On the secrecy of the Soviet SSBNs


In a previous article, we examined the pros and cons of the naval component of the triad of strategic nuclear forces. And they came to the conclusion that the strategic missile submarine cruisers (SSBNs) of the Russian Federation are absolutely necessary both now and in the foreseeable future. But all these arguments, which are generally correct, will become meaningless and insignificant if it is not achieved ...


SSBN stealth in combat services


The key task of the Russian Navy should be considered participation in strategic deterrence and nuclear retaliation in the event of a nuclear war. To solve this problem, the fleet must ensure the hidden deployment of a certain number of SSBNs on alert (BS) in full readiness for the immediate launch of a nuclear missile strike. Moreover, secrecy is the most important, fundamental advantage of the SSBN, without which the very idea of ​​submarines carrying strategic nuclear weapon completely meaningless.

Obviously, in order to be able to fulfill the deterrence function and, if necessary, to strike back at the aggressor, our SSBNs must carry out military service not detected, not taken for escort by multipurpose submarines and other anti-aircraft and naval reconnaissance equipment of our very probable opponents. If this condition is not met, then the SSBNs cannot serve as weapons of guaranteed retaliation and as a means of preventing nuclear war. They will be destroyed at the moment of aggression and will not have time to use their own nuclear weapons, so the enemy will have no reason for concern.

Can our Navy secure the secrecy of its strategic nuclear forces today? Due to the lack of relevant statistics in open sources, the author, not being either a submariner or even a military sailor, should rely on the opinion of professionals in this matter. Alas, pros often adhere to polar points of view on this issue, and it is extremely difficult to understand where the truth is all the same.

It is believed that, although our SSBNs periodically fell into the sights of the Los Angeles and Sivulfs, a considerable number managed to avoid unnecessary attention from the US Navy and NATO. And that was enough to guarantee nuclear retaliation in the event of a sudden Armageddon. But there are, alas, other allegations: that neither in the USSR, nor in the Russian Federation could ensure secrecy of the SSBN. And that the American submariners on an ongoing basis monitored and continue to monitor our strategic submarines, being ready to immediately destroy the latter as soon as the order is issued.

What really happens, it is decidedly impossible for an outsider to understand from all this. But still, the author has an assumption, to a certain extent, “reconciling” these positions.

A bit of history


To begin with, it is worth recalling that the USSR for a long time lost in the "race of low noise" - domestic nuclear submarines were much inferior in this indicator to our "sworn friends". The situation began to level off on the last multi-purpose nuclear submarines of the 2nd generation. The same Americans noted that the Russian submarines of the Victor III type (Pike project 671RTMK) are noticeably quieter than the previous types of Soviet submarines, so the gap in this indicator between them and the US nuclear submarine has narrowed significantly.


"Pike" of the project 671RTMK - B-138 "Obninsk"

The situation was even better for the multipurpose nuclear submarines of the 3 generation of the Schuka-B, or Shark, according to NATO classification. This predator should not be confused with the heavy SSBNs of the 941 project, which was also called the “Shark”, but in the USSR and the Russian Federation. In NATO, these TRPKSN called "Typhoons."

So, even the most pessimistic estimates of the noisiness of our 3-generation multipurpose nuclear submarines suggest that our Pike-Bs, if they didn’t achieve it, were very close to the American indicators. Here, however, the range of opinions is also quite large. There are allegations that Pike-B surpassed Los Angeles and caught up with Improved Los Angeles, or that our submarine nuclear submarines even managed to surpass Americans in stealth. But there is an opposite opinion: that the lag nevertheless remained, and in terms of low noise “Pike-B” did not even reach the “Los Angeles”. Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that the Shchuk-B series was constantly being improved, and the same Americans in their classification divide them into the 4 sub-series: Shark, Improved Shark, Shark II, and Shark III, moreover, the noise level of these submarines was constantly decreasing. So it cannot be ruled out that the ships of the first sub-series were inferior to the usual "moose", but the Shark II or Shark III nuclear submarines could still compete with Improved Los Angeles.


K-335 "Cheetah". "Pike-B" of the 971 project in our opinion, "Shark III" in NATO

If you believe the American data, then "Pike-B" gained superiority over the "Improved" Los Angeles "already starting from the sub-series" Improved "Shark". This is what the naval analyst N. Polmar announced when he delivered a speech to the US Congress in 1997. It should be noted that N. Polmar was not alone in this opinion: in his speech he quoted the Commander of the United States Naval Operations, Admiral Jeremy Burdu: “For the first time since we launched the Nautilus, a situation arose that the Russians in the sea have submarines that are quieter than ours.”

And if we assume that all of the above is at least partially true, then it can be stated that the USSR was gradually overcoming the lag in quietness from American atomarians. So, the head Los Angeles was handed over the fleet in 1974, then an analogue comparable in terms of noise, the first "Pike-B" - only in 1984. We can talk about a 10-year lag. But the first "Improved" Los Angeles "went into operation in 1988, and the" Improved "Shark" "Pike-B" - in 1992, that is, the difference was already only 4 years old.

In other words, the author does not have reliable data on the real noise ratio of domestic and American nuclear submarines. But the significant progress made by designers and shipbuilders of the USSR in reducing low noise in the 80's cannot be denied. And we can say that even according to the most pessimistic estimates, we approached the level of "Los Angeles" in 1984, and to "Improved" Los Angeles "- in 1992.

What about the SSBN? For a long time, our submarine missile carriers differed significantly worse than American submarines. This, alas, is true for the last representatives of the 2 SSBN of the 667BDR Kalmar project.


One of the last 667BDR - K-433 "St. George the Victorious." Currently awaiting disposal

But, as you know, after the Squid, the development of domestic naval strategic nuclear forces went in two parallel ways. On the one hand, in 1972, the design of the latest 3 generation SSBN, which became the "Shark" of the 941 project, was begun. But a little later, work was continued to improve the Squid, which led to the creation of the Dolphins project 667BDRM. What were these ships?

The heavy SSBNs of the 941 project became extremely famous due to their gigantic size and hitherto unprecedented firepower in the USSR Navy. More than 23 thousand tons of standard displacement and 20 powerful ICBMs. But with all this, it was the Sharks who became real, full-fledged representatives of the 3 generation of the SSBNs in which, like in the multipurpose Shchuky-B of the 971 project, a significant noise reduction was achieved. According to some reports, our 941 project SSBNs were slightly more noisy than their American counterparts Ohio, but less than Los Angeles (probably not advanced) and less than our Pike-B "(First sub-series?).


With this size it is possible to set the brains of world imperialism!

But with the "Dolphins" 667BDRM things were much worse. That is, they, of course, turned out to be much quieter than their predecessors, the 667BDD Kalmar, but despite the use of many technologies of the 941 project, the Dolphins nevertheless “made noise” much louder than the “Sharks”. The ships of the 667BDRM project, in fact, cannot be considered submarines of the 3 generation, they were rather transitional from the 2 to the 3. Something like today's multi-functional fighters “4 +” and “4 ++”, whose performance characteristics are significantly superior to the classic aircraft of the 4 generation, but do not reach the 5. Alas, the 667BDRM noise figures, according to the author, also “stuck” somewhere between the 2 and 3 generations of nuclear submarines: they did not reach the standards of the 941 project, not to mention Ohio.

And now it should be remembered that the underwater carriers of the 3-generation ICBMs both among us and the Americans appeared relatively late, in the 80s of the last century. The parent Ohio and TK-208 of the 941 project (later Dmitry Donskoy) were transferred to the fleet in 1981, later on the number of Sharks and Dolphins in the USSR Navy grew as follows

On the secrecy of the Soviet SSBNs

It is worth noting that the numbers indicated in the table can be safely shifted to the right by a year - the fact is that the SSBNs were mostly transferred to the fleet in the last days of December, that is, they actually went into operation the next year. And it can also be assumed that the latest ships did not immediately leave the shipyard for combat duty, but for some time mastered the fleet.

Then from the above figures it can be concluded that the Soviet Navy simply did not have time to properly feel the opportunities that the new and relatively low-noise SSBNs provided to it. In a somewhat noticeable amount, “Sharks” and “Dolphins” appeared in the fleet only in the second half of the 80's. But even in 1991 and 13 ships of these types accounted for only slightly more than 22,4% of all SSBNs of the USSR - at the end of 1991, the Russian Navy had as many as 58 strategic submarine missile carriers. And, in fact, only 10% of their total number - 6 heavy SSBNs of the 941 Shark project - really met the requirements of that time.

A bit about the enemy


In 1985, the basis of the American multipurpose submarine forces was the 33 submarine of the Los Angeles type.


Parent of the series - SSN-688 Los Angeles

It can be assumed that ships of this type were able to detect first and maintain contact, undetected, with any Soviet SSBN, possibly with the exception of the Sharks. If among the Soviet SSBNs there were those who had a chance to spot the enemy first and avoid meeting before they were discovered, then these are the giants of the 941 project.

Alas, in the beginning of the 90's the situation changed, and not in our favor. The Americans adopted an improved version of their already outstanding multi-purpose nuclear submarines, in which, among other things, they managed to significantly reduce noise. The first “Los Angeles Improved” atomic ship was handed over to the US Navy in 1988, during the 1989-1990 years it went into operation as 4, but still the mass arrival of these ships in the 1991-1995 years, when it was transferred to 16 Nuclear submarines of this type. A total of the U.S. Navy 1996 g inclusive received 23 such ships. And although the author cannot say this for certain, apparently, not one type of our SSBN could “dodge” the “Improved Los Angeles”. It can be assumed that the Sharks had good chances, if not to leave, then at least to detect the “surveillance” of modern American multipurpose atomarians, but other SSBNs, including Dolphins, could hardly count on this.

It should be noted that the latest in the 80's “Sharks” and “Dolphins” replenished exclusively the Northern Fleet. The Pacific, on the other hand, had to be content with, at best, the 2 generation SSBN, such as Squid, or earlier episodes.

A little thought


In general, the situation from the author’s sofa looks something like this. From the moment of their appearance and before the commissioning of the ships of the 667BDRM and 941 project, our nuclear submarine-based SSBNs had noise levels that did not allow them to overcome the boundaries of the NATO PLO and enter the ocean. Our ships were too noticeable to throw them against a whole anti-submarine system, including stationary hydrophones and sonar reconnaissance ships, numerous frigates and destroyers, submarines, specialized aircraft and helicopters, and even spy satellites.

Accordingly, the only way to ensure the combat stability of our underwater ballistic missile launchers was to place them in the so-called "bastions" —the areas of dominance of the USSR Navy, where the presence of surface and air forces of the NATO PLO was, if not completely excluded, then extremely difficult. Of course, we could build such "bastions" only in the seas adjacent to our borders, so such a concept could appear only after ballistic missiles of the corresponding range appeared on the arsenal of the SSBN.

Thanks to this decision, we removed the SSBN patrol areas from the range of the enemy’s PLO system to our area of ​​similar purpose. Thus, the combat stability of the strategic nuclear forces has obviously increased significantly. But, nevertheless, our SSBNs of the 1 and 2 generation, even in the "bastions", remained vulnerable to enemy multipurpose nuclear submarines, which had a great advantage in low noise. Apparently, the situation dramatically improved only in the second half of the 80-ies of the last century, when the Dolphins and Sharks entered the arsenal of the Northern Fleet in a noticeable amount.

The author suggests that in the second half of the 80's, the Northern Fleet provided for the secret deployment of SSBN projects 941 and 667BDRM. Yes, it is possible that even the Shark was not able to avoid contact with the American multipurpose nuclear submarine, but the whole point is that reducing the noise of the SSBN is an extremely important factor even if it is not possible to achieve superiority or at least equality in terms of this indicator with the enemy’s nuclear submarines. And here it is.

The lower the noise of the SSBN, the smaller the distance of its detection. And the capabilities of the US nuclear submarines to search in the same Barents Sea were largely limited to the Soviet anti-aircraft defense system, which included many surface and submarine ships, planes and helicopters. In the 80s, Los Angeles met “black holes” in northern waters - diesel-electric submarines of the 877 project “Halibut”, BODs of the 1155 project, equipped with a monstrous mass (about 800 t) but also a very powerful Polyn ", Multi-purpose" Pike "and" Pike-B ", etc. All this did not exclude the passage of "moose" to the "bastion", but still seriously limited their search capabilities. And the low noise of the SSBN, combined with the difficulties that the Soviet anti-aircraft defense system created for the Americans, reduced the likelihood of such a meeting to acceptable values ​​for us.

Moreover, the concentration of the latest SSBNs in the north was absolutely justified for the USSR. The fact is that the northern seas are extremely unfriendly to acoustics, most of the time of year the conditions for “listening to the waters” in them are extremely far from optimal. So, for example, according to open (and, alas, not necessarily true) data, under favorable weather conditions, Dolphins can be detected by the Superior Los Angeles submarine at a distance of up to 30 km. But these favorable conditions in the north are approximately a month in a year. And in the remaining 11 months, the detection distance of "Dolphin" does not exceed 10 km or even less.


K-407 Novomoskovsk - representative of the 667BDRM project

Obviously, finding “The shark was even more difficult. The opinion was already mentioned above that the “Sharks” defeated the Shchuk-B in low noise. At the same time, American Admiral D. Burda, when he was the chief of the operational headquarters of the US Navy, claimed that the American nuclear submarines were not able to detect the Pike-B if the latter was moving at the speed of 6-9 knots. And if the heavy SSBN could move even quieter, then it would be extremely difficult to detect it even for the latest American atomarians.

But what about the Pacific Fleet? Alas, he was forced to be content with obsolete types of SSBNs and could not provide for their covert deployment. In the north, we had three components of success:

1. Combat services of the SSBN in the zone of domination of the Soviet fleet.

2. Very poor “acoustic transparency” of the northern seas.

3. The latest relatively low-noise submarine missile carriers "Dolphin" and "Shark".

In the Pacific Fleet, of the above, only the first item was available. And it is extremely doubtful that this would be enough to ensure the secrecy of such relatively noisy ships as the 667BDR Kalmar project, not to mention the earlier representatives of this class of nuclear submarines.

A little disaster


And then came 1991 and everything crumbled. With the collapse of the USSR, the great fleet of the Country of Soviets found itself in a joke - the country had no funds for its maintenance and operation. This led, first of all, to the fact that our "bastions" essentially ceased to be such: the areas of dominance of the former Soviet and then the Russian Navy turned into nothing in five minutes. The warships stood idle at the piers, sent for scrap or to the reserve, from which the road was only for scrap. Airplanes and helicopters quietly rusted at airfields.

These "new trends", apparently, quickly put an end to the ability of the Pacific Fleet to somehow cover up their own SSBNs. Most likely, the way to the ocean “Squid” was ordered back in Soviet times, but now a critical weakening of the defense of the Pacific “bastion” combined with the appearance of the enemy even more advanced and low-noise atomic “Improved Los Angeles” and “Sivulf” led to that the "bastion" has become the hunting ground of American submariners.

As for the Northern Fleet, here too the crews of our “strategists” could rely mainly only on themselves. The author assumes that for the Dolphins of the 667BDRM project, such conditions became a five-minute death sentence.

Of course, if we assume that “Los Angeles” under normal conditions of the northern seas could detect “Dolphin” at a distance of 10 km, then in a day the American nuclear submarines, following the “low-noise” 7 nodes, could control approximately 6 216 sq. km This amounts to only 0,44% of the total area of ​​the Barents Sea. And we must also take into account that if the SSBN diverged with the "moose" only 12-15 km, then the "Dolphin" will cross the zone "controlled" by the American submarine, previously remaining undetected.

Everything seems to be fine, but only the calculation of “0,44%” works only if the Americans had a large Barents Sea and the SSBN could be located anywhere. But this is not so - in the USA the basing points of our SSBNs are well known and it is enough for American submariners to control the approaches to the bases and the probable deployment routes of our strategic submarines. Thus, US nuclear submarines significantly narrow down their search areas, and there are not too many chances that the SSBN of the 667BDRM project will be able to enter the duty area unnoticed. But even in these areas, the Dolphin crews are unlikely to feel safe: there are no more powerful general forces capable of detecting and hampering the actions of American nuclear submarines. And the Dolphin itself can hardly counter anything with the modern enemy nuclear submarines. As mentioned above, the SSBN of the 667BDRM project is a transitional type of nuclear submarine from the 2 to the 3 generation. And he needs to “dodge” from the atomarians of the 3-th (Los Angeles), the improved 3-th and now even the 4-th generation (Sivulf and Virginia). This is about the same as putting up against the Su-35 or Su-57 something like the MiG-23MLD or MiG-29 of the first series. Or try on the upgraded Phantom or Tomcat F-14A to fight against the F-22, if you like.

Apparently, in the 90's, only the TRNKSN of the 941 Shark project could solve the problem of nuclear deterrence. Yes, there were no "bastions" anymore, and the Shark was inferior to the latest American nuclear submarines in terms of low noise, but all the same, in order to detect this type of underwater missile carrier it was necessary to approach it literally several kilometers. Probably, in a number of cases, American submariners were able to take the SSBN for escort. But it is extremely doubtful that even Uncle Sam’s powerful submarine fleet would be able to build a sufficiently “strong” submarine “net” outside the zones of their submarine systems in order to guarantee that the 941 projected SSBN is in sight.

And just one "Shark", provided that its missiles are aimed at US cities - this is certain death for about 20 million people.


"The Last of the Mohicans" of the 941 project is Dmitry Donskoy. Alas, the times when the salvo of his 20 R-39 missiles was able to wipe off the top two dozen largest cities in any country in the world

But, as you know, we destroyed the ships of the 941 project ourselves. Of the six TRPCNS of this type, three were withdrawn from the fleet in 1996-97. The rest themselves “retired” in 2005-2006. due to the expiration of storage periods of their main main weapon - SLBM R-39. And as a result, the nuclear containment task fell on the shoulders of the Dolphins. Which, frankly, in the 90s of the last century were only partially suitable for this, and in the 2000s they are already frankly outdated.

Few conclusions


Everything is quite simple here.

For a long time, the domestic strategic nuclear forces were very vulnerable to enemy influence: a significant part of them could really be destroyed at the very beginning of the global conflict. The task of nuclear deterrence was carried out rather due to the large number of SSBNs in the fleet. Indeed, having 58 ships of this class, even with a factor of operational voltage equal to 0,2, we get an 11-12 SSBN in combat service at any given time. And even if up to 70-80% of this amount was controlled by US multipurpose nuclear submarines, it should still be assumed that the Soviet Navy had 2-3, or even all 4 strategic submarines, undetected, and ready to launch a nuclear strike.

The combat stability of the SSBNs was achieved only in the 80s of the last century, with the introduction of the 941 project into the SSBN. But only six such ships were built, and they did not last long. At the same time, the bulk of the Soviet and Russian SSBNs were ships of the 2 (and "2 +") generation, which could be relatively easily tracked and accompanied by multi-purpose US nuclear submarines. The latter, apparently, gave rise to many negative reviews about the inability of the Navy of the USSR and the Russian Federation to ensure the secrecy of its SSBNs.

Nevertheless, the experience in operating the “Sharks” of the 941 project shows that the SSBN, even slightly inferior in the overall technological level to the ships of the likely enemy, can still successfully fulfill the tasks of nuclear deterrence. The thing is that regardless of the noise ratio of our SSBNs and American nuclear submarines, if our strategic submarine cruiser is quiet enough that it is “easier to find than to hear,” it will be extremely difficult to find it even for the ultra-modern Virginia. In some cases, such SSBNs will, of course, be detected, but in some cases not.

In other words, even assuming that until now the Americans have managed to control 80-90% of all our SSBNs on combat duty (the author came across such estimates, which, however, are extremely doubtful), this does not mean at all that we should refuse SSBN. It only means that we need to understand which ships of this class need to be built, where to base them, and how to ensure their deployment and combat patrol.

But we will discuss this in the next article.

To be continued ...
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

429 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Hunter 2 25 November 2019 18: 12 New
    • 20
    • 7
    +13
    Thanks to Andrey for the article, detailed and interesting! hi
    Now with the Strategists - the business is more or less being established ... MAPL is catastrophically lacking to cover them.
    1. Greg Miller 25 November 2019 20: 11 New
      • 16
      • 24
      -8
      In what place is it getting better? Over the past 5 years, not a single new nuclear submarine, neither strategic nor multipurpose, has been included in the fleet ... And today, in the Russian Navy, there are less than 20 nuclear submarines of all types that can go on combat duty ... But what there is a nuclear submarine, only 13 minesweepers remained in the Russian Navy, and there’s not even one in the Baltic !!! But the so-called "communication boats", which are essentially VIP yachts, in the Baltic, we have a total of 3 units !!!
      1. 30hgsa 25 November 2019 21: 06 New
        • 14
        • 2
        +12
        1. After 1992 and until 2004, 1 submarine was laid down if that. That gave a sharp jump down in the construction and commissioning of nuclear submarines in the 200s and 2010s.

        2. In the period after 2004 and until 2014, the Borei ersatz (with the use of structural elements of antees and pikes) and the experienced Boreas with Ashens, who naturally had to treat childhood diseases, were laid in essence - it did not make sense to lay massively nuclear submarines of an unworked type.

        3. But in the period after 2014 (the last five years) 5 Ash-trees and 5 Boreev were laid. Naturally, if they were laid down in 2014, they did not enter the fleet by 2019. They will be introduced in 2020-2024.

        4. As for minesweepers ... what are you going to trawl in the Baltic? If the war suddenly and they put minefields there will aviation allow you to trawl?
    2. ccsr 25 November 2019 20: 19 New
      • 1
      • 6
      -5
      Quote: Hunter 2
      MAPL is catastrophically lacking to cover them.

      But the fact that they themselves are a unmasking sign for the SSBNs on alert does not bother you? After all, they are obliged to communicate constantly, and this will not go unnoticed for radio intelligence. Maybe it’s easier to leave a cover for naval aviation and rely on the armament of missile carriers, rather than make it easier for the enemy to find a submarine group in which besides the SSBN there will also be other submarines?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2019 07: 36 New
        • 8
        • 3
        +5
        Multipurpose nuclear submarines and other general forces are needed not to escort the SSBNs, but to identify and squeeze out an enemy ploy from the areas of their routes and BS
        1. ccsr 26 November 2019 12: 07 New
          • 3
          • 3
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Multipurpose submarines and other general forces are not needed to accompany the SSBN,

          You inattentively read the author’s statement, which claimed it was about the cover:
          Quote: Hunter 2
          MAPL is catastrophically lacking to cover them.


          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          and to identify

          Isn’t it too expensive to use MAPL to identify enemy submarines - can it be cheaper with reconnaissance buoys, for example?

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          and squeezing an enemy plo from areas of their routes

          And how do you see it in peacetime - do you want to go to ram? Do not make people laugh, but rather think about what such "squeezing out" of territorial waters can cost us.
          1. ser56 26 November 2019 16: 23 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: ccsr
            what can such squeeze out of territorial waters cost us?

            casus belli request
            1. ccsr 26 November 2019 18: 23 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Quote: ser56
              casus belli

              The Americans are not so stupid as to start a nuclear war with Russia on their own initiative - there are pragmatists in the leadership of the country, and they hardly want to deprive themselves and their relatives of their lives and prosperous existence.
              1. ser56 26 November 2019 18: 28 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: ccsr
                Americans are not stupid enough to start a nuclear war

                1) Do you have many friends of Americans? Or did you come up with them by investing in your understanding of the consequences? Alas, they have not fought at home for a long time and suffer from a complex of superiority and mission: hi
                2) events can go according to different scenarios after the sinking of the nuclear submarine, especially if there is someone like a clintons in the White House ... request
                1. ccsr 26 November 2019 19: 18 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: ser56
                  Do you have a lot of Americans you know? Or did you come up with them by investing in your understanding of the consequences?

