In the United States appreciated the proposal for the modernization of "Shark" in the media "Caliber"

118
In the United States, they quite seriously reacted to the previously voiced idea of ​​re-equipping Russian giant submarines of the type “Shark” into carriers of cruise missiles, reports Rossiyskaya Gazeta with reference to the American Military Watch Magazine.

In the United States appreciated the proposal for the modernization of "Shark" in the media "Caliber"




According to the American edition, in the United States seriously consider the consequences of the conversion of Russian submarines "Shark" from carriers of ballistic missiles to carriers of cruise. The equipment of giant submarines with cruise missiles, proposed by Vice-Admiral Oleg Burtsev, the ex-chief of the General Staff of the Russian Navy, can cause serious trouble to the US Navy.

According to American experts, one converted "Shark", carrying on its board about 200 Caliber missiles, can single-handedly neutralize a whole US Navy aircraft carrier group, including all destroyers and cruisers along with an aircraft carrier, unless of course it has time to launch all the missiles before it detection and neutralization. Launched anti-ship "Calibres", flying at a speed of 3 mach, it is very difficult to intercept, reminds the publication, especially since missiles can be induced not only with the help of external target designation, but also independently. In addition, "Sharks" can be armed with supersonic "Onyx" or hypersonic "Zircons", which generally makes the submarine a great threat to ships.

Earlier, Vice Admiral Oleg Burtsev proposed converting two of the world's largest nuclear submarines, Arkhangelsk and Severstal, of the 941 project into cruise missile carriers, which are currently laid back at the Zvezdochka Ship Repair Center in Severodvinsk before future disposal.

As an example, Burtsev cited American Ohio-class nuclear submarines converted into carriers of Tomahawk cruise missiles. After upgrading, each American submarine can carry cruise missiles on its board to 154. Currently, the US Navy has four such submarines.
118 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +64
    April 8 2019 18: 15
    Dispose of these unique underwater cruisers is not state ....
    1. +16
      April 8 2019 18: 17
      And now have to be disposed of. Nuclear submarines "Arkhangelsk" and "Severstal" of Project 941 have been rotting at the berth for several decades without any repair, this is scrap metal. Where was this admiral 15 years ago, that is the question.
      1. +30
        April 8 2019 19: 46
        Well, remember what happened 15 years ago. The Caucasus, terrorist attacks, the country has a lot of debts, have just begun to restore defense enterprises, the modernization of outdated weapons has begun.
      2. +2
        April 8 2019 21: 43
        where there are calibers.
        941 really old boats and it will probably cost just a few ash-trees to upgrade them. it’s also pointless because the boat itself is noisy and there’s no big problem finding it, and losing such a ship is a tragedy in the military and economic terms.
        1. +1
          April 10 2019 01: 08
          The range of missiles allows you not to enter the PLO zone of the enemy and allows you not to leave your PLO zone. There are also generally surface missile cruisers, including nuclear and nothing, their existence is justified, and you refuse to exist to these super-mechanisms. Do you want, then do not dive at all wassat , your sonar has anti-submarine weapons, there is no radar, so nothing, now there are external global systems, the escort ship can provide air defense, etc. Two reactors and two screws provide noise, but this does not mean that their detection range is greatly increased, further a few hundred kilometers the background of the ocean does not allow the enemy submarine to hear anything. Under the most ideal conditions, with calm, Virginia sees no further than 230 km. The rest is from the evil one. Upon leaving the base, our anti-aircraft defense means cover up so that no one gets caught in the tail, and it’s useless to search in the oceans.
      3. +9
        April 9 2019 00: 06
        Quote: Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
        And now have to be disposed of. Nuclear submarines "Arkhangelsk" and "Severstal" of Project 941 have been rotting at the berth for several decades without any repair, this is scrap metal. Where was this admiral 15 years ago, that is the question.

        well, let’s hand over all the created ships of the USSR to scrap, but we will be content with mrk and Warsaw ...
        so that you know the Sharks can stand and not rot for another 30 years, but YaSU and the stuffing need to be changed, but with Us (in the Russian Federation) this will be tantamount to building a pair of ash trees or boreas, and the terms will be like for Krechet in Soviet times ...
        1. +1
          April 10 2019 01: 24
          Quote: PSih2097
          here YaSU and stuffing need to be changed

          And for what? The main contents of the reactors floordecays in the region of a billion years wassat The reactors themselves will last a hundred years. Filling? And what does she not like? Everything is on the level. Change kinescope monitors to liquid crystal if anything ...
      4. +3
        April 9 2019 05: 21
        do not tell tales, these two submarines are on a support service.
    2. +8
      April 8 2019 18: 18
      According to American experts, one converted "Shark", carrying about 200 "Caliber" missiles on its board, can single-handedly neutralize an entire aircraft carrier group of the US Navy.

      Well, if American experts say this, then God himself tells us to listen to them! Yes
      1. +9
        April 8 2019 18: 20
        God himself tells them to dispose of them, precisely because American experts say this!
        1. +13
          April 8 2019 18: 41
          Quote: varadero
          God himself tells them to dispose of them ...

          Are you talking about Americans? laughing
          1. +6
            April 8 2019 20: 07
            Quote: For example
            Quote: varadero
            God himself tells them to dispose of them ...

            Are you talking about Americans?

