 March 2019 18: 33
            Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
            The creation of a submarine with 20 missiles was too weak a counterweight to the US Ohio, which has 24 missiles.

            Do YOU ​​have exactly the right logic?
            The USA will have enough one BC BDRM
            Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
            At the same time, "Ohio" has a displacement half as much.

            lie
            Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
            Hence the loss of noise.

            and this is just nonsense - because the displacement is necessary, including for the introduction of acoustic protection
            Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
            More arguments were ...

            there were arguments - in the article
            unlike you
      2. +1
        21 March 2019 13: 37
        In fact, this is a waste of folk money ... negative to drive in parallel 941 and 667 RBD / M - this is no economy can stand ... request After all, besides the submarines themselves, basing, arsenals, supply vessels, etc.
    3. -22
      19 March 2019 18: 59
      I didn’t understand when they surfaced in the ice and the rugged hull crumpled the repair, they subtracted the crew members?
      1. +18
        19 March 2019 20: 17
        Quote: Clever man
        I didn’t understand when they surfaced in the ice and the rugged hull crumpled the repair, they subtracted the crew members?

        If they had crumpled the sturdy case, they probably would not have come back to the base! They squeezed the lightweight hull; hi
        1. -1
          20 March 2019 01: 23
          Thanks for the clarification, how much was it justified, because as I understood it, after the ascent, the boat went under the write-off?
          1. +3
            20 March 2019 09: 48
            Quote: Clever man
            how justified it was

            Apparently, it was necessary to verify the calculations empirically.
          2. 0
            21 March 2019 06: 21
            Yeah, so written off that in 2017 on the Baltic participated in the parade.
            1. 0
              23 March 2019 18: 28
              Quote: Soldier of the Empire
              Yeah, so written off that in 2017 on the Baltic participated in the parade.

              EMPTY
          3. 0
            23 March 2019 18: 29
            Quote: Clever man
            Thanks for the clarification, how much was it justified, because as I understood it, after the ascent, the boat went under the write-off?

            No, under the average repair - which is already suitable for her
    4. +3
      19 March 2019 20: 23
      Quote: Sonet
      and for everything Soviet, the current government has heartburn.

      Yeah, only everything Soviet, all the developments went into business.
      1. +3
        20 March 2019 04: 38
        This would have been normal if it had not been positioned as an achievement by Russian scientists.
        1. +5
          20 March 2019 14: 37
          ... “Launching rockets from under the ice is impossible by definition. When swimming under the ice, the launch order cannot be completed on time, because There is not always an objective opportunity for launching missiles - there may not be wormwood or weak ice above the SSBN. Start-up can only be done from the surface ................

          For the 941st, the R-39UTTH rocket was developed, which had a special device for breaking ice (".... The mass of the ice breaking system engine is 29 kg ..." - http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-441 .html) and therefore the rocket could be fired directly through ice (up to 2.5 meters thick).
          I haven't heard of such capabilities of the Bulava missile, which means that the problem of firing rockets from under the ice remains, especially since the Borei are unlikely to have such ice breaking capabilities as the Typhoon had.
    5. +3
      21 March 2019 13: 09
      The boat TK-208 Dmitry Donskoy definitely needs to be made a museum. This is a masterpiece of Soviet shipbuilding.
    6. 0
      4 July 2021 16: 56
      Especially on galoshes !!!
  2. +15
    19 March 2019 18: 16
    In addition, even in a deeply modernized form, Project 667BDRM was significantly inferior in concealment to the “probable enemy” submarines.

    I have always been interested in the question .. where do the authors get the data on the noise level of submarines .. and ours and "enemy"?
    Yes, it is the significant weight and size characteristics of ballistic missiles of a submarine (SLBM) of a missile weapon complex (KRO) that determined the appearance of the entire project 941.

    just like that .. Sharks were built around PU missiles .. it was they who determined the shape of the boat.
    And here’s what’s strange .. Quiet 941 almost everything is scrapped, and the noisy 667BDRM still serve .. how so?
    1. +17
      19 March 2019 18: 30
      Quote: dvina71
      and noisy 667BDRM still serve .. how so?

      Glory to the USSR that, in addition to solid-propellant missiles, they continued to develop liquid-propellant ones. And when in the late nineties the military discovered that SUDDENLY the country foresees a very imminent absence of any suitable for firing sea ballistic missiles at all, they quickly decided to modernize the discontinued R-29RM missile (in the same Makeev Design Bureau, by the way) , and began to slowly rivet it and put it on the newest of the 667BDRM Dolphin submarines left from the USSR. It is they who are now instilling fear and horror in a potential enemy, periodically shooting missiles at a record 11,5 thousand km. In production, it has been mastered, licked, tested - moreover, it has been modified with a file FOUR TIMES. R-29RMU (in service since 1988) -> R-29RMU1 (2002) -> R-29RMU2 "Sineva" (2007) -> R-29RMU2.1 "Liner" (2014).
      1. -4
        19 March 2019 20: 17
        Lurkomorye?)
      2. 0
        21 March 2019 09: 46
        The problem in the USSR was not in the quality of solid fuel, but in the rocket technology used, Soviet rocket equipment (mechanical and control systems) was much heavier than the American ones, for example, where the Americans solved the problems of thermal insulation with graphite spraying and got a lightweight construction, for example nozzles, we it was necessary to install a cooling system made of brass, naturally on liquid fuel and heavier, naturally the specific impulse of liquid fuel is at least 1.5-2 times higher compared to STRT and therefore, in general it was possible to achieve tolerable weight and size characteristics
        The Typhoon system's solid-fuel marine ballistic missiles turned out to be large, since casting heavy products required more solid fuel, in addition, these missiles used fuel produced at the then new factory in Ukraine (Kirovograd), this plant was closed in the 90s
        1. +5
          21 March 2019 12: 57
          For a number of reasons, we did not know how to make normal solid-fuel missiles, just as the Americans do not know how to make liquid-propellant ones. More precisely, we can, but it turns out that it turns out, like they do with "liquid" ones. If we compare the performance characteristics of the 3M-65, 3M-37 and Trident2 products, then these comparisons will not be in favor of solid-propellant ICBMs. In terms of range, thrown weight, etc. liquid 3M-37 will wipe the nose with solid fuel, including Bulava. We can talk about the danger of storage and operation of liquid ICBMs, but everything is relative. The operation of the 3M-37 has been worked out so much that during its adoption into service, and this is since 1983, there has not been a single incident or accident on the submarine, with the exception of the Begemot in 1989, where the products were not standard, heavily altered, which led to the accident during the tests. Storage of solid fuel products is also not a gift. With temperature changes in solid fuel, microcracks can appear, which ultimately leads to deviations during combustion, and the fuel can pass into the blasting category. It should be noted that the 3M-65 products showed high reliability when they were disposed of by launching from a submarine. This was done by the crew under the command of Captain 1st Rank Alexander Sergeevich Bogachev, who unfortunately left us in 2015. Although there were accidents with rocket weapons on this project.