                  No, not a single one right now. But you in vain think that the number of Americans you know may determine the understanding of who and how will use nuclear forces in their leadership - this is from another opera.
                  Quote: ser56
                  Alas, they have not fought at home for a long time and suffer from a complex of superiority and mission:

                  This is not at all the case when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons against them - the example of Kim best proves this.
                  Quote: ser56
                  events can go according to different scenarios after the sinking of the nuclear submarine,

                  And what happened after the Kursk or Thresher?
                  I think that strategic intelligence is still able to determine what happened and the missing submarine is the beginning of the war or a sea tragedy associated with a number of factors not related to the attack. As for the Clintons, keep in mind that they have a procedure for declaring the president insane or insane. So they are not as careless as they might seem to someone.
                  1. ser56 27 November 2019 14: 44 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: ccsr
                    This is from another opera.

                    be surprised, but in some cases, people behave based on their upbringing, which is associated with the country .... request
                    Quote: ccsr
                    This is not at all the case when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons against them - the example of Kim best proves this.

                    you yourself answered how to behave with them ... request
                    Quote: ccsr
                    And what happened after the Kursk or Thresher?

                    but were they sunk? hi It’s a completely different matter when the nuclear submarine died at the enemy’s base or tracking ... there were already cases of damage during a collision ... But the nerves are not iron ... see CF. Case in sq. 37-80
                    Quote: ccsr
                    then keep in mind that they have a procedure for declaring the president insane or crazy

                    It is somewhat longer than a nuclear strike ... request
                    1. ccsr 27 November 2019 19: 05 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Quote: ser56
                      but were they sunk?

                      At the initial moment, no one knew what happened to them, and whether they were destroyed by the enemy.
                      Quote: ser56
                      It is somewhat longer than a nuclear strike ...

                      On the contrary, they will just decide quickly enough if they realize that the president is going to attack us simply out of their desires - of which I am sure.
                      1. ser56 28 November 2019 14: 30 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: ccsr
                        I'm sure of that.

                        if not a secret - why? Or is everything smart there, is it a mess with us? hi See the movie like Bradley did ... bully
                      2. ccsr 28 November 2019 18: 51 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: ser56
                        if not a secret - why?

                        I had to study our probable adversary.
                        Quote: ser56
                        Or is everything smart there, is it a mess with us?

                        I think the mess is the same, although in my opinion ours is more unpredictable.
                        Quote: ser56
                        See the movie like Bradley did ...

                        I don’t know how they did something, but if our Western group of forces wanted to start a war in Europe, then there would be better time than Friday night on Saturday, and even better from Saturday to Sunday, and even on Easter week, and not come up with. And even then, without their strategic nuclear forces, of course, they would simply surrender to us the whole of Western Europe in a couple of days, with our minimum losses.
                      3. ser56 29 November 2019 12: 15 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: ccsr
                        handed over to us all of Western Europe

                        stupid question - and zachem we also Western? Spend resources on the maintenance of troops and communist parties? And that they hated us and spat on our backs? Unfortunately we are not Americans - they have a profit from the deployment of troops ... request
                      4. ccsr 29 November 2019 16: 38 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: ser56
                        stupid question - why do we also need Western?

                        I made a conditional comparison about the readiness of NATO troops. We Western Europe and nafig was not needed, I can not even argue with that.
    3. Serg4545 26 November 2019 20: 03 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      // And how do you see it in peacetime - do you want to go to ram? Do not make people laugh, but rather think about what such extrusion outside territorial waters can cost us.

      You would read how extrusion occurs.
      And the following is done:
      Above the discovered submarine, several PLO ships / helicopters appear. Turn on their maximum HACKs and narrowly focused beams begin to process the submarine. Because of this concert, the boat simply stalls and cannot continue the pursuit. The concert continues until the submarine changes course and goes away.
      No violence. And yes, this is a common practice.
      1. ccsr 27 November 2019 11: 37 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: Serg4545
        Above the discovered submarine, several PLO ships / helicopters appear. Turn on their maximum HACKs and narrowly focused beams begin to process the submarine.

        Well, turn off a number of equipment on the submarine, take a certain depth and begin to drift for several days in the underwater current. Will airplanes and helicopters still fly, and surface ships, despite the stormy weather, will continue to process the submarine? Well, and what will it result in financial and resource plan - did not think by chance?
        Quote: Serg4545
        Because of this concert, the boat simply stalls and cannot continue the pursuit.

        Our boat stalls too. But another enemy submarine will continue to work on tracking as soon as the SSBN goes beyond the suppression systems.
        Quote: Serg4545
        You would read how extrusion occurs.

        You'd better figure out what kind of squeezing comes out, and whether it can be arranged 3-5 thousand miles from our coast, where our SSBNs are on duty. So, in theory, all this looks good, but only the officers of the Navy can know how it happens in practice, but they are likely to keep silent for a well-known reason.
        1. Serg4545 27 November 2019 12: 56 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          // Well, turn off a number of equipment on the submarine, take a certain depth and begin to drift for several days in the underwater stream. //

          Well, that's great! If this submarine hung on the tail of our SSBN, then the SSBN would quietly retire. And in any case, the detected submarine is already not dangerous, our SSBN can always bypass it at a safe distance.
          Well, if the submarine really will interfere with something, then you can walk along the hull of the drifting submarine with a trawl lowered by an anchor, and simply with a metal cable. There is no threat to the submarine and its crew. But the rubber-like anti-acoustic coating on the submarine will be ripped off. And replacing this coating is expensive. And they will ask for it from the captain of the submarine. Does he need this? So this usually does not come to this, and the detected submarine, as a rule, quickly winds off from the area where it was discovered.

          // Our boat stalls too. But another enemy submarine will continue to work on tracking as soon as the SSBN goes beyond the suppression systems.

          No. It does not stall. Processing submarine HAK is a narrow beam.
          And where will another submarine come from?
          Even if the enemy has 2 submarines working in pairs, two options are possible:
          1) They go nearby. Accordingly, both of them are discovered and one fate befalls them (squeezing).
          2) 2 submarines move at a considerable distance from each other.
          Suppose the second submarine remains undetected, but it needs to make a huge hook to go around the area where the first submarine is being pressed. Moreover, at low speed, because they can hear. Our then PLO nearby!
          But our SSBNs can go straight ahead. As a result, the SSBN has a huge handicap in distance. And there they will change course a couple of times and look for winds in the field.

          // You’d better figure out what kind of squeezing comes out, and whether it can be arranged 3-5 thousand miles from our coast, where our SSBNs are on duty //

          So there is no need to squeeze out! For 3-5 thousand miles from our coast is the open ocean (most likely the Arctic). And there the probability of detection of our SSBNs by enemy submarines is completely negligible. Have you read the article? Even in the Barents Sea is difficult to detect. And in the ocean ..
          So the enemy submarines have good chances to catch the tail of our SSBNs, only near our bases. But near our bases, we can easily accompany the SSBNs, detect enemy submarines and cut / squeeze them.
          1. ccsr 27 November 2019 13: 55 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Serg4545
            Well, that's great! If this submarine hung on the tail of our SSBN, then the SSBN would quietly retire. And in any case, the detected submarine is already not dangerous, our SSBN can always bypass it at a safe distance.

            Yes, there is nothing good in this, because the Americans will monitor and carefully study all these activities in order to take countermeasures. And we, apart from material costs and dubious experience, will not gain anything - that’s the whole way out of such “squeezing”.
            Quote: Serg4545
            So this usually does not come to this, and the detected submarine, as a rule, quickly winds off from the area where it was discovered.

            At this time, another submarine continued its reconnaissance activity, and the unknown was the first to be found to be mainstream or distracting.
            Quote: Serg4545
            Even if the enemy has 2 submarines working in pairs, two options are possible:

            No need to guess, but you must always adhere to the rules of intelligence - "The enemy is much more cunning than trying to seem." So you should always be laid only on this.
            Quote: Serg4545
            But our SSBNs can go straight ahead.

            Honestly, I don’t care how they move at all, but the most important thing is whether they can quickly launch the entire BC on command, more important to me than their fate after the launch. This is how the current concept of a nuclear submarine fleet works - there is practically no hope that they will return after the outbreak of war.
            Quote: Serg4545
            So there is no need to squeeze out!

            Well, you yourself answered yourself that all these extrusion measures are not worth a penny. So it’s cheaper to track their activities than it is not clear why they are scurrying around them, trying to impose something on the boats that are reconnaissance off our coast.
            Quote: Serg4545
            So the enemy submarines have a good chance of catching our SSBN’s tail,

            Something this statement does not fit with your statement:
            Quote: Serg4545
            And there the probability of detection of our SSBNs by enemy submarines is completely negligible.

            But that’s not even the point, but how long our submarines can be undetected, if you say that
            Even in the Barents Sea is difficult to detect.
            1. Serg4545 27 November 2019 17: 57 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              // Yes, there is nothing good in this, because the Americans will monitor all these activities and carefully study to take countermeasures.

              And how much more should they study?)
              About 60 years with us it is a common practice to cover our SSBNs. And the Americans did not come up with anything.
              1. ccsr 27 November 2019 19: 34 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: Serg4545
                And the Americans did not come up with anything.

                If we do not know everything about their capabilities, then we must proceed from the fact that they have already come up with something. At least their current reconnaissance orbital grouping is several times more powerful than what they had in the Soviet period. This alone should alert any military professional in assessing their capabilities.
          2. ser56 27 November 2019 14: 46 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Serg4545
            only near our ba

            this is if the patrol areas of the SSBN have not been opened ... request
            1. Serg4545 27 November 2019 18: 00 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              // this is if the patrol areas of the SSBN have not been opened ... //

              Most often, patrol areas are the whole of the Arctic. But sometimes the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans.
              How can this be opened?
              1. ccsr 27 November 2019 19: 38 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: Serg4545
                But sometimes the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans.

                Regarding the Indian Ocean, let me doubt it - it’s unlikely that our SSBNs go there for military service.
        2. timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 19: 10 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Nonsense, because the main operational management of the General Staff is not much interested in who, how and where is deployed, the main thing for them is how much we can hit targets with what really stands on duty.


          Are you tired of it? RPKSN combat services are held in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk at the Pacific Fleet and in the Barents and Kara Seas in the North. About 5000 miles can not even go in theory.
          This was the last time in the 80s, but then measures we were very sharply kicked out of the sea.
          1. ccsr 28 November 2019 21: 02 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            About 5000 miles can not even go in theory.
            This was the last time in the 80s, but then measures we were very sharply kicked out of the sea.

            Well, if the technical capabilities allow the submarines to travel at such distances, and this has already been verified from your own words in the 80s, then why the current naval commanders cannot organize this on more modern SSBNs? Or does your "theory" not allow you to do this? By the way, I didn’t mean today, but the time when more modern SSBNs will appear at the Pacific Fleet, and then the campaign planning can change dramatically.
  2. ccsr 28 November 2019 18: 05 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Multipurpose nuclear submarines and other general forces are needed not to escort the SSBNs, but to identify and squeeze out an enemy ploy from the areas of their routes and BS

    So it is their concentration in a certain place and at a certain time that will tell the enemy in what area the intelligence efforts should be concentrated in order to discover the route of the underwater missile carrier. It never occurred to you how much our strategic aircraft fly without fighter cover, which, by the way, can also be refueled in the air like the Tu-160 or Tu-95.
  3. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 6 December 2019 13: 10 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Multipurpose boats have a slightly different tactic. Let's just say not squeeze, but confuse the enemy’s brains. Something like this in general terms. With the conclusion to duty, even dizelyuhi cope.
    1. Polinom 11 December 2019 13: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      What task they will be assigned, this will be accomplished. am
      I remember and from Holuy guys landed on the US terr. I learned from the landing participant. Much later.
      With the conclusion to duty, even dizelyuhi cope.
      Ek, you swung. And why then invented the radar and special tactics for them?
  • Polinom 28 November 2019 13: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    This is a strategy around the mid-80s and late 90s. It was called, from memory, the provision of stability in a separate area of ​​the water area. Already nobody "squeezes out" anyone, they simply do not let anyone in.
    Recently, there has been global superiority, where the effectiveness is cross-border and can be multiplied if necessary. I do not want to quote myself. What I wrote a couple of years ago is almost out of date.
  • ser56 26 November 2019 16: 22 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Hunter 2
    MAPL is catastrophically lacking to cover them.

    and it will be so in the foreseeable future - inevitably! request
  • Evil Booth 30 November 2019 16: 37 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    lol the phrase is a little embarrassing - I myself don’t know, but they’re secret and who don’t know they say the opposite))) is there any stupidity in this propaganda? hi
  • Operator 25 November 2019 18: 13 New
    • 14
    • 4
    +10
    "even assuming that until now the Americans have managed to control 80-90% of all our SSBNs on combat duty (the author came across such estimates, which, however, are extremely doubtful), this does not mean at all that we should abandon the SSBN. It only means that we need to understand exactly which ships of this class need to be built, where to base them, and how to ensure their deployment and combat patrol. "

    Yes, yes, yes, the SSBN is our everything since the days of Chaim Rykovsky laughing
  • Pavel57 25 November 2019 18: 16 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Everything is logical.
  • Oden280 25 November 2019 18: 38 New
    • 9
    • 15
    -6
    Somewhere, like something, something with something. One guess and guesswork. Such questions are dealt with by people for whom this is a profession, and not by suckers.
    1. Alexey RA 25 November 2019 19: 05 New
      • 24
      • 1
      +23
      Quote: Oden280
      Somewhere, like something, something with something. One guess and guesswork.

      It would, of course, be good to base the analysis on 146% of the confirmed facts ... that's just the strategic nuclear forces - this is the area in which
      Who will give the correct answer -
      He will get ten years!
      ©
      1. ser56 26 November 2019 16: 26 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        That's just the strategic nuclear forces - this is the area in which

        1) why only 10? crying
        2) why know everything, if the analysis is quite obvious enough - the more we have the SSBN, the more forces we will be forced to spend on their protection ... request At the same time, if a missile division, for example near Irkutsk, it is enough to cover from the air and sabotage, however, like the submarine base, then for the SSBN this is not enough - minesweepers, submarine forces, nuclear submarines, etc. are needed. etc... request
    2. Avior 25 November 2019 19: 42 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      When seafarers deal with such issues, it’s generally sad.
      Read Klimov, for example.
      1. Oden280 26 November 2019 08: 01 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        If it can be read, then it is the same about nothing.
  • Leha667 25 November 2019 18: 51 New
    • 21
    • 2
    +19
    The author considers the situation only from the point of view of the technical characteristics of the nuclear submarine and from the point of view of the combat strength of the fleets.
    However, it is worth considering the issue of combat training of crews, which, unfortunately, is between "bad" and "terrible."
    The training of crews is that problem, for which for some reason the command turns a blind eye. And this is a systemic problem.
    And in conjunction with the naval doctrine, which the author already mentioned in previous articles, the situation is awful.
    You can throw slippers.
    1. dgonni 25 November 2019 21: 30 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Yes Yes! Crews have a special period of 3 months and then to the seas. The best staff approach! There, and donkey in the sea, but no sense!
    2. Polinom 28 November 2019 13: 19 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      You're right. Back in the 80s, there were many complaints about the underestimation and uncontrollability of some commanders and calculations. And this is after Paldiski.
  • Oleg Zorin 25 November 2019 18: 59 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Creepy somehow ... Dear Andrey, thanks for the article!
  • Pavel57 25 November 2019 19: 16 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    The stability of the marine component seems insufficient, at least in the first part.
  • Undecim 25 November 2019 19: 18 New
    • 20
    • 10
    +10
    The author highlights the question: "Can today our Navy ensure the secrecy of its strategic nuclear forces?"
    In this case, the author relies on the following "basis":
    - "Due to the lack of relevant statistics in open sources"
    - "the author, not being neither a submariner, nor even a military sailor
    - Alas, pros often adhere to polar points of view on this issue.
    - In other words, the author does not have reliable data on the real noise ratio of domestic and American nuclear submarines.
    That is an article on the topic "And talk?"
    1. CommanderDIVA 25 November 2019 19: 37 New
      • 8
      • 3
      +5
      The author suggests discussing this topic, because for a complete analysis he does not have reliable information, which is either written better in historiography at a research institute or in combat units of the Russian Navy.
      1. 30hgsa 25 November 2019 21: 30 New
        • 13
        • 0
        +13
        Following the discussion, the participants will be divided into two groups:
        - couch experts, who are essentially a blizzard and who are no good, because they do not know anything about the noise and invisibility of nuclear submarines
        - rare real specialists who decided to say the right things about the noise and invisibility of nuclear submarines due to knowledge and access to information
        Participants from the second group will be rewarded for periods of 10 years :)
        1. CommanderDIVA 25 November 2019 21: 46 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          That’s for sure, the author’s author of not only this article’s calculation is to get grains of reliable information in the stream of opinions of various experts
    2. businessv 25 November 2019 21: 56 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Quote: Undecim
      That is an article on the topic "And talk?"

      But we read this article with interest, and now we are discussing it! Well done Andrei, he raised an interesting topic, now we read what professionals think! good
      1. Avior 25 November 2019 22: 11 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        this?
        “Sharks” won in the low noise of “Schuk-B” - this is a myth.

        if my memory serves me about professionals
        1. businessv 26 November 2019 19: 39 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Avior
          if my memory serves me about professionals

          Well, at least there is an opportunity to read all the available opinions! drinks
  • Fan-fan 25 November 2019 19: 46 New
    • 6
    • 7
    -1
    I recently read the book Heroes of Bangor, which someone here in the comments recommended. So there the commander of our nuclear submarine (and not the bad commander who personally discovered the American nuclear submarines and monitored them) said that even the mighty USSR could not provide stealth to the SSBN, said that their submarines were hosted in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. And now it’s even worse, so we need to finish the BZHRK, which are easier to hide.
    1. mister-red 25 November 2019 20: 44 New
      • 1
      • 4
      -3
      And what am I hosting now in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk? It seems that it has long been recognized by the internal sea of ​​Russia, and being there is a violation of borders with all that it implies.
      1. Fan-fan 25 November 2019 20: 56 New
        • 7
        • 7
        0
        The area of ​​the Sea of ​​Okhotsk is 1 km², the UN Commission recognized a plot of 583 thousand square kilometers of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk as part of the Russian continental shelf. I did not find information about the whole sea. It turns out that only on these 000 square meters. km foreigners are prohibited from doing business. But this is a very small piece of the sea. Therefore, I think that the Americans still go there.
        1. Vadmir 25 November 2019 21: 59 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          It turns out that only on these 52000 square meters. km foreigners are prohibited from doing business.
          This is not territorial water, do not confuse. Economic activity is prohibited, but foreign submarines and surface ships can be there freely and with impunity. Provided that there they will not fish and drill wells.
        2. mister-red 26 November 2019 21: 17 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The continental shelf is a little different. Here is a map where everything is explained and shown on the continental shelf, which is located in the middle of the sea. http://morvesti.ru/fotobank/analytics/0001/mvr-07-16-0003.jpg
          In general, this question is quite complicated, as it turns out. However, if you look at the map, it is obvious that the Sea of ​​Okhotsk from outside has a longer land length than the sea border and it is probably not so difficult to establish tight control so that not a single submarine can slip through.
    2. Polinom 28 November 2019 13: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well Dudko is an interesting commander. Somehow a disk with him. On this topic. True, it was encrypted by a stranger Nick.
      Encryption of Poseidon.
      https://shoehanger.livejournal.com/530973.html#comments
      Still here, transferred to himself, so as not to be lost.
      http://samlib.ru/comment/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/protivolodochnaioborona-2019?PAGE=3
      Well, in the book he sometimes started foaming. Screen, if interested.

      This is from here.
      http://samlib.ru/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/protivolodochnaioborona-2019.shtml
  • Zakonnik 25 November 2019 20: 24 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    What needs to be built is a fact. And the failure of 941 projects smacks of sabotage
    1. ABM
      ABM 26 November 2019 17: 31 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      there are Ukrainian missiles there - without missiles it makes no sense to keep 50000 tons of trough (the size of Kuzyu)
  • eklmn 25 November 2019 20: 27 New
    • 5
    • 5
    0
    “Even if we assume that until now the Americans have managed to control 80-90% of all our SSBNs on combat duty (the author came across such estimates, which, however, is extremely doubtful)”
    I came across an assessment from the Russian media a couple of years ago. The Russian military track the route of the Amer Poseidons (sea hunters for submarines) and plot their route on the map. Once, in the Baltic Sea, having put the route on the map, they determined that the plane flew to the same place, made a 180 turn and flew away. And so it was repeated several times. They did not understand what was happening until the route of the Russian submarine was plotted on the same map. It turns out that she was lying at the point where the plane made a 180-turn. he found her, made sure she was there, and dumped him. I repeat - info from the Russian press.
    1. Alien From 25 November 2019 21: 45 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Do you know what is strange? Nuclear submarines do not lie on the ground, due to the cooling of the reactor ...
      1. Operator 25 November 2019 21: 53 New
        • 13
        • 3
        +10
        There are different models of nuclear submarines; new water intakes for cooling the reactor are located on top of the hull of submarines, and therefore they can lie on the ground.
      2. Nemchinov Vl 25 November 2019 23: 44 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Alien From
        Do you know what is strange? Nuclear submarines do not lie on the ground, due to the cooling of the reactor ...
        this has been repeatedly mentioned since the death of Kursk, but, -
        Quote: eklmn
        Once upon a time Baltic seaPutting the route on the map, they determined that the plane flew to the same place, made a 180 turn and flew away. And so it was repeated several times. They didn’t understand what was going on until the route was plotted on the same map. Russian submarine.
        , You seem to have not carefully read the text ... If you pay attention to the selection, then 1) - the keyword - Baltic (estimate in depth); 2) - there is no word anywhere - atomic (which, incidentally, came from paragraph (1)?! Isn’t that so?! Maybe the question is this!
      3. opus 26 November 2019 18: 56 New
        • 3
        • 9
        -6
        Quote: Alien From
        Nuclear submarines do not lie on the ground, due to the cooling of the reactor ..

        In 1994, Project 667B SSBN lay on the ground at a depth of 50 m on day 1 of the Svyatonososky Gulf of the Barents Sea for educational purposes for training submarine commanders of the 11th flotilla in command.

