Military Review

The future of the Russian submarine fleet. Is the stake on VNEU and LIAB correct?

175

In the material dedicated to the promising multipurpose nuclear submarine "Husky" ("Laika"), the author, analyzing information from open sources, came to the conclusion that this submarine would be a somewhat improved Yasen-M. In this case, the main direction of improving the ship, most likely, will be its integration into the network-centric space. V. Dorofeev, General Director of St. Petersburg Marine Machine-Building Bureau Malakhit (SPMBM Malakhit), spoke about this:


“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, that is, the possibility of their participation in network-centric wars. "

In addition, most likely, "Husky" will receive an updated "filling", created on the basis of "new structural materials, new technical solutions in the field of nuclear energy, radio electronics and others" (according to V. Dorofeev). And at the same time, it should be expected that the basic design solutions (propeller, one-and-a-half-body design, etc.) will be preserved. Alas, in this form, "Husky" will represent a "step in place", that is, a modernized "Ash-M", and by no means a next-generation combat ship, as the media say. But the author discussed this in the previous article. Today we will talk a little about something else - the place and role of diesel-electric submarines with VNEU in the domestic underwater navy.

How many Husky will we master?


Let's take another look at the size of the new nuclear submarine. In comparison with previous projects, they will decrease slightly: the underwater displacement of the Yasen, according to various data from open sources, is 12 or 600 tons. The Ash-M has less, and the Husky ...

The future of the Russian submarine fleet. Is the stake on VNEU and LIAB correct?

If Laika-VMF is a Husky and it is, then its underwater displacement is “only” 11 340 tons. Taking into account that the Husky is designed as a carrier of Zircons, the result is far from the worst, which one would expect. Nevertheless, it turns out that the surface displacement of the Husky clearly exceeds 7000 tons, which makes this ship too large for large-scale construction. Will "Husky" be cheaper than "Ash-M", as they say now? This is highly doubtful. Yes, it may take a little less metal to create it, which will give some savings, but that's all. Otherwise, the Husky will cost either the same (if some components and assemblies remain unchanged) or more, due to the use of new technologies, which V. Dorofeev spoke about.

Here, of course, you need to remember the idea of ​​reducing costs by creating a universal ship that can be created in the MAPL and SSBN versions. But let's not forget that at the moment we have in the Navy, under construction and preparing for the laying of 10 SSBNs of projects 955 and 955A. In terms of their equipment, they are largely unified with multipurpose nuclear submarines of the Yasen and Yasen-M types. In other words, the cost of Yasen-M has already developed taking into account this unification, and in order to obtain a similar effect with the Husky, we will have to build a dozen more “strategists” on its basis.

But where do we need so much? According to the author of this article, the absolute maximum for the Russian Navy in the foreseeable future is 16 SSBNs in the fleet - one division each for the North and Pacific Oceans, and even that will be too much. We already have ten SSBNs of recent construction, so there is hardly a state defense order for strategic submarine missile carriers in 2030-2040. will be at least 6 buildings (in reality, hardly more than 2-4, if at all). The next ships of this class will be needed as the Boreyev is decommissioned, that is, not earlier than 2055-2060. By that time, of course, it will be necessary to think about creating a new project.

Thus, the potential reduction in the cost of "Husky" in the MAPL variant due to unification with SSBNs is unlikely to be significant. After all, we do not need a lot of SSBNs of this project, which means that the so-called economies of scale will not happen - due to the absence of this very scale. But the black humor of the situation lies in the fact that the idea of ​​reducing the cost of "Husky" by building MAPLs and SSBNs on the basis of one project is not only false in its essence (limitation of performance characteristics and MAPLs and SSBNs), but, most likely, will not lead to a decrease, but to an increase in the costs of our shipbuilding programs for the submarine fleet as a whole.

Let us recall that, according to the data available in the open press, Borey is about one and a half times cheaper than Ash. But it is obvious that the SSBN based on the "Husky" will not differ so significantly in cost from its own multipurpose modification. Why is that? Let's set up a thought experiment: take the Ash-M and try to build it in a strategic version, replacing cruise missile launchers with intercontinental ballistic missiles. Obviously, it will not fall in price from this one and a half times! That is, having gained a little on the cost of the Husky submarine due to the "economies of scale", we can miserably lose in the price of the Husky submarine, and so much that instead of saving on the creation of the Husky submarine and submarine for one project, we will get a net cost overrun.

In view of the above, we can safely assume that nuclear submarines will not become cheaper in our country. What else can you expect? To increase the military budget? Alas, as follows even from official statistics, the RF GDP for some reason unclear for our leadership does not want to grow at the rates the country needs. And from here follows a simple and sad conclusion: the pace of construction of the Husky will not differ too much from those that we see at Boreyev-A and Ash-M. And what is this pace?


Over the past 10 years, from 2011 to 2020, we have laid down and plan to lay down 31 SSBNs "Borey-A" and the same amount of "Yasenei-M" by December 7 of this year, and only 14 buildings, while the last of them will enter build no earlier than 2028 Taking into account the one and a half difference in cost, it should be expected that in 2021-2030, with a military budget more or less equivalent to the current one, we will be able to lay barely 12 Husky - both in the modification of the SSBN and MAPL, the last of which will enter already in 2038.

Taking into account the fact that by the end of the 30s almost all nuclear-powered ships of projects 949A, 971, 667BDRM, etc. either they leave the system, or they will be on the verge of complete depletion of both the technical resource and the combat value, the really combat-ready nuclear submarine fleet of the Russian Federation by this time will be approximately:

12-14 SSBNs, including: 3 "Boreya", 7 "Boreyev-A" and 2-4 - "Husky".

17-19 MAPLs, including: 1 "Ash", 8 "Ash-M" and 8-10 "Husky".

This number of our multipurpose nuclear submarines will be enough to form one division of MPSS in the Northern and Pacific fleets. But it should be understood that in the case of a "big badabum" this very division will need to simultaneously fight against groups of enemy surface ships and cover the deployment of SSBNs, fighting enemy MAPLs in our near and middle sea zones. For which, of course, just one MAPL division will not be enough.

The problem is compounded by the collapse of the treaties to reduce the deployment of nuclear weapons. The Americans are already talking openly about the possible return of nuclear warheads to the cruise missiles of the fleet - and this means that our submariners will need not only to destroy the AUG and "catch" foreign hunter boats for our SSBNs, but also to destroy the MAPL - carriers of the Tomahawks "With nuclear warheads. Well, how do you order all this to be done, having less than two dozen nuclear submarines against at least 40-50 multipurpose atomarines of the United States, not counting the submarines of their allies? Moreover, in the conditions of NATO anti-submarine aviation domination ...

Here, of course, the question arises: what did our naval commanders rely on before and are counting on today, having abandoned the creation of nuclear torpedo boats (PLATs) of moderate displacement and cost in favor of huge and expensive submarine missile carriers (SSGNs) of the Ash and Husky projects ? And if we recall the shipbuilding program GPV 2011-2020, then there is some suspicion that the stake was made on diesel-electric submarines with VNEU, that is, air-independent engines. Indeed, in the initial iteration of GPV 2011-2020, 10 missile-carrying "Ash" should have accounted for 20 diesel-electric submarines, of which 6 were supposed to be built according to project 636.3, that is, an improved "Varshavyanka" with classical energy, and 14 "Lad" of project 677 with VNEU. Yes, and "Varshavyanka" were going to build only for the reason that our Chornomorians were almost completely left without submarines, and the development of VNEU was delayed: if we had a capable VNEU, all 20 boats would be planned to be made with it.

On the one hand


On the one hand, the solution seems to be perfectly sound and has many advantages.

Firstly, the Russian Federation has 2 closed maritime theaters, the Baltic and Black Seas, on which the basing of nuclear submarines is excessive, that is, for these seas, in any case, it will be necessary to create non-nuclear submarines. So why not use them in other theaters as well, reducing the cost of each unit due to large-scale construction and reducing the diversity of ships in the fleet?

Secondly, as you know, one of the most important, key factors in underwater naval combat is the distance of mutual detection. It is also known that for a number of reasons, both objective and subjective, we ... how to put it mildly ... did not win in this aspect of the confrontation of nuclear submarines. In order to detect the enemy first, it is not necessary to have the best sonar system and at the same time less noise. It is enough to have such a combination to notice the enemy before he notices us. As far as can be understood from open sources again, we usually conceded in this to the Americans, only in some cases achieving parity.

But with diesel-electric submarines, we did it. For a number of reasons, the nuclear submarine is still more noticeable than the diesel-electric submarine, and therefore our "Halibuts" at one time often found the "sworn friends" MPSs, but they themselves remained unnoticed. Then, with the advent of more modern nuclear submarines, this advantage was lost, but, of course, having created a modern non-nuclear submarine, it is quite possible to return it again.


Thirdly, diesel-electric submarines, even with VNEU, are significantly cheaper than nuclear submarines. If you look at the cost of foreign submarines, you get something like the following.

American Virginia. The cost of the ships that are being leased to the Navy has now exceeded $ 2,7 billion (this is the cost of the Illinois, transferred to the US Navy in 2016).

British "Estute". In 2007, the cost of the first three ships (the last of which entered service in 2016) was estimated at 1,22 billion British pounds, or almost 2,4 billion dollars apiece. In general, taking into account inflation, we can say that the American and British nuclear submarines differ very little in price.

French "Barracuda". The smallest multipurpose nuclear submarine in the world. Its surface displacement does not exceed 4 tons, while the Estyut has 765 tons, the Virginia, even before the increase in the number of TLUs - about 6 tons. Apparently, this had a very positive effect on the cost of French atomarines: the amount of the contract for 500 Barracudas does not exceed 7 billion euros, and the most common figure is even smaller - 090 billion euros. Depending on which of the figures is correct, the cost of the French MAPL ranges from approximately $ 6 to $ 8,6 billion. Taking into account that the first Barracuda will go into operation only in 7,9, and the rest - at intervals of 1,57-1,7 years, comparing them with the cost of American and British MAPLs that entered service several years ago is not entirely correct: in comparable figures, the price ratio will be even more positive for the French.

Nevertheless, we see that even the smallest foreign-built nuclear-powered submarines are now "deep" over a billion. At the same time, the last Japanese ships with VNEU, equipped with a Stirling engine ("Soryu"), had a cost of only $ 454 million, and with lithium-ion batteries installed instead of Stirling - 566 or, according to other sources, $ 611 million. The cost of the serial German diesel-electric submarine with VNEU project 212A was 510 million dollars, but it is not clear what time it is, perhaps 2007.

Norway intended to conclude a contract for 4 diesel-electric submarines (with an option for 2 more ships of the same type), created on the basis of the German project 212A, while the value of the contract was supposed to be 4 billion euros, or about 1,2 billion dollars per ship ... But here you need to understand that, firstly, we are talking about the future and one should take into account significant inflation from prices of the same 2016 at the time of the contract, and, secondly, it is very possible that the contract implies not only the construction of diesel-electric submarines, but and any other services like maintenance and scheduled repairs of these ships.

In general, only the Australian contract with the French for 12 non-nuclear submarines with a total value of over $ 3 billion per unit is out of the ordinary. But here, according to the author, something very, very unclean.

Of course, comparing different ships from different countries is a completely thankless task, but nevertheless, some conclusions (at least at the level of the order of numbers) can be drawn. If we take the cost of a large full-fledged MPS with a surface displacement of 6 - 500 tons as a sample, then a small MPS less than 7 tons may well cost about 100-5% of its cost, and diesel-electric submarines with VNEU - no more than 000-50%.

Therefore, it can be assumed that if everything "merged" with VNEU and other "stuffing" of our diesel-electric submarines of project 677 "Lada", then the fleet could get a division of 8 such ships at the price of two "Yasenei-M". But even if the author is accused of unrestrained optimism, and in reality this ratio will be 3: 1, then it makes you think very seriously.

Theoretically speaking, having deployed a large-scale construction of diesel-electric submarines with VNEU, we would have received a relatively cheap and therefore numerous fleet of submarines, each of which had an excellent chance of detecting an enemy atomarina faster than it would be detected itself. At the same time, the fundamental disadvantage of diesel-electric submarines - a short time in position, due to the capacity of batteries, was largely leveled out. The diesel-electric submarine could patrol under the VNEU, conserving the charge in the batteries to complete the combat mission, but even after its completion and the complete depletion of electricity, it could go under the VNEU again.

Everything seems to be fine, but ...

On the other hand


But on the other hand, diesel-electric submarines with VNEU are still far from a panacea. As far as the author knows, the main disadvantage of such a diesel-electric submarine is its low speed: today VNEU provides movement at speeds of no more than 3-5 knots. This was not very good even at a time when the 3rd generation nuclear submarines ruled in the seas and oceans with their silent speed of 5-7 knots. and even higher, and even more so today, when this indicator has grown to 20 knots. The second drawback is the relatively low-power hydroacoustic complex (GAK) diesel-electric submarines, in comparison with that which can be placed on a much larger nuclear submarine.

As mentioned above, in the case of direct confrontation with the enemy's submarine, it is not the characteristics of the SAC per se, but the combination of the capabilities of acoustics with its own stealth that matters. There are also a number of tasks for which a super-powerful SJC, in general, is not required. For example, if a diesel-electric submarine with VNEU is faced with the task of controlling some relatively narrow strait, then it is able to cope with this no worse than an MPS.

But if it is necessary to search for an enemy nuclear submarine in the vast water area of ​​the adjacent sea, then the shortcomings of diesel-electric submarines begin to play a significant role. So, for example, if the detection range of the SSC MAPL exceeds the diesel-electric submarine by two times, and the speed of the low-noise cruise of the MPS is four times higher than the speed of the diesel-electric submarine under the VNEU (20 knots versus 5), then the “search performance” of the MPS will eightfold exceed the capabilities of the diesel-electric submarine with the VNEU.

