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


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:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Krasnoyarsk 1 June 2020 18: 22 New
    • 10
    • 3
    +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 1 June 2020 20: 51 New
      • 17
      • 21
      -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 1 June 2020 22: 13 New
        • 11
        • 4
        +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 1 June 2020 19: 04 New
    • 7
    • 4
    +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 2 June 2020 09: 09 New
      • 2
      • 5
      -3
      To, as before - saw, Shura, saw.
  3. ccsr 1 June 2020 19: 04 New
    • 5
    • 8
    -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 New
      • 12
      • 6
      +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 1 June 2020 20: 11 New
        • 12
        • 8
        +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 New
          • 9
          • 7
          +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 2 June 2020 08: 38 New
            • 5
            • 3
            +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 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. But they are scrapped, and these boats are about the same age as BDRMs, plus or minus, well, a little older. They can hide the bald line in the interbody space, a flotilla of loshariks, and cruise missiles ... But no, let's cut it. Around the same time, the Urinson-Solomonov-Dvorkin group (tgi of the Gus rich men) dragged on the topic with the Bulava, taking away the topic of sea-based ICBMs from Makeev Design Bureau, with which there are still more questions than answers, and still They did not leave Makeev’s design bureau;
          2. ccsr 2 June 2020 13: 05 New
            • 4
            • 3
            +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 2 June 2020 16: 13 New
              • 4
              • 1
              +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 are somewhat contrary to your statement. It was Shoigu who announced the intention of the Moscow Region to order at least 2 (with an option for two more) Borey-K - namely with cruise missiles in launch cups.
              True, followed by a statement of intention to increase the total number of Borey and Borey-A to 12 pieces. , but here one does not contradict the other - it is more reasonable to have exactly 6 pieces. there are such submarines on the Pacific Fleet and the Northern Fleet, but the Borey-K seems to replace the 949 project, with up to 112 KR on board (both Zircon and Caliber-M with a range of up to 4500 km.).
              And about the unresolved issue of the secret deployment of our nuclear submarines, fears are also somewhat exaggerated - in recent years our MAPLs have regularly “broken through” to the Atlantic, though for this we had to carry out whole special operations of the surface and submarine forces of the fleet. And the value (combat) of even one such erupted submarine with 112 KR on board will be very high. After all, its missile launchers will fly to enemy territory only when command centers, air bases and early warning systems are already glazed by the enemy’s ICBMs and SLBMs (otherwise subsonic missile launchers will certainly become easy targets for enemy fighter aircraft). Do not detract from the capabilities of these submarines (Borey-K) and in attacks on enemy fleets, of course, with reliable and high-quality target designation, with a range of destruction of ships of about 1000 km. and an arsenal of 112 such products, even one such submarine can simply sterilize large areas of water.
              In addition, it should be borne in mind that the number of strategic carriers is limited by contracts, and 12 Bulava carriers is enough for the strategic nuclear forces, but leaving the industry without capacity utilization is not good. Therefore, the construction of 4-6 such submarines of non-strategic (!) Significance will be quite reasonable ... even for the sake of unification in the Fleet, which 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 KR will be able to carry ... almost 1,5 times more than the nuclear cruiser "Nakhimov" ... which God forbid the Fleet to wait. If the cost of 6 such submarines is equal to the construction of a division ... of frigates ... it seems to me that 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 2 June 2020 18: 57 New
                • 1
                • 1
                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 2 June 2020 19: 58 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  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 2 June 2020 19: 27 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: bayard
                It was Shoigu who announced the intention of the Moscow Region to order at least 2 (with an option for two more) “Borey-K” - namely with cruise missiles in launch cups.
                True, followed by a statement of intention to increase the total number of Borey and Borey-A to 12 pieces. , but here one does not contradict the other - it is more reasonable to have exactly 6 pieces. there are such submarines on the Pacific Fleet and the Northern Fleet, but the Borey-K seems to replace the 949 project, with up to 112 KR on board (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 contracts, and 12 Bulava carriers is enough for strategic nuclear forces, but leaving the industry without capacity utilization is not good.

