Military Review

Where do we have so many SSBNs?

253

As you know, plans for the construction of the Navy fleet The Russian Federation, approved by the state weapons program for 2011-2020, were miserably failed in literally all classes of ships. Except perhaps the "mosquito" fleet. But the thing is that the latter is within the framework of the GPV 2011-2020. they didn’t intend to build at all: it was supposed to put into operation only a few artillery “Buyanov” and missile “Buyanov-M” - very small missile ships “river-sea”. The emphasis was on completely different classes: corvettes and frigates, multipurpose nuclear and diesel submarines of the latest projects.


Alas, it soon became clear that the program was overly optimistic, literally everything was overestimated. Design bureaus could not or extremely delayed bringing to mind the latest and most sophisticated equipment: recall the diesel-electric submarine of the Lada project and the memorable Polyment-Redoubt. The slogan “Abroad will help us” turned out to be completely erroneous: the French simply did not want to give the Mistrals they ordered, and the bet on Ukrainian and German engines almost became fatal for the fleet. Domestic shipbuilders constantly moved the deadlines for the delivery of ships “to the right”, and even in the budget itself, alas, there was no money to implement such a large-scale program.

And then when it became clear that the planned GPV 2011-2020. a mighty stream of more than a hundred ships of the main classes "dries out" almost five times and that the repair programs for the combat units of the Russian Navy break down almost in the same proportion, a reasonable question arose: what should the fleet do? The fact that the sailors are desperate for at least some ships was quite obvious, while our mosquito fleet seemed to be able to overpower our industry. Accordingly, the shipbuilding programs turned out to be corrected in the direction of the Karakurt and project 22160 patrol ships. But it should be understood that this was a forced decision, dictated not by tactical considerations, but by the need to replenish the fleet with at least something. Of course, the decision to go "to mosquitoes" was the right one, since the corvettes and frigates had not worked out. But even here, according to the author, the emphasis on the classes of the ships was not set correctly, and there are a lot of questions to the TTX of projects 22800 and 22160 that the author will raise later. The same material is devoted to the current construction of the SSBN.

Leader in the shipbuilding program


Indeed, if we consider the implementation of our grandiose shipbuilding plans for 2011-2020, it will become clear: the backlog on the SSBN can be said to be minimal. Of the 10 ships of this class planned for delivery to the fleet, three SSBNs of project 955 (Yuri Dolgoruky, Alexander Nevsky and Vladimir Monomakh), as well as the lead ship of the advanced Borey-A project Prince Vladimir ".


But the next “Prince Oleg”, most likely, will not be able to get into operation by the end of 2020. A total of 4 ships out of 10 planned, that is, the implementation of the plan - as many as 40%. And the phrase "even whole" here, alas, is quite appropriate without any irony. The same ASLs “Ash” and “Ash-M” were initially going to build 10, then - 8, then - 7, but in reality the fleet today has one “Severodvinsk”, and God forbid that the sailors be handed over to the sailors by the end of 2020 also Kazan. Less than 30%. According to frigates, from the 6th project 11356 of the Admiral series for the Black Sea and 8th project 22350 for other fleets, we have three “admirals”, the main “Gorshkov”, and there is still hope for the “Admiral of the Fleet of Kasatonov”. Total - about 36%. Corvettes? Of the 35 planned for construction, five got up, and. perhaps by the end of 5 they will finish the “Zealous” with the “Thundering” - a total of 2020 or 7%. It should be noted that today we have project 20 corvettes in the ranks of not 20380, but 5, but the lead “Steregushchiy” was handed over to the fleet in 6 and, naturally, was not part of the GPV 2008-2011.

Landing ships? Well, the four French musketeers, the UDC of the Mistral project, didn’t get to the Russian Navy (though the author is not sure that it is worth being upset about this). Of the 6 Ivanov Grenov planned to be handed over to the fleet, only 2 will enter service, provided that Peter Morgunov still manages in 2020.


In fact, the rate of construction of the SSBNs (as a percentage of the initial plan) is overtaken only by mosquitoes and diesel-electric submarines. But to rejoice at the success of the "mosquito" fleet, for the reasons stated above, is to give out need for virtue, and with DEPL ...

With DEPL, the situation is frankly difficult. In total, it was planned to build 20 such ships, 6 of them for the Black Sea, according to project 636.3, that is, an improved Varshavyanka, and the remaining 14 were the latest 677 Lada. Maybe even with VNEU if possible.

Did not work out. Neither with VNEU, nor with Lada, at least in the framework of GPV 2011-2020. As a result, it was decided to increase the Varshavyanka 636.3 series from 6 to 12 units, sending six of these ships to the Pacific Fleet. And here - yes, there are successes. To date, all 6 diesel-electric submarines planned for the Black Sea, and another seventh for the Pacific Ocean, have been commissioned. The eighth Varshavyanka undergoes mooring trials and with the highest probability will replenish the Pacific Fleet in 2020. As for Lad, then besides the main Saint Petersburg, with its many years of pilot operation, the fleet may receive Kronshtadt in 2020 ". Total - 9 or 10 ships out of 20, that is 45-50% of the state program. But it is hardly correct to compare these figures with the Boreas, since the percentage of completion is “stretched" even by the modernized, but the ships of the previous generation.

Another thing is the SSBN. Three ships of project 955 are already in operation, and although these SSBNs are, in fact, an intermediate link between ships of the 3rd and 4th generation, they are much more perfect than the previous types of ships of this class. Five advanced Boreev A, which are today in varying degrees of construction and completion (and Prince Vladimir - and surrender to the fleet) are likely to become the most inconspicuous submarines of the whole history USSR / RF, although whether they will correspond to American MAPL is a big question. And a contract was signed for two more Borea-As, preparations are underway for laying them, which is due to take place in September 2020. And, judging by the construction time, the probability that all 10 SSBNs of project 955 and 955A will be operational before the end of 2027 is very large. That's just ... the author is concerned about one question.

Is it good?


The service life of a modern nuclear submarine tends to 40 years - provided that the ship receives all the necessary types of repairs on time. But 40 years is a whole era for modern scientific and technological progress in the military field and by the time its submarine service ends, it will become completely obsolete. At the same time, it’s obvious that the enemy will use the most advanced multi-purpose nuclear submarines to track our SSBNs, if only because there is probably no more strategic task for this class of US and NATO naval ships. And it’s quite obvious that it will be much easier for a newly-launched SSBN of the newest project to evade unnecessary and annoying attention than a 30-35-year-old ship.

What to do? The “ideal” solution is to build 12 SSBNs, say, every 10 years and remove the old ones from the fleet as the next series is built. Then we will always have a super-modern fleet of 12 strategic submarine missile carriers. But, of course, no budget can withstand such costs.

According to the author, a long-term construction program is suitable for the SSBN. Suppose that in the fleet it is necessary and sufficient for us to have 12 ships of this class (conditional figure), while the connection of such ships consists of 3 units. Then it would be optimal to commission a compound of 3 SSBNs every 10 years. That is, for example, 3 SSBNs came into operation in 2020, then the next three should be transferred to the fleet in 2030, another three in 2040, then in 2050, and the three built in 2060 as time will replace the first three SSBNs introduced in 2020. The next three handed over to sailors in 2070 will replace the ships of the year 2030. - And so on until peace comes on the whole planet (wars finally move to outer space) and the SSBNs cease to be necessary.

Adhering to this logic, at each moment of time, we will have 12 SSBNs in the Russian Navy, of which 3 will be the latest, 3 will be quite modern, three will become obsolete, and three more will be prepared for decommissioning. What are we doing?

We are building at a pace for our country 10 “Boreev” and “Boreev-A”, which should be commissioned in 15 years, from 2013 to 2027 inclusive. Thus, in a relatively short period of time, we get 10 modern warships, but then what? After a quarter of a century, all of them will be considered obsolete and we will either have to put up with this or withdraw part of the Boreev from the Russian Navy, replacing them with the latest-built SSBNs. That is, we either agree that the backbone of the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces will consist of obviously outdated ships, or we will lose money by removing ships from the fleet that have not yet served their due date.

Here, of course, there is an important objection. The proposed system will not work if there is a failure at the start. As part of the Russian Navy by the beginning of the GPV 2011-2020. there were only “old men” of project 667BDRM born in 1984-1990 and even earlier Squids. And all of them, in a good way, it’s time to be scrapped in the 2030th or a little later. Thus, the undertaking of the construction of the SSBN on the principle of “three ships every 10 years” within the framework of the GPV 2011-2020. we would have received a significant reduction in the number of submarine strategic forces - from about 12 (in 2010, maybe more) to just 6 SSBNs.

It seems to be horror-horror-horror, but if you think about it ...

Is it so bad?


As has been repeatedly said in previous articles of the cycle, naval strategic nuclear forces need to ensure the secrecy of their combat services. But it is impossible to ensure this very secrecy by the tactical and technical characteristics of the SSBN alone: ​​general-purpose fleet forces, including, of course, the naval forces, must be involved Aviation.

So, the Russian Navy today does not have the forces that would allow us to carry out the effective deployment of an SSBN. Literally everything is missing - minesweepers, multipurpose nuclear submarines and diesel-electric submarines, surface "submarine hunters", effective anti-submarine aircraft, modern analogues of American SOSUS, etc. etc. And it is not clear why we need to increase the number of SSBNs, if we are not yet able to ensure their use? Well, we are transferring the Boreas to the Pacific Fleet, but does it make much sense if the fleet is not able to detect a Japanese submarine patrolling the entrance to Avacha Bay?


Of course, in no case should one abandon submarine strategic missile carriers at all. The SSBN is much more complex than a spaceship, and its operation is a real art that is easy to lose, but extremely difficult to recover. In addition, the presence of an SSBN is a strong deterrent against the strategy of "lightning strike", designed to neutralize the Russian nuclear arsenals. Even in the Pacific, even in very difficult conditions (lack of submarine forces, outdated types of SSBNs), there was still no absolute control over our ships. Yes, there are reasonable estimates that in the Pacific, eight out of ten SSBNs in the combat services were found and accompanied by US nuclear submarines, but even the remaining two cases still created an uncertainty factor. And in the north, monitoring our “strategists” was even more difficult; there, most likely, the percentage of SSBN detection was lower. Finally, as mentioned earlier, there is the White Sea, where tracking the SSBN is almost impossible.

And so, in the opinion of the author of this article, the Russian Federation really needed to go for a temporary reduction of the SSBN in the fleet to 6-7 units, while continuing to work on the development of new types of ships of this class. Among other things, this would allow to release quite significant funds to channel them ...

Where to?


First of all, to strengthen the most stable component of domestic strategic nuclear forces, that is, strategic missile forces. The Bulava, most likely, costs more than the Yars, because launching from under water is clearly more difficult than starting from a ground launcher. And 16 mobile autonomous launchers (or 16 mines) will cost clearly and much cheaper than the project 955A SSBN. Thus, the shortage of SSBNs in the fleet could well be "compensated" by the deployment of additional ground installations - and at the same time remain in financial plus. In any case, a decrease in the total number of intercontinental ballistic missiles due to a reduction in the SSBN is unacceptable. So strengthening the Strategic Rocket Forces in this case will have the highest priority.

The next thing that comes to mind is the investment of savings in the forces of the general fleet. However, according to the author, there are much more interesting tasks.

About Horse Sea


The second is measures aimed at increasing the coefficient of operational voltage, or KOH. What it is? If a country’s SSBN spends six months a year in military services, its KOH is 0,5. If another country is able to ensure the release of its SSBNs only for three months each year, its KOH is 0,25. When KOH = 0,5, to ensure the constant duty of two SSBNs at sea, it is necessary to have 4 SSBNs in the fleet. With KOH = 0,25, the number of SSBNs required to solve the same problem increases to 8.

So, the KOH of domestic submarine forces was usually lower than that of the Americans. And it would not be bad at all to analyze the reasons for this lag, and take measures to reduce it. Thus, to a certain extent, we would compensate for the reduction of the SSBN in the fleet with more frequent military service exits. What is important - when the submarine has a high KOH, it can hardly manage with one crew. Thus, by increasing the KOH of the SSBN we provide training for a larger number of sailors, which will be in great demand in the future, when the number of SSBNs can again be increased.

And again about low noise


It should be expected that, despite a number of simplifications regarding the initial project, the SSBN of project 955 Borey is still less noticeable than the domestic strategic submarine nuclear ships of previous projects. And we can safely assume that “Borei A”, due to its improved design, will be even quieter.

But the problem is that design excellence is not everything. The most important role is played by the resource of mechanisms. In simple terms, after the delivery of the fleet, the submarine can be uniquely secretive, but one combat service has passed, the second ... Then the pump rattled, the shock absorber rattled, the bearing rattled here, and the latest nuclear-powered ship turned into a “roaring cow” that can be heard after half the ocean. The problem is completely solvable - repair the bearing, adjust the shock absorber, replace the pump, and the SSBN will again turn into a "black hole", but all this must be done in a timely manner. Alas, repair is the eternal Achilles heel of the Russian Navy. And foreign sailors have repeatedly written that after several years of operation, Soviet submarines become much more noisy, and therefore noticeable.

In other words, it is not enough to create a low-noise SSBN. It is also necessary to make sure that the ship does not lose this quality throughout its service. And, of course, all of the above applies to other physical fields - because the secrecy of the submarine depends not only on its noise.

What does all this give?


Suppose we at some point limited the number of SSBNs in the fleet to 7 units, transferring them to the Northern Fleet. But at the same time they brought their KOH to 0,3, and the number of escorts in military services was reduced to 50% due to basing in the north, high performance characteristics, timely repairs of all kinds, a certain number of military services in the White Sea, etc. What will it mean?

Only the fact that we will constantly be in combat service 2 SSBNs, and on average the enemy will accompany only one of them. The second missile cruiser will be the hidden threat that guarantees retaliation to anyone who decides to launch a surprise nuclear attack on the Russian Federation. What else do we need?

Here, of course, the reader may have the following question: if such indicators can really be achieved, then why then, sometime in the future, to increase the number of SSBNs? Let's get around 6-7 ships of this class! According to the author, nevertheless, we should have a larger number of such ships, and here for what. We should not be limited to basing the SSBNs only in the north, we also need a connection for the Pacific Ocean as well.

The very fact of the presence of an SSBN in the Far East will force our “sworn friends” to make significant efforts to find and accompany them. Americans will need to constantly monitor our bases the way they do today. In general, by deploying our “strategists” in the Far East, we are forcing Americans to spend significantly more resources to counter this potential threat to them.

But in our reality


Unfortunately, we did not take advantage of the benefits that could be drawn from the time-consuming and relatively small-scale construction of the SSBN. This in itself is not too good, but the Navy leadership also managed to aggravate the situation by adopting a new type of strategic nuclear weapons. This, of course, is about “Status-6”, or, as it is usually called now, about “Poseidon”.


The author of this article is deeply convinced that the "Poseidon" is a completely unnecessary Russian system of weapons, which did not add anything to our nuclear deterrence capabilities, but diverted significant resources to its creation. In addition, the deployment of Poseidon now seems to be using the worst practices of the USSR in the field of naval weapons. Where Americans manage with one type of SSBNs (Ohio, which is replaced by a new project of ships of this class) and one type of ballistic missiles (Trident), the Russian Federation uses as many as 3 types of submarines (SSBN project 667BDRM "Dolphin" , Project 955 and 955A Borey, as well as Poseidon carriers of Project 09851) with three fundamentally different weapon systems: liquid ICBMs Leiner, solid-fuel ICBMs Bulava and nuclear torpedoes.

As for the Dolphins, of course, there is nothing to criticize: these SSBNs, honestly guarding the borders of the Fatherland since the 90s of the last century, are serving their terms, they will soon be at peace. Actually, Boreas are being built to replace them. Suppose also that the author is completely mistaken about the Poseidons, and in fact they are exactly what the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation need. But why was it necessary to simultaneously deploy both the Boreas with missiles and the carriers of the Poseidons? Even if we assume that the “Poseidon” is archival and archival for us (and this is far from the case), what prevented us from waiting for some time and deploying it on the technologies that are planned to be used to create Husky-type nuclear-powered ships? Indeed, with the commissioning of three ships of the project 955 and seven 955A, we get a completely acceptable quantitatively and qualitatively naval component of the Russian strategic nuclear forces. And instead of thinking about how to ensure its deployment and combat use, we spend money on Belgorod, which is a remake of the already obsolete project 949A, and quite modern Khabarovsk. Thus, even after the departure of the 667BDRM Project Dolphins from the Russian Navy, we will remain with three types of strategic nuclear submarines built almost simultaneously, and if we recall that the Husky was also planned in the SSBN variant, then there will be four of them ... What for?

conclusions


According to the author of this article, the massive and almost simultaneous construction of various types of nuclear submarines, carriers of strategic weapons, is one of the largest mistakes in the development of the Russian Navy. The creation of three SSBNs of project 955 and another three or four of the improved project 955A with the complete abandonment of Poseidon and its carriers would have been much more optimal. The saved money could be distributed in favor of the multi-purpose forces of the fleet (the same Asheni) or for events that increase the KOH of the latest SSBNs. And it was worth resuming the construction of new submarines of this class as the Husky project was ready.
Author:
253 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech
    Same lech 25 June 2020 06: 17 New
    -8
    The author of this article is deeply convinced that the "Poseidon" is a completely unnecessary Russian system of weapons, which has not added anything to our capabilities of nuclear deterrence

    Oh ... and what is more expedient? ... to keep a couple of Poseidons or a group of submarines off the English Channel?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      25 June 2020 06: 58 New
      23
      It is more expedient to keep 1 SSBN in the White Sea
      1. doubovitski
        doubovitski 25 June 2020 18: 41 New
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        It is more expedient to keep 1 SSBN in the White Sea

        Continuing your thought about the advisability of building up strategic land missiles, keep a couple of dozen mines in the Northern Urals .... Covering them in three layers with missile defense systems.
        1. Alexander Moiseev
          Alexander Moiseev 31 July 2020 17: 44 New
          0
          Better in the Polar Urals or Ai-Khoi.
      2. 955535
        955535 1 July 2020 10: 37 New
        +1
        It makes sense. Only at a time when the sea is not ice bound
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          1 July 2020 11: 45 New
          +2
          And the one when it is shackled - too. The ice there for the most part is not such that the SSBN would not be able to surface, and besides, if necessary, we can always make artificial ice holes there - there would be a desire
          1. 955535
            955535 1 July 2020 13: 12 New
            +1
            And how long will they stand, these artificial wormwoods? With what to do them? The depths in the White Sea are not very large, so areas where combat patrols are possible are limited. As far as I know, combat services by ships of 31 submarines in the White Sea took place in the summer.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              1 July 2020 14: 09 New
              0
              Quote: 955535
              And how long will they stand, these artificial wormwoods?