            Well, that goes without saying, by default. Yes And, by the way, fits perfectly into the plot of the article. laughing
        2. +4
          April 9 2019 03: 10
          and asked a buzovoy?
          1. 0
            April 9 2019 07: 07
            But what about! Of course!
      2. +1
        April 9 2019 05: 22
        Listen to Chubais and Serdyukov, the real patriots of Russia
    3. +7
      April 8 2019 19: 01
      question in the technical condition of the boats
      1. +9
        April 8 2019 19: 11
        QUESTION and we have what to PROTECT such "rich" carriers?
        Making shock "hippos" is a tricky and expensive business, but how to protect them from hunters ??? Or do not let them go beyond the pier !!!
        The fleet should be harmoniously saturated with shock platforms and means of their PROTECTION !!!
        1. 0
          April 9 2019 05: 47
          how to protect? return the money to the treasury that floats to the palaces and yachts and there is money for the same new ash trees. By the way, we have Sharks 971 of the project, they may well be accompaniment, but in fact in the pursuit of profit they are leased to India.
        2. +4
          April 9 2019 06: 30
          Eduard Ovechkin, who served on the Shark, can be heard on this subject. He says that they are escorted to the launch point, but to defeat some targets they don’t even have to leave the pier. In general, Puchkov has a very interesting interview with him on this subject.
    4. +8
      April 8 2019 19: 45
      And what exactly in the Russian state? Maybe privatization?
      1. +1
        April 8 2019 21: 15
        Ah ...
        Well, absolutely nothing?
        In the USSR, real statesmen sat in the smoking rooms of the research institute and in the kitchens.
        Now the same are on the Internet.
        And those and others are strongly and categorically confident that the authorities are doing everything wrong.
        Only the former have already ruined their country - the USSR, while the latter are still eager to do the same with today's Russia.
        1. +6
          April 8 2019 21: 31
          Something I did not see tagged in the smoking room. And ebn vodka did not whip in the kitchen.
        2. +1
          April 9 2019 11: 45
          And the first and second - one thieves community! They still have to answer. Time is not on their side!
          There is no alternative to communism!
    5. -9
      April 8 2019 21: 21
      Quote: 210ox
      Dispose of these unique underwater cruisers is not state ....


      every day is minus 18 million rubles from the budget.
      In 1999 prices.
      Count on yourself ...
      By state or not.
      1. +4
        April 9 2019 05: 24
        About how the budget began to be considered)))) and the annual outflow of capital from the country in the 4 trillion did not count? palaces, yachts did not count? But 4 trillion is actually the budget of more than half of the regions of Russia combined.
        1. +2
          April 9 2019 07: 00
          talked about the upper so much already, there is nothing to add.
          worse / better than it was then, this identity was also discussed.
          We have more opponents, this fact, like that, with our allies we are sour, the fact is.
          While no one dares to start sho then on a large scale, there is time for ..........
          Do not waste it on empty floodlights.
        2. -3
          April 9 2019 08: 17
          Quote: Adimius38
          About how the budget began to be considered)))) and the annual outflow of capital from the country in the 4 trillion did not count? palaces, yachts did not count? But 4 trillion is actually the budget of more than half of the regions of Russia combined.


          BRDM - 1 million per day.

          Two BRDM - 2 mln. per day, with much greater combat stability, efficiency and "state protection" ...
          That's the only difference.
    6. 0
      April 9 2019 15: 20
      "These" - certainly not according to the state ... It's a pity that TK-202, TK-12, TK-13 have already been completely disposed of "according to the state". Interestingly, with the TK-17 "Arkhangelsk". Since 2015, she was listed as a sludge ... Oleg Burtseva, of course, "respect" for the idea ..., our plans, as usual, are a "bag". I am afraid that ... in short, it will not reach the "hardware".
    7. 0
      April 9 2019 18: 02
      Quote: 210ox
      Dispose of these unique underwater cruisers is not state ....

      "According to the state" - to drown the dock and write off the ship, explaining that there is nothing to repair ((
      DenYuh no, also from that opera
  2. +10
    April 8 2019 18: 16
    It's a good idea, the only question is whether she was late. What remains of these boats are still usable? Wouldn't the alteration be more expensive than the construction of a couple of "Ash" or "Boreyev"?
    1. -10
      April 8 2019 18: 27
      And where to get these "Ash" and "Boreas" if they are almost absent? And the pace at which they are being built is many times behind the pace at which operating boats are removed from the fleet ...
      1. -5
        April 8 2019 18: 42
        Quote: Greg Miller
        And where to get these "Ash" and "Boreas" if they are almost absent?

        It doesn’t! I forgot about pregnant pensioners and about outhouses on the streets. Let's correct yourself and so ... with a strain!
        1. +2
          April 8 2019 18: 49
          Correctly! The West is rotting, China is lagging behind, Ukraine is falling apart, and Russia has only temporary difficulties !!!
          1. +10
            April 8 2019 18: 56
            Bad you are a troll. Thick No. .
            Now, the Navy has three submarines of the 955 Borey project, the main submarine of the 955A Borey-A project is undergoing factory sea trials, four serial 955A submarines have been laid down and are being built. Photo of the head 955 "Borey-A".
            1. -7
              April 8 2019 20: 09
              Super! And tell me, if we have such success after success, then why are project 636 diesel submarines being sent to the SF? After all, under the Soviet regime, from the 70s, only atomic boats served in the SF ....
              1. +4
                April 8 2019 20: 50
                maybe something has changed since the 70s, dear? Maybe not only the social system has changed? Maybe the scientific and technological revolution has reached the point where our diesel submarines can still serve the homeland and the KSF in the current organizational period? Have you tried turning on the analytics device in your brain?
              2. -9
                April 8 2019 21: 05
                Well, where is that Soviet power?
              3. +5
                April 8 2019 22: 56
                Quote: Greg Miller
                Why are diesel submarines of the 636 project being sent to SF? After all, under Soviet power, since 70's, only atomic boats served in the Federation Council ....