          About K-219 ... There were problems with mines on K-219 before. This is the 1973 accident with the same reasons as in 1986. I don’t remember such cases on other "azukhs".
          In addition, when comparing the displacement per average-capacity warhead, the 941 project, which had an 20 SLBM with 10 warheads (of course, given the actual total displacement, rather than the “mythical” 48.000 tons) turns out to be even more economical than the 667DRM project (having 16 SLBMs with 4 warheads).

          The author apparently does not know why BDRMs were equipped with 4 warheads. Putting 10 "carrots" on the product was no problem. And the underwater displacement for the 941 project was indeed about 50000 tons. Due to the large buoyancy and the huge inter-board space, these boats were also called water carriers. Of course, the living conditions for the crew were excellent; there are no such conditions on the BDRMs, although there is nothing for it either. Well, there is a sauna without a pool, the cabins are more cramped ... By the way, the BDRM breaks the ice well too. There were such ice floes on the hump that you couldn't reach the top from the jump.
          Quote: Beregovyhok_1
          In the dashing 90-e Americans actively helped in the disposal of strategists. And the boat projects 667a, b, bd, not yet disassembled, they were not interested. They paid primarily for the disposal of the 941 project. Why did it happen?

          In the dashing 90s, the Americans sponsored the disposal of everything that did not suit them. Remember Tu-160, Tu-22, etc. At the same time, we were supplied with a rocket fuel utilization unit at one of the enterprises so that we could not make new products to replace those that had expired their warranty periods. In the late 90s, the senior representative of the customer from the URAV of the Navy received a letter in Krasnoyarsk to substantiate the impossibility of further production of 3M-37 and the need to close the enterprise. The officer had the intelligence and courage to gather meetings at the allied enterprises and the head office and prepare documents on the readiness of enterprises for further work and send these documents over his head. As a result, the modernized "Sineva" and "Liner" appeared, and the enterprise is working.
          In 1998, a company consisting of Urinson, Dvorkin, Solomonov, Sergeev and Kuroedov (now admiral, so admiral) began to move around the Bulava. The land office began to design marine products. Financing was taken away from the Makeev Design Bureau and they began to sculpt. As a result, the rocket flew only after the Makeyevites joined the work. Relatively recently in the media there was information about the order from the Makeyevites to develop a new product for submarines. With an almost equal mass with the Sineva, the Bulava has a lower payload mass and flight range.

          Both "solid" products and "liquid" products have their positive and negative sides. Everywhere there should be a golden mean and no need to rush from one extreme to another.

          And 941-e could be converted to the submarine for special tasks. So no, it was necessary to ruin one of the BDRMs that had been in the plant for almost 19 years ...
    2. +19
      19 March 2019 18: 52
      In the dashing 90-e Americans actively helped in the disposal of strategists. And the boat projects 667a, b, bd, not yet disassembled, they were not interested. They paid primarily for the disposal of the 941 project. Why did it happen?
      1. +7
        19 March 2019 19: 10
        Quote: Beregovyhok_1
        Why did it happen?

        Since 941 were the newest in the Navy .. Cut from 6 half. Strange Americans .. Their fear was enough for only three boats?
        1. +1
          19 March 2019 19: 13
          3 remaining, this is no longer a division, in combat service out of 3 no more than one ... In general, two would be enough to cut ...
          1. +2
            19 March 2019 19: 14
            Quote: Beregovyhok_1
            In general, two saws would be enough ...

            Ie ... if the division is not a set ... missiles do not fly?
      2. 0
        20 March 2019 10: 53
        because every 20 missiles and every missile has 10 warheads. total 200 greetings. and boats 6 ... and greetings 1200. something like that.
      3. +2
        22 March 2019 05: 59
        Quote: Beregovyhok_1
        They paid primarily for the disposal of the 941 project.

        Not certainly in that way. We ourselves dried these ships. Products for them were made in Ukraine. By the beginning of zero, the products for them had already served all the warranty periods, and there was nothing to replace. In 1997, the Bogachevites twice fired off a full 3M-65 ammunition load for disposal, and then that's it, there are no more products. It was necessary to redesign the boats or change the armament complex. It was quite possible to repurpose under the carrier of any "losharikov". There, the buoyancy reserve and the size of the inter-board space are such that the BDRM can be hidden. But no, and one BDRM (K-64) was put into rework for many years, and even the 941st was written off ...
    3. +13
      19 March 2019 19: 19
      Quiet 941 is almost all in junk, and noisy 667BDRMs still serve .. how so?

      Contrary to popular belief, noise is not the main thing for a missile carrier. He should not participate in fights with the enemy. He has only one task - to shoot back on time. The task of the rest of the fleet, both surface and underwater, is to provide the missile carrier with such an opportunity. Accordingly, if the missile-carrier positional areas are reliably protected from enemy penetration, then there is simply no one to hide from.
      1. +6
        19 March 2019 19: 23
        Quote: MooH
        Contrary to popular belief, noise is not the main thing for a missile carrier.

        This is like an excuse, not an opinion .. like no, and don’t need to ... Noise reduction - increased survival. It makes no difference ... a drummer or a hunter .. And also .. why do the Boreas need TA?
      2. +3
        19 March 2019 19: 26
        if the missile-carrier positional areas are reliably protected from enemy penetration, then there is simply no one to hide from.
        during the threatened period, the fleet will clean up approaches to the bastions, and in peacetime would you be pleased to realize that you, during the military service, are stolen by a moose who will put a torpedo in the ass when opening the covers of the mines?
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. +4
            21 March 2019 13: 12
            Rudolph, hello! In 1989, we went to the exercises three times as winners in "duels" with submarines from your division and Gremikhans. So much for the "bomb carrier".
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. +4
                21 March 2019 16: 05
                And you with the past, Rudolph. One was the 671 project from Gremikha, the old lady already. Gadzhievskaya like too, 30 years have passed. For one of them, we were even asked to make a parcel, label ourselves. Like for Gremikhan, they can be said to point out we have not heard.
    4. -2
      23 March 2019 18: 27
      Quote: dvina71
      I have always been interested in the question .. where do the authors get the data on the noise level of submarines .. and ours and "enemy"?

      including and from my experience
      for example, there is a special journal in which the detection ranges of various targets are regularly (roughly once a day) for the current navigation conditions, and it is signed by both acoustics and the watch officer
      well and it is taught
      Quote: dvina71
      Quiet 941 is almost all in junk, and noisy 667BDRMs still serve .. how so?

      and so - as it is
      1. +1
        24 March 2019 12: 18
        Quote: Fizik M
        Quote: dvina71
        Quiet 941 is almost all in junk, and noisy 667BDRMs still serve .. how so?

        and so - as it is

        BDRM, as far as I remember, is no louder than the 941st. Although it looks like the BDR, it is different. There, the strong case is different, and the light one is decently different. Yes, just scuppers in the "hump" area just to see. And the nose is different. There is a photo already with 7-blade propellers.