              Why should they stand? We negotiate in advance the coordinates of several of these, and, if necessary, quickly organize them before firing by means of previously laid charges or "square-nest" bombing with specialized ammunition.
              Quote: 955535
              The depths in the White Sea are not very large, so areas where combat patrols are possible are limited.

              Nevertheless, the size of this area is hundreds of kilometers in length and tens in width.
              Quote: 955535
              As far as I know, combat services by ships of 31 submarines in the White Sea took place in the summer.

              TK-12 carried a BS there from December 1985 to June1986
    2. YOUR
      YOUR 25 June 2020 07: 29 New
      +5
      December 26, 2004 the largest earthquake. The power is twice as much as the simultaneous explosion of all ammunition detonated during WWII, including and nuclear weapons. After the earthquake, it turned out that many islands moved up to 20 meters, the entire (!!!) surface of the Earth fluctuated up to 30 cm .... Victims from 220 to 000 people. More about the victims, 300% lived no more than 000 meters from the water in reed huts. To the maximum, the tsunami passed by land for 99 km and then this place is between two mountains. Basically no further than 100 km where there is flat terrain, in mountainous areas generally did not go anywhere.
      .....
      Poseidon can destroy the port, and radioactive contamination of the surrounding area. ALL!!! The objects lying in the depths of the country will not reach, unlike Yars, Topols ..
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 25 June 2020 07: 33 New
        +9
        Poseidon "can destroy the port, and radioactive contamination of the surrounding area.
        Well, the task of disabling port communications will be completed ... the supply by sea will be disrupted ... this makes sense.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          25 June 2020 07: 35 New
          21
          Yeah. The only question is that the usual ICBM launched from the SSBN, snarling right at the port, will do the same. A torpedo is not needed for this
          1. Same lech
            Same lech 25 June 2020 08: 04 New
            +6
            The only question is that a regular ICBM issued with an SSBN

            And the risk? By launching an ICBM, the SSBN will immediately become a target and the crew may be destroyed along with the SSBN.
            Poseidon is just an unmanned underwater vehicle and can be located at the target for as long as you need without much risk of being discovered ... the benefits are obvious.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              25 June 2020 08: 09 New
              19
              Poseidon doesn't work like that. If he worked, then he would not need launch boats. And they are being built, so that they will launch Poseidon by analogy with ICBMs and the risk for the crews is the same
              1. Same lech
                Same lech 25 June 2020 08: 11 New
                0
                Unfortunately, I don’t have the complete information about Poseidon ... so I’m guessing on the coffee grounds ... but I would like our submariners to be as less at risk of retaliation.
              2. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 25 June 2020 10: 16 New
                +1
                That's right ...
              3. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 25 June 2020 19: 11 New
                10
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Poseidon will be launched by analogy with ICBMs and the risk for crews is the same

                Well do not tell!
                ABO has the ability to leave unnoticed, because it has a "self-exit" from the hangar ... Go at a depth under the jump layer, when GAS parcels are detected, switch to the "lift-off" mode ... It cannot be detected by a satellite by a torch and an early warning missile system by a signature, like an SLBM ...
                And then, who told you that it will only work "through ports"? And if on a geological fault (for example, California ...), and who of you can say what will become of that OMERIGA after that?
                Therefore, when "whistling" on a free theme, one should not forget that the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces has "notes" for this "song".
                AHA.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  26 June 2020 15: 51 New
                  +2
                  Good day! hi
                  Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                  Well do not tell!
                  ABO has the ability to leave unnoticed, because he has a "self-exit" from the hangar ...

                  Honestly, I don’t quite understand the difference. The opening of the mines is critical for the SSBN, for the carriers of the Poseidon - the covers of torpedo tubes, both will be heard quite well on the tracking nuclear submarine.
                  Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                  And then, who told you that it will only work "through ports"? And if on a geological fault (for example, California ...), and who of you can say what will become of that OMERIGA after that?

                  Nothing will break - he wanted to spit on our megatons. In order to do something there, you need to operate with numbers of a different order than our nuclear arsenals. And yes, in fact, no one will indulge with tectonics, even there is such an opportunity - too unpredictable consequences.
            2. CTABEP
              CTABEP 25 June 2020 09: 36 New
              +9
              After the SSBN fires, in principle, it doesn’t matter whether it will become a target or not. The missiles are gone, the apocalypse is inevitable.
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 25 June 2020 10: 47 New
                +9
                Wrong. Not a single spoon can launch all the missiles at the target, the initial starting conditions go astray. It is necessary again to navigate the echo sounder, to trim differently, etc.

                The Americans generally have SSBN tenders that allow reloading the BK in any calm bay and again launching the boat into battle.

                Do not think that with the first exchange of blows it will all end, everything will only begin.
          2. Sckepsis
            Sckepsis 3 July 2020 07: 52 New
            0

            A torpedo is not needed for this

            Well, such a cautious person like you, a person who is used to looking at everything from different angles, might have thought. But what if management knows something that we don’t know? What if the Americans make a breakthrough in missile defense and in ten years their effectiveness approaches zero?
        2. YOUR
          YOUR 25 June 2020 07: 38 New
          +2
          Faster, more reliable, with great damage to the object of a ballistic missile warhead
        3. Aag
          Aag 25 June 2020 12: 45 New
          0
          Quote: The same Lech
          Poseidon "can destroy the port, and radioactive contamination of the surrounding area.
          Well, the task of disabling port communications will be completed ... the supply by sea will be disrupted ... this makes sense.

          On the weapon of retaliation does not pull ...
          1. Snail N9
            Snail N9 25 June 2020 18: 25 New
            +3
            And it is not clear why we need to increase the number of SSBNs, if we are not yet able to ensure their use? Well, we are transferring the Boreas to the Pacific Fleet, but does it make much sense if the fleet is not able to detect a Japanese submarine patrolling the entrance to Avacha Bay?

            In-oh-from. If you dig deeper, you will find out that this is so in everything. In the ground troops, the same thing. And in aviation, it's just a star. But on paper, everything looks more or less good ... for reports and parades ... And "Posseidon" .... well, nonsense ... It's the same as "Petrel" ... which for now, only its own kills,
          2. Aag
            Aag 25 June 2020 18: 34 New
            -1
            Argue minus.
          3. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 25 June 2020 19: 22 New
            +3
            Quote: AAG
            On the weapon of retaliation does not pull ...

            And if with cobalt 60? (Or cockroaches instead of DDT will be added by hard weeping? bully )
            1. Snail N9
              Snail N9 25 June 2020 20: 16 New
              0
              With cobalt, you don't need any "Poseidons" and "Petrels" - you blow up this business on your territory and that's it .... absolutely "everything" ... yes The truth is, just in the "Poseidon" it is the cobalt bomb - so to yourself, because the radiation contamination will be largely leveled by water. But if you blow it up in the atmosphere, then it’s another matter, I think there are still no such bunkers in which there will be enough resources to sit out the time when radiation on the entire earth's surface will allow it to live on ... but again, it does not need any funds delivery, you blow up on your territory and that's it ... winked
            2. Aag
              Aag 26 June 2020 20: 58 New
              0
              A joke, or what? True, I didn’t understand. Explain, please. (Apparently, not in the subject) ...
              1. Aag
                Aag 26 June 2020 21: 00 New
                0
                Partly it became clear from the previous comment ...
      2. doubovitski
        doubovitski 25 June 2020 18: 58 New
        0
        Quote: YOUR
        December 26, 2004 the largest earthquake. The power is twice as much as the simultaneous explosion of all ammunition detonated during WWII, including and nuclear weapons. After the earthquake, it turned out that many islands moved up to 20 meters, the entire (!!!) surface of the Earth fluctuated up to 30 cm .... Victims from 220 to 000 people. More about the victims, 300% lived no more than 000 meters from the water in reed huts. To the maximum, the tsunami passed by land for 99 km and then this place is between two mountains. Basically no further than 100 km where there is flat terrain, in mountainous areas generally did not go anywhere.
        .....
        Poseidon can destroy the port, and radioactive contamination of the surrounding area. ALL!!! The objects lying in the depths of the country will not reach, unlike Yars, Topols ..

        Do you think that specialists who will set goals go to school in the second grade and don’t know geography yet? Such a port as Pearl Harbor (for example, located in a deep fjord), in which there are fifty ships, due to its small width and depth, the tsunami will raise fifty meters up and throw these canned goods over the city. If you consider that this candy was laid there quite secretly, and in advance, will give trump cards in another half-peace conversation to one side who knows about it. The option of chasing every ship in the ocean is less convenient. Pound deep to the pier of Poseidon is not necessary. Its effect will be stronger if it lands near the entrance.
        1. Cympak
          Cympak 26 June 2020 00: 33 New
          +4
          So, fools Americans will forget to block the entrance to Pearl Harbor, as they did back in 1942. Technology is lost, the Poseidons have a way to all enemy ports! By the way, how many are there? And what is their hydrography? And moving at a speed of 100 knots, how will the Poseidon go around all the shoals, rocks and narrows? But of course it's easier to believe, "that we have SUCH devices, but we won't tell you about them ...."
    3. smart ass
      smart ass 25 June 2020 18: 18 New
      0
      I agree with the author of the article 100%
    4. Petrol cutter
      Petrol cutter 26 June 2020 21: 08 New
      0
      "Oh ... and what is more purposeful? ... to keep a couple of Poseidons or a group of submarines off the coast of the English Channel?"
      I visited a similar thought in fact!
    5. max702
      max702 30 July 2020 18: 20 New
      0
      What to do? The "ideal" solution is to build 12 SSBNs each, And then the words about the impossibility of their use because there are no means for guaranteed deployment .. And the funny thing is in the next decades, these funds will not be.. That is, all that SSBNs are good for is to shoot from the pier .. But isn't it a little expensive? Everyone understands perfectly well that in the hour "H" 90% of our SSBNs in the seas oceans will be destroyed .. And the meaning in them? Argumentation such as not allowing the loss of competencies is somehow very expensive for the country in peacetime, and even in wartime it will lead to a catastrophe .. It seems like we were tortured with AUG and understanding slowly came in the era of hypersound, there is no point in them, now the time has come for SSBNs .. This is exactly the same outdated solution as the AUG to maintain parity in the strategic nuclear forces, we do not need them! As the author of the Strategic Missile Forces himself wrote, they would be painlessly and much cheaper to replace them .. That the PGRK that the silo is an order of magnitude more difficult to destroy for our enemy than the SSBN because in the naval component they are clearly stronger. And what is it for? It is quite possible to maintain competence by building multipurpose nuclear submarines, they are really more useful SSBNs because they can perform various tasks, especially since they are promising hypersound too .. You just need to recognize the obsolescence of the concept of the nuclear triad and exclude the most expensive and ineffective part from it, and send the freed funds to space, aviation and other military needs ..
    6. Scriabin
      Scriabin 13 September 2020 19: 18 New
      0
      The question is rhetorical. Both, I dare to assure you, are very good ...
  2. 2 Level Advisor
    2 Level Advisor 25 June 2020 06: 29 New
    +4
    Andrei, in many respects I agree, but with regards to this:
    "16 mobile autonomous launchers (or 16 mines) will obviously cost and much cheaper project 955A SSBNs. Thus, the shortage of SSBNs in the fleet could well be" compensated "by the deployment of additional ground-based launchers - and at the same time remain in financial plus."
    Author, you forget that the Yars do not exist in a vacuum and they need a position in the regiment and several field ones, about 2 regiments need to be built for this number .. 2 regimental positions with all the infrastructure, equipment, weapons, buildings, communications, people (with allowance ), and Yars are not cheap, and much more .. Do all this count from scratch, because our "clever men" reclaim abbreviated positions - that is, destroy .. And to build a regiment of the Strategic Missile Forces, it costs a lot, only for each hangar "Krona" about 1000 cubic meters of high-quality reinforced concrete is necessary, and all this is somewhere in the forest .. not very sure that we will save a lot .. as if in 30 years - no more expensive "Borea" came out ..
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      25 June 2020 07: 07 New
      +6
      Let’s nevertheless clarify - Boreas at the beginning of the GPV 2011-20 cost five billion dollars at five minutes. And these are only the ships themselves, without missiles. Despite the fact that the construction of the SSBN is only just beginning, there are ongoing repairs, overhauls, construction of infrastructure, etc. So land is cheaper
      1. 2 Level Advisor
        2 Level Advisor 25 June 2020 10: 34 New
        +6
        From 2011-20- the dollar fell more than 2 times, so the price is not relevant .. But still - cheaper .. But not as much as you mean ..
        I got the impression from the article that two regiments of PGRK are almost 5-10 times cheaper .. You do not forget that in addition to the above, I also need roads along the route, a bunch of control equipment, etc. it just seems that they are not very expensive .. On existing sites, yes, consider only the complex itself to be changed, relatively inexpensive in comparison, and new regiments is a different matter, just build the regiment’s position for a couple of years ..
        Yes, and the complex itself - for 3 launchers, at least 5-6 cars accompanying .. (MOBDs, MBU, security, etc.), By the way, about 16 mines - all the more expensive .. I suppose, according to my estimates, that is cheaper but not even 2 times, but less ..
        In addition, based on my experience of serving in the Strategic Missile Forces - SSBNs are still cooler .. he just needs to go out without a "tail" and look for the wind in the sea .. And the PGRKs are stationed on the BSP for most of their service in Kronakh, which makes them much more vulnerable. I will not give any ideas about how to simply disable them with small forces, but I am sure that I am not the only one who knows this, and not only in the RF Armed Forces .. PGRK is a weapon with its own advantages, but also disadvantages ..
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          25 June 2020 10: 37 New
          +3
          With your permission, I will answer in detail in the evening
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          25 June 2020 16: 42 New
          +2
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          From 2011-20, the dollar fell more than 2 times, so the price is not relevant ..

          so the ruble since then has also depreciated by almost 80% - and this is only officially crying
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          I got the impression from the article that two PGRK regiments are almost 5-10 times cheaper ..

          I guess that still at times.
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          You do not forget that in addition to the above, they also need roads along the route, a bunch of control equipment, etc. it just seems that they are not very expensive ..

          So in the case of the SSBN - the same thing, only more expensive, unless you need roads :) The SSBN take out a nuclear reactor and GTZA - this is more complicated than any engineering building construction, not at times - by orders of magnitude. Making screws (even for water cannons, even so) is generally an ubertechnology, we used to squeeze machines from Yap at this time. Hydroacoustic complex ... I don’t even know what to compare in complexity. And torpedoes, with their powerful and compact engines, and homing systems? And so - whatever you take.
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          In addition, based on my experience of serving in the Strategic Missile Forces, the SSBN is still cooler .. he just needs to go out without a "tail" and look for the wind in the sea ..

          Alas, it was the norm at the Pacific Fleet that up to 80% of SSBNs were taken for escort ... And what about KOH? The boat needs regular repairs, and the same PGRK almost 100% of the time on duty
      2. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 25 June 2020 10: 48 New
        +2
        Boats are no more expensive than ground connections, Andrey.
        1. Aag
          Aag 25 June 2020 19: 21 New
          +2
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Boats are no more expensive than ground connections, Andrey.

          Well, do not equal opportunities!
          SSBN, this is all (16) eggs (gold) in one basket, which once a year (basket) disappears from the dining table (under a successful set of circumstances). .)))) tongue
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 25 June 2020 19: 25 New
            +6
            Two fundamental differences.

            1. The boat is mobile and travels hundreds of kilometers a day at the slowest speed
            2. Even knowing where she is, against using strategic weapons against her, she must send her anti-submarine forces behind her and fight.

            With silos and PGRK, everything is a little different.
            According to the abandoned number of blocks, the boat covers the PGRK division.
            If you decide on the creation of the RGCh IN, the boat, in principle, is stronger than the missile division.
            1. Aag
              Aag 25 June 2020 19: 55 New
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Two fundamental differences.

              1. The boat is mobile and travels hundreds of kilometers a day at the slowest speed
              2. Even knowing where she is, against using strategic weapons against her, she must send her anti-submarine forces behind her and fight.

              With silos and PGRK, everything is a little different.
              According to the abandoned number of blocks, the boat covers the PGRK division.
              If you decide on the creation of the RGCh IN, the boat, in principle, is stronger than the missile division.