Further. In combat conditions, there are often cases when it is necessary to concentrate forces to attack any unexpectedly discovered target. Obviously, an MPS with a high low-noise speed is much more mobile than a diesel-electric submarine with VNEU, which may simply not be in time at its 3-5 nodes to the "most interesting". And even if it succeeds, it will take much longer for diesel-electric submarines with VNEU to reach the line of attack than for MPSLs, which is dangerous by its early detection. Than? Yes, by the same ASW aviation using "non-traditional" means of searching for an underwater enemy. But after completing the task of diesel-electric submarines with VNEU, they also leave the area of ​​operation ... And, of course, whatever one may say, the autonomy of MAPLs is still much higher than that of diesel-electric submarines, even if with VNEU.

Thus, we come to the conclusion that the construction of modern diesel-electric submarines with VNEU for our fleet is extremely important and extremely necessary: ​​there are many tasks with which this class of ships will perfectly cope, successfully replacing more expensive MAPLs. But diesel-electric submarines with VNEU, even when equipped, in addition to an air-independent engine, also with high-capacity lithium-ion rechargeable batteries (LIAB), will still not replace, they will not be able to replace nuclear multipurpose submarines. Therefore, the concept of a general-purpose submarine force, consisting of a very limited number of SSGNs and diesel-electric submarines with VNEU, is, in the author's opinion, deeply erroneous.

Rather, it would be erroneous, provided that in our country they managed to create efficient and reliable VNEU and LIAB. We, unfortunately, have not yet done either one or the other; even worse, it's not at all clear when we'll do it. Accordingly, the fact that today, having failed the creation of VNEU, we are not designing a budget multipurpose torpedo nuclear submarine, but another wunderwaffe with blackjack and ... oh, sorry, with network-centric robots and Zircons. Such our actions cannot be classified as an error. Here completely different terms come to mind - "sabotage", for example.

About Dollezhal's eggs


Repeatedly in the discussion of topics related to promising types of submarines, the author came across the following position: they say that we are making a fence? We have very good diesel-electric submarines, we have the ability to create small-sized nuclear reactors, which are the best VNEU of all possible. To bring to mind the same Lada, to put a compact nuclear reactor there - voila, it will be cheap, efficient and cheerful.

Well, about “cheap” one could argue: nevertheless, miniaturization of any complex technique usually costs a pretty penny. The author has heard, for example, that the cost of a tactical nuclear weapon differs little from a strategic one, despite the fact that the power of the latter can be an order of magnitude or even orders of magnitude greater. And the example about a stationary computer and a laptop is generally classic.

But what about efficiency ... The whole question is that diesel-electric submarines running on electric motors, all other things being equal, will be much quieter than a nuclear submarine ship. A nuclear power plant is a rather complex energy conversion system: a reactor produces heat, it needs a coolant, water or metal, which will transfer the energy it receives to another unit. And he will already provide the conversion of heat into kinetic or electrical energy. Such a system is much more complicated than the "battery-powered" diesel-electric submarine or any VNEU, which means that it will make more noise. Thus, the installation of a nuclear reactor on the same "Lada" will lead to the fact that we will get a ship that has similar noise parameters to the MAPL, but a weaker SAC. And, most likely, such a ship will be much weaker than the classic MAPL, especially in terms of mutual detection distances.

Thus, according to the author, the installation of a reactor on a diesel-electric submarine cannot solve the existing problems. But the creation of a MAPL of the most moderate displacement like the French "Barracuda" is a completely different matter.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Is the nuclear submarine "Husky" so promising??
"Ash-M": the long-awaited, necessary and dear
175 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. BDRM 667
    BDRM 667 9 September 2020 05: 13 New
    -3
    Will "Husky" be cheaper than "Ash-M", as they say now? This is highly doubtful. Yes, its creation, perhaps, will take a slightly smaller amount of metal, which will give some savings, but that's all. Otherwise "Husky "will cost either the same (if some components and assemblies remain unchanged) or more, due to the use of new technologies, which V. Dorofeev spoke about.

    If Laika-VMF is a Husky and it is, then its underwater displacement is “only” 11 340 tons. Taking into account that the Husky is designed as a carrier of Zircons, the result is far from the worst, which one would expect. Nevertheless, it turns out that the surface displacement of the "Husky" clearly exceeds 7000 tons, which makes this ship too large for large-scale construction.


    Doubts yes , doubts yes , doubts yes

    Is there any doubt that new solutions and technologies are absolutely essential to ensure defense capability? After all, it is possible to doubt the rowing submarines.

    The budget and the industry will not master the large-scale construction of boats of the Husky project? In this, excuse me, it was already my turn to doubt ...

    Although, of course, there should and can be a place for dispute, discussions, and exchange of views on the future of the country's submarine fleet.

    But also "Fleet to be ! ", as Peter the Great commanded, no matter how many copies we break in battles around the discussion of the concepts of his future.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      9 September 2020 07: 11 New
      19
      Quote: BDRM 667
      Is there any doubt that new solutions and technologies are absolutely essential to ensure defense capability?

      The problem is that there are not as many of them on the Husky as is needed in order to consider this ship the next generation. Judging by the available information (see the previous article link below), this is essentially a modernized Ash-M
      Quote: BDRM 667
      The budget and the industry will not master the large-scale construction of boats of the Husky project? In this, excuse me, it was already my turn to doubt ...

      And what are the doubts? Will the budget be much larger than the existing one? Absolutely not. And in terms of the complexity of construction, they will not be easier than Ash, this is obvious
      Quote: BDRM 667
      But also "There will be a fleet!", As Peter the Great ordered

      Descendants just forgot about it
      1. BDRM 667
        BDRM 667 9 September 2020 07: 40 New
        -4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And what are the doubts? Will the budget be much larger than the existing one? Absolutely not. And in terms of the complexity of construction, they will not be easier than Ash, this is obvious

        The budget ... The budget of the Russian Federation in the defense sphere is so closed that we (and THEY wink ) we can only guess about its capabilities.

        I think that it will be necessary - we will do it.

        Complexity what It's difficult to get started, especially with new technologies. It has always been that way. Moreover, it will be so.
        And this is not only a "stumbling block" for us, but also a worldwide problem. But this is not a reason to stay with those technologies that have already been tested and to make no headway.


        DOUBT yes
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          9 September 2020 09: 57 New
          14
          Quote: BDRM 667
          Budget ... The budget of the Russian Federation in the defense sphere is so closed that we (and THEY) can only guess about its capabilities.

          There is no need to guess about anything - there are quite visible results of the RF Ministry of Defense budget execution. Including the fleet. And there is the knowledge that this budget is not growing especially (taking into account inflation)
          Quote: BDRM 667
          I think that it will be necessary - we will do it.

          As far as I understand, the state armaments program 2011-2020, in your opinion, did not need to be carried out - in the part of the fleet, it was implemented by 20 percent on the strength.
          1. umah
            umah 9 September 2020 10: 25 New
            +5
            So, for example, if the detection range of the SSC MAPL exceeds the diesel-electric submarine by two times, and the speed of the low-noise cruise of the MPS is four times higher than the speed of the diesel-electric submarine under the VNEU (20 knots versus 5), then the “search performance” of the MPS will eightfold exceed the capabilities of the diesel-electric submarine with the VNEU.

            Excuse me, do you mean maximum stroke or low noise? At 20 knots, the boat will not be heard only by the switched off hydroacoustic station, and the boat itself will have big problems with detection, because there are speed limits for the operation of the GAS - in other words, its own acoustic field and the oncoming flow of water will interfere.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              9 September 2020 10: 56 New
              12
              Quote: umah
              Excuse me, do you mean maximum stroke or low noise? At 20 knots, the boat will not be heard only by the switched off hydroacoustic station

              Seawulf and Virginias have a low noise of about 20 knots
              1. K298rtm
                K298rtm 9 September 2020 16: 52 New
                +2
                1. Is it as low noise as possible or minimum low noise?
                2. At what depth?
                3. Please state the source of information /
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 9 September 2020 22: 43 New
                  +8
                  Not the author, but I will say that "about 20 nodes" were thrown into the Internet by M. Klimov, I think that he took this figure somewhere in not very open docks, and then a bit (quite a bit) roughed up, in order to avoid ... Before him, as far as I know, no one announced such figures.

                  The depth is most likely not great, I suspect that at 300 meters and low noise at 20 knots it makes no sense to speak, for any hydrology.

                  Apparently the most quiet all the same.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    10 September 2020 07: 36 New
                    -1
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Not the author, but I will say that "about 20 nodes" were thrown into the Internet by M. Klimov,

                    Before him I had read about something like that, but now I can't even remember where. Either the marine collection, or the ZVO ...
                    1. rudolff
                      rudolff 10 September 2020 08: 04 New
                      +6
                      The figure of the maximum low-noise 20 knots appeared even before it was scored by Maxim. If in the 971th project the low-noise falls over 10 knots, then the figure close to 20 knots for the Wolf is quite real.
                      This indicator is very conditional and is directly related to electromotion without connecting the GTZA.
          2. bayard
            bayard 9 September 2020 21: 30 New
            14
            Good day Andrey! hi
            It's my birthday today, so I'm a little tired and will be brief.
            The series "Ash" / "Ash-M" must be limited to the already laid out buildings, this is quite enough.
            After completing the bookmark "Boreev" \ "Boreev-M", continue with bookmarks 2 pcs. per year "Boreev-K" with CD in launching cups in the amount of 4 - 6 pcs.
            And URGENTLY return to the program of torpedo MAPLs of moderate displacement of the Soviet program (based on the 945 project), which will be able to use both PLUR and KR from TA, with ammunition of up to 40 pieces.
            Fleets need 20 to 24 such MAPLs to provide cover for SSBNs and free hunting.
            "Ash", this is not a MAPL, but the classic SSGN, which according to the Soviet program were preparing to replace the 949 project, so let them do this, and "Onyx" with "Zircon" to help them.
            The project "Husky" \ "Likes" must be abandoned, because it is a dead end and blockhead.
            We need MAPL !!!
            The project of the new MAPL in VI 945 of the project under the USSR did not have time to be brought to mind, therefore they seized on "Ash" as "two in one" ... this is a mistake.
            We need to fix it.

            Considering the modernization program for 971 projects (all, as I understand it), then in principle we still have time.
            But not enough.
            We need to start now.
            I absolutely agree with you on the issue of non-nuclear submarines for the protection of bases, ensuring the withdrawal of SSBNs to the military base areas and protection of the strait zones.
            These are needed, and they must be built. But ONLY for these purposes.

            The naval contracts signed at Army 2020 pleasantly surprised me ... common sense still makes its way through blockhead. A very reasonable and balanced program ... But this is so far only about corvettes, frigates (extension of the 22350 series, and preferably up to 12 units - 4 units for each of the fleets - Northern Fleet, Pacific Fleet, Black Sea Fleet), repair of MAPL 971 projects (overripe , but long-awaited) and the extension of the 20385 series (problems with the "Zaslon" are known, but the plans to put it even at 20380 ... are encouraging ... that they will still be brought to mind).
            And this (such a sensible decision of the Ministry of Defense) means that not everything is lost in our Fatherland, and the work must be continued.
            What to you and all those involved - I wish.
            hi
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              10 September 2020 06: 17 New
              +5
              Quote: bayard
              I have a birthday today

              All the best, dear bayard! Health to you and your loved ones, personal happiness, cash and non-cash!
            2. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 10 September 2020 09: 45 New
              +2
              Quote: bayard
              hope ... that they will still bring to mind).


              Justify the meaning of installing an expensive radar (about a third of the cost of a ship) on a ship of extremely moderate capacity with a small ammunition load?
              You still wait for us now, different moral ............. will begin to tell tales of how much Polyment-Redoubt (which still works) is lame in comparison with Zaslon (which, in principle, does not work, and on which it is rumored radio correction is not provided), and the main thing must be pronounced with aspiration AFAR on it. That is, to push into the project 22350 already under construction and the planned project 22350M

              After completing the bookmark "Boreev" \ "Boreev-M", continue with bookmarks 2 pcs. per year "Boreev-K" with CD in launching cups in the amount of 4 - 6 pcs.
              And URGENTLY return to the program of torpedo MAPLs of moderate displacement of the Soviet program (based on the 945 project), which will be able to use both PLUR and KR from TA, with ammunition of up to 40 pieces.
              Fleets need 20 to 24 such MAPLs to provide cover for SSBNs and free hunting.


              Absolutely.

              Considering the modernization program for 971 projects (all, as I understand it),


              it is unlikely that it will be completely successful ...
              1. bayard
                bayard 10 September 2020 10: 28 New
                +1
                Quote: Cyril G ...
                Justify the meaning of installing an expensive radar (about a third of the cost of a ship) on a ship of extremely moderate capacity with a small ammunition load?

                We discussed all this, and more recently. And I was just against the expensive, complex and not working as expected radar, in favor of a simpler one, because the tasks for him on such a ship are limited.
                But it is still put (!) On all under construction and contracted 20380 and 20385. Most likely this is unscrupulous lobbying from the defense industry complex, and there have been quite a few publications about this.
                And the Investigative Committee is already busy with this hyperactive contractor ... but obviously there are patrons of this too. And influential.
                Now is not about that. The very fact of bookmarking / contracting a series of ten (8 + 2) new corvettes is already a breakthrough. Including in the continuation of the 20385 series with the UKSK, capable of accommodating PLUR.