        In 1997, Project 949 A “K-442” submarine laid on liquid soil at a BS in the southeastern Pacific Ocean.
        Control of a nuclear submarine when laying on solid ground, surfacing from solid ground.
        The recommended conditions for laying on the ground are as follows:
        30 minutes to the point of laying on the ground:

        a) “Training alarm for laying on the ground!”;

        b) "In places to stand submarine for laying on the ground to cook!";


        - a long stay of a pl with non-kstonless CHBs on silty ground with marine vegetation can lead to dense siltation of the shear gratings, which will make them impossible to blow, and, if uncontrolled, to destroy the CBH;

        - most of the inlets of the seawater system, including the GTZA central cylinder, are located in the lower part of the hull. This leads to the fact that along with sea water, sand, silt, and other small solid particles are entrained in the systems, causing increased wear and clogging of mechanisms
    2. Polinom 28 November 2019 13: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Hence
      http://samlib.ru/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/protivolodochnaioborona-2019.shtml
  • rudolff 25 November 2019 20: 30 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    “Sharks” won in the low noise of “Schuk-B” - this is a myth.
    1. Andrey NM 26 November 2019 07: 14 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Rudolph, remember, I once told how we participated in the exercises? This is the question of the noise of the steamships of my division. In order to reason on this topic, you need to visit this topic. And it’s better not to take it. And when the article describes low-noise speeds and modes that do not correspond to reality, well then, how can all this be perceived? Artistic Whistle.
      1. rudolff 26 November 2019 08: 42 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        I agree, Andrey! Here, even for specialists, not everything is so simple and unambiguous.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2019 08: 46 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        And the conclusions of the article weakly refute? Or just know how to find fault with individual inaccuracies? :) While the author recalls in almost every paragraph that he is not an expert in the matter
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2019 10: 01 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Judging by the unrequited minus - only to find fault :))
        2. Andrey NM 26 November 2019 11: 52 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Andrey, I didn’t minus you. If not a specialist in this matter, then why all this scribble? You are trying to talk about tanks, and about planes, and about the fleet, and about tactics, etc. Well, it’s impossible to be a specialist in all areas at once.
          My native “steamer” is “Tula”. I started the service on it. And if I gave almost half of my conscious life to the fleet, I probably have some idea on this issue. But I do not consider myself any kind of specialist for the following reasons: firstly, many years have passed since I left the crew, and secondly, to be an expert at the proper level, you need to constantly monitor the topic and deal with it. Many things are simply forgotten. Often there is simply no time to engage in polemics.
          To talk about what types of weapons we need, about issues of tactics and strategy, development, we need to have information at a deeper level, and that’s all our dreams and conjectures. If you want to know my opinion on the 941 project, then I think that this was a dead end with all the positive qualities of the ship. Although they were decommissioned too early, they could still serve and serve. It is clear that the blame for this, including the collapse of the country, and the economic downturn in those years. But at the same time, they began to remake the K-64, and not one of the Sharks, under the carrier of the loshariks, although this boat is more suitable for this with its huge inter-side space. And also they lost a strategic unit.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2019 12: 01 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            As for the minus - I'm sorry, I did not immediately understand that it was someone else who promoted all my comments. And about everything else, let me thoroughly unsubscribe in the evening, now it is inconvenient from a smartphone. I would like to explain my motives, if you do not mind
          2. rudolff 26 November 2019 12: 06 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            SOX for the 941st as on the autobahn. Controversial ship. Although from an engineering point of view, certainly a masterpiece. Yes, they could serve more.
            But with BDRM sometimes there was hemorrhoids. Especially when it goes under one side. Happened and lost. A very good parachute, though hunchbacked. Brought. Actually, they are the ones who are dragging the whole service now, and not the Boreas.
            1. Andrey NM 26 November 2019 13: 09 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              So we always crawled with one samovar.
            2. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 15: 41 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              But with BDRM sometimes there was hemorrhoids. Especially when it goes under one side.


              Dudko wrote that the old BDR under one side, on the contrary, was more easily detected in the spectral analysis of noise. Type blades are clearly identified, when one screw threshes, I still don’t remember something

              A very good parachute, though hunchbacked.


              Hump ​​in the Arctic had its advantages?
              1. Andrey NM 26 November 2019 16: 56 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                BDR and BDRM with external similarity are still different ships.
                1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 20: 27 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Yes, but not that. I found a fragment.

                  At first with great distrust, but then with more confidence we worked out the recognition,
                  boat classification and tracking using only passive surveillance and
                  using the features of GAPRPC SN.
                  One by one, the characteristic unmasking signs of the field began to emerge.
                  The main discrete noise components of submarines (DS GAP) and the maxima of these components in directions relative to the ship's course; pronounced work of one line of the shaft and a clear manifestation of the shaft-lobed components, due to violation of the laminar flow on the boat propeller;
                  also, a change in the load created by the shifting of the vertical rudder for maintaining the course during operation of the power plant with one side;

                  ...
                  We found out that the recommended single-shaft mode of movement for the RPK SN violates stealth and greatly facilitates tracking of our boats.


                  Confused a little.

                  I don’t want to argue here, I wonder just why such a discrepancy
                  1. rudolff 26 November 2019 23: 02 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Yes, what a discrepancy ... We accompanied the SSBN, a couple of days removed the gap from all angles and in all modes. And then they swooped down with sci-fi faces. He himself further admits that their findings did not interest anyone. And not interested, because the bicycle was invented. Are there any differences between HAPs of a single-shaft submarine and a two-shaft submarine going one side? Well there is, of course, who would argue. Is this a unmasking sign? Yes of course. And how many unmasking signs will a double-shaft submarine run in two sides and at what distance will they be identified? BDRMy and now go on one side.
                    1. timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 12: 23 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Well, in general, they then worked with the acoustic spectrum using non-standard imported equipment. rather than just writing GAP. And honestly, I have not met evidence that before them someone did it.

                      Yes, and a trip to Bangor is behind them.
                      1. rudolff 28 November 2019 12: 43 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        After the descent of the ship into the water at the ZHI. Especially the head ones.
                      2. timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 14: 54 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        That is, Dudko does not finish?
                      3. rudolff 28 November 2019 15: 10 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        I do not know. Maybe he just got carried away with writing.
                2. Andrey NM 28 November 2019 20: 12 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Rudolph, but saw a photo of the BDRM screws in the factory? As far as I can remember, there have always been five-bladed, and recently a seven-bladed photo slipped through. Interestingly, these are real photos? Did not see?
                  1. rudolff 28 November 2019 20: 18 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    No, I didn’t pay attention. Curious. The other day, just the screws were discussed with one friend, only at 941.
                  2. rudolff 28 November 2019 20: 37 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Now I came across a K-44 BDR with seven-blade. Maybe experimented?
                  3. timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 23: 34 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    By the way, the question is - is it normal that such information gets on the Internet? Ryazan screws are easily accessible from various angles. It seems to me that this should not have happened.
                  4. rudolff 29 November 2019 00: 08 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Yes, not normal, of course. At one time, for such a long term, you could get sickly, and now ...
                    Well, how do you like the official messages of the Ministry of Defense from the category: such a one from Boreev of such a certain number began the transition to the Pacific Fleet, the expected arrival time is such. Here you have a high-quality HAP in the Beringov region for free.
                  5. timokhin-aa 29 November 2019 00: 20 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Yes, I understand how such news is to me. Just the farther, the weirder our privacy policy. They want to classify to death what should be pulled out for public discussion, and that, about the very fact of the existence of which no one even guesses should calmly lie on a heap of sites. Like screws on Ryazan.

                    Somehow the amers had a case, a sailor or a junior officer from the SAW threw an old telephone into the trash but forgot to erase the photos from the boat that were there.

                    He sat down for some decent time in the end. And in general, in the data array that the United States publishes about its aircraft, there is really no interesting technical information.

                    Everything is somehow strange here.

                    Although it’s Boreya that could be substituted if there are devices for simulating noise, for example, the “high noise mode” of the CINC or a simulator discrete some to give the enemy a false HAP.

                    But something I don’t believe in that.
                  6. rudolff 29 November 2019 10: 05 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    No, it is impossible under any circumstances to deliberately substitute a strategist with full ammunition. Firstly, we do not know exactly the possibilities of their hydroacoustics and not only it. They can measure in a wide range of fields. Bering, Chukchi complex seas in terms of navigation, and the strait itself is not easy. It is possible to observe the ship in different running modes, underwater and surface, during immersion and ascent, during the operation of the echo sounder, and if you are lucky, then sonar, ice gauge, radar. Although the escort ship should highlight by logic, but who knows. Previously, exercises were also organized along the way. And the elder on board the Hero was given for the transfer of submarines to the Pacific Fleet. The head of the school, Tomko, got the star for such a transition.
                    And provocations cannot be ruled out. Intentional collision, trawling.
                  7. timokhin-aa 29 November 2019 10: 50 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Maybe you're right. On the other hand, they still graze ours continuously. Especially new boats, which do not have a portrait.
                    But in the news, such things are announced this, of course, the bottom.
                  8. rudolff 29 November 2019 11: 03 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Yes, the bottom. Cheap show-offs.
            3. ccsr 29 November 2019 17: 00 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: rudolff
              Well, how do you like the official messages of the Ministry of Defense from the category:

              In fact, from Soviet times, treaties on the limitation of strategic offensive weapons have been in force, and we, like the Americans, are obliged to notify the opposite side of the movements of our strategic nuclear forces that fall into these treaties. It’s just that they have never been reported in the media before, and the Americans always knew from us which missile carrier is moving or where it is going to the exercises. Even the launch of any civilian “Union” with astronauts on board is known to the Americans for at least a month - these are the rules.
  • Polinom 28 November 2019 13: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Like in Okhotsk they worked with AUShka. The BDRs were only just beginning to arrive, and Podolsk was at the BS at that time. They drove him like a damn .. This is in preparation for the campaign to Bangor.
    So according to his book.
    I had pluses, but the problem is how to dump multi-ton pieces of ice afterwards and open the mine.
  • ser56 26 November 2019 16: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Andrew NM
    that it was a dead end with all the positive qualities of the ship.

    exactly! a technical masterpiece, but strategic stupidity ... request
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2019 17: 43 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    Quote: Andrew NM
    If not a specialist in this matter, then why all this scribble?

    The answer is very simple - due to the almost complete absence of open publications by professionals on these issues.
    That is, there are many people who did not serve in the fleet, but were very interested in the fleet. Personally, with my -4,5 in both eyes, I tried to pop into a sailor, but, of course, was sent - even for the 90s it was considered too much. So ... I'm interested :))))
    However, when you have been studying the history of the fleet for more than a dozen years and at the same time carefully monitoring news on the modern fleet, then gradually there is doubt that the fleet is heading in the right direction. And the further - the more such doubts. And not with me alone. But there are no justifiable answers, and even asking the pros “for a glass of tea” you often get completely contradictory information.
    In this case, of course, I do not pretend to be disclosed military secrets to me. But I (and not only me) would like to understand how our powers that be are going to develop the fleet, what tasks are set for the fleet and how these tasks are supposed to be solved. What, for example, is counted by the Moscow Region, building a series of 8 Boreevs, but not replenishing general forces, not developing a system of naval reconnaissance and target designation, EGSONPO, etc. I do not see a systematic development of the fleet. There is no pro who would say: to solve the tasks of the Navy, we need such and such a composition of the fleet, this and that will be laid down, this is in development, etc., and we are going to fight this way and that. All this is absolutely unclassified information, the same US Navy gives about itself and this and much more.
    Accordingly, there is a feeling of big problems, but what can I do, in addition to how to talk about it? Nothing. And I'm, I'm sorry, a taxpayer, whose money, including the defense of the Russian Federation, is also being built. And the role of the screw “sit and do not tweet” does not suit me.
    My articles are those of a person who is trying to collect at least some integral picture of the state of the Navy of the Russian Federation from crumbs of scattered publicly available information. And, as was quite rightly noted in the comments, my “gesheft” from such articles is the appearance in the comments of professionals who, no, no, and will share this or that unclassified, but inaccessible to mere mortal information.
    But at the same time, you need to understand what I see as my main audience of people who are not professional military sailors, but who are interested in the fleet, that is, the same as me. In other words, this is an unprofessional article for non-professionals trying to figure out what happens with our fleet :))))) For such people, my article is just a squeeze, systematization of information that goes over the network and not only, and my personal conclusions, which can make people think about something that they did not take into account before, give them some thoughts.
    In this case, of course, I do not pretend to Truth in the Last Instance and with pleasure accept and study any reasoned objections. You see, if I were to besiege the MO with my conclusions, demanding to build the fleet in such a way, and only as it was written in my articles, it would be very funny and even a little sad. But as articles for discussion, for exchange of opinions, my articles are quite suitable, and so that an unprepared reader, God forbid, does not take them for irrefutable facts, I write through the word "the author is not a professional," "according to some sources," "exactly unknown, but maybe "etc. etc.
    I believe that in this capacity on the Internet site my articles have every right to life.
    Quote: Andrew NM
    You are trying to talk about tanks, and about planes, and about the fleet, and about tactics, etc. Well, it’s impossible to be a specialist in all areas at once.

    It all depends on the level of immersion in the question. For example, one of the most brilliant historians of the Russian Empire and the USSR, Tarle Eugene Viktorovich wrote on a wide spectrum: this is the history of Italy, the French Revolution, and Napoleon Bonaparte, and Senyavin, Ushakov and Nakhimov, and the Northern War, and the Crimean ... And that no book is a masterpiece. I don’t put myself close to Tarle, for me it’s an unattainable ideal in creativity, but in my articles I don’t aim at scientific research ... hi
    1. ccsr 26 November 2019 18: 48 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      What, for example, is counted by the Moscow Region, building a series of 8 “Boreevs,” but not replenishing general forces,

      The fact that these strategic objects can do without a surface fleet when performing combat services. Certain rescue systems are needed for them, but only within reasonable limits. And then why did you decide that everything will be limited to this series only?
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      without developing a system of marine reconnaissance and target designation,

      In fact, the strategic reconnaissance of the General Staff of the General Staff gives them goals in the first place, because their main task is to defeat the continental territory of the United States and other countries, and not a group of enemy surface ships. And then why did you get the idea that specific naval reconnaissance is not conducted and is not being improved, at least from the point of view of modernizing reconnaissance ships or their orbiting satellites?
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      I do not see a systematic development of the fleet.

      And how can you see it if the development of the fleet is planned by the armament program for at least a decade, but really for longer lines? And why did you get the idea that this is not a state secret, which is known to a very narrow circle of government and military officials.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      All this is absolutely unclassified information, the same US Navy gives about itself and this and much more.

      And what, are we simply obliged to take an example from them in this matter? I don’t think so, because it was thanks to the regime of secrecy that we forced the Americans to spend huge amounts of money on developing unpromising weapons or, for example, the same shuttle, the idea of ​​which they were planted in the form of a narrowly focused printed work of a Soviet scientist in the early sixties.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      You see, if I were to besiege the MO with my conclusions, demanding to build the fleet in such a way, and only as it was written in my articles, it would be very funny and even a little sad.

      Never mind - those who determine our military policy are hardly interested in the opinions of those who write on online forums. So it doesn’t matter to them whether they condemn them on the net or not - for them it’s just an abstract discussion of people who have no idea about the real situation in this arms area.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      I believe that in this capacity on the Internet site my articles have every right to life.

      Of course they have, since so many people read them and express an opinion that does not even agree with your conclusions. Maybe this will give you the opportunity in the future to substantiate your ideas more reasonably. But do not blame those who chuckle at some of your conclusions - they have exactly the same right to their opinion.
      1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 21: 11 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The fact that these strategic objects can do without a surface fleet when performing combat services.


        Can't even close
        1. ccsr 27 November 2019 11: 43 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Can't even close

          You want to say that our SSBNs are accompanied by a surface fleet all the way to the coast of America?
          Then it’s not at all clear why they are contained, if we can use surface ships as a platform for launching ballistic missiles - at least it will be cheaper.
          I don’t see any logic in your statement, although the very fact of using a surface fleet for SSBN campaigns hardly makes sense to deny - but this is more for the safety of the campaign, and not as an operational necessity.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 November 2019 19: 22 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Quote: ccsr
        The fact that these strategic objects can do without a surface fleet when performing combat services.

        Can not. Surface ships are one of the necessary components of an anti-aircraft defense system: if you do not have them, then you do not have an effective anti-enemy submarine defense system and you enable the enemy to deploy such a system.
        Quote: ccsr
        And then why did you decide that everything will be limited to this series only?

        The question is off topic - it is unclear how to deploy these, much more?
        Quote: ccsr
        In fact, the strategic intelligence of the GRU GS gives them goals first of all

        In fact, SMRTS is needed to identify in peacetime - crowding out or escorting, and in war - the destruction of ship-hunters for the SSBNs.
        Quote: ccsr
        then why did you get the idea that specific naval reconnaissance is not conducted and is not being improved, at least from the point of view of modernizing reconnaissance ships or their orbiting satellites?

        I will not ask which reconnaissance ships are the ones who postulate the uselessness of the surface fleet. And what kind of satellite upgrades can be discussed. I’ll just say that reconnaissance ships are being built for completely different purposes, and the satellite constellation of the Russian Federation is withering before our eyes. At the same time, the Navy does not have specialized reconnaissance aircraft
        Quote: ccsr
        And how can you see it if the development of the fleet is planned by the armament program for at least a decade, but really for longer lines?

        I see shipbuilding programs for a decade :)))) The GPV 2011-2020 was opened, and today's trends and bookmarks are also well known. You can describe it in one word: a mess.
        Quote: ccsr
        And where did you get the idea that this is not a state secret

        It’s not a secret. Legislatively :)))) Although soon it may be.
        In fact, it makes sense to secret only in order not to defame the existing government with subsequent failures. The rest of the veil of secrecy can be built only against your people, but not probable opponents.
        In general, as was the case in one of the Moscow libraries in the USSR, foreign magazines are not issued for viewing, because they contain photos of Soviet secret military equipment :)))
        Quote: ccsr
        And what, are we simply obliged to take an example from them in this matter?

        Yes.
        Quote: ccsr
        I don’t think so, because it was thanks to the regime of secrecy that we forced the Americans to spend huge amounts of money on developing unpromising weapons

        What are the futile weapons of the US Navy :))))
        Quote: ccsr
        for example, the same shuttle, the idea of ​​creating which they planted in the form of narrowly focused printed work of a Soviet scientist in the early sixties

        In fact, it was like this - the US leadership requested the design of the reusable spacecraft, they did it, the leadership was horrified by its cost and refused. But the cunning gentlemen from NASA managed to cram the project, under the mock of a frankly wretched and obviously erroneous business plan. The lobby is everything :))) One of the first victories of American large corporations over common sense
        Quote: ccsr
        Never mind - those who determine our military policy are hardly interested in the opinions of those who write on online forums

        Nothing, a drop wears away a stone :)))
        Quote: ccsr
        But do not blame those who chuckle at some of your conclusions - they have exactly the same right to their opinion.

        Of course. I just really want this opinion to be expressed in the form of constructive criticism. And laugh as much as you like!
        1. ccsr 27 November 2019 20: 45 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Can not. Surface ships are one of the necessary components of the PLO system:

          They can. You are clearly not in the subject, because initially the SSBNs themselves were conceived as completely autonomous combat platforms for ballistic missiles.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The question is off topic - it is unclear how to deploy these, much more?

          First of all, you don’t know the exact calculations, which will determine the exact number of necessary SSBNs when they can deliver an unacceptable blow to the United States during campaigns.
          And secondly, you do not know the plan to write off and replace the existing SSBNs at least for the next decade.
          So to judge the number of required SSBNs can only be judged with a high degree of probability.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          and in the military - the destruction of ship-hunters for the SSBN.

          And if all the "wartime" takes less than an hour - who are you going to force out there?
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I will not ask which reconnaissance ships are the ones who postulate the uselessness of the surface fleet.

          A surface fleet can be combat and auxiliary, and you, as a "land admiral," should have known this. By the way, the functions of reconnaissance ships at one time were performed by the ships of the Academy of Sciences and other civilian vessels that were not part of the Navy.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I see shipbuilding programs for a decade :)))) The GPV 2011-2020 was opened, and today's trends and bookmarks are also well known.

          Dream, and do not forget that a program change can occur for various reasons. There was such a Ural ship, it was planned to build a couple more, and where is it all now?
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Yes.

          You can do it personally, but as they say, you can’t call anyone for naval specialists.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          What are the futile weapons of the US Navy

          I didn’t do this on purpose, but the example of the “unbreakable” F-117A invisible military aircraft in Yugoslavia showed that the Americans bought our misinformation.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In fact, it was like this - the US leadership requested the design of the reusable spacecraft, they did it, the leadership was horrified by its cost and refused.

          As it was in reality, you hardly know, because even Academic Chertok could not understand why the Americans abandoned Saturn 5 in favor of the shuttle. So you can continue to guess, but believe me, the more you make peremptory statements, the more people understand that you poorly imagine the essence of the issue.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And laugh as much as you like!

          Thank you very much for giving a reason for this.
          1. timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 12: 16 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            They can. You are clearly not in the subject, because initially the SSBNs themselves were conceived as completely autonomous combat platforms for ballistic missiles.


            Wrong. This is at the stage of combat patrol, but not at the deployment stage - Andrey told you everything correctly
            1. ccsr 28 November 2019 18: 00 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Wrong. This is at the stage of combat patrol, but not at the deployment stage - Andrey told you everything correctly

              Nonsense, because the main operational management of the General Staff is not much interested in who, how and where is deployed, the main thing for them is how much we can hit targets with what really stands on duty. So all your troubles about the deployment of those who plan a nuclear strike are not at all interested - put up with this. And all the fuss with this had a different basis, and, as I believe, it was the desire of naval commanders to have more stars on uniform, which is why the surface fleet was inflated in Soviet times.
              1. timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 19: 07 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Nonsense, because the main operational management of the General Staff is not much interested in who, how and where is deployed, the main thing for them is how much we can hit targets with what really stands on duty.


                I believe that the logic of the army is just that.
                But the problem is that this does not work with the fleet - is there no pair of important types of support? The number of targets hit will be zero for any number of missiles and their carriers.

                Always.

                This is how it works.
              2. ccsr 28 November 2019 19: 32 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                I believe that the logic of the army is just that.

                This is the logic of the General Staffists - they generally spit on all your radiance with galloons and postures, regardless of the type of troops.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                But the problem is that this does not work with the fleet

                Only one thing works with all the armed forces - this is the ratio of the effectiveness and cost of one or another kind of armed forces. The strategic nuclear forces cannot adapt to the fleet - on the contrary, the fleet must adapt to them and increase their share in the strategic nuclear forces, but having proved that they can fulfill the tasks assigned to them.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                The number of targets hit will be zero for any number of missiles and their carriers.

                Then they will abandon such an underwater fleet. But I do not believe in your conclusions, because on the contrary I believe that the future of the fleet is for the SSBN, and the tendency will be to reduce the surface combat component of the fleet and reduce other types of submarines.
              3. timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 20: 53 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Then they will abandon such an underwater fleet.


                With the surface is the same. This is generally the basic feature of the fleet - they are either ready as a whole or a set of floating targets. There is no middle ground.

                And without it, our “partners” will once put a barbed wire on their own shore, figuratively speaking.
              4. ccsr 28 November 2019 21: 07 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                With the surface is the same. This is generally the basic feature of the fleet - they are either ready as a whole or a set of floating targets. There is no middle ground.

                I look at it more optimistically - optimization is needed, it will be painful for someone, but the submarine fleet will make it so that Americans will be afraid of our SSBNs not only in the northern seas. This is the dialectic of the development of naval weapons, and we either follow this path or abandon the fleet as an element of strategic nuclear forces. But this can not be done in any case.
              5. timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 22: 02 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Optimism should be based on something realistic and not on fantasies completely divorced from reality
              6. ccsr 29 November 2019 16: 13 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Optimism should be based on something realistic and not on fantasies completely divorced from reality

                You want to say that new submarines under construction are projects divorced from reality? Oh well...
              7. timokhin-aa 29 November 2019 20: 39 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Would you know how they are built and what is crammed into it and why ...
              8. ccsr 30 November 2019 11: 04 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Would you know how they are built and what is crammed into it and why ...

                I admit that not everything is as beautiful as we would like, but nevertheless it should be done anyway if we think about the future of our children and grandchildren. By the way, what are the problems with ships, I know at least the example of the Urals, because I knew some people who “stuffed” him with technology in the eighties.
              9. Polinom 3 December 2019 11: 37 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Alexander, in my opinion you are bred. lol
                The interlocutor is clearly not in the subject, so I stopped responding to him.
                Kindergarten with educational program is not enough.
  • ccsr April 27 2020 09: 53 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    I believe that the logic of the army is just that.

