"Like" instead of "Husky". What will be the fifth generation Russian submarine

57 660 95

Operation "heir"


Russia has almost completely inherited the nuclear submarine fleet from the USSR. And with nuclear submarines, the Soviet Union had, to put it mildly, an ambiguous situation. The country of the Soviets still holds the "honorable" first place in the number of sunken nuclear submarines. In total, four such ships were lost: K-278 "Komsomolets", K-219, K-27 and K-8. The Americans sent "to the bottom" two of their nuclear submarines, Russia lost two more submarines, including the infamous "Kursk", belonging to the 949A "Antey" project.

By the way, about the latter. It is the submarine K-266 “Eagle” belonging to it that received among the Western sailors the unflattering nickname “the roaring cow of the Barents Sea”. Although, in fairness, this applies primarily to movement at particularly high speeds - 25 nodes and above. Here and the famous "Civulf" could not boast of good noiselessness.



Anyway, the problems of the Soviet boats were, and this can not be denied. Both with reliability, and with noise level. A notable step forward was the multipurpose submarines of the 971 “Pike-B” project: the first such ship was commissioned in the 1984 year. According to the American admiral Jeremy Burda, the American sailors in 90-ies could not identify the boat "Pike-B", which went at a speed of nine knots, which later gave reason to partially attribute the submarine not to the third (to which it formally belonged) and the fourth generation of the Premier League. But again, do not go to extremes and consider this project "invulnerable." Especially in light of the fact that the Yankees have already managed to build and put into operation seventeen "Virginia" of the fourth generation, and the total number of data submarines in the future will bring to 66. Arithmetic is clearly not in favor of the Russian Navy.



It is no longer possible to win in any “quantitative” way. The most thorny path remains – building up qualitative potential. This is how the successful Shchuka evolved into the Project 885 Yasen. Although the boats are different, the “kinship” is visible to the naked eye. Let us recall that Yasen is a large multipurpose submarine capable of carrying a wide range of weapons. There is only one nuance: currently, the fleet has only one such submarine – K-560 Severodvinsk. It was included in the fleet back in 2014. And this is against a “potential enemy”, which, as we already wrote above, has seventeen Virginias and three more Seawolves. Not counting the improved Los Angeleses and other unpleasant factors for the Navy, such as the high level of American anti-submarine warfare aviation.

"Dog" story


And so we again returned to the further development of the ideas embodied in the design of 971 / 885 projects, such as reducing the size and size of the crew, as well as increasing automation. What awaits us? In the future, both 971 and Ash will be replaced by the fifth generation super-submarine. And Russia is claiming to be the first country in stories, which will adopt such a ship.

It is not entirely clear how exactly the fifth generation of submarines will differ from the fourth. The analogy with the prospective American Columbia is not entirely appropriate here, since the latter will belong to a fundamentally different class of submarines - rocket strategic submarine cruisers or SSBN in American language. Our "hero" will become a multi-purpose boat.



Reasons to believe in success are. On April 17, a source told the TASS news agency that, at the end of 2018, the Malachite design bureau had completed research work under the HUSKI code, the purpose of which was to determine the appearance of a fifth-generation multipurpose nuclear submarine. The Ministry of Defense approved the results, although a year ago TASS reported that, according to his information, the scientific and technical work in the framework of the Husky submarine project was considered unsatisfactory. "After" Malachite "proceeded to the next stage of the creation of the submarine - OCD under the cipher" Laika "," the agency now said.

The interlocutor added that “one of its types of shock weapons there will be hypersonic Zircon rockets. " According to him, the submarine will receive a modular design and a single integrated combat control system using artificial intelligence.

And here the most interesting begins, because the word "modular" causes poorly concealed skepticism among modern naval specialists. Modularity was good in theory, in practice, changing the composition of the modules of weapons and equipment is difficult. In this connection, the story of the Danish patrol boats of the Fluvefisken type with their StanFlex modular system, which in fact turned out to be not what it was originally planned, is indicative of this. Easily replaceable (in theory) modules needed to be properly stored and guarded, and also to prepare crews for them. All this cost money and required strength, which led to a rethinking of the program. As practice has shown, the “temporary” module easily turns into a permanent, active right up to the moment of ship modernization. In this case, modularity, according to experts, can really be in demand.



What you sow ...


So what kind of “modularity” are they talking about, meaning “Like” / “Husky”? If we believe the head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation Alexei Rakhmanov, we will have something very strange in front of us, because depending on the situation, they want to install not just different sets of weapons, but completely different ones. “It will be a boat that will be unified - strategic and multi-purpose for a number of its key elements,” Rakhmanov said in 2014 year.

The statement rightly generated questions. Agree to submit a submarine, optionally carrying ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads (for example, the same P-30) is very hard. The boat is either initially designed strategic or not. Ballistic missiles require an incomparably larger interior space than any "Caliber" or even the mythical "Zircon", which are threatening to arm a new submarine. Thus, either the head of the USC did not quite correctly put it, or he was misunderstood, which is unlikely.

Be that as it may, there is much more chance that under the guise of “modularity” a promising Russian fifth-generation submarine will be able to take on various tactical means. For example, the boat will be able to carry advanced rocket-torpedoes for the destruction of enemy submarines or the above-named "Zircons", designed to combat surface connections. Finally, the third option is to use the boat as a full-fledged SSGN (nuclear submarine with cruise missiles) for massive attacks of enemy fortifications located on land. Creating a new strategic submarine is a completely different matter. And he will require other solutions.