                And for ships of the corvette class, the radar from "Pantsir-M" would be enough ... but for use in the fleet there the frequency range was unsuccessfully chosen ...
                And I fully support your opinion that it is necessary to install a simpler and more reliable radar system, and to lay down several more corvettes of the same kind with the money saved.
                But the lobby of the OPK "Zaslon" seems to have pushed through ...
                However, the head 20385 commission was never adopted, and if the radar does not work, then the new Zaslon ships will not be installed.
                And the noise and crackling on the air and on the forums about the "Barrier" on everything that floats is the work of lobbyists.
                Us and about the readiness of the USC to build an armada of "Leaders" is regularly announced. yes
                But!
                The MO has no plans for these monsters anymore. stop
                And these publications and statements are an empty shake of air with the hope of a miracle.
                1. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 10 September 2020 10: 37 New
                  +2
                  The very fact of bookmarking / contracting a series of ten (8 + 2) new corvettes is already a breakthrough. Including in the continuation of the 20385 series with the UKSK, capable of accommodating PLUR.

                  This is not a solution to the PLUR problem needed on all corvettes. Creation of PLUR 91Rkurts in + - dimensions of TPK Uranium is definitely not possible?
                  Quote: bayard
                  However, the head 20385 commission was never adopted, and if the radar does not work, then the new Zaslon ships will not be installed.

                  We already have two de facto ships with the Barrier. And the fact that the fleet has been fighting against the Barrier, refusing to accept the Thundering One for more than a year and a half, cannot but rejoice.
                  And I was just against the expensive, complex and not working as expected radar, in favor of a simpler

                  Positive + Puma.
                  for ships of the corvette class the radar system from "Pantsir-M" would be quite enough ... but for use in the fleet, the frequency range was unsuccessfully chosen ...

                  I hope it can be solved
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 10 September 2020 10: 58 New
                    0
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    This is not a solution to the PLUR problem needed on all corvettes. Creation of PLUR 91Rkurts in + - dimensions of TPK Uranium is definitely not possible?

                    Absolutely not possible - completely different dimensions and start algorithms. It would be wiser to abandon the excessively expensive radar, lay corvettes not 20380, but 20385 of the project - with the standard UKSK. And the price of such a ship will be quite acceptable ... That's just the speed ... The engines are needed more powerful, the expected HELL of 10 l / s should solve the problem.
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    We already have two de facto ships with the Barrier. And the fact that the fleet has been fighting against the Barrier, refusing to accept the Thundering One for more than a year and a half, cannot but rejoice.

                    The laying of the ships under the signed contracts will most likely begin from the beginning of next year, and before that time either the "Zaslon" should start working, or another decision will be made.
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    Positive + Puma.

                    They even called it "Mineral".
                    You just need to decide on the priority use of these ships, as anti-submarine, and then the question of choosing a radar will be immediately simplified.
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    for ships of the corvette class the radar system from "Pantsir-M" would be quite enough ... but for use in the fleet, the frequency range was unsuccessfully chosen ...

                    I hope it can be solved

                    To do this, you need to go back from millimeters to centimeters - the "mm" range has a problem with fog, low cloudiness and high air humidity ... Absorption of EM radiation in this range by a humid air environment ... It works normally in dry air.
                    1. Cyril G ...
                      Cyril G ... 10 September 2020 11: 30 New
                      +1
                      Quote: bayard
                      Absolutely not possible - completely different dimensions and start algorithms.

                      I would not be so sure ...... Especially when it comes to starting - oblique or vertical. But we'll see.
                      Well, at least in the right direction, the movement, although it is seasoned with a bunch of ostentatiousness, as on the eve of the RYAV, albeit wide zigzags and extremely slow
                      They even called it "Mineral".
                      You just need to decide on the priority use of these ships, as anti-submarine,


                      For PLC Mineral, let's say this is not necessary
      2. antivirus
        antivirus 9 September 2020 08: 12 New
        +2
        the best Huskies are the positional area + Satan mines of the Strategic Missile Forces.
        on TV they signed START1 (in Vienna?). father: "here they will again be cut, in the 60s in the Urals they blew up mines in the Khrushchev detente, then heads and shoulder straps flew, as if again"
        Chezh chasing the oceans for pipes when there is 1 \ 7 of the Earth's territory?
        1. Sergej1972
          Sergej1972 10 September 2020 23: 34 New
          0
          Under Khrushchev, there was no explosion of mine installations.
      3. Nehist
        Nehist 9 September 2020 15: 22 New
        +5
        Greetings Andrey! With Husky, in general, the story is interesting, almost like with Lada !!! They banged a lot of money, but in the end I couldn't ... It's cheaper than Yasinya to build .. Also not a cake, but how can I burn without fish and cancer !!! If we take the entire boat building program, then they managed to famously fail it.
        1. Akuzenka
          Akuzenka 9 September 2020 19: 03 New
          +1
          The other day I took and read what programs are scheduled to be executed in 2020 (weapons, space, social programs). Money, judging by official sources, has been allocated in abundance. No money, no fulfillment. I understand everything, the capitalists want to eat sweetly, take them to the grave, and leave everything they have gained to their grandchildren. But! They began to plant. Not the biggest and the richest, but the switchmen. But it turns out that the country is run by bribes and thieves (I hate liberals). So what kind of implementation of the program to protect the country can we talk about? The conclusion is obvious - they are going to surrender the country. For how many square meters of the grave is unknown. We will simply be allowed to use fertilizers and leather goods. Any doubts ?! Facts please. War is coming soon, but I'm afraid they will surrender without war. They will take away a couple of figures and that's all, they will promise the rest, but they will deceive. By the way, the article is not gloomy, but optimistic.
          1. Kart
            Kart 10 September 2020 09: 31 New
            -2
            Quote: AKuzenka
            The conclusion is obvious - they are going to surrender the country. For how many square meters of the grave is unknown. We will simply be allowed to use fertilizers and leather goods. Any doubts ?!

            No.
            Oppositionists and all kinds of fighters against the regime, if they come to power, will do it immediately 100%
            The current government has a 50-50 probability.
  2. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 9 September 2020 06: 25 New
    +1
    The author painted a very gloomy picture ... And there will not be enough money, and we are lagging behind everywhere, and, and ... in nuclear power, Russia is not at all in last place. The task of creating small-sized and low-noise reactors has been around for a long time.
    Maybe you should think about a "hybrid" power plant? Not a very powerful and small-sized nuclear reactor, powerful storage batteries and the ability to simultaneously use this and that. I do not pretend to be discovered, but why are they developing a super-complete reactor of 5 megawatts? For a floating power plant and an icebreaker - too small, for a full-size nuclear submarine - too. And for such a small one, 3000 tons? And even with batteries? Lies at the bottom, charging. Then he cut in everything that is - he reached high speeds. Sneak - on batteries, reactor at minimum power ... So, fantasies wink
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      9 September 2020 07: 13 New
      14
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Not very powerful and small-sized nuclear reactor, powerful storage batteries and the ability to simultaneously use both this and that

      A nuclear reactor is not an internal combustion engine, it cannot be taken and turned off. It will work constantly, therefore, it is necessary to ensure the movement of the coolant, etc. In principle, there are technologies that can allow natural circulation, but in any case, this energy must be transferred somewhere. And it can be transferred only for processing into another type of energy.
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 9 September 2020 07: 44 New
        -3
        Well, in any case, we already have something like a thermoemission nuclear power plant of the Topaz space type, and the patrol time when using it will be higher, even if the energy output is in the region of 10-15 kW.
        We must use what we have.
        Again, what will be the price of a MAPL in terms of a French woman ...
        1. Andrey NM
          Andrey NM 9 September 2020 09: 56 New
          +6
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          Again, what will be the price of a MAPL in terms of a French woman ...

          And how does the French VNEU differ in its principle? There is also a miniturbine, and the source of heat for generating steam is oil and oxygen.
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 9 September 2020 10: 46 New
            +3
            Quote: Andrew NM
            And how does the French VNEU differ in its principle?


            Actually, I was talking about

            https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Подводные_лодки_типа_«Рюби»
            1. Andrey NM
              Andrey NM 9 September 2020 11: 03 New
              +3
              Quote: Cyril G ...
              Actually, I said ...

              Got it. Just recently I read about the French VNEU. In fact, the Rubis scheme, only a diesel burner instead of an atomic "samovar".
              1. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 10 September 2020 09: 50 New
                +3
                We, my conviction, need a new multipurpose submarine moderate displacement in a mass batch of at least 24 units
              2. Sergej1972
                Sergej1972 10 September 2020 23: 37 New
                0
                In my opinion, the French make non-nuclear boats only for export, they are not in the French fleet.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          9 September 2020 10: 00 New
          +8
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          Well, in any case, we already have something like a thermoemission nuclear power plant of the Topaz type

          Yes, but a question of cost and time of use. There was a year on EMNIP Topaz
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          Again, what will be the price of a MAPL in terms of a French woman ...

          Looking at the performance characteristics, of course. But the French did it quite cheaply hi
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 9 September 2020 10: 25 New
            +7
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But the French did it quite cheaply

            Exactly. The question is, what exactly is our gag regarding the construction of the nuclear submarine?
            If in reactors? Then yes, the creation of a small-sized torpedo nuclear submarine does not make sense.
            If there is something else, then, in my opinion, the creation of a mass serial MAPL, in dimensions close to the dimensions of Varshavyanka, which we are building is simply unrealistically fast, and as an option, even with a missile compartment for 8-10 CR is quite realistic and even more necessary. The creation of large multipurpose nuclear submarines of the Ash family is not a substitute for all nuclear submarines.
            Too varied tasks. In my opinion, it is difficult to combine escort operations of SSBNs, operations on communications, anti-ship operations in one type of MAPL
            By the way.

            sketch AMUR-950 - this submarine in a relatively small military unit also has a missile compartment. Even in principle, not a compartment, but an insert with something like UKSK.
          2. DrEng527
            DrEng527 9 September 2020 15: 35 New
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            a, but a matter of cost and time of use. There was a year on EMNIP Topaz

            1) with serial production, the cost will decrease
            2) the submarine operates under the reactor only during the threatened period, and a year of war is a LOT!
        3. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 17 September 2020 09: 25 New
          0
          Elements such as Topaz for nuclear submarines are not suitable - rather weak.
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 17 September 2020 10: 38 New
            +1
            Let's take a different approach, the consumption is 100-150 kW * h, I'm not sure. Not a submariner. And to delve into laziness. But something like it should be. This is the work of the power plant at low speeds, the work of the SJSC in the silo + daily needs. You understand, even if the conventional Topaz gives a hundred kilowatts, it will be a huge increase in underwater autonomy ..
      2. Mountain shooter
        Mountain shooter 9 September 2020 07: 49 New
        -2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        there are technologies that can allow natural circulation

        Naturally, on natural circulation at low power. Heat through heat exchangers to ballast tanks. One thousand or another tons of sea water will take a long time to warm up. And 10% of 5 kW is not a lot. The turbine and generator without direct transmission to the shaft of the lead screw should also be quieter ...
      3. Insurgent
        Insurgent 9 September 2020 07: 53 New
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        A nuclear reactor is not an internal combustion engine, it cannot be taken and turned off. It will work constantly, therefore, it is necessary to ensure the movement of the coolant, etc. In principle, there are technologies that can allow natural circulation, but in any case, this energy must be transferred somewhere. AND it can be transferred only for processing into another type of energy

        Or it can be cooled by condensing the steam ("driving to idle"), bypassing the turbine (s) through the main condenser, which in turn creates a difference in seawater temperatures, reducing the boat's stealth ...
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          9 September 2020 10: 01 New
          +5
          Quote: Insurgent
          , which in turn creates a difference in seawater temperatures, reducing the boat's stealth ...

          yes, that's why I didn't take it into account
        2. Nehist
          Nehist 9 September 2020 15: 33 New
          +3
          Gg anti-submarine warriors which the aviators took pictures showed how the heat plume behind the nuclear submarine remains. In the USSR, even experimental satellites were made in order to detect by the train ... Where are these developments ...
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 9 September 2020 16: 08 New
            +2
            Quote: Nehist
            Gg anti-submarine warriors which the aviators took pictures showed how the heat plume behind the nuclear submarine remains.

            Well there it is ...
            Show such a picture, the passion you want to see.
            And another question - how are they, these anti-submarine aircraft,
            was this trace found and recorded?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              9 September 2020 16: 36 New
              +3
              Quote: Bez 310
              And another question - how are they, these anti-submarine aircraft,
              was this trace found and recorded?

              Yes, in fact, a decent infrared observation device can quite draw this
              1. Bez 310
                Bez 310 9 September 2020 16: 45 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                a decent infrared observation device can quite draw this

                If not difficult - the type of aircraft, the name of the equipment, the picture.
                If none of this is present, then all the talk about the detection of submarines by the heat trail is just chatter.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  10 September 2020 10: 32 New
                  0
                  Quote: Bez 310
                  If none of this is present, then all the talk about the detection of submarines by the heat trail is just chatter.

                  How to say? Here is the opinion of Major-Engineer V. Kamov
                  "Infrared means. Anti-submarine aircraft are used by the PC of the forward-looking station of the Flir system to detect surface targets at night and detect the temperature trail of the submarine's wake. Foreign naval experts believe that, although the temperature rise during the passage of the submarine reaches only 0,005 ° C, the temperature difference between the wake and the sea surface can be detected using an infrared detector.The elevated water temperature persists for some time, which makes it possible to determine the wake trail even 5-6 hours after the submarine was in the search area.
                  The operation of an infrared station having a passive principle of operation is not detected by the enemy and is not subject to deliberate interference from him. The station is relatively simple in design, has small dimensions and weight. However, it works efficiently only under favorable weather conditions; With rain and fog, its range is significantly reduced. In addition, the infrared station detects a thermal footprint when the submarine moves at shallow depths and low speeds, providing a thermal footprint to the surface. At present, an AN / AAR-31 station is being installed on anti-submarine aircraft.
                  The Flir system, according to the foreign press, is currently installed only on anti-submarine aircraft R-3S Orion and S-XNUMXA Viking. In combination with other means, it provides reliable detection of surface targets. "
                  Publication 1975
                  1. Bez 310
                    Bez 310 10 September 2020 10: 46 New
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    How to say?