    This is not the logic of the army, but the logic of military professionals who come from the realities of modern nuclear war with our main adversary, and which, according to various estimates, will last from several tens of minutes to an hour or two. Therefore, everything that does not fit into this interval will be redundant and will not bring us any benefit in any scenario.
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    The number of targets hit will be zero for any number of missiles and their carriers.

    The goals have long been explored, and they are constantly monitored, so there will be no zero option.
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    This is how it works.

    We were taught different in Soviet times, and then everything worked as it should. I don’t think that everything has changed now.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 November 2019 17: 21 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Quote: ccsr
    Thank you very much for giving a reason for this.

    Great, please. But alas, looking at your next comment you involuntarily recall a proverb that begins with the words: "Laughter for no reason ...."
    Quote: ccsr
    They can. You are clearly not in the subject, because initially the SSBNs themselves were conceived as completely autonomous combat platforms for ballistic missiles.

    Well, all Soviet admirals were also off topic, therefore, with the advent of intercontinental SLBMs, they deployed SSBNs in "bastions", under the guise of NK and aviation and multipurpose submarine forces.
    Quote: ccsr
    First of all, you don’t know the exact calculations, which will determine the exact number of necessary SSBNs when they can deliver an unacceptable blow to the United States during campaigns.

    Your objection would make sense if the SSBNs could successfully operate without MSON. But they can’t, therefore, alas, there is no sense in your words.
    Quote: ccsr
    And secondly, you do not know the plan to write off and replace the existing SSBNs at least for the next decade.

    Also me, Newton’s binomial. "Dolphins" in the years 2024-2030 will hit 40 years old (they went into operation at intervals of a year), but in fact they should go to rest yesterday. These are good, but old ships already.
    Quote: ccsr
    And if all the "wartime" takes less than an hour - who are you going to force out there?

    Get ready and re-read my comment again.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    In fact, SMRC is needed to identify and in peacetime - crowding out or escortingand in the military - the destruction of ship-hunters for the SSBN.

    Is that understandable? :)))) And if you do not do it in peacetime, then the war will end for the SSBN when trying to occupy the starting corridor. The speaker will hear the opening covers of the torpedo tubes of the enemy MAPL and ... that's it.
    Quote: ccsr
    A surface fleet can be combat and auxiliary, and you, as a "land admiral," should have known this. By the way, the functions of reconnaissance ships at one time were performed by the ships of the Academy of Sciences and other civilian vessels that were not part of the Navy.

    That is, do you think that the wars of the Academy of Sciences will provide you with intelligence? In the absence of NK? And after such nonsense do you blame me for lack of professionalism? M-d ...
    Quote: ccsr
    Dream, and do not forget that a program change can occur for various reasons.

    This is not relevant to the issue under discussion, because even the initial programs were very crooked and unbalanced.
    Quote: ccsr
    You can do it personally, but as they say, you can’t call anyone for naval specialists.

    Yeah, only the privacy issues are determined by completely different people.
    Quote: ccsr
    I didn’t do this on purpose, but the example of the “unbreakable” F-117A invisible military aircraft in Yugoslavia showed that the Americans bought our misinformation.

    You did not do this on purpose, so you managed to pile up more stupid things than usual.
    First, you talked about the fleet. And the F-117 has nothing to do with the fleet, it is the Air Force. So my thesis that we forced the United States to spend some money on the wrong weapons there failed miserably
    Secondly, there is no misinformation in the story of the F-117A in nature. If you look at the report of the air defense commander, they managed to capture the "invisibility" at a distance of about 13 km. Americans burst - no stealth will work at such distances.
    Quote: ccsr
    As it was in reality, you hardly know, because even Academic Chertok could not understand why the Americans abandoned Saturn 5 in favor of the shuttle

    You are touchingly inconsistent. That is, I can not draw conclusions about the shuttle, because "even the academician did not understand," but everything is clear to you :))))
    You have a very high opinion of yourself. Alas, completely unfounded
    1. ccsr 28 November 2019 18: 35 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Well, all Soviet admirals were also off topic, therefore, with the advent of intercontinental SLBMs, they deployed SSBNs in "bastions", under the guise of NK and aviation and multipurpose submarine forces.

      You are too young and naive, that’s why you have no idea how in the Soviet era posts were created, titles and awards were given. So I’ll tell some jacket about the Soviet military leaders, and not me — I have seen too many reorganizations and the development of different systems over the years of my service to understand what was sometimes hidden behind it. As an example, the Kiev Naval Political School, which solely trained fleet officers without the sea itself. Ask how this happened, maybe the veil and subside ...
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Your objection would make sense if the SSBNs could successfully operate without MSON.

      Remember once and for the whole life - every element of the Soviet triad of SNF was obliged to act autonomously in ANY situation, and this was laid down at a conceptual level. That is why the Strategic Missile Forces even allocated troops from the Missile Forces and artillery to a separate branch, so that they did not depend on anyone at all. The same was laid down for the SSBNs - they were left in the fleet only because they would not have pulled their infrastructure, like long-range aviation as part of the Air Force. Although I know that the issue of separating strategic nuclear forces into a single structure as part of the Ministry of Defense was still in the sixties, but because of financial and organizational difficulties this did not go away.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      That is, do you think that the wars of the Academy of Sciences will provide you with intelligence?

      They are even more likely to survive than warships, which will be immediately destroyed in the first strike. By the way, how is intelligence information received from a civilian ship of the Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin or Academician Korolev type, on which reconnaissance officers and their equipment were located, less valuable than what military reconnaissance ships receive in peacetime?
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      You did not do this on purpose, so you managed to pile up more stupid things than usual.
      First, you talked about the fleet. And the F-117 has nothing to do with the fleet, it is the Air Force.

      The lack of systemic military knowledge is a big gap in your work, which is why you don’t even understand the analogies.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Secondly, there is no misinformation in the story of the F-117A in nature.

      I’m saying that you have superficial knowledge in some issues, and don’t know on the basis of what the idea of ​​“invisibility” was born.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      That is, I can’t draw conclusions about the shuttle, because “even the academician didn’t understand”, but everything is clear and understandable to you

      Naturally, you did not read his memoirs, where he describes the story of the shuttles.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      You have a very high opinion of yourself. Alas, completely unfounded

      May be so. But it is at least based on certain knowledge gained during the service. But what your conclusions are based on is still a mystery to me.
  • Polinom 28 November 2019 13: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Strategic intelligence of the GRU
    Operational management of the Navy.
    1. ccsr 28 November 2019 19: 19 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Polinom
      Strategic intelligence of the GRU
      Operational management of the Navy.

      The main body coordinating and responsible for all military reconnaissance of the armed forces is the GRU General Staff, therefore only it provides the final information for the General Purpose General Staff - this was laid back in Soviet times. The operational command of the Navy only receives instructions from the Main Directorate of the General Staff and does not have the authority to independently plan strikes of the strategic nuclear forces of the fleet. At least it used to be, but I don’t think that now something has changed dramatically.
      1. Polinom 3 December 2019 11: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        You are mistaken, but I will not edit. So be it.
        1. ccsr 3 December 2019 16: 16 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Polinom
          You are mistaken, but I will not edit.

          You want to say that the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy can PERSONALLY order the use of strategic nuclear forces and will be executed by the submarine commander?
          As far as I understand, this in principle cannot be, not for nothing that there is the 12th Directorate of Defense Ministry.
  • ser56 26 November 2019 16: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And the conclusions of the article weakly refute?

    corny - see below ... you do not have a system analysis, but variations on a given topic - if not a secret - not from Makeevites ... wink
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2019 17: 44 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: ser56
      corny - see below ...

      I won’t even read
      Quote: ser56
      you do not have a system analysis, but variations on a given topic

      Sorry, but you absolutely do not know what system analysis is :)))
      1. ser56 26 November 2019 18: 20 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I won’t even read

        your right, live in your illusions ...
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Sorry, but you absolutely do not know what system analysis is :)))

        1) I understand that the complex appeared ... bully
        2) let's say that you can’t even imagine what I know and to what extent ... hi I’ll say that I’ve been to specialized museums in Snezhensk and Albuquerque, which I reasonably believe you will never get into ... hi however, if you are comfortable being a know-it-all, I dare not interfere ... repeat
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 November 2019 19: 25 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: ser56
          let's just say that you can’t even imagine what I know and to what extent ... hi I’ll say that I was in specialized museums

          You have just brilliantly confirmed my thesis. I tell you about system analysis - you tell me about museums :))))
          1. ser56 28 November 2019 14: 46 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            You have just brilliantly confirmed my thesis.

            in your wet dreams hi
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            I tell you about system analysis - you tell me about museums :))))

            I started a conversation about system analysis,
            Quote: ser56
            you do not have a system analysis, but variations on a given topic

            you doubted my knowledge
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Sorry, but you absolutely do not know what system analysis is :)))

            I cited some facts from my biography that tell a knowledgeable person a lot about what - for example, on the territory of which institution is the museum in Snezhinsk hi or in Albuquerque - I’m chewing VNIITF and a / b Kirkland hi
            - ergo - you are an ignoramus in this matter, you have lost the thread of discussion and slipped to fraud ... hi
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2019 08: 42 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    It may well be. Klimov wrote about this, but he seems to be not a submariner
    1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 15: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Just a submariner. True, how he and his diploma entered the submarine - an interesting question, but he served there.
      1. Andrey NM 26 November 2019 16: 47 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Just a submariner. True, how he and his diploma entered the submarine - an interesting question, but he served there.

        VVMUPPovtsev with their diplomas where only did not bring. At one time they were sent to the disposal of the headquarters of the Northern Fleet, from there - to the aviation regiment on TU-16 by navigators. I have 2 comrades, the twin brothers got so. Barely then they escaped from there. Then they took part in the Hippos. But one more did not escape. He flew as a navigator, then declined. At first, he flew a civilian as a navigator on the Tu-154, but with the departure of the “carcasses” the navigators as a class began to disappear. I had to relearn urgently. Now a Boeing commander.
  • mister-red 26 November 2019 21: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It seemed strange to me too. As far as I remember, the boat was a little noisy only at speeds less than 10 knots.
  • Operator 25 November 2019 20: 39 New
    • 15
    • 11
    +4
    The Russian Federation has its own chips for the formation of strategic nuclear forces (heavy ICBMs, light PGRKs), which provide crushing and inevitability of a retaliatory strike (missile defense, depending on external target designation and incapacitated by a hollow EMP, should not be offered).

    It is only necessary to ensure a 5-minute readiness for the launch of the Russian ICBMs after receiving the ZGRLS information about the launch of the enemy’s infantry ballistic regiment and the Russian SSBNs can be removed from service. And for insurance, we always have PGRK and there will be a Poseidon NPA.

    Therefore, it is high time to stop following the cargo cult and replicate ultra-expensive Western decisions in the area of ​​strategic nuclear forces.
    1. Vadmir 25 November 2019 22: 02 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      and there will be NPA Poseidon.
      Is Poseidon not based on submarines? And do not they need to go unnoticed to release the Poseidons?
      1. Operator 25 November 2019 22: 06 New
        • 12
        • 10
        +2
        Based on the range of the Poseidon anti-aircraft missile with a multi-million km nuclear warhead, the use of nuclear submarines is clearly a temporary solution during the development of new technology.
        1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 00: 45 New
          • 9
          • 2
          +7
          NPO "Poseidon" with nuclear weapons in several million km


          Well, when will they be allowed to go online through the medical board?
          1. Oleg Zorin 26 November 2019 02: 25 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            They won’t let you in ...
            1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 13: 44 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              They’ll let me through, but such a thing will destroy the ranks of VO commentators ... laughing
              1. ser56 26 November 2019 16: 33 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                They’ll let me through

                maybe based on the tasks of misinformation of partners, you should be banned? love
              2. illi 26 November 2019 17: 31 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Yes, you flatter yourself. You have in each article “Urgently !!! The Americans will soon unleash the atomic armageddon and attack Russia. Because they don’t like the Chinese. You would have no help for accessing the Internet.”
                1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 20: 07 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  They will not untie soon, but have the technical ability, cause and actively build up the potential of such actions.

                  It is a fact. Fuses on the W76-1 are a fact. Removing restrictions on ultra-small charges is a fact. Modern B-61 to improve accuracy - a fact.

                  This is already real or is happening or has happened. The fact that your consciousness defends itself against these facts by refusing to believe in them is your problem and nothing more.
                  1. ser56 27 November 2019 15: 11 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Not soon untied, but have the technical ability

                    She appeared in 1945 ... request
                    1. timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 12: 17 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Well, count how many times they were just about enough to hit. And they wanted
                      1. ser56 28 November 2019 14: 48 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        they were just about enough to hit. And they wanted

                        they want now, but they are afraid ... hi so you do not need to flog a fever - although complacency is not reasonable ...
                      2. timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 14: 57 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Then they were missing a little bit all the time. We didn’t have time here with bombs, here with green missiles in Europe and so on to Korea.

                        We walked along the edge of the second half of the 40s
                      3. ser56 28 November 2019 17: 12 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Then they were missing a little bit all the time.

                        this is a competent strategy ... hi
                      4. timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 17: 14 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        This is a game of Russian roulette. In fact, lucky then.
                      5. ser56 28 November 2019 17: 46 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        . In fact, lucky then.

                        as there Suvorov - Once luck, two luck ... request
      2. Oleg Zorin 28 November 2019 00: 16 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Sorry, I sent the wrong remark. Lyapsus manus.
      3. Polinom 28 November 2019 13: 52 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Can not wait. good
  • Vladimir_2U 26 November 2019 04: 17 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    In a recent article, a strong argument was made (among many) for maintaining the SSBN, namely, the degradation of the managing elite of the likely enemy, for which the PGRK, the silo ICBM, but not SSBNs, may become empty words.
    1. SVD68 26 November 2019 07: 29 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      In some recent article, a strong argument was made (among many) for maintaining the SSBN, namely, the degradation of the ruling elite of a potential enemy

      This was in a previous article by the author of this article. ;)
    2. illi 26 November 2019 17: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Like an elitist who thinks that all atomic missiles can only be deployed on atomic submarines. And if the enemy does not have atomic submarines then there is no danger, he can be wetted. Well, yes, this is the author who wrote in the upcoming article. But something tells me that this is Zadornovskoye "Well stupid!" makes us dumb. So the author fell under this Zadornovsky error.
  • ser56 26 November 2019 16: 32 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Operator
    Therefore, it is high time to stop following the cargo cult and replicate ultra-expensive Western decisions in the area of ​​strategic nuclear forces.

    Bravo! love
  • ccsr 26 November 2019 18: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Operator
    It is only necessary to ensure a 5-minute readiness for the launch of Russian ICBMs after receiving the data of the ZRLS about the launch of the enemy’s infantry ballistic regiment

    It is too late - we will not have a chance to survive, even though we will destroy the enemy later. Therefore, the task is to open preparations for a nuclear war even earlier in order to try to forestall their strike by launching our strategic nuclear forces. It is not in vain that a bet on hypersonic weapons is being made - this is a noteworthy factor.
  • max702 25 November 2019 20: 57 New
    • 8
    • 7
    +1
    Another attempt to make a good face with a bad game .. Yes, to put it mildly, everything is bad and the underwater component of the nuclear triad is not able to complete the task, but it’s okay to continue ..
    The trouble is that it the dearest and as if not the most ineffective part of our strategic nuclear forces .. Question for what? So as not to lose competencies? But will it even be possible to catch up with a probable adversary in this direction? It was impossible to determine by AUG not theoretically not practically, now it’s up to the SSBN. The main question is, can other parts of the strategic nuclear forces be able to compensate for the loss of this component of the triad? Let's start with the aerospace system, a massive modernization of strategic aviation is underway, and since this tool is as universal as possible, there is a sense in it .. Even if (I hope) they never use it for its intended purpose, it’s quite possible to use it with ordinary weapons, progress in rocket technology is easy this allows without the slightest risk to the carriers, therefore, the business is good and correct. We turn to the Strategic Missile Forces, everything is just a support and the only reliable guarantee of the inevitability of our nuclear strike, that it won’t stop, not a preventive strike, not weather conditions, not a mythical missile defense in eastern Europe or the USA .. Accordingly, with new weapons that are methodically supplied this type of weaponry will occupy a leading role in our strategic nuclear forces .. Therefore, if there is any sense in strategic aviation, then it does not exist in the SSBN! Technological, strategic and tactical lag puts an end to this segment of strategic nuclear forces .. it is expensive to useless, and therefore it is not necessary .. Funds are better spent on the same aerospace forces (they will always find work), as well as missile technologies and strategic missile forces. Two components of strategic nuclear forces are enough, nothing to spray small resources, we are not the USSR, the possibilities are much more modest (although getting rid of 14 weights will still need to be calculated as it actually is). The SSBNs were relevant during the time of the Strategic Missile Forces' weakness (and this problem was solved in the 80s), but these days have passed, and colossal investments in the fleet remained, therefore, they tried to use it somehow, today there is almost nothing left from the legacy of the USSR and the question is whether to start this a new body, and is it possible to get along with other no less (in fact, much more) reliable tools .. Moreover, it will be cheaper and more practical for the aircraft as a whole ..
    1. 30hgsa 25 November 2019 21: 18 New
      • 16
      • 3
      +13
      From the point of view of common sense, to solve the problem of containment, silo-based ICBMs are enough - they are cheap, effective if there are a lot of them and at least 25% of their warheads reach the enemy - that's all, put out the light, how the state will cease to exist, but ...

      But we are dealing with people, people tend to believe in their own propaganda. The presence of only silo-based ICBMs creates a psychological problem - in the Pentagon’s armchair or in the oval office, he can sincerely believe in his missile defense and risk it ...

      The presence in the composition of nuclear forces - long-range aviation with long-range missiles, silo ICBMs, PGRK, the SSBN makes one think about the possibility of counteracting all threats and sharply reduces the likelihood of inter-ear ganglion failure by the general and the US leadership. Poseidons with petrels serve the same purpose - it’s scary when an untracked torpedo with a bomb on board can fly somewhere - and that’s why it’s for fighting :)

      So the multiplicity of carriers is necessary - at least from the point of view of the psychology of decision-makers - to believe that they can intercept all carriers and missiles launched from them, if there are many types of carriers, it is much more complicated.
      1. Operator 25 November 2019 21: 40 New
        • 14
        • 14
        0
        Plyusanul your comment - the correct consideration of the psychology of the enemy in the strategy of intimidation is priceless.

        With one amendment, in the near future the Burevestnik UAV with a YAWRM will appear at the disposal of the Russian Aerospace Forces, the launcher of which can be performed in the form factor of an ordinary large-capacity container, and the time of continuous barrage in the air in a special period will be about a year.
        1. Good_Anonymous 25 November 2019 23: 27 New
          • 12
          • 3
          +9
          Quote: Operator
          UAV "Burevestnik" with YaPVRD, the launcher of which can be performed in the form factor of a conventional large-capacity container, and the time of continuous barrage in the air in a special period will be about a year.


          Say no to drugs.
          1. illi 26 November 2019 17: 55 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well, the guarantor also guaranteed. Like there is such a thing, shiver adversaries. No drugs I'm afraid he will not say.
            1. Good_Anonymous 26 November 2019 21: 20 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Even a guarantor did not promise a year in the air.
        2. Vladimir_2U 26 November 2019 04: 20 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          A year in the air ?! Yes, gnome-pilots food will end in a month! ))) The year you turned down is simply unbelievable, the nafig turbine will fall apart, not to mention the burning out of the core.
          1. Operator 26 November 2019 12: 31 New
            • 10
            • 2
            +8
            Where is the turbine located at the ramjet and what is the life of the nuclear reactor at the same nuclear submarine? laughing
            1. Vladimir_2U 27 November 2019 03: 11 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              How is the power from the reactor transferred to the ramjet of a subsonic missile and what size and degree of load of the reactor in a nuclear submarine?
              1. Vladimir_2U 27 November 2019 03: 28 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Nuclear ramjet engine gives increased radioactive "exhaust", ramjet engine on subsonic has the lowest efficiency, here are the arguments against ramjet.
                1. Operator 27 November 2019 12: 24 New
                  • 10
                  • 0
                  +10
                  Not power is transferred from the nuclear reactor to the YNVRD, but heat is transferred by placing the heat exchanger of the reactor primary circuit in the YNVRD heating chamber. Therefore, there are no movable elements (including a turbine) in the YNVRD from the word in general.

                  A radioactive trail (from an aerosol induced by neutron flux radiation) is formed in the case of using a direct-flow nuclear reactor with air cooling (as in the American Pluto cruise missile). At Burevestnik, a reactor with a liquid metal coolant is used (according to a statement by V. Putin about the uniformity of the reactor with Poseidon) and a heat exchanger in the YaPRD heating chamber.
                  1. Vladimir_2U 27 November 2019 13: 57 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    What makes you think that it is ramjet? “Pluto” was supposed to drive at least 2M. The ramjet engine at the subsonic is inefficient in contrast to the turbojet engine, and it has at least a compressor turbine. And what is the heat carrier chasing from the core to heat exchange? Hardly natural circulation. So some kind of pump, it is possible that the turbine. The same type (allegedly) with the rector of Poseidon directly shouts about the spent mechanical removal of power.
                    1. Operator 27 November 2019 14: 15 New
                      • 10
                      • 0
                      +10
                      The speed of the "Petrel" is 2 M (as in the Tu-144).

                      The lead coolant is pumped in the first heat sink of a nuclear reactor by an MHD pump powered by a thermoelectric generator mounted in a heat exchanger of the first / second circuit.

                      Differences between YaSU "Poseidon" and "Petrel" begin with a second circuit:
                      - in the first case, distilled water is used as a heat carrier, in the second case, outside air is used;
                      - in the first case, there is a TZA with a third circuit with a coolant in the form of sea water, in the second case, a TZA and a third circuit are absent as unnecessary.
                      1. Vladimir_2U 27 November 2019 14: 21 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Fuck, where did you get such data, people are racking their brains on what and how, and you just do not have technological maps. Everywhere they write about undersound and you're talking about 2M, where is the link? About MHD by the way did not think.
                      2. Operator 27 November 2019 14: 29 New
                        • 10
                        • 0
                        +10
                        If the Tu-144 from lumen didn’t soar itself and flew 2 M, then why should the Petrel be worse?

                        In addition, V. Putin (unlike "everyone") technically correctly characterized the similarity of the reactors, rather than the nuclear power plants of Poseidon and Petrel.
                      3. Vladimir_2U 27 November 2019 14: 36 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Where did you get the data about Mach 2 ?? What does the Tu-144 have to do with it? What they showed and wrote about the Petrel is everywhere a typical subsonic !!
                      4. Vladimir_2U 27 November 2019 14: 41 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Tu-144 flew on a nuclear ramjet?
                      5. Operator 27 November 2019 14: 47 New
                        • 10
                        • 1
                        +9
                        What is the problem of supersonic JVPRD? The Americans won’t run their direct-flow tank on Pluto 60 years ago and abandoned it only because of sharp fluctuations in the reactivity of the reactor when the aerosol concentration in the outside air changed.