Interesting timing of the submarine. “If we finish developing the fourth generation boat in 2017-2018, and if we don’t start developing the fifth generation boat in those years, we will release it no earlier than 2030 of the year,” Rakhmanov said in 2014. It must be assumed that since then the time has not moved much forward, although in 2017, the Vice-Admiral of the Navy Viktor Bursuk was full of enthusiasm. "Approximately the tab is supposed to be in 2023 – 2024,” said the military.

It turns out that the program is at least alive. It is even possible that it will outlive other eminent "kinsmen": the program of creating an aircraft carrier and the program of the atomic destroyer "Leader". Neither one nor the other seems to be particularly needed by the fleet in the current realities.
95 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    April 22 2019 05: 53
    ... including the infamous Kursk, which belongs to Antei Project 949A.

    By the way, about the last one. It was the K-266 “Eagle” submarine that belonged to it that received the unflattering nickname “roaring cow of the Barents Sea” among Western sailors.
    The Americans called the roaring cows of the Soviet submarines before, starting at least with 675 projects.
    During an autonomous expedition to the South China Sea 1968, the K-10 submarine from the first generation of nuclear missile carriers of the USSR (675 project) received an order to intercept the U.S. Navy carrier carrier. The Enterprise carrier covered the Long Beach missile cruiser, frigates, and support ships. At the calculated point, captain 1 rank R.V. Mazin led the submarine through the defensive lines of the American warrant directly below the bottom of the Enterprise. Hiding behind the noise of the screws of a gigantic ship, the submarine accompanied the strike force for thirteen hours. During this time, training torpedo attacks on all pennants of the order were worked out and acoustic profiles were removed (characteristic noises of various vessels). After which K-10 successfully left the warrant and worked off a training missile attack at a distance. In the event of a real war, the entire compound would be destroyed by choice: conventional torpedoes or a nuclear strike. It is interesting to note that American experts rated the 675 project extremely low. It was these submarines that they dubbed "Roaring Cows." And it was they who were not able to find the ships of the US carrier formations. The boats of the 675 project were used not only to track surface ships, but sometimes “spoiled life” for American nuclear-powered submarines on duty. So, K-135 in 1967 during 5,5 hours continuously monitored Patrick Henry SSBN, remaining undetected itself.

    Source: https://www.perunica.ru/oruzhie/8207-mify-ssha-revuschie-korovy-sovetskogo-vmf.html
    1. +3
      April 22 2019 06: 05
      If I’m not mistaken, during the years of the Cold War, our underwater cruiser “unintentionally” broke up the bottom of the American aircraft carrier America when it emerged.
      Regards, Kote!
      1. +1
        April 22 2019 06: 40
        hi Unfortunately, I do not know anything about the case of "unintentional" steaming of the bottom of "America", but when trying to dig up something on this issue, quite unexpectedly for myself, I ran into the following on Wiki:
        It was decided to shoot the ship (meaning this very USS "America" ​​(CV-66)) from various types of weapons to check the damage inflicted on such large ships. In the United States, there have been many movements against such a disposal of the ship, since "it bears the name of the nation" it was proposed to make a museum out of the ship. Ultimately, all the efforts of the opponents of the sinking of the aircraft carrier came to naught, and on April 19, 2005, several charges of simulating hits of torpedoes and cruise missiles blew up on the aircraft carrier. It sank on May 14 after it tested a variety of anti-ship weapons for four weeks - the 314-meter aircraft carrier withstood explosions simulating torpedoes and cruise missiles.
        Carriers, it turns out, are tough nuts. It’s not so easy to buy them even without an escort. what
        1. +8
          April 22 2019 08: 17
          Quote: Herrr
          Carriers, it turns out, are tough nuts. It’s not so easy to buy them even without an escort. what

          =========
          Who would argue! Aircraft carrier - a difficult goal! It must be borne in mind that the aircraft carrier did not have any fuel, nor jet kerosene, nor ammunition! And this is very serious! Examples:
          Fire on the aircraft carrier "Enterprise" (after a spontaneous missile launch from a carrier-based aircraft) - first minutes:

          Fire on the aircraft carrier Forrestal (the reason is the same):


          Yes, and the explosions took place mainly - "in turn" (at long intervals) so that the ship would not "drown" ahead of time and it would be possible to carry out as many "explosive tests" as possible !!!
          In addition, do not forget that in order for, as you put it, to "control" an aircraft carrier, it is not at all necessary sink! It's enough if he just gets "fatal" in field conditions bank or damage to the flight deck! And that’s it! It turns into absolutely incapable "unit" that is tedious to escort or tow to the shipyard!
          1. +1
            April 22 2019 08: 32
            But I didn’t think about the roll! Many thanks. hi
            1. 0
              April 22 2019 12: 58
              Quote: Herrr
              But I didn’t think about the roll! Many thanks. hi

              =======
              Greetings Err! drinks Alas, this is the MOST vulnerable part of aircraft carriers! It is because of this that one of the American admirals (Alas! - I do not remember who exactly (in the 60s)) called the aircraft carriers "...The brightest example "Strategic stupidity" and "frivolity of the sea"! ....
              Well, somewhere like that! In some ways, I agree with him. Literally 1 (ONE) missile (hit - WHERE IS NECESSARY) - may be enough to disable the entire AUG! ..... (But this is my PERSONAL opinion ...). I don’t pretend to be the "ultimate truth"! request
              1. +2
                April 22 2019 13: 16
                drinks I believe that you, Vladimir, are absolutely right. One rocket is clearly not enough. It would be nice to hit one point with a doublet at intervals of a couple of seconds. There is still work for our mathematicians to do. Missiles are simply doomed to intellectual growth. winked
                1. 0
                  April 22 2019 15: 19
                  Quote: Herrr
                  drinks I believe that you, Vladimir, are absolutely right. One rocket is clearly not enough. It would be nice to hit one point with a doublet at intervals of a couple of seconds. There is still work for our mathematicians to do. Missiles are simply doomed to intellectual growth. winked