              I do not argue with your headline.
              According to claim 1: PGRK, similarly. True, according to the predicted network of roads, but a little faster))).
              2nd point. I don’t know, I ask, but it’s impossible to use nuclear weapons for the alleged location, and the most annoying thing is that the loss of our SSBNs by enemy PLO from a sight is a rare case (including from your articles). in case of detection of weapons is added at times. (From messages on the site).
              Further, according to the number of abandoned units ... PGRK Division, -27,36 APU! And the problem of separating warheads has long been resolved !! And they can start in one second !!! With surely greater reliability and trouble-free !!!!
              And, the third time I repeat: compare the times of regulations, repairs in the taxiway (missile division), sub-section, and the SSBN parking lots near the wall, on the docks with all your arsenal. hi
            2. Bratkov Oleg
              Bratkov Oleg 12 August 2020 10: 43 New
              0
              In addition to the price of the product, and the product's capabilities for destroying the enemy, there is also the likelihood of the product surviving with the known enemy weapons aimed at destroying the product. And there is still an unknown weapon, an ace up his sleeve, and it is imperative to strike at the enemy. Therefore, regardless of the cost of air, sea, or land-based products, all options will develop.
        2. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 4 July 2020 22: 27 New
          -1
          much more expensive with your necessary security forces
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 4 July 2020 22: 42 New
            0
            They will have to be without SSBNs.
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 4 July 2020 22: 47 New
              -1
              The fleet is very expensive, and in our case, traditionally inefficient. And the operability of meat is a very big question.
    2. Aag
      Aag 25 June 2020 19: 09 New
      +4
      Below I asked a number of questions to another commentator. Some of them relate to you.
      How much does the PBSP (field combat launching position) cost for Yars, Topol-M? What is the price made of? Survey, reconnaissance, reconnaissance, topographic reference, development of maps?
      They do not build a road network either, they use the existing one (well, maybe they will strengthen the bridges, due to the region, and not the Moscow Region).
      I don’t think that the infrastructure of the Navy’s bases is simpler, cheaper. There are also communications, arsenals, buildings, ships, including airplanes, and also with people and contentment. I won’t argue, I don’t know. But, let's not forget how much time from their life cycle is spent on the Yars database (combat duty) and, for example, Borey. Was there at least one case in the history of the Strategic Missile Forces so that at least one regiment becomes sky-ready due to a malfunction? Yes for any reason? At most one, two launchers ( APU) in the division! Here you have stability, efficiency, and KON ... hi
    3. doubovitski
      doubovitski 25 June 2020 19: 14 New
      0
      Quote: 2 level advisor
      Andrei, in many respects I agree, but with regards to this:
      "16 mobile autonomous launchers (or 16 mines) will obviously cost and much cheaper project 955A SSBNs. Thus, the shortage of SSBNs in the fleet could well be" compensated "by the deployment of additional ground-based launchers - and at the same time remain in financial plus."
      Author, you forget that the Yars do not exist in a vacuum and they need a position in the regiment and several field ones, about 2 regiments need to be built for this number .. 2 regimental positions with all the infrastructure, equipment, weapons, buildings, communications, people (with allowance ), and Yars are not cheap, and much more .. Do all this count from scratch, because our "clever men" reclaim abbreviated positions - that is, destroy .. And to build a regiment of the Strategic Missile Forces, it costs a lot, only for each hangar "Krona" about 1000 cubic meters of high-quality reinforced concrete is necessary, and all this is somewhere in the forest .. not very sure that we will save a lot .. as if in 30 years - no more expensive "Borea" came out ..

      I do not agree with you on everything. In one, yes, of course, there is only one budget, and here you need to think .... But HANDS are different. In one case, the builders of nuclear submarines, the stocks of which we do not have so many. After all, they are not only engaged in these submarines in construction, but also in repair. And they can be counted very quickly. Is there enough fingers on one hand? Mine builders can be hired a lot. And they will not interfere with each other in the North, those who work in the East.
  3. mark1
    mark1 25 June 2020 06: 30 New
    0
    The creation of three SSBNs of project 955 and another three or four of the improved project 955A with the complete abandonment of Poseidon and its carriers would have been much more optimal.

    So in America they think the same way, but there are no fools sitting there.
  4. Ros 56
    Ros 56 25 June 2020 06: 46 New
    -5
    Do they know about our failure at the General Staff? Everyone imagines himself a strategist at VO. Only one hassle, such issues are not resolved here. And talk, but for God's sake.
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 25 June 2020 06: 49 New
      -4
      Do they know about our failure at the General Staff? Everyone imagines himself a strategist at VO.

      smile It is necessary to let off steam ... around enemies and wreckers with enemies of the people. hi
    2. YOUR
      YOUR 25 June 2020 07: 08 New
      14
      The general staff will do what they are told from the general cabinet. As an example, they said to wear one shoulder strap on chest and Velcro so that you can surrender, and quickly remove the shoulder strap and throw it away, they did so. They said that the mosquito fleet is much better than the ocean fleet, so they did. They seem to be needed in the General Staff to justify the need for initiatives launched from above.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Yura Frolov
        Yura Frolov 26 June 2020 17: 32 New
        0
        With the improvement of missiles and aircraft carriers will be akin to a mosquito fleet here the dimensions do not solve anything. But the whole design and perfection of the missiles solves. You can refuse from the mosquito fleet if you can get everything from the ground ..
        1. YOUR
          YOUR 1 July 2020 06: 26 New
          0
          Decides aircraft located on aircraft carriers
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      25 June 2020 07: 09 New
      +5
      They know, of course. After all, they are reporting on the implementation of the GPV.
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 25 June 2020 07: 12 New
        -3
        And do they agree with your opinion?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          25 June 2020 07: 32 New
          +3
          Someone can and agree - they don’t report to me
    4. Cartalon
      Cartalon 25 June 2020 07: 18 New
      +6
      When an article is published on some kind of resource, even if it’s not true, this is not a big problem, but if they messed up the General Staff it’s much worse, and how history teaches us in the General Staffs is like kosyachat.
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 25 June 2020 07: 24 New
        +4
        Well, what did you want, there are the same people, only in uniform and nothing human is alien to them. Neither sincere misconceptions, nor outright nonsense, or even worse is the corruption component, if not treason.
  5. KCA
    KCA 25 June 2020 06: 49 New
    +6
    The author, like all of us, does not know what "Poseidon" is, what are its tasks and capabilities, but he confidently says that they are not needed, how can such a categorical conclusion be drawn without having information?
    1. sergo1914
      sergo1914 25 June 2020 07: 21 New
      +9
      Quote: KCA
      like all of us, does not know what "Poseidon" is


      For all - no need. Poseidon is the supreme god of the seas, the brother of Zeus. We all know. But we do not disclose it in open sources.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      25 June 2020 07: 28 New
      +6
      Elementary. There are tasks of the armed forces. And there is a materiel for their solution. It either provides a solution or not. Roughly speaking, if you are faced with the task of hammering a nail, and you have a hammer, then you do not need the exact characteristics of a microscope that you can use for the same purpose. Just because you don’t need a microscope for hammering nails, because you have a hammer :)))
      1. mark1
        mark1 25 June 2020 08: 11 New
        0
        This is what is called a simple word - demagogy.
        You have a hammer, in the form of aviation, but the wall was strengthened with air defense systems and the nails began to bend, which means you need a hammer for a heavier one and nails for a stronger one - ICBMs, but the wall was reinforced again (missile defense) - and again, to successfully break through it, other hammers and nails are needed ... And microscopes are needed to study the problem and have nothing to do with "Poseidon" and other "Petrel".
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          25 June 2020 08: 35 New
          +4
          This is not demagogy, because missile defense capabilities are negligible both now and in the foreseeable future. The maximum that modern missile defense is aiming at is the interception of single missiles without the RGCh IN. But RGCh - sorry / sorry.
          Furthermore. Although there is no anti-missile defense system capable of intercepting an RGM, there is a solution to this issue right now - these are the vanguards.
          1. mark1
            mark1 25 June 2020 08: 51 New
            +3
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            because missile defense capabilities are negligible both now and in the foreseeable future.

            With the explosive growth of research and construction, the foreseeable future is far from clear.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            There is already a solution to this question - these are the vanguards.

            "Vanguards" - just one of the solutions, which ch.z. 15-20 will not be so and will not be reflected.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              25 June 2020 09: 22 New
              +5
              The whole question is, why NOW to deploy weapons systems, the need for which, perhaps, will appear after decades, or maybe not at all? Well, they would do R&D on the torpedo and postpone it on demand. Deploy why? :)
              1. doubovitski
                doubovitski 25 June 2020 19: 23 New
                -2
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The whole question is, why NOW to deploy weapons systems, the need for which, perhaps, will appear after decades, or maybe not at all? Well, they would do R&D on the torpedo and postpone it on demand. Deploy why? :)

                Well, you give! Make the enemy run ahead of the engine, waste resources, loot, distracting from real things. Why did railguns show each other? Lasers burning walls Climatic antennas scared each other? Poseidon’s engine resource over the years, quiet running, kilometer depth (if it’s not fairy tales) makes the enemy naked. And in this regard, penguins are more vulnerable. We have few strategically large cities on the coast of the oceans; they have half of the population living in them. The candy tab is not an active attack, visible immediately and threatening with an answer. They can lie there for years. Until, until they receive orders to return or begin their work. Or do you think the placement of mallet in Turkey, in Germany, in Poland is normal and honest, and our Poseidons at their shores are barbaric?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  26 June 2020 15: 47 New
                  +3
                  Quote: doubovitski
                  Well, you give! Make the enemy run ahead of the engine, waste resources, loot, distracting from real things.

                  And why should he? :)))) The United States today is defenseless against our ICBMs. And something they are not running anywhere, they are not trying to create a miracle missile defense against our full-scale nuclear missile defense. Why would they suddenly get excited by Poseidon? :)
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 25 June 2020 19: 20 New
            -3
            Today, missile defense capabilities are negligible, and tomorrow the mass deployment of missiles in Europe, the Baltic States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, in land and sea versions, with new interceptors with high-speed range accuracy and new radars with increased capabilities for the selection of false targets.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              26 June 2020 15: 48 New
              +2
              Quote: Vadim237
              Today missile defense capabilities are negligible and tomorrow mass deployment of missiles in Europe

              Vadim, they still need to develop these missiles. The Americans do not have missiles that, while in Europe, could intercept our ICBMs aimed at the United States
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 26 June 2020 19: 44 New
                0
                So I’m talking about this - they are developing them like new radars and more than one year.
  6. knn54
    knn54 25 June 2020 07: 29 New
    +5
    The fact is that the Yankees are imprisoned for aggression. From here, in the future, only Virginia and Colombia will remain.
    The USSR and Russia initially adhered to the defensive doctrine, but for the "attack" submarines are also needed. Hence the presence of diesel-electric submarines (2 classes / types) in Russia and their absence in the Yankes.
    I agree with the author. No need for such a variety.
    But everything is decided by "land uncles", in contrast to the United States, where there is (as in the USSR under Stalin) the Ministry of the Navy.
    The "mosquito" fleet, in my opinion, helped to bypass the INF. Today it is no longer relevant.
    Chronically lacking BSK and anti-submarine aircraft.
  7. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 25 June 2020 07: 40 New
    -7
    the author sheds tears for the lack of fleet, but ... offers to reduce also the SSBN? just after leaving the base, the apl does not need support, walks on its own, and it is quite possible to cover the bases with existing forces, if you want, if you reduce not the SSBNs (very important for security), but the senseless surface fleet in the Baltic Sea of ​​Japan and the Caspian Sea, strengthening them Kamchatka and SF .. if you abandon the unnecessary udk and aircraft carrier. developing coastal aviation
  8. Octopus
    Octopus 25 June 2020 07: 47 New
    17
    I think that in beautiful Russia the very near future will come to such authors for such articles.

    This is necessary! Remember what the Party and Government promised us 10 years ago, and ask about implementation! What an impudence!

    Such wise men still ask and who personally should answer for such performance! Rebels!
    1. Liam
      Liam 25 June 2020 10: 15 New
      +9
      Not in this case).
      GPV 2020 is flour from the governor’s mill when they have not agreed yet who will go in 2012. And it was an attempt to outbid and pull the army and the military-industrial complex to their side. If you remember, a shout immediately followed To leave(not personally, because this is not a royal matter), but through Kudrin. And everyone understood everything. Therefore, this program was not originally a tenant.
      Moreover, it is a continuous phantasmagoria in terms of finances and volumes. In order to fulfill it, a barrel of 200 and a military-industrial complex of at least China would really be needed. 30 year
  9. Alex 1970
    Alex 1970 25 June 2020 08: 06 New
    -3
    Controversial article and even very much. And why such confidence that amers will always have technical superiority in boats? Judging by the Zumwalts, the littoral fleet and the notorious F-35 they have enough technical problems, and the same with funding, already how many weapons programs have been abandoned due to the high cost.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      25 June 2020 08: 47 New
      +8
      I'm not at all sure that it will always be. But when we come to quality parity, they will remain quantitative superiority, and - multiple
      1. Alex 1970
        Alex 1970 25 June 2020 09: 09 New
        0
        Good day to the neighbors! Andrei has recently been on the news that they are refusing to upgrade boats, and therefore they will decommission a series of earlier buildings. so I think the quantitative superiority will be, but not so critical. And according to the technical level, judging by your articles on the SSBN, we practically do not lag behind. Of course this is my opinion, but I learned a lot about the fleet from your articles, I like them. And here it somehow didn’t coincide, especially since you wrote that we have a lot of old boats and they need to be changed.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          25 June 2020 09: 28 New
          +3
          It is necessary to update, but the fleet is a tool for solving specific tasks, including nuclear deterrence. I’m saying that the mass construction of the SSBN without the corresponding development of the forces of the general fleet will not solve this problem, and in addition it will create the problem of obsolescence of the main forces of the fleet after 25 years. And that the available funds could be disposed of more rationally
          1. Alex 1970
            Alex 1970 25 June 2020 09: 45 New
            +1
            So with the fact that the fleet must be comprehensively developed and there is no dispute. But we still need to realize, and I think our "supreme naval" understands this that if we sit in the construction of boats, then we will definitely not catch up, since the boat is a more complex ship than corvettes and destroyers. Well, if you want to do not want to buy surface ships, you need to either allocate money (and there is definitely money) or spit and buy at least in China. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all to stretch the construction of boats in time, or to build any fleet in general except for the mosquito and yachts for admirals. I don't know, maybe a national project can be done to develop the fleet or something.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              25 June 2020 09: 51 New
              +3
              So instead of part of the SSBN it was possible to build multipurpose nuclear submarines, that is, in terms of the production of drawdowns there would definitely not be, in fact, we have now scored extremely well - in the construction of nuclear submarines we have many times more than in the same USA hi
      2. +5
        +5 25 June 2020 15: 30 New
        +1
        Then the info went that steel was supplied to boats in the USA from the 90s with fake quality certificates, aunt directors were put on bunks ... the question is how much steel does not meet the requirements and what %% of substandard ... that is. their boats limited in depth not at all according to the passport data and the service life of the hull may be less .... although there were no accidents so far ... the scale of the tragedy is not clear (joy for us)
        1. arkadiyssk
          arkadiyssk 25 June 2020 21: 19 New
          +1
          Do not make up. There was no supply of substandard steel. It was revealed that the ancient aunt did not stubbornly carry out one of the required steel quality tests, because considered him stupid. This violation is of course, but it did not lead to the supply of low-quality steel, they were just lucky. As a result, the plant received fines of only 10 million. the military needed to conduct checks on all the ships where she went.
        2. K298rtm
          K298rtm 26 June 2020 18: 06 New
          0
          Maybe. which it is - fake certificates. Only now in 2019. The United States has withdrawn from service the oldest Los Angeles-type submarines built in 1982. My first (born in 1982) was sawed on needles in the 90s.
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 25 June 2020 20: 22 New
      +3
      Quote: Alexey 1970
      Controversial article and even very much.

      Not that word! When I read, I thought: again A. Timokhin is breaking a chip ... And when he saw the authorship, he was even numb! Bo as is something to say about !!!
      1. Andrey! Prince Vladimir from 12.06/31. this year is a member of XNUMX DiPL KSF! and you still have it expected to be accepted into the fleet ...
      2. I somehow did not understand: why STRATEGU (!) Correspond to the American MAPL (???) Given that the 955A is quieter than Gini, not to mention the Nuts ...
      3. Your question is not clear: Is it good that by 2027 we will build 10 rpkSN 955A / 955 projects? Pancake! why the Yankees are not tormented by the question whether 18 Nuts have served them well for 30 years?
      4. Build 12 buildings in 10 years? Well, well, won't the navel come loose? And why does everyone immediately forget about the modernization base laid down in the 955 project? Already "A" has appeared ... The history of the 667s shows that you can stick in four more letters !!!
      5. Andrew! It seems to be a sailor ... Well, where did you see the "connection" of 3 units at the nuclear-powered ships? (True, 25 DPLs at the Pacific Fleet at the time of "drying up" were in such a state) ... Division - at least 6-8 corps! Then, we just started to move away from the "zoo", but no, you are again pulling the fleet into the same "swamp"! In this case, operating costs will eat up your idea with expenses!
      6. To reduce the number of rkkSN from 12 to 6 - this is a gift to NATO PLO-shnikov !!!
      7. The fleet is already chronically underfunded, and do you propose giving the last Strategic Missile Forces shirt? Well, brotherly, of course ... only the fleet will not be better off from this ... With good intentions, they will destroy the beloved offspring of PETRA !? This, apparently, is a new look at the Marine Doctrine of the state, or what?
      8. About 16 silos like OS they already answered you, I will not repeat.
      9. Andrew! With KOH = 0,5, you need to have not 4, but 6 units. Cycle: 2-2-2! And 2 crews each, like those of the Yankes (gold and "blue" - God forbid!), And not 1 technical for 2-3 hulls, as we did in our time ... units, then very soon you will receive an answer: - "Let the one who poured it go to the sea!" - and you will be left completely without a pro! For no one who respects himself will not allow himself to be mocked! NOT A WAR! AHA.
      10. By the number of buildings. On 7-8 on the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet - the most it will be.
      11. About Status-6 you are deeply mistaken. I believe out of ignorance. Which, in general, is understandable.
      12. One remark about those progress and Poseidon. Andrey, it is his developments that will be used on the 545th project, and not vice versa! And then, NIR Husky will not go to sea. Laika -VMF, generation 4 ++, will go to sea ...
      13. About the modularity of the 545 project. It seems to me that everything will be in the content of the combat module (combat load module), and the platform itself is like a horse: the body doesn't give a damn about who rides it - a hussar, a dragoon, or a "lady with a stagecoach!" The main thing is to sit firmly in the saddle and not be very heavy!
      Here is a brief summary of what I didn’t like about your material ...
      Sincerely, Boa. hi
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        26 June 2020 16: 29 New
        0
        Hello again, dear Boa!
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        Here is a brief summary of what I didn’t like about your material ...

        So this is normal, it is not always the same for us to agree.
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        1. Andrey! Prince Vladimir from 12.06/31. this year is a member of XNUMX DiPL KSF! and you still have it expected to be accepted into the fleet ...

        Aghas, here the error came out. The fact is that this article has been lying on the hard drive for more than a month, they couldn’t reach something out. When I wrote, they haven’t transferred yet, and then I looked through
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        2. I somehow did not understand: why STRATEGU (!) Correspond to the American MAPL (???) Given that the 955A is quieter than Gini, not to mention the Nuts ...

