Military Review

Sharp-toothed "Skat". Under the flags of three states

111
Sharp-toothed "Skat". Under the flags of three states

Titanium boats. Supercavitating torpedoes and liquid metal reactors. What else weapons could surprise the fleet?


The audience prepared for the hundredth time to break their spears in the dispute over the Lira-class submarine fighters. Dive a kilometer with the Komsomolets and fantasize about the Poseidon breaking through the darkness at 200 knots.

Carefully understand what kind of weapon and why determine the balance of forces at sea, there are few who want it. It is significant that among the thousands of articles on military topics posted on topwar.ru, only one article was devoted to submarines of Project 670 Skat. Dated 2012.

"Toothless Skat" - the worst series of PL


In the accepted categories faster / deeper / stronger "Skat" was so bad that it is hard to believe that the superpower's fleet was armed with such equipment.

The slowest nuclear-powered ship of its time. Sources call 25 knots under water, foreign ones give even less.


Unlike the US Navy, where the speed qualities of submarines were traditionally indicated in the 20+ format (classified), there were no secrets in the characteristics of the Skat. The low speed was an inevitable consequence of its design.

In terms of specific power-to-weight ratio (3,75 hp / ton) "Skat" was twice inferior to its peers. A single-shaft power plant with one pressurized water reactor is nonsense for the Soviet fleet.

Vigorous maneuvers, underwater races or attempts to avoid fired torpedoes were not even considered as combat techniques.

Haste and vanity are the lot of stupid marlins and tuna.

And "Skat" silently glides in the water column, waving the edges of its fins.


Among other anti-records of "Skat" is the low strength of the case. The only Soviet submarine of the second generation, whose operating depth was limited to 240 meters (maximum - 300). Comparison with peers: the multipurpose "Yorsh" (671 projects) could dive to 400 meters, and the titanium "Lyra" - to 450 meters.

Hydroacoustic complex? Why does such a submarine need a high-class GAK? Instead of the standard for underwater hunters SJC "Rubin", the new nuclear-powered ship received the "Kerch" complex with reduced dimensions and capabilities.

The firing range of missiles has been reduced by five times compared to the previous series of SSGNs armed with the P-6 missile system. In addition to this disadvantage, the newest P-70 "Amethyst" missiles have lost their supersonic flight capability.


This situation completely made it impossible to attack the AUG from a safe distance, forcing the clumsy submarine to overcome the anti-submarine defense lines. Of course, if you do not take into account the fact that the "Skat" did not have a chance at all to catch up with an aircraft carrier formation, which was traveling in a 30-knot course.

For the half-century anniversary of the Great October Revolution, a series of nuclear-powered ships with very mediocre characteristics was laid. Cruise missile boats (SSGNs) were then considered the main strike force at sea. How did the customer, represented by the Navy command, agree to such compromises? And what did you get in return?

"Skat" (NATO designation - "Charlie") has become one of the most successful submarine projects. The fighting qualities of these boats were duly appreciated by the most demanding inspector - the likely enemy in the person of the US Navy.

All the unexpected technical solutions of the Skat had one explanation.

For the first time in the world, nuclear-powered ships were built thousands of kilometers from the sea.


A notable feature of Soviet industry was the dispersal and duplication of capacities in case of a major war. Often this practice went not only to the detriment of economic considerations, but also common sense.

In the early 1960s, in addition to large nuclear shipbuilding centers in Severodvinsk, Leningrad and Komsomolsk-on-Amur, a fourth was formed - in Gorky (modern Nizhny Novgorod), at the facilities of the Krasnoye Sormovo plant.

The idea was beautiful only in words. If the construction of a submarine in Severodvinsk for any reason turned out to be impossible, then the presence of a reserve shipyard ("Krasnoe Sormovo") could not correct the situation. The submarine corps assembled in Gorky were then completed and re-equipped in Severodvinsk.

Adjacent enterprise with the most inconvenient location in relation to the head manufacturer!

But this stories there was also a positive moment.

Geography and forced restrictions on transportation along internal river routes forced admirals and developers of tactical and technical assignments to limit the flight of imagination. That had the most favorable effect on the combat and operational qualities of the "Skat".

In cramped quarters and ... resentment


It is worth noting that the ultimate goal of the project was not just the creation of a small nuclear-powered ship. On "Red Sormovo" they built missile-carrying boats, in the belly of which the launching silos of the Kyrgyz Republic were placed.

The set of requirements required many non-trivial solutions.

Due to the lack of space in the bow, for the first time in domestic practice, the horizontal rudders had to be moved to the middle of the submarine. And some of the mechanisms of the reactor plant should be located in adjacent compartments.

By the way, the lack of space did not affect the habitability in any way. The conditions for accommodating the crew on the boats of Project 670 were even improved compared to those of their predecessors. The full-time crew (80 people) was fully accommodated in three bow compartments, far from the noisy and dangerous propulsion mechanisms. The explanation of this paradox, as usual, was associated with the insignificant size of a person against the background of a 100-meter ship. The specified size restrictions did not apply to people.

