Military Review

The most powerful Russian submarine: what is the Borey-A

123

Long road to the sea



In recent years, special attention has been focused on the nuclear submarine Prince Vladimir: it was she who, being the first submarine of the improved project 955A, should open a new chapter in stories Russian Navy. The first Borey, we recall, was put into operation quite a long time ago, namely, in 2013. The situation is all the more indicative when you consider that the K-535 submarine Yuri Dolgoruky was laid back in 1996. Following the Dolgoruky, in 2013 another project 955 submarine, the K-550 Alexander Nevsky, was put into operation. And in the next fleet received K-551 "Vladimir Monomakh".

The extremely long six-year break ended on May 28, when the fleet handed over the fourth submarine of project 955 is the aforementioned “Prince Vladimir”. “Today, May 28, at the Sevmash (part of the USC), the signing of the acceptance certificate of the strategic missile submarine cruiser Prince Vladimir was signed,” the Sevmash press service said.

Pinnacle of evolution


The nuclear submarine was laid down in 2012. The launch of the boat was carried out in 2017, and in 2018 began testing. It is known that during them a test launch of the Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile was carried out on target at the Kamchatka Kura firing range. In addition, the submarine was fired by torpedoes. On May 21, Rossiyskaya Gazeta reported that the boat was tested in the White Sea and moored in Severodvinsk: they promised to accept the ship in the Navy after evaluating the results of this control launch.

The boat is very different from its ancestors, even purely outwardly. In general, the whole story of Boreev is a story of continuous evolution. Recall that the first three ships, the K-535 “Yuri Dolgoruky”, the K-550 “Alexander Nevsky” and the K-551 “Vladimir Monomakh”, have the characteristic “wrong” bow tip of the wheelhouse, which is slanted forward due to the features placing in this place one of the stations of the sonar complex.


On the new submarine, the contours of the nasal tip of the cabin became more streamlined. The most important difference lies in the disappearance of the "hump" of the missile launch platform. All these changes, as it became known earlier, are aimed at improving the submarine's driving performance and improving low-noise performance - a key factor in the survival and overall combat effectiveness of a modern submarine.


It is noteworthy that this is far from the end of the transformations of project 955. As previously noted in the military department, the next submarine, Prince Oleg, will also have its own profile that does not look like anything. After testing, the fleet will choose the version that will have the best features. That is, K-549 "Prince Vladimir" may well become the prototype of all subsequent submarines of project 955. Probably, for the Navy this would be the best option.

It is also known that the new submarine can boast of its "relatives" the best maneuverability, increased ability to hold at a depth, as well as a more modern airborne weapon control system. In any case, this was announced earlier by the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky. Also, Borey-A should be distinguished by more comfortable conditions for the crew.

Such characteristics as length and displacement, according to open sources, remained unchanged. Most importantly, the armament, consisting of sixteen R-30 Bulava solid-fuel ballistic missiles, has not changed. It is worth recalling that earlier there were rumors about an increase in the number of missile mines on the Borey-A submarine from sixteen to twenty, but back in 2013 this information was refuted.

The most powerful Russian submarine: what is the Borey-A

Weapons can be called the "weakest" side of the project, which is somewhat paradoxical, given that we are talking about ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. Experts have claims both to the nominal number of these missiles in one submarine cruiser and to the characteristics of the missile itself. Recall that the old American strategic submarine of the Ohio type, belonging to the third generation of the nuclear submarines, carries 24 Trident II D5. According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists last year, one such missile can have up to eight W88 blocks of 455 kilotons, up to fourteen W76-0 blocks of 100 kilotons (they were decommissioned), or as many W-76-1 blocks 90 kilotons each. In turn, the "Mace", according to media reports, has from six to ten warheads of 100-150 kilotons. In other words, in its destructive power, one Ohio is significantly ahead of one Borey. There is, however, one “but.” All American submarines of this type are old ships: the last of the strategic cruisers went into operation in 1997. It is noteworthy that the Americans themselves probably think the Ohio arsenal is excessive. In any case, the promising Colombia, which is being created to replace it, will carry not 24 ballistic missiles, but 16 - like a Russian ship.


Future project


And although Borey is already difficult to unambiguously call the “most advanced” boat, and the R-30 rocket was initially problematic, it is obvious that there are no alternatives to this duet in Russia. At least, speaking specifically about the marine component of the nuclear triad. In theory, in the future, the Boreev functions can partially be taken over by the K-329 Belgorod submarines of project 09852 and the Khabarovsk project 09851, which are the carriers of Poseidon nuclear torpedoes. However, the "reincarnation of the Stalinist T-15 torpedo" has so many conceptual flaws (speed, vulnerability, and so on) that the mere use of Poseidon as a deterrent is a big question.

Therefore, it is obvious that the project 955 submarines will be actively built in the future. Now, in addition to the boats already put into operation, six more have been laid: thus, the minimum number of submarines of this type is ten. Recall also that in February a source in the military-industrial complex said that this summer the Ministry of Defense could sign a contract for the purchase of two more submarines of project 955A.

However, an even more powerful submarine, previously designated the Borey-B, was not included in the state armament program for 2018-2027: the price of modernization was too high.

But in the future, the fleet may (according to unofficial data) receive the Borey-K variant, equipped with cruise missiles rather than ballistic ones. This option, of course, is in itself very interesting, but it is unlikely to be put into practice: Russia's strategic submarines are much more important than platforms for launching cruise missiles. The carrier of the latter will be the commissioned multi-purpose project 885 submarine, as well as the new Russian fifth-generation submarine, known as the “Husky." We’ll talk about her sometime later.
Author:
123 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Krasnoyarsk
    Krasnoyarsk 1 June 2020 18: 22
    +7
    = as well as a new fifth-generation Russian submarine, known as the Husky. We’ll talk about her sometime later. =
    And what, already have something to say? In addition, what has already been said is being developed.
    1. Maxim Guzevatov_2
      Maxim Guzevatov_2 1 June 2020 20: 51
      -4
      It's like a new aircraft carrier or destroyer Leader - for 10 years now, models have been spinning at exhibitions and meetings, but things are still there. there will already be no aircraft carrier with us, no Husky and Leaders. Armata can not finish, what for Husky
      1. Sky strike fighter
        Sky strike fighter 1 June 2020 22: 13
        +7
        You are missing one important detail. The aircraft carrier and destroyer Leader were developed on the personal initiative of the Design Bureau and not on the order of the Russian Ministry of Defense. But the Husky MAPL, it’s Laika, is developed under a contract with the Russian Ministry of Defense. That is, the Russian Ministry of Defense is interested in it and they plan to start building the first submarine in the year 2023.

        In Armata. Modernization and additional tests. The military ordered additional technical solutions. The contract was signed with the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.

        Serial deliveries of T-14 tanks on the Armata tracked platform to the troops will begin in 2021, Minister of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov said on the air of the program Characters from Naila Asker-zade on Rossiya-1. He also said that the combat vehicle was tested in Syria.


        “It (a combat vehicle. -“ Kommersant ”) is expensive because it is still undergoing a series of additional tests, modernization, because the Ministry of Defense ordered additional technical solutions in order to reach serial production next year under the contract, which was signed, ”said Mr. Manturov (quote from TASS).

        https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4326197
  2. knn54
    knn54 1 June 2020 19: 04
    +3
    -R-30 rocket was initially problematic.
    -reincarnation of the Stalin torpedo T-15 "has so many conceptual flaws ...
    So, what is next???
    1. Cypa
      Cypa 2 June 2020 09: 09
      -3
      To, as before - saw, Shura, saw.
  3. ccsr
    ccsr 1 June 2020 19: 04
    -3
    Author:
    Ilya Legat
    This option, of course, is in itself very interesting, but it is unlikely to be put into practice: Russia's strategic submarines are much more important than platforms for launching cruise missiles.

    And this is correct, because it’s not necessary to install cruise missiles on submarines, because they are too ineffective in a nuclear war. That is why it is only necessary to install strategic missiles on them in order to reduce the time of approach to the territory of our main enemy.
    1. mvg
      mvg 1 June 2020 20: 01
      +6
      What kind of staff are not far-sighted, they took 3-4 Ohio redone under the Kyrgyz Republic. 154 Axes and combat swimmers of the MTR, how did you not consult with you ??? But at the Navy we have an enormous number of destroyers, carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic, there is nothing to count ... there is nothing to count.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 1 June 2020 20: 11
        +4
        Quote: mvg
        What kind of staff are not far-sighted, they took 3-4 Ohio redone under the Kyrgyz Republic.

        When we have so much money in the military budget as the United States, then it will be possible to show off.

        Quote: mvg
        154 Axes and combat swimmers of the MTR, how did you not consult with you ???

        Leave this for your sandbox and build ships out of sand there - our opponent sees a completely different future war with Russia in his plans.
        Quote: mvg
        But at the Navy we have an enormous number of destroyers, carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic, you can’t count ...

        This is cheaper than placing them on submarines or on nuclear cruisers. Yes, and they plan to use them not against the continental United States, they are more suitable for the Syrian options.
        1. mvg
          mvg 1 June 2020 22: 07
          +2
          It's cheaper than placing them on submarines or on nuclear cruisers

          Yes, of course, that’s why we are shooting calibers from the Buyan MRK already from the Caspian Lake. And we are not building destroyers, because we are not able and expensive. But 667 Dolphin and Squid are written off, just the same age as Ohio. As well as 941 Sharks and 949 Antei.
          PS: Will it not be too intrusive to take an interest in our naval strategy? Well, the future enemy at the same time. May bi, I don’t know what, and you, as a veteran of the Kulikovo battle, know everything?
          1. Andrey NM
            Andrey NM 2 June 2020 08: 38
            +2
            Quote: mvg
            But 667 Dolphin and Squid are written off, just the same age as Ohio. As well as 941 Sharks and 949 Antei.