                  ======
                  Greetings Err! So I am NOT ONE! There are at least TWO of us !!! drinks
                  1. 0
                    April 22 2019 17: 28
                    Well then for a doublet !!! drinks
              2. +1
                April 23 2019 16: 15
                And has counter-flooding for leveling the roll already been canceled?
                1. +2
                  April 25 2019 18: 51
                  Excuse me, but how will this tub with flooding on one side and "counter-flooding" on the other reach 30 knots speed to lift the air wing? So far, no one has cancelled this requirement.
                  In any case, a serious breach that caused a significant roll completely deprives the aircraft carrier of combat effectiveness.
          2. +1
            April 22 2019 16: 22
            Quote: venik

            In addition, do not forget that in order for, as you put it, to "control" an aircraft carrier, it is not at all necessary sink! It's enough if he just gets "fatal" in field conditions bank or damage to the flight deck! And that’s it! It turns into absolutely incapable "unit" that is tedious to escort or tow to the shipyard!


            Well now tell us. as on a 100 thousandth ship - to make an irreparable roll ...

            Under the conditions that the pilot of the US Navy carrier-based aircraft is required to have landing experience with a roll of 20 degrees ...


            Shl.
            Well do you really think so. yato yankees. having hundreds of aircraft carriers ...
            Lost dozens of aircraft carriers during the war ...
            No
            know how
            form
            problem
            on
            survival
            своих
            ships
            и
            своих
            pilots
            ?
            1. +8
              April 22 2019 19: 02
              Under the conditions that the pilot of the US Navy carrier-based aircraft is required to have landing experience with a roll of 20 degrees ...

              Will you send proof? It’s hard to stand on a wet deck for twenty degrees, alpine teapots cannot go down such a track from 28 degrees and begin to warn of dangerous slopes. Maybe you are confused with%?
          3. 0
            April 26 2019 05: 01
            It is enough for some "Granite" to explode somewhere under the main deck in the catapult area. And I am especially interested in how it is with energy redundancy on the current and future aircraft carriers with e / m catapults.
        2. +2
          April 22 2019 21: 59
          It is hardly worth hoping for humanism and the use of non-nuclear torpedoes and missiles, if there is a decision to destroy the aircraft carrier. A nuclear warhead is still very different from a dummy torpedo in terms of the consequences of its use.
      2. +4
        April 22 2019 18: 50
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        If I’m not mistaken, during the years of the Cold War, our underwater cruiser “unintentionally” broke up the bottom of the American aircraft carrier America when it emerged.

        "Kitty Hawk" it was. Our nuclear submarine K-314 (project 671) 21.03.1984/10/15, while tracking the AUG, either lost contact with the AB, or incorrectly estimated the range and speed ... in general, it surfaced under the periscope in XNUMX-XNUMX cable cables right along course AB. Which rammed her.
        As a result, Kitty Hawk screw cut belly (damage to the bottom at a length of 40 m), while the K-314 damaged a light body, stabilizer, shaft and screw (the submarine lost its course).
        The first to come to us was the military-industrial complex Admiral Vinogradov. According to VHF, I agreed with the commander: "I will raise the stern, and you look at what we have with the screws." Such a proctology ... I drowned my nose, raised the stern. Inspected. - Uh, your mortar is broken! And the propeller blades are bent. Mortyra - a cast-iron tide to withdraw from the sturdy housing of the propeller shaft, and in fact cracked, and sticking out of it, holding only due to its own weight, was a fragment of the propeller shaft with a screw.
        © K-314 commander Vladimir Evseenko
      3. 0
        April 26 2019 04: 58
        This is a bike. In fact, as he personally familiarized himself with the incident collection under the heading of the General Staff of the Navy, it was a navigational accident, as a result of the investigation of which the cap was held accountable.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. +4
        April 22 2019 08: 43
        Who owns the information, owns the world.
        hi Thanks for the information.
      2. +3
        April 23 2019 06: 31
        Hi Rudolph!
        Maybe you remember that at our department of tactics there was such a small rostic with a nasty shrill voice, a harmful 1st rank captain Ivanov (not to be confused with "navigator" Ivanov)? Didn't you find it? He had the nickname "funny ... amno". Yes, and it seems to me that he knew about the nickname and was not particularly offended. He was a commander like 675, I don't want to deceive. So they said about him that he heroically spun around AUG. Even on the Internet, this case figured. He definitely had the Order of the Red Star.
        1. The comment was deleted.
    3. +2
      April 25 2019 22: 40
      Let me make a small remark. Project 675 got its name because of the noise caused by the design of the placement of cruise missiles outside the light hull in special containers. As for Orel, this is only its personal peculiarity. It is simply an unsuccessful design of the propeller shaft support system, which led to their deformation and beating. By the way, some of our quietest boats were the Akulas of Project 941.
      1. 0
        April 26 2019 04: 47
        If you click on the epaulette in the participant’s profile, you can choose it for yourself according to your favorite type of armed forces. Welcome to the team! hi
        PS Thank you for the information.
    4. 0
      April 26 2019 04: 53
      The author is really divan iskperd - it is that the PL 675 of the project received such a nickname, in particular, this was due to the fact that they almost entirely "grew" from the diesel submarines of Project 651. In part, this epithet can still be applied to the "Golden Fish" - PL Project 661, which reached a fantastic speed record under water - 44,7 knots, then it really "roared".))
      1. 0
        April 26 2019 05: 11
        Alas. When not a submariner discusses submarines, he is always divan. I just quoted one of the Wikipedia articles. Nothing personal. And, as I understand it, at maximum speeds everything in the world will roar. An exception here can be considered only a rotor in magnetic suspensions, rotating in a vacuum.
  2. +8
    April 22 2019 07: 31
    Who else, but personally the phrase "fifth generation" is already starting to scare me. Purely by analogy with the Su 57 ...
  3. +1
    April 22 2019 08: 28
    It turns out that the program is at least alive. It is even possible that it will outlive other eminent "kinsmen": the program of creating an aircraft carrier and the program of the atomic destroyer "Leader". Neither one nor the other seems to be particularly needed by the fleet in the current realities.

