Military Review

Is the Husky submarine so promising?

216

In the material devoted to domestic multipurpose nuclear submarines of the type Ash-M, the author came to the conclusion that these ships are good for everyone, except for the cost. Unfortunately, the costs of building ships of Project 885M are excessively high (1,5-2 times higher than on SSBNs of the Borey type) and will not allow equipping the fleet with them in an amount at least minimally sufficient to solve the tasks facing the Russian Navy.


Is the message from afar rarely true?


As you know, today work is underway to create the next generation MPSS. We are talking about the already completed research work (R&D) of "Husky", smoothly flowing into development work (ROC) under the code "Laika". It should be expected that upon completion of the development work, the future MPS will once again change its name, and it will be built by some kind of "Eucalyptus" or "Rhododendron". The guys who come up with the names of the types of our military equipment are still entertainers, I hope, at least the "Weeping Willow" will not come up. But in the future I will call the developed MAPL "Husky" - by the name of the research project that gave rise to this project.

So, information about "Husky" ... Of course, are classified as "top secret". But something still leaks into the media through the statements of various responsible persons. Of course, if we take the general tone of the media about the new MAPL, then everything is simply gorgeous: the new ship, much less noticeable than the Yasen-M, and even armed with the Zircon hypersonic missiles, of all the adversaries with one left propeller ...

But if we impartially analyze the crumbs of information that reach us about the Husky, then the picture is not even that ambiguous, but rather very sad. Of course, here you need to understand that news from afar is rarely true: simply put, some information transmitted by the media can be distorted by accident, and some - even deliberately, in order to mislead the "sworn friends". Whatever one may say, but a modern MAPL is an extremely complex and high-tech facility. In the old days, a ship of the line was called the pinnacle of human scientific and technical thought, and so it was in fact. Not that the MAPL came to replace him, but nevertheless the modern nuclear submarine is such a unique quintessence of scientific and technological progress that only a few creations of the human mind are able to challenge its primacy in this field. Without a doubt, information about modern and even more promising nuclear submarines is an extremely tasty morsel for any secret service in the world: do not use it yourself, so at least sell it at the most reasonable price. Any nuances are interesting here, and therefore it cannot be ruled out that some statements by our responsible persons on the topic of "Husky" may turn out to be disinformation.

But, of course, the author of this article is not informed about this, and all that he can is to analyze the information that is in the public domain. So let's do it.

Unification with SSBNs


For the first time, Nikolai Novoselov, deputy general director of the Malakhit design bureau, announced the desire for such unification at the end of 2014. And that was, let's say, at least strange.

The fact is that SSBNs and MAPLs are submarines with completely different combat missions. Shooting with intercontinental ballistic missiles is not just a complex, but also an extremely specific process, which puts forward equally specific requirements for the design of an underwater strategic missile carrier. Of course, you can see some parallels in the firing of cruise missiles from vertical installations, which, for example, are equipped with our "Ash-M", or the American "Virginia", but there is still a significant difference.

In addition, there is still a question of size. The dimensions of the ICBM must fit into the dimensions of the carrier submarine hull. You can, of course, not do this, forming a specific "hump" over the body, as, for example, was implemented in the 667BRDM "Dolphin". But SSBNs without a "hump" can be made less noticeable, why, in fact, our newest "Borei-A", unlike the missile carriers of the "Borey" series, do not have a hump.


In other words, the height of the SSBN hull must correspond to the dimensions of the ICBMs it carries, but there is no such restriction for an MPSS hull. And therefore there is no point in making SSBNs based on MAPLs or vice versa. Of course, unification is possible between SSBNs and MAPLs, but it will be different - in the use of the same components, assemblies, instruments and devices.

This is the opinion of the author of this article, and the same point of view was shared by N. Novoselov, Deputy General Director of KB Malakhit. When in 2014 the correspondent of RIA “News"Asked him a question about the creation of a single corps for a multipurpose and strategic nuclear submarine, he replied:

“This question is being considered. The point is that the characteristics of a nuclear weapons RF sets the characteristics of the ship itself - for example, the weight of this weapon, length, width. Therefore, it is impossible to say that it is simply possible to unify the corpus ”.

It seems that everything is clear and understandable, but already the following words of N. Novoselov sounded extremely alarming: "The task is worth it, but we understand it at the level of equipment unification, that is, the filling inside the ship." Then N. Novoselov quite rightly noted that the unification of the equipment used to equip "Borey-A" and "Yasen-M" has fully justified itself. So, after all, someone demanded to unify the body?

In 2015, A. Shlemov, the head of the USC Department of State Defense Order, told interesting details about the Husky. In his words, the ship was designed in two versions: a purely torpedo hunter boat, intended primarily for the destruction of enemy submarines, and a cruise missile carrier. Moreover, the difference was only in the "insert" of the compartment with missile weapons.

This option looks quite promising. It is clear that when the Soviet anti-ship missiles had a starting weight of 7 tons, it was completely impossible to unify torpedo (PLAT) and missile (SSGN) submarines along the hull. Hence the need for the appearance of Project 949A SSGNs with Granites and PLATs of projects 971 and 945.


But today the mass of cruise missiles has been significantly reduced and does not exceed 2,3-3 tons. the fleet there is absolutely no need to install vertical launchers (VPU) in the amount of 32-40 mines and more on "everything that goes under water." Even in a non-nuclear conflict, even in a nuclear conflict, part of the multipurpose nuclear submarines will receive tasks that have nothing to do with the salvo launches of anti-ship missiles. We must not forget that the PLAT is not exclusively a torpedo ship: if necessary, missiles or rocket-torpedoes can be used using torpedo tubes. Perhaps it makes sense to leave on PLAT and VPU with a relatively small number of mines for their use of missile-torpedoes. Here the author, alas, is not an expert ... But, in any case, with the approach described above, the fleet will be able to retain specialized anti-submarine and missile "anti-aircraft" nuclear submarines, and at the same time will significantly save thanks to unification, optimizing both shipbuilding and operating costs.

And it seemed that it turned out that someone set the task of unifying MAPLs and SSBNs in the hull, but common sense prevailed. However, further publications did not provide a direct answer to this question. For example, the CEO of Malachite said in 2016:

“It cannot carry ballistic and cruise missiles at the same time. Today, ballistic missiles cannot be installed on multipurpose nuclear submarines due to the difference in their mass and dimensional characteristics. "

That is, it cannot at the same time, but separately it can? The statement of the head of the USC Rakhmanov did not clarify anything either: "This will be a boat that will be unified - strategic and multipurpose in a number of its key elements." It is obviously impossible to understand the degree of unification from this phrase. But the reasons for the requirements for unification are quite obvious: Rakhmanov said bluntly that maximum unification is required in order to get the best price offer from the RF Ministry of Defense.

And then, at the end of 2019, there was complete clarity. As follows from the materials of the Federation Council, "Husky" will be able to carry both ballistic and cruise missiles through the use of various modules.

According to the author, the unification of SSBNs and MAPLs in this form is a mistake. An attempt at a compromise will lead to the fact that the ship will turn out to be significantly larger than is needed for the MPS, but at the same time the development of promising sea-based ICBMs will be squeezed into the "Procrustean bed" of dimensions, in which the MPS is still acceptable. That is, such "savings" will not benefit either the MAPL or the SSBN.

And again, the unification of SSBNs with a non-strategic nuclear submarine could be accepted if it was a question of creating a specialized submarine anti-aircraft carrier. That is, if, for example, a nuclear submarine was created, carrying, depending on the modification, either 16 intercontinental ballistic missiles, or a TLU for 70 or more anti-ship missiles, as it was implemented in the modernized version of the Anteyev project 949AM. Well, for other tasks, it would be possible to design the PLAT of the most moderate displacement. But we are talking about something completely different: the Husky is expected, among other things, to perform the tasks of the PLAT.

Double body


The author has repeatedly heard from naval officers that a single-hull design allows for a lower level of visibility than a two- or one and a half-hull. It is also known that Soviet-built and then Russian-built nuclear submarines are precisely two- or one-and-a-half hulls, while the Americans are building single-hull nuclear submarines.

What are the advantages of a double-hull design over a single-hull? Perhaps only the best buoyancy and survivability (although maybe there is something else, the author is still not an expert). But it is obvious that in combat conditions it is more important to have less visibility than better buoyancy. As for peacetime, the Americans proved that the survivability of the US nuclear submarine is quite sufficient to carry out their inherent tasks. Their atomarines do not shy away from ice.


There were also incidents of emergency situations: for example, collisions with our submarines. At the same time, the US nuclear submarines sometimes received very serious damage, but there were no cases of the death of American nuclear submarines (after the Thrasher and Skipjack disasters in the 60s of the last century).

In other words, the American experience shows that the creation of a completely reliable, but at the same time, single-hull nuclear submarine is quite possible. We would expect our designers to embrace this experience, but ... no. When asked by a reporter about the use of a single-hull design, deputy. N. Novoselov, General Director of Malakhit, replied:

“The concept of a double (strong inner and light outer) or one-and-a-half hull also remains a tradition in our submarine building. We believe this is a more cost-effective design than a single hull. ”

It can be assumed that this is due to the requirements of the Navy. Again, according to N. Novoselov: “... there are technical requirements, from which, as it seems to us, the Navy will not retreat. This is, for example, the percentage of unsinkability. " But why? It turns out that a double-hull submarine can be more reliable than a single-hull submarine in peacetime, but more vulnerable in wartime. And here sad reflections suggest themselves. Here are the current requirements for the buoyancy of the boat, they are very high and require a two-hull structure. You can, of course, abandon these requirements, lower them. And if then there is an accident with the new ship, who will be the "extreme"? The initiator of the transition to a single-body design, of course! So it is much easier and safer for the person in charge to give up and live the old fashioned way: well, to Neptune, this invisibility, we will continue to build two-hull ships.

Only now, warships are built for war, and not for peace. Admiral S.O. Makarov has been pointing out with a stone finger for 107 years: "Remember the war!"


Yes, just not for the future, it turns out?

Propeller or water cannon?


This is a very difficult question. What is a water cannon anyway? Roughly speaking, this is a screw stuck in a pipe. It seems to be simple, but in reality the water cannon is the most complex propulsion system.

On the one hand, the efficiency of a water jet is lower because energy is spent on friction of the water flow against the pipe. On the other hand, the efficiency of the impeller (propeller) of a water cannon is higher than that of a conventional propeller, so the water cannon may be even more effective in some modes. A water cannon can provide better maneuverability, but apparently only if its "pipe" is equipped with a rotating nozzle. On a boat, this design will not be too complicated. And on a submarine?

The use of water cannons on nuclear submarines is an extremely secret thing, there is no exact data in the open press. But if we assume that some of the features of civilian water cannons apply to the military, then this is what happens.

The main advantage of a water cannon is less noise than a propeller. Perhaps the reason is that the water in the "pipe" of the water cannon is, as it were, in an ideal state, while an open propeller works in conditions of sea currents, that is, the natural movement of water. And the main disadvantages of a water cannon are lower efficiency at low and medium speeds, large mass (also because from the point of view of displacement for a water cannon, one should take into account the mass of water inside it), and high cost.

It can be assumed that by choosing a water cannon, we will sacrifice the maneuverability of the submarine in favor of its low noise, while choosing a propeller - the opposite. Perhaps this is connected with the extremely strange fact that our newest SSBNs "Borey-A" are supplied with a water cannon, but the multi-purpose "Yaseni-M" - with a screw. But here everything is not at all simple.

It should be assumed that it was precisely the transition to water cannons that allowed the Americans to reach unprecedented speeds of low-noise travel (up to 20 knots). Accordingly, a submarine with a propeller can have the same noise level, but at a lower speed. But then everything becomes quite interesting.

A moving ship has a certain amount of energy, determined by its mass and speed. But any maneuver is associated with the loss of energy, which is spent, among other things, on overcoming the ship's inertia when its course and water resistance change. Thus, while maintaining the current operating mode of the power plant, maneuvering causes a drop in the ship's speed. But, of course, the commander of the ship, starting the maneuver, can "sink the pedal to the floor", giving full speed. In this case, the change in speed will depend not only on the loss of energy to perform the maneuver, but also on the additional energy that the power plant will impart to the ship.

All this has a direct analogy with the fighter aviation... There, the large energy of the aircraft is an advantage at the beginning of the "dog dump" - the fact is that, having made a series of energetic maneuvers, a fighter that had less energy before the start of the battle risks "failing" below the evolutionary speed and becoming an easy prey for the enemy, who, due to the greater "Energy reserve" retained controllability.

At the same time, civilian water cannons have one very interesting feature. They are inferior to a conventional screw in efficiency at small and medium moves, but they can win at large ones. And if this principle applies to the nuclear submarine, then ...

Imagine a confrontation between two nuclear submarines, identical in everything, except that one of them has a propeller, and the other has a water cannon. With the same noise level, the jet will have a higher speed and, accordingly, a greater supply of energy for maneuver. But when the nuclear submarines find each other, then there will be no need to hide, and both ships will be able to give full speed. However, in this case, the nuclear submarine with a water cannon will receive an additional advantage, since in addition to the greater energy at the beginning of an underwater battle, superiority in speed at full speed will also be added, due to the advantage in the efficiency of the water cannon in this mode.

In other words, at least theoretically, a submarine with a water-jet propeller will have superiority over a similar submarine with a screw propeller not only in stealth, but also in maneuverability.

So what will the Husky be equipped with: a propeller or a water cannon? Taking into account all of the above, as well as the general "water jetting" of the nuclear submarines of the USA, England, France, one would expect a water cannon, but ...

Is the Husky submarine so promising?

Oddly enough, in the photograph of the nuclear submarine, presented as "Laika-VMF", we see not a water cannon, but a propeller. Why?