                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 2 June 2020 20: 55 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +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 already answered about the cost of Borea in the comment below, it is comparable with the price of the Gorshkov frigate, and as a carrier of the Kyrgyz Republic it (Borey-K) will definitely be more efficient than the frigate. In addition, Russia is bound by arms reduction treaties and increasing the group of SSBNs, we will have to reduce the ground group of strategic nuclear forces, or strategic aviation.
                  In addition, while the hypothetical Borey-K will replace the 949 loaves of the project, which will be modernized no more than 4, and they will live after repair for about 15 years, so a change is needed, and it’s better not to come up with Boreya-K - based on the serial cruiser, a huge arsenal, unification (sailors and ship repair will only say thank you).
                  If this year the Moscow Region will conclude a contract for 2 more SSBNs, then from next year it will be possible to lay 2 Borei-Ks - 2 each. per year, as industry took a pace. And we will understand after 3 years that the series in 12 SSBNs is not enough, we can continue the series.
                  The most amazing thing is that the overhaul of the 949 project with modernization will come out almost more expensive than the construction of the new Boreya-K. And for the same time ... The modernization of the "Sharks" would be worth 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.

                  "Gauges" yes - subsonic and vulnerable to enemy aircraft.
                  But.
                  On the approach hypersonic "Zircon", which can not be called slow. And he has a decent range - at least 1000 km. This will be quite comfortable for the enemy’s ships and for the most priority targets on the enemy’s shore / continent.
                  The appearance of the Caliber-M with a range of 4500 km is also expected. , but this can already shoot from the heart of the Atlantic, and from the depths of the Pacific Ocean. Exit 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 RPKSN, this is certainly cool, but I think it's still not for us. We have the main force in the strategic nuclear forces at the silo and soil-based ICBMs. SLBM is rather insurance against a "sudden disarming strike", eggs in different baskets.
                  In addition, the number of MAPLs is disastrously insufficient for us, that’s exactly what all resources should be directed after the completion of the 12th SSBN series, otherwise they will kill the adversary 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’s better to build 18–20 MAPLs (at a cost together with missiles should be enough ... but not the Ash-trees, which are 2 times more expensive than the Boreevs).
                  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 ...

                  And here you can’t argue, they’ve wrapped this up 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 rocket torpedoes? From a torpedo cannon such 50 km can spit ... it would be reliable target designation. A la "Waterfall".
                  1. ccsr 3 June 2020 11: 36 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: bayard
                    About the cost of "Borea" I already answered 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 much now. The most expensive nuclear surface cruiser was one and a half times cheaper than the Typhoon, and two times cheaper than 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 approach hypersonic "Zircon", which can not be called slow. And he has a decent range - at least 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 this can already shoot from the heart of the Atlantic, and from the depths of the Pacific Ocean.

                    Most likely it will be a new project. But the "Bulava" has already been worked out and is commercially available, so I think in order to reduce the cost of the "Boreev", their number will increase - it will turn out cheaper.
                    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
                    And here you can’t argue, they’ve wrapped this up 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 rocket torpedoes? From a torpedo cannon such at 50 km you can spit ...

                    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 3 June 2020 15: 44 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: ccsr
                      There was no such correlation in Soviet times, which is why I do not believe that something has changed much now. The most expensive nuclear surface cruiser was one and a half times cheaper than the Typhoon, and two times cheaper than 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 absolutely unique ... a structure. Then we just SURROUNDED the world. Therefore, the price is appropriate.
                      And now yes, the ratio is - 550 - 600 million dollars. , despite the fact that the same "Ash" fired at a price of 1000 - 1200 million dollars. , although it seems to be MAPL, but it is SO painful.
                      Quote: ccsr
                      Quote: bayard
                      On the approach hypersonic "Zircon", which can not be called slow. And he has a decent range - at least 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 RCC, or according to the most priority goals on the coast (up to 500 km inland). Apart from the ships, his goals will most likely be the naval base, missile defense facilities, early warning systems, air bases and command centers. But the second wave will go "Caliber-M" to full depth - this is the same "Caliber", but in diameter 650 mm. instead of 533 mm. in ordinary, under the diameter of the UVP. They have enough distance to the opposite shore.
                      Quote: ccsr
                      The Bulava has already been worked out and is being mass-produced, so I think that in order to reduce the cost of the Boreev, their number will increase - it will turn out cheaper.

                      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 in addition to the SSBN, we also need MAPLs, which are extremely few, and the Ash trees turned out to be too large and expensive. After all, they are necessary not only to protect the SSBNs, but also to harness them for free hunting. That is, about two times more than the Boreev. The program "Boreev" ends (bookmarks), and it's time to deal with multipurpose nuclear submarines. hi
                      Quote: ccsr
                      Quote: bayard
                      But what about the caliber rocket torpedoes? From a torpedo cannon such at 50 km you can spit ...