        Quote: Fizik M
        for example, there is a special journal in which the detection ranges of various targets are regularly (roughly once a day) for the current navigation conditions, and it is signed by both acoustics and the watch officer

        The grouper on the BIOS in the central sat, led this information, but I don’t remember to give the magazine for a signature.
        Quote: Fizik M
        Apalkov served on the 667 project
        The author of the article is on 971 and 949А
        at the same time Apalkov is lying

        "Andromeda" was constantly tied to the pier ...
        And what so the author from one base to another was moto? :) If we are talking about the north, of course ...
        1. -1
          25 March 2019 21: 23
          Quote: Andrey NM
          BDRM, as far as I remember, is not noisier than 941.

          noisier, and significantly
          including according to the above
          and on the DS in general ...
          Quote: Andrey NM
          but to give a magazine for a signature,

          on the Northern Fleet its "rattles", and on the Pacific Fleet (16 squadron) it was just like that
          Quote: Andrey NM
          And what so the author from one base to another was moto? :) If we are talking about the north,

          I was in the north only in practice and experience (in the latter case, at 971 and 667AT, including with the flow of water "into the entire section of the TA";))
          1. +1
            26 March 2019 06: 55
            Quote: Fizik M
            on the Northern Fleet its "rattles", and on the Pacific Fleet (16 squadron) it was just like that

            Well, judging by the inaccuracies in matters of "Chinese" weapons and adherence to "acoustic" magazines, you come from BC-7 wink .
            "Pears" and "Andromeda" were not the most sailing ships, they were more attached to the pier.
            Well, we did not serve on the Pacific Fleet and in general in squadrons ... We still had flotilla and divisions. :)
            1. -2
              26 March 2019 14: 03
              Quote: Andrey NM
              adherence to "acoustic" magazines, you come from BC-7

              no
              miner
              by education and education wink - counter warmer
              just questions BCH-7 knew very well, to the extent that he himself was free to work on pr.170 "Skata-3" (including on "atypical modes")
              VO, in the CPU, usually stood in the doorway of the acoustic deckhouse, and after the watch often remained to work for the free pr.170
              Quote: Andrey NM
              "Pears" and "Andromeda" were not the most sailing ships, they were more attached to the pier.

              Andromeda saw already tied
              and Pear in 1998. was a "bicycle" 24dpl
              1. +1
                26 March 2019 20: 21
                Quote: Fizik M
                miner
                on education and upbringing - counter warhead

                Well, nooo ... This miner is a follower and an adherent of the great guru Abram Borisovich Geiro. And all the others are not miners. laughing Just kidding, of course.
                Quote: Fizik M
                Andromeda saw already tied
                and Pear in 1998. was a "bicycle" 24dpl

                Oh, Maxim, it's not good to brag :), people minus (not me). As for the "fruit" boats. By 1998, only one remained relatively alive and not decommissioned, and she “cycled” for the last time a year before, and was finally decommissioned at the very beginning of the XNUMXs. Well, sometimes I went out to tasks, probably ...
                But a rocket engineer should write about missiles, who understands what a gazgen, a steering wheel, "pants", etc. are. Then an understanding will come why the 37th car is like this, and the 65th is different. And why the carriers are like that.
                About the accident rate of RO. In 1991, the TK-17 banged so much that it seemed to no one. And in 1989 (or 90 ???, I don't remember, we just came to Kumzhu after that), the midshipman in Litsa launched a rocket with a megohm meter from the 949 project ... I checked the insulation resistance ... So not all definitely.
                In May, 1998 was an experimental campaign of the CH K-202 tplk to investigate the possibilities of using the 941 project in severe ice conditions.

                As a parallel. In 1989, we surfaced several times in the ice. Well, there was thick ice. On the hump "pieces" lay, to the top I could not jump. All the glass in the cockpit fence was crushed, holes were made in the fairing ... It was then to be on the top, to put it mildly, "not comfortable ...
  3. +12
    19 March 2019 18: 27
    One of the best articles that I read on the site.
    Maxim, thanks!
    hi
  4. +17
    19 March 2019 18: 48
    The article is a huge plus! It's a shame to tears! I remember testing a new rocket in 1997 when it crashed near the launch pad. In the presence of the Minister of Defense. After that, work on the product was stopped ... There were persistent rumors that Comrade Sergeev, a native of the Strategic Missile Forces, either spoke warmly with the general designer of MIT, or even had family ties with him ... It was from 1997 that MIT began work on "Bulava". Although, according to rumors, again, they even found the culprit at the plant during the assembly of the rocket, and it seems that even it was sabotage. But history has no subjunctive mood ... We have what we have. Thanks again for the article!
  5. +4
    19 March 2019 19: 00
    Allegedly "poor handling" of the project 941.
    yeah, very bad, dodged a torpedo
  6. The comment was deleted.
    1. +3
      19 March 2019 19: 34
      The mistake with imposing a solid fuel scheme on Makeev was subsequently recognized by Ustinov.
  7. +2
    19 March 2019 19: 13
    The thesis of “unification" of the new Bulava SLBM with Topol is still found in our media, although it not only does not have any technical basis, but simply did not make sense then

    I met information that when the MIT announced that it would develop its own SLBM using the Topol developments, the naval forces took it with hostility: "We already had one attempt to make a SLBM unified with a land ball - we don’t want to step on this rake anymore"And I had to explain that the use of developments is not unification.
    1. -4
      23 March 2019 18: 21
      Quote: Alexey RA
      And I had to explain that the use of developments is not unification.

      it's a lie MIT
      what they wanted — see their publications, Dvorkin, etc.
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. +4
    19 March 2019 20: 15
    Was on "Shark" in 2006. Impressed by the size. At that time, the special pride of the crew was that this underwater catamaran was the only one that even had a small steam room! For submariners, this is an incredible cool, and generally a useful thing.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. +9
        19 March 2019 23: 16
        Quote from rudolf
        Saunas were also on other projects, not only on the 941s, but the pool ... True, not big and they filled up potatoes on the BS, but still!