Oh, how I want to believe that smart people in secret research institutes have calculated all the options, came up with a super-optimal propeller shape, having achieved superiority in maneuverability and comparable speed in low-noise mode with the "water-jet" submarines of our "sworn friends". And that for better realization of such opportunities, the Husky will be equipped with super-effective active and passive defense systems, at the sight of which any Virginia Block 100500 will simply burst into tears of envy and crawl out onto land, since it will have absolutely nothing to catch in the ocean. And that Vladimir Vladimirovich in the next (I don't remember which one) presidential term will definitely change the economic course of the Russian Federation, so that rivers of milk with jelly banks will come to us ...

It's just that it's much more convincing that in fact our developers took a simple and cheap, but far from the best way. And instead of creating an adequate water jet propulsion unit, we limited ourselves to “straightening” what is on the Ash-M. This option, no doubt, fits perfectly into the logic of "getting the best price offer." But whether it fits into the logic of creating a promising submarine, which will be able to effectively defend the sea borders of the Motherland for many decades, is a big question.

We can only hope that the presented Laiki-Navy model is some very, very preliminary, when the ship was designed on an initiative basis and was conceived as a modernization of the Ash. Or is it an export version focused on the Indian Navy. Or maybe someone accidentally sat down on a real Laiki-Navy model just before the start of the exhibition, and had to urgently change it, taking out a model from the Soviet era from the store. Or it does not correspond to the real prototype at all and is cobbled together according to the principle “it will do just that”. Someone had enough conscience to pull out a model of the Soviet atomic TAVKR "Ulyanovsk" and, having attached a new superstructure to it, to declare a project of a promising aircraft carrier!


After all, as stated earlier, it is entirely possible that the image presented is deliberate misinformation. In general, Nadezhda dies last (Vera said and shot Lyubov).

Size matters


The photo with the Laiki-Navy model shows the ship's displacement: 11 tons. Most likely, we are talking about an underwater displacement, and in this case, we can say that the ship turned out to be somewhat smaller than both the Ash and even Shchuk- B "project 340 - their underwater displacement exceeds 971 tons (in a number of media outlets even 12 tons are indicated for" Ash ").

Let me remind you that there is surface and underwater displacement of submarines. Surface represents the weight of the ship itself, as if it were weighed on gigantic scales. Thus, if we want, for example, to compare a surface and submarine ship in terms of displacement, then for the submarine it is necessary to take the surface displacement. But the underwater displacement is equal to the volume of water displaced by the boat underwater.

Very simplistic: an iron ship does not sink because its specific gravity (ratio of mass to volume) is less than that of water. A ship with a weight of 8 tons and a volume of 000 cubic meters. m, will submerge so that its 10 cubic meters. m will be under water, and 000 cubic meters. m will be above the water. Accordingly, in order to dive to the very deck (zero buoyancy), such a ship will need to take another 8 tons of water.

And therefore, it should be understood that when comparing the underwater displacement, we are not comparing the mass of the submarines, but their volumes, or, if you like, the masses of the ships themselves plus the masses of the water they received (this is not a completely correct definition, but for understanding the principle it will do quite well). That is why there is no need to faint from the realization of the underwater displacement of our famous TRPKSN project 941 "Akula", which is as much as 48 tons (!), Since the mass of the ship itself, that is, its surface displacement is more than half. Which, of course, also "inspires", but still more or less within reason.


So, our lead "Ash" significantly surpassed the American "Virginia" Block 5, carrying a vertical launcher (VPU) for 40 "Tomahawks". "American", according to BMPD, has 7 tons of surface displacement and 900 tons of underwater displacement, and "Ash" - 10 surface displacement and either 200 or 8 underwater. The Yasen-M turned out to be more modest in size and displacement, but its surface displacement is probably still more than 600 tons, that is, it still remains the largest submarine in the world. But if the underwater displacement of the Husky is the declared 12 tons, then given its double hull and the fact that the Soviet / Russian nuclear submarines usually surpassed American submarines in terms of buoyancy, it can be assumed that the surface displacement of the Laiki-Navy is still lower than the latest version of "Virginia". But, obviously, it is still higher than that of the "torpedo" variations of American nuclear submarines, as well as submarines of England and France. If we were talking about the creation of a specialized ship for "anti-aircraft" divisions, then one could put up with this, but for multipurpose nuclear submarines, such weights are excessive. And in terms of underwater displacement, the Husky continues to hold the world championship that is completely unnecessary for us, and this is also not very cool.

It remains to be hoped that the Husky is being created as a unique nuclear submarine platform, on the basis of which it is possible to build an SSBN (with a missile compartment under an ICBM), an SSGN (with a missile compartment for an anti-ship missile and anti-ship missile system) and a submarine (without a missile compartment). And that the photo shows a multipurpose missile version, and the torpedo "hunter" will be much more modest in weight and volume. That's just ... The Americans, too, at one time decided to save money by creating a single plane for the needs of the Air Force, Navy and ILC. The resulting F-35, to put it mildly, is very difficult to attribute to the success of the American aircraft industry. Are we not going the same way, designing one ship for almost all the tasks of the submarine fleet? Have we not relaxed, designing ships for service in peacetime, in the argument "and in war the sailors will come up with something"?

I'd like to believe that not. But ... looking at strange dances with corvettes 20385 and 20386 (buy a corvette at the price of a frigate, but don't think that the second one will be given to you for free!), At the stupid patrolmen of Project 22160, built in the absence of modern IPCs in the fleet, at the state of mine-sweeping forces , for investments in deck attack helicopters, while the fleet does not have modern PLO aircraft and so on and so on, you begin to seriously fear that the country, having financed the Husky R&D, Laika R&D and other work on the creation of the newest MAPL, will receive at the output "Not a mouse, not a frog, but an unknown animal."

"Author! - an indignant reader might say. - Well, could you find anything positive in the news about the Husky? It never happens that everything is really bad right now! "

There is positive news, how not to be. So positive ... that it would have been better if they weren't.

Husky and network centrics


At the exhibition "Defexpo-2014" the General Director of SPMBM "Malakhit" V. Dorofeev said:

“The distinctive features of a promising submarine should be sought not in increased speed, deep diving, displacement, dimensions, but in completely other things that are invisible - the possibility of their integration into a single information space of the Ministry of Defense, interaction with surface ships and aviation in real time, then there is, the possibility of their participation in network-centric wars. "

It would seem that this is really good news, and in many ways it is. Today, the nuclear submarine in a submerged position is literally cut off from the world: communication with other warships, aircraft, etc. extremely complicated. Therefore, the creation of technologies that retain the advantage in stealth, but at the same time integrate nuclear submarines into network-centric control systems, is a matter of paramount importance. That's just ... How are they going to integrate?

According to V. Dorofeev, through the widespread use of robotic equipment from the submarine. O. Vlasov, the head of the robotics sector of the St. Petersburg Maritime Bureau of Mechanical Engineering "Malakhit", specified that robotics on a submarine would be able to work both in the air and in the water.

It seems to be just great, isn't it? But there is a nuance. V. Dorofeev in an interview bluntly clarified: "There is serious scientific research on the problems that have not been resolved: communication under water, speed and information capacity of channels." That is, there is research, but the problems have not been resolved. This means that such robotics must either be connected to the nuclear submarine by a cable (especially flying, yeah), or be able to collect information on their own, and then return to the carrier. So, as far as the author understands, the procedures for launching and accepting such robotics aboard nuclear submarines will in themselves become a very serious unmasking factor. After all, the ship will have to go to a predetermined area, take a certain depth, which may turn out to be sub-optimal in terms of stealth, etc. etc. And who prevents our "sworn friends" from tracking the landing of the same reconnaissance UAV launched from the nuclear submarine on the water, and using it to determine the location of the ship?

All this, of course, does not mean at all that such robotics should not be dealt with. It is necessary, and over time it will bring results. But…

To date, the Russian Navy has not resolved the key problems with the torpedo and anti-torpedo weapons of submarines. Those interested in this topic, I strongly recommend that you familiarize yourself with the materials of M. Klimov, some of which, by the way, are published on "VO" Yes, of course, someone perceives this author as an "alarmist", ready to shout "everything is lost" for any reason. But personally, I did not manage to find at least some well-grounded objections refuting what M. Klimov writes about the deepest crisis of the domestic fleet in terms of torpedo armament and anti-torpedo protection equipment of even our most modern warships.

In short, today the practice of firing remote-controlled torpedoes over long distances, salvo firing, ice firing, and there are reasonable doubts that the available materiel will allow our submariners to do all this satisfactorily, has not been developed at all. While for American and European submariners, such things are routine of combat training. Accordingly, M. Klimov quite rightly notes: in the event of the outbreak of hostilities, our submariners will have to fight with a pistol against a sniper rifle. And as for our anti-torpedo weapons, they are created according to the technical specification, which was relevant in the 80s, well, maybe in the 90s of the last century and is almost useless against the latest foreign torpedoes.

In these conditions, we should, firstly, realize the existing problems, and, secondly, take the most decisive measures to eradicate them. Moreover, all this is fully within our power. But won't it turn out that instead we will redirect cash flows and pump them into "network-centric robotics"? And will it not turn out that, based on the results of all the above-mentioned work, research and development and development work, we will receive a suboptimal MAPL, armed with a “pistol against a sniper rifle”, which does not have any sort of sane anti-torpedo protection, but on the other hand, it is equipped with “super robots”, which in a combat situation no one dares to use it so as not to unmask the ship?

"But what about the hypersonic Zircons?" - the dear reader will ask. Alas, if the pessimism of the author of this article is justified, then the real capabilities of the Husky will not allow our submariners to use this weapon to any extent.
Author:
Articles from this series:
"Ash-M": the long-awaited, necessary and dear
216 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. mark1
    mark1 5 August 2020 05: 56 New
    12
    It is not a rewarding occupation to talk about what is not. Although modularity certainly raises questions - you have to lie low and wait ...
    1. umah
      umah 5 August 2020 08: 08 New
      +4
      Is the Husky submarine so promising?


      If they launch it, then yes. And if once a year they say that a breakthrough with VNEU is close, then we don't need that.
      1. umah
        umah 5 August 2020 08: 21 New
        +7
        Damn, VNEU is "LADA". I apologize.
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 5 August 2020 12: 24 New
      -4
      The most important thing is that Laika doesn't exist. This is a useless sticking of money into nowhere.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 5 August 2020 19: 36 New
        11
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The most important thing is that Laika doesn't exist. This is a useless sticking of money into nowhere.

        Namesake, you're wrong! (And not LEO - too! laughing )
        Laika is a study of the concept of a 5+ or even 6th generation PLA. Searching for optium. But what happens - we'll see.
        AHA
        1. bayard
          bayard 6 August 2020 00: 44 New
          +4
          And I agree with the opinion of Alexander, as well as with the opinion of Andrey, that in the proposed form such a "husky \ laika" is not needed - it will be another, albeit more pumped "Ash". Expensive, complex, in a small number, which will be a pity to release to escort and cover the "Boreys", and the hunters from which will turn out to be unimportant because they will be LITTLE.
          MAPLs should be of moderate displacement, have only TA, with the ability to launch through them and KR, PLUR. The development of the 945 project for this role would be quite suitable, because the Fleet needs about 24 such MAPLs. , and at the same time, so as not to ruffle.
          And if nuclear submarine arsenals are needed, with KR batteries in the UVP, then it is much more reasonable to build 6 - 8 Borey-K on the Borei-A base - this will also ensure maximum unification, reduce costs, and facilitate maintenance and training.
          And a dozen "Ash" as not MAPL, namely SSGN, our Fleet is quite enough, especially if we bear in mind the upcoming modernization of several 949 under the carriers "Caliber" and "Zircon".
          All these unreasonable, irrational attempts to build huge, expensive (like two "Boreas") ... pseudo-MAPL ... this is either stupidity or sabotage.
          We need MASSIVE multipurpose nuclear submarines of moderate VI, in the amount of at least 24 pieces. - 12 for each fleet, on the basis that half of them will cover the Borei, and the other half will carry out independent combat missions. It will not be possible to provide such a serial production of any "Husky \ Likes", even the Soviet Union would not be easy at all. And we live in Russia. And in the yard there is CRISIS - all budgets are being cut in order to save money.
          When the first reports about the Husky program appeared, there was a hope that a new reincarnation of Lyra would appear, at a new, more advanced technical level ... but everything slipped into a riot of immoderate fantasies. So that
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          The most important thing is that Laika doesn't exist. This is a useless sticking of money into nowhere.

          The Navy needs MAPLs, not missile cruisers ... nuclear submarines ... these have already been built.
          hi
          1. Nemchinov Vl
            Nemchinov Vl 6 August 2020 22: 42 New
            +1
            welcome hi Vitaly !!!
            Quote: bayard
            When the first reports about the Husky program appeared, there was hope that a new reincarnation of the Lyra would appear, on a new, more advanced technical

            Quote: bayard
            MAPLs should be of moderate displacement, have only TA, with the ability to launch through them and KR, PLUR. The development of 945 projects for this role would be fine.

            fully agree. yes
        2. avg
          avg 6 August 2020 13: 38 New
          +4
          Quote: BoA KAA
          Searching for optium. But what happens - we'll see.
          AHA

          AHA! It is good that nuclear submarines are not accepted into service through discussion at the VO. And then the guys have already caught all the black cats in the dark room. wink
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 6 August 2020 19: 33 New
            +2
            Quote: avg
            Nuclear submarines are not accepted for service

            Therefore, they do not accept that the "nuclear submarine" is an EMERGENCY submarine! laughing Atomic is a "PLA", but it will be ... So:
            "More thoroughly, more thoroughly it is necessary" (c) ... uh-uh, formulate your thoughts!
            AHA. yes
            1. avg
              avg 6 August 2020 21: 36 New
              -1
              Quote: BoA KAA
              Therefore, they do not accept that the "nuclear submarine" is an EMERGENCY submarine!

              In my text, the nuclear submarine is AHA, which is a submarine.
              AHA. yes
        3. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 6 August 2020 14: 41 New
          +1
          Laika is a scaled down Ash tree with minimal improvements. The same concept is everywhere.
          No sense from such a boat, it has not even been drawn to the end, and it is already worse than "Virginias".

