Russian submarine fleet: so afraid of it or what?


David Ex from The National Interest produced a very original analysis: “Watch Out! Russian Submarines Are Prowling Off the US Coast ».


On the one hand, a schukher, the Russians came and I will not save them, on the other hand, the people, we don’t panic, everything will be a hamburger and a stake.

But American admirals are not very pleased with the growing activity of Russian submarines off their coasts.

This is normal. This is generally logical. You just need to remember the "good old" times of the Cold War, when the jambs of Soviet submarines were scared away by US aircraft carriers, lugged inside warrants, in general, they acted as masters of the oceans.

No wonder. The US location is twofold in itself. On the one hand, the country occupies the entire continent. Okay, not all, but I'm sure no one will blame me for the fact that I do not consider Canada a country that can say something like that across the United States. Well, Mexico too.

So the United States is fully insured against conflicts on its land. While in the world there is no one who is able to arrange a landing operation on the coast of the country.

But to come closer under water, to swim up and shy away with something very heavy, nuclear, and with a separable warhead ... Yes, so that without a chance to intercept ...

Aw, aircraft carriers, how are you? Nothing?

The idea of ​​floating airfields pushed into the ocean and keeping nobody within the shot range is a very competent concept. But for an atomic ship that goes at a depth of half a kilometer, and in case of great luck, it can only be detected by a hydrophone. Airplanes, satellites, something else ...

In general, for a submarine this is so ...

That is why the US military very ambiguously perceived the appearance of Russian submarines near their shores.

And buddy David began to console his readers. Say, do not worry, the Russians are swimming, and they’ll get away. And in ten years they will not have any submarines left in order to seriously threaten the United States.

The question is for those readers who are in the compartment: and who will say how many of our nuclear submarines are needed to seriously puzzle Americans?

If one is Yellowstone and the second is Washington?

Last year, the Americans spotted eight of our boats. And two in the test exits. So the Americans have reason to believe that Russia doubled the number of submarine exits. And it cannot but strain. Because to counter these submarines, in theory, you need to triple the number of ships of the US Navy. To search for needles (submarines) in a haystack (ocean).

In fact, everything is not so bad. Eight of our submarines took part in the exercises, and two were on a test trip.

But these two months, during which the exercises went, greatly agitated the American naval command. Naturally, no one in the United States believed in the defensive essence of the exercises in the ocean, they are not defending off the coast of the enemy, even if it’s potential, which means that the intentions of the Russians should be regarded exclusively as a manifestation of aggression of the highest level.

This is a very significant statement. And it would be even cooler if, as an argument, Ex would not cite some data received from ... sources in the intelligence of Norway.

Well, listen, it’s not serious at all! Refer to the intelligence of Norway, which has been searching for Russian boats in its waters for so many years and cannot find the ONLY Baltic submarine fleet - Well, really, not serious at all!

However, the commander of the Second Fleet (urgently resurrected from the non-existence of a reserve in 2018), Andrew Lewis stated that "the east coast is no longer a safe haven for American ships." In February 2020.

Well, I do not agree with the admiral. To the west, too, you can throw someone, it is very possible. Guys will be pulled from Vladivostok, if necessary. And the fleet, which has simply stood in reserve since 2011, is unlikely to be able to become such an effective tool.

“We are seeing an ever-increasing number of Russian submarines deployed in the Atlantic, and these submarines are more capable than ever to deploy over longer periods of time, with more deadly weapon systems,” said Lewis.

No, that’s logical! And why then still need to drive boats into the oceans, to teach and train crews, to develop new weapons systems? No, of course, it would be nice if rowing galleys went on the attack at the USA AUG, but here excuse me - we have what we have.

“Our new reality is that when our sailors go to sea, they can expect to act in a disputed space as soon as they leave Norfolk. “Our ships can no longer expect to operate in a safe place on the east coast or simply cross the Atlantic unhindered to operate elsewhere.”

And this is what the admiral says, under the command of 6 cruisers, 21 destroyers, 8 strategic submarines, 15 multi-purpose attack submarines and 13 patrol ships. And a bunch of completely new and powerful Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft.

Who would check the admiral's pants ... Well, who said that the US Navy simply must feel dry and comfortable anywhere in the World Ocean?

Apparently, Admiral Lewis really scared the public with his remarks, and the brave Interest employee Ex had to reassure the public.

Say, nothing, Moscow simply is not able to maintain the pace and very soon they simply will not have any submarines in order to keep the entire American continent in suspense.

At present, Russia has 62nd submarines of all classes. (In fact, there are 68 of them, the data of the Americans is somehow a little outdated.)

11 of them are strategic with ballistic missiles, 26 are nuclear with cruise missiles, and the rest are multi-purpose. 22 diesel-electric do not take it weapon close combat. A total of 59.

The remaining nine are special-purpose boats that are not intended to participate in combat operations.

The American expert says that the boats are old, built in the 80-90s, which means that they will soon reach the final. I do not agree, the age for nuclear powered ships is not very critical. Specially looked, but what about the star-striped?

Ok there. The freshest Ohio was built in 1997, and the first in 1984. And the new Columbia will go in the 30s.

And so who would talk about old boats ...

Meanwhile, once every two years, the Borey rises, which can be called anything but not an old boat. Given that there are actually 4 Boreevs in the ranks, the fifth (Prince Oleg) should be put into operation this year, and 4 more are under construction ...

Given that the construction of boats, which are part of the nuclear triad, is given the highest priority, and besides, we have not forgotten how to build them ...

So I would not be in a hurry with conclusions.

But they are sure of The National Interest: by the end of the 20s, by the beginning of the 30s, maximum 12 submarines will remain in the Russian Navy. The rest either completely fail, or become so old that it will be pointless to keep them in the fleet.

Where such confidence? Maybe we don’t know something like that? Let's watch. Moreover, American colleagues have a terrible figure of 28 submarines at their disposal. Everything that Russian shipbuilding can achieve in 10 years.

No, we have a lot of problems in building ships. But not enough to condemn the submarine fleet.

So let's see.

There is no point in taking diesel submarines for a reason that I already wrote about. So just a figure of 15 boats minimum and 20 maximum, if they do not disrupt the program - and that’s all.

We look at nuclear powered ships.

Project 949A Antey. 8 boats. The first boats came to the fleet in the late 80s. The last Antei was put into service in 1996. Six of them underwent repair and modernization. Two should be updated by 2022. Comparable to Ohio? Quite.

Project 671RTMK "Pike." 2 boats. They went into operation in the early 90s, modernized.

Project 945 Barracuda. 2 boats. It seems to be decided to upgrade to the level of the fourth generation. The boats are old (1983 and 1986), but apparently there is confidence in the correctness of the action.

Project 945A "Condor". 2 boats. They will also upgrade. In general, right, a titanium case is a titanium case.