                    I am a little aware of how our "anti-submarine" men are looking for submarines.
                    In general, while I do not know about the detection of submarines "by heat trace".
                    Look, a "thermal imager" was installed on the Il-38N. Well, now probably everything
                    foreign submarines will be detected as soon as possible.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      10 September 2020 11: 43 New
                      0
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      In general, while I do not know about the detection of submarines "by heat trace".

                      (shrug) The physics of the phenomenon is clear. Foreigners staged this, and in large quantities. The infa skipped over that even satellites were tied to the search on the infrared trail, but I couldn't find it right away. Il-38N thermal imager received.
                      What else do you need? Personal experience? Well, excuse me, in that case I can only remind you that if you do not know something, this does not mean that it does not exist in nature. No offense - I don't know a lot either :)))
                      1. Bez 310
                        Bez 310 10 September 2020 12: 28 New
                        0
                        Okay, everything is clear.
                        You have the physics of the phenomenon, I have the practice of searching for submarines.
                        The theory has not been confirmed by practice, unfortunately.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        10 September 2020 12: 41 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Bez 310
                        You have the physics of the phenomenon, I have the practice of searching for submarines.

                        With good thermal imagers? Under the conditions described above? Did you know for sure that there was a boat, but you did not find it? And so - several times in a row?
                        Quote: Bez 310
                        The theory has not been confirmed by practice, unfortunately.

                        Sorry, but if something didn’t work for you personally, it doesn’t mean that nobody else did it. The US Navy in the 70s and 90s took PLO VERY seriously, and if they used this method it still worked.
                      3. Bez 310
                        Bez 310 10 September 2020 14: 22 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        this does not mean that no one succeeded

                        You probably don't understand me.
                        But I will repeat - our "aircraft anti-submarine" not a single
                        the boats were not found "by the heat trail". None!
                        Well, we don't have such a way to search for submarines, no, that's all!
                        What is going on in other countries, I do not know, quite
                        it is possible that in the USA they are more advanced in the search for submarines for
                        different fields, but it's much more important to me that we are here
                        not "ahead of the rest" at all.
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        10 September 2020 14: 43 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Bez 310
                        You probably don't understand me.

                        This is more than possible. Nevertheless, communication in the format of the exchange of comments is far from being a personal conversation. hi
                        Quote: Bez 310
                        But I will repeat - our "aircraft anti-submarine" not a single
                        the boats were not found "by the heat trail". None!
                        Well, we don't have such a way to search for submarines, no, that's all!

                        We do not, but why? If my memory serves me, then before the Il-38N with Novella, devices that could search for submarines by the heat trail were not used at all - only radar, RSL and magnetometers. And the Americans, as far as I know, today do not make a special stake on heat search. But if you remember how the discussion began, then the option of dumping the coolant water into the accursed okiyan cannot be considered promising. Today nuclear submarines hide a heat trail, and all the same, it turns out, under some conditions they can be noticed, and if this is not done at all, then ...
                      5. Bez 310
                        Bez 310 10 September 2020 15: 23 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        We do not have,...


                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And the Americans, as far as I know, today do not make a special stake on heat search.


                        As far as I understand, there is no equipment capable of reliably
                        determine the presence of submarines "by the heat trace".
  • venik
    venik 9 September 2020 09: 06 New
    +4
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    A nuclear reactor is not an internal combustion engine, it cannot be taken and turned off.

    ========
    Yah? Those. shut down the reactor must not?? belay Yes, you can't! But only if it is used as a coolant liquid metal (lithium for example), which must be kept in a "heated" (melted) state all the time. If banal water is used as a coolant (in most cases it is) - then it is POSSIBLE!
    The question is different - in quality power plant on the nuclear submarine, the following link is used: "reactor (" boiler ") - double-circuit heat exchanger - steam turbine - reduction gear".
    It is the last 2 links of the power plant that are the most noisy! The characteristic whistle of a steam turbine and vibration associated with operation at high speeds (low speed steam turbines are from the realm of fantasy - efficiency - tends to 0) yes, plus very strong, difficult-to-eliminate vibrations - and create noise yes plus a gearbox.
    Direct conversion of heat into electricity (with the help of thermoelements, for example) also does not provide the necessary capacities yet ... Canadians tried to create such a submarine in the distant 70s of the last century, but nothing good happened ...
    1. ycuce234-san
      ycuce234-san 9 September 2020 16: 36 New
      -1
      And what does a conventional low-speed steam engine not suit you? You can make the crankshaft strong and massive and put a screw on its end without any gearboxes. It is simple and "oak" and in general it will be possible to carry it out from the inside of the boat, where it will be easy to cool and cool the exhaust steam.
      1. venik
        venik 9 September 2020 19: 25 New
        +2
        Quote: ycuce234-san
        And what does a conventional low-speed steam engine not suit you?

        =========
        Too noisy and vibration! (Cylinders, connecting rods, valves, crankshaft). And the efficiency - "below the plinth"!
        1. ycuce234-san
          ycuce234-san 9 September 2020 21: 42 New
          +1
          So after all, it is very low-speed, and it can be a consequence of low-noise - 0,2-0,3 revolutions per second and, due to the high direct thrust, have a low-speed and low-noise propeller or a water cannon of epic dimensions. The steam distribution mechanism is spool type. Efficiency will have to be sacrificed on the altar of Naptun, but there is no need to complain - and so part of it will return due to the absence of losses in any gearboxes.
    2. Akuzenka
      Akuzenka 9 September 2020 19: 08 New
      -1
      The question is different - as a power plant on the nuclear submarine - a bundle is used: "reactor (" boiler ") - double-circuit heat exchanger - steam turbine - reduction gear".
      This is not a "reduction gear", it is a radioactive coolant that transfers heat to a non-radioactive coolant.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  • Andrey NM
    Andrey NM 9 September 2020 09: 53 New
    +8
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    A nuclear reactor is not an internal combustion engine, it cannot be taken and turned off.

    Andrey, you can enter and remove the GEM. It takes several hours. Another question is that even the withdrawn "samovar" is still not intense, but it heats up and has to be constantly cooled. And cooling by natural circulation is also possible. I believe that the input and output times for small nuclear power plants will be much shorter.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      9 September 2020 14: 40 New
      +5
      I beg your pardon. You are right, it was for some reason that I got stuck in liquid metal reactors when writing a comment. crying
    2. Nehist
      Nehist 9 September 2020 15: 37 New
      +2
      The thermal train is still very big !!!! From the air, with the presence of equipment, it can be seen very well,
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 9 September 2020 16: 11 New
        +2
        Quote: Nehist
        From the air, with the presence of equipment, it can be seen very well,

        What aircraft, what equipment?
        I wish I could look at that trail with just one eye ...
  • DrEng527
    DrEng527 9 September 2020 15: 34 New
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    A nuclear reactor is not an internal combustion engine, it cannot be taken and turned off. It will work constantly

    however, its power can be adjusted within wide limits, at low power in a few% there will be free cooling ...
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    In this case, this energy must be transferred somewhere.

    there is water around, this is not space
  • Akuzenka
    Akuzenka 9 September 2020 19: 05 New
    0
    Dear Andrey! No need to explain the obvious. If a person wants to reasonably argue, he will study the materiel. If you just blurt out. Oladushek. Don't waste time with ignoramuses.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 9 September 2020 07: 41 New
    -16
    Very strange article.
    Some kind of juggling of names, sizes,
    cost, abbreviations, assumptions ...
    Author! What did you want to talk about?
    1. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 9 September 2020 08: 48 New
      +2
      The author will not answer you. It's like throwing pearls in front of God knows who.
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 9 September 2020 11: 44 New
        -2
        You are not the author, why are you clever?
        I would like to answer more vividly, but I will not "throw beads in front of God knows who."
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      9 September 2020 10: 02 New
      14
      Quote: Bez 310
      Author! What did you want to talk about?

      The fact that the bet on huge launch vehicles (SSGN) and boats with an air-independent engine (VNEU) does not justify itself - we need small nuclear submarines (nuclear submarines) with torpedo weapons
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 9 September 2020 11: 46 New
        0
        Such as "Lyra"?
        I think that different boats are needed, different boats are important.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          9 September 2020 14: 29 New
          +6
          Quote: Bez 310
          Such as "Lyra"?

          No, not like that. But about this, or not much greater displacement
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 9 September 2020 16: 06 New
            +4
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But about this, or not much greater displacement

            I just talked about this, and not about the type of reactor.
      2. DrEng527
        DrEng527 9 September 2020 15: 37 New
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The fact that the bet on huge launch vehicles (SSGN) and boats with an air-independent engine (VNEU) does not justify itself - we need small nuclear submarines (nuclear submarines) with torpedo weapons

        but the conclusion is reasonable! we need a nuclear submarine in 4kt ... which is quite real!
      3. Nehist
        Nehist 9 September 2020 15: 40 New
        +3
        EPT ... This was talked about in the last century !!! Unfortunately, they did not heed ...
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          9 September 2020 16: 37 New
          +6
          But this is not a reason to stop talking, is it? :))))
      4. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 9 September 2020 17: 42 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        the bet on huge launch vehicles (SSGN) and boats with an air-independent engine (VNEU) does not justify itself

        Good afternoon.
        The article is controversial, but this is your view of the problem. And you have a right to it.
        1. Huge CD carriers (SSGN)... They are huge for the reason that there is an achieved level of technology and technology. We will be able to shove greater opportunities into smaller volumes - there will be "little inches". And given the current culture of production, this is the best that our industry can offer us.
        2. Do you propose to abandon the SSGN? Then answer two simple questions:
        a) why the Yankees cut another section of 28 mallets into their Virgin, despite the fact that there are already 2x6 in the bow. The Wolf does not have a VPU, so he launches anti-ship missiles / KRBD through the TA, while out of 40 mallets, about 50% of the BZ is devoted to this pleasure.
        b) with D obn NK up to 230 km (MGK-600) with which torpedo are you going to hit the target? According to the logic of your reasoning, the R-91 should also be abandoned, because the missile-torpedo ...
        3. boats with VNEU did not justify themselves I don’t remember when these were put into service with us. But if "they did not justify", then why do the French sculpt and sell their Scorpions with MESMA, Jews buy Dolphins from Deutschers, the Swedes are building A26 with an improved (third generation DS) VNEU? The Chinese improved the DS by 117% and put on their 039 C?
        Or everyone has already forgotten how Gotland in 2003 in Mediterranean alternately rolled Elk on blooming, and then a Frenchwoman, having previously won a duel against the Spanish submarine.
        Therefore, Andrey, your statement is far from the truth.
        4. Regarding the appeal to the military-technical commission ...
        I suppose that there are very competent people sitting there ... And if they are not "Copenhagen" in some way and there are doubts, then: science, production, strategists-operatives-tactics, finance, logisticians, technologists - consultants and advisers - are attracted without limitation, how much is needed and who is needed. There, a competent, comprehensively balanced opinion-judgment-view of the future (10-20-30-50 years) of the development of the country's military organization and its armed forces is developed.
        Therefore, the correct colleague Per se. (Sergey) Today, 09:11 noticed - you need to dance from the stove! (war-enemy-doctrine-strategy / tactics-weapons and military equipment - methods and methods of their combat use).
        And for the submarine forces, this picture is approximately the following:
        - up to 500 miles - diesel-electric submarine zone; - up to 1000 miles - non-nuclear submarines based on VNEU / LIAB; - over 1000 miles - PLA. A separate picture for rpkSN and PLASN.
        Therefore, as in the garden - each vegetable has its own garden and its own time.
        And a few more words about the moaning about "big and thick PLA".
        If we have an American level of science / technology / technology / culture of production, we will have boats that are 1,5 times less in weight and dimensions.
        But it will be difficult for us to achieve 8-10 thousand tons of underwater displacement with the current mass-dimensional "offal" for boats with normal habitability, autonomy and a set / set of weapons and weapons. So far, the growth of underwater displacement is a clearly traced global trend.
        Yours faithfully, hi
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          10 September 2020 06: 33 New
          +2
          Greetings, Alexander!
          Quote: BoA KAA
          Do you propose to abandon the SSGN?

          Generally speaking - yes, but today it is no longer possible - do not send Ash to the scrap
          Quote: BoA KAA
          Then answer two simple questions:

          You're welcome!
          Quote: BoA KAA
          why the Yankees cut another section of 28 mallets into their Virgin, despite the fact that there are already 2x6 in the bow.

          For the use of the Tomahawk CD for ground targets. The classic "fleet against shore" - the Americans can afford it. In general, we do not have such a function today, in the sense that if something happens to the shores of the United States, several nuclear submarines with a CD ... well, it is somehow pointless. Akin to the Doolittle raid on Tokyo, or a raid on the United States from a Japanese submarine in WWII.
          Quote: BoA KAA
          with D obn NK up to 230 km (MGK-600) with which torpedo are you going to hit the target?

          There are no such distances in nature. An aircraft carrier in ideal conditions - it may still be.
          Quote: BoA KAA
          boats with VNEU did not justify themselves

          Please specify where I wrote this. If possible - here in this excerpt of the article:
          Thus, we come to the conclusion that the construction of modern diesel-electric submarines with VNEU for our fleet is extremely important and extremely necessary: there are many tasks with which this class of ships will perfectly cope, successfully replacing more expensive MAPLs. But diesel-electric submarines with VNEU, even when equipped, in addition to an air-independent engine, also with high-capacity lithium-ion rechargeable batteries (LIAB), will still not replace, they will not be able to replace nuclear multipurpose submarines. Therefore, the concept of a general-purpose submarine force, consisting of a very limited number of SSGNs and diesel-electric submarines with VNEU, is, in the author's opinion, deeply erroneous.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 10 September 2020 16: 25 New
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            CD "Tomahawk" for ground targets. The classic "fleet against shore" - the Americans can afford it. In general, we do not have such a function today, in the sense that if something happens to the shores of the United States, several nuclear submarines with a CD ... well, it is somehow pointless.
            Far from it! Caliber-M flies more than 4000 km, the head can be. any! Before that, there were X-101/102 with a range of up to 5 km. What prevents the 500-M project from upsetting the 885th KRBD missile defense system in the complex of actions that provide the RNU of the Strategic Missile Forces?
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            with D obn NK up to 230 km (MGK-600) with which torpedo are you going to hit the target?