Nevertheless, the limited displacement forced to revise the composition of the SSGN weapons. Even at the stage of the initial sketches, it was necessary to abandon the "Chelomeev monsters" with the starting weight of 5-6 tons.


Anti-ship missile of the P-6 complex

The P-70 "Amethyst" anti-ship complex was chosen as the "main caliber". Eight inclined missile launchers located on the sides, in the bow outside the robust hull. The P-70 rocket developed a transonic flight speed with its own launch weight of about 3 tons.


But the main value of "Amethyst" was invisible from the outside.

When creating the second generation SSGN, the designers were tasked with providing launch of the CD from a submerged position... Unlike modern "Calibers" with a retractable air intake, the technology of the early 1960s. did not allow to ensure automatic depressurization and reliable activation of the turbojet engine after the cruise missile left the water. For this reason, anti-ship missiles with a sustainer solid-propellant rocket engine (TTRD) were used as part of the P-70 complex.

Of course, this is not the most effective solution for a long flight in dense layers of the atmosphere. But there was no other choice.

Reducing the size and launch mass, the use of a turbojet engine and a low-altitude flight profile - all these factors combined led to a sharp decrease in the missile's flight range.

Having lost the advantage in firing range (80 km instead of the previous 350-400), the P-70 complex provided submariners with stealth while preparing for an attack. The missile launch was possible when moving at a low speed at a depth of 30 meters with sea waves on the surface up to 5 points.

If launching a CD from a submerged position can be considered an inevitable consequence of progress in the field of missile weapons, then other qualities of the Amethyst have become a real headache for a potential enemy.

Primarily because of the low-altitude trajectory.

The missile flight altitude on the marching section was only 60 meters.


Was it possible to increase the range by flying at high altitudes?

Unfortunately, the developers of the P-70 faced yet another difficult problem. Unlike the boats of previous projects, which were on the surface throughout the entire attack, the Skat crew had no opportunity to correct the flight of the launched anti-ship missiles in the middle section of the trajectory.


Launching anti-ship missiles from the submarine project 675

The need for correction was associated with the insufficient characteristics of the radar heads of that time, their limited detection range and the lack of complex algorithms for search and selection of targets in anti-ship missiles. During this time, a mobile sea target could go beyond the limits of the GOS. The missiles were required to be "brought out" to the target area manually.

Providing a long firing range in the absence of correction was meaningless. The designers of "Amethyst" focused their efforts on the development of a balanced complex, where the flight range corresponded to the capabilities of the guidance equipment, while ensuring the minimum flight altitude of the missiles.

The guidance problem was solved due to the short flight time. The enemy's order did not have time to move away from the calculated point where the anti-ship missiles were launched.

"Amethyst" did not need to climb to a kilometer height so that its radar seeker (GOS) could cover a significant area of ​​the sea surface. The Amethyst emerged from the horizon and saw the target straight ahead. In such conditions, not even the most reliable GOS of the 60s level. got the opportunity to see and capture the target.

For example. The main flight of the first generation anti-ship missiles (P-35 / P-6) flew at high altitudes, up to 7000 meters, which, firstly, excluded the factor of surprise, and secondly, made the missiles vulnerable to enemy shipborne air defense systems (Talos , "Terrier").

The low-altitude mode allowed the Amethyst to remain invisible to the radar stations of enemy ships until the last minutes. Even with the early detection of a launch from a submarine using hydroacoustics, the use of anti-aircraft weapons was excluded.

Dagger strike from under the water


The weak link of "Amethyst" remained its GOS, assembled on the primitive element base of that era. In such conditions, its noise immunity was inferior to the radar sight of the anti-ship missile system of the P-35 / P-6 family, through which the operator, who was on board the carrier ship, corrected the flight and "locked" the missile on the selected target.

The most serious fears were confirmed by the results of the use of naval countermeasures and electronic warfare during the Yom Kippur War (1973), when none of the 54 Soviet-made anti-ship missiles fired failed to hit the target.

On the other hand, there was no merit of high-tech electronic warfare equipment in this. The attacking side once again proved the complete lack of military knowledge, ingenuity and target selection skills, ineptly "leading" to the most primitive traps.

In addition, the methods of countering the Israeli Navy would be unsuitable for a high-intensity conflict, for the conditions of the open ocean.

The fleets of the Arab states used P-15 missiles with a homing head similar to the Ametista seeker. The Amethysts themselves, of course, were not there. The P-70 complex has never been used in combat conditions, remaining a Doomsday weapon. Two of the eight missiles on board the Skat submarines were equipped with a nuclear warhead.

It is worth noting that as of the end of the 60s. no state in the world possessed anti-ship weapons of this level and purpose. Soviet anti-ship systems were unique. The interference immunity of the GOS was not a problem of a specific product, but was a general aspect in the eternal confrontation of means of attack and defense.

This whole story with multi-ton anti-ship missiles had a more serious drawback. About which, due to the impossibility of eliminating it with the available means, they preferred (and still prefer) not to remember. Issuance of target designation for submarines in real time in combat conditions. At least for targets 50 nautical miles away. Without which, neither the Skat, nor its predecessors with the long-range P-6 complexes simply could not realize their capabilities.