                        And we, therefore, the Petrel with the heat exchanger in the heating chamber of the YaPVRD did not "smogli"?
                      6. Vladimir_2U 27 November 2019 14: 56 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Do you understand that ramjet on subsonic works almost nothing? Photos of the Petrel are clearly shown on its subsonic aerodynamics, and you rub everything about supersonic. In Pluto, the air had to be blown through the active zone, but on the Petrel through the heat exchanger (supposedly), it is not clear to you that the efficiency even at the same speed, which is close, the Petrel would be much worse in this case.
                        Quote: Operator
                        abandoned it only because of sharp fluctuations in the reactivity of the reactor due to changes in aerosol concentrations in flight
                        This is generally nonsense, they refused because they were even afraid to test in the air. What is the aerosol concentration? Is this a spice?
                      7. Operator 27 November 2019 15: 09 New
                        • 10
                        • 0
                        +10
                        A speed of 2 M is the boundary of the use of aluminum alloys as the structural material of a glider of supersonic aircraft, more than 2 M is already steel and titanium.

                        The Burevestnik nuclear power plant has a thermal power of 30 MW with a heat transfer coefficient between 1000-degree lead and 100-degree air ~ 66%, i.e. ramjet power is 20 MW - enough to disperse a cruise missile to a speed of 2 M.

                        Regarding fluctuations in the reactivity of the direct-flow Pluto reactor (beyond the scope of reactor regulation) due to changes in the concentration of aerosol in the outside air, information is available on specialized (non-journalistic) websites on the Internet.
                      8. Vladimir_2U 27 November 2019 15: 19 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        You are either trolling, or in a state of altered consciousness, or a third. The argument is simply meaningless.
                      9. Operator 27 November 2019 15: 23 New
                        • 10
                        • 2
                        +8
                        So far, you have not brought a single technical argument in defense of your point of view, which characterizes you as a humanitarian, far from the essence of the issue under consideration.

                        Therefore, I wish you success in your independent study of the subject of discussion.
                      10. Vladimir_2U 27 November 2019 16: 29 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        You dragged Tu-144 as an argument in a ramjet or turbojet engine dispute installed on a petrel. It's enough.
                      11. Operator 27 November 2019 16: 35 New
                        • 11
                        • 2
                        +9
                        Themselves, only yourself.
                    2. Vladimir_2U 27 November 2019 17: 07 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Quote: Operator
                      So far, you have not given a single technical argument in defense of your point of view
                      You brought the parameters sucked from your finger, ignore simple logic, don’t understand the difference between the aerodynamics of subsonic and supersonic, you can’t even give links. But the connoisseur writhe. Very familiar type.
  • max702 25 November 2019 21: 56 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: 30hgsa
    But we are dealing with people, people tend to believe in their own propaganda. The presence of only silo-based ICBMs creates a psychological problem - in the Pentagon’s armchair or in the oval office, he can sincerely believe in his missile defense and risk it ...

    So, as it were, for missile defense systems, mine complexes are of the greatest complexity and threat .. Silos have plenty due to a powerful carrier of means to overcome missile defense, and this is a fundamental difference from other strategic nuclear forces. Therefore, if you are not afraid of silos, then the rest of the media should be perceived as a much lesser threat .. If missile defense systems on ships can fend off the sea component, the air force, then silos will stop nothing! That is, your conclusion is illogical, if the greatest threat is not terrible, then the least will not bother at all and a decision will be made ..
    1. 30hgsa 25 November 2019 22: 43 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      It doesn't matter which is the most dangerous. I say - psychology. People are afraid of snakes and sharks and are not afraid to cross the road in the wrong place, although snake bites, especially sharks, will kill people thousands of times less than they hit on the roads. You can believe that it will turn out to cover all silos with the first blow, and that it will fly off to destroy missile defense ... But if there are a lot of types of carriers, even if some are easy to neutralize, an impressive list of measures arises in the head more easily than silos, and fear, and suddenly something will not work. It does not work mat. logics.
      1. max702 25 November 2019 22: 50 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Quote: 30hgsa
        It doesn't matter which is the most dangerous. I say - psychology.

        Psychology does not work in such issues (such a level of decision-making), but a clear analysis of prospects and threats is underway, and decision-making is already based on it ..
        Quote: 30hgsa
        You can believe
        But this does not work at all in principle, we will leave the question of faith to the servants of the cult .. Those who make decisions about the end of the world categorically do not believe in God ..
        1. 30hgsa 25 November 2019 23: 01 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Well then tell me what logical analysis Hitler and his general staff were based on when they decided to start a war against the gigantic and most powerful country of the USSR — moreover, on two fronts in the presence of an unpressed Britain — and they themselves declared war on the USA in December 1941. , just then, when the Red Army launched a counteroffensive near Moscow (although Japan did not declare war on the USSR).
          1. max702 25 November 2019 23: 56 New
            • 0
            • 3
            -3
            Quote: 30hgsa
            Well then tell me on what logical analysis Hitler and his

            Better tell me how it ended .. Or do you think the sucker is not a mammoth will not die out?
            And then there was no great peacemaker called nuclear weapons ..
            1. 30hgsa 25 November 2019 23: 58 New
              • 4
              • 1
              +3
              It ended up on the basis of the belief of the General Staff of Germany and Hitler in their own forces that the most bloody and terrible war in history was unleashed. The logic of this war should not have been, at least in this form. But logic didn’t play, Germany lost the war, tens of millions of people died. Who told you that the US General Staff is better than the German?
              1. max702 26 November 2019 00: 19 New
                • 1
                • 3
                -2
                No, it ended with the complete defeat of Germany, and the present existence of such a payment for that defeat, the Germans were neutered and sheared until now .. She has no chance to become a great power, unless she goes to the Alliance and does not enter into an alliance with Russia .. Generals in the USA are clearly smarter and I repeat, everything has changed too much in the world so that because of the faith of someone to jeopardize the well-fed existence of the powerful of this world .. The United States can stupidly eliminate nuclear weapons arsenals as unnecessary, no one is going to attack them, and the US Armed Forces will practically cope with traditional methods anyone again except nuclear super powers to which we belong.
                1. 30hgsa 26 November 2019 00: 22 New
                  • 3
                  • 1
                  +2
                  In the garden elderberry, and in Kiev uncle.
                  You have a fact before your eyes when a whole country with a whole general staff got involved in the war in a pre-losing configuration ... although there were no logical reasons for this :) And you are all about logic ....
                  Well, your faith in the minds of US generals touches, honestly :) This is precisely faith.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                2. mister-red 26 November 2019 21: 25 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Generals in the US are clearly smarter

                  Strange, I have the impression in recent years that it seems that they are not at all friends with brains there. As some general blurts out something, you think what oak fell off.
              2. ccsr 26 November 2019 12: 15 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: 30hgsa
                Who told you that the US General Staff is better than the German?

                The committee of chiefs of staff on the level of training may not be better than the German general staff of the times of the Wehrmacht, but the Americans are well informed about the consequences of a massive nuclear attack from the USSR-Russia, and therefore the Germans will not repeat the mistakes. And I'm sure of it, for some reason ...
          2. Alexey RA 26 November 2019 10: 39 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: 30hgsa
            Well then tell me what logical analysis Hitler and his general staff were based on when they made the decision to start a war against the gigantic and most powerful country of the USSR

            On the pre-war mobilization plan of the USSR. The mass formation of new compounds was not envisaged - only the deployment and replenishment of existing ones.
            And also on the experience of past Wehrmacht wars, when the enemy country, which had lost the best part of the cadre army, could no longer continue meaningful resistance.
            Well, what about powerful country Reich intelligence had great doubts. Moreover, it cannot be said that they are unreasonable - even if the IVS following the results of the Soviet-Finnish admit that the USSR does not have a modern army.
            1. Operator 26 November 2019 12: 37 New
              • 12
              • 2
              +10
              Where can I read about the pre-war mobilization plan of the USSR?
              1. Operator 26 November 2019 13: 57 New
                • 12
                • 2
                +10
                http://militera.lib.ru/research/gorkov2/02.html
                "... approved on February 12, 1941. The plan provided for: the number of the Red Army in wartime - 8 people, departments of rifle corps - 682, departments of mechanized corps - 827, divisions - 65, including 30 tank and 304 motorized ", - but it was necessary to approve +60 divisions? laughing
                1. ser56 26 November 2019 16: 38 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  And you can’t say that unreasonable

                  otherwise they would not have reached Moscow in 41 ... request
                2. Alexey RA 26 November 2019 16: 55 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  So I'm not talking about that. The formation of new compounds by the mobplan was not provided for - it was planned to fight with the existing compounds, replenishing them as needed.
                  That is, if you encircle at the border a large part of the army in the Western theater of operations, then only a few formations of the internal districts and reserves transferred from Asian territory can be found. And if you break them down, then all the retreats left for reformation, there are no other connections, you can safely move. Instead, first the “border” and NKVD divisions crawled out from somewhere, then the militia, and then the “three hundredth” rifle divisions massively went.
          3. ser56 26 November 2019 16: 36 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: 30hgsa
            Well then tell me what logical analysis Hitler was based on.

            he himself told his ambassador - I had no other way out ... request
      2. Good_Anonymous 25 November 2019 22: 50 New
        • 3
        • 5
        -2
        Quote: 30hgsa
        You can believe that it will turn out to cover all silos with the first blow, and that it will fly down


        Do you really think that a decision on a nuclear strike is made on the basis of faith?
        1. 30hgsa 25 November 2019 22: 55 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Yes. I am sure about that. :)))
          If decisions were made on the basis of logic, Hitler would not attack the USSR.
          Remember Forrestal and his jump from the window of the psychiatric hospital. Remember Reagan and his broadcast.
          And then think about the adequacy of the people who make decisions.
          1. Good_Anonymous 25 November 2019 23: 01 New
            • 3
            • 5
            -2
            Quote: 30hgsa
            If decisions were made on the basis of logic, Hitler would not attack the USSR.


            Have you ever thought that a sober calculation just crept into Hitler's mistake? And that Hitler’s calculation was sober, says that he almost succeeded.

            Quote: 30hgsa
            Remember Forrestal and his jump from the window of the psychiatric hospital.


            You yourself are guided by myths. That explains a lot.
            1. 30hgsa 25 November 2019 23: 04 New
              • 6
              • 2
              +4
              No I do not think so. If a mistake had crept into his sober calculation, he would not have declared the USA war in December 1941 just after the start of the Red Army counter-offensive near Moscow, in 1942 he would not have gone over to Stalingrad, but using a favorable environment would have made peace on favorable terms, and in 1943 would not lane on Kursk in a doomed attack. There was no sober calculation, there was faith in one's own strength.

              PS: what about myths, and what did Forrestal not jump out of the window? If logic worked for you, you would notice the absence in my post of references to the cry attributed to Forrestol during the jump: "Russians are coming." There is no evidence that he shouted it during suicide, but suicide itself is a fact and it is written about this in a post. And here it turns out YOU PERSONALLY cannot analyze the short text, but you think that everything is decided by logic :) Funny.
              1. Good_Anonymous 25 November 2019 23: 39 New
                • 2
                • 4
                -2
                Quote: 30hgsa
                about myths, and what did Forrestal not jump out of the window?


                As for the myths that Forrestal was the Minister of Defense at that time (you didn’t say this explicitly, but you wouldn’t just remember the insane psycho, right?). At the time of his death, Forrestal had already been dismissed. This is not to say that the decision on a nuclear strike would be made by a large group of people, and not by Forrestal personally.

                Quote: 30hgsa
                And here it turns out YOU PERSONALLY cannot analyze the short text


                I don’t make decisions about the beginning of the war, so it’s unrivaled.
                1. 30hgsa 25 November 2019 23: 44 New
                  • 5
                  • 1
                  +4
                  I said that he jumped out of the window of the asylum. A person in a psychiatric hospital can no longer be the Minister of Defense. Turn on the logic.

                  At the time of his death, Forrestal was retired, only mental illness did not develop in a day or even a month. And Forrestal was placed in a psychiatric hospital five FIVE DAYS after his resignation. He decided to fly two months after that. Are there any doubts that the US Secretary of Defense was a diagnosed psycho? :) Moreover, he was clearly mentally abnormal even when he was in office.
                  1. Good_Anonymous 25 November 2019 23: 52 New
                    • 4
                    • 7
                    -3
                    Quote: 30hgsa
                    I said that he jumped out of the window of the asylum. A person in a psychiatric hospital cannot be the Minister of Defense.


                    Those. he did not have access to power.

                    Quote: 30hgsa
                    Are there any doubts that the US Secretary of Defense was a diagnosed psycho? :)


                    Yes of course. Your opinion is against the opinions of Roosevelt and Truman - I don’t even know what to choose.

                    Quote: 30hgsa
                    Moreover, he was clearly mentally abnormal even when he was in office.


                    Yes, you are also a doctor.

                    And you ignore "a decision about a nuclear strike would be made by a large team of people, not by Forrestal personally."
                  2. 30hgsa 25 November 2019 23: 54 New
                    • 6
                    • 2
                    +4
                    If a person holds the post of Minister of Defense, and five days after his resignation, he is sent to a psychiatric hospital for treatment, and after another two months he jumps from the window ... this means that two months before the jump and five days before hospitalization - when he is still was a minister - did he have a cuckoo in place?

                    Stop explaining, you are trying to make excuses and pull an owl on the globe; it looks ridiculous, more honest and more logical :))) it would be easy to admit that you are wrong.
                  3. Good_Anonymous 25 November 2019 23: 58 New
                    • 2
                    • 7
                    -5
                    Quote: 30hgsa
                    If a person holds the post of Minister of Defense, and five days after his resignation, he is sent to a psychiatric hospital for treatment, and after another two months he jumps from the window ... this means that two months before the jump and five days before hospitalization - when he is still was a minister - did he have a cuckoo in place?


                    Suicide after two months in a psychiatric hospital in the 40s does not mean anything.

                    Quote: 30hgsa
                    Stop explaining


                    This word is spelled "to explain."

                    Quote: 30hgsa
                    more honest and logical :))) it would be easy to admit that you are wrong.


                    What is wrong in that you are guided by myths? I still think so.
                  4. Ka-52 26 November 2019 07: 53 New
                    • 5
                    • 0
                    +5
                    What is wrong in that you are guided by myths? I still think so.

                    you don’t think, but you are grimacing. Trying to suck the "arguments" out of the finger to refute quite logical conclusions. And argue from the principle of "just to argue." I’m not even surprised that when the "arguments" began to end, the most "weighty" methods of the dispute came into play - to begin to convict the opponent of a poor knowledge of spelling.
                  5. Good_Anonymous 26 November 2019 09: 59 New
                    • 1
                    • 4
                    -3
                    Quote: Ka-52
                    Trying to suck the "arguments" out of the finger to refute quite logical conclusions.


                    The statement "I'm sure of it" is definitely not logic.

                    Quote: Ka-52
                    the most “weighty” methods of the dispute came into play - to begin to convict the opponent of a poor knowledge of spelling.


                    When trying to convict an opponent of clowning, at least spell the words correctly smile
              2. Avior 26 November 2019 00: 16 New
                • 2
                • 4
                -2
                If a person holds the post of Minister of Defense, and five days after his resignation, he is sent to be treated in a psychiatric hospital

                you confuse cause and effect. Resignation due to illness. Nervous exhaustion is a common problem of workaholics
              3. 30hgsa 26 November 2019 00: 18 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                And what am I confusing? I affirm that the US Department of Defense was led for some time by a mentally unhealthy person. And according to your logic, if the resignation was the result of a mental illness ... then Forrestal, when he was in office, was mentally healthy? :)
              4. Avior 26 November 2019 00: 41 New
                • 2
                • 5
                -3
                confuse that
                The U.S. Department of Defense was led for some time by a mentally ill person.

                was Forrestal mentally healthy when he was in office?

                Do you have evidence to the contrary?
              5. 30hgsa 26 November 2019 00: 54 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                It is full of indirect. The Secretary of Defense wrote about the appalling mental state of the Secretary of Defense before his resignation.

                In 1949, angered over Forrestal's continued opposition to his defense economization policies, and concerned about reports in the press over his mental condition, Truman abruptly asked Forrestal to resign.
                https://www.wikiwand.com/en/James_Forrestal
              6. Avior 26 November 2019 01: 24 New
                • 2
                • 7
                -5
                newspapers write a lot of things.
                these are not doctors.
                medical opinion is known and it makes no sense to add newspaper inventions to him from the time of the election campaign.
              7. 30hgsa 26 November 2019 01: 26 New
                • 4
                • 1
                +3
                Everyone lies. One you know the truth :) All proofs are wrong. You don’t have them at all, but the truth is yours. You left and were going to end the conversation? So come on - be a man - a man said - a man did :)))))
              8. Avior 26 November 2019 01: 34 New
                • 2
                • 6
                -4
                and, yes, you are also a provocateur, and not only write rudeness and nonsense in huge quantities.
                forget the nonsense that you litter the branch here.
                this is a declassified official report of his death

                his diagnosis is depression.
                https://findingaids.princeton.edu/collections/MC051/c04531
                hi
              9. 30hgsa 26 November 2019 01: 54 New
                • 4
                • 1
                +3
                1. I read the entire report. Unlike you. It does not say anything about the period before admission to the hospital - they were not interested. They investigated death and they needed a diagnosis at the time of death, as well as to exclude negligence. So the report is past, it is about nothing.

                2. About the diagnosis - if you do not know, depression is a mental illness. Smoke ICD.
              10. Avior 26 November 2019 02: 32 New
                • 2
                • 6
                -4
                That is, evidence that he had at least depression during the service, no.
                So this was originally said.
                If there are official documents confirming that he had a mental illness during the service, bring them.
                But no, do not litter the forum with meaningless posts.
  • max702 25 November 2019 23: 58 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    This comrade is trying desperately to pull an owl on the globe .. Owl is very painful ..
  • max702 26 November 2019 00: 06 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    I mean it
    Quote: max702
    If a person holds the post of Minister of Defense, and five days after his resignation, he is sent to be treated in a psychiatric hospital
  • 30hgsa 26 November 2019 00: 16 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    That is, if a person was so sick that he was not even treated on an outpatient basis, but was placed in a psychiatric hospital for treatment, then six days before that he was mentally normal? :)
  • Avior 26 November 2019 00: 39 New
    • 2
    • 6
    -4
    Are you a specialist in psychiatry too?
    A nervous breakdown from overload, but he did.
    The diagnosis of nervous exhaustion, then depression.
    The usual set of workaholic. Very common.
  • 30hgsa 26 November 2019 01: 02 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Presidential Disability: Papers, Discussions, and Recommendations ... Page 54
    https://books.google.ru/books?id=6m75P0WpGHMC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=James+Forrestal+disease&source=bl&ots=uZkG0I01wt&sig=ACfU3U2GJA1gmMeVgVBhMbWKHIr--JrYxA&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj41rmcrobmAhXB4aYKHSCDBp44ChDoATAHegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=James%20Forrestal%20disease&f=false
  • Avior 26 November 2019 01: 04 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    On request https://books.google.com/books?id=6m75P0WpGHMC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq ... nothing was found.
  • 30hgsa 26 November 2019 01: 05 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    And you do not drive into the Google search bar, but into the address bar. It's that simple ... can you handle it? :))
  • Avior 26 November 2019 01: 17 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -4
    for information, with those who pokes me, I do not communicate. No interest.
    As a rule, these people are not very smart.
    try again.
    Yes, and it makes no sense to watch, by the way
  • 30hgsa 26 November 2019 01: 19 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    OK. All clear. You then rested your horns for hours in the end merged, but you don’t want to admit wrong :) Well, to hell with you. :))) Be, Pinocchio, there really is nothing to talk about with you.
  • Avior 26 November 2019 01: 36 New
    • 1
    • 5
    -4
    No, I’ll read your nonsense. I have nothing to do
    there is an official report, I gave you a link, study.
  • Good_Anonymous 26 November 2019 01: 14 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Your link just says that Forrestal was depressed:


    Had he been treated like an ordinary seaman, this talented public servant might well have recovered from his suicidal depression


    As stated above, "the usual set of workaholic."
  • 30hgsa 26 November 2019 01: 17 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    ICD 10 - International Classification of Diseases of the 10th Revision
    Classes MKB-10 / F00-F99 / F30-F39
    MOOD DISORDERS [AFFECTIVE DISORDERS] (F30-F39)
    Depressive episode (F32)

    In mild, moderate, or severe typical cases of depressive episodes, the patient has a lowered mood, decreased energy, and decreased activity. Reduced ability to rejoice, have fun, be interested, concentrate. Expressed fatigue is common, even after minimal effort. Usually disturbed sleep and decreased appetite. Self-esteem and self-confidence are almost always reduced, even with mild forms of the disease. Often there are thoughts of one's own guilt and worthlessness. A low mood, which changes little day by day, does not depend on the circumstances and may be accompanied by so-called somatic symptoms, such as loss of interest in the environment and loss of sensations that give pleasure, wake up in the morning several hours earlier than usual, and increase depression in the morning, severe psychomotor retardation, anxiety, loss of appetite, weight loss and decreased libido. Depending on the number and severity of symptoms, a depressive episode can be classified as mild, moderately severe, and severe.
  • Avior 26 November 2019 01: 42 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Oh, you’ve already become a psychiatrist.
    ICD-10 with its terminology and classification was adopted in 1989, and therefore to apply it to the diagnosis of a doctor of the 40s is an absurd undertaking.
    And they themselves read that accumulated?
    These are the symptoms of half the population .....
  • 30hgsa 26 November 2019 02: 03 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Well, take the ICD-6. ICD-6 314 Neurotic-depressive reaction - diagnosis from the report - mental illness.
    You’re like a donkey from a cartoon, you don’t understand why.
  • Avior 26 November 2019 02: 26 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    And what from this?
    They immediately wrote to you that after leaving his post they found a depression.
    And you argue about the same hour.
  • Good_Anonymous 26 November 2019 01: 42 New
    • 5
    • 5
    0
    And that proves ... what exactly? What did Forrestal single-handedly plan a nuclear strike, relying on his faith?
  • 30hgsa 26 November 2019 01: 57 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    No, this proves that people make decisions that are not at all perfect and decisions are made not only on the basis of pure logic, but also on the basis of personal pathologies. Which they have - Forrestal is just an example of a person with a diagnosed mental illness at the head of the defense department.

    The outbreak of war is a political decision, not a military one. When making such decisions, it’s not so much logic that works, but confidence in the possibility of winning a war, including false confidence.
  • Good_Anonymous 26 November 2019 02: 02 New
    • 3
    • 5
    -2
    Quote: 30hgsa
    this proves that people make decisions that are far from ideal


    As if someone were arguing with this.

    Quote: 30hgsa
    decisions are made not only on the basis of pure logic, but also on the basis of personal pathologies


    This is not at all the same as "I am sure that the decision on a nuclear strike is made on the basis of faith."

    Quote: 30hgsa
    When making such decisions, it’s not so much logic that works, but confidence


    This is your personal opinion, based on about nothing.
  • Ka-52 26 November 2019 08: 02 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    That is, if a person was so sick that he was not even treated on an outpatient basis, but was placed in a psychiatric hospital for treatment, then six days before that he was mentally normal? :)

    if it was a Soviet or Russian Ministry of Defense, then these defenders such as max702s, ananimuses and aviators would not have even croaked. Well, Americans, even in principle, cannot have mental disorders. Hegemons as well))
  • Good_Anonymous 26 November 2019 10: 03 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    Quote: Ka-52
    if it was a Soviet or Russian Defense Ministry, then these defenders such as max702s, ananimuses and aviators would not have even croaked.