            There are no such distances in nature.
            Maybe not ... But the chief designer, the OSK State Duma, have repeatedly mentioned such a range. And this is possible taking into account the fully digital SAC and the Ajax-M prefix. Moreover, 885-M can detect absolutely noiseless submarines according to the method of the Leksin brothers at incredible distances (up to 150 km!) There is something for the Yankees to panic!
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            "boats from VNEU did not justify themselves

            Please specify where I wrote this. If I may
            Andrey, when you reply to comments, you also need to watch your words:
            Yesterday at 10:02 am you said literally the following:
            rate on huge carriers of the CD (SSGN) and boats with an air-independent engine (VNEU) does not justify itself - we need small nuclear submarines (nuclear submarines) with torpedo weapons

            And in general, I never invent anything.
            I am not against you, I am "FOR", but with small "clarifications" wink
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              11 September 2020 07: 11 New
              +1
              Alexander, good day!
              Quote: BoA KAA
              What prevents the 885-M project from upsetting the 10th KRBD missile defense system in the complex of actions that provide the RNU of the Strategic Missile Forces?

              The complexity of the process. There are few boats, you need to come close, the PLO will not doze. Yes, the Caliber flies far, but at 4 km it will fly for more than 000 hours. But the Americans may well sketch the start of the CD - not only we have ZGRLS. Why warn them in advance?
              Quote: BoA KAA
              But the chief designer, GD USK, repeatedly mentioned such a range.

              So for the Su-35 they mention 400 km :)))) They are silent that such a range is possible only for a certain radar mode and against large-size targets :))))) In general, ours took the American fashion - to publish the maximum range at which in under ideal conditions, an object with the same maximum characteristics can be detected.
              Quote: BoA KAA
              Moreover, 885-M can detect absolutely noiseless submarines according to the method of the Leksin brothers at incredible distances (up to 150 km!)

              I am pleased to read about it. Will you extend the link?
              Quote: BoA KAA
              Andrey, when you reply to comments, you also need to watch your words

              So I follow :))))
              Quote: BoA KAA
              Yesterday at 10:02 you said literally the following

              Let's read together
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              the bet on huge launch vehicles (SSGN) and boats with an air-independent engine (VNEU) does not justify itself - we need small nuclear submarines (nuclear submarines) with torpedo weapons

              In my opinion, it is quite obvious that this is not about the fact that submarines with VNEU do not justify themselves, but about the fact that the idea of ​​building SSGNs and submarines with VNEU without circuit boards does not justify itself. Agree, these are different things hi
              Quote: BoA KAA
              I am not against you, I am "FOR", but with small "clarifications"

              And I am never against constructive criticism! drinks I am definitely not the Deputy Lord on all issues of the Navy, and I don’t feel that way. But still, in this case, as I think, there is not a difference in views, but a simple misunderstanding hi
              1. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 11 September 2020 17: 25 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                I am pleased to read about it. Will you extend the link?

                Andrei, what are you, really business, how small!
                You type in the search engine "LEXIN BROTHERS" - and read to your health about "Meru-A" and about "Delta" ... hi
                Maxim and A. Timokhin promised to throw another article about Ritsa and Delta.
                There will be something to work on with brains, and not with language, while sliding from the topic to kitchen gatherings, as is often the case recently on VO
                AHA.
  • Connor MacLeod
    Connor MacLeod 9 September 2020 08: 13 New
    -2
    We are building Ash without missile silos, what is there to think about? This is about -25% in terms of displacement, that is, it will turn out to be 9000 tons. Then there is another cut to cut, bring to 8000 tons. Well, we will endure everyone!

    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 9 September 2020 23: 25 New
      +2
      No, we need a completely different ship ...
      1. Connor MacLeod
        Connor MacLeod 9 September 2020 23: 26 New
        0
        No time! Let's first put things in order in the fourth generation, and then we'll think about the fifth ...
  • SVD68
    SVD68 9 September 2020 08: 22 New
    11
    The author's reasoning is quite sound. We need three types of boats:
    1) nuclear-powered missile arsenals. With a variation for ballistic and cruise missiles;
    2) nuclear-powered hunting boats. Specialized boats to combat enemy submarines;
    3) electric boats for small, confined or narrow waters.
    1. kepmor
      kepmor 9 September 2020 09: 43 New
      +4
      forgot about yadren-loaf under Poseidon ... now it is in trend ...
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      9 September 2020 10: 04 New
      +6
      Absolutely agree. I would give up SSGNs altogether at this stage
      1. kepmor
        kepmor 9 September 2020 10: 50 New
        +5
        I agree...
        in the absence of a sufficient number of forces and means of ensuring combat stability (PMO, PLO, air defense), and most importantly, the central control system, the efficiency of using SSGNs on the deployment routes of the AUG and DESO will inevitably tend to zero ...
        to create for the SSGN air defense missile systems in coastal areas, it is also not effective for the above reasons ...
      2. DrEng527
        DrEng527 9 September 2020 15: 38 New
        -1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I would give up SSGNs altogether at this stage

        Exactly! Rocket trains are better ...
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 9 September 2020 08: 23 New
    +7
    The topic is not new. The problem is 20 years old ...
    It is possible to reduce, "simplify" and reduce the cost of the MAPL ... But ... this will not affect the series in any way. There will be no 40 MAPLs in the fleet even in 20 years.
    In my opinion, the problem is not so much in the financial component as in the state of shipbuilding ...
    And with corvettes, and with frigates and with MAPL the same technical problems.
    Of course, 30-40 Hasok will not cope with the budget, but shipbuilders will not build as many cheaper boats. Therefore, no matter how sad it is, let them build a limited number of Ash-Hasoks, but at least in terms of their performance characteristics they will be no worse, but somewhere even better than modern analogues of potential opponents.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      9 September 2020 10: 06 New
      10
      Quote: Doccor18
      It is possible to reduce, "simplify" and reduce the cost of the MAPL ... But ... this will not affect the series in any way. There will be no 40 MAPLs in the fleet even in 20 years.

      Why not? If we now had a small MAPL project, we would have mastered the construction of 2 divisions, one for the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet. Plus - Ash trees under construction, together this is already something.
  • Bashkirkhan
    Bashkirkhan 9 September 2020 08: 38 New
    11
    I liked the publication, there are questions about the number of nuclear submarines. There are doubts as to who will timely carry out the middle repairs of the nuclear submarine division in the Far East. ASZ and OJSC North-Eastern Repair Center in Vilyuchinsk are no longer able to, OJSC Far Eastern Plant Zvezda (Bolshoy Kamen) has only two places in the boathouse. The placement of the same Chelyabinsk in the boathouse for medium repair and modernization can take place only after the withdrawal of Irkutsk (it is impossible to do this now, because the boathouse and Zvezda personnel are occupied by Irkutsk and Magadan). Of the six 2000 Pacific Fleets that were fresh at the beginning of the 971s, only one Kuzbass underwent restoration of technical readiness in 20 years. Of the 5a of the Pacific Fleet, only Tomsk and Omsk remained in service. With such an attitude towards ships that have been waiting for decades of average repairs, it makes no sense to build them in large numbers. Why build 949 Ash-M and rot them near the wall while waiting for a medium repair, because there is nowhere to repair? Enough and 15 Ash-M.
    K-442 "Chelyabinsk" at the "Zvezda" DVZ, 22.10.2019/XNUMX/XNUMX
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      9 September 2020 10: 07 New
      10
      Quote: Bashkirkhan
      I liked the publication

      Thank you, dear Bashkirkhan!
      Quote: Bashkirkhan
      There are doubts as to who will timely carry out the middle repairs of the nuclear submarine division in the Far East.

      That's a very good question. For now - except to drive north? In general, it is necessary to restore all this to the planned volumes.
      1. Bashkirkhan
        Bashkirkhan 9 September 2020 10: 33 New
        17
        Dear Andrey! In 2014, K-391 "Bratsk" and K-295 "Samara" were transported by the Dutch company on the dock ship "Transhelf" from the Far East to Severodvinsk by the Northern Sea Route in order to repair and modernize them on the project 971M at the JSC "Ship repair center" Zvezdochka ". For the sixth year they have been waiting for repairs in the water area of ​​the plant. "Bratsk" since 1998 is not running and is awaiting medium repair. Why spend money on multipurpose nuclear submarines, with such bestial treatment. We do not have a full-fledged ship repair, there are only show-offs.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          9 September 2020 16: 38 New
          +6
          Quote: Bashkirkhan
          For the sixth year they have been waiting for repairs in the water area of ​​the plant.

          Dear Bashkirkhan, that's what we're talking about. I have repeatedly written in my articles that without the appropriate infrastructure and repair facilities, building a fleet ... to put it mildly, it makes no sense hi
          1. Bashkirkhan
            Bashkirkhan 9 September 2020 17: 47 New
            +6
            The diesel submarine "Komsomolsk on the Amur" has been repaired for 13 years at the NPP. Moreover, according to the bum option, without serious modernization. 971 "Sperm whale" after 16 years of being in the boathouse awaiting repairs was excluded from the Navy and disposed of. It will be good if in the 20s something changes for the better, but the people from the Far East are still being evacuated.
            1. rudolff
              rudolff 9 September 2020 18: 07 New
              +7
              Just for your reference. Diesel-electric submarine "Komsomolsk-on-Amur" was laid down under the name "B-187" (building number 473) on May 07, 1991 at the shipyard. Lenin's Komsomol in Komsomolsk-on-Amur. On October 05, 1991 it was launched. Introduced into the Navy on December 30, 1991, entered into the Pacific Fleet. Since 1997 it has a tail number 529.
              That is, it takes less than a year from the moment of laying down to being included in the fleet. But the repair ...
              1. Bashkirkhan
                Bashkirkhan 9 September 2020 18: 17 New
                +4
                The specialists fled from the plant, you can recall how many criminal cases were initiated against the management of the ASZ. The fact that the B-187 came out of repair at all is a miracle. NEA is a bad place for submarine. Okay, now they will cut the "Sperm whale", so there is still in the boathouse "Irbis", it takes a place. It will also be dismantled sooner or later. Photo "Irbis" from September 6, 2015.
                1. rudolff
                  rudolff 9 September 2020 18: 35 New
                  +5
                  Irbis personally showed Putin. There was a hope that they would finish building after Nerpa. Alas! What is there to say about Sperm whale.
                  1. Bashkirkhan
                    Bashkirkhan 9 September 2020 18: 48 New
                    +6
                    Yeah. Putin was then "prime minister" and he came to the NEA in 2009. Photo "Irbis" in the network has been preserved. During these years, the ASZ was furiously and lustfully pulled apart to the last nut after the wild privatization from the nuclear submarine on the stocks. Then effective managers and owners traditionally rushed over the hill with bags of $.
  • Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 9 September 2020 08: 45 New
    0
    Question to the author of the article.
    After all, the Ministry of Defense has a scientific council. Why not send your theses and their justifications for consideration and, possibly, for their implementation? Here, of course, you can reflect on how competent and effective this advice is, but that is another topic.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      9 September 2020 10: 08 New
      14
      Quote: Aleksandr1971
      After all, the Ministry of Defense has a scientific council. Why not send your theses and their justifications for consideration and, possibly, for their implementation?

      Well, I'll get a "thank you" for my civic position, and the materials will be thrown out without reading.
      1. Aleksandr1971
        Aleksandr1971 9 September 2020 11: 15 New
        +2
        Most likely it will. But:

        - You can send materials at once to several instances with links to a letter with "thank you" for your civil position. Such links may be of interest to another authority;
        - and maybe not kicked out.
      2. DrEng527
        DrEng527 9 September 2020 15: 38 New
        +6
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Well, I'll get a "thank you" for my civic position, and the materials will be thrown out without reading.

        maybe they will, but they have their own reasons, sometimes far from the interests of the state ... repeat
  • Per se.
    Per se. 9 September 2020 09: 11 New
    +9
    For a start, it would be good to decide for what war and against whom to prepare the fleet. Quite recently, Roman Skomorokhov issued "Does a strong Russia need a strong fleet?", By and large, justifying the need only for ships for the littoral zone. In general, two main opinions prevail in our country - Russia is a land power, it does not really need a fleet, another "mutation" of consciousness, we do not need a strong surface fleet (where the main "red rag", of course, aircraft carriers), we only need submarines.

    What I want to say here ... Sawing money on expensive projects, raising ratings, puffing up the cheeks, this is one thing, as well as selling along with raw materials and weapons, even from Soviet developments. Quite another, are our bourgeois going to seriously fight with their colleagues, who keep their treasures, and whose way of consumer life is the standard of existence for them, if aggression happens? If not, what is the general conversation about, in the name of peace and humanism, tolerance, for the sake of their deposits in foreign banks and foreign currency, real estate, wives, mistresses and children over the hill, they will accept any ultimatum, as soon as they smell really fried, they will surrender the army and the fleet ...

    Now, if without these "bodies", with basic instincts, without traitorous renegades, thinking about Russia and its people. I think, in any case, Russia should strive to have a full-fledged fleet capable of solving all tasks at sea. Speaking about the submarine fleet, we must take into account our geographic features, primarily the northern facade of Russia. In the northern seas, along the entire northern coast, it is necessary to achieve full underwater control by various means of tracking. The northern direction, under the polar cap, should be considered the main one for patrolling SSBNs. Here it is useful to remember the idea of ​​creating Project 941 "Shark", why and why our "friends" sought to destroy these very new submarines of the USSR. How the most modern boats were cut down, under the pretext that the R-39 was "rotten", and the boats themselves "could not fit in the sea." Second, speaking of the Atlantic, where the United States and NATO will undoubtedly dominate, there are such boats as diesel-electric submarines with the ability to inflict unacceptable damage with cruise missiles with a nuclear warhead. We cannot give birth with the "victims of the exam" of the VNEU, we must steal, copy, like the Chinese.