        The detection distance is an important parameter (who will detect faster - the SSBN will see the MAPL or vice versa), so I can’t understand the reasons for your indignation
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        3. Your question is not clear: Is it good that by 2027 we will build 10 rpkSN 955A / 955 projects? Pancake! why the Yankees are not tormented by the question whether 18 Nuts have served them well for 30 years?

        The Yankees are not tormented by this question for one simple reason - their fleet strength, PLO level and geography practically exclude the possibility of tracking by our MAPLs for their SSBNs. How many times in the history of the Navy have we been able to keep the Ohio escorted? But for us this question is very problematic.
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        4. Build 12 buildings in 10 years? Well, well, and the navel will not untie?

        So in the article it is written that it will untie :))))
        And then ... We really had six “Dolphins” + 3 Boreas before Vladimir. Well, there’s also Kalmar alone, but I don’t know if I could go to sea. Total seems to be 10 according to the most optimistic estimates. And I offer 6-7 but with a big KOH-ohm - the same eggs only in profile
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        And why does everyone immediately forget about the modernization base laid down in the 955 project? Already "A" has appeared ... The history of the 667s shows that you can stick in four more letters !!!

        667 was not modernized letter by letter, there is a new letter - a new series of ships under construction. And I never wrote that this is impossible for us.
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        Andrei! It seems to be a sailor ...

        exactly what seems to be :)
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        Well, where did you see the "connection" of 3 units at the nuclear-powered ships?

        I did not see the compounds, but I saw two types of SSBNs or MAPL in the division. And then - with an increase in KOH, it may be necessary to replace the organizational structure.
        Again, I indicated the numbers not from the principle of "I am" but as an example, all this is discussed, of course. The principle is important, but the numbers may be different, who can argue
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        Then, we just started to move away from the "zoo", but no, you are again pulling the fleet into the same "swamp"! In this case, operating costs will eat up your idea with expenses!

        If you design correctly, they will not eat. SSBNs can be largely unified by equipment with MAPL. I’m not saying that to insert a missile compartment into the MAPL, but a lot of equipment can really be unified.
        Well ... here's the current situation - 3 Borey, then 7 Borey A, who are still different, to them six 667BDRM, to them - 1 converted 949 and "Khabarovsk" of a new project ... The same zoo, only advantages from my idea is not present.
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        6. To reduce the number of rkkSN from 12 to 6 - this is a gift to NATO PLO-shnikov !!!

        With an increase in KOH, the number of SSBNs at sea will be the same. What is the present here?
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        7. The fleet is already chronically underfunded, and do you propose giving the last Strategic Missile Forces shirt?

        The last shirt - no, I do not propose. I propose to reduce the SSBN in favor of the Strategic Missile Forces and general naval forces
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        8. About 16 silos like OS they already answered you, I will not repeat.

        They said, and I do not agree with this.
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        Andrei! When KOH = 0,5, you need to have not 4, but 6 units. On a cycle: 2-2-2!

        Well, then the 7 units I offer will then give 2 SSBNs at sea.
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        And 2 crews each, like the Yankes (gold and "blue" - God forbid!), And not 1 technical for 2-3 hulls, as it happened in our time ... And if you leave it according to yours - 4 units, then very soon you will receive an answer: - "Let the one who poured it go to the sea!"

        And I wrote in an article about the need for 2 crews on the SSBN. I quote:
        What is important - when the submarine has a high KOH, it can hardly manage with one crew. Thus, by increasing the KOH of the SSBN we provide training for a larger number of sailors, which will be in great demand in the future, when the number of SSBNs can again be increased.

        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        10. By the number of buildings. On 7-8 on the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet - the most it will be.

        This is very unlikely in our reality. We, for good, need at least 30 MAPLs, not counting non-nuclear ones - where else to get funds for 18 SSBNs from?
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        11. About Status-6 you are deeply mistaken. I believe out of ignorance. Which, in general, is understandable.

        Nuuu, if you seriously believe that they will be planted along the San Andreas Fault ... then I’m not sure that I am mistaken. Although, clearly, I do not pretend to know everything. So, of course, I can be mistaken.
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        12. One remark about those progress and Poseidon. Andrei, these are his developments that will be used on the 545 project, and not vice versa!

        I can’t imagine that they can use Poseidon in the 545th. Unless Khabarovsk itself ...
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        And then, NIR Husky will not go to sea. Laika -VMF, generation 4 ++, will go to sea ...

        I don’t think so. Husky - NIR, Laika - OCD ... And what will go to the sea - who knows? Some kind of "Forget-me-not" .... having met which, you will never forget laughing
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        About the modularity of the 545 project. It seems to me that everything will be in the content of the combat module (combat load module), and the platform itself is like a horse: the body doesn't give a damn about who rides it - a hussar, a dragoon, or a "lady with a stagecoach!"

        Nuuu, horses don’t even give a damn about whether a heavily armed knight or a light horse archer rides on it :)))
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        Here is a brief summary of what I didn’t like about your material ...

        Thank you very much for your constructive criticism! hi Although I do not agree with her in everything ...
        Yours faithfully,
        Andrei
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 26 June 2020 17: 59 New
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          so I can’t understand the reasons for your indignation
          Hi Andrey! According to the text of the article:
          in all likelihood they will become the most invisible nuclear submarines in the entire history of the USSR / RF, although whether they will correspond to the American nuclear submarines is a big question.
          Here I have given the data on noise 955A. True, the amas believe that Boriks give 108 dB under the turbine ... They do not indicate the course. Maybe they sketched it on the measuring line? when "running" ... or maybe they are bullshitting. They will become ...
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          their fleet strength, PLO level and geography practically exclude the possibility of tracking by our MAPLs for their SSBNs. How many times in the history of the Navy have we been able to keep the Ohio escorted? But for us this question is very
          In Mediterranean, they held 971st and more than once. And for a long time and secretly. And the contact was made with the help of non-acoustic means, which nullified all the vaunted "low noise" of the Yankees. How many times Gadgets were held by the tail - then you need to ask the General Staff of the Navy. I have no data. In the minds of the man in the street, there is an opinion imposed by NATO propaganda that our submarines are neither on the road nor in the Red Army! This is a common stereotype that has nothing with the modern level of our submarine. Starting from 949A and onwards, we at least caught up with the Amami, and the 855 and 955 outnumber them. At V = up to 9,0 knots (under the HED), they do not hear us ... And the strategist should not go out on the treadmill. Him to sit in ambush. So that....
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          where else to get funds for 18 SSBNs to get?
          I talked about 7-8 units for each fleet .. And you say about 18 ... (?) Actually there will be 14. (6-Pacific Fleet, 8-SF).
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Nuuu, if you seriously believe that they will be planting along the San Andreas Fault ... then I’m not sure
          The principles of using Poseidons are state secrets. Here are just our GISUs from under the coast of the States do not climb out. And it's not a fact that they are looking for "cables" there, as the amam would like ...
          In addition, for example, I was greatly impressed by Sivkov's statement when they discussed a 10t monoblock of Sarmat ...: - "A hole from a 100Mt charge will be 5km in diameter and 400m deep ..." This is so, by the way. For San Antares to release the tension of the lithospheric plates, a push is needed. What do you dislike about Super Large Nuclear Weapons in this role?
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          that from Poseidon can be used in the 545th.
          The entire board with its AI, sensors, reactor (principle) cover the hull, a double depreciation system and much more that you and I, for obvious reasons, do not know.
          Special thanks for the response and conversation. It's always nice to talk to a smart person.
          Sincerely, Boa. hi
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 27 June 2020 11: 41 New
            0
            From Maxim Klimov:

            Boa KAA:
            a common stereotype that has nothing with the modern level of our sub-melting. Starting from 949A and beyond, we at least caught up with the Ami, and 855 and 955 surpass them. At V = up to 9,0 knots (under the GED) they don’t hear us.


            MK: it's a LIE
            I responsibly declare as a person who has repeatedly had contacts (including with a personal independent search for HE and detection by HAC operators (remaining after a shift in the HA cabin)) with the US Navy submarine (including LA-I).
            As for the HED, this is generally TRESH, because when the HED operates on the same 971, "standing waves" are formed in a glass of tea, and there is no need to talk about any "low-noise movement" under the HED, this is the RDK.
            This is true not only for 971, but also for 949A (to a lesser extent).
            Yes, the GED was used on the BDR ("MRP" mode, subsequently FORBIDDEN), but only because of the high noise level of the "steamer" 667BDR of the project.
            As for the OLS, then when using it, our "one" is forced to go for long moves, "goodbye low noise" (which is what the enemy uses).

            From me on Borey, translation of the information thrown by Aaron Emik, an acoustics from Los Angeles. Let's just say the part may be true:

            Vidos shoals, he confuses a lot of things due to lack of knowledge of Russian, but here's the vulnerability of project 955:
            C 14:50 - The Yankees listened to him as I understood in May 2018 during missile launches (May weapon readiness test) and from there they learned the following:
            14: 50-15: 40 - a continuously working hydraulic pump, begins to make noise somewhere a year after the start of operation of the ship, and it must (from the American point of view) be changed to a new one, but for some reason the Russians do not, maybe there is no money in short, you can hear him. As I understand it, this is TsNPK.
            15: 41- 16:10 - some discrepancies. Every time the Russians there something changes, or they give a move or the ship is experiencing some kind of load, or they turn on something on board there - discrete signals appear.
            16:12 - 16:34 - still a long preparation for launch, up to 20 minutes, it was not improved compared to 667 ships.
            16: 35-17: 02 some harmonics, it does not cut in exactly which ones, but it looks like generator ones, and together with the generators a pump threshes on the starboard side, as it is expressed as "very dirty", and gives a characteristic signal. The person assumes that the pump is simply faulty.
            17: 03-17: 27 he says swath, I can’t translate, but the explanation is that when the boat needs to launch rockets it has to trim and keep the station (keeping), because of this the steering wheels turn on constantly, the hydraulics work, all this it is well audible, and in general the boat in this mode is noisy, when it moves without maneuvers, it is much quieter. And here I did not understand swath.
            17: 29-17: 57 The light corps - in his words, a superstructure over rocket mines - makes a lot of noise when changing depths; he uses the same word to indicate discretes.
            The final conclusion is that this Russian submarine is the quietest among them, but it very quickly becomes really loud, like all other Russian submarines.
            As I understand it, he shows with some kind of diagram pieces, almost completely smeared. True or not, it's not for me to judge, I was not there.
            Translation by ear, if you missed something, sorry.


            A little later, competent comrades criticized the thesis about lengthy preparations for launch, evading discussion of other issues.
            To the heap, the tests mentioned in May 2018 were very deep in our waters.
            So, by the way.
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 27 June 2020 18: 13 New
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              From me to the Boreas

              Infa, of course, interesting. The only question is its reliability. No. Indeed, even the author himself (Aaron) rejects her (de, I was not there and I can’t vouch for reliability!) Most likely this is propaganda that runs counter to even the claims of high-ranking US military.
              Secondly, why should I believe in some kind of black man, and not believe my official representatives of the USC (who, too, are probably misleading .... for the same propaganda purposes)
              Project 955 rocket carriers have five times less noise than boats of Project 971 Schuka-B and Antey 949A, and half as much compared to the promising 4th generation American Virginia. The movement is carried out using a single-shaft jet propulsion system with high propulsive characteristics ...
              I am used to believing responsible officials who value their chair and position. Yeah.
              Then about your "tests, very deep in our waters ..."
              If the Amov had such a GA, then their boats would not collide with ours.
              And the second one. In shallow water during its reverb to hear the operation of a pump? (I'm not talking about GTsVN-e) and switching inside the PC? (Fiction! - alien technology !!!) Although, if you put a hydrophone in the landfill ... and then you listened to it like a cable on a Pacific Fleet ... maybe it was ...
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 27 June 2020 18: 48 New
                0
                Not the American refused, but I - the translator.
                Regarding 2018, this is just my remark, Emik said that they wrote the Borey GAP in May 2018, I really don’t know how it really is there, just in case I bring the info.

                Although Borey has a nuance in the form of a "light superstructure" over the mines, with all that it implies. And the Americans are talking about her.

                Klimov will look and answer
                1. Boa kaa
                  Boa kaa 27 June 2020 19: 03 New
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Although Borey has a nuance in the form of a "light superstructure" over the mines, with all that it implies. And the Americans are talking about her.

                  Alexander. When diving, the ventilation valves slam several times so that there is no air. Therefore, about the fact that they are naughty in the superstructure over the rocket compartment - the tales of the mysterious Yankees!
                  And here is what the commander of "A. Nevsky" writes about the unique g / a capabilities of the Yankes!
                  As for secrecy, we block [by this indicator] not only our ships, but also foreign ones. The USA is "resting" in comparison with our low noise. I can say (when I met them, were in situations): until they hear us, and they are looking for us. When we had a crossing on the Northern Sea Route under the ice, it became known about it when we came to Vilyuchinsk in Kamchatka. The passage lasted 42 days: 30 days were underwater, 12 - on the surface. We have completed the tasks that were set in full. As a result of the involvement of the forces of the fleet, the correct use of the capabilities of the cruiser and special maneuvering, the States did not succeed in detecting, let alone following us during the transition. The Americans woke up after we moored at the pier, that is, they lost us altogether.
                  Cap 1 rank Vasily Tankovid - commander of the APRK "Alexander Nevsky" pr.955.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 27 June 2020 20: 08 New
                    0
                    From Klimov:

                    According to Tankovid
                    1 April, 11: 04
                    1 For the distortion of the surname, it is correct Tankovid, and not Tonkovid, as I had in my LJ post, I apologize to Mr. Tankidov. For everything else in the post _ NO.
                    2 After the post came out in LJ, and especially the resonance in the media, I had several conversations with commanders of the platoon and persons with a similar official category, their message boiled down to the fact that Vasya did not need to do this, anyone could be in his place, speech, I emphasize , about an interview with Tankovid TASS. Those who knew him personally spoke well of Tankovid, for example, one of the comments, "was not afraid to go into conflict with the SF command, defending the interests of the crew."
                    3 The question is that the purpose of the fleet, and its submarine forces, is not to exist for the sake of the states and in order to line up on March 19 and on the day of the Navy, and then go to "violate the disgrace", but to solve the real problems facing the country , incl. ensuring its safety. Those. not a country for the fleet, as some military men believe in our country, but a fleet for the country. And the fleet must, must, correspond to its tasks and modern conditions.
                    4 The facts are that today the Russian Navy not only does not correspond to its tasks and mission, but moreover, has an absolutely shameful antique level in a number of AME areas. First of all, these are naval underwater weapons. Let me remind you that Mr. Tankovid is a miner by his initial education, and in theory he should understand everything. However, in his interview with TASS, he blatantly lied to society about the real situation. And I have big doubts that a colleague of Mr. Tankovid Dima Nesterov, whose torpedo back in 2000. first aimed at the LA I submarine of the US Navy, which was flying at full speed, and then, on a secondary search, at our unit, a splint similar to Tankovid would have publicly declared. One of the key problems of the Russian Navy, lies, lies about the real state of affairs. Which, in fact, was in the interview with Tankovid.
                    5 The question arises, what could he even say in this interview, in a worthy way? Some were cut off by the phrase "cats tucked into a felt boot" about RPL SN pr. 667BDR 25dpl. However, this is an objective assessment, despite the fact that there is another _ DEATHERS. Too disproportionate potential and stealth were in 667BDR and US Navy PLA and RPLS. In fact, behind us was only "you won't shoot everyone and someone will have time to launch by order of an SLBM." It should be understood that in the 90s - early 2000s, it was the NSNF that ensured the inevitability of a retaliatory strike, i.e. strategic deterrence, because the mine launchers and PGRK, tied to the points of deployment, had extremely low combat stability. And remembering now, for example, about the throw of our airborne forces into Pristina, you need to understand that he was a success, incl. because behind them were combat-ready missile submarines SN SF and Pacific Fleet. And our opponents knew that even though the Russian bear lay knocked down, it could get up and cut.
                    And it would be absolutely true and right from the side of Tankovid to say all this, adding that now at 25dpl, ships finally went with good stealth and acoustics (this is really so), without lubok and frank lies.
                    https://mina030.livejournal.com/20809.html

                    G. Tonkovid, holiday is a holiday, but why lie to society?
                    https://mina030.livejournal.com/20459.html

                    about "wunderwaffe" "Burak-M"
                    https://mina030.livejournal.com/18686.html

                    Take the time to follow the links, there are few, but it's worth it.

                    From me:
                    How can Tanokvid talk about some kind of secrecy if we warn about the inter-theater transitions of the Boreans? This is what you need to be to oversleep the boat knowing in advance the time of its transition? Given the need to go over shallow water near the Bering Strait?
                    This is some kind of disrespect for readers. Americans put it mildly not.

                    From Klimov on the Boreya add-on:

                    according to the "noise of the superstructure" when changing the depth - this is Trouble 955 from 971, where the air from it had to be KNOWLEDGE, and with the unworked operator of the OCS CPU it was absolutely possible to drag the "bubbles" to the depth (with all subsequent troubles - noise, with trimming, etc.)
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            29 June 2020 10: 26 New
            +1
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            So I brought the data on the noise 955A.

            Here the question is complex, but the data is secret. I think, after 35 years we will find out for sure :)))) But I do not presume to deny your words.
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            In the Mediterranean, they held the 971th and more than once.

            Mmmm ... sorry for the stupid question, what did "Ohio" forget in Mediterranean? They didn't seem to be patrolling there.
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            I talked about 7-8 units per fleet .. And you say about 18 ...

            Olepyatka :)
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            In addition, for example, I was greatly impressed by Sivkov's statement when they discussed the 10t monoblock of Sarmat ...: - "A hole from a 100Mt charge will be 5km in diameter and 400m deep ..."

            Dreamer Sivkov :))) a ground 100 mt explosion will give a funnel less than 1 m in diameter and maybe 800-250 meters deep.
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            In order for San Antares to relieve the stress of lithospheric plates, a push is needed. What do you dislike in this role Extra-large YBP?