    For starters, they would not blame the Soviet and Russian Defense Ministries for planning a war based on faith. And the American Defense Ministry - it’s possible, there is Forrestal suicide. It is strange that they did not remember Reagan's dementia - then it would have worked out quite well.
  • Avior 26 November 2019 12: 09 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Forrestal did not lie in a “mental hospital,” but in a regular military hospital.
    the fact that someone from post to post ignores this is just an attempt to manipulate stamps.
    Forrestor was not able to do anything that many leaders do not have in serious and responsible work. Nervous exhaustion - and depression after dismissal. And the situation is quite real for any country in the world.
    And attempts to pull an owl on a globe with an allegedly insane minister are ordinary manipulation and juggling of terms.
    if it was a Soviet or Russian Defense Ministry

    You want it so much. It never occurred to anyone to declare on the grounds that the Soviet minister committed suicide after his dismissal, that the Soviet police were led by madmen, as someone is trying to portray about Forrestal.
    He quarreled with Truman, supporting his rival in the elections, he was dismissed from his post - there are enough reasons for depression.
    hi
  • Avior 26 November 2019 00: 04 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Late in 1942, Hitler was to make peace on favorable terms.
    At that time, the Atlantic Charter and the Declaration of the United Nations had already been adopted, according to which there was no place for either "Hitlerism" or a separate peace with the Axis countries.
    And even in December 1941, the late-Atlantic Charter was already adopted, and the Declaration was on the way.
    1. max702 26 November 2019 00: 11 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Hitler in the war had two options: first to defeat England (he thought that he would agree with white people), or attack the USSR together with Japan, and preferably also with Turkey, but did not finish on the diplomatic front and as a result lost ..
      1. Avior 26 November 2019 00: 20 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Japan was useless. There was no oil in the Far East.
        And Turkey also does not need.
      2. 30hgsa 26 November 2019 00: 31 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        If Japan has no interests in this region ... then what were the fights on Lake Hassan and the Khalkhin Gol River? In Mongolia, too, there is no oil :)) But did Turkey really have no views of the Caucasus and Caucasian oil? :))
      3. Avior 26 November 2019 00: 51 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Mongolia is not the USSR.
      4. 30hgsa 26 November 2019 00: 57 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Hassan is the USSR.
    2. Alexey RA 26 November 2019 11: 16 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: 30hgsa
      If Japan has no interests in this region ... then what were the fights on Lake Hassan and the Khalkhin Gol River?

      Yes, because Japan of the 30s is not a monolithic state, but a conglomerate of practically openly fighting industrial clans. Do not forget - we are talking about a country in which dissatisfied army officers can go to the houses of the highest officials of the Empire and slaughter them a little, and the fleet can land troops in the capital and threaten the army with the main caliber of the LC, because the admirals were among the targets of the rebels.
      Hassan and Khalkhin-Gol are an initiative of the Kwantunts group. The metropolis practically did not participate in this adventure - which led the Kwantungs to a draw in the first case and to defeat in the second. If Japan were united, then both conflicts could be much more bloody. But ... The fleet, with its powerful base aircraft from the military operations against the USSR, generally withdrew. The Kwantungs did not receive reinforcements from the Expeditionary Force in China or from the Metropolis during the fighting. Themselves attacked - and fight back.
      Quote: 30hgsa
      There is no oil in Mongolia either

      In Mongolia, the Kwantungs decided to straighten the border a little in order to divert the hypothetical threat from the road they paved. Who would have thought that because of such a trifle, the long-nosed northern barbarians would send an army corps, and then also elite pilots, to this godforsaken corner. smile
    3. ser56 26 November 2019 16: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      this is not a monolithic state, but a conglomerate of military-industrial clans practically openly at war with each other.

      But is it somewhere else? bully
  • max702 26 November 2019 00: 39 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: Avior
    Japan was useless. There was no oil in the Far East.
    And Turkey also does not need.

    Tactically yes strategically no .. History has confirmed their fallacy ..
    If they had finished a fast USSR, they would have thrown England out of the Middle East and Africa, and then they would have rolled out an island .. And all this by the middle of 1942 .. At least Japan had oil from the Middle East, the Germans had a resource base for the USSR and their hands were untied for construction of the navy, UK shipyards are working around the clock for the third Reich, the US is shocking to mobilize the economy putting the country under arms and trying to do something with the Japanese brazenly twisting towards the states, at the same time they look with horror at the Atlantic where the navy of Germany and Italy are hostile with any resources, looking at all this, neutral Sweden joins the Reich, followed by Spain and Portugal (everyone wants to be the winners), Switzerland is trivially confronted with the fact that this is another German land (violinist is not needed) .. So strategically picture a very creepy looms .. And then the landliz or the offal took about at this time, the United States did not want to stay alone with the infuriated predator and this is in RI when the US position was much better than the alternative ..
  • Avior 26 November 2019 00: 57 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Weak science fiction smile
    The most likely thing that would have happened was that Japan immediately fell into its beginning in 1945 due to the fact that there was no blow to Pearl Harbor, but on the contrary, the States would deliver a sudden blow and the sea would become inaccessible to the Japanese in 1941, Germany nothing would help.
    And then what is the use of the Japanese from the Far East of the USSR, other than problems?
  • max702 26 November 2019 12: 25 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Quote: Avior
    And then what is the use of the Japanese from the Far East of the USSR, other than problems?

    The point is that they helped the ally, tearing into two fronts of the USSR, could not stop the blitzkrieg in the west, as a result of which it would be defeated. We from the Far East were afraid to throw over expecting an attack by Japan and took the risk of it when everything in the West became completely ill, because there was no choice .. As a result, Germany would have freed dozens of well-trained divisions that would be sent to Africa and the Middle East complicating the life of the allies sharply, after that the Japanese can simply retreat to their early positions or gain a foothold on the achievements .. In the future, US pressure on Japan would be noticeably weaker because England should be helped in much larger sizes because of the not illusory threat of a German invasion of the island .. Or do you really think that England could resist dozens of divisions battle-hardened on the eastern front? And we don’t forget that the USSR’s resource industrial base in the Ukraine of Belarus and in the central part of Russia works for the Germans, even the very evacuation of factories when they hit the USSR from two sides would hardly have been possible .. Even in RI, the Germans used the plants to their full height Kharkov and coal from the Donbass. In AI, everything would be much larger, faster blitzkrieg and non-evacuated industry that would go to the Germans .. It is likely that Moscow would fall by August, thereby fully confirming the plans of the German General Staff .. By the new year, the Wehrmacht is at the English Channel, and aviation they have been bombing England for a couple of months, taking into account the lessons of the previous "war for Britain" ..
  • Avior 26 November 2019 12: 29 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Or do you really think that England could resist dozens of divisions seasoned in battles on the eastern front?

    England is an island, that’s the subtlety.
    Hitler did not succeed in preparing and landing there, and without this the most seasoned divisions would not have helped.
    The states would intervene in the war with Japan on their own terms, and very soon the Japanese would have had huge problems.
    they lasted because of the surprise attack
  • max702 26 November 2019 13: 10 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Avior
    England is an island, that’s the subtlety.
    Hitler did not succeed in preparing and landing there, and without this the most seasoned divisions would not have helped.

    The stump is clear when several hundred divisions are fighting in the east there is no question of landing, Hitler attacked the USSR solely because of an erroneous assessment that the USSR is weaker than England and will cope easier, he almost succeeded .. Before the war, put pressure on England was not allowed by a possible threat from the USSR in the event of a full-fledged conflict with England. Hitler chose the USSR and history made a mistake. It proved that, as it would be in another case, we do not know but we can assume. Seeing the development of the situation in the Second World War, there is every reason that in the event of a double strike the USSR would be defeated, which would entail completely different alignments in world politics ..
  • Avior 26 November 2019 13: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    he first tried to land in England, it didn’t work, it didn’t even reach the divisions
  • ccsr 26 November 2019 12: 38 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Avior
    The most likely thing that would have happened was that Japan immediately fell into its beginning in 1945 due to the fact that there was no blow to Pearl Harbor, but on the contrary, the States would deliver a sudden blow and the sea would become inaccessible to the Japanese already in 1941

    The Americans did not think so, and this is described in detail in one of the monographs on the attack on Pearl Harbor:
    Having examined some important aspects of Japanese-American relations in the 1930s, the publications of the American press during periods of crisis in the Pacific, military program data and journalism, we come to the following conclusions.
    1. Japan was regarded by the US military and political leadership as the main adversary in the Pacific since the mid-1920s, or rather, the conclusion of the Washington Agreements. This is confirmed by the beginning of detailed military planning.
    2. In 1931, together with the recognition of the inevitability of the Pacific War, there is a hope to reorient the direction of Japanese expansion. In favor of this, according to American public and military-political figures, the provisions of the Tanaka memorandum, the attack on Manchuria and China, and the possibility of exerting economic pressure on Japan speak.
    3. In the USA during the 1920s - 1941 The question of the Japanese threat was constantly raised. The country's leadership, the official press, unofficial journalism, army and navy officers discussed the prospects of a future war, the scenario of its development, the chances of their own victory. American military politicians expected an imminent conflict with the Empire of the Rising Sun.
    4. After 1936, the United States is actively preparing for war. This is evidenced not only by the development of military plans, but also by budget indicators, materials from programs to increase the fleet, aviation, and the expansion of basing systems. All this (especially the projects for the construction of new ships, the creation of amphibious forces, special attention to submarines) indicates that American leaders were preparing precisely for the war with Japan.

    S. O. Buranok
    "Pearl Harbor in the assessment of US military politicians (1941 - 1945)"
  • Avior 26 November 2019 13: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    and what of this quote? what did the US prepare to fight against Japan?
    I do not argue.
  • ccsr 26 November 2019 18: 20 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Avior
    and what of this quote? what did the US prepare to fight against Japan?
    I do not argue.

    The fact that the Americans considered Japan a serious opponent and hardly dreamed of an easy victory over the Japanese in 1941.
  • Avior 26 November 2019 21: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I, too, about this.
    according to the scenario suggested above, the Americans would be the first to attack at the worst moment for the Japanese themselves — the reserves and resources of Japan would go to war with the USSR.
    and not vice versa, as it was in reality.
    This would immediately change the balance of power.
    Therefore, I believe that the Japanese attack on the USSR at that time was disadvantageous to Japan.
  • ccsr 27 November 2019 11: 50 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Avior
    Therefore, I believe that the Japanese attack on the USSR at that time was disadvantageous to Japan.

    This is certainly, especially considering the fact that our ground forces have shown what they are capable of. It was not for nothing that Stalin escorted the Japanese minister even at the station - apparently an oral agreement in the form of unprotected words, in addition to official documents, took place once the leader of the peoples showed such respect.
  • Octopus 26 November 2019 08: 04 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    Altistory again.

    Quote: max702
    Finishing a quick USSR

    How fast? Right in the summer? But finishing off is how? Like in Belgium or like in Yugoslavia?
    Quote: max702
    England would have been thrown out in one fell swoop from the Middle East and Africa,

    And this is how much time?
    Quote: max702
    after that they would have rolled out the islet ... And all this by the middle of 1942.

    In what crazy world did you have a fleet and aircraft comparable to the English + American ones by the middle of the 42nd at the Reich? Or will you go to England on ice?
    Quote: max702
    Germans resource base of the USSR

    What is another "resource base"?
    Quote: max702
    UK shipyards work around the clock on third

    Why else? A lot of French shipyards worked out for the third Reich?
    Quote: max702
    US shocked to mobilize economy

    The United States has been shocking to mobilize the economy since the summer of 40.
    Quote: max702
    trying to do something with the Japanese brazenly twisting towards the states,

    0 chances of the Japanese to devour more than they ate in reality before the end of the 42nd year. Puzo is not rubber.
    Quote: max702
    with might and main host the Navy of Germany and Italy

    There are no Navy of Germany and Italy, except for the submarine. Even compared to Japan alone.
    Quote: max702
    followed by Spain and Portugal (everyone wants to be with the winners)

    The commandante was noticeably smarter than Duce.
    Quote: max702
    Switzerland is trivially confronted with the fact

    They tried to put in the summer of the 40th. We decided that it’s more expensive.
    Quote: max702
    And then Lendlis or Otkel took about at this time

    LL took at the beginning of the 41st year
  • Alexey RA 26 November 2019 11: 34 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Octopus
    The United States has been shocking to mobilize the economy since the summer of 40.

    And if you recall the Merchant Marine Act 1936, the program for the construction of high-speed transports and Emory Land - it would have been like since 1938. wink
  • Octopus 26 November 2019 12: 05 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    if you remember

    These are not purely military measures.
    Quote: Alexey RA
    FDR with a flick of the arm began the creation of ground forces

    Everything is not easy there. The FDR began to count the National Guard under the detectives, primarily from this explosive growth. On the other hand, NG of the 41st year is some kind of terdivision / country club, the quality is near-zero, especially sergeants / officers. Worker-Peasant Blue Army, God forgive me.
  • Alexey RA 26 November 2019 12: 35 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Octopus
    These are not purely military measures.

    These are measures of at least dual use. Deployment of mass construction by state order of high-speed transports (with the possibility of mobilization into the fleet and armaments by mobvariant), leased to private companies, provided that they are exclusively staffed by American citizens. Yes, and the creation of a reserve of civilian sailors.
  • ser56 26 November 2019 16: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    then no matter since 1938

    but you can start by selling us Christie's plants and tractor ... they know how to count far ... repeat
  • Alexey RA 26 November 2019 11: 31 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: max702
    Having finished in a quick USSR, England would have been thrown out in one fell swoop from the Middle East and Africa

    Somewhere in the middle between these two events, the Allies left Japan without oil after the war with the USSR. smile
    There is practically no oil in the Far East of the USSR (and half of the Soviet Far East oil is already extracted by the Japanese). Japan’s own production does not cover 10% of peacetime needs either. No import - oil embargo. The stocks of the Empire were wasted on a war with the USSR.
    Quote: max702
    and then the island would be rolled out ..

    Yeah ... in 1940, when the forces of the British Metropolis were at a minimum - they did not roll out. And in 1942, when the Island has been pumping equipment from the United States for a year already, they will roll it out. smile
    Quote: max702
    US shocked to mobilize economy

    The mobilization of the economy in the United States actually began in 1939, when the FDR began to create ground forces with a flick of the wrist. Moreover, in the initial he had three settlement divisions (half in overseas territories). And by the end of 1941 in the ground forces there were fifty forming divisions. The fleet did not lag behind - two divisions and ten separate battalions were formed from two brigades of the marine corps. In parallel with the formation of the American army, the FDR reorganized the British, sending there as many weapons and equipment as its own army received. In 1941, even escorted ABs were built at the American shipyards for the British. So the US military industry in 1941 worked for two.
  • ser56 26 November 2019 16: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    The mobilization of the economy in the United States actually began in 1939 -

    and the B-17 was ordered at 35 ...
  • 30hgsa 26 November 2019 00: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Well, some documents were signed, and? Separate peace, despite the treaties, is such a rare occurrence in world history :) Especially when the troops are defeated and the front is broken. No, in fact, it is unlikely that the USSR would have made such a peace, but Adik did not even try to extract strategic benefits from the successes of the same 42nd year or even the 41st (when it became clear that the blitzkrieg would not work, and this is somewhere October, or even September 1941)
    1. Avior 26 November 2019 00: 31 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      It was precisely because of this that I did not try that no one would go to him, including Stalin.

      it became clear that the blitzkrieg will not work, and this is somewhere in October, or even September 1941

      Yes, take it immediately from June 23.
    2. 30hgsa 26 November 2019 00: 40 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Yes, I take Barbaross’s plan and compare it with realities. According to the plan, they were due to leave for Moscow on August 25 :) Just in September, it became clear that the deadlines were being cut off, moreover, and the resistance was only growing. About who and what would go in the face of a catastrophe of the outbreak of war - I can’t speak.
    3. Avior 26 November 2019 00: 58 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      if everyone fled to conclude the world, as soon as a deadline broke, the wars would subside on their own.
  • Octopus 26 November 2019 07: 51 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: Avior
    even in December 1941, the late Atlantic Charter was already adopted, and the Declaration was on the way.

    )))
    You underestimate the flexibility of great democracies. In the post-war world there was a place for both the Spanish fascists, the peace-loving USSR, and even the head of the Japanese Empire, you can understand, forgive. Churchill had an allergy to Hitler personally. And the Charter, that Charter, it did not touch the Czech Republic a little bit, that with Hitler, that without Hitler.
    1. Avior 26 November 2019 11: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      But should they have fought with everyone right away?
      During the war, no one violated this treaty, including because it made no sense, the rest would have continued.
  • Alexey RA 26 November 2019 10: 56 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Avior
    And even in December 1941, the late-Atlantic Charter was already adopted, and the Declaration was on the way.

    It’s not even a matter of the Charter - in January-March 1941 the notorious ABC-1 was held: a series of meetings of senior staff officers of the United States, Britain and Canada, at which a single joint military strategy of the Allies (including the formally neutral USA) was developed. The traces of this meeting are clearly visible in the American pre-war plans for the development of 1941, in which in the chapters on the general principles of military planning, there is a direct link to the decisions of ABC-1: the main theater of operations - Europe for the army, the Atlantic - for the fleet; the main enemy is Germany; First of all, it is necessary to knock out the weak link of the Axis - Italy.
    The ink on the ABC-1 documents had not time to dry yet - and a commission of the American army had already appeared on the British Isles, examining the military facilities of the Island Empire in order to select the most suitable American bases for basing. And behind it came American firms, expanding ports, bases and airfields so that they could receive troops and supplies from across the ocean. The United States was preparing to enter the war in Europe - and they needed only an excuse.
    1. Avior 26 November 2019 11: 45 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      American British Conversation is the plan of the States and England before Hitler's attack on the USSR, rather a secret technical.
      And the Charter and the Declaration are public program Documents.
      And about the entry of the United States into the war - after they began to help England, it was a matter of time before Hitler declared war on the United States in order to be able to fight this help, and everyone understood this.
  • mister-red 26 November 2019 21: 33 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    You yourself are guided by myths. That explains a lot.

    True, this is a myth. And they invented it only in the states themselves. The only truth is that, on the basis of conscientious aggression, he went nuts and ended up in a psychiatric hospital. Twice tried to commit suicide, the second time successfully. From the window or not, but he jumped into hell from the darkness of his diseased brain.
    And the phrase "Reds are coming" said. Delirious or not, it doesn’t matter anymore
  • timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 00: 47 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    It is adopted based on the algorithm. Man only gives the go-ahead.
  • Vadmir 25 November 2019 22: 12 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Therefore, if in strategic aviation there is still some sense, then in the SSBN it is not corny!
    In the event of a sudden nuclear strike, aviation will not even have time to take off, so it is difficult to count on it. And the submarine, even discovered, can temporarily disappear from the field of view of the hunter's boat. And who, in their right mind, will risk starting a strike if there is no 100% guarantee that this will not happen during the strike. And no one can give such a guarantee. Even one undetected or lost boat at the wrong time is a risk of losing 16 cities, resulting in unacceptable damage.
    1. max702 25 November 2019 22: 42 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      So, in our country, the SSBNs are mostly afraid to let them out at sea at the bases, apparently on the issue of finding and taking information from the competent people for information from the competent people, there’s no more success or illusion .. Maybe they’ll have time from the pier .. As for aviation, I agree with you the strategic nuclear forces tool is very doubtful, but as it was written above it can be used in another way, but the SSBN (of frantic cost) cannot be used for any other purpose .. Therefore, we minimize risks and expenses at the same time on freed resources we strengthen more reliable and rational solutions.
  • ser56 26 November 2019 16: 35 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: max702
    It is expensive useless, and therefore not necessary ..

    I would say -harmful! as it distracts the forces of the fleet and industry!
  • Glory1974 25 November 2019 21: 37 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    Rumors that the Americans control our submarines are greatly exaggerated. Yes, in peacetime, ships cruising near our bases track each exit of our boat to the sea.
    But during the threatened period and during the hostilities no enemy reconnaissance will remain near our shores, no one will allow the Orions to fly over our territory. Accordingly, finding boats in the seas will be a big problem. We also learned to overcome the underwater tracking system. Only a group of PLO ships together with aviation can track our boat, spending some time on this.
    The duel situation of a boat against a boat can develop with a frequency of no more than during World War II.
    Therefore, our followers will fulfill their task; there can be no two opinions here.
    1. Nemchinov Vl 26 November 2019 00: 07 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: glory1974
      The duel situation of a boat against a boat can develop with a frequency of no more than during World War II.
      well ?! For example, I received information that collisions between them and our boats did not happen more than once (during mutual tracking and playing “mouse cats”), probably no more than 10% leaked out to open sources, of the actual cases (and therefore they seem to be not numerous, they seem)?! And if we add the opinion of the same Klimov, who once emphasized that to this day, our boats are not equipped with effective anti-torpedo defense systems, then it would become alarming for the fate of the submariners. Well, in that -
      Quote: glory1974
      Therefore, our submariners will fulfill their task; there can be no two opinions here.
      so no one argues. Just like in a song, “we believe in the courage of desperate guys ...”, I personally would like our submariners to not be brought under the word, initially, - desperate .. I hope you understood me correctly ?!
      Quote: glory1974
      Rumors that the Americans control our submarines are greatly exaggerated.
      - God forbid. God forbid !!!
      1. Glory1974 26 November 2019 08: 24 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        For example, I received information that collisions between them and our boats did not happen more than once (during mutual tracking and playing “cat and mouse”),

        No one says that once. For all the time, probably a few dozen collisions with submarines and surface ships. But the combat situation is somewhat different. You do not need to track, you need to use weapons.
        I hope you understood me correctly ?!

        I understand you, I think you understand me too. When a boat uses a weapon, it becomes visible to everyone. It doesn’t matter American or Russian.
        1. Nemchinov Vl 26 November 2019 11: 55 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: glory1974
          But the combat situation is somewhat different. You do not need to track, you need to use weapons.
          here I completely agree with you!, well, that's just my logic, it tells me what exactly for this and very important (even in peacetime) learn, and “hear” earlier, and “see” further, if possible, remaining as inconspicuous as possible for the opponent / enemy /, as long as possible (if you like, then right up to that very moment - application weapons !!). And do not appear in the role of the victim, already at the exits from their bases ...
          Quote: glory1974
          When a boat uses a weapon, it becomes visible to everyone. It doesn’t matter American or Russian.
          and then it’s already clear that it will be important for the attacker to try to evade the attack (and not to secrecy anymore), but it’s important for the attacker to finish off and not miss, not to allow evasion (and probably also not to secrecy). Therefore, in my opinion, secrecy (little noise and all that it depends on: crew training, design features of the boat project, features of controlling the boat by the commander, depending on knowledge of the technical capabilities of the project and so on ....) is really very important, I repeat with what I said above, so that the guys serving on it would not be in the role, when everything will depend only on - courage desperate guys ... otherwise Timokhin (with Klimov) constantly keep in good shape, assuming that -
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Especially considering that in the threatened period around our bases enemy submarines that we have nothing to detect will graze.
          ... what is alarming ?!
    2. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 00: 51 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Accordingly, finding boats in the seas will be a big problem.


      Especially considering that in the threatened period around our bases enemy submarines that we have nothing to detect will graze.

      We also learned to overcome the underwater tracking system.


      Do you want to remember her name, this system? Not learned, in the 80s, Americans plugged all the holes.
      1. Glory1974 26 November 2019 08: 20 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        taking into account the fact that in the threatened period around our bases enemy submarines that we have nothing to detect will graze.

        But this is not the same when a tracking vessel drifts right near the base exit. And to track a boat in the open sea, you need a solid outfit of forces and means of anti-aircraft defense.
        Do you want to remember her name, this system?

        wassat What kind of snobbery? Do you show excellence in your knowledge?
        Not learned, in the 80s, Americans plugged all the holes.