        There is also a pool on the project 949A "Antey". I swam myself. hi
      2. +6
        20 March 2019 07: 05
        Rudolph hi On the topic of the article, everything is more or less clear. I have a question about providing the Sharks' BS - what project served as their "bodyguard"? After all, it turns out as in the 41st - the bombers went to the German tank columns without firing cover. Or were they covered by the hunters?
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. +7
            20 March 2019 09: 42
            Got the gist, thanks. hi
          2. +5
            22 March 2019 18: 13
            Quote from rudolf
            Sharks went under ice more often than others, and there they wouldn’t even compose a company to them.

            Rudolph, you're not quite right here. I've spent all my autonomous cars under the ice. With Tregubov, five times the ice was broken.
            1. The comment was deleted.
        2. -5
          23 March 2019 18: 20
          Quote: Leopold
          Rudolf On the topic of the article, everything is more or less clear. I have a question about providing the Sharks' BS - which project served as their "bodyguard"? After all, it turns out as in the 41st - the bombers went to the German tank columns without firing cover. Or were they covered by the hunters?

          providing a "guard" is our STUPIDITY, and it had no real meaning (more precisely, it had a NEGATIVE meaning)
          the experience of real support of the RPL CH, and in the conditions of active actions of the enemy PLO (PLA, SGAR), I have
          1. +5
            23 March 2019 20: 17
            Well, what thoughts? In terms of security?
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. +5
                24 March 2019 02: 15
                But can’t the TOF strategists go under the ice?
                1. The comment was deleted.
  10. +6
    19 March 2019 20: 15
    "The widespread" information "about the allegedly 48000 tons of the total underwater displacement of the project 941 is false, and the real full underwater displacement of the" Sharks "is much less than these 48000 tons." - well, the covers are torn off. Now I would like to see real numbers, preferably well-reasoned.
    1. +1
      20 March 2019 05: 01
      Really. The professional submariner Apalkov cites precisely this figure. But Klimov knows better! laughing
      1. -4
        23 March 2019 18: 15
        Quote: Sahalinets
        Really. Professional submariner Apalkov cites just this figure. But Klimov knows better

        Apalkov served on the 667 project
        The author of the article is on 971 and 949А
        at the same time Apalkov is lying
        point
    2. -5
      23 March 2019 18: 18
      Quote: ares1988
      the real total underwater displacement of the "Sharks" is much less than these 48000 tons. "- well, the covers have been torn off. Now I would like to see real figures, preferably well-reasoned.

      1. and no one wants to give arguments "for 48000"? or prefer to repeat "Mormul's fairy tale"
      2. real numbers, so far - "under the stamp", and for this reason will not be given here
      3. However, the real figures are much closer to the data of "Jane" for 941 than to the "Mormul's tale" about "48000"
      1. +3
        24 March 2019 02: 21
        And what, in fact, will change if real numbers are announced?
        1. -4
          25 March 2019 21: 20
          Quote: Leopold
          And what, in fact, will change if real numbers are announced?

          the one who does this risks "getting to know closely" with the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
          1. +6
            26 March 2019 05: 23
            But the "horror stories" do not need to be told. The project is practically being written off, and you are talking about secrecy. Not Soviet times, to my deep regret. Purely out of curiosity to search - the age is not the same, but for the case - so I have no such case. So it turns out that nothing will change from knowing the real displacement of the Sharks. hi
            P.S. By the way, there are officers in the VO who actually served on the Shark.
            1. -10
              26 March 2019 13: 59
              Quote: Leopold
              But the "horror stories" do not need to be told

              YOUR "comments from the couch" on HRT are certainly "very valuable" lol
              Quote: Leopold
              Not Soviet times, to my deep regret

              by the fact that today this part is going on - WORSE
              "tighten the nuts" even where they were not in the USSR
              Quote: Leopold
              So it turns out that nothing will change from knowing the actual displacement of the Sharks

              for YOU - on the couch
              but for the chela who said - "a trip to fresh air" is quite possible
              1. +6
                26 March 2019 15: 58
                And why is my sofa actually worse than yours, since you are also sitting on the sofa? There is no one to measure with the vultures of secrecy? I was "in the fresh air" enough to run, I do not need to agitate for this. Now it's your turn - run to your health, and don't sit on the couch with your pants. Time will go away - you can't bring it back and youth too. You have no interest in talking to me - I do not insist and do not delay. Just don't forget that we are your readers. "If you spit on the people - the people will drown, if the people spit on you - drown."
                1. -4
                  26 March 2019 21: 56
                  Quote: Leopold
                  And why is my sofa actually worse than yours, since you are also sitting on the sofa?

                  so that I'm not from the couch
                  and yourself YOU defined
                  regime issues - not from the category "... metrics"
                  Quote: Leopold
                  The secrets of secrecy do not compete with anyone?

                  understandable ... write yourself a sign ...
                  Quote: Leopold
                  I "in the fresh air" ran ample

                  like
                  just what does this have to do with the regime?
                  Quote: Leopold
                  we are your readers

                  in this case YOU are personally YOU
                  to other readers, especially with experience of service on this issue, everything is clear without further ado
                  Quote: Leopold
                  if people

                  YOU, "people"?!?!? lol
                  1. +1
                    27 March 2019 02: 16
                    It’s clear to me too. You have spread antimonies - I know the numbers, but I won’t tell you. You don’t want or you can’t - there’s nothing to start a conversation with, nobody demanded anything from you.
                    I'm a READER here. And once you have taken up the "pen", this does not affect your behavior on the site - the rules are the same for ALL.
              2. +3
                26 March 2019 17: 17
                Quote: Fizik M
                Quote: Leopold
                But the "horror stories" do not need to be told
                YOUR "comments from the couch" on HRT are certainly "very valuable"

                Rude not nA, kid!
                Possession of specific knowledge does not give the right to spread fingers!
                And if the article itself made a favorable impression, then the author seems to consider himself smarter than the whole volume of the Talmud.
                1. -2
                  26 March 2019 21: 51
                  Quote: stalkerwalker
                  Rude not nA, kid!

                  guy !, and in my opinion rudeness is an offer to the author to "half-present" under ZGTshnikov
                  Quote: stalkerwalker
                  gives the right to spread fingers!

                  with "spread fingers" here some "demand" numbers, to put it mildly, are not in the public domain
                  Quote: stalkerwalker
                  o the author seems to consider himself smarter than the whole volume of the Talmud.