                      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 had in mind missile torpedoes fired from TA - at enemy submarines, such as Waterfall. And then Boreya has up to 40 torpedoes in the BC, so you can place a dozen or two KR Caliber among them and shoot them along with the main ones from the 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 3 June 2020 18: 22 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: bayard
                        I meant that in addition to the SSBN, we also need MAPLs, which are extremely few, and the Ash trees turned out to be too large and expensive. After all, they are necessary not only to protect the SSBNs, but also to harness them 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 stock that we can bring down to the United States simultaneously. This is their best sobering. Everything else is from the evil one, as if someone had not convinced me otherwise. And believe me, those who had the sanity, and not those who tried to convince the country's leadership that all types of weapons and equipment are important to me, thought in the Soviet General Staff in my time.
                      2. bayard 3 June 2020 19: 14 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        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 stock that we can bring down to the United States simultaneously.

                        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 little “Pike-B” with a pair of Caliber caliber with the right heads will help a lot.
                        And if not with a couple?
                        And if not "Pike-B", but 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 if the Borey-K with 112 in glasses and 10 - 20 in the ammunition depots among the 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 get supplements ...
                        I am for a variety of instruments for the protection of the God-Preserving Fatherland at any Armageddon.
                        I’m even for Poseidon to wash off the enemy from the surface of the land.
                        And forget about him.
                        And in general, I am for Peace.
                        smile bully yes
                        EVERYTHING fellow The world. drinks
                        hi
                      3. ccsr 4 June 2020 11: 33 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +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 4 June 2020 12: 17 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +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 4 June 2020 22: 48 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +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 1 June 2020 20: 29 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +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.
    "..... the aspect of this modernization is a complete replacement of the missile armament of the boat and a radical increase in ammunition. On the modernized submarines, 3C3 universal launchers will be mounted in the Granit rocket launchers, each of which can be transported -launch container with the latest Onyx supersonic anti-ship missile or one of the Caliber family of cruise missiles — the 14M3 or 14M3 cruise missiles. Thus, the ammunition load of cruise missiles on upgraded submarines will increase from 54 to 24. This will guarantee a “penetration” Air defense of naval formations having even the most advanced air defense systems, and, if necessary, will allow these boats to launch massive cruise missile attacks at ground targets in the interior of the enemy using 72M3 cruise missiles (having a flight range of 14 thousand km).
    At present, two submarines of the Pacific Fleet, Irkutsk and Chelyabinsk, are undergoing modernization under project 949AM ....... " https://dfnc.ru/bez-rubriki/vmf-rossii-sostoyanie-i-perspektivy-chast-9/
    1. mvg
      mvg 1 June 2020 22: 12 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      At present, two submarines of the Pacific Fleet, Irkutsk and Chelyabinsk, are undergoing modernization 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 1 June 2020 23: 07 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +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 New
        • 1
        • 1
        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 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -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 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            “Significant damage” is 3-4 10-23 years of dead Mig-3 and destruction of the runway, which are corrected in a normal war by a normal country in XNUMX 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 2 June 2020 12: 39 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Bad_gr
      3CS 3 universal launchers will be mounted, each of which can contain a transport and launch container with the latest Onyx supersonic anti-ship missiles or one of the Caliber family of cruise missiles - 14M3 cruise missiles or 14M3 anti-ship missiles.

  • Krasnoyarsk 1 June 2020 20: 59 New
    • 4
    • 4
    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 2 June 2020 10: 50 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      And if you need to fight in the Caribbean or Africa? Dizelyuhi drive there or what?
      1. ccsr 2 June 2020 13: 15 New
        • 1
        • 1
        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 2 June 2020 14: 47 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +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 2 June 2020 16: 33 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            and someone Donald Trump is trying to take her away, right now, too.

            "American experts have discovered large deposits of oil. But a country is located above this American oil ..."
          2. ccsr 2 June 2020 18: 11 New
            • 1
            • 1
            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 2 June 2020 15: 49 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +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 2 June 2020 18: 21 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Andrew 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 2 June 2020 13: 12 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -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 2 June 2020 14: 48 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        You just do not write that you know how to "understand", please.
        1. ccsr 2 June 2020 18: 14 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          You just do not write that you know how to "understand", please.