            And we do everything through one place. At the end of the 90s, they took and spoiled the boat 667BDRM-project K-64, put it on alteration under the carrier of loshariks and the like, and remade for 20 years. And the 941s were unarmed and it was already clear that there would be no new missiles on them. But they are scrapped, and these boats are about the same age as the BDRMs, give or take, well, a little older. They can hide the bald line in the inter-corps space, a flotilla of loshariks, and even cruise missiles ... But no, let's cut it. Around the same time, the Urinson-Solomon-Dvorkin group (tgi gusskikh bogatyga) dragged the Bulava theme over to themselves, taking the theme of sea-based ICBMs away from the Makeev Design Bureau, with which there are still more questions than answers, and still they did not leave the Makeev design bureau, they were involved for revision.
            1. Charik
              Charik 19 August 2020 20: 10
              -1
              saw-Vova-saw-they are golden
          2. ccsr
            ccsr 2 June 2020 13: 05
            +1
            Quote: mvg
            Not too intrusive will be interested in our naval strategy? Well, the future enemy at the same time. May bi, I don’t know what, and you, as a veteran of the Kulikovo battle, know everything?

            Unlike you, I was professionally studying our opponents, and I know perfectly well what they were and are still afraid of. So in the list of real threats that make them change diapers, our cruise missiles from submarines have never been indicated. Resign yourself to this, and plug your naval strategy into a well-known place - now minutes decide everything, that's why traditional strategic nuclear forces are our main trump card. Moreover, the Strategic Missile Forces will remain our main weapon, because we still have not solved the problem of stealth campaign of our submarine missile carriers and their real-time control without surfacing, when they are in areas that can reduce the flight time to the continental United States.
            And everything else that you will rassesolivat here, our General Staff is unlikely to interest, even if the Navy will convince that they see the situation differently.
            1. bayard
              bayard 2 June 2020 16: 13
              +3
              Quote: ccsr
              And everything else that you will rassesolivat here, our General Staff is unlikely to interest, even if the Navy will convince that they see the situation differently.

              But the real statements of the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation somewhat contradict your statement. It was Shoigu who announced the Ministry of Defense's intention to order at least 2 (with an option for two more) Borei-K - specifically with cruise missiles in launch cups.
              True, this was followed by a statement of intention to increase the total number of Borei and Borei-A to 12 units. , but here one does not contradict the other - it is wiser to have exactly 6 pcs. such submarines in the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet, but "Borey-K" seems to replace the 949 project, having on board up to 112 cruise missiles (both "Zircon" and "Caliber-M" with a range of up to 4500 km.).
              And about the unsolvability of the issue of the covert deployment of our nuclear submarines, fears are also somewhat exaggerated - in recent years, our submarines have regularly "broken through" into the Atlantic, although for this we had to conduct whole special operations of the surface and submarine forces of the fleet. And the value (combat) of even one such submarine that has broken through with 112 CR on board will be very high. After all, its CR will fly into enemy territory only when ICBMs and SLBMs have already glazed command centers, air bases and early warning devices of the enemy (otherwise, subsonic CRs will certainly become easy prey for enemy fighter aircraft). One should not diminish the capabilities of these submarines ("Borey-K") and in strikes against enemy fleets, of course, with reliable and high-quality target designation, with a range of destruction of ships - about 1000 km. and an arsenal of 112 such products, even one such submarine can simply sterilize huge water areas.
              In addition, it should be borne in mind that the number of strategic delivery vehicles is limited by agreements, and 12 Bulava delivery vehicles is quite enough for strategic nuclear forces, but it is not good to leave the industry without loading capacities. Therefore, the construction of 4-6 such submarine cruisers of non-strategic (!) Significance will be quite reasonable ... even for the sake of unification in the Navy, which its technical services and ship repair have been dreaming of for so long.
              And if this were not so, then the General Staff and the General Staff of the Navy would not recommend this project to the Minister of Defense. And the Minister of Defense would not have announced the intentions of the MO about ordering this project.
              In addition, the cost of this submarine will be equal to one frigate 22350 \ 22350M, and the CD will be able to carry ... almost 1,5 times more than the nuclear cruiser "Nakhimov" ... which God forbid the Fleet to wait for. If the cost of 6 such submarines is equal to the construction of a division ... frigates ... I think the game is more than worth the candle.
              And when such submarines appear, their fleets of the probable enemy will be no less afraid than our own SSBNs.
              It seems to me .
              hi
              1. Aleksandr1971
                Aleksandr1971 2 June 2020 18: 57
                0
                A breakthrough into the Atlantic with an enemy submarine on the tail is a bullshit for the press. There is no doubt that you can go to the Atlantic. But there is also no doubt that our submarines cannot go invisibly into the Atlantic.
                With the same success, our strategic bombers fly to enemy shores, which are accompanied by an enemy fighter near 100 meters on board.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 2 June 2020 19: 58
                  0
                  MAPLs came out / broke through without enemy boats on the tail, but at the same time surface ships covered them, including the noise of their propellers.
              2. ccsr
                ccsr 2 June 2020 19: 27
                0
                Quote: bayard
                It was Shoigu who announced the Ministry of Defense's intention to order at least 2 (with an option for two more) Borei-K - specifically with cruise missiles in launch cups.
                True, this was followed by a statement of intention to increase the total number of Borei and Borei-A to 12 units. , but here one does not contradict the other - it is wiser to have exactly 6 pcs. such submarines in the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet, but "Borey-K" seems to replace the 949 project, having on board up to 112 cruise missiles (both "Zircon" and "Caliber-M" with a range of up to 4500 km.).

                Shoigu can change his point of view several times, especially if the coronavirus and the decline in carbohydrate prices drag on. But in this case, I proceed from the fact that since submarines are roads on their own, then weapons must be placed on them, capable of hitting US territory from anywhere, wherever they are, right from the pier.

                Quote: bayard
                . And the value (combat) of even one such erupted submarine with 112 KR on board will be very high.

                Cruise missiles themselves are vulnerable and slow to bet on them in a future war. Remember how recently the Americans made a massive launch of the Kyrgyz Republic in Syria - not to mention the fact that some were shot down, as some do not know where to go, and this says a lot.
                Quote: bayard
                After all, her missile launchers will fly to the enemy’s territory only when command centers, air bases and early warning systems are glazed by the enemy’s ICBMs and SLBMs (otherwise subsonic missiles will certainly become easy prey for enemy fighter aircraft)

                And this will not have to be done - there will be no goals for them, because everything will be destroyed anyway.
                Quote: bayard
                that the number of strategic carriers is limited by agreements, and 12 Bulava carriers are quite enough for strategic nuclear forces, but it is not good to leave the industry without loading capacities.

                I think that the concept of the use of nuclear weapons from the submarine fleet will be changed, their share will be increased for one purpose - to reduce the time it takes for ballistic missiles to reach the United States. So we can get them to remove missiles from Poland and Romania. I can only approximately estimate future needs, but in my opinion we will need not 12 Bulava carriers, but at least 20-24 due to the fact that only a third of them will be on a permanent trip.


                Quote: bayard
                And if this were not so, then the General Staff and the General Staff of the Navy would not recommend this project to the Minister of Defense. And the Minister of Defense would not have announced the intentions of the MO about ordering this project.

                There was such a jacket by NS Kvashnin, so in order to please Putin he announced publicly that the orbiting satellite group would replace Lourdes, and it was closed. All professionals immediately realized that he was a fool, and he shouldn’t get out with such statements so as not to disgrace himself. Shoigu is even less competent than Kvashnin, so that what they blow into his ears, he will voice. But he didn’t take into account one thing - those who went through the nineties know how they cut all the programs when there was a shortage of money and even some projects executed by 90%. We’ll wait and see how we will get out of the current crisis ...
                Quote: bayard
                And when such submarines appear, their fleets of the probable enemy will be no less afraid than our own SSBNs.
                It seems to me .

                You are definitely mistaken in this - believe me, it’s not our enemy’s fleets, but we have not yet learned how to use missile launchers from our submarines against American submarines.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 2 June 2020 20: 55
                  +1
                  Quote: ccsr

                  Shoigu can change his point of view several times, especially if the coronavirus and the decline in carbohydrate prices drag on. But in this case, I proceed from the fact that since submarines are roads on their own, then weapons must be placed on them, capable of hitting US territory from anywhere, wherever they are, right from the pier.

                  I have already answered about the cost of the Borey in the comment below, it is comparable to the price of the frigate Gorshkov, and as a carrier of the KR it (Borei-K) will definitely be more effective than the frigate. In addition, Russia is bound by arms reduction treaties and by building up the SSBN grouping, we will have to reduce the ground group of strategic nuclear forces, or strategic aviation.
                  In addition, for now, hypothetical Borei-K will replace the 949 project “batons”, which will be upgraded by no more than 4, and they will live 15 years after the renovation, so a change is needed, and it’s better not to invent Borey-K - based on a serial cruiser, a huge arsenal, unification (sailors and ship repair will only say thanks).
                  If this year the Ministry of Defense concludes a contract for 2 more SSBNs, then from next year it will be possible to lay down 2 Borei-K - 2 each. per year, as the industry has taken the pace. And we will understand in 3 years that the series of 12 SSBNs is not enough, and we can continue the series.
                  The most surprising thing is that the overhaul of the 949 project with the modernization will come out almost more expensive than the construction of a new "Borey-K". And for the same time ... Modernization of "Sharks" and that would have cost more. request
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Cruise missiles themselves are vulnerable and slow to bet on them in a future war. Remember how recently the Americans made a massive launch of the Kyrgyz Republic in Syria - not to mention the fact that some were shot down, as some do not know where to go, and this says a lot.

                  "Caliber" yes - subsonic and vulnerable to enemy aircraft.
                  But.
                  On the way is the hypersonic Zircon, which cannot be called slow in any way. And its range is decent - not less than 1000 km. This will work quite comfortably both on enemy ships and on the most priority targets on the enemy's coast / continent.
                  The appearance of the "Caliber-M" with a range of 4500 km is also expected. , but with this one can already shoot from the middle of the Atlantic and from the depths of the Pacific Ocean. To go out only to the operational space.
                  In addition, the enemy has enough goals, except for their continent, around the world - you can’t get enough for all ICBMs, and you can’t leave them without gifts - it’s a sin.
                  Quote: ccsr

                  I think that the concept of the use of nuclear weapons from the submarine fleet will be changed, their share will be increased for one purpose - to reduce the time it takes for ballistic missiles to reach the United States. So we can get them to remove missiles from Poland and Romania. I can only approximately estimate future needs, but in my opinion we will need not 12 Bulava carriers, but at least 20-24 due to the fact that only a third of them will be on a permanent trip.