          In general, it seems like it's time to get down to the article "PLA of the future". I put it off for a year, apparently it can't be put off any longer ...
          1. Alex777
            Alex777 11 August 2020 22: 07 New
            0
            Andrey did not reveal the topic of using composites in the construction of the Husky's body.
            I hope for you. wink
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 11 August 2020 23: 22 New
              0
              This question is open-closed laughing
              It is open for designers, but the FSB considers it closed.
              wink
      2. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl 6 August 2020 22: 37 New
        +1
        while reading the article, and did not get to the signature, I thought it was written by you - Alexander. I was surprised to see the author's signature. What have you done with Klimov ?! Have you "turned over Andrey" ?! belay just kidding, do not be offended plz. wink
    3. venik
      venik 5 August 2020 16: 31 New
      11
      Quote: mark1
      It is not a rewarding occupation to talk about what is not. Although modularity certainly raises questions - you have to lie low and wait ...

      =======
      good drinks Hmm! An article from the series "Much Ado About Nothing" .... Or in other words: "Reasoning about assumptions"! .....
  2. Maks7877
    Maks7877 5 August 2020 06: 11 New
    -1
    Article +
    Regarding the unification of SSBNs and MAPLs.
    The Americans, on the other hand, have experience in converting Ohio SSBNs into a CD carrier, which seems to be successful.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 August 2020 07: 23 New
      +6
      I have experience. But you need to understand that as a result of this experience, the US Navy received not an MAPL, but an SSBN with cruise missiles - the tasks of the MAPL such Ohio still cannot perform.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 5 August 2020 08: 51 New
        -3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I have experience. But you need to understand that as a result of this experience, the US Navy received not an MAPL, but an SSBN with cruise missiles - the tasks of the MAPL such Ohio still cannot perform.

        Namesake, the boundaries between the classes of the nuclear submarine are erased. Let's take the same Yasen-M. Why not a carrier of the KR? And if you take Antey ... he can perform the same tasks as, say, Pike-B. Of course not as effective, but still ...
        As for the Husky, it is not yet clear what our managers want at the exit. It is important here that with this unification not wander into the jungle, in which we ourselves will get lost. And for me, a specific and clear task has not been assigned to the designers. So far there are only Wishlist.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          5 August 2020 09: 38 New
          10
          Andrey, welcome!
          Quote: NEXUS
          Namesake, the boundaries between the classes of the nuclear submarine are being erased.

          Yes, somehow not really. Nobody today is trying to create a single platform for SSBN and MAPL - except us.
          Quote: NEXUS
          Let's take the same Ash-M. Why not a CD carrier?

          So he is precisely that the carrier of the CD, as the PLAT will still be too big. And Mace cannot be piled on it.
          Quote: NEXUS
          And if you take Antey ... he can perform the same tasks as, say, Pike-B. Of course not as effective, but still ...

          that's what I'm talking about. If there was a unification along the lines of SSGNs and PLATs, I would understand. If there was unification along the lines of SSGNs and SSBNs, I would understand. But here's the SSBN and PLAT ...
          Quote: NEXUS
          And for me, a specific and clear task has not been assigned to the designers.

          I'm afraid they did. Only not at all what you need. "Make a unified platform for SSBN and MAPL, and cheaper!" It seems that financial issues are being brought to the forefront, and even they are resolved incorrectly
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 5 August 2020 20: 21 New
            +7
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            "Make a unified platform for SSBN and MAPL, and cheaper!"

            Perhaps you are right. BUT!
            1. If they make a single body with "inserts" for RPKSN / SSGN and without an insert for a multipurpose vehicle, then:
            a) it will be necessary to sculpt a super SLBM with a detanational ring engine for a rocket in the dimensions of a "mini-pini" ... The power industry of such an SLBM will be ... not a Sarmat one - definitely! Therefore, the new "rpkSN-6 generation" will have to get out of the air defense missile system into the Ocean, close to the enemy's mobile PLO. Dangerous. Cover something, that ... Therefore, they can detect and drown.
            b) 4-7 CRBDs of type 3M29 or X = 102 will be inserted into the holes and there will be a beater for the BC, like in the nuts.
            c) multipurpose submarines will not be made purely torpedo. It will most likely be missile and torpedo (in terms of weapon range). The main problem is in SJSC and AT. Case / physicist-2 seems to be slowly, but makes its way to the fleet. Well, of course - stealth in all fields. Therefore, Laika will (so they say) have a PC made of composite ... and a bunch of cushion platforms and smart skin and so on and so forth.
            AHA.
          2. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 7 August 2020 09: 06 New
            0
            But here's the SSBN and PLAT ...

            J. Washington and Skipjack
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 5 August 2020 20: 03 New
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The US Navy did not receive an MPS, but an SSBN with cruise missiles - such an Ohio still cannot perform the tasks of the MPS.

        Andrew, hi
        1. Nut with KRBD - a weapon of the first strike and on the coast, and not on ships at sea. This is a "strategic" SSGN, which in practice (Desert Storm) worked out its BZs to destroy the enemy's air defense / missile defense, disrupt communications and control, destroy the command post and other protected BC ...
        2. Possessing a sufficiently powerful SAC and torpedo armament, this submarine can seriously "upset" a gaping enemy with its torpedo strike.
        Yes, she will not chase the enemy's PLA and carry out a search at the turn, but if "in the course of the play" she turns up the enemy's NK or PL, she can calmly attack him with her weapon. (She has 4 NTA with 10-12 torpedoes both for self-defense and for attacking targets).
    2. Earthshaker
      Earthshaker 5 August 2020 07: 35 New
      0
      So Ohio was designed as a carrier of the Trident SLBM, and not as a universal carrier of cr and br. This option appeared much later than the construction of the last building. Nobody had planned this opportunity in advance.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 7 August 2020 20: 02 New
        +1
        Initially SSBNs were based on PLAT
  3. Errr
    Errr 5 August 2020 06: 54 New
    10
    Andrey, you write:
    ... in terms of displacement for a jet, the mass of water inside it should be considered ...
    In no way the mass of "internal" water in the water cannon should not be taken into account, together with the mass of the structure of the water cannon itself, due to its openness to the surrounding space. From the point of view of Archimedes, this "internal" water is an integral part of the "external" water that is deafly connected to it. smile Both of these waters in our case are a single indivisible whole.
    Actually, it is not your fault that someone once started walking around in the minds of this misunderstanding regarding the accounting of the mass of water in the water cannon together with the mass of the water cannon itself. This idea, to my regret, is already quite bearded, but there is nothing, in my opinion, to continue to consider someone's thoughtlessness as an immutable truth.
    1. Avior
      Avior 5 August 2020 07: 11 New
      +6
      this water, as well as the one that is between the strong and light hull of the boat in double-hull boats, does not need to be taken into account when calculating the displacement, but when calculating the mass of the boat, which affects the inertial, and therefore accelerating and maneuvering characteristics, it probably makes sense to take into account, so how this water moves with the boat.
      Perhaps the confusion you are writing about stemmed from this feature.
      hi
      1. Errr
        Errr 5 August 2020 07: 24 New
        +3
        You have noticed everything well about the "interbody reservoir" lol , and I completely agree with you here, but about the misunderstanding with "internal water jet" is, alas, a completely different story. In the same way, they try to include its weight in the weight of the jet, for example, and on boats too. hi
        1. Avior
          Avior 5 August 2020 07: 56 New
          +1
          It is, of course, incorrect to include in the weight of the jet, and in the total displacement too, but in some cases it is necessary to take this water into account
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 August 2020 07: 30 New
      +1
      Errr, thanks for the comment. I will not insist, as with physics I am still so-so. But nevertheless, I note that when a ship receives a hole, its displacement increases by the amount of water taken inside, although it is fully communicated with the sea (through the hole). That is, the fact of the indivisibility of water alone does not seem to be in conflict with Comrade Archimedes
      1. Errr
        Errr 5 August 2020 07: 42 New
        +9
        When a part of a ship is flooded (regardless of the reason), its internal volume simply decreases, because the submerged part of it becomes part of the surrounding aquatic environment. As a result, its buoyancy decreases, because its weight has not changed at the same time, and to compensate for the first, the ship is simply forced to displace an additional amount of water equal to the volume that entered its interior and, as a result, "sink" into the water. In short, this is the mechanism for drowning ships. lol
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          5 August 2020 08: 39 New
          -1
          It's actually a question of definitions. The mass of the incoming water can be added to the displacement, like any cargo received by the ship.
          1. Errr
            Errr 5 August 2020 09: 08 New
            +7
            Not only is it possible, but it should also be added, but only after sealing the hole [isolating "internal water from" external "].
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              5 August 2020 09: 17 New
              +5
              Well, this is logical. Everything that you wrote to me is clear and has no internal contradictions. I am not an expert to judge, but what you told me I will remember. Thank!
              1. Errr
                Errr 5 August 2020 09: 23 New
                +3
                Thank you for the article, which made the topic of the promising Russian MAPL and my brain to move at the same time. smile hi
  4. Errr
    Errr 5 August 2020 07: 16 New
    +2
    From the text of the article:
    Let me remind you that there is surface and underwater displacement of submarines. Surface represents the weight of the ship itself, as if it were weighed on gigantic scales.
    smile Well, just an instant smile, tk. the total weight of the ship is just its total weight and nothing else. Surface displacement is the weight of the water displaced by the hull when the ship is on the surface. When a submarine is in a submerged position, it displaces the amount of water, the weight of which is the total displacement of the first.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 August 2020 07: 34 New
      +1
      The question is that it displaces water as much as it weighs. What is the reason for smiling?
      1. Errr
        Errr 5 August 2020 07: 45 New
        -1
        The smile here is that when weighing on gigantic scales, we just get to the surface, namely the full displacement of the vessel.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          5 August 2020 08: 43 New
          +5
          I'm afraid you are very wrong. The total displacement is characterized not by the measurement method, but by the specific composition and mass of the cargo received by the ship. It is the weights that determine the type of displacement - standard, normal, full ... But in whatever of these displacements the ship is, the scales will show it, and it will displace exactly this mass of water. So your smile leaves a very strange impression ...
          1. Errr
            Errr 5 August 2020 09: 03 New
            +4
            Sorry, Andrei, I really froze it. On the scales, we will get the total displacement of the submarine only when the main ballast tanks are filled (when zero buoyancy is reached). When weighing a dry vessel, we get the above-water displacement, of course. You're right. hi .
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              5 August 2020 09: 07 New
              +3
              I beg your pardon if I was too harsh - it seemed to me that you and I had a dispute for the sake of dispute. repeat I realized the depth of my wrong drinks
              1. Errr
                Errr 5 August 2020 09: 14 New
                +1
                Shouldn't we fill the tanks exactly before reaching the periscope depth? laughing
                An argument for the sake of a dispute is just a stupor. drinks
                Eh, haste ... Here I am a sinner about myself. laughing
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  5 August 2020 10: 36 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Herrr
                  Shouldn't we fill the tanks exactly before reaching the periscope depth?

                  Beer? laughing I agree drinks
      2. Grim Reaper
        Grim Reaper 6 August 2020 15: 21 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The question is that it displaces water as much as it weighs. What is the reason for smiling?

        Lord, where are you from? Volume, not weight .....
        1. Grim Reaper
          Grim Reaper 6 August 2020 15: 30 New
          +1
          You can immerse a 16 kg weight in the bathroom, or a suitable size kvass bottle. The volume of displaced water will not change, 16 kg there or up to 1 kg does not reach.
    2. Avior
      Avior 5 August 2020 08: 00 New
      +3
      In underwater displacement, it is probably necessary to take into account the weight of water in ballast tanks or reduce the volume by the volume of filled tanks
      1. Errr
        Errr 5 August 2020 09: 04 New
        0
        And again you are exactly on point. good
      2. Grim Reaper
        Grim Reaper 6 August 2020 15: 42 New
        +1
        Quote: Avior
        In underwater displacement, it is probably necessary to take into account the weight of water in ballast tanks or reduce the volume by the volume of filled tanks

        nothing to consider. Underwater - how much water it displaces. Well, if you put a balloon in the water, for example, it will raise 3 liters of water, and then you will fill it with lead, to the same thickness. And how much will it raise? The same 3 liters .... Sorry for the mistakes. From the bodies I write where my fingers are in 4 letters ...
        1. Avior
          Avior 6 August 2020 15: 46 New
          -1
          The balloon does not displace water, it will fly away
  5. Avior
    Avior 5 August 2020 07: 24 New
    +3
    A very interesting article, which, incidentally, is typical for the author.
    The only thing is that the possibility of installing the propeller in the impeller has not been considered, or, as the fenestron is sometimes written, the ring around the propeller, which reduces noise, but is not a water cannon
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 5 August 2020 12: 23 New
      +1
      See how it is done in Virginias and Boreas.
      1. Avior
        Avior 5 August 2020 12: 43 New
        +2
        I about it
        There is an impeller on Virginia
        Theoretically, you can consider his appearance on the Husky.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 5 August 2020 13: 24 New
          +1
          Well, on the models and pictures there is a low-speed screw.
        2. d4rkmesa
          d4rkmesa 5 August 2020 21: 44 New
          +1
          Is it? In foreign articles BAE-th mover Virginia is also usually called a pump jet.
          1. Avior
            Avior 5 August 2020 22: 23 New
            +2
            Probably I'm wrong, on Virginia there really is a water cannon, in English-language sources they write just that, in ours they often have a ring around the screw.
            As an option, terminology features, but I doubt it.
            A water cannon and an impeller are completely different in their principle of operation, although they may look similar from the outside.
            hi
            1. d4rkmesa
              d4rkmesa 6 August 2020 09: 04 New
              +1
              Here, of course, the big question is how everything really works there. The BAE propeller differs from traditional water cannons in its low elongation, in general, it is so in almost all promising projects. Probably, nowadays they make more often "hybrid" propellers, well, as in aviation - either a propeller or a fan.
  6. Earthshaker
    Earthshaker 5 August 2020 07: 30 New
    -1
    Considering the experience of designing and building useless junk 22160 and other caliber carriers (even the design of a hydrofoil boat was proudly announced), it is difficult to expect sanity from both the drafters of the technical specification and from the shipbuilders. Stability is our everything.
  7. antivirus
    antivirus 5 August 2020 07: 50 New
    -3
    "Husky", smoothly flowed into development work (ROC) under the code "Laika"