          It’s better that you understand planning and financing weapons programs - that's for sure. I have a "Soviet school" in this matter, and this is a sign of quality.
      2. bayard 2 June 2020 16: 49 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +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 of "price-quality", "Borey-K" perhaps any project will shut up for the belt. 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).
        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 number 2"?
        Say two Borea-K and two Ash-trees in the Caribbean, under the guise of some outfit of the Fleet’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 2 June 2020 18: 27 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +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 number 2"?

          We will no longer have a "Caribbean crisis" - we have put them in our place for a long time by our Strategic Rocket Forces.
          Quote: bayard
          Say two Borea-K and two Ash-trees in the Caribbean, under the guise of some outfit of the Fleet’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 2 June 2020 19: 54 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +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 Borea is estimated at about 550 - 600 million dollars. in terms of the exchange rate (data in rubles would not be correct, because there is a constant inflationary drift in the price, but in terms of dollars, the price fluctuates around these limits). The price of frigate 22350 \ 22350.1 is estimated at about the same price - 500 - 600 million dollars. So comparing these two ships at a current price is quite correct.
            Quote: ccsr
            We will no longer have a "Caribbean crisis" - we have put them in our place for a long time by our Strategic Rocket 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 2 June 2020 20: 24 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +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 2 June 2020 21: 38 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +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 been announced for a long time, it is clear that inflation, etc., is therefore floating, but they were sometimes even voiced at public meetings of the government (especially at the time of Medvedev), when it ended even the Soviet reserve and prices crawled up when they compared the cost of “Borea” and “Ash”, which unexpectedly 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 3 June 2020 11: 45 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +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 for us to live in - I would like their mess to go on as long as the "yellow vests" in France raged. It is time to add a gas tank there, and send Basharov and Petrov to help the rebelled blacks. smile
                  1. bayard 3 June 2020 15: 59 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: ccsr
                    This is for us to live in - I would like their mess to go on as long as the "yellow vests" in France raged. It is time to add a gas tank there, and send Basharov and Petrov to help the rebelled 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 2 June 2020 12: 56 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: mvg
    What kind of staff are not far-sighted, they took 3-4 Ohio redone under the Kyrgyz Republic.

    The situation here is a bit different: the USA did not build new specialized SLCM carriers under the Ohio SSBN project, but saved the already built SSBNs that did not fit into the next contract. It is as if we began to remodel the BDRs to "calibers".
    In the variant "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. Because I don’t care about fat - first we need to replace the ARPKSN. And also - to build ICAPL to cover them.
  • 5-9
    5-9 2 June 2020 16: 24 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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 1 June 2020 20: 05 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +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 1 June 2020 20: 17 New
      • 4
      • 4
      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 1 June 2020 20: 42 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +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 2 June 2020 12: 42 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -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 adversary - the United States. And they have a powerful air defense system, which is why cruise missiles are inappropriate to use. So it’s better to use ballistic missiles against them, and they should be placed on the “long arm”.
  • Doctor 1 June 2020 19: 13 New
    • 3
    • 3
    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 1 June 2020 19: 51 New
      • 3
      • 11
      -8
      Now, as local Russophobes - the idolaters of Chaim Rickover - run over and trample you with their hooves laughing
    2. zwlad 1 June 2020 19: 59 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      To accommodate 160 missiles will require 40 boats. Isn't it a bit much?
      1. Doctor 1 June 2020 21: 31 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +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 1 June 2020 22: 12 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: zwlad
        40 boats. Isn't it a bit much?

        Exactly 4 times more than 10.
    3. ccsr 1 June 2020 20: 04 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -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 calculated 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 1 June 2020 21: 42 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        It will be irrational - the high cost of the submarine itself and the low power of the total nuclear charge. Such things are calculated 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 2 June 2020 12: 52 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +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 1 June 2020 20: 22 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +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 1 June 2020 21: 44 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Go broke, definitely

        Is not a fact. What is more expensive: one heavy cruiser of the Orlan type, or 4 frigates?
        1. bk0010 1 June 2020 21: 54 New
          • 4
          • 3
          +1
          Quote: Arzt
          Is not a fact. What is more expensive: one heavy cruiser of the Orlan type, or 4 frigates?
          Not this way. “What's more expensive: one heavy cruiser of the Orlan type, or four heavy cruisers of the Orlan type, with only 4 launchers left (well, and perhaps slightly reduced reactor power).”
          1. Doctor 1 June 2020 22: 02 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            Not this way. “What's more expensive: one heavy cruiser of the Orlan type, or four heavy cruisers of the Orlan type, with only 4 launchers left (well, and perhaps 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 1 June 2020 23: 31 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Arzt

              Displacement "Borea" 24000 tons.