                  20-24 SSBNs, it's certainly cool, but I think it's still not for us. We have the main force in the strategic nuclear forces on silo-based and ground-based ICBMs. SLBMs are rather insurance against a "sudden disarming strike", eggs in different baskets.
                  In addition, the number of MAPLs we have is sorely insufficient, it is for this that all resources must be directed after the completion of a series of 12 SSBNs, otherwise the adversary will kill them at the exit from the bases or in the "bastions".
                  And with anti-submarine aircraft we have seams.
                  And the surface forces of anti-submarine defense we have a cat naka ..., a little shorter.
                  That's what the funds are needed for. So instead of another 12 SSBNs, it is better to build 18 - 20 MAPLs (at a cost, together with missiles, it should be enough ... but not the "Ash", which are 2 times more expensive than the "Boreev").
                  Quote: ccsr

                  There was such a jacket by NS Kvashnin, so in order to please Putin he announced publicly that the orbiting satellite group would replace Lourdes, and it was closed. All the professionals immediately realized that he was a fool,

                  Lourdes is really very sorry, but it was more of a political decision under pressure from the United States (as about Camrani), and how it was voiced to the public is the third thing.
                  But the fact that since the 90s there has been a negative qualitative selection in the Army, that's for sure ... alas, capitalism, where loyalty is more important than competence ...
                  Quote: ccsr
                  We’ll wait and see how we will get out of the current crisis ...

                  But here you can’t argue, this has been turned on with the economy and "viral" hysteria, which is hard to imagine what will happen to the country by the end of the year.
                  Whose will take, that will be.
                  Quote: ccsr
                  and we have not yet learned how to use KR missiles from our submarines against American submarines.

                  But what about the Caliber missile torpedoes? From a torpedo tube, you can spit such 50 km ... it would be reliable target designation. A la "Waterfall".
                  1. ccsr
                    ccsr 3 June 2020 11: 36
                    +2
                    Quote: bayard
                    I already answered about the cost of the Borea in the comment below, it is comparable to the price of the frigate Gorshkov

                    There was no such correlation in Soviet times, which is why I do not believe that something has changed a lot now. The most expensive nuclear-powered surface cruiser was one and a half times cheaper than the Typhoon, and half the price of an aircraft carrier.
                    Quote: bayard
                    And we will understand after 3 years that the series in 12 SSBNs is not enough, we can continue the series.

                    I also think that this is not enough and the whole series will be reviewed before the end of this decade.
                    Quote: bayard
                    On the way is the hypersonic Zircon, which cannot be called slow in any way. And its range is decent - not less than 1000 km.

                    This is not enough for a strategic underwater missile carrier, because he himself becomes vulnerable off the coast of the United States.
                    Quote: bayard
                    The appearance of the "Caliber-M" with a range of 4500 km is also expected. , but with this one can already shoot from the middle of the Atlantic and from the depths of the Pacific Ocean.

                    Most likely it will already be a new project. But "Bulava" has already been worked out and is mass-produced, so I think in order to reduce the cost of "Boreyev", their number will grow - it will be cheaper this way.
                    Quote: bayard
                    20 - 24 RPKSN, this is certainly cool, but I think it's still not for us.

                    Why is it cool if a budget redistribution occurs within the strategic nuclear forces and in the fleet itself in favor of the submarine? We are simply forced to bring our missiles closer to the United States, and the Strategic Missile Forces, unfortunately, cannot do this.
                    Quote: bayard
                    But here you can’t argue, this has been turned on with the economy and "viral" hysteria, which is hard to imagine what will happen to the country by the end of the year.

                    I also think that this year has been lost, which is why it will be possible to seriously count on our opportunities for rearmament only after we understand where we are in 2021.
                    Quote: bayard
                    But what about the Caliber missile torpedoes? From a torpedo tube, you can spit for 50 km ...

                    This is a ridiculous distance - with current reconnaissance and target recognition systems, all weapons that are less than 1000 km in range for the submarine fleet are simply irrelevant. We must be sure that our submariners have a chance to be undetected in order to fulfill their main task. Although torpedo weapons should also be - as a means of self-defense, and not an attack.
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 3 June 2020 15: 44
                      0
                      Quote: ccsr
                      There was no such correlation in Soviet times, which is why I do not believe that something has changed a lot now. The most expensive nuclear-powered surface cruiser was one and a half times cheaper than the Typhoon, and half the price of an aircraft carrier.

                      Yes, in Soviet times there were slightly different ratios. But at the moment, the fact of prolonged stagnation, not even the stagnation of the military shipbuilding, which revived long and hard, was evidently affected by the loss of key industries and competencies ... And yet - the weapon systems of surface ships rose sharply. The cost of the case is only 15% of the total price. Very expensive and complex radar, BIUS, other stuffing.
                      But CVD riveting nuclear submarines did not die, they were supported and provided with orders as soon as the opportunity arose. There was still a lot of Soviet groundwork that went into business ... And they didn’t have radar, as on surface, and air defense systems, etc.
                      In addition, you cited Typhoon as an example (this is a system, and the boat is Shark), and this is an absolutely unique ... structure. Then we just SURPRISED the world. Therefore, the price is appropriate.
                      And now, yes, the ratio is 550 - 600 million dollars. , despite the fact that the same "Ash" shot at a price of 1000 - 1200 million dollars. , although it seems to be MAPL, but it is PAINFULLY tricky.
                      Quote: ccsr
                      Quote: bayard
                      On the way is the hypersonic Zircon, which cannot be called slow in any way. And its range is decent - not less than 1000 km.

                      This is not enough for a strategic underwater missile carrier, because he himself becomes vulnerable off the coast of the United States.

                      "Zircon" is still more like an anti-ship missile, or for the highest priority targets on the coast (up to 500 km inland). Its targets, in addition to ships, will most likely be the naval base, missile defense facilities, AWACS, air bases and command centers. But the second wave will go to "Caliber-M" to the full depth - this is the same "Caliber", but 650 mm in diameter. instead of 533 mm. at the usual, under the diameter of the UVP. They have enough range to the opposite shore.
                      Quote: ccsr
                      "Bulava" has already been worked out and is mass-produced, so I think in order to reduce the cost of "Boreyev", their number will grow - it will be cheaper this way.

                      The number of such missiles is limited by existing treaties. request
                      Quote: ccsr
                      Quote: bayard
                      20 - 24 RPKSN, this is certainly cool, but I think it's still not for us.

                      Why is it cool if a budget redistribution occurs within the strategic nuclear forces and in the fleet itself in favor of the submarine? We are simply forced to bring our missiles closer to the United States, and the Strategic Missile Forces, unfortunately, cannot do this.

                      I meant that apart from SSBNs, we also need MAPLs, of which there are very few, and the Yasenyi turned out to be too large and expensive. After all, they must be harnessed not only for the protection of SSBNs, but also for free hunting. That is about twice as many as Boreyev. The Boreyev program ends (with tabs), and it's time to get down to multipurpose nuclear submarines. hi
                      Quote: ccsr
                      Quote: bayard
                      But what about the Caliber missile torpedoes? From a torpedo tube, you can spit for 50 km ...

                      This is a ridiculous distance - with current reconnaissance and target recognition systems, all weapons that are less than 1000 km in range for the submarine fleet are simply irrelevant. We must be sure that our submariners have a chance to be undetected in order to fulfill their main task. Although torpedo weapons should also be - as a means of self-defense, and not an attack.

                      I was referring to rocket-torpedoes fired from TA - at enemy submarines, such as "Waterfall". Otherwise, the Borey has up to 40 torpedoes in its ammunition base, so it is possible to place a dozen or so Caliber missiles among them, and shoot them together with the main glasses - for a higher salvo density lol .
                      A joke. In which jokes are only part - there is an opportunity.
                      Quote: ccsr
                      I also think that this year has been lost, which is why it will be possible to seriously count on our opportunities for rearmament only after we understand where we are in 2021.

                      The hegemon is on fire, as it were, not in a civil war, it's time to change the paradigm - to move from fiscal economic policy to investment.
                      And something in this regard is planned ... Although it can swing in any direction, and we have more flamboyant fun than with them.
                      But we still have a parade ...
                      We will see . smile
                      1. ccsr
                        ccsr 3 June 2020 18: 22
                        +2
                        Quote: bayard
                        I meant that in addition to SSBNs, we also need MAPLs, of which there are very few, and the Yaseni turned out to be too large and expensive. After all, they must be harnessed not only for the protection of SSBNs, but also for free hunting.

                        I adhere to the views of the "old school" - everything will be decided within a few tens of minutes, and therefore the main thing is the total nuclear reserve, which we are able to bring down on the territory of the United States at the same time. This sober them up the best. Everything else is from the evil one, no matter how someone convinces me otherwise. And believe me, those who had common sense in my time thought so in the Soviet General Staff, and not those who tried to convince the country's leadership that all types of weapons and equipment are important to us.
                      2. bayard
                        bayard 3 June 2020 19: 14
                        0
                        Quote: ccsr
                        I adhere to the views of the "old school" - everything will be decided within a few tens of minutes, and therefore the main thing is the total nuclear reserve, which we are able to bring down on the territory of the United States at the same time.

                        I miss the past too ...
                        1720 ICBMs
                        950 SLBM
                        + strategic and long-range aviation.
                        + BRMD with a range of up to 5500 km.
                        + tactical nuclear munitions.
                        + SLW on RCC.
                        and many other tasty and interesting ...
                        But the current outfit of strategic nuclear forces is enough to cut down the entire military infrastructure + administrative centers, energy, and logistics centers.
                        But what to do with US overseas bases? They have airbases for strategic aviation on islands in the ocean. Hundreds of ships at sea and at bases scattered. Such a good also needs its own instrument, and this is a pity for the ICBM ... Yes, and not enough for everything.
                        Need to get out.
                        There are not many hopes for long-range aviation - if we miss the first strike, the planes may not have time to raise them ... they will burn out ...
                        But even one old "Pike-B" with a pair of "Caliber" missiles with the right heads will help a lot.
                        And if not with a couple?
                        And if not the Pike-B, but the 949M after modernization?
                        With 72 KR on the sides, and with the heads correct (and among the torpedoes with another dozen KR for more pleasure?
                        And what if the Borei-K with 112 in glasses and 10 - 20 in ammunition racks among torpedoes?
                        And also with the heads as it should? smile
                        Yes, the survivors of the field of the first exchange of gifts and after further exploration of the goals to work on the remaining?
                        Or the surviving AUG? From which, too, after the "apocalypse" you can shovel supplements ...
                        I am for a variety of tools for the protection of the God-protected Fatherland in any "Armageddon".
                        I even support "Poseidon" to wash the enemy off the land surface.
                        And forget about him.
                        And in general, I am for Peace.
                        smile bully yes
                        EVERYTHING fellow The world. drinks
                        hi
                      3. ccsr
                        ccsr 4 June 2020 11: 33
                        +2
                        Quote: bayard
                        But what to do with US overseas bases? They have airbases for strategic aviation on islands in the ocean. Hundreds of ships at sea and at bases scattered. Such a good also needs its own instrument, and this is a pity for the ICBM ... Yes, and not enough for everything.