            The fact that in order to give this impetus, our entire strategic nuclear forces are not enough in terms of power :) Nature operates with energy values ​​that are orders of magnitude higher than those used by the "king of beasts"
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            The entire board with its AI, sensors, reactor (principle) cover the hull, a double amortization system and much more that you and I, for obvious reasons, do not know

            Well, I don’t know :))) AI will not replace the commander, the sensors on Poseidon are clearly orders of magnitude weaker than what the nuclear submarines have, the reactor is all the more small there and is completely unsuitable for the nuclear submarines, the cover of the hull ... I agree with that.
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            It's always nice to talk to a smart person.

            Mutually, many thanks for the criticism and response! hi
      2. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 27 June 2020 11: 28 New
        0
        From Maxim Klimov:

        Boa KAA:
        Not that word! When I read, I thought: again A. Timokhin is breaking a chip ... And when he saw the authorship, he was even numb! Bo as is something to say about !!!
        1. Andrey! Prince Vladimir from 12.06/31. this year is a member of XNUMX DiPL KSF! and you still have it expected to be accepted into the fleet ...


        MK:
        and). with BulaFoy, which ... - Well, you yourself know;)
        b). with "torpedo wood" USET-80
        in). WITHOUT ANTOROTEDPORA PROTECTION

        Boa KAA:
        2. I somehow did not understand: why STRATEGU (!) Correspond to the American MAPL (???) Given that the 955A is quieter than Gini, not to mention the Nuts ...


        MK:
        and). the thesis about the alleged "our superiority in low noise" is "very optimistic", and this is to put it mildly
        b). then that, taking into account the complete PE in the coastal waters (from the same BPA), our NSNF will have to "climb under the ice", and there ... NOT A SINGLE TORPED SHOT (WITH THE INCLUDED CLOUD) FROM OUR SIDE

        Boa KAA:
        3. Your question is not clear: Is it good that by 2027 we will build 10 rpkSN 955A / 955 projects? Pancake! why the Yankees are not tormented by the question whether 18 Nuts have served them well for 30 years?


        MK:
        a) .because these 10 missile launchers have extremely low combat stability, incl. due to the huge bias and outright "crushing" of the anti-submarine (and mine) forces of the Navy
        b) because, taking into account this (and the acute problems with the rearmament of the ground forces and the air forces), we have "plowing into the ground" of huge funds ("Borey-Bulava" is the MOST EXPENSIVE program of the RF Armed Forces!) with extremely low efficiency (the main thing in MSYAS is BATTLE STABILITY , but there is practically none!)

        Boa KAA:
        4. Build 12 buildings in 10 years? Well, well, won't the navel come loose? And why does everyone immediately forget about the modernization base laid down in the 955 project? Already "A" has appeared ... The history of the 667s shows that you can stick in four more letters !!!


        MK:
        about 955 - it is very useful to remember the torment with the "modern" 971
        incl. because of the badly advertised design of the 971 (and how Borey became Barsei)
        "Borey-A", but a much more rational project.
        BUT not in everything, for example, reducing TA to 4 is a clear mistake.

        Boa KAA:
        5. Andrew! It seems to be a sailor ... Well, where did you see the "connection" of 3 units at the nuclear-powered ships? (True, 25 DPLs at the Pacific Fleet at the time of "drying up" were in such a state) ... Division - at least 6-8 corps! Then, we just started to move away from the "zoo", but no, you are again pulling the fleet into the same "swamp"! In this case, operating costs will eat up your idea with expenses!


        MK: i.e. "gold" at the price of rplSN are needed not for CASE, but for STATES? In general, we have it that way!
        But the question is, weren't our raftsmen "beguiled the shores" too much?

        Boa KAA:
        6. To reduce the number of rkkSN from 12 to 6 - this is a gift to NATO PLO-shnikov !!!


        MK:
        With the transfer of these funds to the MSON, NATO will have many times more problems.
        And now these 955 and 955A can be stupid to shoot.

        Boa KAA:
        7. The fleet is already chronically underfunded, and do you propose giving the last Strategic Missile Forces shirt? Well, brotherly, of course ... only the fleet will not be better off from this ... With good intentions, they will destroy the beloved offspring of PETRA !? This, apparently, is a new look at the Marine Doctrine of the state, or what?


        MK:
        The largest VS program ("Borey-BulaFa") is "underfunding"?
        That's where the real underfunding is in the aerospace forces and military forces, and the Navy’s MSON.
        And she is one of the reasons for this unrestrained bucking of dough into the Borey-BulaF SCAM!

        Boa KAA:
        8. About 16 silos like OS they already answered you, I will not repeat.


        MK: to put it mildly, they controversially answered ...

        Boa KAA:
        9. Andrew! With KOH = 0,5, you need to have not 4, but 6 units. Cycle: 2-2-2! And 2 crews each, like those of the Yankes (gold and "blue" - God forbid!), And not 1 technical for 2-3 hulls, as we did in our time ... units, then very soon you will receive an answer: - "Let the one who poured it go to the sea!" - and you will be left completely without a pro! For no one who respects himself will not allow himself to be mocked! NOT A WAR! AHA.


        MK: two crews will be needed in any case (actually less, because one is enough in the factory)

        Boa KAA:
        10. By the number of buildings. On 7-8 on the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet - the most it will be.


        MK: are you ready to probe this? especially taking into account the NULL PLO Navy!

        Boa KAA:
        11. About Status-6 you are deeply mistaken. I believe out of ignorance. Which, in general, is understandable.


        MK: For Status-6 it says ENOUGH. Incl. and me, and incl. GUSEVY (one of the executors of the "starting" document of this work in 1983). ABOUT THE "SECRET" YOU ARE SPEAKING THE TRUTH. The arguments on my part are given earlier.

        Boa KAA:
        12. One remark about those progress and Poseidon. Andrey, it is his developments that will be used on the 545th project, and not vice versa! And then, NIR Husky will not go to sea. Laika -VMF, generation 4 ++, will go to sea ...


        MK: well, it's just "splint from the political department" ...

        Boa KAA:
        13. About the modularity of the 545 project. It seems to me that everything will be in the content of the combat module (combat load module), and the platform itself is like a horse: the body doesn't give a damn about who rides it - a hussar, a dragoon, or a "lady with a stagecoach!" The main thing is to sit firmly in the saddle and not be very heavy!


        MK: I don’t give a damn about it, the same Americans did not just make the first series of SSBNs based on PLA. Immediately switched to SPECIAL PROJECTS.
        TOO DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS.
        There was and is unification, but at the level of "complete set".

        From myself - if you believe the leaked infe on "Like", then it's time to plant for this project. So, by the way.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 27 June 2020 15: 43 New
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          ABOUT THE "SECRET" YOU ARE SPEAKING THE TRUTH.

          Maxim, Alexander! I welcome colleagues from the expert pool hi
          There are always two sides to the dispute. But, when they begin to argue with the state, I choose the side of the state, believing that decision makers have more competence and texture on the problem than its opponents.
          Regarding Status-6.
          Maxim, the Leksins, Viktor and Valentin brothers argued objectively in due time about its discovery and the possibility of destruction. Let me remind you:
          The comments of critics of the “Status-6” system posted online are mainly related to one of its elements - super torpedo. Some of them contain amazingly superficial, frivolous expressions type: “With 50 knots and 50 tons of weight, half the Atlantic will hear it. Even without discrete. This is not discussed at all ”(Viktorovich). Unfortunately, our good friend and respected by us for his competence in many matters sonar Maxim Klimov (mina) in his comments to the articles of the network, he also agreed with this statement of Viktorovich and asserts: “There are no problems with the defeat of the" vigorous fool "with the performance characteristics disclosed in the media. With the detection (early, of course) - the same ... I REPEAT: It will hear half the Atlantic ... The product ... today with a significant probability can be hit by the US Navy's anti-torpedo "Tripwire" ... the task is absolutely solvable at the modern technical level (and the main "hardware" is quite serial ) ... taking into account my knowledge of both "state issues" and torpedo and acoustics - "everything is already there yesterday" (or "almost there" ... ". To SteSus's comment" Well, let's say this is so at a distance of 50 km. But the ocean will be wider, for every 50 km you can't put a ship and even a microphone " mina answers: “A lot more” (about 50 km) “and quite simple and massive sonar systems ... no problems, this was possible even for the 80s”.
          Maxim clearly overestimates the capabilities of active sonar systems and, in many of his articles and comments, exaggerated their ability to detect modern underwater targets in the vast expanses of the sea, leaving without convincing comments the data we provide (article in VPK.name “Are there modern sonar weapons in Russia?”) on the real results of the reusable active location of a modern submarine of the “Beast” type with modern full-time on-board means of domestic submarines.
          To destroy Status-6 it still needs to be discovered!
          Numerous critics of the Status-6 system, who assert that super torpedoes will be easily detected and destroyed, should consider the following: At first, there is little sense in target detection distances only in separate short (maximum several minutes) time intervals with the subsequent loss of “contact” (typical “detection” of even distant targets or close but low-noise modern submarines by modern GAS and SAC); secondly, it makes no sense to talk about the target detection distance without its classification (at least the simplest initial dichotomous “surface / underwater”). The length of each of the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of the USA is at least 2000 km. The width of the shallow-water shelf zone is about 250 km off the US Atlantic coastline and about 100 km off the Pacific. The US Navy has 14 Ohio SSBNs (ballistic missile submarines) and 44 Los Angeles multipurpose submarines, 3 Sea Wolf submarines, and 11 Virginia submarines dispersed across the oceans. "Will never provide sufficient GA coverage of the underwater situation in this shelf zone (due to the real low achievable GAU and SAC distance of the classification detection of sea targets with 100% probability), even if all the PLA cease combat duty in the rest of the world's oceans. The length of each Pacific and Atlantic coast of the USA at least 2000 km. The width of the shallow-water shelf zone is about 250 km off the Atlantic coastline of the United States and about 100 km off the Pacific. The US Navy has 14 Ohio SSBNs (ballistic missile submarines) and 44 Los Angeles multipurpose submarines, 3 Sea Wolf submarines, and 11 Virginia submarines dispersed across the oceans. "Will never provide sufficient GA illumination of the underwater situation in this shelf zone (due to the real low achievable ASU and HAC classification distance detection of marine targets with a 100% probability), even if all the PLA cease combat duty in the rest of the world ocean. The SOSUS system uses integrated single sensors and linear sensors laid on a flat bottom or on underwater slopes. Talk about efficiency (unambiguity of direction finding and good noise immunity ... of such antennas compared to planar ones used on submarines (especially with increased, relative to onboard antennas of US submarines, aperture of nasal antennas of domestic submarines), don't have to.

          In this matter I trust Lexins more. yes
          I will comment on other reproaches against me separately, as they don’t accuse me of lying there. am
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 27 June 2020 17: 19 New
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          and). with BulaFoy, which ... - Well, you yourself know;)
          b). with "torpedo wood" USET-80
          in). WITHOUT ANTOROTEDPORA PROTECTION

          1. The mace is not eternal. Nothing prevents it from being finished up to the desired condition or creating a new pencil. Starting equipment can also be changed, broadband bus - do not mind.
          2. Maxim's photo of the torpedo compartment - 90s. Further. And that they cannot be replaced with more modern ones or modified USET-80U, for example. Replacing the AB and installing a new GOS. And electric torpedoes normally serve the Germans and the same French. And the detection ranges of submarines-submarines are not so great as to shoot at 50 or more km. In addition, infa appeared in the open press that the 955A already had "Physicist" -1 ...
          3. And what on Modula-D already put an end to? Maxim himself wrote that Flipper for 2-3 torpedoes is still enough ...
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          and). the thesis about the alleged "our superiority in low noise" is "very optimistic", and this is to put it mildly
          b). then that, taking into account the complete PE in the coastal waters (from the same BPA), our NSNF will have to "climb under the ice", and there ... NOT A SINGLE TORPED SHOT (WITH THE INCLUDED CLOUD) FROM OUR SIDE

          1. About our low noise - a word by Lexin:
          The Delta-PM1 product installed on TRPKSN with the largest airborne interference was detected by classification and followed up to a distance of 4 km the quietest in the world (judging by the formular data of sea trials) the most modern submarine "Borey" with a noiseless water jet nozzle.
          About the low noise of the 955 project there are statements by American admirals ... Therefore, who believes in what and, most importantly, who ...
          2. Yes, this is a problem. Maxim himself wrote that the cost of a torpedo shot = 8 rubles ... Therefore, they bubble ... And the diagrams in the electron draw ...
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          a) .because these 10 missile launchers have extremely low combat stability, incl. due to the huge bias and outright "crushing" of the anti-submarine (and mine) forces of the Navy
          b) because, taking into account this (and the acute problems with the rearmament of the ground forces and the air forces), we have "plowing into the ground" of huge funds ("Borey-Bulava" is the MOST EXPENSIVE program of the RF Armed Forces!) with extremely low efficiency (the main thing in MSYAS is BATTLE STABILITY , but there is practically none!)

          I do not agree. To destroy the rkksn it must first be found. 955A-- not Azuha, which rattled like a bucket of nuts. Secondly, according to BG VO, they will no longer be in the PPB, and thirdly, from Murmansk to Los Angeles, 7-8 thousand km - if anything, they will also get from the pier. About I will not sing ...
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          "Borey-A", but a much more rational project. BUT not in everything, for example, reducing TA to 4 is an unambiguous error.
          Nut also has 4 pipes. I think that Borik will be enough for 2 two-torpedo volleys, taking into account 15 seconds to reload the TA ...
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          MK: i.e. "gold" at the price of rplSN are needed not for CASE, but for STATES? In general, we have it that way!
          But the question is, weren't our raftsmen "beguiled the shores" too much?
          1. Our 955 will still be cheaper Nuts
          2. Not for the STATES, but against the STATES! - so it will be more correct. Then, the commander of the RPKSN-a - caperang! although he has 16 beaters. The commander of a missile division of the Strategic Missile Forces is a general with a major, although he has 8-10 ICBMs. And what "states" are we talking about here !? And who confuses the coast? It's time for the liberoids to shut up about the Navy! What Mother Motherland has built - on that we go! And if you don't like it, look in the mirror ... (You can even spit at it!)
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          The largest VS program ("Borey-BulaFa") is "underfunding"?
          That's where the real underfunding is in the aerospace forces and military forces, and the Navy’s MSON.
          And she is one of the reasons for this unrestrained bucking of dough into the Borey-BulaF SCAM!

          1. Borey-Bulava is in the category of strategic nuclear forces (strategic nuclear forces). The life of the 667s is ending. The US missile defense system is capable of intercepting 29 vehicles on the OUT-e, unlike the R-30. Or do you propose to cover our MNNS with a copper basin? And we do not need it? - Well, the state approach!
          2. MSON is slowly building, not as fast as we would like, but still ...
          3. Crying on the Strategic Missile Forces is not clear. The yars are already in operation, the Sarmatians are on the way ... Yes, and they put the TU-160M ​​on the conveyor ... With 57, things got up because of the engine, but also on the way ... A-100 is being finished. It seems that everything is according to plan ...
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          10. By the number of buildings. On 7-8 on the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet - the most it will be.
          MK: are you ready to probe this? especially taking into account the NULL PLO Navy!
          And what is there to justify? 1 division of strategists in the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet. The composition of dipl - 6-8 buildings. True 16 DIPL BF was out of 10 units, like many northern ones in my time.
          The rest is empty. More to the cry of Yaroslavna on the moat in Putivl seems. Therefore, no comment.
          AHA.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 27 June 2020 20: 37 New
            0
            From Klimov:

            REMOVING KAA:
            There are always two sides to the dispute. But, when they begin to argue with the state, I choose the side of the state, believing that decision makers have more competence and texture on the problem than its opponents.


            MK:
            those. opinions of Gusev, Deputy Chief of the Naval Operational Command, You "modestly did not notice"?
            As for the "state" and "Status-6", the RATS are drowning for "Status", which this state is gnawing and undermining its security (ALREADY two new nuclear submarines in "firewood" are just "flowers", "berries" there "are full PE ").
            See the slop that FAN tried to pour on me, it was an ORDER, and not of the state, but of a very specific OPK RAT (whose "ears" stick out of the text completely). Moreover, GONE RATS. And this is an EXACT FACT (I was given both the "structure" and the surname and the reason).

            REMOVING KAA:
            Maxim, the Leksins, Victor and Valentin brothers argued objectively in due time about its discovery and the possibility of destruction


            MK:
            Lexins are ABSOLUTELY UNJECTIVE FACES, in short and in Russian - LIARS (but at the same time - OUTSTANDING ENGINEERS).
            See my comments to their opuses and our "discus" there.

            REMOVING KAA:
            Lexins:
            Maxim clearly overestimates the capabilities of active sonar systems and, in many of his articles and comments, exaggerated their ability to detect modern underwater targets in the vast expanses of the sea


            MK: I have both SUCCESSFULLY AND MULTIPLY USED active GUS and developed them. Despite the fact that ALL "practice" of the Lexins in active GUS are ONE "echo", once again - ONE ONE "echo".

            Comments of their colleague, head of the small acoustics department of AKIN Frolov D.P. I will not cite;) - they were VERY emotional and "colorful", with destructive criticism of the Lexins (despite the fact that, I repeat, they are undoubtedly outstanding engineers, and everyone admits it).

            Lexins:
            the data we provide (article in VPK.name “Is there a modern sonar weapon in Russia?”) on the real results of the reusable active location of a modern submarine of the “Beast” type with modern full-time onboard means of domestic submarines.

            MK: Lexins LHUT, and knowingly and brazenly. Acoustics comments with BDRM who knew them well (including at sea) I gave (in the comments on their opuses on the military-industrial complex. Name).

            Lexins:
            short (maximum several minutes) time intervals with subsequent loss of “contact” (typical “detection” of even distant targets or close, but low-noise modern submarines by modern GAS and SAC)

            MK: in short, this is FALSE, because in very many tactical situations the contact is good and long-lasting (and for such a very noisy target as "Status-6" in ideal conditions (1 km depth), even more so)

            Lexins:
            secondly, it makes no sense to talk about the target detection distance without its classification (at least the simplest initial dichotomous “surface / underwater”).

            MK: for a goal like "Status-6" it's elementary
            I note that Leksina's classification issues are particularly impudently LIE, including the "boots mode" ("we don't know, haven't heard ..." - see the comments to their opuses) even about those successful developments of competitors whose leaders they know very well PERSONALLY (for example, the head development of "Mars" they know very well and for a long time personally, and moreover - their "Delta" participated in JOINT tests with "Mars" (and something else), but the Lexins for these FACTS "include the fool's mode").