    AND THE BOAT WILL BE - "WILD" - will be registered in the backyard of the USA
    1. Berber
      Berber 5 August 2020 09: 18 New
      0
      Better closer, you can sometimes "Hudson's Bay".
      1. antivirus
        antivirus 5 August 2020 09: 25 New
        0
        it is inside Canada, but what to call it? -French Bulldog?
        1. Berber
          Berber 5 August 2020 09: 27 New
          0
          No, the mongrel is so mongrel. If only there was.
        2. 5-9
          5-9 5 August 2020 10: 40 New
          0
          So Newfoundland !!! A healthy good-natured black haired animal that loves and knows how to swim ... it's a pity the breed has lost its popularity
  8. Bashkirkhan
    Bashkirkhan 5 August 2020 08: 06 New
    +6
    stupid patrolmen of project 22160, built in the absence of the fleet

    In theory, these patrolmen were supposed to conserve the resource of rank 1 and 2 ships, so as not to distract them to participate in the Joint Anti-Piracy Squadron in the Somalia-Yemen region. However, piracy in the area died about five or six years ago, and not thanks to international naval efforts. Piracy was eradicated in a relatively short time by the presence of armed guards on board commercial ships. A group of fighters of 4 people was constantly on board - a constant watch on the bridge, when a suspicious floating craft approached at a distance of less than 2 cables - opening fire to kill. Potential pirates, having become acquainted with this practice, quickly realized one thing - approaching foreign commercial ships is fraught with frustration. The armed guards on board had nothing to do with the joint squadron, flag administrations, or shipowners (by and large); the presence of guards was squeezed by insurance companies, who were tired of paying for the kidnapped crews. As a result, 22160 was not useful as an anti-pirate ship.
  9. The comment was deleted.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 August 2020 09: 02 New
      +2
      Well, if the words of responsible persons at the level of deputies and directors of the design bureau developer and the models demonstrated to the country's top officials are "nothing to talk about" ...
  10. sevtrash
    sevtrash 5 August 2020 08: 55 New
    +1
    It is impossible to achieve the characteristics of the US nuclear submarine until the level of the economy, investment in education, basic science, and R&D is equal to that of the American. And until there is the same number and quality of firms that are engaged in the development of weapons, as in NATO. So there are no real prospects for reaching the US level. But, of course, it is necessary to move towards the ideal.
    It is more than obvious that specialists, profile managers understand this - that they are lagging behind and will not be able to catch up, unless in something private. Well, they do something, but it is unrealistic to expect the level of the USA, because it is impossible.
    In addition, one must take into account the "cut", if the manager "got" the budget money, in addition to distributing it to interested people, patching up gaps, it is necessary to show at least something as a result. At least in the form of a gradual movement forward, renew the paint on the old sample, etc. The cut, of course, is there too, but not so large in relative terms, and most importantly, there is a result that is controlled at a much higher level.
    1. 5-9
      5-9 5 August 2020 10: 44 New
      -2
      Well, in air defense systems or anti-ship missiles or ground-based ICBMs, we definitely surpass them. In hypersound (whatever is meant by this). In aviation we only lag behind in time, in tanks we are not inferior and are about to overtake .... etc. and so on ..... and only for nuclear submarines it is necessary to exceed the vague "level of economy"?
      Maybe for us, the Premier League, is not as critical as the rest?
    2. d4rkmesa
      d4rkmesa 5 August 2020 21: 15 New
      +1
      Catching up with the United States is usually not necessary. Other approaches can be used. After all, there are the British and the French who build their authentic submarines on a much lower budget. Moreover, the British in the Premier League are considered to be something like leaders. True, the weapons are mostly American. It is not necessary to copy the approaches of Boeing or NASA, for example, you can work with your head and do differently. By the way, even inside the US it works - from the latter, it seems, the "flying pan" Mask will still take place and will compete with the SLS for a yard. Or NuScale reactors, opposite the bankrupt Westinghouse, which no one wanted to save in the same form. I think you shouldn't hesitate to do it cheaply and outside the box.
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 6 August 2020 12: 56 New
        +1
        Quote: d4rkmesa
        I think you shouldn't hesitate to do it cheaply and outside the box.

        A really good product is never cheap.
        1. d4rkmesa
          d4rkmesa 6 August 2020 13: 28 New
          0
          Well, is SLS PH for a billion native gray-green candy wrappers - a good product? Or a $ 4 million 300th generation fighter made by France or the United States? Or the B-2, which costs like the Shuttle? Certainly. But only if we completely abstract from the issue of cost. Even in the US, they have already realized that, roughly speaking, it will be enough to "feed" only Boeing and LM.
  11. common man
    common man 5 August 2020 08: 56 New
    0
    And if you install the entire angle-controlled nozzle on the water cannon, like on fighters? Can you get super maneuverability? (If anything, just thinking out loud).
    1. Avior
      Avior 5 August 2020 09: 42 New
      +2
      In principle, it is possible - jet sprint is built on this
      https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.popmech.ru/adrenalin/6425-reaktivnyy-sprint-na-zhidkoy-trasse/amp/

      But with nuclear submarines it is more difficult - the speed is not the same, and the size and mass.
      If you put on bombers, a super-maneuverable fighter will not work.
      But it will add maneuverability to the boat at low speed.
      1. common man
        common man 5 August 2020 09: 50 New
        0
        Quote: Avior
        If you put on bombers, a super-maneuverable fighter will not work.

        Rudder propellers are installed on surface ships. For the same purposes. And on big ships. For submarines, maneuverability at low (low-noise) speed is probably not unimportant. Moreover, both horizontally and vertically.
        1. Avior
          Avior 5 August 2020 10: 31 New
          0
          And other thrusters, not just speakers
          On boats, as far as I remember, there are speakers too
      2. frog
        frog 6 August 2020 22: 54 New
        0
        A nozzle with a variable cross-sectional area will fairly decently improve the characteristics of the propeller not in the design (initially) modes. That is, its thrust at medium and low moves will improve, as well as the maneuver with this very thrust. But here's how to build this on this pelvis ....... The process of creating this devas on an ordinary water jet engine of a boat was quite hemorrhoid ... True, there were enthusiasts in the garage (conditionally)))) doing ..... But knowing the state of affairs in the nonesh "shield forges", I'm afraid there will be a lot of hemorrhoids ...
  12. nikant
    nikant 5 August 2020 09: 04 New
    -6
    land huskies and huskies have never swam great and dived great - a priori ... there will be useless fuss - akin to a mace ...
  13. Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 5 August 2020 09: 09 New
    +2
    Why smear the obvious like that?

    1. Unification, of course, only by components. Reactors, life support, observation devices. It makes no sense to unify the thousand-ton cases, which are still made piece by piece. Is that at the level of parts: pipes, frames, sheets, hatches. All that is done by the parties.

    2. The price of such ships is generally a philosophical question. No matter how much it costs, it will be produced by workers who already receive a salary and do nothing useful except the defense industry. The only question is how much will be able to steal on "unparalleled innovation."
  14. Desperado
    Desperado 5 August 2020 09: 11 New
    +1
    Quote: man in the street
    And if you install the entire angle-controlled nozzle on the water cannon, like on fighters? Can you get super maneuverability? (If anything, just thinking out loud)


    It will not help, at the moment we are losing in the effectiveness of the use of torpedo weapons.
    1. common man
      common man 5 August 2020 09: 42 New
      0
      Quote: Desperado
      Will not help,

      The question is not whether it will help or help US. The question is in the very possibility and increase in maneuverability.
  15. Operator
    Operator 5 August 2020 10: 09 New
    -10
    The ten-kiloton Laika / Husky is a dead end, a one-kiloton SSNS with a 10-megawatt nuclear power plant from the NPA Poseidon and twenty Zircons / Shkvalami-2 on board is required.

    PS None of the nuclear submarines have water cannons, but there are hydrodynamic propeller nozzles.
  16. VicktorVR
    VicktorVR 5 August 2020 10: 19 New
    0
    It is not clear why the author wrote so many letters, if he himself repeatedly admits that he is not an expert.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 August 2020 10: 35 New
      +8
      Quote: VicktorVR
      It is not clear why the author wrote so many letters, if he himself repeatedly admits that he is not an expert.

      There is such a thing - "public control" is called. It is for him that the imported guys in the same USA disclose the costs of their MO, including for R&D, indicating the main performance characteristics of products (where possible). Roughly speaking, the taxpayer needs to know where his money is going. We do not know.
      We only had such a thing in the GPV 2011-2020. After the program came up with a bang and failure in almost all respects, they decided to classify laughing
      1. VicktorVR
        VicktorVR 5 August 2020 10: 54 New
        -1
        It is difficult with public control in high-tech areas.
        And given the secrecy of most of the information on the defense industry, and in general nothing.

        It is somehow strange to do an analysis based on "crumbs" that "woke up" (or "spilled" on purpose?) In the media, while honestly admitting that he is not an expert.

        For a full-fledged analysis, you need to professionally delve into the topic, get at least some reliable and complete information ... The result will not be soon and classified laughing
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          5 August 2020 11: 03 New
          10
          Quote: VicktorVR
          For a full-fledged analysis, you need to professionally delve into the topic, get at least some reliable and complete information ... The result will not be soon and classified

          Sorry, but this is nonsense, from the word "complete". The balance between secrecy and openness of information is quite achievable. And with your logic, it turns out that I have no right to speak about, for example, a broken tooth after treatment. I’m not a professional, I don’t know why exactly he broke down, what physical and chemical-biological processes led to this. So you need to be silent in a rag and prepare money for a false jaw :)))))
          You voice a position that is very convenient for the authorities. After all, the best way to protect yourself from criticism is not to let you know about your mistakes.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 5 August 2020 12: 20 New
            +2
            This is what the Americans call the crab bucket. "Oh, what are you, very smart? And here I am for you now!"
          2. VicktorVR
            VicktorVR 5 August 2020 13: 00 New
            -1
            Regarding the professional level, are you comparing your own tooth, which has been with you for more than a dozen years around the clock, which you use every day more than once and have thoroughly studied with a promising PL, about which you learned something in the media? :)
            Even about a broken tooth of another person after repair, it is already impossible to 100% unequivocally say what is the reason.

            That is why we will not catch up, and will not overtake in any way, that it is believed that "any profession can be mastered in 3 months." Yes, these are the pearls given by "effective managers". And then they buy at the enterprise, in principle, not bad equipment that is unsuitable for this particular production. (This is followed by the epic "so that we all do this on this, so as not to stand in vain" :))

            To assess the same fighting qualities, you really need to know clearly secret details. To assess which there should be independent experts in different departments. But for this, these departments should have a task not to drink the dough, but to increase the country's defense capability.
            Bringing promising samples of military equipment to the court of the "ball" and "shvonders" will do nothing. And even the "preobrazhenskie professors" and "doctors bormentals" can't say anything worthwhile (except I'm not an expert :)).

            In general, the more complex the topic, the fewer really competent and experienced people. How many people in the Russian Federation now have real, extensive (not half a year) and all-round (in different conditions and at different levels) experience in commanding / using nuclear submarines and connecting with nuclear submarines with the composition? I don't think there will be hundreds.

            Most likely, such a complex thing as a SP cannot be assessed by one person, because it is impossible to cover as a whole - from all the nuances of production, to all the nuances of application. As a result, we come to the commission.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              5 August 2020 14: 00 New
              +2
              Quote: VicktorVR
              Regarding the professional level, are you comparing your own tooth, which has been with you for more than a dozen years around the clock, which you use every day more than once and have thoroughly studied with a promising subscriber, about which you learned something in the media?

              In accordance with your logic, I know nothing about my own tooth. I do not know the mechanism of its functioning, I do not know what processes take place in it and how. Accordingly, I cannot talk about him.
              From my point of view, I can well talk about my own tooth, focusing on simple criteria "hurts / does not hurt", "whole / broken", etc. That is, in order to establish the suitability of a tooth for work, I do not need to be a master dentist.
              Quote: VicktorVR
              That is why we will not catch up, and will not overtake in any way, that it is believed that "any profession can be mastered in 3 months."

              "Ponies, people, and volleys of a thousand guns mingled in a heap."
              You are now confusing the function of public control with the process of creating and operating weapons. I will explain everything using the same simple example with a dentist. When you come to a paid dentistry, the doctor explains the treatment plan based on the examination results. That is, he tells you what he is going to do and why. And if this suits you, then you give your consent and pay the doctor money for the treatment agreed with you. And you propose simply to silently trust a professional and not ask what is why and why, and then just pay the amount that he will name.
              So, the point is not that I am going to design the newest nuclear submarine myself. The point is that I want to be sure that the money that will be spent on design will not be wasted.
              Quote: VicktorVR
              To assess the same fighting qualities, you really need to know clearly secret details.

              In full - yes. But if we create some kind of military equipment that is completely different from what our sworn friends produce, then it would be nice to understand why this happened. In the article, I ask literally a few questions - why a double-hull design, not a single-hull, why unify with SSBNs, why a propeller, not a water cannon, why do we need such large boats, and why do we do underwater robotics when the most important robots are torpedo and anti-torpedo in a large rubble. Sane answers to these questions can be given without leaking military secrets.
              1. VicktorVR
                VicktorVR 5 August 2020 14: 49 New
                -1
                In accordance with your logic, I know nothing about my own tooth. I do not know the mechanism of its functioning, I do not know what processes take place in it and how. Accordingly, I cannot talk about him.