                "Muller knew for sure: Stirlitz is a real Aryan. Such a person will not let you down. Silent. Nordic character, self-possessed, a member of the National Union of Artists" ... (c) Colleague, and where are you kissing 4 EXPL from Polar Delhi !? There also served dizelyuhi. Moreover, entire teams went to BS in the Mediterranean ... 161 LCP, if memory fails, it was also part of 1984 eSCPL KSF in 4 in the year .... and consisted of the 641 submarine of the project ...
              4. +1
                April 9 2019 00: 47
                There are no boats on the Northern Fleet, pr. 636, there are 677 and "Halibuts"
              5. +1
                April 9 2019 03: 12
                invented it yourself?
    2. 0
      April 9 2019 05: 25
      and which bore or ash can carry 200 caliber rockets?
      1. -1
        April 9 2019 07: 53
        why so much?
        1. 0
          April 9 2019 12: 37
          because missiles are shot down by other missiles and missiles are of different purposes for strikes on the ground and on surface and underwater targets
          1. -2
            April 9 2019 12: 47
            They do not start at the same time? it’s possible to launch a bunch of missiles with MRK just charge
            1. 0
              April 9 2019 22: 00
              At RTOs, the ammunition supply is less, and here they suggest upgrading to a large ammunition
  3. -3
    April 8 2019 18: 23
    The proposal is sober, but the main task of the people who make decisions on this issue is the development of funds. And you can't cut too much on modernization .... Yes, and the American partners of our president may be offended that they did not cut them into needles. Many will probably be surprised, but all 4 destroyed "Sharks" were cut after Yeltsin, in the XNUMXs ...
    1. +4
      April 8 2019 18: 31
      Quote: Greg Miller
      Many will probably be surprised, but all 4 destroyed "Sharks" were cut after Yeltsin, in the XNUMXs ...

      In my opinion you are lying.
      1. +5
        April 8 2019 18: 41
        But no ....
        TK-202 - In 2005, it was cut into metal with the financial support of the United States.
        TK-12 - July 26.07.2005, XNUMX was delivered to Severodvinsk for disposal within the framework of the Russian-American program “Joint Threat Reduction”. Disposed of.
        TK-13 - On June 15.06.2007, 3, the American side signed a disposal contract. On July 2008, 2009, disposal began at the Zvyozdochka docking chamber. In XNUMX, it was cut into metal.
        TK-17 and TK-20 will be disposed of after 2020 ... TK-208 is still in the fleet ...
        1. -1
          April 8 2019 18: 43
          Quote: Greg Miller
          But no ....

          So, where is the fourth utilized "Shark"? Or does it exist in your wet dreams?
          1. +14
            April 8 2019 18: 52
            It's to blame ... forgot ... 2 pieces were cut under Putin, and 1 pc was under Medvedev ... (Putin doesn’t have to do this here, it's all liberals, the 5th column) ...
    2. 0
      April 8 2019 18: 38
      Quote: Greg Miller
      but all 4 destroyed "Sharks" were cut after Yeltsin, in the XNUMXs

      Actually 3, not 4. Yes, and the question is what condition they were in.
      1. -1
        April 8 2019 18: 40
        Quote: Dart2027
        Actually 3, not 4.

        actually 2!
        1. +4
          April 8 2019 18: 46
          3 - TK-12, TK-13 and TK-202.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. -8
      April 8 2019 18: 40
      Well, throw a ruble for restoration as it used to be, or are you afraid to surprise your toad)
    5. +1
      April 9 2019 00: 56
      But why do you need boats without the main weapons on board?
      Or is it important to you what would happen? At the time of the decision, their main weapon of solid propellant rockets served all the imaginable and non-imaginable terms and were written off, the Sharks remained empty .... Now about when did it appear, Caliber and other missiles possible for this boat? And all this time it is necessary to maintain both the boats themselves and the crews on them, and this is all money and not small.
    6. 0
      April 9 2019 03: 14
      not surprised by "classified information"
  4. 0
    April 8 2019 18: 42
    which are currently in storage at the Zvezdochka Ship Repair Center in Severodvinsk before future disposal.

    This is a verdict. All the gold and silver was removed from them, and without filling, it’s a barrel.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. +2
      April 8 2019 19: 17
      Quote: Kerensky
      which are currently in storage at the Zvezdochka Ship Repair Center in Severodvinsk before future disposal.