              Heaviness is good.
              Heaviness is reliable.
            2. bk0010 1 June 2020 23: 48 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +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 2 June 2020 00: 23 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -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 2 June 2020 04: 33 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Quote: Arzt
                  Displacement 5000, okay 7000 tons

                  Smaller size and lesser “value” are definitely a plus. The question is whether everything needed will fit into 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 2 June 2020 10: 14 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 2 June 2020 09: 45 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +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 2 June 2020 10: 13 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Rate of fire depends on this.

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

                      The boa below says that the almost 19-ton Ohio has a "one-shot" salvo of just 4 missiles, and even 1 minute per missile. It is doubtful that a 7-ton boat could do better. But if I can - then I do not mind
                      1. Doctor 2 June 2020 11: 56 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        The boa below says that the almost 19-ton Ohio has a "one-shot" salvo of just 4 missiles, and even 1 minute per missile. It is doubtful that a 7-ton boat could do better. But if I can - then I do not 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 2 June 2020 16: 41 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Arzt
                        There are vertically located launch mines. The simultaneous axial load presses the boat down.

                        Read about Operation Hippo.
                      3. bayard 2 June 2020 17: 17 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +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, so shoot them from the torpedo ones, and the Varsharyanka can do it well.

                        The entire economy and combat effectiveness have already been calculated for a long time, namely the cost per SLBM of the cost of a carrier boat. Therefore, 12 missiles - irrationally, 24 (like the "Ohio" - unreliable in 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 (SSBNs).
                        Everything has been calculated for a long time, do not waste time in vain.
                      4. ccsr 2 June 2020 19: 39 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +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 1 June 2020 21: 47 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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 1 June 2020 22: 16 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +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 1 June 2020 22: 27 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +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 4 June 2020 22: 12 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          8 containers, 4 on each side.


          Right octopus turns out. Especially horizontally. How to load rockets into mines? In the bases hefty cranes are. Loading / unloading the 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. What about docking for each loading / unloading? This docks need to be redone. The entrances are appropriate, the ramp itself to the collective farm dock. Snap-on removable “containers”? If necessary, undock the entire mine with a rocket and replace it with a new one? Impossible in my opinion.
  • dgonni 1 June 2020 20: 36 New
    • 1
    • 1
    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 1 June 2020 21: 51 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 1 June 2020 22: 22 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +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 1 June 2020 22: 34 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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 1 June 2020 23: 03 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +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 1 June 2020 19: 56 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -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 1 June 2020 20: 33 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +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 1 June 2020 21: 01 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        We have a double hull submarine, which increases the displacement + as you said for breaking ice.
      2. Boris ⁣ Shaver 1 June 2020 22: 20 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -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 1 June 2020 21: 52 New
      • 1
      • 1
      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 1 June 2020 20: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    started for health, and finished for peace ...
  • Boa kaa 1 June 2020 20: 40 New
    • 15
    • 0
    +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 which pencil the next time you insert a silo into it: the old one or a deeply modernized one in the same dimensions (preferably). And this will be until some thread “Moriman” with RTB gets drunk that he ... turned the whole Omerigu on his finger, because R-30UTTX2 was loaded on “Vladimir” ... (well, and .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 I say? The author apparently does not know that the set of “pencils” changes at least 1 time in 5-10 years. And it’s not a fact that new hulls will go to the BS with the same R-30s that previously stood on Dm Donskoy ...
    The sighs of the author about 24 holes under the Tridents on the Nuts are incomprehensible. This is all beautiful before the series began. And the Yankees did not shoot a single carrier more than 4 products in one batch. And the rate of fire at 60 seconds is not comme il faut. And this does not take into account the time interval between the series ... (This is not our 667th full BC with the Behemoth 2 with a firing rate of 7-10 seconds!) Now imagine what will happen to the launch area (ROP) in 10 minutes with a "counter battery" fight? I think that there the whole sea-okiyan will be boiled to the bottom! It was upon realizing this that the Yankees were going to build their Colombia with 16 silos, and the Russians, in general, agreed to 12.
    Very tense and far-fetched is the statement such as "there is no alternative to the Borey-Bulava duo, transferring part of the rkkSN 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 1 June 2020 21: 06 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Thanks to Boa for the horsch. comment ...
      1. Boa kaa 1 June 2020 21: 59 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        As I can .-- Due to strength and capabilities. laughing
    2. Podvodnik 1 June 2020 22: 10 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Now imagine what will happen to the launch area (ROP) in 10 minutes with a "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 1 June 2020 22: 54 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Podvodnik
        It makes no sense to destroy the firing submarine.