                  Smarter
                  only not the Talmud, and acc. order
                  1. +3
                    27 March 2019 00: 24
                    Quote: Fizik M
                    with "spread fingers" here some "demand" numbers, to put it mildly, are not in the public domain

                    Well, that’s it ...
                    First they’ll call the 1 department.
                    Then "on the carpet" and the shoulder straps will be torn off, the dagger above the head will be broken ...
                    wassat
                    1. +2
                      27 March 2019 02: 40
                      Ilyich hi In the 1st department and on the "carpet" - I agree, but not fatally. But
                      shoulder straps will be torn, a dagger over your head will be broken ...

                      This is already too much. Better to the wall than such a shame. wink good drinks
                      1. +1
                        27 March 2019 13: 30
                        Quote: Leopold
                        Better to the wall than such a shame.

                        Sergey,
                        Judging by the reviews of the author of the article, this is the case ... wassat
                        "... And above him - a janissary with a sword ...."
                        drinks
                      2. +2
                        27 March 2019 14: 48
                        That's right! good "Slippery, like in Turkey! And he said that we would go empty!" (from) lol drinks
      2. +1
        24 March 2019 10: 41
        Well, then no one argued for 48000. The project is 100 years old at lunchtime, the sizes have long been known, incl. and "probable". The point is to keep the displacement under the bar, what does it give? Considering that the dimensions of the submarine can be easily determined, incl. by satellite images. Well, and, again, refer to some "secret data that you know, but you cannot give them - this, excuse me, is like in that joke that in wartime the value of pi can reach 4.
        1. -6
          25 March 2019 21: 19
          Quote: ares1988
          Well, then 48000 no one argued and did not dispute

          Let's start with the fact that 48000 is exactly "from the ceiling" and this "fairy tale" was "charged" by Mormul
          Quote: ares1988
          The project is 100 years old at lunchtime, the sizes have long been known, incl. and "probable".

          so they immediately appreciated the "space" - see Jane (they were not much mistaken there)
          Quote: ares1988
          Well, and, again, refer to some "secret data that you know, but you cannot give them - this, excuse me, is like in that joke

          this is not an "anecdote" but an article CC RF
          This is especially reminiscent of the story of one cap.2, which "stuck" on the fact that he had details of the "product" of the 50s of development, which was not declassified only because they could not find an order to put it into service (ibid - p. installation of the neck), while the same product, but in a modernized form (after 9 years), with the letter "M" has already been declassified
          The guy didn't seem to be imprisoned, but he was fired from the Navy with a "wolf ticket"
          1. -1
            26 March 2019 06: 48
            [media=https://mtdata.ru/u25/photo71A5/20007119344-0/original.jpg]
            And this is all photoshop
        2. +5
          26 March 2019 17: 20
          Quote: ares1988
          Well, then no one argued for 48000. The project is 100 years old at lunchtime, the sizes have long been known, incl. and "probable". The point is to keep the displacement under the bar, what does it give?

          And who can these tsifir today worry?
          Discussion of the topic of underwater displacement is similar to flux, and in the most painful form ....
          1. +2
            26 March 2019 20: 34
            No, what about ?! Measuring the size of such gizmos is the oldest entertainment)
            1. -3
              26 March 2019 21: 46
              Quote: ares1988
              Measuring the size of such gizmos is the most ancient entertainment)

              for you
          2. -4
            26 March 2019 21: 47
            Quote: stalkerwalker
            And who can these tsifir today worry?

            HRT service
            "comrade captain" who "really wants to become a major"
            there are enough applicants
  11. +2
    19 March 2019 21: 00
    If you take it for autonomy, then there was no better boat. Spacious and comfortable. Well, she was hiding in those days both at the exit and at the entrance to the base. I don’t know right now!
  12. +1
    19 March 2019 21: 27
    Want to know something about the 941 project, read this here https: //legal-alien.ru/almanakh/akuly-iz-stali
    But before reading, see the interview with the author
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD3Ho0a4NTM
    By the way, almost all inquisitives from comm ... will get them above, I mean the 2 link!
    1. +1
      20 March 2019 11: 03
      steel sharks read with pleasure, good stories!
  13. +19
    19 March 2019 21: 39
    The creation of grandiose Typhoons quite sensibly answers the question of why they turned out this way. But because the designers and admirals obeyed the good rule that a ship is built to carry certain weapons (and not vice versa, as many people think). Well, at a certain point in time we could not create better TTDs than those of today's "partners". That is why a carrier was created around missiles with certain characteristics. And the plus is that there were no critical restrictions on displacement (cost), because these SSBNs turned out to be so solid (at that time and according to the technologies available to us).
    In fact, the boat pr.941 was ... 5 hull

    2 main strong parallel hulls, central module, TA compartment and aft lock.
    Technical solutions at that moment are striking because what happened in the metal is simply amazing and crushes with its size and power.
    Article plus! hi
  14. +12
    19 March 2019 22: 15
    TK-208 Dmitry Donskoy is a strategic nuclear missile submarine strategic cruiser of project 941 Shark. The first ship in the series. Modified by the project 941UM ..............