Project 971 "Pike-B". 12 boats. Yes, unlike the Barracudas and Condors, the steel case is instead of titanium. Because it is debatable, the newer boats will work again.

Project 885 "Ash." One boat. In service since 2014. And two are planned for 2020.

Of course, unlike the American Navy, it is very motley, unfortunately. If you look like the Americans are watching, then yes, the first candidates for parsing are two Pikes. And that’s all. Something else, well, only in the case of deterioration, but I don’t have such data, so use a pitchfork to calculate how many boats can be written off in the next 10 years.

Perhaps some will write off. But really hardly a lot, because it would be worth pulling to the last. Let's take that there are 20 boats left. If we add all those under construction to this quantity, then we will get the same figure 28.

However, we still have the second class of nuclear submarines. SSBN. Suddenly so ...

Ryazan, the last of the project 667RBD Kalmar, of course, will be written off. The 1982 ship built long will not live, alas. Plus the “wet" launch of the missiles - well, still yesterday.

Project 667BDRM "Dolphin". 6 boats. They will still live, since they managed to rearm them on modern Sineva missiles. But it is the “Dolphins” that should replace the “Boreas” by 2030. Which is quite possible.

Project 941 "Shark". One boat. Converted to the Bulava missile, it was tested on it, and may still be living. Although it is possible Severstal and Arkhangelsk will be modernized and put into operation. Not excluded. I would be very happy about this.

Project 955 "Northwind." Three boats. It is planned to build until 2027 another seven cruisers of the modernized project 955A.

Thus, we get 10 (+9).

We put all the nuclear powered ships in one pile and get 38 ships. This is a bit bigger than what David Ex predicts. Well, obviously not 12. But a decrease, of course, will take place.

Summarizing everything, we get that in the most negative development of the situation in the Navy, 37 submarines will be operated. This, of course, is more than NI - 12 predicts. But a decrease in composition will still be significant.

If everything planned is completed, then we will have 41 nuclear submarines. This is minus the Dolphins, who did not understand. Now there are 46 of them. The difference in my opinion is not very big.

That is, there is certainly a difference in quantity, but let's take a sober look: it will be partially compensated by quality. And given the situation with the construction of nuclear submarines, which is better than diesel ones, there is no particular reason for concern.

Ian Ballantyne, David’s colleague, editor of another publication, Warships International Fleet Review, picked up the funeral howl. He also said many kind words to our submarine forces.

“Most strike submarines date from the 1980s and 90s. There are still quite a lot of old, Soviet ships carrying the main load, both shock submarines and boats with ballistic missiles. How many more of these old ships can be sent to the sea, awaiting the arrival of new ones, is a moot point.
The time will come when most of the Russian submarine forces both in the Northern Fleet and in the Pacific Fleet - the most important naval forces - will cease to function, leaving huge gaps. ”

Well, blessed are the believers ...

In fact, without hatred, the Russian submarine fleet is a more serious and reliable thing. We can build submarines, we can use them. And it is not for nothing that in the USA the admirals began to feel not very comfortable. There is logic in their behavior. It is very difficult to preserve the integrity of the country, which is very easy to get close to the underwater missile cruiser.

But simply waiting for the development of a positive scenario in our country is possible only when the cadres decide everything. When personnel from the bottom to the very top will not steal fuel from emergency generators, will not allow fires on repaired ships, will not continue to sink docks and ships out of the blue, they will not delay the construction of ships for several years.

Then everything will be fine with us, in fear of our enemies. I'd love to.
Author:
Photos used:
PolitRussia (youtube.com, video frame)
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. 2 Level Advisor 5 March 2020 06: 04 New
    • 19
    • 0
    +19
    Roman, and when comparing submarine forces — how many boats from the Navy’s enlisted personnel — are ready to perform military service with us and with the Minke whales, how many will be written off with us / them in the coming years, how many will be put into operation, why didn’t you take it apart?
    For an analytical comparison of weapons, it is necessary to take into account not only the payroll — what do we have, that the “partners” do not have all the nuclear submarines on the BS and not all ever go .. very superficially, it turned out, usually you dig deeper ..
    And in any case, the enemy needs to be afraid of our submarine fleet, even one submarine for a couple of some divisions of the Strategic Missile Forces can work out .. it would be strange not to take this into account hi

    ps at least - 941 projects to be included in the combat forces You obviously got excited about including-he is an experienced nuclear submarine at present .. unfortunately ..
    1. Bashkirkhan 5 March 2020 07: 53 New
      • 17
      • 0
      +17
      Roman needed to verify the payroll at least on the site Storming depth. http://www.deepstorm.ru. The same Shchuk-B is not 12, as Roman writes, but only ten (of them, 2 after the VTG - “Cheetah” and “Kuzbass” + from the VTG “Vepr” will leave soon). There were 14 pieces, “Shark”, “Bars”, “Barnaul” and “Sperm whale” were withdrawn from the fleet. Regarding the modernization of pr. 949A, they write that the first of them, the Irkutsk nuclear submarine, will have to return to service in 2021, if again the deadlines do not go to the right. I personally doubt the expediency of upgrading this ship. Irkutsk was launched in 1987, commissioned in 1989, in the Pacific Fleet since the 90th. He served less than 10 years, not a single military service and was put into reserve back in 1997, where he defended in Krasheninnikov Bay pending repair. In 2001, Zvezda was transferred to the FSUE DVZ Zvezda in the village of Bolshoi Kamen, repairs began in 2014. It was put into reserve pending repairs in 1997, the completion date for repairs is 2021. The ship exchanged four dozen, after repair and modernization it will not last more than 10 years, then he will be expelled from the fleet. It makes no sense to spend enormous amounts of money on modernization for this. The nuclear submarine of the same type Chelyabinsk is located in the water area of ​​the plant, it has not yet begun to be modernized.
      1. Tektor 5 March 2020 18: 08 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        They themselves wrote:
        Served less than 10 years
        those. the resource is not developed, and can last another 40 years.
      2. Nemchinov Vl 9 March 2020 14: 20 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Bashkirkhan
        Roman needed to verify the payroll at least on the site Storming depth. http://www.deepstorm.ru. The same Shchuk-B is not 12, as Roman writes, but only ten (of which 2 after the VTG are in service - “Cheetah” and “Kuzbass” + “Vepr” will soon leave VTG). There were 14 pieces, “Shark”, “Bars”, “Barnaul” and “Sperm whale” were withdrawn from the fleet.
        c'mon there ... Don’t break the kid raspberry optimism ...
        Russian submarine fleet: so afraid of it or what?
        he could not write, - COMPETE ...
        Quote: aries2200
        cheap cap-working for the enemy
        don't hit the guy with realism. This is not humane.
        Quote: Per se.
        A significant part of American cities is concentrated on the coasts, to which the "black holes" can get close.
        Here is a guy with optimism to help the author !!!
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        What can I say? Roman has 12 Shchuk-B in the fleet, in reality, EMNIP 2 in the Northern Fleet and 1 in the Pacific Fleet. The rest are in repair and its expectation, and it is obvious that not all will wait
        SW. Andrey, do not offend him, otherwise you may get the impression that you are simply “fighting a competitor” .... winked good
        Quote: Ros 56
        A miracle in feathers, you beguiled a site with a May Day demonstration.
        Yuri, this is certainly true, but it sounds rude ... crying
        Quote: Fan-Fan
        Yes, the author is very free to operate with numbers, the number of submarines counted enchantingly, even took into account those that will never even reach recycling under their own power.
        For this, a man tried ...
        Quote: Brylevsky
        Do not pull up, unfortunately. And that's why. From Vladivostok to, say, San Francisco, about 4500 nautical miles. This is if through the Laperouse Strait. Minus 1400 km (the caliber of the missile attack), 3744 miles remain. Now remember: the economic route to the 3 nodes of Varshavyanka passes about ... 400 miles, after which it will be forced to emerge (hello, air-independent power plants) or continue further in the RDP mode. Formally, in this mode, she can walk about 7500 nautical miles, but who will let her pass, like at home?
        what kind of all of you are here, cruel ... Here, Bram Stoker, in one of the books, had a much more humane phrase, "let the madman sleep in his frenzy ...". "G", - Humanity ...
    2. arkadiyssk 5 March 2020 11: 37 New
      • 11
      • 0
      +11
      Among Americans, combat readiness is considered so - out of the fleet, 297 ships serve 100. That is, a third of the fleet is always ready and deployed, the rest is trained, repaired, and rested. But if necessary, they can withdraw a bunch of forces in a couple of months, for example, when they crushed the DPRK two years ago, they deployed 2 instead of 3 AUGs in 7 months. 5 of them were brought to the Pacific Ocean.
  2. aries2200 5 March 2020 07: 00 New
    • 23
    • 3
    +20
    cheap cap-working for the enemy ......
    1. Grandfather Crimea 5 March 2020 09: 27 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      No, this is an occasion to write one more article to the minke whales- "We already knew, it’s time for Russia to dry oars")))))
  3. rocket757 5 March 2020 07: 16 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    On the one hand, a schukher, the Russians came and I will not save them, on the other hand, the people, we don’t panic, everything will be a hamburger and a stake.