    For the particularly thrifty, - "He was a great economist, adding a penny to a penny", with tearfulness for the people's penny, with billions flowing over the hill, you can have nothing at all, just threaten to blow up all nuclear charges right on your territory, and, to the whole world kirdyk. So, it will be according to Vladimir Vladimirovich, - "we, like martyrs, will go to paradise, and they will simply die".
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 9 September 2020 10: 40 New
      +4
      Quote: Per se.
      Quite recently, Roman Skomorokhov issued "Does a strong Russia need a strong fleet?", By and large, justifying the need for only ships for the littoral zone. In general, two main opinions prevail in our country - Russia is a land power, it does not really need a fleet, another "mutation" of consciousness, we do not need a strong surface fleet (where the main "red rag", of course, aircraft carriers), we only need submarines.


      Skomorokhov in his role.
      It should be about something else.
      Initially, everything should go from the doctrine, to the operational and strategic tasks in the theater of operations, and then from them to the shipbuilding program (which should also have been thoroughly worked out, the existing production facilities should be taken into account. What is really not necessary, that on the contrary, it is necessary to draw blood from the nose. the system for restoring the combat readiness of the SIS has been carefully thought out, primarily in terms of organizing high-quality repairs. The creation of an adequate fleet should also go through the stage of the coastal fleet ...
      I think I can paint what could have been done in terms of fleet building even with existing funds in the period from zero year to the present moment.
      What is important, the program of building the Navy had to be clearly linked to the shipbuilding program of the FSB. Mechanisms for combat training of the corresponding guard should be created. Issues of compensation for the separation of ships when solving naval tasks in peacetime, etc. etc.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 9 September 2020 11: 01 New
        +3
        Quote: Cyril G ...
        The system for restoring the combat readiness of the SIS must be carefully thought out
        There should be a mobilization component, both from the ships of the civil fleet, and the involvement of all shipbuilding plants, if necessary, to work for the Navy, training specialists from the reserve, increasing the term of service in the fleet.
      2. VIP
        VIP 9 September 2020 18: 47 New
        +1
        Skomorokhov in his role “actually, he began to change his mind, perhaps he will change his mind about the fleet?
  • d4rkmesa
    d4rkmesa 9 September 2020 09: 21 New
    0
    The French approach is quite good - small nuclear submarines and downright large nuclear submarines, with the unification of sections and units. The only nuclear "Barracuda", according to available data, with a relatively low speed and depth of immersion.
  • Alexey Sommer
    Alexey Sommer 9 September 2020 09: 46 New
    -3
    Thanks to the author. Great work is visible.
    True, it would be possible to make the text 3-4 times shorter, not only without prejudice to the content, but also with benefit. Too much text makes it difficult to follow the thread of the article's meaning. And so a normal article for VO ... As of today ..
  • Shadow041
    Shadow041 9 September 2020 11: 25 New
    +6
    The French Barracudas are considered by most specialists to be the worst nuclear submarines in the world, both in terms of habitability and combat capabilities, which directly depend not only on the ammunition and electronics deployed on the nuclear submarine, but also on the fatigue and combat effectiveness of the crew. Building bad ships, at the expense of dubious savings, is more expensive for yourself. Of course, it is necessary to save money, but wisely and mainly on the Chubais.
    1. agond
      agond 9 September 2020 13: 18 New
      0
      Quote: Shadow041
      Of course it is necessary to save, but wisely and mainly.

      Exactly !!! wisely ... an example of the mind, it is known that the thickness of the walls working in compression, in our case of a strong submarine body, linearly depends on its diameter (the keyword is linear), and the cross-sectional area of ​​a strong body is proportional to the square of the diameter, that is, the dependence is not linear , it follows that with their equal internal volumes, the mass of the short and "thick" strong body will be less than the weight of the longer and "thinner" one (the sphere of the same volume is lighter than everyone else), thus a submarine with an outer strong body should objectively have higher mass strength indicators compared to a submarine with an outer light hull, but unfortunately this is a simple axiom is completely ignored by the designers of our boats, we continue to build underwater airships
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      9 September 2020 14: 15 New
      +4
      Quote: Shadow041
      French Barracudas are considered by most specialists to be the worst nuclear submarines in the world.

      Could you list most of the specialists?
      Quote: Shadow041
      both in habitability and in combat capabilities, which directly depend not only on the ammunition and electronics placed on the nuclear submarine, but also on the fatigue and combat effectiveness of the crew

      Generally speaking, "Rubis" were considered very, very good
  • Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 9 September 2020 14: 01 New
    -2
    Dollezhal's "egg" is cooler than any VNEU - a small-sized encapsulated nuclear power plant.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      9 September 2020 14: 15 New
      +3
      Quote: Bersaglieri
      Dollezhal's "egg" is steeper than any VNEU - a small-sized encapsulated AEU.

      First of all - in terms of noise, yes. Much cooler :)))))
      1. Bersaglieri
        Bersaglieri 10 September 2020 11: 30 New
        0
        I am not considering the 60s option. What can be done now with natural circulation + in the all electric version (with a low noise generator)?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          10 September 2020 11: 35 New
          +1
          Quote: Bersaglieri
          What is it worth doing it now with natural circulation + in the all electric version

          I do not know. But something is getting in the way, since there is no such useful thing, and, as far as I know, is not foreseen in the foreseeable future
          1. Bersaglieri
            Bersaglieri 10 September 2020 11: 35 New
            +1
            Price + "atomophobia"?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              10 September 2020 12: 06 New
              +1
              Quote: Bersaglieri
              Price + "atomophobia"?

              Let's think together - such a technology would give a huge boost to submarine building. That is, in fact, we would have received a "VNEU dreams", which would have all the advantages of VNEU and the classical scheme "reactor-gtza", but would not have their disadvantages. Nevertheless, it does not exist, and it is unclear when it will be, and whether it will be at all - at least, as far as I know, our atomprom is not designing anything like that. And American too
              I believe that the reason lies in the technical unfeasibility
              1. anzar
                anzar 10 September 2020 14: 37 New
                +1
                I believe that the reason lies in the technical unfeasibility

                What is unrealizable there? No, rather, the matter is in the price, which (together with the big battery) is probably the same as for a "regular" nuclear submarine. The latter, however, can go to max. speed.
                Rather, on DEPL, you can put a thermo-emission of 150-300 Kv (as much as possible) to increase the time under water in position
              2. Bersaglieri
                Bersaglieri 11 September 2020 10: 58 New
                0
                Everything is realizable. Just diesel or styling is cheaper. Well, the countries that rule in the subject of VNEU- "not nuclear" Well, and such a "VNEU" should be performed in the form of a single circuit block, with charging the reactor for the entire service life (as in the RHYTHMs of the latter)
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 9 September 2020 15: 28 New
    +2
    20 knots - low noise submarine speed? The author did not confuse anything, despite the fact that the maximum is about 30? I can still believe 10 -12, but hardly more.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      9 September 2020 16: 39 New
      +3
      Quote: TermNachTER
      The author did not confuse anything, despite the fact that the maximum is about 30? I can still believe 10 -12, but hardly more.

      However, it was 20 knots that were claimed for Seewulf.
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 9 September 2020 17: 18 New
        +5
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        exactly 20 knots were declared

        Do not confuse the concept.
        The low-noise "Seawolf" has about 10 knots, and the search one - up to 20 knots.
        Search engine - the speed at which effective use is possible
        own speakers in passive mode.
      2. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 9 September 2020 19: 04 New
        0
        You can say anything - at least 50 knots. Hydrodynamics and hydrodynamic noises are very stubborn things)))
  • DrEng527
    DrEng527 9 September 2020 15: 32 New
    +1
    "A nuclear power plant is a rather complex energy conversion system: a reactor produces heat, it needs a coolant, water or metal, which will transfer the energy it receives to another unit."
    the author is mistaken - there are nuclear reactors with a thermoelectric converter - they are silent!
    these were the ones that were installed on the satellites of the Legend system .... the power of a unit kW, so that 200 kW of modern VNEU is recruited by 30-40 modules
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      9 September 2020 16: 40 New
      +6
      Quote: DrEng527
      these were the ones that were put on the satellites of the Legend system ...

      Let's remember the price of the issue. The USSR did not pull
      1. DrEng527
        DrEng527 9 September 2020 22: 29 New
        -1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Let's remember the price of the issue. The USSR did not pull

        you are confusing different things - the cost of the space system and the reactor request and not yet in space performance
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 9 September 2020 23: 06 New
      +2
      their low power has its reasons, semiconductors do not tolerate overheating, they melt, one thing is the touch button on your refrigerator, which gives out electricity from the heat of your finger ... another is the power needed to move the ship in conditions of water resistance, the specific power per kilogram of weight is also important installation, what will be the displacement of a ship with weak energy flows requiring volumes? what is the price of tons of semiconductors? the satellite mainly spends power not on movement, but on signals and information flows, they are not energy-intensive
  • VIP
    VIP 9 September 2020 18: 40 New
    +2
    What makes our site so good is that EVERYONE understands EVERYTHING.
    And when to turn out from the SSGN and all over
  • The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 9 September 2020 18: 57 New
    +1
    And the electric movement, when the reactor turns the generator, and he charges the batteries or directly feeds the electric. engines, fundamentally not considered? Too hard?
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 9 September 2020 22: 56 New
      +3
      the reactor cannot turn anything, the reactor is a stove, so that he turns what he needs a heat exchange circuit, a turbine and a condenser, that is, a steam turbine installation, and preferably a double-circuit ... it is difficult and difficult to make it small
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 10 September 2020 10: 27 New
        +1
        Quote: vladimir1155
        the reactor cannot turn anything, the reactor is a stove


        This is understandable.

        Quote: vladimir1155
        you need a heat exchange circuit, a turbine and a condenser, that is, a steam turbine plant, and preferably a double-circuit one ... it is difficult and difficult to make it small


        French Rubis did it, didn't it? As far as I know, Rubis is essentially a diesel-electric boat, which has a reactor instead of a diesel. And they did it 45 years ago. Why doesn't Russia follow a similar path - an electric generator on the "Dollezhal's egg" to recharge the battery? Nuclear VNEU. As for "hard to make small" - the displacement of Rubis is not much more than Lada. I understand that if this is not done, there are probably reasons, I just do not understand the reasons.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 14 September 2020 09: 08 New
          0
          Quote: Eye of the Crying
          As far as I know, Rubis is essentially a diesel-electric boat, which has a reactor instead of a diesel.
          the diesel also has a stove in the form of a combustion chamber above the cylinders, instead of a turbine it has pistons, and a heat exchange circuit in the form of cylinders and the environment, since the submarine does not have constant access to the environment, the diesel works only in the above-water position, it is impossible to build a reactor into the diesel , are you going to discharge spent plutonium into the atmosphere? a small reactor is theoretically possible, as are a small turbine and small heat exchangers, but will the cost of manufacturing it pay off? what is the size of the biological defense? how much will such a boat cost in comparison with the used diesel-electric submarine version? is the game worth the candle? this requires calculations with the use of a lot of confidential data, on the Internet this is not solved. As far as I know, for a small reactor they do not make a turbine in the heat exchange circuit, but a piston engine (stirling) in the Russian Federation, this technology is not yet available, although this is just a technique, there is nothing complicated unknown there, but development will take money and time. And for a country that knows how to make nuclear submarines, this is not critical. the survival rate of submarines in the Baltic Sea is not great, and nuclear submarines can operate in deep seas, why build a small nuclear submarine with a stirring, if at the same price you can simply make a large nuclear submarine?
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 14 September 2020 10: 05 New
            0
            Quote: vladimir1155
            it is impossible to build a reactor into a diesel engine, are you going to discharge spent plutonium into the atmosphere?


            My God, what are you carrying.

            Quote: vladimir1155
            Why build a small nuclear submarine with a stirling, if at the same price you can simply make a large nuclear submarine?


            Building nuclear boats with Stirling is a really strange idea. But I didn’t talk about it. About the price - Rubis was relatively cheap.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 14 September 2020 10: 09 New
              0
              you really decide what you want to say ...
              Quote: Eye of the Crying
              Building nuclear boats with Stirling is a really strange idea.
              or
              Quote: Eye of the Crying
              Nuclear VNEU.
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 14 September 2020 10: 11 New
                +1
                VNEU is simply an air-independent power plant. Even now, it's not just Stirling.
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 14 September 2020 10: 48 New
                  0
                  Thanks, I see, it means there is no use for it, well then it could be 1. just a battery, such as an electric car, or 2.transportation of an oxidizer and hydrogen with you,
                  Only it will not be diesel, but an internal combustion engine running on hydrogen with oxygen or air oxidation, diesel still implies diesel fuel, that is, diesel fuel, not hydrogen, and the production of not only water, but also carbon dioxide in the combustion products, and in gaseous form .. .bubbles will appear on the surface. the problem of an explosive mixture on board, more abruptly than a nuclear reactor.
                  1. The eye of the crying
                    The eye of the crying 14 September 2020 10: 59 New
                    0
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    thank you understandable means there is no use


                    There is. But this is a compact reactor (like the Kilopower, but of course more powerful) that recharges the battery while submerged.