    A normal, full-fledged destroyer is very much needed. The day before yesterday. But if they intend to design it atomic, then there will be no mass production, because the ships will come out truly "golden". = _ =
    1. -1
      April 22 2019 19: 13
      Quote: Kuroneko
      A normal, full-fledged destroyer is very necessary

      Yes. The leader is, in fact, not a destroyer, but a cruiser, with its impressive 19000 tons. Gorshkov-M, with its 6500, falls short of the destroyer. Explicitly asking for a design of a surface ship for 10-12 thousand tons
      1. 0
        April 22 2019 22: 54
        Yes. The leader is, in fact, not a destroyer, but a cruiser, with its impressive 19000 tons. Gorshkov-M, with its 6500, falls short of the destroyer. Explicitly asking for a design of a surface ship for 10-12 thousand tons


        Gorshkov-M will essentially be the destroyer, our counterpart to Arly Burke in terms of displacement and missile weapons.

        Project 23560 "Leader" is being built in 19 just to accommodate two nuclear reactors and a S-000 in the naval version. This will be our missile defense ship.

        We do not need any other destroyer / cruiser surface ships.

        The main universal and massive horse of the fleet will be pr. 22350M, ship pr. 23560 will be like a reinforcement in the form of a missile defense system, the rest is the Republic of Kazakhstan, corvettes for anti-submarine defense, BDK, UDC, aircraft carriers and support ships and an underwater fleet.

        And the boats of the Husky project are made modular not in order to replace these modules, but in order to make both multipurpose and strategic submarines on the same series, and the similarity of many systems will simplify maintenance and reduce the cost of such boats.

        In my opinion it is very reasonable.
        1. -2
          April 23 2019 20: 05
          Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
          Gorshkov-M will essentially be the destroyer, our counterpart to Arly Burke and displacement

          Gorshkov-M - 6500 tons, Arly Burke - 8500. So it’s not an analogue, it does not reach the destroyer. It can be considered a ship in the far sea, but not the ocean
  4. +5
    April 22 2019 08: 35
    It is easy to notice the tendency of "talking down" in the Russian Federation Defense Ministry, both problems and solutions - they are trying to hide the deplorable state of something and underfunding behind "fashionable and creative" phrases and words, the main thing is that they sound "creative" - ​​"modularity", "optimization" - among them. "Modularity" sounds so tempting - just like a decoy for a kid, like a "Lego constructor" - you assemble it from cubes and here you have it: both an "attack" boat and a "multi-purpose", and a "hunter", etc. But the result will be - pshh" - unnecessary complication where in fact it is not needed and "simplification" where, in fact, "specialness" and "specificity" are needed, which on the one hand will cause a shortage of performance characteristics, and on the other will lead to overspending.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. -1
        April 22 2019 12: 41
        With regard to submarines, modularity can only be talked about as building technology, no more ...
        If I understood "modularity" correctly, the boat will be docked with compartments ... This will be possible if we take into account that the published data on the completion of the Husky's R&D show that the hull of the 5th generation boat will consist of an outer thick layer of special rubber and a durable plastic hull , more precisely - multilayer carbon-glass-plastic using vacuum infusion technology after the manufacture of the carbon base. The body will be made in sections, which will be joined. For this, it is necessary to work out standards for the connection of media when joining sections. It is clear that in this case, the compartments with weapons can be changed: either the section with strategic missiles, or with cruise missiles.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. -1
            April 22 2019 12: 55
            Now they are not just joined, but welded. In the case above - flange docking with fasteners.
            1. +1
              April 22 2019 16: 25
              Quote: Tektor
              Now they are not just joined, but welded. In the case above - flange docking with fasteners.

              There will be no vacuum infusion ....
              and don’t dream ...
              1. 0
                April 23 2019 21: 29
                And what will happen, you are our highly intelligent? If the submarine case is composite, then by what technology do you propose to manufacture it?
                1. 0
                  April 24 2019 08: 23
                  Quote: abc_alex
                  And what will happen, you are our highly intelligent? If the submarine case is composite, then by what technology do you propose to manufacture it?


                  yes because. Thu about in the next 50 years no composite case - is not expected.
                  Steel.
                  1. 0
                    April 24 2019 11: 17
                    Steel in strength, at the ultimate torque for torsion, loses several times to carbon of the same profile. Therefore, if you manage to create a compartment from two carbon-fiber layers pushed into each other with a gap of 3-5 cm, and fill this gap with fiberglass, then all the performance characteristics of the boat will change for the better. In particular, the maximum immersion depth. The main issue is the docking of such sections. Those. the edges should have bends (the inner layer of carbon fiber is bent inward, and the outer one is outward), grooves or fastenings for tightening and sealing. Sealing is possible on high-quality rubber, such as a ring, inserted into the groove of one section, onto a protrusion from another. The ring does not degrade in properties for 30 years, at least.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. 0
                        April 24 2019 11: 34
                        Just like reinforced concrete.
                      2. 0
                        April 25 2019 21: 01
                        Quote: Tektor
                        Just like reinforced concrete.