            Lexins:
            The SOSUS system uses integrated single sensors and linear sensors laid on a flat bottom or on underwater slopes. There is no need to talk about efficiency (unambiguity of direction finding and good noise immunity ... of such antennas compared to planar ones used on submarines (especially with increased, relative to onboard antennas of US submarines, aperture of nasal antennas of domestic submarines).

            MK: it’s not even a lie, but simply a BLUE lie, and you Boa KAA know this very well! - Compare the detection ranges of SOSUS and HAC PL, the difference there is more than ORDER (and not in favor of HAC PL).

            Continued in the next comment.
          2. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 27 June 2020 20: 38 New
            0
            Continuation of Klimov’s past comment:

            xhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

            Boa kaa
            1. The mace is not eternal. Nothing prevents it from being finished up to the desired condition or creating a new pencil. Starting equipment can also be changed, broadband bus - do not mind.
            2. Maxim's photo of the torpedo compartment - 90s. Further. And that they cannot be replaced with more modern ones or modified USET-80U, for example. Replacing the AB and installing a new GOS. And electric torpedoes normally serve the Germans and the same French. And the detection ranges of submarines-submarines are not so great as to shoot at 50 or more km. In addition, infa appeared in the open press that the 955A already had "Physicist" -1 ...
            3. And what on Modula-D already put an end to? Maxim himself wrote that Flipper for 2-3 torpedoes is still enough ...


            MK:
            1. "Blue" flies (including "new"), and "BulaFa" ... of course it is necessary to finish, but all this is very reminiscent of "cutting out tonsils through the anus"
            2. On USET-80 to 204 I described, "Physicists" came there, but the photo from 955 is exactly the photo from 955. Do you want to object? Like (JACOBS) 971? Well then, show the APP-2-8 in this photo! There are other signs of NOT 971 ..
            On the electric trains, we have completely lost research on new batteries. So the fleet "eat what they give" - ​​AMB VHIT under amerovsky patent back in 1944.
            3. Model-D is a dead end. He is stupidly OUTDATE. For its concept is to counter the means of the 80s, and since then TWO generations of torpedo weapons have changed, and a revolution in aviation search means has taken place. "Malachite" EXACTLY KNEW all this since 2003. (there is documentary evidence), but brazenly "sawed the loot."

            Boa KAA:
            Lexins: About our low noise - a word by Lexin:

            MK: yes do not care, because there are ACTIVE MEANS (including with low frequency lighting), with which 955 - as "a fly is not glass".
            I remind you that the first use of SURFASS-LFA in the SF operzone is 1984 or 1985 (its head was examined 945 with Chernov at its GWP)

            Boa KAA:
            About the low noise of the 955 project there are statements by American admirals ... Therefore, who believes in what and, most importantly, who ...


            MK:
            oh yes, ... "American admirals" are "testimonies on the Bible" :))) especially after they (pushing the "virgins" program) in the mid-90s LIEED in Congress about the alleged "superiority" 971 in low noise over LA- I.

            Boa KAA:
            To destroy the rkksn it must first be found. 955A-


            MK:
            see my article on the Arctic
            on the Pacific Fleet situation is even worse

            Boa KAA:
            Nut also has 4 pipes. I think that Borik will be enough for 2 two-torpedo volleys, taking into account 15 seconds to reload the TA ...


            MK:
            a) Ohio still has + 8 ZPU, and it seems there are still
            b) the main thing is that we have OTHER CONDITIONS, primarily because of the MUCH MORE danger from the US Navy PLA
            c) What kind of "15s"?!?!?!, even with air the apparatus ONLY "dry" will be 4 times longer (not to mention the WHOLE CYCLE)

            Boa KAA:
            Our 955 will still be cheaper Nuts


            MK:
            the issue is very controversial
            and we do not have an American budget

            Boa KAA:
            Not for STATES, but against STATES! - so it will be more correct. Then, the commander of the RPKSN-a - caperang! although he has 16 beaters. The commander of a missile division of the Strategic Missile Forces is a general with a major, although he has 8-10 ICBMs. And what "states" are we talking about here !? And who confuses the coast?


            MK:
            And if you count EVERYTHING (including "coastal support")? And the point is that for us there is an OPTIMAL STRUCTURE of MSYAS. Instead, we STUPIDLY SMELL BABLO on something that UNDERSTANDING THE REAL IMPORTANCE OF THE NAVY! see, for example, amerovskie sources, they were not particularly upset about the appearance of intercontinental SLBMs in our country (because against the background of ICBMs of NSNF it was not fundamental), but the REFUSAL of the USSR Navy from the ACTIVE STRATEGY for the sake of COVERING NSNF was clear for them and caused great joy (see the same Polmara).

            Boa KAA:
            Borey-Bulava is in the category of strategic nuclear forces (strategic nuclear forces). The life of the 667s is ending. The US missile defense system is capable of intercepting 29 vehicles on the OUT-e, unlike the R-30.


            MK:
            oooo old "Solomnovskie songs" ... because if they can intercept SLBMs on OUT, this is already "", because they have an ORDER of more effective action than "to cut tonsils through the anus" wriggling with interception of SLBMs, and " BulaFa "will not help here in any way (rather, quite the opposite)

            Boa KAA:
            MSON is slowly building, not as fast as we would like, but still ...


            MK:
            what is being built are boats for PARADES. because for a real solution of problems you need a completely different outfit of forces
            even the bookmarks of the mastered 20380 STOPPED - because "finances sang romances"

            Boa KAA:
            Crying on the Strategic Missile Forces is not clear. The yars are already in operation, the Sarmatians are on the way ... Yes, and they put the TU-160M ​​on the conveyor ... With 57, things got up because of the engine, but also on the way ... A-100 is being finished. It seems that everything is according to plan ...


            MK:
            I did not write anything about the Strategic Missile Forces
            about 160 - "I will not"
            from 57 - "how would it be softer" ... (nevertheless, I am a categorical supporter of the SERIES)
            A100 ???? the fact that we have a TOTAL FAILURE with AWACS you "do not see"?
            What about the new fighter radar?
            With new TSA? a lot of them were "lit up" / used during exercises? - because they really carry the "legacy of the USSR"
            BMP status in NE take an interest
            etc.

            Boa KAA:
            And what is there to justify? 1 division of strategists in the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet. The composition of dipl - 6-8 buildings


            MK:
            o ... t
            those. what would the otmilal (division x2) the country (and all the ARF) need to "take off their pants" and "provide" our raftsmen with 16 SSBNs?
            But maybe the brigade will limit ourselves or the DIVISION?
            or a division (for that matter), but 4 boats each (8 crews)?
            IMHO 8 SSBN is enough
            moreover, some of them I would still use for the tasks of the Ministry of Education and Science (with modern - KR, SPN and mines in mines)
            moreover, the EFFICIENCY (most importantly, BATTLE STABILITY!) will be MUCH higher than that of "your 16 SSBNs" - due to the fact that there will be normal means for creating MSON (and, accordingly, proper maintenance of NSNF)


            hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
            MK:
            by A. Amik - see my LJ

            Boa KAA:
            why should I believe some black man and not believe my official representatives of USC


            MK:
            taking into account how these "representatives of the USC" LIEED, it is better to believe monkeys in the Moscow and Leningrad zoos - their forecast is still more accurate than the "representatives"

            Boa KAA:
            I am used to believing responsible officials who value their chair and position. Yeah.


            MK:
            See Beginning of VP ASZ Kopyev.
            He spoke directly and honestly.
            Unlike OPK RATS.
            Well - as in VO I checked and signed the corresponding calculations of the distances of mutual detection (I could count it myself).
            The data, in contrast to the "popular nonsense" of our media, were quite objective, and they corresponded to practice, and they caught the "angels" on this (well and HONESTY understanding their own and their capabilities, losing in technique, due to appropriate tactical techniques)

            Boa KAA:
            If the Amov had such a GA, then their boats would not collide with ours.


            MK:
            besides HAC there is also a hydrological factor
            I had contact distances from ХХkm to a couple of HUNDRED meters (VIP 36)

            Boa KAA:
            And the second one. In shallow water during its reverb to hear the operation of a pump?


            МК
            and here "reverberation" if we are talking about ShP?
  10. dsdelta
    dsdelta 25 June 2020 09: 12 New
    -10
    Good article. That clear, clear and transparent. Do not need anything. Gotta give up the USA. And then we may be pardoned. )))
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      25 June 2020 09: 29 New
      +7
      No, you need to build 100500 Poseidons for the delight of "sofa analysts" :)))
  11. Bez 310
    Bez 310 25 June 2020 09: 42 New
    +7
    The article is interesting, debatable.
    The topic of ensuring the combat stability of the SSBNs is touched upon casually,
    but how many beautiful boats are not built, why are they needed, if in
    each has an "American" tail?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      25 June 2020 09: 47 New
      +5
      The topic of ensuring combat stability is really touched upon in passing, I just wrote a lot about this a little earlier
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 25 June 2020 10: 33 New
        +1
        Maybe I'm not so long ago on this resource,
        not yet studied.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 25 June 2020 11: 39 New
          +2
          https://topwar.ru/155415-sovremennyj-protivolodochnyj-samolet-kawasaki-p-1.html

          This, perhaps, will be interesting to you, due to previous experience. Purely compare. The only thing that, judging the size of anti-submarine aircraft, I took our brackets out, since I had in mind only foreign ones, it turned out inaccurately.
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 25 June 2020 11: 58 New
            +3
            I read about the Japanese PLA plane.
            He remembered about our PLA aircraft.
            It became so sad ...
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 25 June 2020 19: 26 New
            +1
            Anti-submarine aircraft off our coast at the time of the tense situation, they will probably not spin, which means the SSBNs will feel more at ease. Anti-submarine aircraft are good in non-reach of enemy air defense systems.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 25 June 2020 19: 32 New
              0
              You are as usual, yes.
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 25 June 2020 19: 52 New
                -3
                Range of destruction From 400 380 kilometers at MiG 31 even further P 33 anti-submarine Poseidon in a light layout. Almost half of the Arctic submarine’s Arctic area is closed, and from this territory 6 million square kilometers of SSBNs will be able to launch rockets, why fly somewhere far away, with the airspace over the Bering and Okhotsk Seas the same situation - for the SSBN the main thing is to launch rockets and it doesn’t matter at the pier or in the sea.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 26 June 2020 09: 18 New
                  0
                  Well, I write - as usual.
            2. Bez 310
              Bez 310 25 June 2020 20: 39 New
              +2
              Do you think that the deployment of our SSBNs will be
              to occur "at the moment of heat"? Why this
              the moment there will be no enemy PLA in the exit area
              SSBN?
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 25 June 2020 23: 34 New
                -2
                The moment of heat can pass within a month - but the enemy will know that it is better not to meddle in the coverage area of ​​our coastal anti-ship missile systems of anti-aircraft ships and anti-submarine forces.
                1. Bez 310
                  Bez 310 26 June 2020 07: 26 New
                  +1
                  I am ..., overwhelmed by your knowledge, and retreat
                  to pre-prepared positions.
                2. K298rtm
                  K298rtm 26 June 2020 18: 19 New
                  +1
                  Unfortunately, they are almost always there. In the good old days, the United States and Great Britain were on duty in Barents (one at the exit from Kola, the second at the exit from Gremikha, where the SSBN was based there). They were discovered regularly (this is from personal experience). I believe that even now they are present there and Maryata to help them.
        2. Nehist
          Nehist 25 June 2020 11: 42 New
          +2
          This topic is raised on this resource about 10 times a year, so still study, the topic is very painful. Roughly speaking, there is no combat stability, about which the same much respected Andrei wrote more than once, there are also and will be articles by Timokhin on this subject
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 25 June 2020 13: 53 New
            0
            The man is more than aware.
  12. bar
    bar 25 June 2020 10: 02 New
    +3
    Then it would be optimal to commission a compound of 3 SSBNs every 10 years.

    Man suggests ... And what will happen there in 10 years no one knows. Maybe nobody will need our oil and gas, maybe another virus will appear. So that everything is done correctly, it is necessary to build everything that is possible now, while at least something is possible. And the fact that the emphasis is on the SSBN is also correct. To protect the country from attacks, they are much more needed than amphibious ships and large beautiful aircraft carriers.
  13. bulbash70
    bulbash70 25 June 2020 10: 02 New
    0
    where is the data on the Japanese submarine patrolling the entrance to Avacha Bay?
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 25 June 2020 10: 36 New
      +3
      What confused you? The "nationality" of the boat, or its presence?
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 25 June 2020 10: 55 New
        +7
        As one person said to another, there is always a boat. And if you didn’t find it, it means they’ve trampled on you yourself.

        But it seems that now there is no Virginia in the Avacha Gulf, local historians say that the American began to climb our fence less often.
      2. bulbash70
        bulbash70 1 July 2020 00: 13 New
        0
        statement about its availability. surely you have complete information from the command of the fleet of Japan? with coordinates and date, such as: we were there, but you did not find us.
        for some reason, they probably deceived me, but when I served on the Menzhinsky PSKR, in the additional situation log, when they brought us to the Central Command Center, there were the coordinates of the American nuclear submarine at the ZPV, and the coordinates of the PLPL in the area of ​​Z. Vladimir or Z. Olga. ie, we were already lied to about the ability to detect an enemy submarine, and the numbers were given "from the bulldozer"?
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 25 June 2020 10: 53 New
      +6
      On April 1, 2019, she was spotted at the exit. This is the first time the Japanese have rummaged there. The people in Kamchatka were much puzzled.
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 25 June 2020 11: 01 New
        +1
        But the date bothers me ...
        Maybe her back was white?
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 25 June 2020 11: 04 New
          +1
          Well, they told me that. A month or so later. In addition, I write from memory.

          Given the fact that the Americans also had a Chinese problem, the separation of duties with an ally of Japan looks quite logical.
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 25 June 2020 11: 52 New
            0
            Yes, I tried to joke.
            It’s quite possible that the allies also help,
            which has never happened before.
  14. Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 25 June 2020 10: 13 New
    12
    I cannot but note, it is said well and to the point. We went through all the sore points. And yes, I agree our maximum is 8-9 SSBNs. That will be enough.
    Further, now according to Poseidon, I consider the 949 project killed in his favor a crime. Poseidon in general has some sense in exactly one case, if he could have been delivered to the pier at Kamaz Tankovoz, launched into the water by an ordinary crane and set off on the last journey from any marina (specially equipped parking for yachts, boats and other small boats, on which various services are provided to crews.)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      25 June 2020 13: 10 New
      +4
      I totally agree hi
  15. Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 25 June 2020 10: 39 New
    +2
    Firstly, I doubt that mine ICBMs will be cheaper. We have already written above that infrastructure must be made to them more than extensive and expensive. Secondly, and even more importantly, they are extremely vulnerable, because their whereabouts are well known and I do not think that we can repel a massive attack on them. But it will be enough to jam the shaft cover ...
    Mobile installations? But in peacetime, they mostly stand in hangars, patrolling only in limited areas, also known to the enemy. And extremely vulnerable ...
    SSBN in the North can really drive into the White Sea and block it with mines and nets. Pacific could hide in Penzhinsky Bay. It’s clear that there are difficulties there, but ...
    In any case, to prevent an attack by the United States, one submarine guaranteed to give a salvo will be enough. Americans are too afraid of mass losses. Just look at Kimul. Their nuclear arsenal is primitive and small, and it is not a fact that they can even theoretically attack the territory of the United States, but they are safe.
    1. Aag
      Aag 25 June 2020 15: 01 New
      +5
      Quote: Sahalinets
      Firstly, I doubt that mine ICBMs will be cheaper. We have already written above that infrastructure must be made to them more than extensive and expensive. Secondly, and even more importantly, they are extremely vulnerable, because their whereabouts are well known and I do not think that we can repel a massive attack on them. But it will be enough to jam the shaft cover ...
      Mobile installations? But in peacetime, they mostly stand in hangars, patrolling only in limited areas, also known to the enemy. And extremely vulnerable ...
      SSBN in the North can really drive into the White Sea and block it with mines and nets. Pacific could hide in Penzhinsky Bay. It’s clear that there are difficulties there, but ...
      In any case, to prevent an attack by the United States, one submarine guaranteed to give a salvo will be enough. Americans are too afraid of mass losses. Just look at Kimul. Their nuclear arsenal is primitive and small, and it is not a fact that they can even theoretically attack the territory of the United States, but they are safe.

      If we consider the 16 mines of ICBMs of the OS regiments with all the infrastructure, it could be. But then you should calculate the cost of the base with the infrastructure for SSBNs. Yes, and the cost of operation, repairs ... I haven’t heard that the mine somewhere in the dock for repair depended for many months)))). This is according to the author’s KON.V Strategic Rocket Forces it is close to unity! Only with this in mind, the cost of operation is more than halved. Isn’t that so?
      "Second, and more importantly, they are incredibly vulnerable,"
      Well, yes, the coordinates are known. But for destruction, or incapacitation (before depriving of the possibility of launching), a direct hit is necessary. (Security of the mine, if not lying to the school, 300 kg / cmXNUMX).
      "... it is enough to jam the cover of the mine ..." Probably enough. Only difficult to implement. Like "Give me a foothold, I will turn the globe!")). These covers were designed taking into account the fact that they would have to open being filled up with many cubic meters of soil ...
    2. Aag
      Aag 25 June 2020 15: 47 New
      +2
      Regarding the massive attack, I would probably agree with you — I don’t know who should fight and what — I haven’t seen it over the years of service. But it’s worth considering that for destruction of EVERY mine, a separate nuclear warhead is needed. , in addition, and by other means.
      Now to the personnel ... I understand that there are no replacement crews in the PF (if I’m mistaken, correct it). If you look at the lists of crews of the dead submarines, there is almost always someone on a business trip. Probably, this is also if not a problem, then complexity. In the Strategic Missile Forces it is easier.
      According to the PGRK ... Yes, most of the time they are on duty at the BSP with known coordinates practically unprotected. But, apparently, according to the plans for combat use in a sudden nuclear attack (?), Their task is to shoot before the arrival of enemy combat units.
      In a war-threatening period, in elevated degrees of BG, they go on patrol routes, field positions. How do you know that the enemy knows these areas? start-up is possible (and from the route). But, the former periodically visit (in terms of combat training). The latter are known to individual officials. With the right choice, given the terrain, some protection is present if you keep the intrigue with the coordinates.
      Yes, O&O (security and defense) of the PGRK is a difficult task. Let the special services work in peacetime. In the military, each APU is reinforced by a platoon of airborne forces, a motorized rifle company. At least we were promised that.)) hi
      1. Aag
        Aag 25 June 2020 15: 49 New
        0
        Somewhere my previous comment has sunk ...
    3. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 27 June 2020 10: 27 New
      +1
      Quote: Sahalinets
      that mine ICBMs will be cheaper.