      This is a verdict. All the gold and silver was removed from them, and without filling, it’s a barrel.


      expensive barrel, titanium alloy.
  5. +16
    April 8 2019 19: 12
    Did anyone even make boat troubleshooting? I'm embarrassed to ask feel
    We cut boats much more ancient and atomic and diesel. And honestly, I did not notice that they were rusty through and through.
    1. +4
      April 8 2019 19: 15
      Quote: Petrol cutter
      Did anyone even make boat troubleshooting? I'm embarrassed to ask feel


      for this you need to dock, a pier cannot be fully appreciated.
      1. +6
        April 8 2019 19: 19
        Duck what's the problem? In Snezhnogorsk, Polyarny, Vidyaevo disappeared PD?
        1. +3
          April 8 2019 19: 24
          Quote: Petrol cutter
          Duck what's the problem? In Snezhnogorsk, Polyarny, Vidyaevo disappeared PD?


          from communication with colleagues - everything is scheduled by the day.
          and no one needs it, apparently.
          here we are on the internet, we’ll have fun, that's all.
          1. +7
            April 8 2019 19: 37
            The devil only knows, I'm certainly a small person, but it seems to me that military affairs speaks. The last time I watched the Shark in the Face (it was true for a long time), but let's say the PD "Pallada", in theory, could pull it once the "Kursk" was cut in it.
            And the bodies were rotten ... And why did they get that they rotted ?! Where did the water come in and they stood half-flooded for thirty years? They have rubber coated bodies. What will they be?
            1. +8
              April 8 2019 19: 50
              Quote: Petrol cutter
              The devil only knows, I'm certainly a small person, but it seems to me that military affairs speaks. The last time I watched the Shark in the Face (it was true for a long time), but let's say the PD "Pallada", in theory, could pull it once the "Kursk" was cut in it.
              And the bodies were rotten ... And why did they get that they rotted ?! Where did the water come in and they stood half-flooded for thirty years? They have rubber coated bodies. What will they be?


              who said they rotted? Has he ever descended into the "barrel"?
              this PC (durable case) will extend its life (if modernization happens) until the fiftieth year, do not go to the grandmother, that alloy is not demolished.
      2. -4
        April 8 2019 19: 30
        for this you need to dock

        First you need to try to include something there. I am sure that everything "that is necessary" has already been eaten by "whoever needs it" and back "it" can not be collected. That is, the barrel remains.
        1. +15
          April 8 2019 19: 39
          Quote: Kerensky
          for this you need to dock

          First you need to try to include something there. I am sure that everything "that is necessary" has already been eaten by "whoever needs it" and back "it" can not be collected. That is, the barrel remains.


          for those who are on an armored train, on rail No. 1 and No. 2 - again -
          it’s not interesting what is inside - a deep modernization implies the replacement of equipment% by 65-70. in the balance - as you put it barrel. this is a solid case, which costs a lot of money to make, but if you have one, mount the devil there.
          1. +4
            April 8 2019 20: 17
            I absolutely agree with you drinks
          2. -1
            April 8 2019 20: 43
            this is a solid case, which costs a lot of money to make, but if you have one, mount the devil there.

            Here I agree - a considerable price thing. But piecewise, everything had its purpose. And here a lot of problems lie ahead. And if a decision is made, all terms will go steeply to the right, and the cost will go up.
        2. 0
          April 9 2019 22: 01
          a barrel in your garden — and this is a Titanium alloy submarine hull
    2. +4
      April 8 2019 19: 39
      Quote: Petrol cutter
      Did anyone even make boat troubleshooting? I'm embarrassed to ask feel
      We cut boats much more ancient and atomic and diesel. And honestly, I did not notice that they were rusty through and through.

      Everything was decided by American money, the difiction was not needed)), the policy was "one gate"!
      1. -5
        April 8 2019 21: 09
        Before continuing the statements about the fate of the country, so, a small insert.
        Troubleshooting.
        From the word "defect".
        One-way politician ...
    3. +4
      April 9 2019 03: 21
      some people think that boats are made of foil, which is why they are rotten and noisy for the Northern waters, and that there can’t be any boats from the PSAP, it’s more likely that palaces in the suburbs will be built than Megalodons will be made of Sharks
  6. -1
    April 8 2019 19: 19
    Hurry up slowly !!!
    We have time, not just for projects, but for the harmonious development of all the components of the fleet.
    Make strike platforms, make defenders, hunters, and the surface component should not lag behind. Necha is being spent on candidates simply for drowning.
  7. -6
    April 8 2019 19: 46
    It’s cheaper to build new media and more.
    1. +8
      April 8 2019 19: 54
      Quote: ALEx NIXon
      It’s cheaper to build new media and more.


      can you confirm by financial calculations, or so, in a puddle with gazikas to gossip a specialist?
  8. -5
    April 8 2019 19: 53
    it will be, there will be huge boats just because of 4 additional missiles, to hit the aug you need to go up to it, but aug one doesn’t go there a couple of guards there, how much the re-equipment will cost is fantastic amounts, it’s easier to leave as a sailboat
    1. +4
      April 8 2019 20: 12
      Quote: rayruav
      to hit aug you have to go up to her,

      Not at all necessary, for it all depends on WHAT to hit. Yes Etc. 941, it’s definitely not necessary to break into the warrant. laughing
      1. -3
        April 8 2019 20: 24
        you have to understand the pla when aug will not rub near the aircraft carriers, but will be in long-distance security so I didn’t say about the torpedo attack, we cut the PCR carrier boats then why re-equip the sharks, where is the logic of the newly-born Christmas (here somewhere I apologize at least the battle went on the flagship, and these modern ones will be in bunkers)
        1. +4
          April 8 2019 22: 27
          Quote: rayruav
          but they will be in long-distance guard

          How far away? If less than a thousand miles, then - on the drum.
          Quote: rayruav
          I didn’t talk about the torpedo attack