                        those. damage in the current operation mode cannot be repaired.
                        At minus 50 - from a fallen sledgehammer - a huge SSBN will split into 1000 small little plates ...
                        From the fire. even short-term - the structure in the zone of the outbreak will definitely go "to fly".
                        Have you seen minesweepers with fiberglass hulls?
                        It was fashionable before.
                        Only now, somehow with the operation of them, everything was not human ...
                      3. 0
                        2 May 2019 14: 35
                        Did you drop the sledgehammer on the concrete bunker? The indicated 6-7cm carbon fiberglass sandwich will be equivalent in strength to a minimum of half a meter of reinforced concrete.
                      4. 0
                        6 May 2019 22: 16
                        Quote: Tektor
                        Did you drop the sledgehammer on the concrete bunker? The indicated 6-7cm carbon fiberglass sandwich will be equivalent in strength to a minimum of half a meter of reinforced concrete.



                        I dropped a small hammer on a fiberglass antenna 2 cm thick ....
                        worked in the late 80s, early 90s in SKTB Ray, which is on fiberglass - ate a dog ...
                        The cartoon was about how they were instructed to make the first fiberglass sticks for our skiers ...
                      5. 0
                        7 May 2019 01: 16
                        Quote: SovAr238A
                        At minus 50 - from a fallen sledgehammer - a huge SSBN will split into 1000 small little plates ...


                        At -50, the sledgehammer itself risks falling into 1000 small hammers when dropped.
                    2. 0
                      7 May 2019 01: 19
                      But theoretically, is it possible to create a continuous bezdekova case? That is, first, the boat is assembled in a lightweight internal hull, and then an external strong monocoque hull is formed on it?
          2. -1
            April 22 2019 22: 59
            The boats are now being built on different platforms, and in the 5th generation the SSBNs and the SSBNs will be built on the same platform, I think that these boats will not even differ in appearance, well, only on the covers of the launch shafts, which can only be seen from close range.

            Which, incidentally, is very tactically competent, so the enemy, even conducting surveillance from satellites, will not know exactly what we have on duty and how many SSBNs are there.
        2. +1
          April 22 2019 22: 27
          The body will be manufactured in sections, which will dock. Why it is necessary to work out the standards of media connections when joining sections. It is clear that in this case, the compartments with weapons can be changed ...

          :))) You can "change" once in a lifetime - during construction. Otherwise, let's say, they haven't learned how to control the steering wheels via WiFi)))
        3. +4
          April 22 2019 22: 53
          Quote: Tektor
          If I understood "modularity" correctly,

          Quote from rudolf
          Applied to modularity subs

          Good evening, colleagues!
          Allow me to insert your own 5 kopecks into the topic of "PL modularity".
          1. Modularity can only be in the matter of changing weapons: instead of SLBMs, 4-7 BD GZKRs or ASW BRs, such as the R-91R, can be packed into the SLBM. And different products can also be "fired" from the TA.
          2. The body of the submarine must be "elastic", preferably with a high (more than 100-120 kg / mm2) yield point of non-magnetic high-alloy steel ...
          3. "Multilayer carbon-glass-plastic", made using vacuum infusion technology, after the carbon base is made, the submarine body will not be able to "breathe" in depth, it is not elastic. Therefore, nothing will have to be glued.
          4. Antihydroacoustic coating "Molniya-2" is multilayer, but 2 times thinner than the previous one, only 40 mm thick. But several times more effective than before.
          5. About modularity for warheads: warheads-1; 4; 7, SL-RHBZ - only by changing equipment and mechanisms, warheads-2; 3 - by changing weapons; CU-5 - constant; the rest is not counted.
          6. Something can be "attached" to the body ... like Seawolf. But this is not a fact.
          So, the "modularity" introduced by Chirkov into the heads of the Moremans was inspired by the surface fleet, in which the former Navy General Committee served. But the PL is not the NK! The main enemy of the submarine is depth with its wild pressure. From this, and you need to "dance".
          IMHO.
        4. +1
          April 23 2019 22: 14
          What nonsense, I apologize ... To "change the compartment" you need to pull the boat into the workshop (by moving someone on the slipway), undock the compartments, lift it with a crane, drag it somewhere (where by the way?), From somewhere bring a new one with a crane, dock , stretch cable routes, steam pipelines, etc. ... Fill it with rubber, launch it and spend another year trying to teach SSNS to shoot ballistics, for example ... 2 years in total. Plus it is not clear where (and why) to store spare compartments. Comrades, boats are being built for 5-7 years for a reason !!!! It's complicated!!!
    2. +8
      April 22 2019 09: 28
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      It is easy to notice the tendency of "chattering" in the RF VO, both problems and solutions behind "fashionable-creative" phrases and words, they are trying to hide the deplorable state of something and underfunding, the main thing is that they sound "creative" - ​​"modularity", "optimization" -in this number. "Modularity" sounds as tempting, just like a lure for a kid, like a "Lego-constructor" - I took from the blocks and here you are: both a "shock" boat and a "multi-purpose", and a "hunter", etc. And the result will be- zilch "- unnecessary complication where in fact it is not needed and" simplification "where, in fact, you need" singularity "and" specificity ", which on the one hand will cause a shortage of performance characteristics, and on the other will lead to cost overruns.