    Depending on what politicians and admirals need to achieve! Win elections, for example, or beg the babosiks!
  4. Per se. 5 March 2020 07: 21 New
    • 6
    • 8
    -2
    22 do not take diesel-electric, it is a melee weapon.
    Even so, the possibility of Caliber-PL cannot be ruled out. In the fall of 2017, speaking at the Valdai club, President V.V. Putin spoke about the maximum range of a sea-based Caliber flight of 1400 kilometers. Even if the range is much smaller for Caliber-PL (the exact information is classified), this is an early deterrence argument. A significant part of American cities is concentrated on the coasts, to which the "black holes" can get close. Even one missile with a special charge, on one diesel-electric submarine, can become a problem for the United States, especially when mass building these relatively cheap and low-noise boats. When installing VNEU, the potential of boats will increase significantly. Let the Americans exclude our diesel-electric submarines from the calculations, and our fleet should improve them and take them into account.
  5. SovAr238A 5 March 2020 07: 28 New
    • 26
    • 3
    +23
    What a solid sell
    и
    number manipulation,
    in isolation from actual reality ...
    1. volodimer 5 March 2020 09: 35 New
      • 13
      • 0
      +13
      This is a very significant statement. And it would be even cooler if, as an argument, Ex would not cite some data received from ... sources in the intelligence of Norway.
      Well, listen, it’s not serious at all! To refer to the intelligence of Norway, which has been searching for Russian boats in its waters for so many years and cannot find the ONLY submarine of the Baltic Fleet - well, really, not seriously!


      What does Norway and the BF have to do with it? We don’t confuse it with the Swedes ... or B-806 Dmitrov dangles regularly through the Danish Straits to the Norwegian coast ... Something neither Swedes nor Danes squealed about this.
      I agree, the article is, to put it mildly, strange.
      1. rudolff 5 March 2020 09: 47 New
        • 20
        • 0
        +20
        I’m struggling to remember when we had a situation similar to the current one at the BF. One DEPL. Only tsarist times come to mind, and even then, the period of the very beginning of the formation of the submarine fleet.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 March 2020 18: 59 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: rudolff
          I’m struggling to remember when we had a situation similar to the current one at the BF. One DEPL.

          But the jester knows him. Even at the height of the revolution, there were 6 submarines in the bunker. recourse
          1. rudolff 5 March 2020 19: 22 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            So am I about that. The civilian was better. The closest analogy is the Black Sea Fleet before the arrival of the Warsaw. Except for the 641st one adhered to the floating dock, only Alrosa was on the move. And when a fire broke out on her, the fleet was left without a submarine at all.
  6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 March 2020 08: 47 New
    • 26
    • 0
    +26
    What can I say? Roman has 12 Shchuk-B in the fleet, in reality, EMNIP 2 in the Northern Fleet and 1 in the Pacific Fleet. The rest are in repair and its expectation, and it is obvious that not all will wait
    1. Fan-fan 5 March 2020 10: 13 New
      • 19
      • 2
      +17
      Yes, the author is very free to operate with numbers, the number of submarines counted enchantingly, even took into account those that will never even reach recycling under their own power.
  7. Ros 56 5 March 2020 09: 16 New
    • 1
    • 22
    -21
    Let them be afraid and how. Despite all the shortcomings in the fleet and problems with financing, according to all-propellers, at least Russia has something to say striped so that as Columbus opened them, so they can close forever.
    I am not a supporter of war, like any normal person, but if forced, then the guys do not be offended, and no one will probably be offended.
    1. smart ass 5 March 2020 17: 15 New
      • 6
      • 3
      +3
      Uryayaya Yrayaya Yuryayaya
      1. Ros 56 5 March 2020 17: 22 New
        • 1
        • 9
        -8
        A miracle in feathers, you beguiled a site with a May Day demonstration. Go wash yourself with a cold little water, maybe he will let him go, and not let him go, this is to the doctor in the PND, there are a lot of such clever men and even Napoleons are there. fool
  8. Spring fluff 5 March 2020 09: 32 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    Strange tone in the article. If the author wants to write about the number of submarines, then you need to deal with this issue, and in order to study the pants of the American admiral, you need to work out a few more questions. In my amateurish opinion - how they will leave the bases (who will interfere with this and how) and how to get to the coast of a likely enemy, taking into account the means of detection he has
  9. V.I.P. 5 March 2020 09: 45 New
    • 16
    • 1
    +15
    For the author, about the American submarine fleet fleet ... 3 boats Sivulf (which the Americans call the best in the world). They will not build the series because of the high cost ... ... ..Our about our boats they say that too))) ... Next Virginia -17 boats in service. The first boat was included in 2004, the seventeenth -2019 year. According to the plan, 13 more should be built .. Los Angeles 32 boats remained in service on 1.01.2018/1976/1996. The first boat was included in 18, and the seventy-sixth in 2006 ... Ohio - in the composition of 2006 boats. Of these, four boats in 154-4 were converted into carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic Tomogavk, each boat carries 2002 missiles !!!!! Is there something similar in the Russian Federation ?????? 2008 more boats from 1-2 were converted from Trident 5 missiles to Trident 2019 DXNUMX (the most advanced American ballistic missile for boats) .... Columbia - the first boat was laid down in XNUMX ...... ... ..Yes pseudo patriots have reason to shout what are we cooler ??? And I strongly doubt it. ... In our country, only MRCs with Caliber can boast)), but not submarines. About our diesels there is no sense even talking if we are talking only about Americans. Well, about their torpedoes and ours, it makes no sense to talk. Delays for decades. And Ameri constantly fired torpedoes under the ice of the Arctic. In the USSR and the Russian Federation there has never been such a thing! And the torpedoes there behave differently than in open water. And the Americans, following the results of unsatisfactory firing, are making changes to the torpedoes. And torpedoes are the main weapon of boats against other boats ....
  10. certero 5 March 2020 09: 53 New
    • 3
    • 9
    -6
    Today, submarines carrying ballistic missiles are simply nonsense for Russia. The cost of maintaining one rocket is much higher than for land placement. Therefore, investing in Russian missile cruisers is wrong. Yes, boats carrying cruise missiles are needed to participate in a local conflict. Just so that there are not a dozen missiles there, but 100+ as remade in Ohio.
    1. PSih2097 5 March 2020 21: 49 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: certero
      Today, submarines carrying ballistic missiles are simply nonsense for Russia.