          Duc, I didn’t even think about her. What, to the demon, torpedoes - in the presence of a couple of hundred CR? laughing Well, this is a promising moment.
    2. 0
      April 9 2019 03: 36
      what are you talking about? - UKKS, how many of them can be mounted in Shark - you know? -no, what ammunition will be there for UKKS-you know? -no, what ammunition will be for TA and how much, you know? -no
  9. -6
    April 8 2019 20: 14
    proposal to upgrade "Sharks" into carriers of "Caliber"
    This is stupid by definition! There are many more ways to place calibers. In fact, the maintenance of a nuclear submarine of this class, today would be very expensive even for the United States, not to mention Russia. There is no point even to discuss! "Shark", even for the USSR was one of the most expensive "toys".
  10. 0
    April 8 2019 20: 18
    Rate a little ... that's when they feel to the bone marrow, then they will understand wink
  11. +7
    April 8 2019 20: 31
    Quote: Greg Miller
    "Boreas" if there are almost none? And the pace at which they are being built is many times behind the pace at which operating boats are removed from the fleet ...
    Reply


    Last year I counted how much the RF built according to the laid down nuclear submarines ...
    It turned out that the Russian Federation in 2018 built one-minute 11 nuclear submarines.
    5 pr 885 ash + 6 bearers A
    All of them should have been completed by 2021 according to plans ... reality, the last boards will finish by 22-23.

    Today, for 2019, 10 nuclear submarines are already being built.
    In December 18, the 11th new submarine of the BoreyA class was driven out for acceptance tests. Ie was completed.
    That something like this.
  12. +2
    April 8 2019 20: 32
    Quote: Peter Ivanov
    And what exactly in the Russian state? Maybe privatization?

    wassat good good good hi
  13. +1
    April 8 2019 21: 32
    So I don’t understand what to discuss here? What, put to the vote? Recycle, or remake 200 Gauges for the media?
    The decision should be made as a result of careful analysis when comparing alternatives.
    Has anyone arguing here seen how American and English submarines are being built? See, for example, the construction of English:
    https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A0geKLs.katcPZYA_khXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEycHBtMWNzBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjY4MzNfMQRzZWMDc2M-?p=construction+of+submarines&fr=yfp-t-s#id=1&vid=236ec9b51ce5af5a3667a932de827d06&action=view
    Why am I mentioning this here? Because the assembly of the modules is carried out in the workshop (in greenhouse conditions, with comfort), and then the module is already assembled inserted into the compartment.
    Now imagine the work on the modernization of the finished Shark, as it is. Have you presented? I suppose that many did not even present. It will be a nightmare, long-term construction, "laundry" and so on, so forth, so forth. But even so, I'm not saying no. It is necessary to count, not vote. I suppose the admiral didn't count anything either. So, it is a pity to him that the legendary boats "disappear". Emotions are understandable. Admirals are people too.
  14. AAK
    0
    April 8 2019 21: 47
    One thing confuses me - the anonymity of these experts. It is possible that these are links to the posts of our colleagues from the American analogue "VO" :)) We are worried ... they are worried too ...
    And the need for alterations of the 941s is determined exclusively by expediency ...
    First of all, we answer simple questions - where and against whom will we use them? In what areas of the World Ocean can there be worthy targets for the simultaneous launch of 200 missile launchers, and from what area will they need to be launched to effectively engage targets on the coast? From here, the launch areas are immediately determined (that is, where you need to sneak in and not get caught), and the need for an escort (and it is necessary, logically speaking, at least 2 nuclear submarines for each 941st for immediate protection and 1-2 more for reconnaissance purposes) , and the composition of the armament ("calibers" in the KR version with an OCH or YABCh, or in an anti-ship missile version, "onyxes" or even "more shiny stones"), and money plays an important role - will they be enough for a serious modification of the BIUS , SJSC, installation of new "quiet" reactors, etc.
  15. -4
    April 8 2019 21: 56
    And why, if calibers can be shot from the Caspian. We have a defensive strategy.
    1. +4
      April 8 2019 22: 16
      So they can shoot at our ships, but the submarine must still be discovered, and she will always be the first to find a surface ship.
  16. +3
    April 8 2019 22: 26
    [quote the US is seriously considering the consequences of re-equipment of Russian submarines "Shark"] [/ quote]
    They remember the striped ones that every campaign of the strategists was a pretty headache for them. You can imagine what a holiday it was at the Pentagon when the first "Sharks" went on pins and needles ...



    [quoteThe decision should be made as a result of careful analysis when comparing alternatives.] [/ quote]

    There is a crazy option)):

    there are two corps, there is China, a dynamically building fleet. In cooperation, to modernize, at the end of one to us, the second to them.
    1. +1
      April 8 2019 22: 36
      There is a crazy option)):
      there are two corps, there is China, a dynamically building fleet. In cooperation, to modernize, at the end of one to us, the second to them
      .

      This is of course nonsense, but I like it.
      it’s better than just cutting it.
      1. +2
        April 8 2019 23: 08
        There is a crazy option)):
        there are two corps, there is China, a dynamically building fleet. In cooperation, to modernize, at the end of one to us, the second to them.


        Do you want China to help occupy part of Russia?