                        This is all consumables and does not play a special role in the overall balance, because they are only held back by a retaliatory strike against the United States.
                        Quote: bayard
                        There is not much hope for long-range aviation - if we miss the first strike,

                        They must get up on patrol earlier, and are already on the air on duty - this is what was implied if we suddenly noticed their slightest gestures in preparation for the war.
                        Quote: bayard
                        And if the

                        Only our naval commanders can predict this - neither you nor I know this.
                        Quote: bayard
                        Yes, the survivors of the field of the first exchange of gifts and after further exploration of the goals to work on the remaining?

                        This is no longer interesting to anyone - states will cease to exist, and this is a fact. Even now, unrest in the United States has shown how confused the local authorities are, and even Trump is sent to hell when he threatens them.
                        Quote: bayard
                        And in general, I am for Peace.

                        Me too, but we must always be ready to destroy the world that they want to build without Russia.
                      4. bayard
                        bayard 4 June 2020 12: 17
                        +1
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Quote: bayard
                        And in general, I am for Peace.

                        Me too, but we must always be ready to destroy the world that they want to build without Russia.

                        This is YES. yes bully soldier
            2. Podvodnik
              Podvodnik 4 June 2020 22: 48
              +1
              unification (sailors and ship repair will only say thank you)


              Sailors also bow to the waist. It is only the coastal and any other spare parts, how much less will be needed of all other other property, training simulators, etc. .
  • Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 1 June 2020 20: 29
    +5
    Quote: mvg
    What kind of staff are not far-sighted, they took 3-4 Ohio redone under the Kyrgyz Republic. 154 Axes and combat swimmers of the MTR, how did you not consult with you ???

    We have on the modernization project 949 A = Antei = (for NATO = Oscar-II =). Maybe that's why the new ones were specifically for ballistic missiles, but for the cruise ones they decided to upgrade the old ones for now.
    "..... an aspect of this modernization is a complete replacement of the boat's missile armament and a radical increase in ammunition. On modernized submarines, in missile silos for the Granit anti-ship missile system, 3 universal launchers 3S14 will be mounted, each of which can be equipped with a transport -launch container with the newest supersonic anti-ship missile "Onyx" or one of the cruise missiles of the "Caliber" family - a cruise missile 3M14 or anti-ship missile 3M54. Thus, the ammunition load of cruise missiles on modernized submarines will increase from 24 to 72 units. Air defense of ship formations with even the most advanced air defense systems, and, if necessary, will allow these boats to deliver massive cruise missile strikes against ground targets deep in enemy territory using 3M14 cruise missiles (with a flight range of 1.5 thousand km).
    At the moment, two submarines of the Pacific Fleet - "Irkutsk" and "Chelyabinsk" are undergoing modernization according to project 949AM ....... " https://dfnc.ru/bez-rubriki/vmf-rossii-sostoyanie-i-perspektivy-chast-9/
    1. mvg
      mvg 1 June 2020 22: 12
      +2
      At the moment, two submarines of the Pacific Fleet, Irkutsk and Chelyabinsk, are being upgraded under Project 949AM.

      I read for it. Only one boat will be modernized, and for another reason, the P-700 Granite has not been produced since the mid 80's, the rocket is both morally and physically obsolete. Shelf life is no longer extended.
      The Americans redid Ohio for another reason, and they did it right. A floating arsenal, invisible. It can dramatically and imperceptibly change the balance of forces anywhere in the world’s oceans.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 1 June 2020 23: 07
        +5
        Quote: mvg
        ..... and for another reason,

        The reasons are different, but the result is one: a submarine with a large number of cruise missiles.
      2. 5-9
        5-9 2 June 2020 16: 29
        0
        It can dramatically and imperceptibly change the balance of forces anywhere in the world’s oceans.
        1. How many hours will Ohio release all 154 KR? What is the real, tested rate of fire, how many missiles were fired at most (let it be at least 3 hours)?
        2. Start 61 with 2 Burks (lasted 45 minutes) and 110 KR with a bunch of carriers in Syria didn’t change anything from the word .... rockets stop - 3/4 destroyed non-flying coffins, half a day the runway that nobody needs and 3 2-story shed ....
        3. How to launch anti-stationary ground targets - will the KR change the balance in the Ocean?
        1. mvg
          mvg 3 June 2020 20: 31
          -1
          How to launch anti-stationary ground targets - KR will change the balance in the Ocean

          Yes, very simple. Ohio has already fired KR at Syria, 59 missiles.
          // April 7, 2017 from the Mediterranean Sea with the destroyers Ross and Porter. 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched. The United States delivered this blow on its own, without the participation of allies. After the strike of the American Tomahawks, the Shairat airbase suffered significant damage, the aircraft located on it failed, an employee of the base told RIA Novosti.
          Source: http://bastion-karpenko.ru/tactom/ MTC "BASTION" AVKarpenko //
          Variant Ax Block IV flies over 2800 km, can barrage 3,5 hours. There is a variant of RCC.
          PS: I don’t know how long it will take a full salvo, but given the possibility of barrage, you can predict a momentary strike. Disabling of power plants, air bases, strategic facilities, KP, etc.
          For example, in Iran or Scorea. 4 nuclear submarines = 600 KR little repentance to anyone, but if still with Special Special Warheads, then generally delicious.
          1. 5-9
            5-9 4 June 2020 08: 47
            +1
            "Significant damage" is 3-4 already 10 years dead MiG-23 and the destruction of the runway, which are rectified in a normal war by a normal country in 3 hours.
            Ax Block IV flies for 1200-1600 km, there is no RCC option and there has never been in real life (only 80s exquisite). There is no special warhead on the Axes and they have no where and nothing to appear from in the next 10 years.
            Without special warheads, the Kyrgyz Republic is an expensive toy for point operations. With special warheads, a hundred of them are not needed.

            And once again - 1 Ohio, missiles will stop rocketing, God forbid, half a day, or maybe more ... therefore, there’s no sense in them being in them.
    2. pmkemcity
      pmkemcity 2 June 2020 12: 39
      -1
      Quote: Bad_gr
      3 3S14 universal launchers will be mounted, each of which can accommodate a transport and launch container with the newest supersonic Onyx anti-ship missile system or one of the cruise missiles of the Caliber family - a 3M14 cruise missile or 3M54 anti-ship missile system.

  • Krasnoyarsk
    Krasnoyarsk 1 June 2020 20: 59
    0
    Quote: mvg

    What kind of staff are not far-sighted, they took 3-4 Ohio redone under the Kyrgyz Republic

    Well, who will call them smart? True, they have nowhere to go - they have no diesel boats. And we have. Here they must be placed winged, for all sorts of barmaley there. And for mattresses - Mace with Sineva.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 2 June 2020 10: 50
      +3
      And if you need to fight in the Caribbean or Africa? Dizelyuhi drive there or what?
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 2 June 2020 13: 15
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Dizelyuhi drive there or what?

        Actually, the Germans did this in the forties, and we did it in the Caribbean crisis, though not entirely successfully. And the Japanese sent their submarines to the shores of America during the Second World War - so there is no particular problem.
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        And if you need to fight in the Caribbean or Africa?

        With whom are you planning to fight there - well, at least hypothetically, so that you can understand why we need cruise missiles there.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 2 June 2020 14: 47
          +2
          and we did it in the Caribbean crisis, though not entirely successfully.


          Not entirely successful, but completely unsuccessful.
          The advantage is that there are few missiles on diesel-electric submarines, long-term duty in the designated area in readiness for combat use (for example, we will have a three-month Caribbean crisis-2 there) will not stand it.

          With whom are you planning to fight there - well, at least hypothetically


          For information from alternative reality guys, a significant part of Venezuelan oil belongs to the Government of the Russian Federation, it is right now, and someone Donald Trump is trying to take it away, also right now.
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 2 June 2020 16: 33
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            and someone Donald Trump is trying to take her away, right now, too.

            "American specialists have discovered large deposits of oil. But someone's country is located above this American oil ..."
          2. ccsr
            ccsr 2 June 2020 18: 11
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Not entirely successful, but completely unsuccessful.

            This was almost sixty years ago - we did not stand still all this time and modern diesel boats are completely different in all respects.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            she can't stand it.

            It will withstand if the crew base is adjusted and the crew organized at least a short rest. Or arrange with the Cubans for money and go to their port for repairs.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            For information from alternative reality guys, a significant part of Venezuelan oil belongs to the Government of the Russian Federation,

            Not a damn thing like that - Venezuela's debts belong to us, for which they pay with oil. And if another government comes to power, they throw us out of there and do not compensate for our debts in any way - we did this in Soviet times with Egypt, for example. Do you propose declaring war on Venezuela in this case?
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            and someone Donald Trump is trying to take her away, right now, too.

            Well, if that happens, and then what will we have to do? Landings in Venezuela?
        2. Andrey NM
          Andrey NM 2 June 2020 15: 49
          +1
          Quote: ccsr
          With whom are you planning to fight there - well, at least hypothetically, so that you can understand why we need cruise missiles there.

          Often, weapons are needed not to fight with someone, but to ensure that others do not want to fight with us ...
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 2 June 2020 18: 21
            +1
            Quote: Andrey NM
            Often, weapons are needed not to fight with someone, but to ensure that others do not want to fight with us ...