                On the contrary, you know a lot about your tooth, at least from the point of view of exploitation, i.e. in this case, you are an "operator", by analogy - a submarine commander, you know almost everything about application and a lot about prevention.
                But already in the topic of repair, creation, work, any dentist knows about your own tooth by an order of magnitude more than you.
                And this, by the way, is a good analogy, incl. with a saw of dough :). Because dentists often take advantage of their position and do too much, and in the final check they can write something that they did not do.
                Once again, you cannot objectively judge a neighbor's tooth - why did he get sick again a year after visiting the dentist, because of the dentist's crooked hands, or because of merciless exploitation, or maybe because of the lack of prevention? Or maybe all this was superimposed on the initially "weak" tooth or heredity?

                why a double-hull design, and not a single-hull, why unify with SSBNs, why a propeller, not a water cannon, why do we need such large boats,

                All the information on these points regarding the new nuclear submarine-OBS, in principle, there is nothing to discuss.
                If only whatsoever about "Husky", the pros and cons of each item.

                torpedo and anti-torpedo we have in a large rubble.

                Information about this should be 100% secret and not available (ideally) even to the intelligence services of foreign states, not to mention the townsfolk. If this is not so, then the sadness is great. Incl. already for our special services.
                But maybe (what if?) Everything is not bad, but just secret?
                Again, we bump into the lack of reliable information, and moreover, in the requirement for the absence of such information with t. state security.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  5 August 2020 15: 11 New
                  +3
                  Quote: VicktorVR
                  All information on these points regarding the new nuclear submarine-OBS

                  Only in the role of "one woman" are the high ranks of the KB-developer.
                  Quote: VicktorVR
                  And this, by the way, is a good analogy, incl. with a saw of dough :). Because dentists often take advantage of their position and do too much, and in the final check they can write something that they did not do.

                  It's right. But the drink will increase by an order of magnitude if they are not obliged to say anything about their work at all
                  Quote: VicktorVR
                  Information about this should be 100% secret and not available (ideally) even to the intelligence services of foreign states, not to mention the townsfolk.

                  Yes, this does not happen. Americans often graze in our training areas, watch and listen. We follow them, they follow us, and much is not a secret either for them or for us. And with your approach it will turn out, as in the USSR at one time, when foreign magazines were not issued in the public, because they contained secret photos of Soviet ships.
                  Quote: VicktorVR
                  But maybe (what if?) Everything is not bad, but just secret?

                  As a rule, such secrecy arises exactly where it is bad :))))
                  Americans also know what secrecy is. Therefore, for example, there are no real detection distances for targets of their airborne radar in open sources (either according to outdated models or guesswork). But they do not hide the general directions of development (AFAR, some performance characteristics, possibilities in electronic warfare, etc.) and the general concept of application. If they create an airplane, they directly write what for, why, the most general performance characteristics, etc. If you put a flat nozzle on an aircraft engine, then with an explanation why, but the exact parameters are already a secret
              2. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 5 August 2020 23: 01 New
                +6
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                In the article, I ask literally a few questions - why a double-hull design, not a single-hull, why unify with SSBNs, why a propeller, not a water cannon, why do we need such large boats, and why do we do underwater robotics when the most important robots are torpedo and anti-torpedo in a large rubble. Sane answers to these questions can be given without leaking military secrets.

                1. Why 2-case circuit. Not at all! There is also a one-and-a-half-body. The reason: tradition, the level of safety (we have a buoyancy reserve of 20-26%, for 941 - 53! For Ams = 13-16%), as well as the level and culture of production - the mass dimensions of our equipment, for which more needs to be allocated places than amam. Therefore, we have the CGB outside the PC, they have it inside (aft and bow ends), and, oddly enough, there is enough space for units and mechanisms. True, sleeping places are sometimes not enough. The hot bed system has been around for a very long time.
                2. Unification of weapons and stuffing is understandable. On the hulls ... well, let's see if they can twist and create mini-pini SLBMs ... then m. But would it make sense?
                3. Why a screw, not a water cannon. The wake jet does not blur longer from the water cannon. We find amov on it. The screw and VM will soon become history. On the agenda of the HED in the ring support is space saving, there are no big holes in the PC, noisy vallines, etc.
                By the way, our screws are not at all those that are publicly shown on the models: They are somewhat "different", however!

                4. Why do we need such big boats. Habitability, autonomy, weapons, and the weight and dimensions of units and mechanisms - pull volumes and weights ... That's why boats are like that. Again, the salary at 25% is also not a pound of dashing!
                5.Why are we doing underwater robotics? Because this is the future of submarine warfare. Anyway - wars at sea. Those who are late have lost ... And this is fraught ...
                6. torpedo and anti-torpedo in a large rubble. There is such a problem. Mina writes about her rather succinctly. But this problem is being solved though slowly. Physicist, the case is already arriving on the boats.
                Agree with you:
                Sane answers to these questions can be given without leaking military secrets.
  17. Andrey.AN
    Andrey.AN 5 August 2020 10: 34 New
    -2
    The double-hull design is not necessarily noisier, the water intakes are noisy, such a design allows you to lie down on the ground without any hassle, this is a big bonus, she really shouldn't be turning around in position. As for the water cannon, you can hardly arrange the asynchronous pitch of the propeller in it, it is too energy intensive, that is, it makes no less noise, but not as responsive from the spot as the propeller. At the expense of weapons and communications, those who have access to journalists have no idea at all, only noodles from special officers.
    1. prodi
      prodi 5 August 2020 11: 22 New
      -1
      if you need to start from a place, you can use a kind of "water accumulators" throwing a significant mass of (stored) water, and even in the direction you need when turning
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 5 August 2020 12: 19 New
        +1
        No, this is obviously impossible, the boat weighs many thousands of tons.
        But what can be done is a combination of full electric propulsion, quick-start TsNPK and booster electric batteries.
        1. prodi
          prodi 5 August 2020 12: 40 New
          0
          than, the mass of water thrown by the screws differs from the mass of water pushed out of these ... "accumulators"? (Well, apart from the likely surfacing?)
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 5 August 2020 13: 23 New
            +1
            Tsiolkovsky's formula will help you - your accumulators are jet propulsion, estimate how much mass you need to discard in order for the boat to "start".
            1. prodi
              prodi 5 August 2020 13: 31 New
              0
              on the first meters the propellers will lose with a "deafening" crackle, I even assume that up to 100m inclusive (well, there is already no crackling)
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 5 August 2020 14: 01 New
                +3
                Yes, this is unrealistic, you have to throw thousands of tons to make the boat just move.

                All this was invented long ago. You can keep the reactors "hot" but dump heat somewhere, then the speed gain will be limited only by the speed of the GTZA turbine spinning up. Klimov Fizik M saw this in the Americans - Los Angeles from low speed sharply went to 38 knots, he personally observed this from 971 boats.

                There is a second way - as I wrote. That is, we do not have a GTZA, we have a large hydroelectric power plant, and turbine generators that turn steam heated by reactors. The excess electricity goes to the batteries. It is necessary to start abruptly - the current from the batteries goes to the GED, the boat accelerates sharply, and there, within an hour, the reactor will reach maximum heat transfer, and the turbines of the turbine generators will spin up as needed.

                No need to complicate
                1. prodi
                  prodi 5 August 2020 14: 10 New
                  0
                  yes, the propeller does not have such a performance at a sharp start, it will just make noise and foam water, well, or make noise and brake at maximum
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 5 August 2020 18: 14 New
                    +2
                    Well, if you start as on the formula one, then no. Submarines have their own "fast".
                2. Podvodnik
                  Podvodnik 5 August 2020 21: 18 New
                  +3
                  It is possible to keep the reactors "hot" but to dump heat somewhere, then the speed gain will be limited only by the speed of the GTZA turbine spin-up


                  For the nuclear submarine to be able to "start" right off the bat, a "steam reserve" is needed, which is sent to the turbine at the right time to increase the stroke. What a pair of stock will make, such a move the boat can "jerk". The exhaust steam after the turbine is discharged into the main condenser and then "in a circle" again to consumers. The reactor is an inertial thing, and just by increasing the power, you cannot immediately give full speed. Therefore, the GKP calculates how much steam reserve may be needed and for what move. This "reserve" in idle, not having worked, is sent past consumers to the main condenser, and if necessary to increase the stroke is added to the turbine. Submarines in my time never ran at full reactor power and with a steam reserve at full speed. Specific figures for the steam reserve, the possibilities of increasing the stroke, etc. are secret and are not subject to publicity in the open press.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 6 August 2020 14: 44 New
                    +3
                    Well, the Americans do just that - they let steam into the main engine, and their acceleration is limited only by how quickly the turbine can be turned on later.
                    It is clear that this is not always the case, but before asking for trouble somewhere.
                    There were examples.
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 5 August 2020 12: 16 New
      +3
      Double-hull design is not necessarily noisier


      You are back in your repertoire.
      The secondary signature under the external low-frequency illumination in double-hull boats is several times higher, and the visibility, accordingly, is also higher.

      As for the water cannon, you can hardly arrange the asynchronous pitch of the propeller in it, it is too energy-intensive, that is, it makes no less noise, but not as responsive from the spot as the propeller.


      Only Virginia has the same broadband signal (noise) at 20 nodes as Ash at eight.

      At the expense of weapons and communications, those who have access to journalists have no idea at all, only noodles from special officers.


      Well, not with your understanding of the issue to make such statements, if that.
      1. prodi
        prodi 5 August 2020 13: 21 New
        0
        by the way, I am also not sure of the "viciousness" as a more noisy two-body scheme (well, except for the larger displacement and its attendant, of course), probably there you can play with resonances
      2. Andrey.AN
        Andrey.AN 5 August 2020 14: 18 New
        +1
        First, what is the secondary signature, if the boat is covered with soundproofing, except for the valves, and if the soundproofing is stripped, then yes, the active acoustics will better hear ours, the passive American one. The two-hull sits more confidently on the ground having a "pallet" and in this position is much less noticeable than a moving boat, the acoustics first of all catch the signatures staggering on the bearing. Secondly, about how many knots someone grazes, you probably take from American tales, excuse me, but I have the same attitude to your brains as you do to mine, if you trust the Americans. Your understanding of the dissemination of classified information does not do honor either.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 5 August 2020 18: 15 New
          0
          First, what is the secondary signature if the boat is covered with soundproofing, except for the valves


          Learn what long waves are.
          1. Andrey.AN
            Andrey.AN 5 August 2020 18: 51 New
            0
            You know, I am also interested in physics, the electromagnetic wave is really, the longer, the lower the resistance of the medium for it, less it is absorbed into currents, currents, on the contrary, the longer the voltage turn, the more current goes out by the infrared wave. But in acoustics, the situation is different, where nichrome neither short nor long do not reincarnate.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 5 August 2020 19: 24 New
              +1
              I can only ask you one thing - stop talking nonsense. It's not about that at all.
              How does the body behave when the wave oscillation has reached it?
              1. Andrey.AN
                Andrey.AN 5 August 2020 19: 32 New
                0
                Reflects and absorbs, let's talk about the rubber covering the body, how does it behave? How will it, how do you put it, glow with an acoustic signal, which it politely sent through its steel support to the solid body and received it back? Are you in nature, or are you playing a role? In your opinion (shock, acoustic) wave passing through the rubber will remain something with a distinct frequency?
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 6 August 2020 14: 38 New
                  +1
                  Low-frequency vibrations "rubber" as you put it almost does not damp.
                  Well, or so - all other things being equal, a two-hull boat with a sound-absorbing coating is much more noticeable than a single-hull boat with a sound-absorbing coating.
                  1. Andrey.AN
                    Andrey.AN 8 August 2020 15: 20 New
                    0
                    I repeat for you again, acoustic waves are not electromagnetic, the resistance to acoustic waves does not change from their length, one hell of an ultrasonic one.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa 8 August 2020 22: 46 New
                      0
                      Please stop talking nonsense.
                      1. Andrey.AN
                        Andrey.AN 8 August 2020 23: 18 New
                        0
                        Nonsense, this is when you declare that a sound wave of ten kilohertz passes rubber better than a hundred kilohertz, here you just look very ugly.
                      2. Andrey.AN
                        Andrey.AN 9 August 2020 02: 22 New
                        0
                        Here's a simple calculation. The speed of sound in rubber is 50 m / s. The wave in this amorphous substance goes so slowly, because it blunts with the most specific zigzags, in order to maintain a distinct frequency, passing several centimeters of rubber, a sound is needed no more than a couple of hundred hertz at a frequency. The type of oscillation of the speaker needs decimeter. On which submarines have you seen such a dynamo?
        2. Beregovic_1
          Beregovic_1 5 August 2020 19: 13 New
          +1
          Submarines do not lay down on the ground. Only diesel-electric submarines. Design features
          1. Andrey.AN
            Andrey.AN 5 August 2020 19: 25 New
            +2
            Don't tell me, any lie down, they weigh as much under water as the captain wishes, if there is a "pallet" it is not very scary to sit down on some kind of stake by inertia. For submarines, stationary positions such as a crocodile are very beneficial in terms of invisibility, acoustics are looking for moving signatures, you will go crazy to evaluate all motionless ones.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 6 August 2020 14: 39 New
              +1
              Don't tell me, any lie down, they weigh as much under water as they wish captain,


              Captain, Captain, smile
              laughing

              On the battleship - COMMANDER.