        For Russia, China’s adversary and competitor is no less serious than the United States and NATO.
        1. +2
          April 8 2019 23: 16
          Do you want China to help occupy part of Russia?

          not at all.
          it was irony, banter against a blunt cut.
  17. +1
    April 8 2019 22: 26
    The USA pretended to be afraid of the possible modernization of 2 nuclear submarines under 200 calibers ?! )))

    I think in fact they want to impose on us unreasonable expenses for the modernization of two old nuclear submarines and to postpone the introduction of new generations of multi-purpose nuclear submarines.

    For a nuclear submarine, it’s far more valuable to be unnoticed for as long as possible than to carry a bunch of missiles.

    It will cost a pretty penny to modernize the Sharks, it is better to build an additional number of the same Ashenes, each of which carries 40 Kalibr cruise missiles, and even better to start building the Husky 5th generation nuclear submarine faster.

    The United States understands very well that finding and destroying 2 Sharks is much easier than 6-8 Ashes, and even more so the new Husky nuclear submarines.
    1. 0
      April 9 2019 03: 42
      Were on Yasen and saw that there were 40 KR?
  18. -6
    April 8 2019 22: 39
    it’s not cost-effective to reanimate trash .... it’s easier new and 10-12 pieces of products on board .. small and invisible ....
  19. +5
    April 8 2019 23: 02
    Quote: Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
    And now have to be disposed of. Nuclear submarines "Arkhangelsk" and "Severstal" of Project 941 have been rotting at the berth for several decades without any repair, this is scrap metal. Where was this admiral 15 years ago, that is the question.

    Firstly, the main hull of these boats is made of titanium, and it has high corrosion resistance. Cases of titanium and after 100 years will be suitable for use. But the shell of these boats is a lightweight hull, which is made of steel, but it has suffered, but the lightweight hull is easily restored with fresh sheets in those places where it was damaged by corrosion (the buoyancy of the boat, the shell does not affect it at all) The external lightweight hull is just a shell, behind which are hidden two titanium main body of the Shark (they did not suffer). So you can restore these boats, they are still far from scrap metal. But it is possible to repair them, stuffing them with calibers and the latest electronics, they can serve for more than a dozen years. The Americans are not in vain afraid of this, two such engines are 400 caliber. And then everything has already been cut and drank, first build a new one, and then cut and saw. Already drank already, a little without a fleet did not remain.
    1. 0
      April 9 2019 12: 41
      these fantasies are also not very- 400 Gauges on 2 Sharks
  20. -1
    April 9 2019 00: 05
    Thought is certainly not bad, but is that the point?
    These are all the eggs in one basket, in fact.
    Initially, the boats were built for long duty under the ice
    The Arctic, where you can see their figs, but here they propose to turn them into platforms for the Kyrgyz Republic with dubious characteristics.
  21. 0
    April 9 2019 05: 32
    we definitely need such an underwater arsenal, to destroy these boats at a time when we can’t build anything more than a rowboat, this stupidity is a crime and a betrayal of the country. And indulging in the same traitors, the Americans are much smarter than us when they converted their submarines, and we would have to destroy and cut everything, our bad and stupid way.
  22. 0
    April 9 2019 05: 34
    the United States is seriously considering the consequences of the conversion of Russian submarines "Akula" from carriers of ballistic missiles to carriers of cruise

    can cause serious trouble to the US Navy.

    Waiting for sanctions? Well, they’re already tired of coming up with reasons to come up, here ... laughing
  23. 0
    April 9 2019 06: 56
    If minke whales openly write that something can cause trouble to them, then this is something, not as good as we would like. Spending a ton of money on the restoration of something not very good is silly.
  24. -2
    April 9 2019 07: 51
    "Sharks" in the form of carriers of "calibers" and even against the AUG is not a smart decision. Sharks must carry ICBMs. 20 tons of ICBMs with hypersonic units - this is what the Americans are really afraid of, and low-speed "Calibers" are not so scary - try to approach the launch point - they will sink earlier.
    Even if it will be "Zircons" short range will not allow you to safely shoot along the coast and against the AUG - 2 weather boats will not make them catch earlier
  25. 0
    April 9 2019 08: 56
    ) What are not welcome ... they missiles themselves can fly)))
  26. BAI
    +2
    April 9 2019 09: 06
    "Akula" carrying about 200 "Caliber" missiles on board

    200 rockets are real power. Alone, he can no longer wage a nuclear war. For example. - to stand near Syria and provide support, not only moral. Better than "Kuznetsov, drive there."
    1. 0
      April 9 2019 22: 04
      One Shark in fear of keeping the Anglo-Saxons without walking through sausages
    2. 0
      April 11 2019 20: 41
      Of course, such support will come in handy everywhere: both far from its shores and close to it (especially considering the increased range of the upgraded Caliber, as well as the speed capabilities of Zircons).

      And the Sharks modernized in this way will be good both as an independent force and as a reinforcement in the KUG or AUG (in this case, their noise will not be so significant, because they will be near our surface ships).
  27. +1
    April 9 2019 12: 24
    I was on such a colossus, though I didn’t get beyond the light body, but I’ll tell you the impressions !!!!!
  28. +2
    April 9 2019 12: 44
    Quote: Dmitry Callistov
    Well, remember what happened 15 years ago. The Caucasus, terrorist attacks, the country has a lot of debts, have just begun to restore defense enterprises, the modernization of outdated weapons has begun

    I agree with you. The times were really hard, but to some extent Aristarkh Ludwigovich was also right. fifteen years in reserve and 4 years in sludge, without repairs (maintenance repairs were in 1999-2002) and more or less serious maintenance - now it is more expensive to restore and modernize them. A couple of years ago, such a topic was heard in the media, and some of the admirals or the military-industrial complex said that enough money would be spent on the modernization of one for the construction of two Boreys. That is, for the modernization of two - the same amount as for 4 "Boreas"

    Quote: PSih2097
    well, let’s hand over all the created ships of the USSR to scrap, but we will be content with mrk and Warsaw ...
    so that you know the Sharks can stand and not rot for another 30 years, but YaSU and the stuffing need to be changed, but with Us (in the Russian Federation) this will be tantamount to building a pair of ash trees or boreas, and the terms will be like for Krechet in Soviet times ...