      What ??? have you heard of projects 955 and 955A? And yes, the same Sharks (project 941), if desired, can be put into operation again in two versions (SSBN with Sineva / Bulava or SSGN with Caliber).
      Quote: certero
      The cost of maintaining one rocket is much higher than for land placement.

      Seriously? This is where you dug this? Now all the missiles are in the TPK, respectively, no maintenance / maintenance is required, except for the costs of production - delivery - installation ...
      1. certero 6 March 2020 08: 54 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        That is, the boat is free?
        Nuclear submarines with br were needed when they did not finish off to the USA. Now this is a dumb waste of resources. Placing missiles in mines or in the mobile version on land is cheaper and faster
        1. PSih2097 6 March 2020 20: 18 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: certero
          That is, the boat is free?

          and what’s the conversation about? about building or still about the contents ???
          you
          decide ...
          1. certero 7 March 2020 01: 56 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            what is determined there. To keep 16 missiles on a boat, you need to spend several tens of billions of rubles to build the boat itself. To keep these 16 rockets on land will require significantly less money. in the process of operating the boat, more money is required than maintaining the infrastructure for these 16 missiles on land.
            in addition, land missiles will be significantly more protected from a sudden blow than a boat. Just because the Americans at sea are much stronger than us. But attacking missiles in the mines means starting a war
  11. rudolff 5 March 2020 10: 04 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    We have a happy situation, to the envy of all, perhaps, only with the BDRM in the Federation Council. Well, not counting the Black Sea six diesel-electric submarines. All went through modernization, all types of scheduled repairs on time and strictly on schedule, exits to the BS are regular, not only the wall on the database is propped up. It is armed with a modern and one of the best SLBMs in the world. If we had all the submarines operated like this, then there would have been an underwater fleet about which Roman writes.
  12. Tests 5 March 2020 10: 06 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Dear author! I have not seen such a fresh photo of Dmitry Donskoy, he was about six months old, or maybe less, thanks a lot!
    About plugging with nuclear submarine repairs - Russia does not have the right personnel in the right amount, there is no financing, there is no normal industry - counterparts Zvyozdochka have been searching for years for certain items of what is needed to repair and modernize orders - they wrote on the site many, many times.
    Severstal and Arkhangelsk should be disposed of a long time ago, like Kirov, BUT (see paragraph above). “Losharik” was recently discussed (see paragraph above). About multipurpose boats, boats with the Kyrgyz Republic and their repairs, commentators already painted everything before me not bad.
    And in vain you are so about the intelligence of Norway. They nerves to our military, they wind and they will wind, pros with not bad equipment.
  13. Brylevsky 5 March 2020 11: 31 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Guys will be pulled from Vladivostok, if necessary.

    Do not pull up, unfortunately. And that's why. From Vladivostok to, say, San Francisco, about 4500 nautical miles. This is if through the Laperouse Strait. Minus 1400 km (the caliber of the missile attack), 3744 miles remain. Now remember: the economic route to the 3 nodes of Varshavyanka passes about ... 400 miles, after which it will be forced to emerge (hello, air-independent power plants) or continue further in the RDP mode. Formally, in this mode, she can walk about 7500 nautical miles, but who will let her pass, like at home? Its route will pass through the Aleutian Islands, which actually are the territory of the United States. Comrades, do you understand that in a modern war sending a boat on a mission "under the diesel engine" is almost guaranteed to doom it to death from enemy anti-submarine forces? Vladivostok’s “Diesels” are designed to perform completely different tasks and no one in their right mind will send them on a suicidal “business trip”. In any case, I hope so.
    1. PSih2097 5 March 2020 21: 53 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Brylevsky
      Do not pull up, unfortunately. And that's why. From Vladivostok to, say, San Francisco, about 4500 nautical miles.

      and why should it be there? What, in Alaska and in Canada / Japan there are no goals? even I, far from the fleet and the Strategic Missile Forces on vskidku can name about 10 targets to strike only in Alaska.
      1. Brylevsky 6 March 2020 02: 11 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        And here is Canada or Japan? Let’s attack South Korea again, there is also an American base there, and from Vladivostok to Busan it’s three days. The article implied a hypothetical conflict between Russia and the United States. If Russia engages in a war with Japan and / or Canada, Russia will only get worse. Are you interested in why San Francisco was chosen for the attack? It's simple: this is a major port city on the west coast of the United States. In addition to him, of course, there are others (the same Long Beach near Los Angeles), but they are located even further than Frisco. Consequently, our boat will be under the gun of the US anti-submarine forces longer. In fairness, I must inform you that the port city of Vladivostok is also the target of the strike for American naval sailors.
  14. Alexey RA 5 March 2020 11: 37 New
    • 12
    • 1
    +11
    And this is what the admiral says, under the command of 6 cruisers, 21 destroyers, 8 strategic submarines, 15 multi-purpose attack submarines and 13 patrol ships. And a bunch of completely new and powerful Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft.