              Once again I will repeat to you the advice not to write anything, save at least the remnants of my reputation.
              1. Andrey.AN
                Andrey.AN 8 August 2020 14: 44 New
                -1
                Your respect for me does not bother me, it is always the same as mine for you. In short, you do not respect me, I you, what is there to take care of?
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 8 August 2020 22: 45 New
                  +1
                  You don't want to understand anything.
                  1. Andrey.AN
                    Andrey.AN 8 August 2020 22: 53 New
                    0
                    Firstly, I am not, and you are not a teacher to me, to treat you as a student, I myself as a student can "teach" you, you are stupid at every line, you just poke your face in the dirt. You came here publicly, in vain. You may be well-read, but I have different principles, I do not rely on the press where it is not confirmed by everyone, I think myself.
              2. Andrey.AN
                Andrey.AN 8 August 2020 15: 24 New
                0
                And note, according to our laws, discrimination is bad, in places of public Russian jurisdiction, staff violating laws is harmful to the reputation of shareholders.
          2. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 5 August 2020 19: 25 New
            0
            In fact, nuclear submarines also carry out the lining on the ground, it's just that, firstly, it is a risk, and secondly, then it is often for repairs.
            Only 941 projects did it without consequences, oddly enough.
            But in general such things were done.
          3. Podvodnik
            Podvodnik 5 August 2020 21: 29 New
            +4
            Submarines do not lay down on the ground. Only diesel-electric submarines. Design features


            Due to the need to take a decent amount of water to cool the corresponding reactor circuit, the nuclear submarine cannot lie on the ground - the grids at the inlet of the water intake system will clog and the reactor will stop abruptly. Technically, it is possible to ensure the laying of the nuclear submarine on the ground when carrying out appropriate structural and technical measures. Similar "experiments" were carried out. This procedure was recognized as inappropriate, among other things, because of the "heat spot" formed in the place of the "parking" and unmasking the nuclear submarine.
  18. Boratsagdiev
    Boratsagdiev 5 August 2020 11: 36 New
    -2
    But today the mass of cruise missiles has been significantly reduced and does not exceed 2,3-3 tons. At the same time, there is absolutely no need for the fleet to install vertical launchers (TLUs) in the amount of 32-40 mines and more on "everything that goes under water."
    - there was a change in "priorities", as well as models, and not just a decrease in weight. The old ones were not only designed for supersonic, but also for hitting the target with one missile.
    I didn't even read the rest.
    It was the Yankees who at one time abandoned the expensive projects of "station wagons" and switched to "economy", but in Russia everything will disappear by itself.
    But you know better, from the Chelyabinsk sea.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 August 2020 11: 58 New
      +1
      Quote: BoratSagdiev
      - there was a change in "priorities", as well as models, and not just a decrease in weight. The old ones were not only designed for supersonic, but also for hitting the target with one missile.

      I will not even ask where you got this from. No one ever planned to destroy (disable) AV with Granite alone. I will only note that this has nothing to do with the topic of the article - from the point of view of the design of the nuclear submarine, whatever the "priorities" of the use of anti-ship missiles, it is only important that today they are much lighter.
      Quote: BoratSagdiev
      I didn't even read the rest.

      How upset I am :)))))
      Quote: BoratSagdiev
      But you know better, from the Chelyabinsk sea.

      Apparently - yes, since such an "expert" as you did not have a single counterargument on the topic of the article.
      1. Boratsagdiev
        Boratsagdiev 8 August 2020 17: 09 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I will only note that this has nothing to do with the topic of the article - from the point of view of the design of the nuclear submarine, whatever the "priorities" of the use of anti-ship missiles, it is only important that today they are much lighter.

        do you think that it does not have and is not important? ...
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Apparently - yes, since such an "expert" as you did not have a single counterargument on the topic of the article.

        How can we "with a hernia" to specialists!? ...
        You were given arguments, if you have any special concepts about the meanings of words and phrases, then it would be hazy and familiar with them to the public.
        And your personal opinion is only your personal opinion, not an axiom.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        How upset I am :)))))

        Do not cry, anything can happen, as everything passes with time.
    2. agond
      agond 5 August 2020 12: 53 New
      +3
      However, questions arise why we are such lovers of the double-hull scheme and what is so good about it, while it must be borne in mind that single-hull US boats have a very reinforced bow that can withstand collisions with the side of our boats, the more likely it is to get hit on the side of a higher submarine than they have since we are larger. therefore
      1 no "double hull" will save from a side impact.
      2 An increase in the mass of ballast water increases the time to accelerate or decelerate, that is, it slows down the speed of the maneuver
      3 external light body, not so light in fact, because it is steel, it has a large area as it covers a solid body from all sides, and the gap between the bodies is large enough, a working welder must fit there, plus the frames of a strong body also stick out inside, therefore he weighs a lot
      4 the large weight of the outer hull has to be compensated for by an increase in the buoyancy (volume) of the inner strong hull, otherwise the boat will sink, so if the outer hull is cut off from the boat, it will not submerge, that is, one clings to the other and increases the total mass of the hull structures and the overall dimensions of the boat
      5 the large buoyancy reserve of the double-hull scheme cannot be realized for breaking through the ice upon ascent, since the outer hull may be damaged
      6 usually double-hulled boats have a large surface draft compared to monohull boats with similar characteristics
      7 the outer lightweight casing has a relatively "flimsy" design and is more prone to hard-to-remove vibrations, that is, it makes more noise
      This is probably an incomplete list of disadvantages of "two-body"
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 5 August 2020 13: 22 New
        +4
        In fact, the two-hull architecture also has advantages, but they are all neutralized by one - with external low-frequency illumination, a light hull becomes a source of secondary vibrations much stronger than a strong one, the boat just glows.
        And this cannot be outweighed by anything.
        1. prodi
          prodi 7 August 2020 13: 43 New
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          In fact, the two-hull architecture also has advantages, but they are all neutralized by one - with external low-frequency illumination, a light hull becomes a source of secondary vibrations much stronger than a strong one, the boat just glows.
          And this cannot be outweighed by anything.

          you can try, in addition to the outer layer of rubber on the outer light body, "stick" coarse foam from the inside
          but apparently more practical, to make the outer "light" body thick and durable, and the inner one - relatively strong and light
      2. Beregovic_1
        Beregovic_1 5 August 2020 19: 25 New
        0
        One citizen told me that we cannot master the technology of assembling sections of a solid hull with internal frames. Therefore, double-hulled. The lightweight hull is welded to the OUTER frames of the robust hull. But why I doubt it ... It seems not difficult to make frames inside the hull section ...
        1. Podvodnik
          Podvodnik 5 August 2020 21: 38 New
          +2
          It seems not difficult to make frames inside the hull section.


          It's simple, in the aft compartments, and so are the frames inside a solid hull (on my "projects"). In the inter-hull space there are a lot of useful things - VVD cylinders, for example, the Central City Hospital by the way. If done without a light body, all this "economy" needs to be placed inside. And there is no room. Everything is busy. You will have to either seal everything inside, or increase the dimensions of the durable body "to light". And is it necessary?
        2. rudolff
          rudolff 5 August 2020 21: 54 New
          +2
          Frames have always been internal and were, and we were very proud when we mastered the production of durable hulls with external frames. It's not a problem to come back.
          Regarding the architecture of the case, I have no doubt that sooner or later everyone will come to a one-and-a-half-body scheme. Actually, there is probably no purely single-hull, except for small and ultra-small submarines. There is a superstructure of a light hull in the upper part of a strong one, in the bow and stern ends, there is a retractable fence.
        3. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 6 August 2020 14: 58 New
          +1
          We have already mastered it, and we already have single-hull boats. Problems in Like.
  19. AAK
    AAK 5 August 2020 11: 55 New
    +4
    Doing "Husky" as a compilation of "Ash" or a block hybrid is an obvious and very expensive nonsense.
    Our Navy, in my opinion and not only, really needs a specialized "hunter" boat, designed, first of all, to fight submarines and NKs of potential enemies in the middle and distant sea zone, to escort its SSBNs from basing points and in areas combat patrolling, as well as with the ability to enter for action on enemy communications in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans, in dimensions between the 705th and 671st projects (no gigantism) and a series of 40-50 units (cost - no more than a third , and better - a quarter of the 885th).
    The engine is a compact monoblock reactor, which gives the technical possibility of a rapid increase in power (water-moderated type, or with liquid metal core) with natural circulation of the coolant at low and low-noise average strokes;
    Propeller - water cannon with thrust vector control (by analogy with UHT aviation nozzles);
    The design is a one- or one-and-a-half-hull, with an X-shaped aft plumage, with reduced dimensions of the cabin fencing, with a conformal arrangement of GAK elements and with GPBA. Retractable antenna mast devices - "non-penetrating" type in the PC. The design of the PC must provide a maximum immersion depth of at least 700m;
    Launching torpedoes, PLUR and KR / PKR - only through the TA, without the UVP compartment, TA - two-caliber (packaged launchers for small-caliber anti-torpedoes or for simulators are also possible).
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 6 August 2020 18: 53 New
      +1
      The engine is a compact monoblock reactor, which gives the technical possibility of a rapid increase in power (water-moderated type, or with liquid metal core) with natural circulation of the coolant at low and low-noise average strokes;
      Propeller - water cannon with thrust vector control (by analogy with UHT aviation nozzles);
      The design is a one- or one-and-a-half-hull, with an X-shaped aft plumage, with reduced dimensions of the cabin fencing, with a conformal arrangement of GAK elements and with GPBA. Retractable antenna mast devices - "non-penetrating" type in the PC. The design of the PC must provide a maximum immersion depth of at least 700m;
      Launching torpedoes, PLUR and KR / PKR - only through the TA, without the UVP compartment, TA - two-caliber (packaged launchers for small-caliber anti-torpedoes or for simulators are also possible).


      Bravo! Minus the LMC, the controlled nozzle and 700 meters (which is not bad, but not necessary) - excellent. We hit the point.
    2. Charik
      Charik 7 August 2020 16: 35 New
      0
      Well, this is 971-Launching torpedoes, PLUR and KR / anti-ship missiles - only through TA, without the UVP compartment, TA - two-caliber (packaged launchers for small-caliber anti-torpedoes or for simulators are also possible).
  20. timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 5 August 2020 12: 12 New
    +6
    That's right, Andrey, Husky-Laika is originally a drinking project. There is no hgbhjcnf combat effectiveness in it.
    This option, no doubt, fits perfectly into the logic of "getting the best price offer." But whether it fits into the logic of creating a promising submarine, which will be able to effectively protect the sea borders of the Motherland for many decades, is a big question.


    There is no question - this is a purely financial scam and nothing more. The people who are moving this project do not mean combat effectiveness at all, do not even remember about it.
    It's just a mini Ash tree with new accessories and Zircons and that's it. All jambs will be repeated, there will be no particular benefits.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 5 August 2020 12: 29 New
      -1
      Damn Punto switcher))) there is no increase in combat effectiveness.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 August 2020 12: 41 New
      +3
      This is sad. Ash is not so bad for today, but for tomorrow we need a completely different ship. But he is not and, it seems, will not be.
    3. Connor MacLeod
      Connor MacLeod 5 August 2020 15: 13 New
      +1
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      It's just a mini Ash tree with new accessories and Zircons and that's it. All jambs will be repeated, there will be no particular benefits.

      Well, what's wrong with the mini-Ash then? In appearance, the 545 is about a third less than Ash, accordingly the displacement will be about 8000-9000 tons. Well, that's fine! For example, 6 TA and 6 missile silos. Or even without rocket silos, 8 TA with the ability to launch CD and anti-ship missiles.
      To reduce the 885 series to 6 missile carriers, and to build 545 projects for the freed up funds, 6 units to begin with. MAPLs are needed now, there is no time to wait!

      1. Beregovic_1
        Beregovic_1 5 August 2020 19: 20 New
        +1
        Ash trees have already been laid. More than 6. 3 are already afloat, four are at various stages of construction in workshops, and 2 are laid down for the day of the Navy. Let it be for now.
        1. Connor MacLeod
          Connor MacLeod 5 August 2020 19: 29 New
          0
          It's too bad that it is. Since when did the SSGN begin to replace the MAPL? Six 885s would be enough, and with the money saved, it would be better to start building the 545 project - a series of small, noiseless killers. But everything is, as always, through one place ...
  21. Operator
    Operator 5 August 2020 13: 07 New
    -7
    Quote: VicktorVR
    you need to professionally delve into the topic

    The author is just proud of his unprofessionalism, calling the propeller attachment a water cannon - "public control" as it is laughing
    1. Avior
      Avior 5 August 2020 14: 00 New
      +5
      A water cannon and an impeller - a nozzle on a propeller - are different devices
      Both are used on boats. Other
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 5 August 2020 18: 19 New
        +1
        This is Andryusho. You cannot explain anything to him, he is an operator. Don't waste time, do as other people do - minus sign to him silently and not react.
  22. Alexander Marat
    Alexander Marat 5 August 2020 15: 04 New
    -3
    A lot of beeches and everything is in vain. Fairy tales and wishes, but in fact - nothing. Gentlemen, we are in ... opera.
  23. Ersh
    Ersh 5 August 2020 15: 32 New
    -6
    This is amazing! It is not enough that he is not an expert (he himself admits this), he also writes on the basis of some incomprehensible information! But the leadership of the fleet is trying to screw up the designers.
    Or maybe just, by some order, wants to get additional information from the commentators? But, judging by the comments, the majority itself did not serve and does not have a shipbuilding education. So hopes will not come true :)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 August 2020 16: 13 New
      +1
      Quote: Ersh
      It is not enough that he is not an expert (he himself admits this), he also writes on the basis of some incomprehensible information!