      Do not even try to doubt. This is because you apparently cannot imagine the level of necessary support for deploying an SSBN. These are anti-mine forces, and anti-submarine, and air defense, and basic anti-submarine aviation, etc. And even anti-sabotage. And most importantly - maintaining the fleet is very expensive.
      Quote: Sahalinets
      We have already written above that infrastructure must be made to them more than extensive and expensive.

      I strongly doubt that you can imagine what kind of infrastructure the fleet needs.
      Quote: Sahalinets
      Secondly, and even more importantly, they are extremely vulnerable, because their whereabouts are well known and I don’t think

      It is known. But getting to them is more difficult. If it’s very rude, to defeat the Strategic Missile Forces division with mine complexes (about 30 launchers), you need about 6 Trident missiles, with a full number of warheads. But for killing the latest SSBN with 16 ICBM Bulava, with a guarantee, 4 torpedo salvo from Virgo is enough.
      Mobile installations? But in peacetime, they mostly stand in hangars, patrolling only in limited areas, also known to the enemy. And extremely vulnerable ...

      30 percent on patrol constantly. Divisions in motion. The task of search and defeat is still not trivial. And the slightest gestures of the partners and the whole division leave the positioned area. Will they hit the squares? Flag in their hands.
  16. Alexander Yaroshenko
    Alexander Yaroshenko 25 June 2020 11: 04 New
    +5
    That's right, only to provide exits from Vilyuchinsk SSBN there is nothing left to do: Shark Pr 971 .....
  17. exo
    exo 25 June 2020 12: 21 New
    +5
    All the time we return to discussing one problem: the balance of the fleet. And we ourselves answer this question: an unbalanced fleet is worth little.
    The diversity of ships is still a Soviet misfortune. Unless, with the decommissioning of old units, it will be partially solved.
    Low KOH seems to be a necessary measure. Very low resources of the mechanisms (at least in the field of civil aviation, this is the case) make them cherish. Plus: low opportunities for ship repair.
    Thank you for the article!
  18. Doctor
    Doctor 25 June 2020 12: 48 New
    -2
    It is necessary to reduce the media itself. Up to 4000-5000 tons and 4 missiles on board.
    With a simultaneous increase in the total quantity. Up to 30 pieces.

    This will give:
    1. Reduced unit cost. The circle may be more expensive, but extended in time.
    2. Acceleration of unit construction.
    3. The possibility of faster modernization in each next boat.
    4. Increase KOH. Of 30 boats, it is easier to organize a simultaneous database than of 12.
    5. A smaller boat - less noise.
    6. Improving the operational capabilities of the strategic nuclear forces. It will be more difficult for the enemy to control 30 boats than 12, and this will require more manpower and resources.
    7. Bonus - the number of posts will be increased cap-times. And a greater number of sailors can say in retirement that they were submarine commanders. wink

    Do not be afraid of lowering the overall salvo, it will still remain deadly.
    1. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 25 June 2020 14: 56 New
      +3
      You, Arzt (Yuri), are wrong.

      1. The cost will decrease in proportion to the decrease in displacement. Examples are the Lyra submarine (goldfish) and the Piranha submarine. You will of course talk about the reasons why these submarines turned out to be wildly expensive at low displacement, but these excuses will not negate the fact that these submarines were wildly expensive (and practically useless) compared to other serial submarines of the USSR Navy.

      2. Acceleration of construction is possible, but in Russian conditions it is not related to displacement. Quite the opposite. Since the available production facilities are sharpened under the current displacement standard.

      3. Great opportunities for modernization are models of equipment with a large internal volume. Examples of surface ships, armored vehicles and aircraft are examples of this.

      4. In Russian shipbuilding, smaller boats often showed greater noise. For example, when Tritons and other underwater vehicles for combat swimmers began to be exploited, the experts were shocked that the acoustic footprint from small underwater vehicles was significantly higher than from submarines, including carrier submarines.

      5. Count so many strike and multipurpose nuclear and non-nuclear submarines in service with the fleets of NATO, Sweden and Japan, and you will be convinced that 30 small SSBNs, as compared to 12 large SSBNs, will not help the cause of defense because the enemy has submarines capable of constantly monitoring our SSBNs is more than enough. For example, the United States has 52 pcs., The UK - 9 pcs., France - 6 pcs., Sweden - 5 pcs., Japan - 22 pcs., Italy - 8 pcs. , Germany - 6 pcs. Only these submarine countries that can control our SSBNs have 108 units. That is, these submarines, on duty for their 100 days, will change among themselves, but they will not lose control.

      7. A larger number of posts is considered in our value system as a disadvantage, and not as a merit, because an increase in costs is associated with this. Our country, in the person of the rich, is building more megayachts than warships, if you count on the tonnage launched in recent years ..
      1. Sahalinets
        Sahalinets 25 June 2020 15: 39 New
        0
        Well, non-nuclear boats can hardly follow nuclear. How long can Varshavyanka pass there under full speed - 30-40 miles?
        1. Aleksandr1971
          Aleksandr1971 25 June 2020 19: 15 New
          0
          The adversary is not Varshavyanka. Warsaw women are purged and consequently find themselves 1-2 times a week.
          If the enemy submarine with VNEU or with lithium-ion batteries, then it will be able to follow the SSBNs, since it will be able to watch without surfacing for up to 2 weeks. An example is the combat duty of the Soryu boats in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk up to Avacha Bay.
          1. Sahalinets
            Sahalinets 25 June 2020 23: 27 New
            0
            Well, sticking out at the entrance to Sorya Bay can and can, but follow the loaf? Seriously? Non-atomic have an economic speed of 3-4 knots! Then the battery starts to land exponentially.
            1. Aleksandr1971
              Aleksandr1971 26 June 2020 06: 16 New
              +1
              So at our RKSN the speed in the combat duty areas is precisely these same 3-4 knots. At higher speeds, the noise level becomes sufficient for detection at long distances.
              This is usually what happens. Our SSBN slowly goes at 3-4 knots, and behind it a couple of miles goes the enemy submarine with the same speed and with a minute readiness for a torpedo attack. This is to prevent the SSBN from preparing missile silos before launch. The noise from preparing for a missile launch greatly unmasks the SSBN. If our ICBM covers our SSBN from attack, then 2 pieces of enemy submarines become. And so for years and decades.
      2. Doctor
        Doctor 25 June 2020 21: 20 New
        -1
        You, Arzt (Yuri), are wrong.

        We went through all my points.
        They proved to me and others that a large boat with a larger number of missiles is better than many small ones with a smaller number.
        Let's move on logically. How many Boreevs have we planned there? 8? Fine. 8 x 16 = 128 missiles.

        Total: we build 2 boats of 64 missiles. One on the SF another on the Pacific Fleet.
        But why, the cost is lower, we’ll build two boats quickly, upgrade huge hulls for at least 50 years, the noise of smaller boats, as you wrote more, they have 108 hunters, it’s not a big deal, we’ll cover one, and there’s only two commander needed. You can even put the admiral.

        How do you like this, is it logical?
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Aleksandr1971
          Aleksandr1971 26 June 2020 06: 27 New
          +1
          More logical is another.

          I repeatedly on this site, including in a separate article, substantiated the idea that the safe duty of our SSBNs with the guaranteed possibility of launching a nuclear missile strike in the USA is possible only when the SSBNs are placed in inland waters, where the SSBNs are unattainable against enemy forces .

          We are talking about Ladoga, Onega and especially the Caspian. Of course, there are disadvantages in this idea, but they are much weaker than the pluses.
  19. Tests
    Tests 25 June 2020 12: 48 New
    -2
    Andrey from Chelyabinsk (Andrey), respected, and hide the second prince for Novaya Zemlya in the Kara Sea. Zholob there is not very wide and deep, but along the entire archipelago. True, in the summer some "Rainbow" from the international "Green World" can reach, supposedly monitor the reactor of the nuclear-powered ship "Lenin" at the bottom. But I really hope that "Ivan Papanin" will soon be in the Federation Council, except for the ships of the border guards. Will help to scare away guests not invited.
    1. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 25 June 2020 15: 18 New
      +2
      The prince’s gutter depth will not save because the prince’s maximum diving depth is 600 meters. In the trench, the prince will hang like a fly in a bank, that is, he will be visible to all acoustics. And for invisibility it is necessary to merge with the unevenness of the bottom. In this sense, shallow seas, such as the Baltic Sea and the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, are far more secure for combat duty by the SSBN.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 25 June 2020 19: 30 New
        -4
        The Prince has a system of anti-torpedo protection Package NK, however, like the entire line of Boreev.
        1. Aleksandr1971
          Aleksandr1971 26 June 2020 06: 31 New
          0
          The anti-torpedo protection for the SSBN is like a knife for a soldier in modern combat. Maybe help.
          If the SSBN is detected by the enemy, then it will end in battle. And in peacetime, her tail will hang up until the end of duty and exit to the pier.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 26 June 2020 19: 47 New
            -1
            Anti-torpedo systems can also be used to destroy nuclear submarines, and this is clearly not a knife, but quite automatic, and submarines also have full-fledged torpedoes.
  20. Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets 25 June 2020 13: 53 New
    0
    Thank you, Andrew!
    As always sharp, debatable and, importantly, with a clear authorial position.
    For my part, I want to say: distortions, mistakes and simply failures in the construction of the Armed Forces and the Navy in particular have been and always will be.
    Another thing is important: that there was a constant load of the entire industry and, in parallel, continuous training of personnel. A living organism will always reorganize itself for a new task (if there is enough intelligence). But the elite-philosophical reasoning about the "best" instead of "good" when trying to implement them will inevitably fail because of the discrepancy in the height of the thoughts of the down-to-earthness of production possibilities.
    Well, unnecessary (from your point of view) Boreev-A, Poseidonov, etc., are riveted, they will prepare a bunch of specialists for this, re-equip production, and after 25 years ...
    So, in your opinion, we will live as long as 25 years - not a few!
    Now I just began to understand "the conspiracy between Salzman and the military representatives of 1940-41." The task was to master the large-scale production of heavy tanks on the eve of the war. But finishing the design is the responsibility of designers and technologists. It's good that they mastered, albeit an unfinished car, otherwise they would have an endless parade of prototypes.
    Of course, SSBNs are unique products, but from the point of view of the damned Anglo-Saxons, two middle peasants are always better than one excellent student, so they dictate the agenda for today. Without "zeroing" the capabilities of the enemy's SSBNs, we will always be in the unenviable role of a victim capable of selling our lives dearly, and we will not change the situation by any shuffling between the number of certain combat units. So the key to victory lies not under water, but, most likely, in space, where the vigorous activity of Rogozin's chicks is observed.
  21. KSVK
    KSVK 25 June 2020 14: 30 New
    +4
    The author, I apologize, but do you contradict yourself. You suggest:

    Adhering to this logic, at each moment of time, we will have 12 SSBNs in the Russian Navy, of which 3 will be the latest, 3 will be quite modern, three will become obsolete, and three more will be prepared for decommissioning.


    And right there:

    Where Americans manage with one type of SSBNs (Ohio, which is replaced by a new project of ships of this class) and one type of ballistic missiles (Trident), the Russian Federation uses as many as 3 types of submarines (SSBN project 667BDRM "Dolphin" , projects 955 and 955A Borey, as well as the carriers of the Poseidons of project 09851) with three fundamentally different weapons systems:


    Those. You offer only in the SSBN component to have at least THREE different ships. And at the same time carry out ongoing repairs on time. Indeed, different ships, to ensure the best performance characteristics, will most likely be equipped with completely different on-board equipment and weapons. And repairing different classes of equipment will be quite difficult and costly.

    Maybe it is better to build ONE-TYPE ships in the required quantity, and then during the scheduled repairs CHANGE outdated equipment on these ships with new models? I think it will be cheaper and easier. Just think out loud.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      25 June 2020 16: 23 New
      +2
      Quote: KSVK
      The author, I apologize, but do you contradict yourself.

      Not:)))
      Quote: KSVK
      Those. You offer only in the SSBN component to have at least THREE different ships. And at the same time carry out ongoing repairs on time. Indeed, different ships, to ensure the best performance characteristics, will most likely be equipped with completely different on-board equipment and weapons.

      Not certainly in that way. The first "Virginia" entered service in 2004, and now it is planned to lay the same Virginias, but block 5. That is, the path of major modifications is possible - I think so for neighboring series of boats. And besides, the new onboard equipment will be, to a certain extent, unified with the modern MAPLs.
      Yes, at my proposal we do not get away from the diversity, but at the same time we gain certain advantages.
      Quote: KSVK
      Just think out loud.

      I welcome every possible constructive discussion! hi
  22. d4rkmesa
    d4rkmesa 25 June 2020 14: 35 New
    -1
    "Husky" as SSBN is not needed. All Russian SSBNs are practically Ruby's. For the sake of imaginary unification and the desire of the developer to take the whole pie for himself, the Navy will find itself in a difficult situation. Approximately, like 10-15 years ago it was with the Bulava or now with the Angara launch vehicle, when MIT and Khrunichev were actively trying to squeeze out Russian competitors. I agree with you about Poseidon.
    As for the "modern analogues of American SOSUS", as far as I remember, now SOSUS practically does not work, and modern submarines in the low frequency range are practically inaudible already. Now more emphasis will be placed on unmanned detection systems with active sonar.
  23. AML
    AML 25 June 2020 14: 37 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Let’s nevertheless clarify - Boreas at the beginning of the GPV 2011-20 cost five billion dollars at five minutes. And these are only the ships themselves, without missiles. Despite the fact that the construction of the SSBN is only just beginning, there are ongoing repairs, overhauls, construction of infrastructure, etc. So land is cheaper


    You are thinking from the point of view of the layman. It costs so much. And boats and torpedoes are built and deployed for rubles, but within the framework of the state, money does not matter at all. Not enough money - they started up the machine and printed. As an option, they again confiscated money from some regular colonel. In the network he is a corrupt person, but in fact it may turn out that the "black" cash desk of the Moscow Region. For a +/- healthy economy, pouring / withdrawing 10-15% of GDP is nothing at all. No one will even notice.
    1. Sahalinets
      Sahalinets 25 June 2020 15: 38 New
      +2
      As soon as the state starts printing unsecured money, you will very quickly notice on your standard of living that it really matters. And the discovery will be extremely unpleasant.
      1. AML
        AML 25 June 2020 21: 23 New
        -2
        Quote: Sahalinets
        As soon as the state begins to print unsecured money, ,,,,

        Ummm, you probably don’t know, but money in Russia is already not provided with anything. It was in the USSR the provision of gold, and now it is candy wrappers. As well as in the USA.

        Once in the BC people were divided into 2 groups. One group considered idiots of people who invest tens of thousands of dollars in painted gear. The second group considered idiots of people who considered this money big.

        If you think that the example of BC is not indicative, then here is another story. About 10 years ago, Bill Gates urged wealthy people to donate half their fortune to charity. Including he brought 30 billion. What do you think, for how long have these 30bn returned to him?

        Big bucks work by other rules.
        1. Sahalinets
          Sahalinets 25 June 2020 23: 38 New
          +1
          They are provided with state revenues! But when they just start typing, then welcome to the 90s. But then you obviously went under the table, since you are writing nonsense! I had a salary of 86 at 600, but it was less than a hundred bucks. For four years, the ruble fell 000 times.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 29 June 2020 12: 15 New
            0
            Probably 96? At 86 for 5000 the Volga could be bought. About.
            1. Sahalinets
              Sahalinets 29 June 2020 12: 16 New
              0
              Yes of course. And at 86 the Volga cost 15. 000 is probably Moskvich, the Lada was definitely more expensive.
    2. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 26 June 2020 06: 53 New
      +1
      Rare nonsense.
      Quote: AML
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Let’s nevertheless clarify - Boreas at the beginning of the GPV 2011-20 cost five billion dollars at five minutes. And these are only the ships themselves, without missiles. Despite the fact that the construction of the SSBN is only just beginning, there are ongoing repairs, overhauls, construction of infrastructure, etc. So land is cheaper


      You are thinking from the point of view of the layman. It costs so much. And boats and torpedoes are built and deployed for rubles, but within the framework of the state, money does not matter at all. Not enough money - they started up the machine and printed. As an option, they again confiscated money from some regular colonel. In the network he is a corrupt person, but in fact it may turn out that the "black" cash desk of the Moscow Region. For a +/- healthy economy, pouring / withdrawing 10-15% of GDP is nothing at all. No one will even notice.