    Well, do not distort that we will be content with RTOs and Varshavyanks. But if it is economically inexpedient to restore them, so, in spite of everything, restore them? I would like to leave the memory of the boat - make a museum out of it, after all. If not from "Severstal" and "Arkhangelsk", then in the future from "Dmitry Donskoy" (especially since its service life has been extended until 2020)

    Quote: rocket757
    QUESTION and we have what to PROTECT such "rich" carriers?
    Making shock "hippos" is a tricky and expensive business, but how to protect them from hunters ??? Or do not let them go beyond the pier !!!
    The fleet should be harmoniously saturated with shock platforms and means of their PROTECTION !!!

    laughing good

    Quote: Ushly_bashkort
    Eduard Ovechkin, who served on the Shark, can be heard on this subject. He says that they are escorted to the launch point, but to defeat some targets they don’t even have to leave the pier. In general, Puchkov has a very interesting interview with him on this subject.

    He was talking about these boats when they were equipped with R-39 SLBMs. A winged from the pier, they are now where they get ???? To your training ground?

    Quote: stock buildbat
    It's a good idea, the only question is whether she was late. What remains of these boats are still usable? Wouldn't the alteration be more expensive than the construction of a couple of "Ash" or "Boreyev"?

    The idea is good, but it was about 10 years late. As soon as the life of the missiles was over, it was necessary to remake them under cruise missiles. And so it turns out that since 2006 in the reserve, and since 2015 - in the crap. But this is not even a reserve ...

    Quote: Adimius38
    and which bore or ash can carry 200 caliber rockets?

    Do they need these 200 calibers? Okay, the USA, there they have their own view of other countries of the world and where necessary they can bend these countries, using a couple of converted Ohio boats with three hundred Axes. And what tasks will our "alterations" have?

    Otherwise, the author of the article wrote that one converted "Shark", carrying about 200 "Caliber" missiles on its board, can single-handedly neutralize an entire aircraft carrier group of the US Navy, including all destroyers and cruisers along with the aircraft carrier
    ,

    Truth add that
    unless of course he manages to launch all the missiles before it is detected and neutralized.


    And then "dreams, dreams" began. The author has
    Launched anti-ship Calibers flying at Mach 3 are very difficult to intercept,

    Interestingly, the author knows at least that the anti-ship caliber has a flight range of about 400 km. And 400 km is just the area covered by the AUG ("Khokai") air patrol. And that the launched anti-ship "Calibers" go at a speed of 0,8-0,85M and only on the last 20 km after a hill at a distance of 30-40 km they go at a speed of 2,9M. True, 20 km is already inside the order from destroyers and cruisers. And together with the AUG aviation, such missiles will be fired as if in a shooting range ... And how many anti-ship "Calibers" the author plans to install on these boats ???

    Well, about "Onyxes" and "Zircons" in the phrase:
    In addition, the "Sharks" can be armed with supersonic "Onyx" or hypersonic "Zircon", which in general will make the submarine a great threat to ships.


    Theoretically, it can and can be armed. And the supersonic Onyxes will have more chances when firing at a range of 400 km at AUG than the Calibers. but still there is little chance because their midcourse flight is at an altitude of 14 km, which means that they will see their HZ from where. And there will be about a quarter less of them on boats.

    Well, "Zircon". Let him first complete the entire test cycle, then shoot from the "Ash" and "Gorshkov", then produce a sufficient number of such missiles for the ships already in service. And then you can think about equipping "Severstal" and "Arkhangelsk" and "Zircons". But if we take into account the statements of the Ministry of Defense that these 2 boats will be disposed of after 2020, then they are unlikely to "wait" for both the Onyxes and the Zircons.

    Quote: Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
    Quote: Greg Miller
    But no ....

    So, where is the fourth utilized "Shark"? Or does it exist in your wet dreams?

    But in this case, you are wrong. Nos. 202, 12 "Simbirsk" and 13 were disposed of, only three. In total, 6 were built, three remained - Dmitry Donskoy, Severstal, Arkhangelsk - three were disposed of
  29. +2
    April 9 2019 12: 44
    Quote: rayruav
    there will be huge boats due to 4 additional missiles

    Will not. The START-3 ceilings are virtually unlimited. We can have no more than 700 unfolded carriers. Now we have them 524. The difference is 176.
    And this is + 5 Borey boats - 80 carriers. And possibly minus 1 submarine BDR - reserve 64 carriers
    And this is + 6 regiments of the PGRK. "Yars" That is, 54 carriers.
    And this is + 1 silo regiment. "Yars" That is, 10 carriers
    And this is + 2 regiment silos. S 15A71 "Vanguard" That is, 12 carriers
    A total of 140 speakers. Plus the boat of the BDRM project, which is under repair. Total 156. And also a reserve should be left for aviation. And if there are also 2 "Sharks" with SLBMs, then something will have to be cut. And I don't think the Boreas or Yars will be cut. Likely will saw "Sharks"