        And I have other information. I do not want to reveal all the secrets, but in the 90s our boat checked the closure of "all holes" and ........ in general let the Americans sleep peacefully, and so do we.
        1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 13: 50 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          And I have other information. I do not want to reveal all the secrets, but in the 90s our boat checked the closure of "all holes" and ........ in general let the Americans sleep peacefully, and so do we.


          These are fairy tales. There are passages to the West Atlantic, but the boat is constantly monitored, they have occasional contact loss, then they still find the boat. In the Pacific, it was worse and worse.
  • businessv 25 November 2019 21: 47 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Thanks to Andrey for the article! I, like the author, have nothing to do with the fleet, which is probably why I liked the article! A lot of analysis, a lot of work, thanks! hi
  • Nikolai 25 November 2019 21: 55 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Andrei is not a specialist in naval issues, but writes. It’s strange. Why not write about ChTZ? There is a lot of information, the plant is nearby, housemates are working there, they will prompt.
  • Aleks1973 25 November 2019 22: 59 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Quote: Operator
    With one amendment, in the near future the Burevestnik UAV with a YAWRM will appear at the disposal of the Russian Aerospace Forces, the launcher of which can be performed in the form factor of an ordinary large-capacity container, and the time of continuous barrage in the air in a special period will be about a year.

    Do you yourself believe in that? In the near future is in 100 years?
    1. Operator 25 November 2019 23: 24 New
      • 13
      • 4
      +9
      Think of the Crimean bridge.
  • Vladimir1155 25 November 2019 23: 01 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    a very important topic is opened by the respected Andrey from Chelyabinsk, it is necessary to reduce the visibility of nuclear submarines
  • timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 00: 57 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Andrei, we need not to talk about secrecy, but about the combat stability of the strategic nuclear forces as a whole, which cannot be reduced to secrecy of submarines in the first place, and secondly, not only by boats (in theory).
    And yes, it is achieved in different ways, this is the third.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2019 07: 30 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      How? About secrecy is also necessary, because it is important, and the whole range of measures in one article, even kill does not fit. We'll talk about the rest further, I feel that strategists will have to devote at least 2 articles more
      1. rudolff 26 November 2019 10: 27 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Andrey, please separate the database and the BS, otherwise confusion arises. DB, this is near the wall, on barrels, sometimes at the factory under repair. BS at sea. The DB did not come from a good life.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2019 10: 38 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          I’m sorry, this is just some kind of conspiracy. I am writing about the BS, and the subconscious mind prints the database crying
          1. rudolff 26 November 2019 10: 55 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            It happens. Simply speaking about the secrecy or combat stability of submarines, it is fundamentally important to share this.
      2. Nemchinov Vl 26 November 2019 11: 30 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        We’ll talk about the rest,
        wait, sir, you have Andrei, in general, it doesn’t work out very well (I personally look at your and Timokhin’s articles with particular interest !!). You are both fellows (from the word fellows) !!
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I feel that strategists will have to devote at least 2 articles more
        I am now more interested in the current, deplorable state of the ICAPL, and the PLO system (as A. Timokhin correctly noted, in a set of measures to fill /updating and modernization speed incl./ fleet, by combat units, especially in the Pacific Fleet), but we will tolerate it. Hopefully this "hot topic" will come later? And for your work, and topics raised, respect - both of you as authors !! And find the topics interesting, and reveal them in the most complete way, with a good and interesting analysis, as an occasion for discussion.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2019 11: 55 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          We will definitely get there, and thank you for your kind words!
        2. Vadmir 26 November 2019 13: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          And for your work, and topics raised, respect - both of you as authors !! And find the topics interesting, and reveal them in the most complete way, with a good and interesting analysis, as an occasion for discussion.
          I am joining! I’ll add on my own that their positions do not always converge, which gives rise to discussion, even debate. And this is magnificent, it is in a dispute that truth is born. The truth is probably not for arguing, but for those who follow the dispute from the side. And it's great that they began their series of articles on the construction of the fleet almost in parallel.
      3. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 13: 48 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Yes, we simply do not completely solve the issue of secrecy in our conditions. That is, somewhere you have to come to terms with the fact that the enemy is the first to attack and be prepared for just that.
        Like the VKS - air combat begins with a rocket arriving from nowhere, and a maneuver to evade it with the help of air-blast equipment.
        That is, we start with what the Americans would like to end with.

        So it is - stealth measures should be organized at the operational level rather than at the technical level, and at the tactical level, it is necessary to plan to win the battle, which began with an enemy salvo.

        Something like that.
        1. ser56 26 November 2019 16: 49 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          So it is - stealth measures should be organized at the operational level rather than at the technical level, and at the tactical level, it is necessary to plan to win the battle, which began with an enemy salvo.

          maybe change the strategy? To partners did not feel so comfortable?
          1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 20: 08 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            For example, how?
            1. bk0010 26 November 2019 20: 22 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Well, for example, instead of writing about the use of nuclear weapons in the event of a fundamental threat to the existence of the state, write down that the decision to use is transferred to the level of the divisional commander and higher if the application will more efficiently solve the tactical task.
              1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 20: 32 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                This is not good for the country, to say the least.
                1. bk0010 26 November 2019 23: 28 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  But the "partners" will feel uncomfortable (see above)
                  1. timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 12: 19 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    On the contrary. Partners feel uncomfortable when their population does not feel any threat from these wonderful and lovely Russians, and grandmas at the VPK need to be beaten out.
            2. ser56 27 November 2019 14: 38 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              For example, how?

              1) like you yourself wrote - the fleet must attack! request
              2) Change the state’s military strategy - stop nonsense with innocence and announce a preemptive or demonstrative strike in the presence of a clear threat ... Accurately formulate this concept and its signs, for example, the entry of an enemy nuclear submarine into certain areas, the deployment of large forces of partners in certain places, etc. P. For example - the deployment of a tank battalion or air squadron in the Tribaltic - there will be a preventive strike ... hi You can call it red lines ... request
              Of course there will be attempts at provocations - if you act decisively and toughly - both on Khalkhin Gol or in Korea - they will wake up ... request If not, it’s better to strike the first blow - as there - if there is no way to get out of the fight - hit first ... repeat
              1. timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 15: 42 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                1) like you yourself wrote - the fleet must attack!


                In the course of hostilities. In peacetime, it must maintain a level of combat readiness that would show a potential adversary the futility of its offensive plans.

                In terms of the strategic nuclear forces - ensuring the right level of combat stability (not to be confused with passive defense).
                1. ser56 28 November 2019 17: 14 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  In peacetime should maintain such a level

                  if you do not develop peacetime plans and prepare crews for tasks, how will they be able to fight?
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  ensuring the necessary level of combat stability (not to be confused with passive defense).

                  tricky terms a lot to confuse request
  • Vladimir_2U 26 November 2019 04: 11 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    As always with Andrei: sane analysis, knowledge of terminology, honed syllable, and often extraordinary conclusions. I always read his articles carefully.
  • sabotage 26 November 2019 05: 16 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Commanders, with external similarity, always differed from each other. From this and much more formed the opinion of the commander. I am sure that among the stupid commanders in understanding one, and in comparison with the other, there is none at all. There is a mindset that, one way or another, forms a person’s style and behavior. Each
    the commander controlled the boat to the best of his interests and abilities. Interests stemmed from goals set for oneself; abilities determined goals. Going out to sea for one was an outlet from the home "hearth", for another it was the pleasure of creative knowledge, and for the third a burden, etc. Therefore, each commander had his own result from the same type of submarines - one discovered something new for himself and the others, the second man could not do without miracles, the third sailed, as if in a steam tug, using 3-4 teams:
    “Forward, backward, upward, downward, etc., and the fourth one was both strange and studied.
    V.Ya. Dudko. "Heroes of Bangor"


    If you carefully read the retired nuclear submarine commanders, the conclusion suggests itself that much more important factors affecting the stealth of a boat are in importance:
    1. Training of the crew and submarine commander.
    2. The quality of the ongoing implementation of the current and average repair of submarines. The presence of factory defects.
    3. The design of the boat.
  • Aleks1973 26 November 2019 08: 48 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    Quote: Operator
    Think of the Crimean bridge

    And what to remember? Have we ever built bridges? Do not confuse the warm with the soft! Nuclear energy is not a compromise, there is a lot of unknown, and there is no need to watch cartoons ...
    1. Operator 26 November 2019 12: 48 New
      • 10
      • 5
      +5
      Quote: Alex1973
      Have we ever built bridges? ... no need to watch cartoons

      "......", - S. Lavrov (C)
    2. ser56 27 November 2019 15: 17 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Alex1973
      Nuclear power is not a compromise

      be surprised, what kind of sopromat - tanks at nuclear power plants under high pressure and ... bully And also temperature, streams of ionizing radiation ... hi
  • Mikhail3 26 November 2019 10: 22 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The problem of detecting submarines should be considered from the most modern positions. In the field of noise reduction, as far as one can judge, no breakthroughs are now possible. All the achievements that were clearly available in the USSR in the field of hydrodynamics (and these achievements are unique, let me remind you - only our country is able to separate uranium into isotopes by centrifuges quite efficiently, the rest use gas epitaxy with different successes, so we clearly have some secrets in hydrodynamics, unknown to others) have long been used, there can be no growth here.
    However, there is another side. Live acoustics at the post - funny archaism. Computing technology has radically changed since the last century. Now the task of searching and distinguishing sounds is entirely given to computer programs. These software and hardware systems are now extremely effective, and are used in many areas, that is, there is a lot of experience in their application.
    Given the huge advantage of the United States in the field of computerized technologies, I think it would be logical to assume that any of our boats, no matter how quiet they are, American submarines and buoys of various detecting networks can detect several hundred kilometers. 500-600 km in the case of nuclear submarines, and many thousands of kilometers in the case of distributed displacer networks.
    It is unlikely that at least something moving and undetectable remained on the planet ...
    1. SVD68 26 November 2019 12: 54 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Mikhail3

      It is unlikely that at least something moving and undetectable remained on the planet ...

      How can Americans discover SSBNs in the Caspian or Lake Onega?
      No, I do not urge to drive submarines there. But the principle itself: no access - no detection. And the only solution in my opinion is the transformation of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk into a region inaccessible to enemy boats.
      Well, we’ll wait and see what Andrei from Chelyabinsk will offer.
      1. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 15: 50 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Will missiles fly from the Caspian to the United States? And if it will be necessary to reduce flight time, can the SSBN come closer to the goal by 1-2 thousand km?

        And the only solution in my opinion is the transformation of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk into a region inaccessible to enemy boats.


        How?
  • Chaldon48 26 November 2019 12: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In the 90s, our country was like a once formidable fortress that turned into ruins in the last 10-15 years, the situation somewhat began to straighten out a bit, the question of how much it will straighten out once is completely unknown.
  • mik193 26 November 2019 13: 55 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    “At the same time, it’s worth noting that the numbers indicated in the table can be easily shifted to the right by a year - the fact is that most of the RPK SNs were handed over to the fleet in the last days of December, that is, they actually came into operation next year. And we can also assume "that the latest ships did not immediately leave the shipyard for combat duty, but for some time mastered the fleet."


    The ships were handed over to the fleet in the last days of December, so that the plant would receive a prize. In what condition they were transmitted, I think you guess. The same thing with the repair. And the ships were not so much mastered as they were eliminated by numerous imperfections and mistakes of industry. Naturally, this quality of construction and repair did not positively affect stealth either. I don’t think that much has changed for the better today.
  • VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 26 November 2019 14: 27 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    The article is designed for Western intelligence agencies or by their order.
  • ser56 26 November 2019 16: 20 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The author persists in his concept of the need for an SSBN - his right, but why write absurdities like:
    "But, nevertheless, our 1st and 2nd generation SSBNs, even in the bastions, remained vulnerable to the enemy’s multipurpose nuclear submarines, which had a great advantage in low noise."
    what are the bastions for 658 with P13 with a range of 600km? or the bulk of the 2nd - 667A with R-27 with a range of 2500-3000?
    "And, in fact, only 10% of their total number - 6 heavy SSBNs of project 941" Shark ""
    alas, the noise in different parts of the spectrum depends on various factors - the larger the boat, the more it creates the movement of water, in addition, the light hull inevitably creates low-frequency vibrations - so the characteristics of Sharks are greater for a good mood of high authorities ... request Well, comfort for the crew, and there will be a war or not - who knows ...
    and further funny:
    1) "In other words, even assuming that until now the Americans have managed to control 80-90% of all our SSBNs on combat duty, this does not mean at all that we should abandon the SSBN."
    2) "which ships of this class need to be built, where to base them, and how to ensure their deployment and combat patrol."
    recalls - hedgehogs cried, pricked, but continued to eat cacti ... hi
    Maybe the conclusion is different - if the partner is stronger in something, then you should not play according to his rules? And maybe the forces of our fleet should not be spent on protecting their own SSBNs, which is objectively beneficial for the partner, but rather directed on the search and destruction of its nuclear submarines?
    1. ccsr 26 November 2019 19: 02 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: ser56
      The author persists in his concept of the need for the SSBN - his right,

      This is not the author who persists, but the harsh reality forces us to reduce the surface fleet and increase the combat strength of the SSBNs on the campaign, and not against the wall.
      1. ser56 27 November 2019 14: 50 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: ccsr
        and the harsh reality forces us to reduce the surface fleet and increase the combat strength of the SSBNs on the march, and not against the wall.

        1) you have a logical contradiction - for the withdrawal and cover of the SSBNs, solid NK forces are needed
        2) SSBNs are obviously more expensive than strike submarines, especially NKs, so reducing the SSBNs will dramatically increase the number of strike submarines and / or NKs, and forces that are sent to defend strategists will be freed ...
        1. ccsr 27 November 2019 19: 12 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: ser56
          you have a logical contradiction - for the withdrawal and cover of the SSBNs, solid NK forces are needed

          With what joy do you need solid NK - the naval admiral ranks are not enough, or what?
          Our strategic aircraft carriers without escort of fighters to the launch areas go out, and nothing, they are not soared with fear.
          Quote: ser56
          The SSBNs are obviously more expensive as shock nuclear submarines, especially NKs, so reducing the SSBNs will dramatically increase the number of shock nuclear submarines and / or NKs,

          Why, from a military point of view, this is necessary - open the topic, as they say in certain circles.
          Quote: ser56
          at the same time, the forces that are sent to defend the strategists are freed ...

          And without the strategic SSBNs, we practically do not need the entire military fleet - does this really require proof? Or didn’t you understand why they began to deploy the INF missiles on small-tonnage ships, which are clearly not for oceanic military theater.
          1. ser56 28 November 2019 14: 36 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: ccsr
            With what joy you need solid NK -

            to demonstrate the flag, protect shipping, etc. - there are many tasks ... see Syria and what RKR Moscow did there ... request
            Quote: ccsr
            For what, from a military point of view, this is necessary - open the topic,

            strike submarines are needed for (in addition to protecting their strategists):
            1) attacks of enemy statues,
            2) actions on enemy communications
            3) destruction of NK thereof
            4) Impact on important objects on land.
            The tasks are important!
            Quote: ccsr
            Does this really require proof?

            You are mistaken - the fleet was needed before the appearance of the SSBN and would be needed even after ... request
            As for the strategists, their need was caused by the short range of our missiles, after the appearance of the R-29 there is no sense in them relative to conventional strategic missiles ... well, and monkey request
            Quote: ccsr
            Or didn’t you understand why they began to deploy the INF missiles on small-tonnage ships, which are clearly not for oceanic military theater.

            and that was a mistake - the Americans saw it and withdrew from the contract, and we have a bunch of highly specialized ships ... request
            1. ccsr 28 November 2019 19: 08 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: ser56
              to demonstrate the flag, protect shipping, etc. - there are many tasks ... see

              This is all frivolous. Why should we protect the income of foreign shipowners from the budget of our defense ministry if you are talking about Somali or South Chinese pirates?
              Quote: ser56
              strike submarines are needed for (in addition to protecting their strategists):
              1) attacks of enemy statues,

              Attacks of Western strategists can be carried out from areas where we cannot provide a permanent presence, and temporary stay there will cost us large sums. So measure the power of the USSR and Russia before brandishing a saber.
              Quote: ser56
              The tasks are important!

              Who would doubt that the military budget is not rubber.
              Quote: ser56
              As for the strategists, their need was caused by the short range of our missiles, after the appearance of the R-29 there is no sense in them relative to conventional strategic missiles ... well, and monkey

              Here you are mistaken, because now the situation is completely different - the submarine fleet provides our strategic nuclear forces with many missile flight directions, and most importantly, reducing the time from launch to destruction, which our strategic missile forces cannot provide at this stage.
              Quote: ser56
              and that was a mistake - the Americans saw it and left the contract,

              Their way out is not at all connected with this - they realized that the Agreement does not give them anything, and therefore immediately threw it into the basket to untie the hands of their military-industrial complex.
              1. ser56 29 November 2019 12: 26 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: ccsr
                This is all frivolous. Why do we need to protect the income of foreign shipowners

                I don’t see any reason to convince you, you live in the framework of the struggle against capital :) I note that even the USSR defended shipping ...
                Quote: ccsr
                only here the military budget is not rubber.

                then may not build an SSBN, the need for which is not obvious?
                Quote: ccsr
                Here you are wrong

                by no means
                Quote: ccsr
                reduction of time from start to failure

                is it when you are in the "bastions"? not even funny ... request
                Quote: ccsr
                Their way out is completely unrelated.

                are you sure? bully
                1. ccsr 29 November 2019 16: 48 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: ser56
                  I note that even the USSR defended shipping ...

                  Soviet shipping in the first place, not Western shipowners.
                  Quote: ser56
                  then may not build an SSBN, the need for which is not obvious?

                  No, it is precisely them that need to be built, because only they from the nuclear triad can come closer to the territory of the USA. And under favorable conditions, it’s generally secretive to be where no one is waiting for them.
                  Quote: ser56
                  is it when you are in the "bastions"?

                  I don’t know what you mean by this, which means I can’t say anything.
                  Quote: ser56
                  are you sure?

                  Yes - 90 percent. By the way, the American military themselves in the early nineties warned our senior military officers that they should in no way believe the promises of their politicians, because they themselves understood what our concessions would lead to, and how it would turn out to them. And so it happened - for twenty years now, Americans have only been fighting all over the world, and believe them, this is far from a joy.
                  1. ser56 30 November 2019 15: 53 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Soviet shipping in the first place, not Western shipowners.

                    are mistaken - see an example of the Iran-Iraq war
                    Quote: ccsr
                    because only they from the nuclear triad can come closer to the territory of the USA

                    1) if it’s not a secret - then why do they need intercontinental-range missiles? hi
                    2) do you want to strike the first blow? Otherwise, it does not make sense ... request
                    Quote: ccsr
                    I don’t know what you mean by this

                    see the article and my answers above ... in short - "bastions" at our borders ...
                    Quote: ccsr
                    and believe them this is far from a joy.

                    to whom? war is always a joy to generals, like the military-industrial complex! hi What to faith
                    Quote: ccsr
                    did not believe the promises of their politicians

                    then this is essentially treason - should they be trusted? hi
                    1. ccsr 30 November 2019 19: 15 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: ser56
                      if not a secret - then why do they need intercontinental-range missiles?

                      There is no secret - they are slowly advanced, and therefore, taking into account the movement, they must be able to hit the US territory while still on our shores.
                      Well, only subsequently they can generally be on duty much south of the US borders, and this will create a problem for their missile defense systems.
                      Quote: ser56
                      do you want to strike first

                      But we have no choice left to avoid the enormous losses of our population.
                      Quote: ser56
                      in short - "bastions" at our borders ...

                      What threat do they pose to the continental United States?
                      Quote: ser56
                      war is always a joy to generals, like the military-industrial complex!

                      You are mistaken - the “generals" just the least want to fight, because they know that they will have to pay their lives in the first place.
                      Quote: ser56
                      then this is essentially treason - should they be trusted?

                      Stop throwing yourself to extremes - they just foresaw future scenarios and were afraid of the stupidity of their politicians. Not unreasonably afraid, by the way ...
                      1. ser56 2 December 2019 13: 44 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: ccsr
                        There is no secret - they are slowly moving forward

                        Quote: ccsr
                        What threat do they pose to the continental United States?

                        did you read the article under discussion? about the bastions? bully
                        Quote: ccsr
                        And we have no choice

                        hmm ... do you have children or grandchildren?
                        Quote: ccsr
                        know that they will have to pay their lives in the first place.

                        Not even funny ... hi
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Yes, throw yourself to extremes

                        imagine a mirror - our generals are turning ... wassat
    2. timokhin-aa 26 November 2019 21: 22 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      And maybe the forces of our fleet should not be spent on protecting their own SSBNs, which is objectively beneficial for the partner, but on the contrary sent to search for and destroy its nuclear submarines?


      Do you imagine the complexity of this task here? Since the advent of the Trident SLBM, there has been ONE documented case where the Soviet submarine managed to briefly take on the sight of an American missile carrier, remaining undetected.

      But there were attempts - to get exhausted. And no stupider than you people undertook them.

      The task of finding and destroying US SSBNs probably cannot be considered unsolvable, but it’s like five of us flying to the moon — theoretically possible, and technically not and it is not clear when it will be possible.
      1. ser56 27 November 2019 15: 00 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Do you imagine the complexity of this task here?

        everyones! however, if you don’t, then it won’t work out ... request
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        And no stupider than you people undertook them.

        1) I never understood the desire to evaluate the opponent’s mind on the Web, and not his arguments ... bully
        2) If this is not done, then the enemy has obvious advantages - he reduces his strength to defend his strategists and increases his outfit for attacking ours ... it’s corny! request
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        but technically not and it is not clear when it will be possible.

        I reasonably believe that you are mistaken ... any difficult task consists of many interconnected small ones ... For example, undercover reconnaissance areas can be rude bully or satellite, more precisely, areas can be opened by aviation, etc. You can also take the tactics of the enemy - to get on the tail when leaving the bases ... In short - if you do nothing, then it won’t work out ... request
        And yet, if 6-7 keels of 885 will do this, then the task is not realistic - there will be 2-3 in the watch at best, but without strategists the number of submarines on the hunt can be increased not by 2-3, but 4-5 times for the same money, because the SSBN defense forces will be released, especially if you stop building universal monsters of the 885 type and return to the nuclear submarines at 6-8 ct ... repeat
      2. Polinom 28 November 2019 14: 08 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        ONE documented case when the Soviet submarine managed to briefly take on the sight of an American missile carrier
        Yes, Ohio discovered. Institute confirmed.
        I think that the Americans themselves were not fully aware of the possibilities of Ohio.
        Well these are my assumptions. Well, it was lucky that the boat was preparing for the BS. Dudko claimed that he had broken the exit, but the guys from the reconnaissance administration of the fleet corrected him.
        Well, coincidence, I'm about 5 miles, not 12 miles, which Reagan installed. From there, and coastal shots, I think from 12 miles Dudko would have been discovered earlier.
        1. timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 14: 58 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          By the way, are the photos classified? Has anyone seen them?
          1. Polinom 11 December 2019 10: 41 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            So in the book is his photo, Heroes of Bangor. I ripped off from there. The report was, but I did not get to his report in 1987. I watched the Mustachioed Tit. I wrote. Special admission was issued at the request of the NS of the Schumanin flotilla. I wound up at the institute several times, this is far from Peter, about two hours drive. Well, then to see in the Navy or in Moscow, they caught on and revoked the admission (((
            1. timokhin-aa 11 December 2019 10: 49 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              There are no Seattle photos through the periscope in the book. I asked about them.
              1. Polinom 11 December 2019 13: 12 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                There are two options. Or he doesn’t have them (this time), or is this all to raise the significance of the campaign. This is a normal practice not only for divers. Well, the political department was bustling, they also wanted to wedge and get.
                Well, I myself was at a loss - how could he see Seattle, even if I looked at the map. drinks
                1. timokhin-aa 11 December 2019 13: 29 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  It might not have been Seattle, there’s a big agglomeration
                  1. Polinom 11 December 2019 14: 23 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Alexander, the expression "It could be and ..." makes a discussion meaningless. At the entrance to the bay, yes, there is a photo using 5 t. M. Waters. And the rest, he exaggerated, is probably why carriages with bars were waiting for him.
                    Or over time, all this has grown into fables.
                    Well, people occupied the admiral's niche, he needs to rebel? From his comm Klimova
                    "Until now, the firing necessary for this has not really been carried out, although Americans do it all the time. But such proposals have been prepared and can be implemented if necessary. Russia needs a fleet that would set independent strategic tasks and solve them at sea. Today our fleet is rising. Sharp and fast". "(A military expert told what to train Russian submariners in the Arctic)
                    I did not hear such absurdities even from the most stupid political worker.
                    1. timokhin-aa 11 December 2019 20: 01 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Alexander, the expression "It could be and ..." makes a discussion meaningless. At the entrance to the bay, yes, there is a photo using 5 t. M. Waters.