      It really looks like "distraction chatter". The Pacific Fleet now (and probably since yesterday) would much more need and expediently need the laying down and rapid construction of 3-4 SSNs of the tried and tested Project 971M (at the same Amur Shipyard, which has experience in their rapid construction) than a long wait for the expensive "Yasens" and dreams about the promising "Husky"....
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. +4
          April 22 2019 15: 59
          At the Amur plant, even corvettes can’t build normally, where are the nuclear submarines ... The competencies have been lost, many slipways dismantled, equipment removed, people scattered, parted. To resume the construction of nuclear submarines there, everything should be started from scratch.
          And China is across the river, and the border is along the fairway, not as before - along their coastal.
          1. The comment was deleted.
        2. -1
          April 22 2019 23: 06
          Building? In our country, they simply cannot finish building or do not want to. On Amursky on the slipway Irbis stands pr.971 head. N519, 60% readiness and nobody cares. Putin was personally shown, asked to finish building - do not care.


          Putin must personally finish building ?!

          Or was Putin supposed to get money out of his pocket ?!

          By the way, Irbis is a boat for India and the question of its completion is not connected with Putin’s desire, but with India’s desire to get a second Pike-B.

          This budget did not take as much as he wanted and spent, but took it - counted it - divided it into everything and everyone and now within the framework of what you can afford to build and repair.

          If the problem was only in one boat, it would certainly be completed, but now everywhere and for everything there is not enough money.

          What do we have little allocated to the submarine fleet ?! Only recently 3 Borea and Ash-trees were put into operation, and now Borea and Ash-tree on tests + 10 nuclear submarines each for 1 billion dollars are being built on slipways.

          And this is only for nuclear submarines.

          Old boats of Antei and Schuka-B projects are being repaired, as far as availability is available at all costs.
          1. 0
            April 25 2019 23: 19
            Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
            By the way, Irbis is a boat for India
            Sorry, but this is information from what (or where you got it from) ?!

            Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
            and the question of its completion is not connected with Putin’s desire, but with India’s desire to get a second Pike-B.

            "a fresh legend, but hard to believe", or in other words, why then now, information has begun to appear that one of the repaired/modernized submarines of the Project 971 Pacific Fleet should/is planned to be transferred to India, after undergoing repairs/modernization?! Does everything fit together logically there?!

            Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
            If the problem was only in one boat, it would certainly be completed, but now everywhere and for everything there is not enough money.

            Well, why ?! There are some personalities and persons on super yachts ?! And close to one’s eyes on super luxury (and how money was obtained for it) of these some, from those in power ?!

            Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
            What do we have little allocated to the submarine fleet ?!

            Yes. Unfortunately, not enough (if you like, not enough).

            Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
            Only recently 3 Borea and Ash-trees were put into operation, and now Borea and Ash-tree on tests + 10 nuclear submarines each for 1 billion dollars are being built on slipways.

            One popular wisdom says, "what can be broken if you're stupid", and in this case it means that the funds allocated for the Navy can be spent in different ways. For example, are you absolutely sure that building 5-6 "Yasen-M" in a row is much more reasonable than, say, building only 2, and parallel construction of 7-10 Project 971M boats (taking into account how long the old ones take to undergo "repairs/modernization", and do not always return in the same quantity as they were received...). In other words, for the same amount, the Navy can order (and therefore receive) for the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet either 4-5 "long and expensive" 885M, or for the same time and practically for the same funds 7-9 971M boats. For me, for example, in this situation, there is another question - "is it really more expedient and useful for the fleet to have the first option with ash trees, in operational and tactical terms, even taking into account that the 885M is clearly stronger in terms of armament than a larger number of updated 971M /"Shchuka-B"/. Is this so?!"

            Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
            Old boats of Antei and Schuka-B projects are being repaired, as far as availability is available at all costs.
            Well, and there with speed, things are not at all well. Neither with repairs, nor with upgrades ...
          2. 0
            18 May 2019 22: 07
            Well, they found 12 billion at the next curator of the state bank ... It would be enough to finish building!
      2. 0
        April 26 2019 09: 13
        I completely agree. Even in the service I was surprised how the same Americans modernize their ships and boats. As a result, both the Losses and the O, Berks are still sailing normally. And here they cut iron very easily, and then throw up their hands
        Who forced us to write off the boats of projects 941, 945, 971 as needles? 956 destroyers? It's sad. But I still remember Opel very well.
    3. 0
      18 May 2019 22: 02
      You ducks get distracted from a narrow topic, take off. Universal F-35 is so cool out ....... Here's a basic trough with basic functionality will reduce the cost of mass production And no more! Everything else is sharpening! Under the application! Equipment for specific tasks. Everything universal is a compromise and very mediocre in effectiveness
  5. -2
    April 22 2019 09: 39
    A very important topic and topical article, The development of the battles of stability and invisibility of submarines, in the conditions of the overwhelming superiority of NATO at sea, submarines are the only long arm of Moscow. Abandon superlinocrosminets, AB, and superfrigates in favor of the development of submarines and infrastructure for them. minesweepers of underwater systems, coastal aviation.
  6. AAK
    +1
    April 22 2019 09: 43
    For the so-called. uniform "modular" submarines there is only one definition according to the popular proverb - "God is not a candle and not a devil of a poker." quite modern SAC, BIUS and torpedo-missile weapons used through TA. We do not need another naval F-705, we need, first of all, "anti-submarine fighters" based on the current situation and tasks ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. AAK
        +3
        April 22 2019 11: 38
        Colleague, I ask you to understand me correctly, I suggest - nuclear submarines in the DIMENSIONS of the 705th project, but much cheaper (but this does not mean inefficient), without an LMT reactor and without a titanium case, and the current level of electronics even in Russia allows you to equip its decent HOOK and BIOS. For armament, the presence of TA 533 and 650 (+ TA for anti-torpedoes outside the boat’s PC) is quite sufficient in the absence of CWP (this significantly increases dimensions and, as a result, displacement). KR can quite normally start in capsules through TA of the corresponding caliber.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. AAK
            +4
            April 22 2019 15: 27
            The 705th project is, in my opinion, one of the most interesting ideas in terms of submarine shipbuilding, especially in terms of the hull. The most thought-out "spindle" for hydrodynamics, the optimal length/width ratio of the hull is 8:1 with a length of 80-81 m (705 and 705K). For the 971st, this ratio is already around 1:9,5. From the point of view of the contours, I would slightly narrow the width of the conning tower fence for a promising submarine (as in the 971st) and use X-shaped rudders (reduces the reflected signal from the enemy's sonar). TA - 6 is enough (533x4 650x2). A single-block nuclear power plant with the possibility of natural circulation of the coolant at low speeds, a turbine for a generator, without a GTZA, a short propeller shaft - from the GGEM to the propeller. The GAK antenna is a promising "horseshoe", which makes it possible to place a torpedo tube above it. With a hull length of 82-85 m, it is possible to build 2 submarine hulls on 1 slipway. Well, something like that...
            1. The comment was deleted.
      2. +2
        April 22 2019 19: 53
        Quote from rudolf
        Lira had very expensive boats.

        Due to the fact that a lot of new things were invested in them, plus a titanium case.
        Quote from rudolf
        If we rework the project and start the series, the output will be something not much cheaper than Ash.

        Friendly, I do not agree with you. I think the price of the modern analogue of Lyra will be half that of Ash. I am talking about production models.
        You and I talked about the modernized Lyra. You think that it will be expensive and not worth the effort. Here I fundamentally disagree with you.
        Let's start with the fact that no one is proposing to make a modern analogue of the Lyra out of titanium. At the same time, the delivery of such a Hunter to the fleet will be several times faster than the delivery of the Ashes.
        I will not repeat my entire argument, you already know it.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. +2
            April 22 2019 21: 10
            Quote from rudolf
            You are encroaching on the holy!

            Well, I’m in this matter, I’ve been playing with fate for two years now. drinks
        2. +3
          April 22 2019 23: 52
          Quote: NEXUS
          Friend, I disagree with you.

          "Boris, you're wrong!" (from)
          Andrew, the Yankees, like anyone else, can count money. They were the first to install a liquid metal reactor on their second USS Seawolf SSN-575 submarine. We also tried on 705. But after that, only VVR in the transport form, both here and in amov. Not counting the crewless machines, such as the Poseidon.
          ZhMT reactors entail large operating costs and the constant operation of the 1 circuit, which means a watch on board. Therefore, you need to consider the entire life cycle of the submarine.
          1. 0
            April 23 2019 06: 24
            From the very beginning of operation, there were problems with the HMTR, most likely they remained and are now unresolved. However, it is possible that science has found solutions and this type of reactor has become reliable in operation.
          2. 0
            April 23 2019 14: 05
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            ZhMT reactors entail large operating costs and the constant operation of the 1 circuit, which means a watch on board. Therefore, you need to consider the entire life cycle of the submarine.

            Sasha, I think the problems that arose then were solved or are being solved now.
  7. 0
    April 22 2019 10: 47
    All the news regarding the next-generation submarines resembles the news of Roskosmos: the mass of the hulls, in unfinished condition, waiting for repairs that last for almost decades, are similar to plans for the exploration of the Moon and Mars, with obvious, unresolved problems here on earth
    All this becomes similar to fraud, in order to distract from unresolved problems for years, avoiding responsibility, and further receiving money
    1. -1
      April 23 2019 06: 21
      From which side to look - maybe just a "smoke" screen of new really breakthrough technologies and solutions. New times are new songs, and most of us, alas, and ah, only know the notes of the old. This is normal. Therefore, I am simply surprised when something interesting and new suddenly emerges from behind this smoke screen. Proving to our "strategists" that their sofa does not sink.
  8. The comment was deleted.
    1. +2
      April 22 2019 13: 23
      What do you think about the prospects of nuclear-electric power plants for PLA? The reactor and the turbine turns the generator, the latter feeds the HED and the booster battery for a quick set, while the reactor is brought to capacity.
      "Nearby" is an article by Klimov about the Arctic, where he proposes to make the next submarine approximately in the mass-dimensions of Project 677, and I agree with him, only with the EI it is interesting what to do.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. +1
          April 22 2019 20: 53
          I meant full electric propulsion, and a booster battery, so that there was no need to instantly pump up power at the reactor, but it would be possible to give a jerk on the battery. It would be enough for an hour, and there the reactor would have already reached power and the necessary power for EM would have been removed from the turbogenerator. This would allow at least a gear assembly to be thrown out of the circuit, and, apparently, a TsNPK. The goal is to reduce noise, reduce the cost of submarines.