            I completely agree with this, but in any case, we must measure our capabilities with the tasks that will have to be addressed in the future in the event of the possible use of our weapons for intimidation. And it turns out that the entire economic effect of our intervention will be less than the cost of a trip to foreign shores, and we’ll hang parasites on our neck. Already with this, we ate a lot of dofiga in the USSR - where our navy just didn’t visit, but we didn’t get any sense from it, so we had to write off debts.
    2. ccsr
      ccsr 2 June 2020 13: 12
      -1
      Quote: Krasnoyarsk
      Here they must be placed winged, for all sorts of barmaley there. And for mattresses - Mace with Sineva.

      This is the approach that should be, and everything else is a whim of people who are far from understanding what the military budget of our country is, and that it can hardly be compared with the American one.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 2 June 2020 14: 48
        0
        You just do not write that you are able to "understand", please.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 2 June 2020 18: 14
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          You just do not write that you are able to "understand", please.

          I know better than you in planning and financing weapons programs - that's for sure. I have a "Soviet school" in this matter, and this is like a quality mark.
      2. bayard
        bayard 2 June 2020 16: 49
        +1
        Quote: ccsr
        and everything else is a whim of people who are far from understanding what the military budget of our country is,

        But in terms of efficiency and the criterion "price-quality", "Borey-K", perhaps any project will shut up. At the price, one such submarine will be equal to the price of a frigate of project 22350.1, but the ammunition load of the CD will be 5 times higher, with more stealth and unlimited cruising range than it (nuclear power, after all).
        How do you like this economy and the burden on the budget?
        And can such ships become an argument in resolving the next "Caribbean Crisis No. 2"?
        Say, two Boreas-K and two Ash in the Caribbean, under the cover of some squadron of the Navy's surface forces?
        It seems to me that this would be more than a weighty argument. And quite obvious, unlike the strategic nuclear forces somewhere in Siberia ...
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 2 June 2020 18: 27
          +1
          Quote: bayard
          How do you like this economy and the burden on the budget?

          I don’t know where you got the data from.
          Quote: bayard
          For the price, one such submarine will be equal to the price of the project 22350.1 frigate, only its ammunition load will be 5 times higher, with greater secrecy and unlimited cruising range (after all).

          If there is indicative data, then give a link to a reliable source, because something I can not believe that it is.
          Quote: bayard
          And can such ships become an argument in resolving the next "Caribbean Crisis No. 2"?

          We will no longer have a "Caribbean crisis" - we put them in their place long ago with our Strategic Missile Forces.
          Quote: bayard
          Say, two Boreas-K and two Ash in the Caribbean, under the cover of some squadron of the Navy's surface forces?

          Against who?
          Quote: bayard
          It seems to me that this would be more than a weighty argument.

          In a dispute with whom? Libya, Syria or NATO countries?
          1. bayard
            bayard 2 June 2020 19: 54
            +1
            Quote: ccsr
            If there is indicative data, then give a link to a reliable source, because something I can not believe that it is.

            This is well-known data, it has been published and discussed more than once \ compared on VO forums, including with my participation.
            The cost of "Borey" is estimated at about 550 - 600 million dollars. in terms of the exchange rate (data in rubles would be incorrect, because there is a constant inflationary drift of the price, but in terms of dollars, the price fluctuates approximately within such limits). The price of frigate 22350 \ 22350.1 is estimated at about the same price - 500 - 600 million dollars. So the comparison of these two ships in terms of cost at the moment is quite correct.
            Quote: ccsr
            We will no longer have a "Caribbean crisis" - we put them in their place long ago with our Strategic Missile Forces.

            The past crisis was due to Cuba, since then a lot of water has flowed in Patomak, but what about Venezuela? Also put in place?
            Are they standing?
            And I doubt it.
            And our interests there are, as it were, no more than then in Cuba.
            Quote: ccsr
            Against who?

            Quote: ccsr
            In a dispute with whom? Libya, Syria or NATO countries?

            As always, the USA.
            And we will have to defend our interests in the region anew.
            Or abandon such interests.
            The lack of a fleet makes our task very difficult for us.
            But there - in Venezuela by 2027 it is planned to open a naval base.
            So we have a need for surface ships in the ocean zone, and for submarine cruisers with the Kyrgyz Republic.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 2 June 2020 20: 24
              +1
              Quote: bayard
              These are well-known data, they have been published and discussed more than once \ compared on VO forums

              This cannot be by definition - not all deputies of the Duma know such data.
              Quote: bayard
              So comparing these two ships at a current price is quite correct.

              It’s not correct, if only because you don’t indicate whether systems that are developed not by sailors but rockets are included in this cost. Yes, and it’s not clear what to do with the cost of a nuclear power unit - it is unlikely that sailors developed it at the expense of the cost of the series.

              Quote: bayard
              what about Venezuela? Also put in place?

              No way. Most likely we will be thrown once again, and the Kyrgyz Republic will not help.
              Quote: bayard
              And our interests there are, as it were, no more than then in Cuba.

              Cuba was closer to the United States, and Fidel was holding the country there, which is why we invested there. With Venezuela, this trick will not work - we don’t even know who will rule there in a year.
              Quote: bayard
              But there - in Venezuela by 2027 it is planned to open a naval base.

              We still do not really have a base in Syria, and you have planned everything for the next seven years. Do not drive horses ...
              Quote: bayard
              So we have a need for surface ships in the ocean zone, and for submarine cruisers with the Kyrgyz Republic.

              I think that your wishes do not coincide with the capabilities of our budget.
              1. bayard
                bayard 2 June 2020 21: 38
                +1
                Quote: ccsr
                This cannot be by definition - not all deputies of the Duma know such data.

                Nevertheless, the prices were called, they even sent me scans from the public procurement website, ofigel himself first.
                Quote: ccsr
                It’s not correct, if only because you don’t indicate whether systems that are developed not by sailors but rockets are included in this cost. Yes, and it’s not clear what to do with the cost of a nuclear power unit - it is unlikely that sailors developed it at the expense of the cost of the series.

                The cost is indicated apparently without the cost of the BC (SLBM), but nevertheless these figures have long been announced, it is clear that inflation, etc., because they float, but they were sometimes even announced at open government meetings (especially during Medvedev's time), when the shipyard ran out there was still a Soviet backlog and prices went up sharply when they compared the prices of Borey and Ash, which unexpectedly for everyone turned out to be almost 2 times more expensive, despite the fact that MAPL.
                Even Wikipedia got such numbers if the memory serves.
                Quote: ccsr
                Quote: bayard
                what about Venezuela? Also put in place?

                No way. Most likely we will be thrown once again, and the Kyrgyz Republic will not help.

                Apparently, in order to prevent this, the chief of staff of the Ground Forces flew there on a business trip, with a group of comrades.
                Quote: ccsr
                Cuba was closer to the United States, and Fidel was holding the country there, which is why we invested there. With Venezuela, this trick will not work - we don’t even know who will rule there in a year.

                Well, in this matter (the support of Maduro \ Chavists in power) we are not alone. Here, China is trying, and even Iran has pulled itself up ... But anything can happen, you can’t argue.
                Quote: ccsr
                Quote: bayard
                But there - in Venezuela by 2027 it is planned to open a naval base.

                We still do not really have a base in Syria, and you have planned everything for the next seven years. Do not drive horses ...

                The plans were simply announced, and they are justified by the presence of state-owned companies and Russian business in this country. It is Venezuela who wants to have our base there - this is their guarantee of security. But without a fleet, it’s all just dreams and intentions.
                Nevertheless, the fleet is being built - the UDC was ordered, the first frigate from the domestic power plant was launched ... But the mess that started on the planet will be corrected by many plans. But it is this mess that increases the value of the Army and Navy - when a new redivision of the world begins, you need a good club to protect your interests.
                Vital.
                As our enemy likes to say.
                Quote: ccsr
                I think that your wishes do not coincide with the capabilities of our budget.

                Again, attempts began with the nationalization of the Central Bank and the change of policy from fiscal to investment. Whose take, so be it. But the historical moment gives a chance - in the USA, almost a civil war begins.
                1. ccsr
                  ccsr 3 June 2020 11: 45
                  +2
                  Quote: bayard
                  Even Wikipedia got such numbers if the memory serves.

                  I would not trust this, if only because not all costs can be taken into account, especially in terms of equipment and weapons, which went along the lines of other gas suppliers, but are used in the Navy. As an example - cipher equipment and ZAS, which will be delivered after the ship is put into operation.
                  Quote: bayard
                  But the historical moment gives a chance - in the USA, almost a civil war begins.

                  This is to our veins - we would like them to have a mess continued as long as the "yellow vests" in France raged. It’s time to add some gasoline there, and send Basharov and Petrov to help the rebellious blacks. smile
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 3 June 2020 15: 59
                    +1
                    Quote: ccsr
                    This is to our veins - we would like them to have a mess continued as long as the "yellow vests" in France raged. It’s time to add some gasoline there, and send Basharov and Petrov to help the rebellious blacks.

                    That's all for us now - the mess and brawl will continue, the civil war will burn with fire - it's easier for us, their agents and proxies will quiet down, and they will have nothing to put pressure on, and Trump will win again, so he will deal with the main culprits first - with those very bankers that our Central Bank controls, and a good part of the economy.
                    In short - a good chance to get rid of and clear the top of the spies.
                    ... It would be to whom to clean these spies ... what So Petrov and Basharov will be useful to us at home. bully yes and in America there will be enough gasoline for fires - three hundred million trunks in your hands, they are already shooting policemen, several have been killed ...
                    Just like ours in 1917 ... smile
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 2 June 2020 12: 56
    +4
    Quote: mvg
    What kind of staff are not far-sighted, they took 3-4 Ohio redone under the Kyrgyz Republic.

    Here is a slightly different situation: the United States did not build new specialized carriers of SLCMs according to the Ohio SSBN project, but rescued already built SSBNs that did not fit into another contract from disposal. It’s as if we began to remake BDRs for "calibers".
    In the option "make SSBN from ready SSBNs that do not fit into contracts"there is a sense. But in the variant"build new SSBNs to replace new SSBNs"- no. For not enough fat - first you need to replace ARPKSN. And also - to build a SSAP for them as a cover.
  • 5-9
    5-9 2 June 2020 16: 24
    +1
    And how is it to use 154 Axes (non-nuclear) and MTR combat swimmers in a nuclear war ????
    It was a pity to throw out - adapted for what it was possible ....
  • JD1979
    JD1979 1 June 2020 20: 05
    +3
    Quote: ccsr
    And this is correct, because it’s not necessary to install cruise missiles on submarines, because they are too ineffective in a nuclear war.