      Rare nonsense
  24. 123456789
    123456789 25 June 2020 15: 12 New
    -2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Yeah. The only question is that the usual ICBM launched from the SSBN, snarling right at the port, will do the same. A torpedo is not needed for this

    How much did the Americans spend creating a global missile defense system? They will spend as much, if not more, on protection from Poseidons. They are simply drawn into the devastating arms race 2.0, even for them.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 28 June 2020 17: 51 New
      -1
      They already have everything to protect against Poseidons.
  25. +5
    +5 25 June 2020 15: 33 New
    0
    If START-3 is taken away, then launch 6 pieces of simplified boats with 30 missiles each in Baikal ....
  26. K298rtm
    K298rtm 25 June 2020 18: 42 New
    -2
    ["... the sailors are in desperate need of some kind of ships ..."]
    1. Not sailors, but a country (Homeland) needs modern ships.
    2. I agree with the author's idea that the design and construction of various types of platters (which was practiced in the USSR. But then this could be justified by the fact that for almost every task they created their own plaza project. There was no technical possibility to create a universal multipurpose plc due to the massive - the overall characteristics of the electronic element base) is not the best solution. It is clear that financially this is profitable for the industry. And industry, as before, commands the parade (as one of the industry representatives once said: "We will give what you need, not what you want").
    3. In my opinion, the optimal (from the point of view of the interests of the country and the fleet) would be the construction of simultaneously 1 RPKSN + 1MAPL + 2DPL. This will ensure the combat stability of the SSBN on the BS.
  27. FIR FIR
    FIR FIR 25 June 2020 19: 46 New
    +6
    I don’t agree about 3 boats in 10 years, that's why: the cost of each unit will be one and a half times more expensive if the boats were built in a series of 12-14 units in 15 years. Ships don't age as fast as iPhones. More than half of all ships of the Navy of the world over 20 years. Electronics is becoming obsolete, but it can and should be changed during scheduled and overhauls. The shipyard or shipyards that build the SSBNs must simultaneously build multipurpose submarines. After the series of strategists is built, more multi-purpose workers will simply be laid on the stocks. But their Russian Navy needs a lot, at least 30, and preferably 40-50. In general, there are not many modern nuclear multipurpose submarines. The whole question is in the budget.
  28. Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 25 June 2020 20: 04 New
    +2
    in the 90s, Benya Yeltsman arranged for the Soviet Navy 10 Tsushim
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 25 June 2020 23: 37 New
      -2
      Even without Yeltsin, the Soviet fleet, like the army of Russia, could not be economically maintained in the 90s.
      1. shahor
        shahor 27 June 2020 19: 07 New
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        The Soviet fleet, like the army of Russia, could not be economically maintained in the 90s.

        The Soviet fleet and army could not contain the USSR, as we observed.
  29. Kestrel
    Kestrel 25 June 2020 20: 23 New
    +6
    It would not hurt the author to recall how many modifications of the same Virginia the US fleet has, I’m not talking about the submarines of the Sea Wolf type, each of which (and they were built 3 units) is essentially a new project, the third ship is very different from the first 2 .
    1. Doccor18
      Doccor18 25 June 2020 20: 28 New
      +3
      And the cost of each of these three "gold boats".
  30. Doccor18
    Doccor18 25 June 2020 20: 23 New
    0
    The U.S. Navy reached 80% in the 34s and this is an excellent result, consider it almost a benchmark. KOH in 50% is utopia. With us, achieving a KOH of 25-27% would be just fine. However, increasing KOH means simultaneously solving a whole bunch of complicated and expensive tasks. One modernization of shipyards will require enormous expenses. So in Russia, it seems, cheaper to build 12 SSBNs than to increase the KOH of 5-7 ships.
    1. rudolff
      rudolff 26 June 2020 00: 20 New
      +2
      KOH American SSBNs in the period 1981-1991 reached 0,7. According to the SSBN, in the mid-80s, KOH reached 0,35, now it is 0,1-0,15. Andrei correctly raised this topic. Until we learn how to properly operate the ships, we will continue to throw money into the air.
  31. Tests
    Tests 25 June 2020 20: 32 New
    -1
    Alexander 1971 (Alexander), dear, our Defense Ministry promised to revive posts and bases on Novaya Zemlya, including on the Kara coast, to revive Amderma, Dikson, Naryan-Mar and on Severnaya Zemlya to deepen and expand everything, except that there is for today. That is why I suggested, as one of the prince's watch areas, the Kara Sea ... The Baltic, of course - it is interesting, for example, Antey with Zircon or a prince with Bulva, but will they be allowed into it through the straits ... It was one thing "Shark" went to the Main Naval Parade to Kronstadt, although they went to the parade and remained in the Baltic until the New Year, as if they broke ... And the prince and a couple of multipurpose nuclear submarines, all broke ... And let the Foreign Ministry for six months justified? ... So after all, Poland will tear apart from anger ...
    1. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 26 June 2020 07: 03 New
      0
      And who is against it? The North Seas have long been areas of alert on our SSBNs. But only in shallow water, not in gutters. I can only say that in the conditions of the degradation of our fleet and the progress of the NATO PLO forces, the North Ocean has ceased to be the place from where our SSBNs will be able to strike at NATO.

      The new bases in the North, as I understand it, fulfill the air defense mission. How they will help against enemy submarines is not known. Most likely - nothing.

      Using the current topic of submarines, I will remind 100500 times of the good (for us, not for NATO) idea of ​​transferring the SSBN to inland waters, especially to the Caspian.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 26 June 2020 19: 50 New
        -1
        NATO’s PLO forces appear only apl - everything else will go astray and sink - all planes and ships in the affected area of ​​both our air defense and ship’s anti-ship missiles are now creating an Onyx modification of 800 kilometers.
  32. Dmitry Chelyabinsk
    Dmitry Chelyabinsk 25 June 2020 21: 58 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    It is more expedient to keep 1 SSBN in the White Sea


    Plus one more in the Tatar Strait. And it seems they wrote that you can still close the Penzhinskaya Bay for entry.

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The boat needs regular repairs, and the same PGRK almost 100% of the time on duty


    No, about 25%. Poplars, according to the norms per year, have two 40-day field exits from the RPD, plus, in my opinion, 10 or 15 days in the course of regimental or division exercises.
  33. Dmitry Chelyabinsk
    Dmitry Chelyabinsk 25 June 2020 22: 04 New
    0
    Quote: 5-9
    If START-3 is taken away, then launch 6 pieces of simplified boats with 30 missiles each in Baikal ....


    It's better in the Middle Caspian. "Varshavyanka" with three RSM-54s in the wheelhouse enclosure, as on Project 629. A total of 12 warheads on the boat - as on Project 667B. It is possible to be based in Kaspiysk, there is just a regiment of marines there. With a range of 11500 km from the center of the Caspian Sea, almost the entire territory of the United States will be reached.
    But this is to the extreme, if START-3 is taken away ...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 25 June 2020 23: 43 New
      -1
      It’s cheaper and easier to deploy two more Yarsov M divisions than to create a submarine for the Caspian Sea with ICBMs or put a dozen Sarmatians into service.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Aleksandr1971
        Aleksandr1971 26 June 2020 07: 19 New
        0
        Underwater ICBMs are another task, not the same as land-based ICBMs. Therefore, what is cheaper does not always mean what is better.

        A ground-based ICBM is a weapon that is constantly visible to the enemy through a satellite surveillance system. Therefore, land-based ICBMs should start in the first minutes of the war, otherwise they will not start at all. The purpose of land-based ballistic missiles is, as a rule, military installations.

        Submarine ICBMs must be hidden and must be able to strike at least a few days, weeks or months after the initial exchange of nuclear strikes. For example, in order to finish off the remaining unscathed enemy military installations, cities, centers of economics and management. That is why, among the military tasks of our state, one of the most important is to ensure the secrecy of the inaccessibility of underwater strategic forces. Although they are more expensive than land-based ICBMs.

        Such an advantage (out of reach of enemy forces) of the SSBN allows you to talk with the enemy from a position of strength even after the disappearance of other arguments such as ground ICBMs, conventional troops, etc.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 26 June 2020 19: 59 New
          0
          Both of them have one and the same defeat of the enemy’s infrastructure. Mobile satellites cannot track the on-line systems online. With their defeat, missiles and planes will have to break through the air defense system and fly deep into the territory - in this case they will have zero chance of survival. , satellites can only see the launch of a rocket using infrared cameras, however, like the launch of sea-based ICBMs.
          1. Aleksandr1971
            Aleksandr1971 27 June 2020 05: 03 New
            0
            Hmmm .... Judging by the answer, education is needed here. Of course, the soil complexes at some stage were difficult to control for satellites. But not now. I would not want to be verbose and give a lecture here. It is better to familiarize yourself with the materials in the form of weapons of mass destruction and the reasons for the appearance of a nuclear triad in the USSR and the USA. Well, with development trends.
        2. Olezhek
          Olezhek 26 June 2020 21: 18 New
          0
          Submarine ICBMs must be hidden and must be able to strike at least a few days, weeks or months after the initial exchange of nuclear strikes. For example, in order to finish off the remaining unscathed enemy military installations, cities, centers of economics and management. That is why, among the military tasks of our state, one of the most important is to ensure the secrecy of the inaccessibility of underwater strategic forces. Although they are more expensive than land-based ICBMs.

          Such an advantage (out of reach of enemy forces)


          What is the trouble?
          It’s possible to get close to the ground launcher, even mine, even mobile, of course ... but somehow it’s not easy in someone else’s territory.
          But at sea, American MAPLs can go close to our submarine missile carriers.
          Without violating any laws.

          The problem is in secrecy and inaccessibility
          And she had a place to be back in Soviet times.
          The Americans have a stronger fleet.
    2. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 26 June 2020 07: 08 New
      0
      START-3 does not interfere with the deployment of SSBNs in the Caspian.
      And missiles with an unlimited range in the USSR were already in the 60s. These are exactly what should be placed under the Caspian waters.
  34. The comment was deleted.
  35. reader65
    reader65 26 June 2020 07: 23 New
    -2
    That's interesting - the Navy’s GPV was completed by 20-50%, and the money spent 100%. So maybe it's time to plant responsible persons with confiscation. Then the next GPV will be performed at 90%. Something very impudent admirals and managers of the military industrial complex.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      26 June 2020 10: 17 New
      +1
      Money not spent, they could not allocate
  36. AML
    AML 26 June 2020 09: 27 New
    0
    Quote: Sahalinets
    They are provided with state revenues! But when they just start typing, then welcome to the 90s. But then you obviously went under the table, since you are writing nonsense! I had a salary of 86 at 600, but it was less than a hundred bucks. For four years, the ruble fell 000 times.


    In the context that I wrote, we are talking about (10-15%) 150-200bn usd that will be up to 200+ units in translation to the RCSP. And you talk about 60 trillion (6000%). You can break a bolt with a fool.
  37. Badger
    Badger 26 June 2020 10: 49 New
    0
    After reading such articles, I am always interested in the competence of the author. How much does he possess information, or is most of the written just a product of his imagination?
  38. xomaNN
    xomaNN 26 June 2020 11: 42 New
    +2
    The obvious failure with the introduction of surface-to-water amphibious ships of the frigate-corvette class into the Russian Federation is understandable. The "order on the side" of the power engines of ships (gas turbine and diesel engines) and the complacent sluggish restoration-creation of similar engines played their ugly role by our Ukrainian and German partners.

    But the design and construction of nuclear submarines since the times of the USSR has been mainly localized on the territory of Russia. Instrumentation and materials, 30-40% were able to "replace import". And ebN and comp did not have time. "ditch" Sevmash and Admiralayte LAO. So submarine has perspective smile
  39. the same doctor
    the same doctor 26 June 2020 13: 01 New
    0
    And what tasks should the fleet carry out? The country's leadership, paralyzed by impotence, even in the face of our overwhelming superiority over Ukraine, did not dare to do anything. And here the weakest fleet ... Maybe it’s better that many ships weren’t set up. Otherwise, their politicians would have been put under execution, having tied the demands of humanity and not succumb to provocations.
    .
    We need to build ocean ferries. In case of war, we roll up weapons systems on their decks - here's a ready-made warship. And the landing, and transport, and any other. Moreover, as a carrier, it will not become obsolete for decades.
    Combat readiness must be dispersed throughout mosquitoes for reasons of stability. If they are made crewless, they will master the ocean open spaces. And control a horde of mosquitoes from a comfortable surface ship, aircraft carrier or submarine. From there, and replenishment of ammunition.
  40. Selevc
    Selevc 26 June 2020 14: 13 New
    0
    To the maximum, the tsunami passed by land for 4 km and then this place is between two mountains.
    I want to cool my head next tsunami info ... All scientists unanimously say that not every strong earthquake gives rise to a strong tsunami - this is one time ... And two - the strength of the tidal wave depends on the configuration of the coast on which it falls ... This very configuration of the coast may be such that it greatly extinguishes the energy of the tsunami or may vice versa strengthen the tidal wave !!!

    It would have happened so that during a nuclear explosion in the water area of ​​the port, Poseidon will generate instead of a tsunami a large bunch that goes out too quickly to cause any serious damage to the coast !!!
  41. AML
    AML 26 June 2020 15: 07 New
    0
    Quote: Selevc
    To the maximum, the tsunami passed by land for 4 km and then this place is between two mountains.
    I want to cool my head next tsunami info ... All scientists unanimously say that not every strong earthquake gives rise to a strong tsunami - this is one time ... And two - the strength of the tidal wave depends on the configuration of the coast on which it falls ... This very configuration of the coast may be such that it greatly extinguishes the energy of the tsunami or may vice versa strengthen the tidal wave !!!

    It would have happened so that during a nuclear explosion in the water area of ​​the port, Poseidon will generate instead of a tsunami a large bunch that goes out too quickly to cause any serious damage to the coast !!!


    You burst a balloon with air under water and watch. what will happen on the surface. It is thought that when developing such a fig, an earthquake is considered as an additional bonus, and not as the main damaging effect. Superheated steam, itself explosive + in the spite of the day, they can pour 62 and cobalt in the BG and then the living ones will surely envy the dead.
  42. Alexander K.B.
    Alexander K.B. 26 June 2020 15: 13 New
    -2
    Not a very respected author, but who needs all these your arguments? Do you want to shine with the star of naval analytics, versed in all, all matters of naval weapons? The critics scooped up scooping information from a network! I assure you that even without your opuses there are enough people, not just knowledgeable, but also responsible, doing their job non-publicly and with full awareness that they cannot be divulged and discussed with those who are not involved.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      29 June 2020 10: 59 New
      +3
      Quote: Alexander K.B.
      Not a very respected author, but who needs all these your arguments?

      Only 70 readers at the time of writing my comment
      Quote: Alexander K.B.
      I assure you that even without your opuses there are enough people, not just knowledgeable, but also responsible, doing their job non-publicly and with full awareness that they cannot be divulged and discussed with those who are not involved.

      Where do you get confidence, if not secret?
  43. Connor MacLeod
    Connor MacLeod 26 June 2020 15: 20 New
    0
    Here's how ...

    ■ NORTH FLEET
    × 06 23560
    × 06 22350
    × 06 20380

    × 06 885
    × 06 545
    × 06 677

    ■ PACIFIC FLEET
    × 06 22350
    × 06 20380

    × 06 545
    × 06 677

    ■ BLACK SEA Navy
    × 06 20380
    × 06 677

    ■ BALTIC FLEET
    × 06 20380
    × 06 677

    And the junk is all in the wreck ...
  44. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 26 June 2020 18: 44 New
    0
    For unification with all paws. However, it also has disadvantages, the military will need to more clearly and professionally prepare requirements for developers, taking into account the perspective and some versatility. Developers will have to make a really high-quality design with a large margin of opportunity for development, but relevant in terms of performance characteristics "from the start". And this is already a definite genius ..

    In general, I believe that it is unnecessary to be in dreams that the world will be "as before, only better." For the good 60 years we have been placing an increasingly solid part of our security on nuclear submarines and ICBMs - it seems to us that a qualitative increase in their characteristics allows us to keep parity, but this cannot go on forever. The world around us has changed and continues to change - missiles launched from a submerged position appeared in China, the DPRK, intercontinental missiles, in principle, have greatly expanded their geography - India, Pakistan, DPRK, PRC, Iran have and are actively developing similar products. As well as the work on the submarine. A lot of international agreements on arms control have been destroyed, all the 2000s and 2010s the world watched as those who were unable to respond to aggression with armed force became its victims.
    I’m leading to the fact that, given the impending confrontation in the Asia-Pacific region between the United States and China, the Americans on massive, traditional Chinese decisions, not being able to stop quantitatively - will make (and perhaps already are doing so) a strategy through R&D - and it is possible that they will find an effective solution capable of efficiently detecting submarines and nuclear submarines over long distances, or effectively intercepting ICBMs or RGMs. I don’t know what solutions they will propose for this - but you need to understand that THIS MENTALITY WORKS SO. If they see a certain problem, they will not be satisfied with a purely quantitative solution, at some point they will exert all the power of their scientific and industrial potential and beat, if not all the cards, then some of them.

    And we should be prepared for such a turn of events - as well as the fact that our economic, industrial and scientific potential is becoming increasingly difficult to digest American freaks with the withdrawal from the treaties - if we knew that it would all last forever. Nothing is eternal..
  45. Serge Srednefontansky_2
    Serge Srednefontansky_2 26 June 2020 19: 43 New
    +1
    It’s ridiculous, one might think that the Kremlin will bomb its bank accounts and cells abroad, but they are more likely to shoot at our people.
  46. Red Alert
    Red Alert 26 June 2020 19: 44 New
    +1
    Article guard propaganda. Soviet industry is ruined, and it is not able to create its own current government.
  47. AML
    AML 26 June 2020 20: 53 New
    0
    Quote: Serge Srednefontansky_2
    It’s ridiculous, one might think that the Kremlin will bomb its bank accounts and cells abroad, but they are more likely to shoot at our people.


    Between the bank cell and life, even the most stubborn will choose the second.

    And if all that is are being shot at by their own people, then nothing shines on other nations either. NATO countries are unlikely and, with all their advancements, will draw their own atmosphere.
  48. AML
    AML 26 June 2020 20: 55 New
    0
    Quote: Red Alert
    Article guard propaganda. Soviet industry is ruined, and it is not able to create its own current government.


    Yes Yes. Have come. There are even no bast shoes on sale, but I already forgot the cart when I saw it.
  49. Vladimir Zagorodni
    Vladimir Zagorodni 27 June 2020 02: 49 New
    0
    The program is 40% complete. The question is trivial - Where is the remaining money? "Zin" !!!
    1. Mikle2000
      Mikle2000 27 June 2020 20: 46 New
      0
      It is logical to assume that the finished product turned out to be somewhat more expensive than expected. And at the expense of what - "write less, we'll win the project, and we'll see" or banal theft - a difficult question
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      29 June 2020 10: 56 New
      0
      Quote: Vladimir Zagorodny
      The question is trivial - Where is the remaining money? "Zin" !!!

      And nobody even singled them out
  50. velbot185
    velbot185 27 June 2020 13: 54 New
    +1
    Good clever article. It happens ... I applaud