    Yes, everything is fine - just the commander of the second fleet solves his internal tasks of pulling a budget blanket precisely on his fleet. And he does this in the traditional way - frightening the Russian military threat, which is the largest in the area of ​​his fleet. smile
    Do not forget that the Second Fleet under Obama was disbanded. And restored only in 2018. So now he needs to urgently gain points.
  15. qaz
    qaz 5 March 2020 11: 44 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Soooo strange article. The boats of the Yasen-M project can and can strike at the US coastline, but it makes no sense to drive them there, they serve to ensure the safety of the "strategists", as it was in the USSR and is so now.
    1. PSih2097 5 March 2020 21: 54 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: qaz
      but driving them there makes no sense

      Well, pike with “Grenades” went there during the Soviet Union for some reason, apparently there was some sense.
      1. Podvodnik 6 March 2020 20: 41 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0

        Well, pike with "Grenades" there during the Soviet Union for some reason drove


        Pikes drove, but the "Pomegranate" never loaded. They shot only "in the factory" on the state.
  16. iouris 5 March 2020 12: 45 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    A correctly asked question already contains the correct answer.
  17. g1v2 5 March 2020 13: 49 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    Well, with strategists, we are more or less. You can argue whether they are needed or not, but in fact by the year 24 we will have 3 Borea and 5 Boreev. Squid of course write off by the time you receive the last Borea-a from this party. Shark - experimental, why talk about it? Both decommissioned Sharks are waiting for disposal. Dolphins will gradually begin to change also to Borei. 2 pieces should be pledged this year and 2 more should be contracted, sort of like at the end of summer. As the dolphins are written off, Boreas will arrive. By the time the head of Colombia was built, we should have completely rearmed ourselves on the Boreas. Our strategists are much better than the states, because they have not yet begun rearmament, and we are already rearming. request
    Well, NOW MULTI-PURPOSE. I don’t know why Roman DEPL is not interested, but now it is 21 submarines. Of these, 8 are new. Two more are in trials, 3 are under construction and 4 more are contracted. That is, there will be 17 new ones already. 3 more have passed or are undergoing modernization, until the mid-20s they will definitely serve. Then they are going to order Varshavyanka for the BF to order and Lada for the SF. Well, okay - there is no contract and we won’t consider them yet. That is, according to DEPL, even at a minimum, we will have 20 multipurpose submarines. request
    Maple
    Ash. 1 in service, 1 in testing, 5 under construction and 2 more contracted. That is, we will have 9 pieces of completely new submarines.
    Anthei. All 8 pieces either pass or undergo or will undergo repairs with varying degrees of modernization. Even the oldest 88 year Irkutsk undergoes a deep modernization. The rest are younger. Up to 40 years old, they are definitely moving away.
    Barracudas. They are stupidly old. They wanted to upgrade because of the titanium case, but it is already clear that the modernization was frozen. We will not take into account.
    Condors. Both are in service and run until the 30s. Will they upgrade - xs. Not the fact that the game is worth the candle.
    Pikes are ordinary. 2 pieces. They were recognized as having no modernization potential, they were likely to be written off in the mid-20s, but Tambov was still under repair, and he was active, he was definitely running after repair for 5 years. Moreover, it is relatively not old.
    Pike-b. 10 pieces. The oldest is Bratsk, 89 years old, the youngest is Cheetah 2001. They wanted to lease one to the Indians, but in fact there is no exact information, we don’t take into account. 5 pieces for modernization, which means they reach the end of the 20s. Moreover, they will modernize the oldest one - Bratsk. 2 at VTG. 3 in the ranks, and Kuzbass after repair with modernization. Suppose a couple of the older ones are written off or given to the Indians. We will count 8 pieces at a minimum.
    So we get to the second half of the 20s. 14 strategists. 17 APCR. 10-11 PLAT-PLARK. Pieces 20 DEPL. And this is at a minimum if they don’t order anything else - neither new Ash-trees, nor Laika, nor Lada, nor Varshavyanka. But it’s already clear what will be ordered. request
    Well, let's estimate that by state in the second half of the 20s. The old Ohio strategists will still wait for the shift workers. If the oldest 4 pieces are not written off. 4 refitted Ohio write off - they are too old. Moose is gradually written off, but about 10 pieces will still run in the second half of the 20s. 3 Sivulfa. In service, 28 Virginia are being built and contracted. Since we do not consider possible orders from us, we will not even guess if they will still have orders. Total in the region of 41 maples they will have in the second half of the 20s and 10-14 strategists. DEPL they do not have.
    In general, the submarines will be approximately parity. Their advantage in the number of mapples is compensated by our diesel-electric submarines. hi
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 March 2020 15: 57 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      M-dya .... Excuse me, but your calculations - fantasy is simply enchanting
      1. g1v2 5 March 2020 16: 38 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        In what? It seems like only what was being built or contracted was taken into account.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 March 2020 18: 00 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          Quote: g1v2
          In what?

          Let's watch
          Quote: g1v2
          You can argue whether they are needed or not, but in fact by the year 24 we will have 3 Borea and 5 Boreev.

          Maybe. At least I wouldn’t put my head on it
          Quote: g1v2
          Ash. 1 in service, 1 in testing, 5 under construction and 2 more contracted. That is, we will have 9 pieces of completely new submarines.

          We will be. The only question is - when? Kazan was launched in 2017, God forbid, to be accepted into the fleet this year. Next - Novosibirsk was launched last year. It is clear that everything will be faster with him, but in 2020 he is unlikely to replenish the fleet. In general, taking into account the constant shifts to the right, it can be assumed that all 7 Ash-trees will go into operation by the year 2030, well, maybe a year or two earlier, and even those that have not even been laid down, they are most likely already at 30 years of the current century.
          Quote: g1v2
          Pike-b. 10 pieces. The oldest is Bratsk, 89 years old, the youngest is Cheetah 2001. They wanted to lease one to the Indians, but in fact there is no exact information, we don’t take into account. 5 pieces for modernization, which means they reach the end of the 20s. Moreover, they will modernize the oldest one - Bratsk. 2 at VTG. 3 in the ranks, and Kuzbass after repair with modernization. Suppose a couple of the older ones are written off or given to the Indians. We will count 8 pieces at a minimum.