    Remind me ... how many nuclear wars were, and how many ordinary wars and conflicts of varying degrees of magnitude and intensity?
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 1 June 2020 20: 17
      0
      Quote: JD1979
      Remind me ... how many nuclear wars were there,

      So no one in 1941 suggested that nuclear weapons would be used for the first time in the Second World War, and this happened.
      Quote: JD1979
      and how many ordinary wars and conflicts of varying degrees of magnitude and intensity?

      Many, but for them we do not need to place cruise missiles in submarines. Firstly, we participated in such wars a little, and secondly, they do not pose a strategic threat to us, that’s why it’s possible to participate in them by other means, and do without submarine missile carriers.
      1. URAL72
        URAL72 1 June 2020 20: 42
        +4
        We have a weak relationship with foreign bases, even Malta seems to have refused to refuel our ships, so the submarine is our reliable long arm.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 2 June 2020 12: 42
          -2
          Quote: URAL72
          We have a weak relationship with foreign bases, even Malta seems to have refused to refuel our ships, so the submarine is our reliable long arm.

          We have 5-6 strategic missile carriers VKS refueling in the air, they can destroy any capital of a non-nuclear country and basic infrastructure with one set of their non-nuclear equipment to force any government to fulfill our requirement. And it will be much cheaper than using cruise missiles from submarines.
          Quote: URAL72
          therefore, the nuclear submarine is our reliable long arm.

          That is why they should be used only against our main enemy - the United States. And they have a powerful air defense system, which is why cruise missiles are impractical to use. So it is better to use ballistic missiles against them, and they should be placed on the "long arm".
  • Doctor
    Doctor 1 June 2020 19: 13
    0
    If you believe the article, the Americans plan to reduce the number of missiles to 16.
    Or maybe it's time to change the concept altogether?
    For example, are there many small, low-noise submarines carrying 2-4 rockets in horizontal mines?
    1. Operator
      Operator 1 June 2020 19: 51
      -8
      Now, as local Russophobes - the idolaters of Chaim Rickover - run over and trample you with their hooves laughing
    2. zwlad
      zwlad 1 June 2020 19: 59
      -1
      To accommodate 160 missiles will require 40 boats. Isn't it a bit much?
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 1 June 2020 21: 31
        +2
        To accommodate 160 missiles will require 40 boats. Isn't it a bit much?

        It must be considered. If the boat is the size of Varshavyanka, then with a hull length of 70 meters, up to 8 missile containers can be placed along, 4 on each side.
        Then enough 20 boats. Cost must be considered.
        But even if it is a little more expensive, it's worth it.
        Stealth, noiselessness, to neutralize the enemy will need to use the same number of boats. The main thing is that we lay eggs in 2 baskets. And you can and on the 4th.
      2. Boris ⁣ Shaver
        Boris ⁣ Shaver 1 June 2020 22: 12
        +1
        Quote: zwlad
        40 boats. Isn't it a bit much?

        Exactly 4 times more than 10.
    3. ccsr
      ccsr 1 June 2020 20: 04
      -2
      Quote: Arzt
      Or maybe it's time to change the concept altogether?

      This happened with us, and this is primarily due to the secrecy and cost of submarine missile carriers.
      Quote: Arzt
      For example, are there many small, low-noise submarines carrying 2-4 rockets in horizontal mines?

      It will be irrational - the high cost of the submarine itself and the low power of the total nuclear charge. Such things are miscalculated even at the level of the concept of a future war, which is why we abandoned the Typhoon and switched to smaller submarines.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 1 June 2020 21: 42
        -1
        It will be irrational - the high cost of the submarine itself and the low power of the total nuclear charge. Such things are miscalculated even at the level of the concept of a future war, which is why we abandoned the Typhoon and switched to smaller submarines.

        I propose to calculate further and move on to even smaller ones.
        Cost will also decrease, secrecy will increase, the total potential will also increase, because to neutralize the enemy will have to keep the same amount.
        You can generally refuse to cover such boats, and multipurpose send to hunt.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 2 June 2020 12: 52
          +2
          Quote: Arzt
          I propose to calculate further and move on to even smaller ones.

          The linear dimensions of the missiles will not allow this.
          Quote: Arzt
          Cost will also decrease, secrecy will increase, the total potential will also increase, because to neutralize the enemy will have to keep the same amount.

          This is debatable, if only because a larger number of submarines will require more trained personnel, large repair enterprises and the difficulty of managing them when on combat duty, not to mention emergency situations that will always happen.
          Quote: Arzt
          You can generally refuse to cover such boats, and multipurpose send to hunt.

          This issue is decided by those who are unlikely to discuss it in this forum. So one can guess, but so far, as I understand it, have come to the conclusion that 16 missiles are the most optimal number of missiles for our submarines for the next 2-3 decades. But the areas of military launches is a state secret, and hardly anyone will reveal it to you.
    4. bk0010
      bk0010 1 June 2020 20: 22
      +3
      Go broke, definitely. And by the way, small and inconspicuous ones are not synonyms: in small boats there may not be enough space for events to reduce visibility and under a good GAS.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 1 June 2020 21: 44
        0
        Go broke, definitely

        Is not a fact. What is more expensive: one heavy cruiser of the Orlan type, or 4 frigates?
        1. bk0010
          bk0010 1 June 2020 21: 54
          +1
          Quote: Arzt
          Is not a fact. What is more expensive: one heavy cruiser of the Orlan type, or 4 frigates?
          Not this way. "Which is more expensive: one Orlan-class heavy cruiser, or four Orlan-class heavy cruisers, with only 4 launchers left (well, and possibly a slightly reduced reactor power)."
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 1 June 2020 22: 02
            -2
            Not this way. "Which is more expensive: one Orlan-class heavy cruiser, or four Orlan-class heavy cruisers, with only 4 launchers left (well, and possibly a slightly reduced reactor power)."

            Displacement "Borea" 24000 tons.
            And we are building a Varshavyanka (or Ryubi if you want closer to the truth) 5000 tons with one reactor.
            Cost down, stealth up, the same potential.
            1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
              Boris ⁣ Shaver 1 June 2020 23: 31
              +1
              Quote: Arzt

              Displacement "Borea" 24000 tons.

              Heaviness is good.
              Heaviness is reliable.
            2. bk0010
              bk0010 1 June 2020 23: 48
              +1
              There will not be one reactor on a warship. And a displacement of 5000 tons, too. Instead of 24000 tons, get 20000 (are we only cutting missiles?). Or do you want a diesel SSBN that needs to pop up every day to recharge and with autonomy of 20 days?
              1. Doctor
                Doctor 2 June 2020 00: 23
                -2
                There will not be one reactor on a warship.

                Why? On "Ryubi" alone.

                RPKSN diesel

                Why do you need this gigantomania. The "shark" is big. It's good?

                ARPF. Atomic Missile Underwater Frigate.
                Displacement 5000, okay 7000 tons.
                4 rockets of 150 kT each.
                Crew 50 man.
                25 pieces.
                And let them try to catch them.
                1. user1212
                  user1212 2 June 2020 04: 33
                  +3
                  Quote: Arzt
                  Displacement 5000, okay 7000 tons

                  Smaller size and less "value" is definitely a plus. The question is whether everything you need will fit in 7000 tons.
                  Assume the maximum depth for an underwater start is 30 meters. How long will a light boat go down when launching one rocket? And with a volley? Is it possible that the launch of even one rocket, the last in a row, will turn the boat over?
                  1. Doctor
                    Doctor 2 June 2020 10: 14
                    0
                    Assume the maximum depth for an underwater start is 30 meters. How long will a light boat go down when launching one rocket? And with a volley? Is it possible that the launch of even one rocket, the last in a row, will turn the boat over?

                    Volley of 4 missiles. Then everything is on the drum.
                2. Boris ⁣ Shaver
                  Boris ⁣ Shaver 2 June 2020 09: 45
                  +1
                  Quote: Arzt
                  It's good?

                  The rate of fire depends on this. A heavy boat saves less with a salvo. With the development of US anti-aircraft defense - it becomes extremely important - to shoot out ammunition as quickly as possible.
                  1. Doctor
                    Doctor 2 June 2020 10: 13
                    0
                    Rate of fire depends on this.

                    A volley of 4 missiles and free.
                    1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
                      Boris ⁣ Shaver 2 June 2020 11: 25
                      0
                      Quote: Arzt
                      Volley of 4 missiles and free

                      The boa constrictor says below that almost 19-ton Ohio has a "one-time" salvo of only 4 missiles, and even 1 minute per missile. It is doubtful that a 7-ton boat can do better. But if he can, then I don't mind
                      1. Doctor
                        Doctor 2 June 2020 11: 56
                        0
                        The boa constrictor says below that almost 19-ton Ohio has a "one-time" salvo of only 4 missiles, and even 1 minute per missile. It is doubtful that a 7-ton boat can do better. But if he can, then I don't mind

                        There are vertically located launch mines. The simultaneous axial load presses the boat down.
                        If the containers with missiles are arranged along the axis, like torpedoes, then the boat will be affected only by a momentary decrease in mass. Starting can be done both on and against the course of the boat.
                      2. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 2 June 2020 16: 41
                        0
                        Quote: Arzt
                        There are vertically located launch mines. The simultaneous axial load presses the boat down.

                        Read about Operation Behemoth.
                      3. bayard
                        bayard 2 June 2020 17: 17
                        +2
                        Quote: Arzt
                        If the containers with missiles are arranged along the axis, like torpedoes, then the boat will be affected only by a momentary decrease in mass. Starting can be done both on and against the course of the boat.

                        I even imagine it scary belay ... If you are of course about SLBMs. And if about the winged ones, then shoot them with torpedo tubes, the "Varsharyanka" are coping well with this.

                        The entire economy and combat effectiveness have already been calculated for a long time, namely the cost per SLBM from the cost of the carrier's boat. Therefore, 12 missiles are irrational, 24 (like Ohio's - unreliable in terms of strength characteristics and the impossibility of firing in one gulp). As a result, both we and they came to 16 missiles aboard a nuclear submarine balanced in all respects (SSBN).
                        Everything has been calculated for a long time, do not waste time in vain.
                      4. ccsr
                        ccsr 2 June 2020 19: 39
                        +2
                        Quote: bayard
                        Everything has been calculated for a long time, do not waste time in vain.