    Quote: Paranoid50
    Quote: rayruav
    to hit aug you have to go up to her,

    Not at all necessary, for it all depends on WHAT to hit. Yes Etc. 941, it’s definitely not necessary to break into the warrant. laughing

    And what to hit, so as not to fit?
    • SLBM, or rather a ballistic anti-ship missile? So in-1 they are not, in-2 so far they can only hit stationary targets
    Anti-ship missiles? And what?
    • If "Caliber", then you will have to approach the AUG at a distance of 400 km. Will she be allowed to do this when there are a couple of hunting boats in the guard of the order?
    • If "Onyx" - then the same result. They will shoot like in a shooting range, taking into account the number of anti-aircraft missiles on the escort ships and the performance characteristics of the rocket itself 9 flight altitude and capture range of the seeker)
    • If "Zircon". then it does not exist yet and it is unlikely that in the coming years it will be able to be part of the armament of these boats

    Quote: Charik
    what are you talking about? - UKKS, how many of them can be mounted in Shark - you know? -no, what ammunition will be there for UKKS-you know? -no, what ammunition will be for TA and how much, you know? -no

    You should not make the General Secret out of everything. Take any graphics editor like COREL or ADOBE ILLUSTRATOR. Draw a circle with a diameter of 2,4 meters. And place in it, respectively, around the circumference circles with a diameter of 0,533 m and 0,72 m. The first is the diameter of the TPK for "Caliber", the second - for "Onyx". You get 9 "Gauges" and 6 "Onyxes", respectively. If you also place another TPK in the center, then you get 10 and 7, respectively.
    Then the Agula's ammunition load will be 200 Caliber missiles and 140 Onyx missiles, respectively. The ammunition of these boats is 22 torpedoes, rocket-torpedoes. Well, out of 22 with 10 more you can allocate to "Caliber".
    And no one will be mounted in the UKKS boat by definition. This means that you need to gut the whole boat, leaving only a sturdy hull. What will result in such a remake - it's generally scary to think ...

    Quote: Charik
    Were on Yasen and saw that there were 40 KR?

    And if in each mine "Ash" there are 4 missiles, and the mines 8, then how many missiles there will be ??? Do not make a "secret" of everything

    Quote: mark1
    "Sharks" in the form of carriers of "calibers" and even against the AUG is not a smart decision. Sharks must carry ICBMs. 20 tons of ICBMs with hypersonic units - this is what the Americans are really afraid of, and low-speed "Calibers" are not so scary - try to approach the launch point - they will sink earlier.
    Even if it will be "Zircons" short range will not allow you to safely shoot along the coast and against the AUG - 2 weather boats will not make them catch earlier

    And what for tell me to put a 100-ton SLBM on the boat? Well, in the 80s, the GRC could not create a rocket of normal dimensions and mass - as a result, they received giant submarines and a rocket that was nothing outstanding, unlike another rocket from the Makeyevites - R-29RM and its modifications. In terms of range it is inferior to the Bulava, in terms of throw weight it loses to the twice lighter R-29RM. And what for to reproduce a 100-ton truck now?
    When will they finally stop using phrases "hypersonic blocks"? ALL BLOCKS IN INTERCONTINENTIAL MISSILES HAVE HYPERSONIC SPEED
    1. 0
      April 9 2019 22: 12
      32 Caliber in Yasen, 22 torpedoes for defense and 200 Caliber (albeit a little less, which I can mount VPU there xs) for the Shark is enough to keep the whole Atlantic in fear, but YES if it is advisable to do this
  30. 5-9
    0
    April 9 2019 13: 53
    What for 200? What for a huge water carrier even cram dozens of Zircons? He doesn’t have a range of 2000 km - they can sink ... even when he reaches the tail, he’s got a seat. Everything was invented for a long time - at first 4 anti-ship missiles arrive from a special half-megaton class warhead ... then a couple of dozen is enough to finish off.

    Eighty ordinary anti-ship missiles or four vigorous 80 ordinary ones will drown AUG and 4 thousand sailors in the middle of the sea-okiyana- to start / not start a world nuclear war no difference at all.
  31. 0
    April 9 2019 15: 00
    enchanting nonsense, let's link to the original articles of the "amrikan experts", VO and balaboly part one hundred and first
    1. 0
      April 9 2019 22: 19
      discuss and express an opinion (it’s still not decisive), and grandmother’s babble in the bazaar
  32. -2
    April 9 2019 16: 52
    This idea is 100 years old at lunch. Boats will soon eat rust, but they all think what to do with them ...
    1. -1
      April 9 2019 22: 45
      Titanium boats? Rust?
      1. 0
        April 10 2019 07: 32
        Do you naively believe that boats are made of titanium 100 percent? Strong cases are made of titanium alloys, light - steel. And the communications are inside. It is the Americans who are constantly upgrading their ships in the USSR, and even more so in the Russian Federation with this tight.
  33. 0
    April 10 2019 15: 06
    This "Akulibra" will work out .. Our military-industrial complex will work on one ammo for such a submarine for a year in the sweat of our brow ..
  34. 0
    April 10 2019 15: 10
    How ... the boats are dead and unarmed, not even manned with crews, but even in this form they can unexpectedly scare the "partners".