          The program for global modernization of the 971M was conceived in our Navy, while initially it was planned to modernize 6 boats, then reduced it to 4: Leopard, Wolf, Bratsk and Samara. So, “Leopard” has been modernizing for 9 years, “Wolf” - 6, and the end of the completion of work is not visible to the edge. But “Bratsk” and “Samara” ... they didn’t even start repairing them. So the Leopard and the Wolf, of course, will go into operation by 2025, but the next pair is definitely not there, and if they are destined to return to operation, it will be closer to 2030.
          The next 2 are Pike-B, Tiger and Panther. These ships were remodeled in 2002 and 2008. accordingly, so by 2025, obviously, the following will be needed. But there will be no one to do it, because Zvezdochka will pore over Bratsk and Samara, so that in the second half of the 20s they will be waiting for repairs.
          "Boar. Since 2016, it has been waiting for repairs, and most likely it won’t wait (either at the expense of Samara or Bratsk). Magadan is now on the right to lease India. Cheetah and Kuzbass have returned after repairs in 2015-16 and will serve.
          So a realistic forecast for the second half of the 2s is four Pike-Bs (Cheetah, Kuzbass, Leopard and Wolf) 20 in modernization (Bratsk and Samara), three - in anticipation of repairs (Tiger, Panther, Boar) and one among the Indians (Magadan).
          Quote: g1v2
          Anthei. All 8 pieces either pass or undergo or will undergo repairs with varying degrees of modernization. Even the oldest 88 year Irkutsk undergoes a deep modernization. The rest are younger. Up to 40 years old, they are definitely moving away.

          Really undergo modernization 2 Antey - Irkutsk and Chelyabinsk. They embarked on modernization in 2013 and there are chances to get out of it before 2025 ... of course, but the question is, what is modernization there
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 March 2020 18: 06 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            Even more abruptly is the 971M, and the Star on which it is driven is objectively weaker than the Sprocket. So in the second half of the 2020s, there will be 2 modernized Anteys, 2 recently repaired (Oryol and Omsk), but the rest, most likely, will be waiting for repairs. Purely theoretically, you can try “honestly” to reach Smolensk with Tomsk, who completed the repair in 2014, but hardly.
            So really in the second half of the 2020s there will be 1 Ash, 5-6 Ash M, 4-5 949A and 4 Pike-B. That is 14-16 PLAT-PLARK.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 March 2020 18: 10 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              Quote: g1v2
              Moose is gradually written off, but about 10 pieces will still run in the second half of the 20s. 3 Sivulfa. In service, 28 Virginia are being built and contracted. Since we do not consider possible orders from us, we will not even guess if they will still have orders. Total in the region of 41 maples they will have in the second half of the 20s

              Vitaliy, USA is changing Los Angeles to Virginia now. So as it was in their ranks over 50 multipurpose nuclear submarines will be so. The ships of 1981 still serve with them, why would they suddenly be able to launch ships of 1990 and later in five to seven years?
              1. g1v2 7 March 2020 13: 17 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Moose change in Virginia more than one to one. Los Angeles is the brainchild of the Cold War when they did not spare money on defense. Virginia will be much smaller. Again, mattresses need to be built in Colombia, because this construction will be to the detriment of the Virginia. Congress is very reluctant to allocate money for building ships. Because of this, the Navy has to save. The Colombia construction program is a priority. What will be the next order for Virginia-xs.
                So I found only plans for disposal and decommissioning in the state Navy for the coming years.


                Somewhere I had more detailed plans for the US Navy to decommission and order ships under the age of 35, but could not find. In general, in a bottleneck, the US Navy will have just about 42 submarines. Again, I do not take into account Laika-Husky and Kalina, because there is no contract for them, then I do not take into account block5, because there is no contract for them either.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 March 2020 17: 06 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: g1v2
                  So I found only plans for disposal and decommissioning in the state Navy for the coming years.

                  Total 10 submarines in 4 years with revenue plans for 2 Virginia per year. These plans can be frustrated, of course, like any plans - but then the Americans may well hold back the withdrawal of moose from the fleet.
                  Quote: g1v2
                  Again, I do not take into account Laika-Husky and Kalina, because there is no contract for them, then I do not take into account block5, because there is no contract for them either.

                  And this is wrong. even if Laika was laid in 2020, and today, it should not be expected before 2030. And they definitely didn’t lay it down today :)))))
                  1. g1v2 7 March 2020 21: 41 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Further decommissioning will accelerate. According to the schedule it was like that. request
                    It is impossible to lay anything without a contract - neither Laika-Husky, etc., nor their Block5. This is at least the allocation of money from the budget of the fleet, but it is not rubber, both with us and with them. There are, after all, GOZs. request
                    At the expense of Laika - Husky and Kalina try not to rub at all. Projects are not ready, there is no contract, money is not provided for in the state defense order. MEANS TO SPEAK THE FACT NOTHING ABOUT. The coming years 3-4 of their bookmarks just do not wait. And here are the additional bookmarks of Ash-tree-m and Lad - why not. request As the slipways at Sevmash and the Admiralty shipyards become free. Again, infa recently passed that after the Pacific Fleet Varshavyanka will be ordered for the BF. There are no foreign contracts for them, you can build PM. The Hindus stuttered for some reason, but as long as they decide, a submarine can already be built.
                    PM contracts will be - the question is what. hi
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 March 2020 14: 00 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: g1v2
                      Further decommissioning will accelerate. According to the schedule it was like that

                      Vitaliy, where did you get these charts, if not a secret? In any case, as I have already said, no schedule is a dogma, especially since the schedules for ships breaking down are balanced with the schedules for putting them there. It is clear that in some cases the resource and condition of the ship will be decisive, but for American nuclear submarines the resource still allows itself quite well. The Americans planned for some time to put into operation 2 Virginia a year, and taking into account such income and according to your schedules they will have 51 MAPLs in 2023. In order to get down to 41 nuclear submarines they will need to write off ALL the remaining 23 " moose ", by 2025 and to disrupt the commissioning of Virginia from 4 to 3 nuclear submarines in 2024-2025 :))))) Or to predict a complete shutdown of commissioning of Virginia after 2025. Both of these scenarios are clearly unrealistic.
                      Quote: g1v2
                      It is impossible to lay anything without a contract - neither Laika-Husky, etc., nor their Block5. This is at least the allocation of money from the budget of the fleet, but it is not rubber, both with us and with them.

                      But only at Block5 the money will be allocated with a probability of almost 100%. The Americans do not contract Virginia today for one simple reason - they have already contracted 10 ships, of which only 6 were laid down, and one was launched. That is, there is no point in contracting further - they will sign a contract for the next series closer to the actual start of its construction, probably somewhere in 2021-2024. At the same time, the Americans got the hang of building their virgins in 2,5-3 years, so that they can actually put nuclear submarines into operation before the end of the 20s, in addition to those already ordered.
                      We can not.
            2. g1v2 7 March 2020 12: 58 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              It seems we are still talking about different things. I talked about what will be in the fleet. You are about what will be in the forces of constant readiness. I can not predict which submarines will be modernized or undergoing VTG in the second half of the 20s. To Ash-tree and Ash-tree by the year 27-28 I am sure that there will be all 9. Anthei will be in the fleet. From Schuk-b, I think that 8 out of 10 pieces will be part of the fleet. How many of them will be modernized and how, and how many scheduled repairs will simply be held - I think that even the admirals do not know it now. But I see no reason for the early mass write-off of Shchuk-b. Of Condor, of course, there is no clarity, but I see no reason to write them off either. Moreover, the titanium case. PM should be preserved better than Pike-b.
              Simply, of course, they wanted to write off the Pikes, but the Tambov on the Nerpa in fact sorted out. As one comrade wrote to me, there seemed to be some kind of leak there. It is unlikely that they are working so hard on her that they can write off in a couple of years. I think that until the second half of the 20s it will definitely survive.
              Personally, I roughly estimate the life of the current subfloor at about 40 years. I think that most apl will be written off after this age. hi
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 March 2020 17: 09 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: g1v2
                It seems we are still talking about different things. I talked about what will be in the fleet. You are about what will be in the forces of constant readiness.