                        I completely agree - everyone has long been calculated, and apparently this is the most optimal option for the current dimensions of the Mace. They will make it smaller, perhaps the submarines will become smaller in size, because it is the missiles and their number that determine the size of the submarines.
  • Doctor
    Doctor 1 June 2020 21: 47
    +1
    And by the way, small and inconspicuous ones are not synonyms: in small boats there may not be enough space for events to reduce visibility and under a good GAS.

    I agree. Plus habitability is worse.
    The size of Varshavyanka. And 8 missiles each.
    1. Podvodnik
      Podvodnik 1 June 2020 22: 16
      +5
      The size of Varshavyanka. And 8 missiles each.


      Rockets do not physically place. The diameter of the durable case is small. The displacement of the entire Varshavyanka is less than the displacement of one (!) Missile compartment of the SSBN.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 1 June 2020 22: 27
        +1
        Rockets do not physically place. The diameter of the durable case is small. The displacement of the entire Varshavyanka is less than the displacement of one (!) Missile compartment of the SSBN.

        Along the body. By type of boules.
        The diameter of Borea is 13,5, that is, the container with the Mace is placed in these dimensions.
        With a boat length of 70 m, without aft and bow sterns of 40 m, the wave is enough to accommodate 8 containers, 4 on each side.
        1. Podvodnik
          Podvodnik 4 June 2020 22: 12
          0
          8 containers, 4 on each side.


          It turns out straight octopus. Moreover, horizontally. How to load rockets into mines? There are huge cranes in the bases. Loading / unloading a whole "military operation". And the weight is commensurate with a hundred tons. In my opinion, it is technically very difficult. After all, the mines will be in the water. Dock dock for each loading / unloading? These docks need to be redone. The entrances are appropriate, the ramp to the dock itself is collective farm. Snap-on interchangeable "containers"? If necessary, undock the entire missile silo and replace it with a new one? Not feasible in my opinion.
  • dgonni
    dgonni 1 June 2020 20: 36
    0
    And what is the most expensive in a boat? That's right, crew! Ready to contain an additional 8 crews instead of two? Well, the boats also cost something;)
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 1 June 2020 21: 51
      0
      And what is the most expensive in a boat? That's right, crew! Ready to contain an additional 8 crews instead of two?

      The size of Varshavyanka. 8 missiles each. The crew of 52 people. Northwind - 107.
      The total amount is the same. Less is probably impossible.
      1. dgonni
        dgonni 1 June 2020 22: 22
        +1
        But missile passengers, of course, are not needed in the carriage. Not that. They have the principle that there are screws behind their compartment and they don’t go further into the stern. But the specialists, however, should also be on watch, for why then rockets? How much is rocket crew calculating there now? Multiply by three shifts and other specialists according to their profile voila. The same crew will be typed.
        8 rockets say? Well, 2 boats instead of one. 4 crews. Yes, at least one rocket calculation will remain the same, this is not one fighter, one machine gun!
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 1 June 2020 22: 34
          0
          Yes, at least one rocket calculation will remain the same, this is not one fighter, one machine gun!

          Need a balance. For the boat, the main thing is to catch fire in time, for this the main thing is stealth.
          I am sure that the Americans will follow the path of reducing the size of boats, with a decrease in the number of missiles and crew due to the automation of processes.
          Just because detection tools are evolving.

          Naturally, with an increase in the total number of nuclear submarines.
          1. dgonni
            dgonni 1 June 2020 23: 03
            +1
            Mattresses have already taken a completely different path. And this is the way of crewless PLO ships! They are relatively small. Not more than the destroyer of the First World War. Stable and seaworthy. They can remain at sea for a long time and do not require frequent calls at ports. Cheap and controlled by AI. They can be quickly deployed at any point of the world’s oceans as a mobile boundary PLO. Will be included in the general PLO system.
            Therefore, mattresses will press our new boats to their bases. For the discovered boat is a potential reef for corals.
            And they can rivet such anti-submariners over and over and over. At the same time, ensuring complete freedom for their strategists.
            That's the whole story.
  • Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 1 June 2020 19: 56
    -2
    Quote: Arzt
    For example, are there many small, low-noise submarines carrying 2-4 rockets in horizontal mines?

    We will not succeed, even if the cost is reduced, they still will not build much.
    1. agond
      agond 1 June 2020 20: 33
      +1
      Let's analyze, the displacement of 14720t above water, 24000t underwater, ballast 9280t of water !!! (it’s interesting to know why 39% of buoyancy is needed, other than how the ice was going to break and float), dimensions length 170 m, diameter 13.5 m, direct airship, only underwater, interesting, but if you divide the displacement by the total weight of the warheads 1150 kg x 16 pcs = 18.4 t , 24000 tons divided by 18.4 tons, we get 1300 tons of displacement per ton of warhead weight, and if we present in percentage the weight of the combat load of missiles and torpedoes to displacement (37 tons of Mace launch weight per 16 pieces = 592 tons) for a round, take 1000 tons with torpedoes and other missiles then he will make up only 4% of the displacement.
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 1 June 2020 21: 01
        +2
        We have a double hull submarine, which increases the displacement + as you said for breaking ice.
      2. Boris ⁣ Shaver
        Boris ⁣ Shaver 1 June 2020 22: 20
        -1
        Quote: agond
        4% of the displacement

        Thing in itself. A lot of? Few? For what? Why?
        PS: I read the boa below, I understood everything.
    2. Doctor
      Doctor 1 June 2020 21: 52
      0
      We will not succeed, even if the cost is reduced, they still will not build much.

      On the contrary. They will rivet as "Varshavyanka".
  • egor1712
    egor1712 1 June 2020 20: 23
    0
    started for health, and finished for peace ...
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 1 June 2020 20: 40
    15
    Interesting this author, Mr. LEGAT! There is a judgment about everything and it does not matter how much it compares with the views of the maritime community on the principles of building a fleet and building its ships ... Well, at least this, for example:
    Such characteristics as length and displacement, according to open sources, remained unchanged.
    These are our sources think so. And the Yankees photographed her, darling, from space and calculated that she was shorter by 3,4 m (even indicated by which compartments and what equipment they did), therefore, 300-400 tons of underwater VI.
    Most importantly, the armament, consisting of sixteen R-30 Bulava solid-fuel ballistic missiles, has not changed.
    But this is far from a fact, because no one is going to tell Mr. Legat what "pencil" will be stuck into it at the next loading of the silo: the old one or deeply modernized in the same dimensions (preferably). And this will be until some thread of "Moreman" from RTB is drunk, that he ... spit the whole Omeriga on his finger, because the R-30UTTKh2 was loaded on "Vladimir" ... (well, and so on) .P.)
    The author’s claim that
    Weapons can be called the "weakest" side of the project, which is somewhat paradoxical, given that we are talking about ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads.
    Well, what can you say? The author apparently does not know that the set of "pencils" is changed at least once every 1-5 years. And it's not a fact that new buildings will go to the BS with the same P-10s that were previously at Dm Donskoy ...
    The author's "sighs" about 24 holes for Tridents on Nuts are incomprehensible. This is all beautiful before the start of the series. And in the Yankees, not a single carrier fired more than 4 products in one batch. And the rate of fire of 60 seconds is not comme il faut. And this is without taking into account the time interval between the series ... (This is not our 667th full ammo with "Begemot-2" with a rate of fire of 7-10 sec!) And now imagine what will happen to the launch area (ROP) in 10 minutes during the "counter battery" fight? I think the whole sea-okian will be boiled to the very bottom there! Realizing this, the Yankees are going to build their Colombia with 16 silos, and the Nagli people, so they generally agreed to 12.
    The statement that “there is no alternative to the Borey-Bulava duet, the transfer of part of the rpkSN functions to units 09852 and 09851 of the project (???)
    A few words about the 955K project. This is not a substitution of rpkSN with their SLBMs, but a replacement of 949A / 949AM with their CRBDs and RCCs. Moreover, the replacement, in my opinion, is very reasonable, quite budgetary and finally fits into the paradigm of fleet unification by platform / carriers. Yeah
    PS This is true, in vain, in Macedonian. Because you still need to raise a glass for those about whom Mr. Legat writes in his far from indisputable article.
    Nevertheless, thanks to him for his attention to the problems of the Fleet.
    1. MstislavHrabr
      MstislavHrabr 1 June 2020 21: 06
      +5
      Thanks to Boa for the horsch. comment ...
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 1 June 2020 21: 59
        +6
        As I can .-- Due to strength and capabilities. laughing
    2. Podvodnik
      Podvodnik 1 June 2020 22: 10
      +3
      Now imagine what will happen to the launch area (ROP) in 10 minutes during the "counter battery" fight?


      Nothing will happen. It makes no sense to destroy the firing submarine. The strategic nuclear forces will strike at major bases and industrial centers. Moreover, in 10 minutes it is impossible to issue a central bank. And where will you issue it? To a ballistic missile? All goals are already assigned. In the winged one? The approach time is long.
      So the combat shooting area will not be counterattacked.
      1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
        Boris ⁣ Shaver 1 June 2020 22: 54
        +2
        Quote: Podvodnik
        It makes no sense to destroy the firing submarine.

        So it's not about the one who shot, but about the one who started the "shooting". If she spends 4 minutes on a session of 4 missiles, and then she needs a break, then, provided that there is an appropriate "tail" behind her, perhaps these 4 missiles will be all that she is capable of in such a situation.
        1. Podvodnik
          Podvodnik 4 June 2020 22: 23
          0
          then, provided there is a corresponding "tail" behind it


          Provided that our "tail" comes next, this is feasible. In the threatened period at the start of a missile attack, the "tail" will immediately give the "IA donkey" a light, not counting the number of missiles in a salvo of the enemy submarine firing.

          But we have no "tails". It is hard to carry out "long-term tracking" of the "partner's" missile boat. To do this, you have to go to sea for combat services. Experience to gain. For training purposes, "do not spare cartridges" and work out the crews at least "division for division", "surface watermen against submariners", "flyers against submariners", etc. followed by debriefing and tactics. And if practice shooting once a year with one torpedo, one autonomous system in 3-4 years, then there will be no sense. No matter how much you say "sugar" ....
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 1 June 2020 22: 58
        +4
        Quote: Podvodnik
        the area of ​​live fire will not be counterattacked.