    soldier - All involved - Happy Holiday! ... drinks
    1. +6
      20 March 2019 07: 28
      Sanya hi How glad I am that you are back in VO. Without your additional material, the articles were like soup without bread. good drinks Happy holiday!
      1. +5
        20 March 2019 11: 27
        - Healthy Leopold wink .... dropped by for an hour hi
  15. +4
    19 March 2019 23: 22
    Thanks to those who created such magnificent monsters. Essentially the flagship of the Submarine Strike Group. Shark, some hunters, but in the center of the "bastion"! No "moose" will pick up. Essentially a heavy weapon platform for universes. So those handsome men were put on the gramophone needles. It hurts to tears.
  16. +6
    19 March 2019 23: 27
    the destruction of such boats is a consequence of the betrayal of the 90s
    1. -1
      20 March 2019 08: 30
      so there are three more things in fact ...
      1. +1
        20 March 2019 09: 17
        Two zak. 925 Arkhangelsk and Zak. 926 Severstal withdrawn from the fleet and are disposed of.
        1. 0
          20 March 2019 09: 18
          they have been "going" there for a year, but in fact they are ...
  17. +6
    20 March 2019 09: 52
    It is rather strange from the author to see the saying that the 941 displacement was "in reality" much less than 48 tons. Immediately puts the article on a frivolous level. However, even without this, she looks frivolous. Throughout the article, the thought runs through the whole article - the mantra - that everything negative in 000 is not true and in fact these are all advantages. And the apotheosis of the depth of the author's thought - the Shark had a displacement much less than indicated in all conceivable reference books. Some nonsense. It is rather strange to read that Ohio tridents are inferior to p941. Yes, the trident 39 was inferior in range and cast mass, exceeding in accuracy. But these are the first 1 Ohio out of 8. And the rest had trident 18. In range, trident 2 is superior, the accuracy is 2 times higher, the throw weight is higher, the mass of the rocket is 5 tons less. And then these first ones were rearmed with trident 30 or tomahawks. This once again characterizes the article as a swindle of the reader in fact.
    Yes, the designers made an analogue of Ohio, but he was inferior to Ohio in everything. Yes, with that level of solid fuel quality, the smaller in size and mass of the rocket did not work. But was it worth spending an insane amount of money on such a project? As a result, Ohio is still in service for a long time, while 941 is not. True, this is not the only option of this kind. Project 705 Lira also led to the creation of a very original ship, a breakthrough in some respects. And which, due to breakdowns, miscalculations and difficulties in operation, have served from 1 to 12 years. However, the author can write another article in which to indicate Lyra as another brilliant project.
    Of course, Project 941 Shark is impressive. First of all, the size, displacement. Are these the best qualities for a nuclear submarine? The question is rhetorical.
    1. +2
      20 March 2019 13: 01
      I read at the end of the 70s a draft design for the 3M-65 rocket. In conclusion, there was a chapter on the analysis of the Trident-1 rocket. The Makeyevites wrote that our rocket was inferior to the American one, according to BASU, 3-5 times.
    2. +1
      21 March 2019 07: 41
      I was also impressed by the story in the article about tests for surfacing in the ice of different thicknesses and that after the injuries received the boat did not go out to sea anymore. So what is it that after such tests, a giant nuclear-powered ship was sent to a landfill? Billions thrown to the wind? Well, were there really no calculations made about the possibility of breaking ice of one thickness or another? Yes, they certainly were. So then what to call this adventure test? Whose initiative was so many-wise, if all this was, of course, with such an effect?
      1. -2
        23 March 2019 18: 00
        Quote: sevtrash
        But it turns out that after such tests the giant nuclear-powered icebreaker was sent to a dump? Billions thrown to the wind? Well, surely there were no calculations about the possibility of breaking through ice of a certain thickness?

        the average repair time of the ship was fine
        apparently decided (with this in mind) to experience it "to the maximum"
        calculations, of course, were made, but there is also a test of their practice
    3. -4
      23 March 2019 18: 14
      Quote: sevtrash
      It is rather strange from the author to see the adage that 941 displacement was "in reality" much less than 48 tons.

      Monsieur, it is not in "reality", but in REALITY, much less than the "fairy tale about 48000"
      Quote: sevtrash
      mantra - that everything negative about 941 is not true and in fact these are all advantages

      Mantras are YOU, and stupid and ridiculous.
      The author’s arguments are given; try to refute them.
      Quote: sevtrash
      And the apotheosis of the depth of thought of the author - the Shark had a displacement much less than indicated in all imaginable references. Some kind of nonsense.

      for information - the displacement data of 941 in the "Jane" is MUCH less than the "fairy tale about 48000" (which Mormul launched), and much more consistent with the texture
      Quote: sevtrash
      This once again characterizes the article - as a fact of cheating of the reader.

      YOU have "burning" or just IQ "like this" wassat ?
      Quote: sevtrash
      Yes, the designers did the type of analogue Ohio, but he was inferior in all Ohio

      Monsieur, YOU are probably a "very large spitz" lol in "submarine development" belay
      would you not "advise" "how was Kovalev supposed to" surpass Ohio "- taking into account the significant technological lag of the USSR industry?
      Quote: sevtrash
      The quality level of solid fuel of lower dimensions and mass of the rocket did not work. But was it worth spending an insane amount of funds on such a project?

      and who decided it? Kovalev? or is it the military department of the Central Committee?
      Well, how do we - ALL solid propellants "stop doing" - and translate into "slurry"?
      by the way ATGM "the same"? and NURS "Gradov"?
      Quote: sevtrash
      As a result, Ohio is still long in service, and 941 is not

      Are you aware that the USSR did not become in 1991? Or do YOU ​​just have a "bad" history? belay
      Quote: sevtrash
      The 705 project lira also led to the creation of a very original ship, a breakthrough in some characteristics. And which, because of breakdowns, miscalculations and difficulties in operation, served from 1 to 12 years

      shortly - YOU are incompetent
      ABSOLUTELY
      Quote: sevtrash
      the author can write another article in which to indicate Lyra

      there is a plan
      Quote: sevtrash
      as another brilliant project.

      Your nonsense keep yourself
      Quote: sevtrash
      Of course, the 941 Shark project is impressive. First of all, size, displacement.

      and the fact that this is the QUIETEST submarine of the 3rd generation - "not impressive"?
      and the fact that the "los" bypassed in low noise (with all the technological lag), and, in contrast to the promoted 971 project, in fact, is not "impressive"?
      Quote: sevtrash
      Is this the best quality for a nuclear submarine? The question is rhetorical.

      rhetorical ANSWER - for YOU - it is ".... will always find dirt"
      1. +1
        27 March 2019 02: 49
        Maxim, with such manners, you should go to Pikaboo. Here you are not shkolota and not "sandbox" kids. You won't last long with such aplomb. negative
  18. +2
    20 March 2019 10: 17
    Thank you for the article! It is unfortunate that the State has money for the deadly born 20386, but there is no money for the modernization of these unique missile carriers. Converting them to Caliber-Zircons etozh what kind of shock nuclear submarines will turn out! This is not a miserable 8 pieces per combat unit, but under 300 missiles, and all 3 remaining Sharks read 900 missiles! It is not difficult to calculate how many corvette frigates must be built to achieve this number of missiles. And if you still calculate the cost of construction, depreciation, and readiness ...
    It turns out that 3 Sharks are equivalent in hitting an adversary with 110 corvettes 20385. But such a number of corvettes is not a scientific fantasy. A "Leader" or "superfrigate" is like a prospect of the distant future, almost the times of future grandchildren, that is, FIG knows when.
    I’m full of the Great Generations for you, who could embody such ideas in metal and the groundwork that we still use.
    1. 0
      20 March 2019 11: 09
      Why put zircon calibers on them? This is a strategist. ballistic missiles needed .. new ..
  19. +2
    20 March 2019 11: 20
    “Launching rockets from under the ice is impossible by definition. When swimming under the ice, the launch order cannot be completed on time, because there is not always an objective opportunity for launching missiles - there may not be wormwood or weak ice above the SSBN