                Not certainly in that way. The fact that until the mid-20s does not become part of the forces "for a campaign and ready battle" will go to scrap, since there is no reason to get involved in repairs to ships that are already under 40 years old.
                The problem is that we simply do not have enough production repair facilities, we cannot give our ships timely repairs. This leads to the appearance of dead souls, who formally in the fleet, but in fact never will be put into operation. The Americans still have no such problem.
                Quote: g1v2
                Simply, of course, they wanted to write off the Pikes, but the Tambov on the Nerpa in fact sorted out. As one comrade wrote to me, there seemed to be some kind of leak there.

                Leak of what? :))) If anything happens with the reactor ... then that's it.
                Quote: g1v2
                It is unlikely that they are working so hard on her to write off in a couple of years.

                There could be a hole in the hull, so they patched up quickly so that it would not sink at the pier.
                1. g1v2 7 March 2020 21: 30 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  As a friend from Nerpa told me, the leak was precisely related to radiation. And by the stupidity of either the crew or the repair team. And that means no damage to the reactor. He did not spread. At that time I thought that Tambov was all waiting for cancellation, but he assured me that he would still be repaired and handed over, although the volume of work was large. The crew harshly swore, most likely the jamb was theirs. request
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 March 2020 14: 02 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: g1v2
                    As a friend from Nerpa told me, the leak was precisely related to radiation.

                    Then this is an emergency repair in order to eliminate the consequences of the accident, after which the ship, most likely, will again stand in expectation of repair ...
          2. Bashkirkhan 6 March 2020 11: 11 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Dear Andrey hi
            The next 2 are Pike-B, Tiger and Panther. These ships were remodeled in 2002 and 2008. accordingly, so by 2025, obviously, the following will be needed. But there will be no one to do it, because Zvezdochka will pore over Bratsk and Samara, so that in the second half of the 20s they will be waiting for repairs.
            "Boar.

            "Tiger" from the 10s just stood at the pier waiting for repairs. Now “Vepr” has come out of VTG, the slipway on the “Nerpa” has been freed. In a group of the plant in VK they wrote in December that the Vepr was at mooring trials. They will make VTG "Tiger". In total, “Nerpa” was to make VTG three leopards: “Cheetah”, “Boar” and “Tiger”. “Cheetah” and “Vepr” passed VTG, remained “Tiger” (link to VTG “Tiger” https://topwar.ru/167466-apl-tigr-proekta-971-schuka-b-vernetsja-v-sostav-sf -v-konce-2023-goda.html.) The Panther has not gone to sea since 2015, it needs average repair and reloading of the reactor. Video about the VTG "Boar".
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 March 2020 14: 27 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Good afternoon, dear Bashkirkhan! hi
              Thanks for the information!
          3. g1v2 7 March 2020 12: 43 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            OK. We will see. Kazan is the main one. Her tests and finishing touches all the other submarines. If it is accepted this year, then the rest will go much faster and the tests will go much faster. The test program for the head and for serial submarines is of different sizes. Novosibirsk is unlikely to surrender this year, despite all the promises. Until Kazan has completed the tests and all the improvements have been completed, Novosib will wait. This year he will probably go to the test, and will be accepted next. But now Krasnoyarsk and the subsequent ones will be built and accepted faster. As soon as the project rises to serial tracks - it accelerates. Bottlenecks are embroidered. So, if this year two Ash-trees are laid, then in 7 years they will be built. I see no obstacles to this.
            The “new fleet in the old corps” program clearly failed. This has been clear for a long time. The cost and terms of modernization of old submarines are comparable to the construction of new ones. But here it must be borne in mind that you are talking about deep modernization. I meant not only deep, but also PCM. I think that part of Shchuk-b and both Condor will not be subjected to deep modernization, but will conduct an average. Detection, replacement of worn out and parts of systems with newer ones. Perhaps some will just be repaired. But they are unlikely to be written off by this time. Still, the oldest is being modernized. request
            Again - according to Antaeus. Most likely only half will undergo a deep modernization, but PCM will surely pass. Again, if even the oldest Irkutsk is being modernized, and not prepared for decommissioning.
            In general, by age, all of the above in the second half of the 20s should be in the fleet. It is clear that to predict how many will be repaired and modernized is unrealistic. As well as make a schedule of VTG for the current sub-melting. But they will be in the fleet.
  18. exo
    exo 5 March 2020 18: 43 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    As far as one can judge by open publications: they refused to modernize 945A Condor. Unfortunately, 941 projects are unlikely to be modernized. If it succeeds in commissioning, after repairs and upgrades, all ships of the 971-pr. Will be already, not bad.
    In my opinion, the article is too optimistic. Although, I will be glad if I made a mistake.
  19. Sarkazm 5 March 2020 21: 37 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Brylevsky
    Guys will be pulled from Vladivostok, if necessary.

    Do not pull up, unfortunately. And that's why. From Vladivostok to, say, San Francisco, about 4500 nautical miles. This is if through the Laperouse Strait. Minus 1400 km (the caliber of the missile attack), 3744 miles remain. Now remember: the economic route to the 3 nodes of Varshavyanka passes about ... 400 miles, after which it will be forced to emerge (hello, air-independent power plants) or continue further in the RDP mode. Formally, in this mode, she can walk about 7500 nautical miles, but who will let her pass, like at home? Its route will pass through the Aleutian Islands, which actually are the territory of the United States. Comrades, do you understand that in a modern war sending a boat on a mission "under the diesel engine" is almost guaranteed to doom it to death from enemy anti-submarine forces? Vladivostok’s “Diesels” are designed to perform completely different tasks and no one in their right mind will send them on a suicidal “business trip”. In any case, I hope so.
    Undoubtedly, in the Pacific Fleet, DPLs have their own tasks and they are very useful there because of the constant delays in the construction of surface ships of the near zone, but why at once, even hypothetically, cut them tasks and targets on the US coast at least? In addition to guarding the bases and routes of strategists, there are goals nearer and no less important and reachable for our DPL in this region, you just need to remember where the nearest bases of the USA and their allies are. A caliber with the appropriate equipment can very well cope with the damage that is more than enough for the withdrawal of both US forces and infrastructure in this region.
    Well, the diesel-electric submarines of the Black Sea Fleet, the Northern Fleet and in the Baltic, where they were left all alone (as I haven’t watched now, I don’t know), in addition to actions in the near zone and security, are also capable of creating a threat to the EU countries of NATO members, NATO facilities and infrastructure in the region, in addition, they will draw significant forces upon themselves, well, they are actually capable of destroying many goals not only in the event of a local conflict.
    VNEU is all rushing around with it like a written shell, I think it will come to naught as soon as the domestic industry can degenerate with more advanced batteries, it will be more reliable, cheaper and quite effective in the conditions and tasks for our diesel-electric submarines, and it will make it possible to upgrade existing ones.
  20. Angelo Provolone 6 March 2020 05: 08 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Russian intentions should be regarded exclusively as a manifestation of aggression of the highest level.