        Igor, if at least once you had to look into a combat order for a BS, you could read the commander’s actions there when you receive a signal to start the database. and upon detection of signs (or fact) of preparation for launching a BR ... It shoots everything that can be carried by bearing on a carrier for the sole purpose of disrupting the launch of missiles. The orbital grouping on the side will definitely not stay ...
        Therefore - boil, be sure! bully
        1. Podvodnik
          Podvodnik 4 June 2020 22: 33
          0
          if at least once you had to look into a combat order for a BS with one eye


          Although I was an officer of the BIP, such orders were not communicated to me. This is the level of commander. Although in general terms I can imagine. But it was about
          in 10 minutes with a "counter battery" fight?

          What is such a struggle in the combat service area of ​​a potential enemy? These areas are state secrets of "partners". To destroy the enemy's firing submarine, they must be opened, and our multipurpose submarine must be nearby. And naturally, when the control unit receives a signal, the task will be completed.

          Only "after 10 minutes with counter battery fight" does it imply the use of similar weapons. In my commentary, I noted that this is unrealistic.
    3. Boris ⁣ Shaver
      Boris ⁣ Shaver 1 June 2020 22: 49
      +2
      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
      with the "counter battery" fight?

      The concept is clear and reasonable. One "but". Each of the 18 Ohio must have something to provide for this "counter-battery fight". Otherwise, everything is different.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 1 June 2020 23: 32
        +4
        Quote: Boris ⁣Razor
        Each of the 18 Ohio must have something to provide for this "counter-battery fight". Otherwise, everything is different.

        I agree. We approximately know the areas of BS carrying (patrolling), therefore there is (at least in my capitals during the heyday of stagnation) strengths of their control and presence in the area to prevent a sudden strike.
        But today is not the kind of weather to "walk in the street".
        Therefore, the 885M and 545s with new GAK and ASBU with prefixes such as "Ritsa" or such as "Delta" by the Leksin brothers are needed as air. Yes, more NK with equipment of the MNK-400 type ... Well, and of course new PLO aircraft.
        Alas, this is still a dream, but please note, CONSTRUCTIVE!
        1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
          Boris ⁣ Shaver 1 June 2020 23: 35
          0
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          how air is needed 885M

          Here I am about it
  • Fuse angel
    Fuse angel 1 June 2020 21: 26
    +2
    However, the "reincarnation of the Stalinist T-15 torpedo" has so many conceptual flaws (speed, vulnerability, and so on),

    Yeah, it is clear that the author already knows the secret characteristics of the new weapon, that he immediately draws a conclusion. And such a characteristic as "vulnerability" is generally how to understand it? Some incomprehensible conjectures, to compare the development of half a century ago with the modern one is very objective.
  • turcom
    turcom 1 June 2020 21: 43
    +2
    “However, the“ reincarnation of the Stalin T-15 torpedo ”has so many conceptual flaws (speed, vulnerability, and so on) that the mere appropriateness of using Poseidon as a deterrent is a big question.

    -If there is such a big question, you probably wouldn’t have tug up so much time and money and wouldn’t have already allocated two nuclear submarines
    1. agond
      agond 1 June 2020 22: 29
      +1
      Quote: turcom
      Poseidon as a deterrent is a big question.

      Poseidon or an apparatus based on it can serve as a reusable vehicle for the hidden placement of weapons on the ocean floor.
      1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
        Boris ⁣ Shaver 1 June 2020 22: 55
        0
        Quote: agond
        for hidden placement of weapons on the ocean floor

        Prohibited by international agreements that we have signed.
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 1 June 2020 22: 56
        +1
        Reflection Information for Poseidon and other NPA
        The device "Vityaz-D" is able to operate autonomously without external control, including in the presence of obstacles. The project implies the possibility of maximum diving at 12 thousand meters. Despite the maximum known depth of the Mariana Trench, it is planned to explore unknown areas in the area of ​​the Challenger Spot. Only a few people dived into this place and its depth, and not a single country conducted large-scale studies. The task of the device was to study the area within a radius of 150 kilometers, where the depth is unknown.

        The Vityaz-D complex, in addition to the directly deep-sea autonomous uninhabited descent vehicle, includes a bottom communication and navigation station, and control room equipment. During the operation of the device through a sonar channel in real time, information is exchanged between the drone and the carrier ship. The maneuvering apparatus is a permeable structure of zero buoyancy, its power bases are made of titanium alloys. External contours are made of spheroplastics, which made it possible to compensate for the overweight of the device and give it a streamlined shape. For movement, the device uses four marching and ten thrusters electric motors.

        The equipment of Vityaz-D includes echo sounders, sonar navigation and communication equipment, side-scan sonars, external video cameras, lighting devices and special research equipment. This allows surveying and bathymetric surveys at given depths, sampling the top layer of the bottom soil, sonar surveying the bottom topography, and measuring the hydrophysical parameters of the marine environment.

        The main advantage of the underwater vehicle is to conduct research in the deep sea areas of a large area. The control system uses elements of artificial intelligence that allow the device to independently avoid obstacles, get out of a limited space, and solve other maneuvering tasks. This is its difference from other devices that had previously plunged into the Mariana Trench. It is the autonomy of the Russian apparatus that distinguishes it from the American “Nereus” and the Japanese “Caiko” that plunged earlier into the Mariana Trench
        1. Fizik M
          Fizik M 2 June 2020 16: 03
          -3
          Quote: Vadim237
          Information for thought to Poseidon and other legal acts
          The device "Vityaz-D"

          fool
          please continue about it lol I promise not to beat and not to laugh loudly laughing
  • Non-fighter
    Non-fighter 2 June 2020 11: 58
    0

    And with us everything is done through one place. At the end of the 90s they took and ruined the boat 667BDRM-project K-64, put it on an alteration under the carrier of losharikov and the like, and remade it for 20 years. And the 941s were without weapons and it was already clear that there would be no new missiles on them

    1. The cost of service is 2-2,5 times more than 667XXXX. In 90 it was critical :( I did not remember where I saw it :( Perhaps there were problems with intra-union cooperation.
    2. Secrecy. 44k underwater displacement is difficult to hide. And non-acoustic search methods also have a place to be, on this occasion there were several articles nearby.
    Redo? Expensive, and it’s not clear what (I remind you of 90 years in the yard) As a result, we have a suitcase without a handle.
  • Looking for
    Looking for 2 June 2020 15: 33
    0
    gigantomania is a sign of the decline and degradation of empires.
  • Fizik M
    Fizik M 2 June 2020 15: 55
    -2
    rare article nonsense
    Vysotsky ceased to be a naval group in May 2012.
    armament is just REDUCED (up to 4 TA) - and this is the official information of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation since the Army 2015
  • Fizik M
    Fizik M 2 June 2020 16: 08
    -2
    a bit of reality
    https://mina030.livejournal.com/24483.html
    https://mina030.livejournal.com/20809.html
    https://mina030.livejournal.com/20459.html
    https://mina030.livejournal.com/19061.html
    https://mina030.livejournal.com/15900.html
    https://mina030.livejournal.com/13128.html
    https://mina030.livejournal.com/12048.html
    https://topwar.ru/157559-apkr-severodvinsk-proekt-885-jasen-sdan-vmf-s-kriticheskimi-dlja-ego-boesposobnosti-nedodelkami-protivotorpednoj-zaschity-podlodok-vmf-rf-net.html
  • 5-9
    5-9 2 June 2020 16: 22
    0
    up to eight W88 blocks of 455 kilotons, up to fourteen W76-0 blocks of 100 kilotons (they were written off), or the same number of W-76-1 blocks of about 90 kilotons each.

    They just never carried it ... the very existence of a workable W88 is in question. In real life they carry 4 W-76s.
  • Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 2 June 2020 17: 53
    0
    I believe it is advisable to build one universal nuclear boat. And in universal (modular) launchers to put either winged, or ballistic, or anti-aircraft
  • Andrey Ivantsov
    Andrey Ivantsov 3 June 2020 03: 05
    0
    Our country has this technique, of course it’s good. But! they have in our pocket our corrupt officials with their children and assets. And it turns out that our equipment is reset to zero by our nullified officials. And then, what's the point with this technique. Neither technological progress rules the world, but the minds that our officials lost a long time ago. They very correctly assessed their work on dragging the country, they reset it to zero together with the country, the people and technology of which they frighten neither the west but us.
    1. agond
      agond 3 June 2020 10: 40
      0
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      I believe it is advisable to build one universal nuclear boat

      It is very difficult, but rather almost impossible, to create a universal thing that is good enough, you won’t even find examples among simple household items, for example, a spoon for the first fork for the second (though there may be one plate). With regards to submarines, power for submarines is not the main indicator of its usefulness, if the size of submarines exceeds a certain critical size, then it should be put an end to it, because its main argument is secrecy, and size is a decisive factor in secrecy. therefore, it would be logical to build small missile carriers with one large ballistic missile located in the pop-up container, the container can be horizontally hooked to the boat hull at the back of the wheelhouse, and the cabin can be pulled forward. Thus, even a diesel boat could carry a container with one Sarmatian.
  • Old26
    Old26 3 June 2020 16: 44
    +2
    Quote: Arzt
    It must be considered. If the boat is the size of Varshavyanka, then with a hull length of 70 meters, up to 8 missile containers can be placed along, 4 on each side.

    And how are you going to shoot from a horizontal position ???
  • Escobar
    Escobar 12 July 2020 17: 59
    0
    What is it like? Target! This is not a spherical horse in a vacuum. Without anti-mine forces, with ancient torpedoes, with obsolete anti-submarine aircraft and anti-aircraft ships, this is a target.
  • kig
    kig 22 August 2020 15: 39
    0
    [quoteHowever, the "reincarnation of the Stalinist T-15 torpedo" has so many conceptual flaws (speed, vulnerability, and so on) that the very expediency of using Poseidon as a deterrent is a big question. quote] - do not understand? And what did the Supreme say? Does the author not believe him?
  • Crimea26
    Crimea26 23 August 2020 23: 57
    0
    Strange, from the left side you can see a clear line between the hull and the superstructure, and from the right side - everything is licked. Ah-ah, these are different options ...