      If you do not understand the interviews with the heads of the design bureaus - the nuclear submarine developer, then this is probably your problem?
    2. d4rkmesa
      d4rkmesa 6 August 2020 09: 08 New
      +1
      Criticism is sometimes useful. The questions are topical, well written. What else is there to do? ) People with superfluous education will not say anything anyway, even without admission. As in Paralay, Pavel Bulat was going to write everything about PAKFA, but he was not going to. Either he is afraid to write too much, or there is no time, or it would be too critical. Once at the forum he mentioned that the fighter, to put it mildly, was a compromise.
    3. Charik
      Charik 7 August 2020 16: 39 New
      0
      rejoice rejoice-clap your hands
  24. Andrey.AN
    Andrey.AN 5 August 2020 16: 10 New
    -3
    Yes, on a drum, if something happened, we will plow their coastal strips with a nuclear strike every 10 km, and they will have a khan. Fuck they plow us.
    1. agond
      agond 5 August 2020 18: 39 New
      0
      Quote: Ersh
      This is amazing! Little that is not an expert

      The knowledge of shipbuilders is not something unique and unattainable, a normal construction engineer can also design a boat hull, (all the more, shipbuilders follow the well-known knurled diagrams), and the principle of solid structures is the same for everyone, in short ...
      1 the strongest and lightest are tensile structures such as cables, ropes,, pressure pipelines, sheaths ...
      2 in second place is axial compression of the type of meek columns, struts, uprights, arches, domes, spheres of the bathyscaphe
      3 in third place bending structures such as beams, slabs ...
      in a strong submarine housing, frames work for pure axial compression (this is good), and the metal in the intervals between them for compression (along the submarine axis) plus bending, like an ordinary overlap in a house (this is worse), while the bulk of the metal of a strong body is under the load of simultaneous compression and bending (over 80%), which is irrational., Of course, you can use spheres, but this is not convenient, you can design so that one part of the metal experiences pure compression, and the other pure tension, which will save the body weight or allow its more durable. By the way, non-metals and polymers can withstand much higher tensile loads than structural steel. Specifically, it may look like this - the steel pipe (along the outer diameter of the submarine) works only for axial compression, from the forces of water pressure on the bow and stern, the inner frames only for axial compression from the forces of water pressure on the sides, inside the frames are attached to the shell (in the form corrugation) working only in tension.
      1. prodi
        prodi 5 August 2020 19: 58 New
        0
        And how is it, to design so that one half of the "main part" of the body metal works only in tension, and the other - in compression? To stick more longitudinal and transverse edges?
    2. Charik
      Charik 7 August 2020 16: 40 New
      0
      yes we will plow each other and they will die, we are in paradise, fun right?
  25. xomaNN
    xomaNN 5 August 2020 20: 26 New
    +6
    When I was working at the Northern Fleet I saw at the berth of the nuclear submarine 705 of the project. In the 60s and 70s, when they were designed and built, the Americans did not believe at first that this was possible. In the case of 3000 tons. Example. displacement shoved in a torpedo weapon that was powerful enough at that time, the equipment was automated to the maximum. The unique combat information and control system (BIUS) “Accord! Those. it turned out to be a small, nimble toothy nuclear submarine. Alas, the liquid metal-cooled reactor was ahead of the time and readiness of the sailors.

    So for 50 years after project 705 it is quite possible to create a "breakthrough" project of a submarine!
  26. Tavrik
    Tavrik 5 August 2020 20: 40 New
    0
    warships are still built for war, not for peace

    The ships must be built so as not to get to the prosecutor in case of emergency.
    A war with a high-tech adversary may or may not be, but some kind of accident may happen with any ordinary going to sea. And then everyone will be asked for the destroyed building.
  27. sergo1914
    sergo1914 5 August 2020 22: 38 New
    -1
    ... So, information about "Husky" ... Of course, are classified as "top secret". But something still leaks into the media through the statements of various responsible persons.


    Such a voluminous vyser in an empty space. Brilliant.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 6 August 2020 14: 46 New
      +2
      Vyser this is your comment, and the author raised the questions quite correct.
  28. Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 6 August 2020 00: 13 New
    -1
    Article - "blah, blah, blah", for Yandex Zen.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 6 August 2020 14: 46 New
      0
      And how is it really there?
      1. sergo1914
        sergo1914 6 August 2020 17: 50 New
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        And how is it really there?


        And in fact,
        So, information about "Husky" ... Of course, are classified as "top secret"


        The only true phrase in the article.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 6 August 2020 18: 22 New
          0
          But you, not understanding anything in the already published information about this OCD, and without a permit, you cannot determine what is true or not. Is not it?
          1. sergo1914
            sergo1914 6 August 2020 18: 45 New
            -1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            But you, not understanding anything in the already published information about this OCD, and without a permit, you cannot determine what is true or not. Is not it?


            I was a secret carrier and I know what it is. I know one thing: you cannot divulge. This is already in the subcortex of the brain. Reflex. No classified information is published. They publish the speculations of all sorts of ... narrow-minded people. Somewhere one grandmother said something. But in an attempt to portray themselves as a super-duper expert involved in something, these narrow-minded people sometimes really openly express what can harm the country's defense. No need to guess on the coffee grounds. It is impossible - it means it is impossible.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 6 August 2020 18: 49 New
              +1
              Don't be smart, but let us know where the author is wrong. The author, by the way, has a permit, I just don't know which one.

              Regarding your insinuations - If you are shown a four-wheeled armored car, and they say that the number of wheels it has is a state secret, then you can still count them, even without admission. Laika-Husky is just that case, enough information has been "leaked" about her to make preliminary conclusions.

              You just need to understand the subject.
              1. sergo1914
                sergo1914 6 August 2020 18: 55 New
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Don't be smart, but let us know where the author is wrong. The author, by the way, has a permit, I just don't know which one.

                Regarding your insinuations - If you are shown a four-wheeled armored car, and they say that the number of wheels it has is a state secret, then you can still count them, even without admission. Laika-Husky is just that case, enough information has been "leaked" about her to make preliminary conclusions.

                You just need to understand the subject.


                I was born and raised in the city of Severodvinsk. All my relatives, one way or another, are connected with Sevmash. Don't tell me about the "subject".
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 6 August 2020 19: 41 New
                  0
                  Absolutely nothing follows from this.
                  1. sergo1914
                    sergo1914 6 August 2020 21: 20 New
                    -1
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Absolutely nothing follows from this.


                    I feel sorry for you. Really.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      7 August 2020 07: 19 New
                      -1
                      Quote: sergo1914
                      I feel sorry for you. Really.

                      Well, you are simply ridiculous to me.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              7 August 2020 07: 18 New
              0
              Quote: sergo1914
              I was a secret carrier and I know what it is. I know one thing: you cannot divulge. This is already in the subcortex of the brain. Reflex.

              Honestly, I'm tired of the desire to cover everything up with secrecy. I, if anything, have been working in the military-industrial complex for a long time to understand the difference between secrecy and secrecy, which you are now doing
              Quote: sergo1914
              They publish the speculations of all sorts of ... narrow-minded people.

              Classics of the genre - we are unable to argue on the merits - we declare that in reality everything is not so, but secretly and we turn to the identity of the opponent.
              Quote: sergo1914
              Somewhere something one grandmother said.

              You missed a little that the "grandmas" in this case, the deputy. gene. Deer Malachita, the head of the USC and other persons similar to them in status. I understand, everything is according to the manual, but now what, you don't need to turn on your head at all?
              Quote: sergo1914
              But in an attempt to portray themselves as a super-duper expert involved in something, these narrow-minded people sometimes really openly express what can harm the country's defense

              In my opinion, the Laika project is now damaging the country's defense capability. But how the material based on the analysis of open sources can do this is a mystery.
              Quote: sergo1914
              No need to guess on the coffee grounds. It is impossible - it means it is impossible.

              You just take on an enchanting amount of yourself. You decide who is "grandma" and who is not. You decide what to say to high-profile media figures and what not. And you manage to accuse me of being narrow-minded, not being able to argue at least something on the merits.
              1. sergo1914
                sergo1914 7 August 2020 07: 47 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                You just take on an enchanting amount of yourself. You decide who is "grandma" and who is not. You decide what to say to high-profile media figures and what not. And you manage to accuse me of being narrow-minded, not being able to argue at least something on the merits.


                If any information is classified as classified, I consider it unethical and harmful to discuss it in open sources. I am not taking on anything. I am giving a personal opinion (personal opinion, Karl) about this discussion. Any discussion of classified materials takes place behind closed doors. If you do not agree with some decisions, you will bring your opinion to the participants in the process. There is no need to shake dirty laundry in a crowded street. No one has ever forbidden discussions on closed topics in the circle of developers. Especially at the sketch stage. On the contrary, all those involved were forced to speak out. No need to pretend to be a fighter (like everything is here ... and I'm D'Artagnan). There is a place and a time where these discussions are appropriate. And this is not the Internet.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  7 August 2020 07: 58 New
                  0
                  Quote: sergo1914
                  If any information is classified as classified, I consider it unethical and harmful to discuss it in open sources. I'm not taking on anything.

                  I give in the article a photo with a model and TTX Likes. They are not secret. I cite the statements of the responsible persons. They are not secret. And then all of you come out of yourself and declare all this secret, Rakhmanov and Novoselov - grandmothers, etc.
                  You are exactly what you take on a lot
                  Quote: sergo1914
                  If you do not agree with some decisions, you will bring your opinion to the participants in the process. There is no need to shake dirty laundry in a crowded street.

                  And you still decide to tell me what to do and what not. But it's funny that you, obviously, yourself doubt the Husky, otherwise you would not call her discussion dirty laundry.
                  Alas, it doesn't work that way. If I write a request to MO, at best I will receive an unsubscribe. But the public discussion of UNSECRET data about our weapons, perhaps, will move someone to something.
                  You are now just calling to be silent about all the absurdities of our GPV and "not to rock the boat."
                  Quote: sergo1914
                  No need to pretend to be a fighter (like everything is here ... and I'm D'Artagnan).

                  Don't attribute to me what I didn't do. In what particular place did I "ascend" above "everyone here"? It is you who are trying to look down on me, so there is no need to shift from a sore head to a healthy one.
                  Quote: sergo1914
                  I am giving a personal opinion (personal opinion, Karl) about this discussion.

                  Uh-huh. And you do it in a very boorish manner.
                  1. sergo1914
                    sergo1914 7 August 2020 08: 08 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    I give in the article a photo with a model and TTX Likes. They are not secret. I cite the statements of the responsible persons. They are not secret.


                    Here - secret, here - not secret, here - the fish was wrapped ... Don't write nonsense. Is the project secret? Point. Everything that is in the open press is either disinformation or fantasy. Why look for flaws in this rubbish?

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Uh-huh. And you do it in a very boorish manner.


                    There is a button "Complaint" ...
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      7 August 2020 10: 28 New
                      0
                      Quote: sergo1914
                      Here - secret, here - not secret, here - the fish was wrapped ... Don't write nonsense. Is the project secret? Point. Everything that is in the open press is either disinformation or fantasy

                      Nonsense from the word "complete". You, in my opinion, do not understand at all what secrecy is. For example, the geometry of Ash's propeller can be quite secret to itself, which is why it is usually covered with something in the photo of the ship. But the fact that on the ship it is the propeller, and not the water cannon, is not a secret, since it can be seen well enough and no one makes attempts to hide this fact.
                      And, I repeat, it is possible to assume that the statements of the leaders of the USC and Malachite are "disinformation or fantasies". But you cannot say that. It's secret :))))))))))
                      Quote: sergo1914
                      There is a button "Complaint" ...

                      When I need your advice, I will ask him.
                      1. sergo1914
                        sergo1914 7 August 2020 12: 02 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Nonsense from the word "complete". You, in my opinion, do not understand at all what secrecy is.


                        I will give two examples.
                        1) In the 90s, a huge stream of books about weapons poured in. Photos, performance characteristics - all in the public domain. And here's what's interesting. As for my topic. In open sources (not only shirokorady, people with big stars noted) they write "round". You look at the product - "square". You read the documentation - "square". Where the "round" came from is unclear. But the "experts" loudly are "round".
                        2) Subsidiaries are developing the Death Star. Officially. You go to the department - on the drawings "Bomb of Life". For the question "what the ...?" take the Adam's apple and take him to the first section. For prevention.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        7 August 2020 15: 37 New
                        -1
                        Quote: sergo1914
                        I will give two examples.

                        As we just found out in the next topic - you do not shy away from lies. And the examples you have given are unfounded, you cannot confirm them. By the way, my personal experience in the military-industrial complex also does not confirm it.
                      3. sergo1914
                        sergo1914 7 August 2020 15: 50 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Quote: sergo1914
                        I will give two examples.

                        As we just found out in the next topic - you do not shy away from lies. And the examples you have given are unfounded, you cannot confirm them. By the way, my personal experience in the military-industrial complex also does not confirm it.


                        So we worked in different military-industrial complexes.
          2. Charik
            Charik 7 August 2020 16: 50 New
            0
            With this secrecy, the brains of the whole world have been hammered and sawed and sawed until blue in the face - they have such a rocket boat that needs to be done better - and they drove the loot to the left-right to scatter and so for 100 years, and the whole joke is that, having united who needs to drip those who wants a big war - it will not be difficult - but the military-industrial complex-gas-oil-diamond-system will remain without money-and they need it, except that there is already not enough to send the majority to the grandparents-why everything else-They won't kill twice
  • Operator
    Operator 6 August 2020 01: 40 New
    -2
    Quote: Avior
    Other

    Where is the actual water cannon used (and not the propeller attachment)?
    1. d4rkmesa
      d4rkmesa 6 August 2020 09: 10 New
      0
      Classic pump-jet - SeaWolf and Alrosa.
      1. Operator
        Operator 6 August 2020 09: 56 New
        -2
        The pump jet has a narrowing of the flow area of ​​the hydrodynamic path at the location of the high-speed turbine in comparison with the flow area of ​​the water intake hole in order to increase the pressure of the ejected water jet (just like in the fan path of the turbojet engine).

        But an increase in turbine speed and a decrease in its diameter leads to an increase in the noise of the water cannon. In this connection, submarines use exclusively low-speed, large-diameter propellers in an annular nozzle with a constant flow area (impeller).

        The mention of pump-jet in relation to the Premier League is a classic example of technode ... ..ma journalists.
        1. d4rkmesa
          d4rkmesa 6 August 2020 11: 13 New
          0
          As for the narrowing - Alrosa has it.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 6 August 2020 14: 48 New
            +2
            Do not waste your time on Andryusha. He is in his seventh decade, the boundaries of reality and imagination are erased. On Borea, too, there is never a "screw attachment".
          2. Operator
            Operator 6 August 2020 18: 19 New
            -3
            "Alrosa" is in fact an experimental vessel, built in 1989 according to project 877 ("Halibut" / "Varshavyanka") with the difference that the propeller was replaced with a water cannon. After Alrosa, no submarines with a water cannon were built - a lower noise level can be achieved by a simple ring nozzle of a standard propeller, and the efficiency of a water cannon is lower.