    This is a very significant statement. And it would be even cooler if

    ... if the interests of Gazprom alone were not based on state policy.
    The country is mired in corruption. The salaries of ministers and senior officials are simply frankly immodest, to put it mildly. No education
    1. agond 6 March 2020 09: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The amateurish question, we see in the picture of pr. 941 Shark surrounded by tugboats, people standing on the boat look at the tugs from above like from the roof of the house, and in the distance like a tower of a medieval castle, another eight meters felling tower ... why the submarine at such a height "need such a high cabin ,? probably it was possible to get by with smaller sizes, like a pimple on a hippopotamus’s body, because all the same, logging is not a ram for breaking ice when surfacing.
      1. Podvodnik 6 March 2020 20: 56 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        why should a submarine at such a height of the "board" need such a high cabin ,?


        In the fencing enclosure (in a simple “felling”) there are retractable devices of the appropriate height, the central station compartment and the RTV compartment, pop-up cameras. In addition, it is necessary to ensure the possibility of movement under the periscope. If the fencing is made small, the hull will be thrown up due to its proximity to the surface.

        The general scheme of the internal device TRPKSN project 941: 1 - lightweight housing; 2 - 533 mm bow torpedo tubes; 3 - strong case; 4 - nose retractable horizontal rudders; 5 - emergency escape hatches; 6 - torpedo compartment; 7 - sonar compartment; 8 - mine ballistic missiles R-39; 9 - the central post; 10 - rescue pop-up cameras; 11 - retractable devices; 12 - fence sliding devices; 13 - compartment of electronic weapons; 14 - reactor compartment; 15 - hatches of pop-up communication antennas; 16 - wing protecting the propeller-steering group from ice; 17 - turbine compartment; 18 - KShR (aft lock cabin); 19 - hydrodynamic guides; 20 - vertical aft plumage; 21 - vertical rudders; 22 - propeller in an annular nozzle; 23 - aft horizontal rudders; 24 - antenna GAS; 25 - retractable thrusters; 26 - rocket compartments; 27 - survivability compartments; 28 - a nuclear reactor; 29 - line of the main propeller shaft; 30 - horizontal aft plumage; 31 - strong nose module; 32 - the main strong building (right); 33 - the main strong case (left); 34 - central strong module; 35 - stern sturdy module; 36 - quick immersion tank i - commander periscope; ii - universal periscope; iii - radio sextant; iv - radar system; v - RCP; vi, viii - radio antennas of communication systems; vii - direction finder; ix - antenna of the space navigation system; x - GPA
  21. Tests 6 March 2020 13: 42 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk (Andrei), dear, you, unfortunately, are repeating mistakes that have been living since Soviet times. The following statement lives: "The lead ship is being upgraded for the longest time, the second - a little faster, and the third and subsequent ones - even faster, since everything is clear and worked out." Based on this statement, plans for putting the ships into operation are being written. Even in the Soviet years, this statement did not work. If the welder and the fitter collect something on the head order to be modernized, bending the letter "S" and the welder cooks through the mirror - otherwise you can’t crawl, but it can be upside down, so the fitter the installer will be in this casing or on this foundation install curved letter "S", and after them the electrician "Arctic" will also pull the cable there. After them, with mats, every day the supporting sailors will climb to the device to clean everything. And in a day or two, painters will try to get to the device. And since the boats are standing on the water for years waiting for repairs, after three to five years the military gets an upgraded device, which, damn it, the cables go from above, and not from below, as it was on the previous model of the device, so everything around the device needs to be redone . While the Zvyozdoch’s technologists agree with the technologists and design engineers, and they still want to fly to the Zvyozdochka, the northern pension has not yet been canceled, and representatives of counterparties fly to Severodvinsk with pleasure, flees for a while. And when it is necessary to remove the old device and install a new one on the order, it turns out that the welder who worked on the head order retired, and the young fitter who helped him went to the army, and the fitter, the installers, who worked on the head order, they graduated from the institute in 6 years and work as craftsmen in another workshop, and the electricians from the Arctic flew to Sevastopol on a business trip for 2 months. And there are only painters, they, like everyone who is on the second order for the first time, everyone will have to work curved with the letter "S", and working this way is not very fast and convenient. True, the normalizers believe that the first ship on modernization is the longest ...
    And Severodvintsy and Archangel residents also have joy. Finally, in a cage, Vesti Pomerania was shown Vanya Tretyak, for taking bribes to the deputy chief of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the Arkhangelsk Region, the faces took him, the prospect was up to 15 years in prison. And what pleases him - his "roof" is the prosecutor of Severodvinsk Vladimir Petrovich Podgorny - all well-deserved and honorable, long ago left this world and no one seems to be able to help Van. I hope, like many Severodvints, that Tretyak will receive a real long term. And there you look, faces with operas of the Federal Penitentiary Service, the former first secretary of the Belomorsky district committee of the CPSU of Severodvinsk will arrange a sweet life in the zone. Where he would be ready to leave alone in the pre-trial detention center and tell, tell, tell the investigators of the RF IC, how he received construction contracts, including on SEVMASH and Zvyozdochka, how he built the cottages in Belgorod, Anap, Sochi, how, to whom and how many were put in envelopes at the factories ... Many GRCAS leaders and former leaders, now honored pensioners, tensed up when they saw Tretyak in the court cage ... So, discussing the timing of putting the nuclear submarines into operation, we will not forget the opening words: according to plans, I hope probably if the deadline, as always, will not be shifted to the right. Regards, Tests.
    1. agond 7 March 2020 13: 15 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Podvodnik
      If the fencing is made small, the hull will be thrown up due to its proximity to the surface.

      Thanks for the clarification and for nesting the circuits,
      Probably it would have been possible to completely dispense with the central strong hull No. 34, which would have connected the side hulls with a passage and everything, and even the retractable devices themselves with such boat sizes, would fit in any side hulls to their full height even without cutting.