                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    1 . just a battery, such as an electric car, or 2.transportation of an oxidizer and hydrogen with you,


                    Not. Obviously, it did not work out in Russia. But, on the other hand, Russia has a developed nuclear industry - perhaps it will be easier to make a compact reactor.
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 14 September 2020 13: 04 New
                      0
                      perhaps, but you will have to remove its energy using semiconductors, do they do them? at what price? to what extent is this technology developed in our country, is there a workable sample? or just the words of you and me on the Internet .... how many such installations will be needed and will R&D pay off in this case?
                      1. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 14 September 2020 13: 09 New
                        0
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        you will have to remove its energy with semiconductors,


                        This is your personal understanding. Don't attribute it to me.
  • Astra wild
    Astra wild 9 September 2020 19: 49 New
    +3
    Andrey, I came in specially to greet you. I loved your stories from Navy history. When you continue the history of the fleet, otherwise, without you, the naval history has STUNNED
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      10 September 2020 06: 37 New
      +4
      Quote: Astra wild
      When you continue the history of the fleet, otherwise, without you, the naval history has STUNNED

      Thank you, Astra, but it hasn't died out at all! Dear Alexey, he is now typing a series about shells in Russian-Japanese, I highly recommend it!
      And I will continue, probably already in October - I am slowly preparing a series of articles - I will simulate a hypothetical confrontation between Russian and German large ships in WWI
      1. Astra wild
        Astra wild 10 September 2020 07: 42 New
        +1
        Shells are not ships. Although I will look, perhaps interesting?
        I hope that your new cycle will be also interesting
      2. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 10 September 2020 10: 02 New
        +1
        I will simulate a hypothetical confrontation between Russian and German large ships in WWI
        Take STIM and Iron (FWW) works more than adequate
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          10 September 2020 12: 18 New
          0
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          Take STIM and Iron (FWW) works more than adequate

          hi And what kind of animal is this? I’m in the old fashioned way, Jacob, do not be mentioned by nightfall, de Marr and a calculator ...
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 10 September 2020 12: 28 New
            0
            Gorgeous game. Used when writing fights PMV (AI)
            Give me some soap - I'll throw it off entirely. The editor is there. There is PMV and RYAV. Mode of companies fi .... But the battles !!!!!
            http://tsushima.su/forums/viewtopic.php?id=7619&p=1
  • K298rtm
    K298rtm 9 September 2020 20: 57 New
    +1
    1. Thanks to the author just for raising the most important topics of building a submarine fleet.
    2. In my humble opinion, we need both missile launchers and anti-submarine torpedo launchers (only they, in combination with a functioning sopo, can ensure the combat stability of missile submarines in the Arctic).
    3. Regarding the Malachite "wishlist" to design (on a single platform) also rpksn - first you have to "eat" Ruby (it's hard to believe). Rather, Ruby on the Borea platform will create a 5th generation multipurpose PLA.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 9 September 2020 23: 29 New
      +3
      This is a big question - who will eat whom, Ruby or Malachite. It's not about who makes the best boat. There, the matter is completely different.
      1. K298rtm
        K298rtm 9 September 2020 23: 54 New
        0
        This is understandable.
  • IC
    IC 9 September 2020 22: 21 New
    +3
    All these theoretical considerations do not take into account the real situation in the country's economy and finances. With oil prices over $ 100 you could still plan something. And at a price of $ 40. the budget becomes deficient and the military budget will have to be cut. Attempts to step on a rake again, i.e. competing on equal terms with the United States and its allies will lead to the same result. From the beginning of the construction of the economy, as in the United States and China, and then you can consider the development of the fleet on an equal footing.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      10 September 2020 12: 17 New
      +1
      Quote: IMS
      All these theoretical considerations do not take into account the real situation in the country's economy and finances.

      Take into account
      Quote: IMS
      And at a price of $ 40. the budget becomes deficient and the military budget will have to be cut.

      And how, was it cut down a lot? :)))) It has been quite stable for many years now, although oil jumps like your kangaroo
      Quote: IMS
      Attempts to step on a rake again, i.e. compete on equal terms with the USA and its allies

      not suggested by the author.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 9 September 2020 22: 53 New
    -1
    a very important topic, the declared numbers of all types of submarines are clearly insufficient, taking into account the strategic confrontation in the world and the eve of the third world war, where to get the money for absolutely necessary submarines = the main strike tactical and strategic part of the fleet? it is definitely necessary to give up unnecessary UDCs, it would not be bad to sell Kuzya to China-India, to limit the number of corvettes and frigates. but still, to achieve an increase in the number of submarines = the main striking force of the fleet is submarines, naval defense = this is coastal aviation, coastal assets and underwater systems. and the role of the surface fleet is of secondary importance = near the coastal zone.
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 17 September 2020 12: 28 New
      -1
      "The threshold of the third world war" - the tenth, mln. Listen to less propaganda on TV. They are on your fear to buy villas in Italy and apartments in London, and you believe them. There is a usual confrontation between the superpowers and the division of the market by oligarchs. No one is going to turn into nuclear waste, but you shouldn't forget to keep the gunpowder dry, of course - in this respect the article is absolutely correct. But the fleet is not only alive. Without NK, they will be crushed. "Kuzya" cannot be sold - all our experience with aircraft carriers will be in vain, and we still need it in local conflicts that will not go anywhere .. UDC with a competent foreign policy will also not be superfluous. We need a balanced fleet capable of solving tasks both in peacetime and in wartime, ready to cool any potential aggressor from a conventional war at sea and from a nuclear attack on the country, and at the same time not ruin the economy.
  • Radikal
    Radikal 10 September 2020 02: 46 New
    0
    The future of the Russian submarine fleet. Is the stake on VNEU and LIAB correct?
    Of course not the right word! Glory to the Navy! Long live the most powerful and numerous ... You can still continue everything in an excellent style, but to the point .... Do you even know the real situation in organizations that are engaged in the design and production of everything related to the fleet - radio equipment, weapons, and so on, so on ...? How many enterprises are there, and what condition are they in? How much effort does it cost them to finish at least one box? And the staff? From the word they are not at all - there are guys sitting at computers, and ... managers, and those who serve them. All. And don't watch The Star. For the night. Both pictures and models from exhibitions.
    sad
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      10 September 2020 06: 37 New
      0
      Have you read the article at all, or have you limited yourself to one title?
  • Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 10 September 2020 10: 37 New
    +2
    And again we miss the long-standing question: what are the tasks of the fleet?

    Counter-counter nuclear strike? Good. How many and what kind of multipurpose boats are needed to cover missile carriers and is it necessary at all? By and large, the main thing for the RPKSN is to have time to shoot - nothing else matters. There is a suspicion that they will be able to do this calmly almost from the pier in Murmansk.

    But then there are solid questions:

    0. Who are we going to fight with? From the United States (NATO as a whole), no matter what we fantasize, we can only do something locally, near our shores. With China, the main issues will not be resolved at sea at all. And this is all subject to a non-nuclear conflict, which in itself is unlikely with them.
    1. Do you need an APL to operate in the coastal zone? Nuclear submarines are far-field ships with high autonomy. And again, what are their tasks? Are we going to drown American convoys in the Pacific? How long will it take between the destruction of the first AUG and the launch of all ballistic missiles from both sides?
    2. What is the point of hunting for enemy submarines even in their own waters, if the war, by definition, will be for destruction? Diesel-electric submarines in large numbers will complicate the actions of NATO submarines off our shores, but the very fact of the start of such actions requires a fundamentally different answer.

    And so on.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      10 September 2020 12: 14 New
      +2
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      And again we miss the long-standing question: what are the tasks of the fleet?

      You may be missing out. I am not, and I have repeatedly written about the tasks of the fleet in my articles. I have neither the opportunity nor the desire to repeat "from the stove" in each article.
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      Counter-counter nuclear strike? Good. How many and what kind of multipurpose boats are needed to cover missile carriers and is it necessary at all? By and large, the main thing for the RPKSN is to have time to shoot - nothing else matters. There is a suspicion that they will be able to do this calmly almost from the pier in Murmansk.

      SSBNs are, first of all, a means of NOT CONDUCTING, but PREVENTING a nuclear missile war, which is achieved by covert SSBNs. Providing such BS is the task of the fleet in peacetime.
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      Who are we going to fight with? From the United States (NATO as a whole), no matter what we fantasize, we can only do something locally, near our shores.

      Correctly
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      Do you need an APL to operate in the coastal zone?

      Required. Moreover, without them, the defense task is practically unsolvable, some of the arguments, by the way, are given in the article
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      What is the point of hunting for enemy aircraft, even in their own waters, if the war, by definition, will be for destruction?

      The meaning is very simple - in the areas where the base station is carried, we must be able to detect and squeeze out enemy nuclear submarines in peacetime, and destroy them in wartime. Before they destroy SSBNs
      In addition, with the collapse of the START and INF Treaty, the return of nuclear warheads to tomahawks launched from US nuclear submarines is a matter of time. That is, US nuclear submarines in our waters are also becoming carriers of operational-tactical nuclear weapons.
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 10 September 2020 15: 12 New
        -1
        And do you think that all 10 missile rocket launchers can be destroyed by the first strike, even by the forces of the us fleet?

        The point is that in the presence of 10 even "naked" Boreis, unacceptable damage for the United States is guaranteed. And two Boreis will shoot or eight - there is not much difference from the point of view of nuclear deterrence.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          10 September 2020 16: 04 New
          +4
          Quote: Sancho_SP
          And do you think that all 10 missile rocket launchers can be destroyed by the first strike, even by the forces of the us fleet?

          Yes, you can. And by the way, what does the US fleet have to do with it? :))))))
          Quote: Sancho_SP
          The point is that in the presence of 10 even "naked" Boreis, unacceptable damage for the United States is guaranteed.

          The fact of the matter is that no.
          SSBN is a specific thing, it has the concept of KOH - the coefficient of operational stress. So, our SSBNs for happiness will have this very KOH = 0,25 under existing conditions. This means that in the event of a sudden start of Armageddon, out of 10 SSBNs, we will have 2 - in combat service, 1 - returning or going to replace one of the above-mentioned 2 and 7 SSBNs - in repair or simply in places of usual deployment, that is - in the harbors of their naval base.
          The idea of ​​a disarming strike is precisely based on the fact that in 35-40 minutes of flight time, ICBMs suddenly attacked by us simply will not have time to figure out that Armageddon has come and will not have time to launch a full-scale nuclear missile response. In this case, 7 out of 10 Boreyev burns in the nuclear flame of the American strategic nuclear forces without any effort on the part of the US Navy.
          Thus, the task of the Americans is to "lead" no more than 2-3 SSBNs and destroy them upon receipt of an order, or simply at an hour X
          1. Sancho_SP
            Sancho_SP 10 September 2020 18: 38 New
            0
            Who, besides the us navy, could pose a threat? China? They will not get into the Arctic yet.


            Otherwise, everything is correct you write, only now there are still probabilities. 10 is too much for something to go wrong in any way. It is impossible to liquidate strategic nuclear forces by force without fatal losses.

            If someone wins in such a war with today's Russian Federation, then not by force, but through treacherous, bribery, revolution. And the presence of a reactor in a submarine will not help in any way.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              11 September 2020 08: 58 New
              +1
              Quote: Sancho_SP
              Who, besides the us navy, could pose a threat?

              US strategic nuclear forces, of course, which I described in the commentary
              Quote: Sancho_SP
              10 is too much for something to go wrong in any way. It is impossible to liquidate strategic nuclear forces by force without fatal losses.

              As I have written many times, a nuclear war can only start because of a mistake. If some US president believes in the effectiveness of a disarming strike, he can do it. Our task is to prevent them from believing. In this regard, SSBNs are an excellent argument - but only if the secrecy of their BS is ensured.
              If at any given time there is at least one SSBN that has not been detected and tracked by the US Navy and the Americans know about it, there will be no nuclear war.
              1. Sancho_SP
                Sancho_SP 11 September 2020 10: 18 New
                +1
                Quite right! In case of an error. But don't you think that in order to combat such mistakes, one should not get involved in another arms race, but spend at least 10% of these funds on advertising, PR and other misinformation of the enemy?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  11 September 2020 11: 27 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Sancho_SP
                  But don't you think that in order to combat such mistakes, one should not get involved in another arms race, but spend at least 10% of these funds on advertising, PR and other misinformation of the enemy?

                  Advertising and PR must be mandatory - they form public opinion. But the problem is that the secrecy of the BS cannot be ensured by any PR - here the measures should be different :)))
                  1. Sancho_SP
                    Sancho_SP 11 September 2020 16: 21 New
                    0
                    You can create the appearance that the missiles fly further, carry more, and the TPK can withstand a nuclear torpedo hitting the boat) Considering that the missile carriers will never fight anyway ...
        2. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 10 September 2020 17: 16 New
          +3
          Quote: Sancho_SP
          all 10 missile rocket launchers can be destroyed by the first strike, even by the forces of the us navy?


          If 8 boats are in bases and 2 are in service at sea, then the probability of a one-time destruction of Russian NSNF is already becoming acceptable. SSBN torpedoes, and submarines in bases with massive Tomahawk strikes short-circuited from PLA carriers. IMHO of course. It's good if I'm wrong.
    2. anzar
      anzar 10 September 2020 14: 26 New
      +3
      what are the tasks of the fleet?
      Counter-counter nuclear strike?

      Not. Counter-counter - this is for the Strategic Missile Forces, boats (several) must be able to survive and inflict a purely counter (in cities) if the counter-counter did not quite succeed (destroyed in the mines)
      There is a suspicion that they will be able to do this calmly almost from the pier in Murmansk.

      They will not have time from the piers - there, first of all, they will be covered with tridents on the present. trajectories. Only at sea (constant watch) and only non-illuminated. For this, as noted by the author, at least in the "bastions" the fleet must reliably open and monitor every fish))
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 10 September 2020 15: 13 New
        0
        So is the response-oncoming one, too, in cities, just launches are made upon detection of enemy launches, and not upon the fact of explosions on their territory.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          10 September 2020 16: 06 New
          +3
          Quote: Sancho_SP
          just launches are made upon detection of enemy launches, and not upon the fact of explosions on their territory.