    This is not entirely true.
    The missile system was designed to launch from under the ice of a certain thickness: the function of the APC is not only to remove the rocket from the coaming of the mine and bring it to the surface in a gas cavity :)
    And its modifications, if their development had not been cut down, they planned to shoot up to the difficult ice situation from under pack ice.
    Complex tasks were solved - to punch an individual wormwood under each SLBM, to clean it from debris of a certain size, to fall into a wormwood with a missile on certain moves - there was an interesting technical problem - as the tandem warhead removes the dynamic protection of the tank, it was possible to make the ice situation great plus for our strategists.
    It is a pity that everything bummed and switched to the mace.
  20. +6
    20 March 2019 12: 07
    The author is a bit unaware. Comrade Yurasov (nuclear safety of the Navy) back in 1993 issued Prohibition No. 5 on the operation of the power plant TK-202, the Stal control system began to develop the third motor resource (at the time of the ban, 105 thousand hours). Since then she did not go to sea, especially in 1998. Working out of ice swimming, icing, surfacing in ice, cleaning the deck was worked out by TK-208 in a special high-latitude cruise, September-October 1983.
    Photo on return: military officer Chernov E., Olkhovikov A.V., Kovalev S.N. To the left is the bipod of the ice touch sensor.
  21. +2
    20 March 2019 17: 24
    The only global minus in this submarine is the problem with basing (in the sense of security). But, this was already decided by the country's leadership. If you want, you decide. And so, a wonderful submarine cruiser. They were able to do in the Union. The article is a fat plus.
  22. +3
    20 March 2019 17: 32
    With "Sharks" and their crews encountered and communicated repeatedly during his service in the North. My impression is that a powerful and reliable ship, even with elements of comfort for the crew. What I didn’t like was the location of the launch silos in front of the wheelhouse fence - the release of emergency missiles is difficult. For military service in the Arctic - a great car.
    1. 0
      21 March 2019 19: 39
      Quote: mik193
      What I didn’t like - the presence of launch mines in front of the wheelhouse fence - the dumping of emergency missiles is difficult


      And often they had to be dumped?
      1. 0
        26 February 2021 11: 50
        Sometimes it was. Well, here in the photo is just TK-17 with a burnt cabin fence. Our boat was nearby, so we looked enough.
  23. +1
    20 March 2019 18: 09
    Once they came up for a long time when they blew up the Central City Hospital (tanks for the main ballast), the boat shook like a fever, the sturdy hull creaked and cracked. But surfaced. Some retractable devices did not extend due to the fact that led the design of the cabin. A lot of dents on the hull of the boat, jammed the covers of missile silos. All plastic fairings were broken. After this campaign, TK-202 did not go to sea anymore. ”


    Ditch the ship for a billion dollars just to see how thick the ice it will break. Tell the fool god to pray.
    1. -3
      23 March 2019 17: 58
      Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
      Ditch the ship for a billion dollars just to see how thick the ice it will break. Tell the fool god to pray.

      no one "ruined" him
      the ship went under medium repair - and decided to test it "to the maximum"
  24. +3
    20 March 2019 19: 35
    Of course. not the worst product .... but the author’s enthusiastic tone is alarming ....
    1. -4
      23 March 2019 17: 57
      Quote: wooja
      but the author's enthusiastic tone is alarming ....

      where did you "enthusiastic" find it?
      but an attempt - let's understand OBJECTIVELY - there is an unconditional
  25. +4
    20 March 2019 19: 44
    The alcoholic Borka and his gang with the fat hog Yegorka ruined such ships! I had a conversation with a classmate about the number of "Sharks" - he asked: "What were only 6 of them ordered?", And he answered: "Kovalev (see article) said that this boat is capable of destroying continents! How many continents do we have?" I replied: "Six!", And he: "And you fucking need more boats ?!"
  26. The comment was deleted.
    1. +1
      21 March 2019 10: 34
      On 941 projects, it was planned to install 24 mines, like the Americans. For what reasons I decided to install 20 mines, I no longer remember, but in the bow of 3-4 compartments and in the stern of the 5-6th there are still places for these 4 mines. The common parts of the missile complex, the "Beryl" possession system were already ready for this.
    2. -4
      23 March 2019 17: 56
      Quote: andy 110
      Comparing the displacement of the "Shark" and "Ohio" the author is trying so hard to attract what is known to the beard

      1.The author of the displacement of "Sharks" and "Ohio" DOES NOT COMPARE
      2. Are YOU on fire? - drink some water ...
      Quote: andy 110
      forgetting at the same time to mention the greater ammunition from the Americans.

      Did Makeev need to buy solid fuel from YOU at the "candle factory"? At YOU, everything is "very simple" - "what is worth building a house - we will draw we will live." Have you heard anything about the lag in solid propellants and significantly larger MGHs of ALL our rockets with solid propellants?
      Quote: andy 110
      It's funny that the wish of the author to teach the materiel

      Monsieur, and YOU have nothing from the "materiel" - only propaganda and tearing a sweatshirt
  27. 0
    21 March 2019 09: 13
    http://alex-news.ru/gordost-otechestvennogo-podvodnogo-korablestroenija-proekt-941-akula/

    The same article. One to one.
    To shipbuilders - respect
  28. +3
    22 March 2019 19: 14
    The article is a definite big +++. Thanks to the author. I had to serve on these ships under the command of Alexander Sergeyevich Bogachev (rest in peace with him) and Sergey Alexandrovich Shnyak. There were beautiful ships and worthy commanders. All involved, with the upcoming holiday
  29. +2
    23 March 2019 16: 55
    As you know, it was originally planned to have 24 D-19 missiles on board the ship, but by decision of S.G. Gorshkova their number was reduced to 20 missiles.
    In the III volume "Submarines of the Soviet fleet of 1945-1991 YV Apalkov the statement is made that:" At the stage of technical design on the initiative of S.N. Kovalev, in project 941 a displacement reserve was provided for modernization in terms of weight and volume. If necessary, it was planned to use it to increase the number of missile silos to 24, as well as to place promising GPA facilities. As a result, the ship's normal displacement was 23200 tons ... "
    I would like to ask the respected author of the article how much the statement by Yu.V. Apalkov about the possibility of placing four more additional missile silos is true. In the above diagrams and drawings in open sources, this does not seem obvious.
    1. 0
      23 March 2019 17: 50
      Quote: Alexey B.
      provides for a displacement reserve for upgrading in mass and volume. If necessary, it was planned to be used to increase the number of rocket mines to 24 and also to deploy promising GPA tools.