          Well, make it small, with NNL sizes, but with the depth of immersion as a conventional submarine.

          Something like that.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. +2
              April 22 2019 22: 55
              Let the loss work out. The main thing is to ensure the fastest possible low-noise course, stealth and low price.
              Something and you can donate for this.
              1. 0
                April 26 2019 05: 17
                Well, you are still not friends with physics.
    2. +2
      April 23 2019 00: 01
      Quote from rudolf
      All ICCPLs become potential carriers of SLBMs.

      Rudolph, hello.
      I expressed this idea a few days ago. But its implementation requires light and precise SLBMs. And for this we need a breakthrough in the mixture TT for energy intensity. Amahs - they can. We are not yet. (Trident / Mace) That is why the slowdown was formed in our solid-propellant SLBMs.
      1. +2
        April 23 2019 12: 11
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        But its implementation requires light and precise SLBMs. And for this we need a breakthrough in the mixture TT for energy intensity. Amahs - they can. We are not yet. (Trident / Mace) That is why the slowdown was formed in our solid-propellant SLBMs.

        Trident cannot be called easy, more than 60 tons. And we always had questions with solid fuel. We'll have to turn again to the liquid-propellant engine until this issue is resolved. In principle, there are already developments in the "mortar" launch of "liquid" ones, and the operation has been worked out. It seems to me that there is more of a production base and the economy will play a role, all other things being equal.
        1. +1
          April 23 2019 19: 26
          Quote: Andrey NM
          there is more production base and the economy will play a role, all other things being equal.

          I agree. Although at Khrunichev, Mias and K * everything is the most advanced that we have, but so far we are still slightly behind the AMs in terms of production facilities and technologies. The culture of production has been developed over the years. And the dashing 90s derailed many working dynasties. A lot of the smartest engineers went into "business" or faded over the hill ... So everything needs to be restored and salary stimulated!
          1. +1
            April 25 2019 08: 07
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            for the time being we are still somewhat behind in terms of production base and technology.

            It depends on what we are lagging behind. In the "solid" topic we are lagging far behind (I don’t want to talk hopelessly, though ...), but in the "liquid" topic we are marking time a little ahead. But we are marking time. And we are marking time because they simply do not let go forward. The reasons are on the surface. They were also voiced by Saltykov-Shchedrin. Every morning I drive past KRASMASH. If earlier by the beginning of the working day people walked in droves, now this flow has greatly decreased. Young people also work there, but this is not the same number. Once at KRASMASH there was the largest military acceptance in the Navy, at one time it was headed by Novoselov Fedor Ivanovich. And now - tears. Moreover, the acceptance category was cut off. They are trying to reconstruct something, but crumbs. A monument sticks out from behind the fence - product 3M-40. And I have a dynasty too. In the current conditions, it ended on me. The children went in other directions. Thank God not lawyers or economists.
            1. +1
              April 25 2019 12: 21
              Quote: Andrey NM
              And I, too, have a dynasty.

              Me too... But my son, although a sailor, is not involved in "navigation", but in the department of the deaf and dumb... But my daughter is a lawyer, with a higher technical education to boot. So, let's hope for the best. drinks
  9. -2
    April 22 2019 14: 23
    The ignorant fake player Legat. Tired of it.
  10. exo
    +1
    April 22 2019 15: 36
    What will be the fifth generation Russian submarine? Piece, very expensive and long-term. If at all, there will be.
  11. +1
    April 22 2019 19: 07
    Fifth generation submarine

    on the pages of our favorite site ... we are already building the twenty-fifth generation ... and we are building .. and we are building. The corns are already full on the fingers of the clave!
    1. 0
      April 23 2019 06: 16
      Those who "build" on VO do not actually build anything. Therefore, personally, I perceive the articles "for the Fleet" simply as billitistics, a kind of mind game. But, the purposefulness of the articles and the hysteria of some authors in an attempt to prove their infallibility and exclusivity bring to mind the events of the past, when "public" discussions of the non-naval community only caused delays in the implementation of programs, and the Navy and the ship industry were in a fever. One post-tsusimnoe fermentation of minds was worth what. Building a fleet, building a naval strategy are matters strictly closed from the public and do not tolerate unnecessary fuss around.
  12. -5
    April 22 2019 19: 09
    Even Yasen-M is the best multi-purpose nuclear submarine in the world, and Husky will generally raise Russia's submarine nuclear fleet to an unattainable height
  13. +2
    April 23 2019 03: 04
    or even the mythical Zircon

    After this phrase, I stopped reading the article, because another sofa expert is trying to teach. He is not given to understand that all the developer's "interviews" are directed disinformation just for such "experts"
  14. -2
    April 23 2019 06: 10
    Everything is basically correct. "It is not entirely clear how exactly the fifth generation of submarines will differ from the fourth." This is the little cherry on the cake called "ensuring secrecy." But if the supposed performance characteristics are unclear to anyone, including the author, then everything has the character of a certain predictive uncertainty. Which is completely natural. And it is clear that such a state will need to be maintained as long as possible.
  15. +3
    April 23 2019 17: 32
    Quote: Andrey NM
    You can’t name a trident easy, more than 60 tons.

    Actually less than 60 tons. More precisely 59078 kg
    1. 0
      April 27 2019 08: 47
      In fact, in different sources, the Trident 2 mass jumps from 57 to 62 tons. I think that 59,9 and 60 are still nearby. Well, it is impossible to make exactly the same missiles. It seems to be a series of identical products 2, and the mass differs from several kilograms to several tens of kilograms.