                      Yes, I just want to look at the pictures of America in the periscope)))

                      I have not heard such absurdities even from the most stupid political worker ..


                      I got a feeling that this is age.
                      1. Polinom 14 December 2019 11: 28 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        And that too. He long ago realized that nothing depends on him, broadcasts what does not irritate the authorities and enjoys the privileges that the admiral's pension gives. Would be smarter, would fall into the group of advisers to the president. laughing
    3. mik193 27 November 2019 19: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      what are the bastions for 658 with P13 with a range of 600km? or the bulk of the 2nd - 667A with R-27 with a range of 2500-3000?

      Well, with these yes, of course. But in the 2nd generation, 18 units were also built. 667B, 4 - 667BD, 14 - 667BDR. All of them were intercontinental BR. For all their shortcomings (primarily due to the backlog of industry), a missile salvo could be fired (and even from an unexpected point) and it makes sense to defend them in the so-called. "bastions" still was.
      1. ser56 28 November 2019 14: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: mik193
        All of them were intercontinental BR.

        1) do I dispute this - I showed a problem with the author hi
        2) then what is the difference between the SSBN and conventional strategic missile forces? request
        1. ccsr 28 November 2019 19: 11 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: ser56
          then what is the difference between the SSBN and conventional strategic missile forces?

          In the flight time and the inability to accurately determine from which point the launch will be made.
          1. ser56 29 November 2019 12: 27 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: ccsr
            In the flight time and the inability to accurately determine from which point the launch will be made.

            1) The flight time from the "bastions" and the positions of the Strategic Missile Forces are comparable request
            2) What does the starting point matter? JBCH flies according to a given program ... repeat
            1. ccsr 29 November 2019 16: 52 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: ser56
              The flight time from the "bastions" and the positions of the Strategic Missile Forces are comparable

              I have not heard that our "Bastions" were in Cuba - maybe you have such information, enlighten.
              Quote: ser56
              What does the starting point matter?

              Great for enemy missile defense systems, especially with a massive launch.
              1. ser56 30 November 2019 15: 55 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: ccsr
                I have not heard that our "Bastions" were in Cuba -

                did you read the article under discussion? bully
                Quote: ccsr
                Great for enemy missile defense systems, especially with a massive launch.

                Do you mean that when rockets are launched off the coast of SSA, they can be destroyed on an active site by laser planes? wink
                1. ccsr 30 November 2019 19: 18 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: ser56
                  did you read the article under discussion?

                  I did not understand why you dragged them to the SSBN.
                  Quote: ser56
                  Do you mean that when rockets are launched off the coast of SSA, they can be destroyed on an active site by laser planes?

                  First, you first need to determine where the launch will be, because it will not necessarily be areas of territorial waters of the United States.
                  Secondly, organizing a huge number of aircraft on duty in peacetime is very costly even for Americans.
                  1. ser56 2 December 2019 13: 45 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Secondly, organizing a huge number of aircraft on duty in peacetime is very costly even for Americans.

                    range action 500km ... request
                2. ccsr 30 November 2019 19: 18 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: ser56
                  did you read the article under discussion?

                  I did not understand why you dragged them to the SSBN.
                  Quote: ser56
                  Do you mean that when rockets are launched off the coast of SSA, they can be destroyed on an active site by laser planes?

                  First, you first need to determine where the launch will be, because it will not necessarily be areas of territorial waters of the United States.
                  Secondly, organizing a huge number of standby aircraft with lasers in peacetime is very expensive even for Americans. So do not take seriously what has not yet been worked out.
  • KJIETyc 26 November 2019 17: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: max702
    Another attempt to make a good face with a bad game .. Yes, to put it mildly, everything is bad and the underwater component of the nuclear triad is not able to complete the task, but it’s okay to continue ..
    The trouble is that it the dearest and as if not the most ineffective part of our strategic nuclear forces .. Question for what? So as not to lose competencies? But will it even be possible to catch up with a probable adversary in this direction? It was impossible to determine by AUG not theoretically not practically, now it’s up to the SSBN. The main question is, can other parts of the strategic nuclear forces be able to compensate for the loss of this component of the triad? Let's start with the aerospace system, a massive modernization of strategic aviation is underway, and since this tool is as universal as possible, there is a sense in it .. Even if (I hope) they never use it for its intended purpose, it’s quite possible to use it with ordinary weapons, progress in rocket technology is easy this allows without the slightest risk to the carriers, therefore, the business is good and correct. We turn to the Strategic Missile Forces, everything is just a support and the only reliable guarantee of the inevitability of our nuclear strike, that it won’t stop, not a preventive strike, not weather conditions, not a mythical missile defense in eastern Europe or the USA .. Accordingly, with new weapons that are methodically supplied this type of weaponry will occupy a leading role in our strategic nuclear forces .. Therefore, if there is any sense in strategic aviation, then it does not exist in the SSBN! Technological, strategic and tactical lag puts an end to this segment of strategic nuclear forces .. it is expensive to useless, and therefore it is not necessary .. Funds are better spent on the same aerospace forces (they will always find work), as well as missile technologies and strategic missile forces. Two components of strategic nuclear forces are enough, nothing to spray small resources, we are not the USSR, the possibilities are much more modest (although getting rid of 14 weights will still need to be calculated as it actually is). The SSBNs were relevant during the time of the Strategic Missile Forces' weakness (and this problem was solved in the 80s), but these days have passed, and colossal investments in the fleet remained, therefore, they tried to use it somehow, today there is almost nothing left from the legacy of the USSR and the question is whether to start this a new body, and is it possible to get along with other no less (in fact, much more) reliable tools .. Moreover, it will be cheaper and more practical for the aircraft as a whole ..

    Immediately there was an article where counter-force and counter-value nuclear strikes (strategies?) Were clearly prescribed and what was the role of the SSBNs in them. And then your fantasies to reality?
  • Sasha_rulevoy 26 November 2019 20: 44 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    "The USSR gradually overcame the lag in quietness from the American atomic ..."

    Suppose Soviet agents stole thoroughly all-all low-noise technology to the very last screw. Suppose also that Soviet industry reproduced all this in the same way.

    The main sources of submarine noise. and. screw b. reactor cooling system pumps c. GTZA.

    Take at random (very approximately): the screw gives 50% noise, the pump and GTZA another 25%.

    Let's take that “Pike-B” and “Los Angeles” go at the same speed. Then the power of the jet from the screw will be proportional to the pressure of the cylinder of the submarine housing on the water. We consider this value proportional to the square of the diameter of the submarine case. In the first case, this value is 13 m, in the second - 10. Thus, the noise of the Shchuki-B screws will be 1,69 times stronger.

    We assume that the noise of the cooling pumps is proportional to the power of the reactor. The "Pike-B" is 190 MW, the aircraft - 165 MW. 1,15 times the difference. The noise from GTZA is assumed to be proportional to the power of the turbines. In our case, it is 50 hp. and 000 35360 hp The difference is 1,4 times.

    If we take the noise from the aircraft per unit, then the noise from the "Pike-B" will receive:

    1,15x0,25 + 1,4x0,25 + 1,69x0,5 = 1,48

    Those. the noise from the "Pike-B" is very approximately equal to the noise from one and a half aircraft, provided that the technologies are the same.
    1. Avior 26 November 2019 21: 14 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      according to pr941 according to your method
      diameter 25 m, reactor power 2 * 190 MW, turbines 2 * 50000. and two screws.
      2,3*0,25+2,86*0,25+1,58*0,5= 2,08
      Only this technique is in doubt.
      she suggests that the boats are in full swing.
      correctly calculate the ratio at lower speeds
    2. bk0010 26 November 2019 23: 35 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
      We consider this value proportional to the square of the diameter of the submarine case.
      Wrong opinion: Wolf is wider than Elk (12 m versus 10), but the noise from its small course is less than that of Elk at the pier (according to the statement of "partners")
    3. mik193 27 November 2019 19: 18 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I’ll fix it a bit. At low speeds, the main source of submarine noise is the ATG - an autonomous turbogenerator. Moreover, both in the sound and in the ultrasonic ranges. Screw components appear at much greater strokes and they also depend on the depth of the stroke. Primary circulation pulsers (TsNPK) on a number of modern submarines (including the USA) do not work at low speeds (search) and reduced reactor power, i.e. the mode of natural circulation of the coolant is in effect. Values ​​of moves depend on the project and according to various open data can reach from 10 to 16 nodes (if not more).
      1. Polinom 28 November 2019 14: 13 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes you are right.
        the mode of natural circulation of the coolant is in effect.
        But for a limited time, the first Elk has up to 40 minutes. Plus or minus 10 min. So it was in the summary. From this they danced by the time of the work of the aircraft RSL and the radius of barriers.
        1. mik193 29 November 2019 11: 08 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          If I am not mistaken, the ECT mode can currently be supported almost unlimitedly, but at low speeds and power of the power plant.
          1. Polinom 3 December 2019 11: 48 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            My info from the mid 80's. Then it became irrelevant, well, taking into account the time of this "freeze". As a tactic of evasion, he did not justify himself.
            Although K-252 in 1974 (Lutsk) crawled in precisely this way through SOSUS south of Aleut. They cited as an example in the classroom.
  • Operator 26 November 2019 23: 50 New
    • 11
    • 2
    +9
    Quote: ccsr
    the task is even earlier to open preparations for a nuclear war in order to try to forestall their strike by launching our strategic nuclear forces

    The current Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation provides only a retaliatory strike with nuclear weapons, while Russia reserves the right to launch a nuclear strike in response to the use of conventional weapons.

    Therefore, it is possible to preempt in principle, but only after the start of foreign aggression.
    1. ccsr 27 November 2019 12: 20 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Operator
      The current Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation provides only a retaliatory strike with nuclear weapons,

      Come on, tell tales - this doctrine is written for the media and for the masses, and military professionals are well aware that we are unlikely to wait for the moment when American missile torches will be spotted by satellites or over-the-horizon radar stations.
      Quote: Operator
      while Russia reserves the right to launch a nuclear strike in response to the use of conventional weapons.

      Burlakov even had this right when he was commander-in-chief in Soviet times in the Western Peace Reserve, and without coordination with Moscow in a critical situation:
      So prepared for the war in the early 1980s? - Not just prepared, but were ready! Marshal Ogarkov created four strategic directions for leading the offensive war. The western one was in the Polish Legnica, and then in Smolensk, the south-western one was in Chisinau, the southern one in Baku, the Far Eastern, Chinese in Ulan-Ude. Hungary (Southern Group) was in one direction with the Kiev and Odessa districts. We had to smash the south of Europe, including Italy. The General Staff has these plans. These samples may once be needed, everything is thought out there, although it needs to be clarified.
      Was the use of nuclear weapons planned? - Of course.
      “Would we be the first to hit?” - Of course.

      - Foreign Minister Gromyko repeated that the USSR would not be the first to use nuclear weapons. - He said one thing, but the military had different thoughts. We have to answer for the war.
      - Isn't the political leadership responsible for this? - The political leadership - Gorbachev and others - betrayed the Union. They were bought in America.

      Interview with Matvey Burlakov (Kommersant-Vlast, No. 12, 2005)
      1. Operator 27 November 2019 13: 05 New
        • 12
        • 3
        +9
        Believe the retirees less with their “of course” - as the Soviet political leadership would have ordered, the military would have done the same with the nuclear weapons laughing

        In addition, the tasks of the USSR and the Russian Federation in TMV at the European theater of operations are fundamentally different: the first state from the Elbe’s border planned to occupy the remaining part of the European subcontinent, the second state from the Dnieper’s border plans to destroy the entire military and civilian infrastructure along with the mobility of the remaining part of the European subcontinent without its occupation (for radioactivity).

        Therefore, in the second case, it will primarily involve not operational-tactical nuclear weapons with kiloton-class charges (army level), but medium-range nuclear weapons with megaton-class charges of the RS-26 type (analogous to the Soviet Pioneer-3, which was at the disposal of the supreme command )
        1. ccsr 27 November 2019 13: 34 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Operator
          Believe the retirees less with their “of course”

          The thing is that I was there at that time, and was on combat duty at one of the headquarters of the group’s headquarters, and I can confirm that the time to make a decision was so minimal that it would hardly have become the commander-in-chief - here in I'm sure of that. So Burlakov did not come up with anything.
          Quote: Operator
          Therefore, in the second case, it will primarily involve not operational-tactical nuclear weapons with kiloton-class charges (army level), but medium-range nuclear weapons with megaton-class charges of the RS-26 type (analogous to the Soviet Pioneer-3, which was at the disposal of the supreme command )

          I don’t need to talk about this ABC - I did it in my time, and I know the alleged scenarios for starting a nuclear war. I’m just informing you that despite being isolated from the borders of the USSR and being in minutes from American bases in the summer, the commander-in-chief had no choice but to strike at NATO if the intelligence department revealed the massive take-off of nuclear carrier vehicles and the withdrawal of Pershing from the boxes. That is why Burlakov told how he would act, and believe me, that would be so.
  • Pereturbatsiya1 27 November 2019 02: 27 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    even assuming that until now the Americans have managed to control 80-90% of all our SSBNs on combat duty (the author came across such estimates, which, however, are extremely doubtful), this does not mean at all that we should abandon the SSBN. It only means that we need to understand which ships of this class need to be built, where to base them, and how to ensure their deployment and combat patrol.


    I'm afraid the problem is much broader and more severe.

    You can decide, but then what?

    The problem is that neither in the days of the USSR, nor now are Russians
    cannot / do not know how to build SUCH submarines (like surface ships,
    but now not about them), as in the USA (or the same France, Japan, etc.).

    And probably it would be strange to wait for the opposite in a country where they could not release a normal camera, TV or tape recorder (and they still cannot fully release the same smartphone, digital camera or refrigerator).
    Exactly to everyone.
    But different "prefabricated hodgepodge" and screwdriver assemblies are not counted here.
    So it is - in relation to refrigerators or something like that.

    What can we say about military equipment, which embodies the highest engineering
    and the production thought of all mankind.
    This area is the highest concentration of technology and achievements, but not only thoughts
    engineers as well as production facilities.
    Well, it’s impossible to do complex things “on the knee”.
    And so as not to be on the knee - you need to have such power here. And so that they are regularly updated
    in terms of technological excellence, in accordance with the development of technology in the world.

    Therefore, the hope is that in the Russian Federation, where, as mentioned above, they CANNOT make a normal TV, camera or drill (on their own, and not on the principle of a screwdriver assembly, or, even worse, a "hodgepodge"), produce the best military equipment in the world - it's just
    the result of the excess in reading pseudo-patriotic resources and newspapers. And “pseudo” - because first you need to become the coolest (in any industry - it doesn’t matter), and only then shout about it at every corner.

    One way or another, but in the case of "catching up and surpassing the United States in terms of the steepness of military equipment" such a pseudo-patriotic auto-training is unlikely to help.


    Something like that.
    1. ccsr 27 November 2019 12: 35 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Pereturbatsiya1
      The problem is that neither in the days of the USSR, nor now are Russians
      cannot / do not know how to build SUCH submarines (like surface ships,
      but now not about them), as in the USA (or the same France, Japan, etc.).

      This is complete nonsense, because the matter is not even in the carriers of nuclear weapons themselves, it does not matter whether they are sea, air or land based, but whether we are able to forestall the enemy attack in a lightning strike with our strategic nuclear forces. This will save many lives of our people, otherwise we will have commensurate losses with the Americans. All the rest of your reasoning about our problems is just amateurish nonsense, somehow.
      Quote: Pereturbatsiya1
      where they couldn’t let out a normal camera, TV or tape recorder

      The United States has not released a single VCR, and American-branded televisions do not exist. The camera, even on the Moon, was not American - according to their own statements, and Canon and Nikon did not leave any chance for American manufacturers of photographic equipment at all. Where is Polaroid now?
      Quote: Pereturbatsiya1
      But different "prefabricated hodgepodge" and screwdriver assemblies are not counted here.

      Even the famous Volvo trucks assembled in Sweden, only 20% consist of Swedish parts - this is the world distribution of labor, you just have not heard about this.
      Quote: Pereturbatsiya1
      One way or another, but in the case of "catching up and surpassing the United States in terms of the steepness of military equipment" such a pseudo-patriotic auto-training is unlikely to help.

      Training is not needed - we always overtook them in terms of operational capabilities / cost of military equipment, and they were not competitors to us, well, except in some narrow areas, which we did not do much at all.
      1. ser56 27 November 2019 15: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: ccsr
        even on the moon was not American -

        do you think they were on the moon? bully
        1. ccsr 27 November 2019 19: 16 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: ser56
          do you think they were on the moon?

          No, I do not believe that they landed on the moon - it was a bluff, although I allow the astronauts to fly around the moon.
    2. ser56 27 November 2019 15: 05 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Pereturbatsiya1
      that in the Russian Federation, where, as mentioned above, they CANNOT make a normal TV, camera or drill

      and in the USA they cannot make a spaceship and a rocket for it - so what? bully
      got these agents of the State Department ... soldier
      1. Pereturbatsiya1 27 November 2019 19: 02 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        So compare the caliber of inability ....
    3. timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 15: 52 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Therefore, the hope is that in the Russian Federation, where, as mentioned above, they CANNOT make a normal TV, camera or drill (on their own, and not on the principle of a screwdriver assembly, or, even worse, a "hodgepodge"), produce the best military equipment in the world is simply the result of an excess in reading pseudo-patriotic resources and newspapers.


      Therefore, the hope is that in Japan, where, as mentioned above, they CANNOT make a normal gearbox for a helicopter, a turbojet engine or a nuclear reactor (independently, and not on the principle of "figure out something based on the American prototype of 20 years ago"), produce the best civilian equipment in the world - this is simply the result of the excess in reading foreign advertising catalogs.

      Yes?

      In fact, in the real world, countries have the opportunities to which they have invested strength and resources. The USSR, for example, invested in manned space exploration but did not invest in large diameter pipes, so it could build a space orbital station, and could not make a spiral tube with a diameter of 2 meters and a length of 17 meters.

      All states of the world are in a similar position, to a greater or lesser degree. The United States, for example, also does not have its own smartphones and cannot start their production, but they can land a rover on Mars.

      So with your tales, go to Detskiy Sad. There is the place for both you and them - without regard to the real merits or demerits of Russian weapons.
  • Operator 27 November 2019 14: 17 New
    • 10
    • 2
    +8
    Quote: ccsr
    I was there at that time, and was on combat duty at one of the headquarters of the group’s headquarters, and I can confirm that the time to make a decision was so minimal that it would hardly have become the commander-in-chief

    This is your personal opinion (not knowledge), since this kind of information was not communicated to you.

    Plus, you do not take into account the existence of a special period when the right to make a decision on the use of nuclear weapons is delegated to the level of military units upon the fact of mass take-off of aircraft and launch of missiles within the theater of operations - the so-called retaliatory strike.

    Naturally, there is also a strike at the appointed time, but it can be made only after an official statement on changing the military doctrine of the state, which neither the USSR nor the Russian Federation did - unlike the United States, whose military doctrine contains the concept of counter-force strike.
    1. ser56 27 November 2019 15: 07 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Operator
      you ignore the existence of a special period,

      I remind you that the IVS also waited and did not expect ... request
      1. Operator 27 November 2019 15: 18 New
        • 10
        • 3
        +7
        For the IVS in 1941, the expectation was critical due to the lower level of the military potential of the USSR compared with the potential of Europe (united under the auspices of the Third Reich), for the Russian Federation, whose military potential exceeds the combined potential of all other countries of the world - no.
        1. ser56 27 November 2019 15: 26 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Operator
          due to the lower level of the military potential of the USSR compared with the potential of Europe, united under the auspices of the Third Reich

          1) the more it was necessary to deploy troops, and not wait ... request
          2) I note that financially our troops were well armed, the problem was the organization and training of personnel from the regiment and above ... hi
          1. Operator 27 November 2019 15: 38 New
            • 10
            • 1
            +9
            The lower level of military potential naturally causes a desire to pull it up (to the level of May 1942, for example), as well as to wait for the Third Reich to enter the war situation on two fronts - fortunately, the Soviet intelligence informed the ITT about the conclusion in March 1941 of a secret US-British an agreement under the title of ABC on the mobilization of American industry and the deployment of the American armed forces in the British Isles, as well as on the decision of the Japanese government, will focus on the seizure of oil fields in European colonies in the territory of Southeast Asia (and not taiga in the Soviet Far East).
            1. ser56 27 November 2019 16: 56 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Operator
              The lower level of military potential naturally causes a desire to pull it up (to the level of May 1942, for example)

              Do not repeat the tales of Agitprop - the Wehrmacht gained power faster than the Red Army ... request If in the fall of 39g the Red Army had every chance to conduct a brief victorious war, as in May 40, then in May 42 the defeat could be even worse ... request For a year, the problems of the Red Army with the command cannot be solved, and an increase in the number of tanks and other things would further aggravate the problem of communications, transport, etc.
              1. ccsr 27 November 2019 19: 57 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Quote: ser56
                If in the fall of 39g the Red Army had every chance to conduct a brief victorious war,

                You grabbed it over the edge - we had no chance in 1939, and the Finnish War clearly proved it.
                1. ser56 28 November 2019 14: 25 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: ccsr
                  You grabbed it over the edge - we had no chance in 1939,

                  compare the number and quality of tanks, aircraft, the number of divisions and brigades in the Red Army and the Wehrmacht ...
                  Quote: ccsr
                  The Finnish war has clearly demonstrated this.

                  do you think some other army was able to fight in the winter and break the line of Manerheim? hi
                  Wrong conclusions were drawn by the Germans on the basis of this war and they paid ... and the problems of the Winter War in poor preparation for it, when they were prepared at least a little, they broke through February-March ...
                  1. ccsr 28 November 2019 18: 43 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: ser56
                    compare the number and quality of tanks, aircraft, the number of divisions and brigades in the Red Army and the Wehrmacht ...

                    Better compare the Finnish results and read the report on its results - it is on the network.
                    Quote: ser56
                    do you think some other army was able to fight in the winter and break the line of Manerheim?

                    You read the report of the chief of the General Staff of the General Staff of Proskurov on the results of this war, then much will understand why we had such results.
                    Quote: ser56
                    and the problems of the Winter War are in poor preparation for it,

                    More precisely, the weaknesses of the entire Red Army, and this is obvious. That is why if it had occurred to Stalin to start a war against Germany in 1939, it’s even hard to imagine how it would end for us.