            Moreover, the total noise of the open propeller is equal to the total noise of the propeller in the nozzle, only the latter has the highest noise in the aft sector, while the former has low noise evenly distributed in all directions.

            Therefore, modern boats are supplied with an increasingly multi-blade and low-speed propeller with blades of a special profile (which is usually classified) and do not bother with a nozzle or, even more so, a water cannon.
  • Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets 6 August 2020 09: 32 New
    +1
    The confrontation between SSBNs and MPSS is very similar to what was happening in the fleets more than a century ago.
    There are dreadnoughts - the pinnacle of destructive power and there are destroyers - dreadnought killers.
    Of course, direct analogies do not work, but already in the course of WWI it became clear that killers need to become faster and more invisible, and dreadnoughts - more protected, both from the point of preventing an attack and localizing its consequences. Hence all the "Husky", "Laiki" and their foreign counterparts - a dead-end branch. I dare to guess. that the future belongs to autonomous small unmanned (or with an extremely small control group) underwater interceptor vehicles equipped with compact direct conversion reactors based on the Knudsen effect. They do not need much autonomy, since they can operate from underwater bases, and the effectiveness of their use must be guaranteed by a network-centric flock.
  • Alexey Petrovichev
    Alexey Petrovichev 6 August 2020 12: 41 New
    +1
    I agree with the author, as well as with all his articles on the prospects of our fleet.
  • hostel
    hostel 6 August 2020 15: 40 New
    +1
    Bravo, Andrey !!! Competently stated. I also had similar thoughts. And he smeared the corvettes on the wall together with our admirals ..
  • Charik
    Charik 6 August 2020 16: 00 New
    0
    Let's already discuss the modernization or what was done there with Veprem 971 (U - M) - who is he now? And this will not be needed now
    1. Beregovic_1
      Beregovic_1 6 August 2020 18: 15 New
      0
      I have not heard of the modernization of the 971s. It seems like they do VTG and that's it.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 6 August 2020 18: 37 New
        +1
        And this despite the fact that there TA provide for the possibility of starting the CD constructively, you only need a few racks for data entry (you can do it without connecting to the BIUS) and redo the wiring a LITTLE.
        Amazing to be honest.
        1. Beregovic_1
          Beregovic_1 6 August 2020 18: 54 New
          +1
          There are many reasons. 1 - you won't earn much money on minor modernization. 2 - modernization is not carried out by USC (which, with all the claims to it, still made a profit and modernized production), but ship repair enterprises, which are still FSUE, and they are financed so-so ... 3 - any modernization in the country turns into a long-term construction, and you need to go to the BS right now. 4 - since the times of the USSR, the country's stake has been on updating the ship's composition every 20 - 25 years, that is, ships are initially made disposable, not counting on modernization. 5 projects, at least in the Northern Fleet, were stupidly rolled into the 971s and 90s into the tail and mane, they were pretty much shattered, and there is no point in modernizing it, just to extend the resource by 2000-5 years, while 7 is in operation will fall. By the way, the project 885, that is, the predecessor of the 671 could shoot from the TA "Grenades" (971m3), why doesn't the 10 shoot ??? I didn't know ...
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 6 August 2020 19: 40 New
            +3
            There is still a joke - modernity is allowed only according to the project, which was made by the developer of the boat, for the kraynyak approved by the holder of the documentation for it.
            And if the cabinet with the backup data input equipment does not pass approval, and full integration of the Caliber into the BIUS is required, then there will be money comparable to the cost of repairing a boat.
            They don't want to give this feeding trough, although if there was political will everything would have been decided very quickly, but the fact is that the High Command does not want to quarrel with mistakes and does not report to the top.

            By the way, the project 671, that is, the predecessor of the 971 could shoot from the TA "Grenades" (3m10), why doesn't the 971 shoot ??? I didn't know ..


            He completely shot grenades. He can't Caliber. Because you need data input, sockets, wires, etc.
            But if you do this, then the promys will not receive money, and this does not happen with us.

            It seems that there was an experiment on launching Caliber from 971 on the Northern Fleet, somehow they bypassed the BIUS problem, the TA worked fine and the rocket left.
            But this is on the basis of rumors.
        2. Charik
          Charik 6 August 2020 22: 39 New
          0
          Here is that and it, under 650 TA, you can cut good PLURA and in 53? TA torpedoes and CD to collect not a little, but modernization of the BIUS well, and a small amount of equipment for attaching Calibers to the submarine has already been worked out, probably to the smallest details, since they have already been hung everywhere, except for space (?), They did not build a couple of Buyans and a couple of three churches, they did not pay the Balts "tribute" for gas transit (they have already lit a couple of times and not a little) and shit --------------
          Project 971 - AKULA
          DATA FOR 2016 (standard replenishment)
          Project 971/09710 "Bars" / "Pike-B" - AKULA
          pr.971, pr.971I / 09719 Irbis - Improved AKULA
          Project 971 / Project 971U - AKULA-II
          Project 971 / Project 971M (?) (K-335) - AKULA-III
          Project 971M - AKULA-IV
          (PLA K-157 "Vepr" pr.971 AKULA-II in Motovsky Bay. Northern Fleet, June 1998 (photo by Ilya Kurganov, http://www.submarines.narod.ru))
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 7 August 2020 13: 23 New
            0
            Here is that and it, under 650 TA, you can cut good PLURA and in 53?


            So they are.
            1. Charik
              Charik 7 August 2020 16: 25 New
              0
              650s PLUR-are there? Soviet probably?
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 7 August 2020 18: 22 New
                0
                Well yes. 86P and 88P.
                They are quite good, by the way. I do not know how relevant the CLO UGMT is, but otherwise it is more than a worthy weapon.
  • doktor_alex
    doktor_alex 6 August 2020 21: 24 New
    -2
    It's funny, there are so many letters about something that is not really even on paper ... No offense to the author, but even according to Yasen-M, there are moments in his articles indicating that he is far from the project, he draws information from the Internet, while doing far-reaching conclusions. And here ... already about Laika ... everything is as it is.
  • doctor.75
    doctor.75 7 August 2020 07: 49 New
    -1
    If "not an expert", why be smart then? Graphomania turned out to be stronger, it seems ...
    There is no special here, there is no special, and the glory of the great expert in naval construction does not give life in peace. I had to write
    1. agond
      agond 7 August 2020 11: 43 New
      0
      Quote: prodi
      And how is it, to design so that one half of the "main part" of the body metal works only in tension, and the other - in compression? To stick more longitudinal and transverse edges?

      To do this, you need to assemble a frame, a transverse set of flat rings-frames, a longitudinal set in the form of rods made of pipes, hang inside this openwork structure - fix a large-diameter corrugation steel pipe inside which equipment and crew are located, fill the irregularities of the structure with some kind of polymer and give a streamlined shape. ... In double-hulled boats, the steel of the hulls is loaded very unevenly, where it is densely where it is empty, and therefore they are very heavy, there is a lot of excess iron (ballast) in them.
      1. prodi
        prodi 7 August 2020 12: 58 New
        0
        but it seems to me that the result will be an ordinary single-body design, working mainly in compression; and stretching - only special cases of general bending (or torsion)
  • mik193
    mik193 7 August 2020 12: 34 New
    +1
    I will try to speak too. Maybe I will repeat someone, I apologize in advance.
    All these "Likes" and "Husky" in their current form is an insanely expensive project, ideal only for cuts and kickbacks. The persistent desire of the designers to overwhelm any project with a mass of launchers for "Caliber" and "Zircon" is surprising. You need a relatively inexpensive PLA for mass construction. The main focus is anti-submarine, because our submarine submarines will attack our missile defense systems and basing points in the first place. Somewhere it is desirable in the dimensions of 671 RTM, cruise missiles and anti-submarine missile-torpedoes, if necessary, are used from TA. We only need modern torpedoes and GPA facilities, with which we have big problems. We would not forget also about the secretive setting of anti-submarine mines.
    Project 971 I think that it is also a very good submarine with a margin for modernization. Why they stopped this direction, I do not understand.
    1. agond
      agond 7 August 2020 14: 32 New
      0
      Quote: prodi
      but it seems to me that the result will be an ordinary single-body design, working mainly in compression; and stretching - only special cases of general bending (or torsion)

      The task is not to get something extraordinary, but to ensure that all the material from which the boat is made (or most of it) is equally loaded, for example, a brick hangs on a rope, the stresses in the rope are the same everywhere, but say in beams or floor slabs do not. The material of the submarine hulls is also extremely unevenly loaded, if you manage to somehow equalize these loads, then this will give a tangible effect in weight and will reduce the size of the submarine. Ideally, it would be to make a strong hull spherical whose walls undergo uniform compression, but this is not always convenient for the structure and then it is difficult to make large-diameter spheres with high accuracy and high uniformity with thick walls, and, say, welding the inner body in the form of a corrugated pipe from sheets of double curvature will be much easier, and the thickness of the sheets will be several times less than that of a sphere, since the load from compression is carried by the frames, the corrugation carries only the tensile load in the intervals between the frames.
      1. prodi
        prodi 7 August 2020 14: 43 New
        0
        what is stretched there (in normal mode)?
        1. agond
          agond 9 August 2020 21: 54 New
          0
          The budget for the construction of boats with
          -two cases
          -two reactors
          -two steam generators
          - sometimes even with two screws
          (there were even boats with three !!! hulls, two strong in one light)
          Naturally, if all this is taken in two, then the displacement of the boat will also be twice as large, (although the total number of boats will be two less.) Naturally, the detection range of a "double" boat of an increased size will double, and it can be sunk in the same way as an ordinary one " single "one torpedo.
          1. prodi
            prodi 10 August 2020 09: 16 New
            0
            yes, in principle, if you do not twist, then you can agree, but you still need to think about ballast tanks, removing frames from the habitable space is also a plus, and in terms of survivability against the background of claustrophobia, it is somehow calmer
            1. agond
              agond 10 August 2020 16: 34 New
              0
              Quote: prodi
              it is necessary to remove the frames from the habitable space

              Then why, in principle, are frames needed, because the submarine is not wooden where the boards need to be nailed to something, made a solid body a little thicker and be satisfied, because the frames and the gaps between them work in compression, but then it will be possible to lose the stability of the walls of an even cylindrical strong body without frames and therefore walk with meta to reinforce it and reinforce it, and, say, in spheres, frames are not needed, but frames do not allow creating equally stressed structures, that is, somewhere the metal works not for pure axial compression (as we would like), but for compression with bending , which weakens the structure and increases the weight, and shells working in tension (for example, pipes under pressure) are not threatened with loss of wall stability. That is why it makes sense to consider a combination of frames working in compression and the intervals between them working in tension.
              1. prodi
                prodi 10 August 2020 17: 50 New
                0
                Let's formulate: frames inside a cylindrical body work better for standard compression, and the walls between them for standard tension; but the frames outside - according to your idea of ​​a single-hull design (and, apparently, in the existing two-hull schemes) will require additional "kerchiefs" to strengthen the walls between them (in tension)
                1. agond
                  agond 10 August 2020 20: 34 New
                  0
                  If we separately consider the usual durable hulls, it does not matter where the frames are located, inside, as in American single-hulls or outside, as in our double-hulls, in any case, the steel of the frames work for pure compression, and the steel of the hull wall for transverse and longitudinal compression, but with with an increase in external pressure, the tension in the metal does not grow evenly and there comes a moment when bending stresses arise in the body, then the loss of stability and then its crushing occurs. In spheres with equal wall thicknesses and diameters (and they are without frames), stability loss occurs at high external pressures. so the steel of the sphere is loaded to a large extent more evenly than in conventional bodies .. and so if a "suspended" body in the form of a corrugation is attached to the outer lattice frame of longitudinal rods and rings from the inside, then you can get a diagram when the outer frame works only for compression, and the walls of the corrugation are only in tension and due to this, to obtain some gain
                  1. prodi
                    prodi 11 August 2020 06: 59 New
                    0
                    I still cannot throw a "bridge" from sphere to "corrugation", or rather, I can not imagine a corrugation working "inward", like a sphere. It’s easier for me to imagine a stacked body made of tubing like a metro tube, fully working in compression
  • fliger85
    fliger85 10 August 2020 20: 28 New
    0
    Of course, the nuclear submarine is a necessary and interesting thing, but I prefer military, maneuverable aircraft ..
  • nikant
    nikant 11 August 2020 10: 40 New
    0
    Can Dog Breeds Swim and Dive Well? the question is, of course, interesting ...
  • nikant
    nikant 11 August 2020 11: 04 New
    +1
    in the absence of a real breakthrough in electronics (theory, technology, signal analysis, hydroacoustics, work with signals under water, under ice, etc.), the absence of modern naval aviation, a normal anti-submarine fleet, submarine and surface escort and escort fleet, sensible coastal infrastructure - there is especially nothing to catch, including the fact that there are also sea problems with boats (let's call it that): raw projects, torpedoes, anti-torpedoes, propellers, water cannons, noise ... from what gets into the press, it is clear that many things in the water and under the water are "captured" by the opponents ... and there is no need to groan that there is no money: progressive taxes, to force all the lake and similar brethren to return what they stole from the people ... weak?
  • nikant
    nikant 11 August 2020 11: 33 New
    +1
    I felt funny when my comment was removed ... it was said that by nature husky and husky dogs cannot swim and dive normally ... and these experts delete this ... isn't it funny?
  • nikant
    nikant 11 August 2020 11: 37 New
    0
    in the absence of a real breakthrough in electronics (theory, technology, signal analysis, hydroacoustics, work with signals under water, under ice, etc.), the absence of modern naval aviation, a normal anti-submarine fleet, submarine and surface escort and escort fleet, sensible coastal infrastructure - there is especially nothing to catch, including the fact that there are also sea problems with boats (let's call it that): raw projects, torpedoes, anti-torpedoes, propellers, water cannons, noise ... from what gets into the press, it is clear that many things in the water and under the water are "captured" by the opponents ... and there is no need to groan that there is no money: progressive taxes, to force all the lake and similar brethren to return what they stole from the people ... weak?