        So we are not talking about shooting back, but about starting a "shooting". If she spends 4 minutes in a session of 4 missiles, and then she needs a break, then, provided that she has the appropriate tail, it’s possible these 4 missiles will turn out to be everything that she is capable of in such a situation.
        1. Podvodnik 4 June 2020 22: 23 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          then subject to the presence of the corresponding “tail”


          Provided that our “tail” follows, this is feasible. In a threatened period, when a missile attack begins, the tail will immediately give the AI ​​donkey a light, not counting the number of missiles in the salvo of the enemy submarine firing.

          Here are just the "tails" we do not have. It is difficult to carry out "long-term tracking" of the "partner" rocket boat. To do this, go to combat services at sea. Experience to develop. For training purposes, “spare no patrons” and practice crews at least “division into division”, “surface combatants against submariners”, “flyers against submariners”, etc. followed by debriefing and testing tactics. And if training firing once a year with one torpedo, autonomy is one in 3-4 years, then there will be no sense. No matter how you say sugar ....
      2. Boa kaa 1 June 2020 22: 58 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +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 4 June 2020 22: 33 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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
          after 10 minutes with a "counter battery" fight?

          What is such a struggle in the military service area of ​​a potential enemy? These areas are the state secret of the "partners". To destroy the enemy shooting submarines, they must be opened, and our multi-purpose submarine should be nearby. And naturally, upon receipt of the BU signal, the task will be completed.

          Only "after 10 minutes with a counter battery fight" implies the use of similar weapons. In my comment, I noted that this is unrealistic.
    3. Boris ⁣ Shaver 1 June 2020 22: 49 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: BoA KAA
      with a "counter battery" fight?

      The concept is clear and reasonable. One but. This "counter-battery struggle" of each of the 18 Ohio must be something to quickly provide. Otherwise, everything is different.
      1. Boa kaa 1 June 2020 23: 32 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Boris ⁣ Shaver
        This "counter-battery fight" of each of the 18 Ohio must be something to quickly ensure. 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 weather to "walk on the street."
        Therefore, the air needs the 885M and 545s with new HACs and ASBUs with attachments such as the Ritsa or such as the Delta brothers Lexins. Yes, more NK with equipment such as MNK-400 ... Well, and of course, new PLO aircraft.
        Alas, this is still a dream, but please note, CONSTRUCTIVE!
        1. Boris ⁣ Shaver 1 June 2020 23: 35 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: BoA KAA
          how air is needed 885M

          Here I am about it
  • Fuse angel 1 June 2020 21: 26 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    However, the "reincarnation of the Stalinist T-15 torpedo" has so many conceptual flaws (speed, vulnerability, and so on),

    Yeah, the author can already see the secret characteristics of the new weapon that he immediately concludes. And such a characteristic as "vulnerability" in general how to understand it? Some incomprehensible speculation, it is very objective to compare the development of half a century ago with the modern one.
  • turcom 1 June 2020 21: 43 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +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 1 June 2020 22: 29 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +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 1 June 2020 22: 55 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: agond
        for hidden placement of weapons on the ocean floor

        Prohibited by international agreements that we have signed.
      2. Vadim237 1 June 2020 22: 56 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +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 2 June 2020 16: 03 New
          • 0
          • 3
          -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 2 June 2020 11: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 2 June 2020 15: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    gigantomania is a sign of the decline and degradation of empires.
  • Fizik M 2 June 2020 15: 55 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -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 2 June 2020 16: 08 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -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 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 2 June 2020 17: 53 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 3 June 2020 03: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 3 June 2020 10: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 3 June 2020 16: 44 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +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 ???