      I will not dig into the "reserve" for 24 (+4) mines - because they "theoretically" could be "stuck" only in the extremity, - but in the stern there is already a fence of retractable devices and a compartment of the central post, and in the bow there is not much space you can see + a huge moment in relation to the CG of the entire ship (i.e. it would have to be redone ALL)
      BUT - mod reserves, of course, were, and they went to the new GAK (digital Skat-3) and new SGPD (which Dmitry Donskoy has already received for modernization - 12 outboard launchers for Throwers and Beryls)
      + "something" interesting was also planned, even the name of which did not appear in the media
      1. +1
        24 March 2019 23: 32
        Those. did the initial design of the ship on the 24 rocket have even greater mass-dimensional characteristics?
        1. 0
          25 March 2019 21: 14
          Quote: Alexey B.
          Those. did the initial design of the ship on the 24 rocket have even greater mass-dimensional characteristics?

          obviously yes
          as well as this "big option" was significantly less than the "tale of 48000"
      2. +1
        25 March 2019 00: 50
        Those. in this case, it was about lengthening the hull by more than 8 m, which caused an unacceptable increase in weight and size characteristics and the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy actually agreed to reduce the number of SLBMs to 20?
        1. 0
          25 March 2019 21: 13
          Quote: Alexey B.
          Those. in this case it was about lengthening the body by more than 8 m

          I can not say for sure, but Gorshkov was an opponent of even the 16 SLBM on 667 (16 was imposed by the General Staff, and was right)
          1. +1
            26 March 2019 00: 25
            "Project 941 Akula strategic nuclear submarines can be equipped with 200 Kalibr cruise missiles," Vice Admiral Oleg Burtsev, former First Deputy Chief of the Main Staff of the Navy, said.
            How realistic is this proposal to you, given that the TK-20 and TK-17 have been in use since 2004 and 2006. accordingly, "Sevmash" has no extra capacity to carry out the modernization.
            However, the former beg. the headquarters of the Navy, which has the most serious competence.
            1. 0
              26 March 2019 13: 55
              Quote: Alexey B.
              Of the General Staff of the Navy, Vice Admiral Oleg Burtsev. "
              How realistic is this proposal to you, given that the TK-20 and TK-17 have been in use since 2004 and 2006. accordingly, "Sevmash" has no extra capacity to carry out the modernization.

              If at "Donskoy" cable routes were changed (their replacement is very expensive), then there is a point in competing for it. The decision of "Prometheus" is very important here, but it may "fail" with it - because the corps was very actively exploited (the 502 order was put on pins and needles for this very reason - they raised all the magazines for evaluation). However, in any case, I consider such a study and assessment expedient. Well Burtsev is a very intelligent and principled man.
              1. 0
                26 March 2019 14: 13
                such an example - it so happened that with my participation the fate of "Irkutsk" was decided
                meeting on ship repair in B. Kamna (with the participation of "first-second" persons of "firms")
                Acting Nagorno-State Technical University Reshetkin "tears and flies" about the fact that "according to the plans of the fleet," 619 "should come out in 1,5 years from the VTG", and "the plant raskurochit it under the SR" (for which there is not even a project)
                I have done it before
                The starting point for this work was the one developed in 2006. the concept of modernizing the 3 nuclear submarines of the generation and their armaments, in the established order sent from the 10 divisions of the nuclear submarine of the Pacific Fleet to a number of organizations (VA GSH, Operational Control and Central Administrations of the Navy, Naval Armed Forces, and defense industry organizations). For a number of critical characteristics, these sentences are 2006g. significantly superior to what is being implemented today as part of the program for the modernization of 3 generation submarines

                https://vpk.name/news/141427_morskoe_podvodnoe_oruzhie_rossii_segodnya_i_zavtra_sostoitsya_li_proryiv_iz_torpednogo_krizisa.html
                worked closely on these issues, incl. with "Rubin" (Baranov I.L.) and there was something to say ...
                I come up to Reshetkin during the break, I report on the deliberate inexpediency of the VHG (since the boat goes through write-off in 3 of the year, in this case), and in the possibility and necessity of SR with deep modernization
                he: Will not work! - on the timing of the case!
                present deputy chief of "Prometheus": we are ready to consider exclusion from service time spent on a solid basis
                further connects the deputy Baranova ...
                ...
                the people who returned from the break were simply stunned when the first phrase, 15 minutes ago, "tore and throw" Reshetkin was:
                Let's think together now what needs to be done in order to deploy the existing RHDF to a full-fledged CP with modernization
              2. 0
                April 1 2019 00: 52
                In the open press, I have repeatedly met the assertion that the Project 941 TRPKSN, unlike the Ohio SSBN, is adapted for patrolling exclusively in northern latitudes. Allegedly, in warm seas, problems may arise with the reactor cooling system. How reliable do you think this information is, given that the submarines of other projects (949, 971, 945) also use modifications of the OK-650 reactor? In addition, we all saw "Dmitry Donskoy" in July 2017 in Kronstadt.
  30. +2
    25 March 2019 17: 54
    I saw one of these fairies in Deer lip. Beautiful bastard however.
    I do not know, I love these cars. I love that point ...
    1. -2
      25 March 2019 21: 25
      Quote: Petrol cutter
      I saw one of these fairies in Deer lip. Beautiful bastard however.
      I do not know, I love these cars. I love that point ...

      I think that it makes sense to fight for the fact that "Dm.Donskoy" ended up in Kronstadt is
    2. +1
      26 March 2019 00: 29
      And I saw "Dmitry Donskoy" in July 2017 in Kronstadt next to "Peter the Great." Observed from the side of the dam. A cruise ship was passing by. TK-208 was practically not inferior in size. Strong impression.
  31. 0
    25 February 2020 14: 49
    What alternative gifted endorsed such a project, knowing that we are in the acoustics of the Papuans compared to the Americans? And our torpedoes in the 80s full of guano. There were diesels with three shafts in the wheelhouse. According to this principle, it was worth designing a lot of small boats, grazing them with surface forces in coastal areas and enclosed areas provided with stationary GAS.

    In fact, that in the 80s, which is now, the Russian SSBN fleet is a very dubious decision, because adversary both qualitatively and numerically superior, and constantly hangs on the tail.
  32. 0
    26 February 2021 11: 43
    I'll correct it a little from the photo. In the photo, the TK-17 941 project and our K-193 project 667 BD in Olenyaya Bay, somewhere in 1992. Identified my boat by rubber breaks in the middle of the missile deck and on the left side of the wheelhouse enclosure (stripped in the Arctic in 1988)
  33. 0
    April 5 2021 14: 49
    On the lead nuclear submarine 941, I remember my entry to sea trials in 1981 from the NSR plant in the seas. The giant inside! After the submarine 613 pr. In practice, especially. And then, in addition to the regular crew, several dozen members of the selection committee (!), Specialists from the military-industrial complex on ship systems + Ch. builder + ... We, the specialists in systems, were replaced by rotation right in the sea, in a light storm for some kind of steamer. And now it's dumb to remember. Hurray "Shark" - Typhoon !!!

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"