          This is ideal. But in practice, they may well not figure it out. Cases when warning systems "screw up" have already happened, so no one will plant in response from all trunks at the first signal.
  • Polar Bear
    Polar Bear 10 September 2020 11: 08 New
    0
    As Vysotsky sang - I have already proved everything to myself ... And as the Commander-in-Chief of the Fleet, Vysotsky, rightly said about diesel-electric submarines, there is no point in planting advanced electronics and weapons on the power plant technologies of World War II. The future belongs to boats with VNEU. The only question is when it will come, as the lag in this area is already 2 years old and at least another 21 years will remain. And besides VNEU, a Stirling engine is needed. Promoted for lack of a better Warsaw woman, in fact, they are easily vulnerable as soon as they surface under the rdp. Diesel definitely needs to be changed to a Stirling engine, because it is not a matter of rumbling diesels across the sea. Either steal the technology from the Swedes, or develop it ourselves, or both.
    1. SVD68
      SVD68 11 September 2020 08: 22 New
      +1
      Quote: Polar Bear
      Diesel should definitely be replaced with a Stirling engine

      Diesel to Stirling engine? But Stirling engines are auxiliary engines. So on the Swedish submarines of the Gotland type there are diesel engines with a capacity of 2980 hp. and Stirling with a capacity of 204 hp. Even among the Japanese on Soryu-class submarines, where they tried to turn the Stirling engine into the main one, in addition to the 8000 hp Stirling engines. there are diesel engines with a capacity of 3900 hp.
      1. Polar Bear
        Polar Bear 19 September 2020 11: 00 New
        0
        Supplement, so more precisely. These "auxiliary" boats allow Swedish boats to stay under water for up to 30 days. But I understand perfectly well that we will not be able to create such an engine.
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 14 September 2020 09: 51 New
      0
      Quote: Polar Bear
      The future belongs to boats with VNEU.

      very controversial statement, rather fundamentally wrong. There is an interesting discussion about the goals of the Navy. The United States planned an attack on the USSR immediately after 1945, it was for the rehearsal of such an attack that they threw atomic bombs on Hiroshima Nagasaki .... "An experimental atomic bomb explosion was made on July 16, 1945. These were the first, still secret fruits of the atomic project. the next day Truman was handed a message: “The babies were safely born.” He experienced a fit of glee, the reason for which he expressed aloud: “I now have a club for these guys!” Churchill fully shared his enthusiasm. Now the two of them had an excellent opportunity to drastically change their line of behavior towards Stalin. But, of course, this should have been done implicitly and in no way rudely. "Https://chudesamag.ru/pod- kovrom-i-za-stsenoy / garri-trumen-potsdam-dubinka-dlya-parney-chast-1.html
      Glory to the great Stalin, Kurchatov, Korolev and Beria who created ICBMs ... but glory to our sworn, but clever enemy U Lippman, who dissuaded the US President from attacking the USSR and put forward the idea of ​​a cold war ... unfortunately the technologies developed by U Lippmann turned out to be very effective , and the United States defeated us in the Cold War ... The United States never abandoned its aggressive plans to attack the countries of the world and turn them into colonies, to create permanent chaos everywhere except for its metropolis, to completely rob the whole world. Vietnam, Cuba, Grenada, Serbia, Iraq, Libya Syria Ukraine Belarus ... Why doesn't the US attack Russia? only because of the presence of nuclear weapons. And if this nuclear weapon turns out to be incapable of combat, then the United States will immediately attack the Russian Federation, finally take possession of oil and gas, plunge the people into total poverty and hunger, turn us into their slaves, as they did in the listed countries. Your statement about the importance of stirring, etc. this is simply the result of the use against you personally of technologies developed by the deceased 70 years ago by U Lippmann, the Swedes who do not even have an IBR, who are slaves of the West, are systematically destroyed through abortions, populated by Arabs and can’t blurt out anything or anyone in response .. The main task of the Navy, and practically the ONLY one in wartime, is to ensure the withdrawal of nuclear submarines with nuclear missiles from bases and the delivery of both ballistic and cruise guaranteed strikes on the territory of a potential enemy in the event of his aggression against our country. So, styling can in no way be more important than nuclear submarines, and coastal tasks of providing cruises for nuclear submarines can be solved by a variety of methods, for example, coastal aviation and without (or with) stirling, it is not as important as nuclear submarines.
  • Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets 10 September 2020 13: 59 New
    +1
    Thank you very much for the article, Andrey!
    Don't listen to whiners who say that all this talk is in vain.
    Belatedly, but I will add a few thoughts.
    First. The creation of the MAPL should serve some strategic goal. Otherwise, this is another parade of projects, as was the case with the revamped "Ulyanovsk".
    If Russia is capable of large-scale construction of nuclear submarines of limited displacement, then it is necessary to consider the possibility of deploying a numerically superior group to create the maximum threat to the enemy's armed forces and infrastructure.
    That is, there is a special sense in creating the so-called. no defensive submarine forces. We cannot, without domination in space and naval aviation, control all potential areas for the launch of submarine-launched missiles on our territory. The meaning of counteraction is the creation of a counter-threat, which is not parried in the near future, and, if necessary, a preemptive strike, including from under water.
    Second. Network centricity is a requirement of the times. If earlier PLA were the pinnacle of engineering thought - truly unique products, now the time has come for simple, if you want, disposable products that, due to their long life, will easily overcome any small group of super-products. To a certain extent, this is a repetition of the creation of tank groups before the WWII from cheap and simple machines, instead of multi-turret single giants. Modern BIUS can be placed on ships of any displacement, there are no problems with the power plant, tested in space, so the dimensions of the MPS are determined only by the armament and autonomy of the crew. This largely determines the service life of such submarines. The progress of technology is proceeding quickly enough, so that their operation should only provide for routine maintenance, but not overhaul and, moreover, some kind of radical modernization. only modular replacements.
    Third. It is necessary to achieve the closest interaction of submarine forces with UAVs of sea and coastal bases. Moreover, the UAV must be designed based on the practically unlimited time spent in the air, that is, using both compact nuclear energy sources and solar batteries, the effect of soaring and other "green" technologies.
    As always, the question remains a mournful financial situation, but without breaking the vicious circle, where some fictitious indicators lead to the fact that a huge part of the active population openly kicks the ox in countless offices, and in real design / production there is a severe shortage of personnel, we risk losing EVERYTHING.
    If we launch the remaining military-industrial complex and subcontractors at full capacity, we will solve the fundamental problem of the development of our applied science, technology and production, while simultaneously solving the problem of employment and increasing demand. It is necessary to take into account the costs incurred by our and our opponents in trying to fend off the threat of loss of superiority.
    So MAPL - to be!
  • BastaKarapuzik And
    BastaKarapuzik And 11 September 2020 16: 57 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

    Seawulf and Virginias have a low noise of about 20 knots

    Quote: BoA KAA
    If we have an American level of science / technology / technology / culture of production, we will have boats that are 1,5 times less in weight and dimensions.
    But it will be difficult for us to achieve 8-10 thousand tons of underwater displacement with the current mass-dimensional "offal" for boats with normal habitability, autonomy and a set / set of weapons and weapons.

    We have science and everything else listed, (otherwise there would be no new technology at all) ...
    But something is still missing in places. It seems to me that the production workers lack freedom. Freedom, initiative, independence and ... responsibility. After all, no one here takes on any responsibility. Accountants rule everything, not designers and technologists. Technicians are almost completely excluded from money, they do not control its flows, and do not even have much influence on distribution.
    Procurement by tender is generally something where there are two dominant criteria, the first is a low price, the second is the presence of a certificate. And what else do people need who are not able to distinguish quality from low-quality?
    Sometimes the industry itself resists the introduction of technology with low weight and dimensions.
    From their point of view, everything is fine and so. For example, they receive a new sensor, which is positioned as a replacement for the old one, but the cable there is already different, not 3x1.5, 2x0.75, respectively, and the old cable will have to be changed.
    And these are expenses and "buzz". And there, instead of a standard large terminal block, some kind of small M3 on the screws. Yes, it will be ripped off at the first installation, this is how such a leader reasons. And in part he turns out to be right. Last, this applies to the culture of production, of course, but after all, personnel are selected on the same principles as they make tender - a priority for those who can be paid less.
    Everyone knows very well that cheap labor is great? For the economy.
    But you have to do something!
    1. agond
      agond 14 September 2020 10: 21 New
      +1
      Probably everyone agrees that a sharp increase in the number of the submarine fleet is possible only through the construction of small boats with non-nuclear power plants, and there are only two main solutions, styling plus a supply of liquid oxygen on board or new batteries, it is not clear which is better.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 14 September 2020 17: 01 New
        +1
        Stirling by the way does not require liquid oxygen supplies ...
        Quote: agond
        probably everyone agrees that a sharp increase in the size of the submarine fleet is possible only through the construction of small boats
        I disagree radically wrong statement, firstly there is no task of a sharp increase in the number of submarines, there is another task to ensure the country's defense capability! the thoughtless release of many submarines, as well as the stupid maintenance of militarily senseless large aircraft-carrying ships, is a blow to defense capability. The maintenance of the Kuzi crew requires more allowance than the entire fleet, more paint is needed than the rest of the fleet. its repair results in deprivation of the country of new aircraft, nuclear submarines, missiles, air defense and other things. (let urya patriots minus me, but it's true). so let’s drop bad ambitions and look objectively. And so everyone knows that the task of the fleet is one, to ensure the strikes of nuclear submarines, for this, the nuclear submarines themselves are needed, and much more than there are. Now about the NNS, are they needed at all? by the way, the United States does not have them .... the issue is solved by clarifying their tasks, and then we can determine how many of them are needed .. Previously, there were no nuclear submarines, and all tasks were solved by diesel-electric submarines, including quite far, in the Atlantic, and the Germans went to Barents and Argentina. It is clear that now the APDL solve all problems in the DMZ, and the NNS work in the BMZ. where are they needed rf? only in the Black and Sea of ​​Japan, it is clear that only a couple of dozen submarines are enough. Submarines are an attack weapon, not Orons, for defense in Petropavlovsk and in the north, first of all, PLO aircraft are needed (I support the decision of a respected person and Army General, Minister Sergei Shoigu to create PLO BE 200 aircraft) floods are not very effective in coastal defense. Now the main question of the article is whether VNEU has a future, it does not exist because it is not necessary. Since the influx of coastal ones, it is easier and more efficient to simply increase the number of batteries and remove the diesel altogether, the boat must cross the Black Sea across, and move at the same distance from Vladivostok, why does it need diesel in these small and closed waters. R&D expenditures for VNEU will increase the cost of the supply to the cost of the nuclear power plant, and is there a need for the nuclear power supply? 20 pennants are already in the fleet, there is a very cheap version of 636, which is still satisfactory, admiration for vneu is rooted in our common admiration for our Western masters, if the great Swedes did ... then we need ... of course also need, and what has been done? an incomprehensible system with secret performance characteristics that no one checked, which still requires a diesel engine, which clearly proves its inefficiency, otherwise why would she need a diesel engine? something like a stealth technologist, spent billions of dollars to make sure that the plane is still visible on radars? .... my opinion is if you need to create a flood, then just abandon the diesel engine in favor of electric propulsion, there is no nioc at all, everyone has been doing it for a long time batteries and electric motors are clearly quieter than any styling, and instead of dubious styling, spend money on the creation of anti-mine devices, minesweepers, planes, and
        1. agond
          agond 14 September 2020 17: 53 New
          +2
          Quote: vladimir1155
          admiration for vneu is rooted in a common admiration for our would ... well, before the western masters, if the great Swedes did ... then we need ... of course we also need

          You are right, unfortunately admiration and even monkey copying takes place
          Quote: vladimir1155
          Stirling by the way does not require liquid oxygen supplies ...

          Of course, he himself does not need oxygen, but to heat it, you need to burn something, even if you burn aluminum in water, there is still a need for oxygen, since a lot of hydrogen will be released during the reaction and it must be neutralized. and if we say bart thermite mixtures as fuel for stirling, then they have almost 13 times less energy than diesel fuel, although they do not need oxygen, by the way, in one kg of thermite mixture 0.25 kg of aluminum the rest is iron oxide, and the price of aluminum at the prima point scrap metal 65 rubles per kg. from this it follows that the thermite mixture could cost as diesel fuel.
          In general, existing boats with vneu are quite difficult to operate as they have three energy sources, a diesel engine with a generator, plus batteries, plus vneu, all together it is too much.
  • kig
    kig 15 September 2020 03: 07 New
    +1
    The reasoning is smart ... and seems to be correct. Only now I strongly doubt that people who specifically decide how many boats we need and what they should be, read VO and make decisions based on these considerations.
  • srha
    srha 15 September 2020 23: 05 New
    +1
    Actually, some of the problems with the Russian submarine are contrived by admirals. I'll try to explain my opinion.
    1. For low noise. Any VNEU still requires fuel and an oxidizer to generate heat for operation, they can be called differently (from batteries to turbines), stored and supplied with different efficiency, but required. All sorts of "stirling", "low noise", "duration" are achieved by reducing the power and perfection of technology, but they cannot exceed the oxidation chemistry. And Russia has the opportunity to do without an oxidizer - nuclear reactors. But. Admirals want to swim fast and for this they require especially powerful (at the limit), and therefore very noisy installations. I have not heard about orders for the development of low-power nuclear reactors, without steam turbines, for example, for stirlings. Maybe the engine core from "Petrel" will help them?
    2. By combat effectiveness. It is mainly determined by weapons. The transfer of the submarine fleet to the Bulava reduces this efficiency by about three times - see the characteristics of Bulava and Sineva. Why do they do this - and sailors have fewer problems with solid fuel, but the fact that submarines (bases, support, etc.) are needed to provide the same salvo (as "Sineva") three times more do not bother them, but the fact that then there will be more admirals ...