Whatever the shortcomings of the "Amethyst", the secretive approach to the attack and the minimum flight time at low altitude forced such a weapon to be reckoned with. The emergence of SSGNs with the P-70 complex significantly increased the level of threat to the US Navy's ship formations.

And, of course, "Skat" remained true to the traditions of the submarine fleet. On board the hunter had six torpedo tubes with ammunition load of 16 torpedoes.

Achilles and the turtle "Charlie"


Speed ​​is an advantage as long as it doesn't break stealth. All stories about the 40-knot "Lear" contradict the specifics of the use of the submarine fleet. At this speed, the boat does not hear anything, but everyone can hear it. Like any weapon, submarines are designed for their specific tactics., in which their full potential is revealed. And this tactic has not changed much since the first submarines appeared.

Underwater, it is not the extra 10 knots that are still valued, but stealth.

Even the best modern nuclear-powered ships have a low-noise (in a number of sources - operational or tactical) underwater speed does not exceed 20 knots. Moving at a higher speed creates unnecessary risks to the sub. Given these facts, the maximum 25 nodes of the "Skat" no longer seem like an outrageous value.

Submarines are not rapid reaction weapons that leave their bases on alert. According to all the canons of submarine warfare, they should be in advance covertly deployed in positions, on the routes of the likely route of enemy ships.

And then the slowest turtle will be able to catch up with Achilles if it crawls across the path.

The technical appearance of the Project 670 SSGN simplified deployment and combat use. There is only one main turbo-gear unit (GTZA - "gearbox" of the nuclear-powered ship). Reduced number of coolant pumps due to the presence of only one OK-350 nuclear steam generating unit on board (the core is the VK-4 reactor). Lower displacement and wetted surface area, coupled with a number of measures to reduce noise (fairings of all holes and cutouts, mechanisms for closing scupper holes).

All this made the Skat submarines the quietest and most secretive among Soviet second-generation submarines.

As for doubts about the reliability of a single-shaft scheme with one reactor, then we can talk about a non-existent (fictitious) problem. For 65 years of the history of the nuclear submarine fleet, not a single submarine has been lost for this reason.

In turn, "Skat" was designed by high-level professionals. The priority in the creation of a single-shaft submarine has become large-scale measures to duplicate and disperse important components (batteries, converters, switchboards). An autonomous power unit appeared in the third compartment. The power supply of the pumps and the control of the reactor were considered to be guaranteed in any, the most incredible situations on board.

In addition to the main line of the propeller shaft, two standby water cannons were provided, driven by an emergency diesel generator. Fortunately, in practice, the Skat boats never had to return from combat duty in a 5-knot course, with a plugged-in reactor.

The real grin of the fleet


While famous record holders were devastating the defense budget (titanium "Goldfish" K-162 at the price of an aircraft carrier) or fought for the title of "longest submarine" (the bow of the K-64 - in Leningrad, feed with an emergency reactor - in Severodvinsk), on guard of the sea lines were eleven SSGN project 670. To which were later added six more units, built according to the modified project 670M "Chaika" (CHARLIE-II). With an even more modern missile system "Malachite".


You can continue to fantasize about underwater interceptors and superweapons, but practice has clearly shown that the limit for technology in the 1960s and 70s. were such "ordinary" submarines as "Skat" or its contemporaries, the multipurpose "Ruff".

At least, they were able to repeatedly go out to combat services and return safely to the bases. Attempts to surpass their qualities led to those strange results, which were mentioned in passing a couple of paragraphs above.

The patience of the machine is the limit ...


The nuclear submarine was and remains an object of increased danger. No matter how simple the design of the "Skat" was, the boats of this type had two serious accidents.

The first emergency was the spontaneous launch of the reactor on the K-320, which was on the slipway, which entailed a rupture of the circuits with serious consequences (radiation accident at Krasnoye Sormovo, 1970).

The second case was the sinking of K-429 in Sarannaya Bay off the coast of Kamchatka in 1983.

Due to their small size, the Skaty had less surface buoyancy, but the blame for the sinking of the K-429 lay entirely with the command. Interrupted inter-voyage repairs and going to sea with a new crew for trim. No one was convinced of the integrity of the valves locked in the open position during welding. The boat went with an ax to the bottom.

The accident caused the death of 16 sailors, but the admirals and responsible persons were very lucky that time. The boat was not damaged and sank at a relatively shallow depth of 38 meters. Among the crew there was a midshipman who had undergone diving training, who helped most of the people to get to the surface.

As a result of the incident, unpleasant details of the organization of military service were revealed. Emergency pop-up buoys for some reason were welded (!) To the submarine's side. And out of a hundred individual breathing apparatus, 90 were torn and unfilled. IDA, transferred to the submarine by rescuers, were in about the same condition.

The sinking site of the K-429 became known purely by accident: a random patrol ship accidentally noticed and picked up from the water a couple of volunteers who left the damaged K-429 through a torpedo tube.

The urgent rescue operation was generally successful. The last to leave the boat was midshipman Baev. Fulfilling the request of the commander-in-chief, he managed to close the hatch behind him, preventing the compartment from flooding. A feat in the depths nearly cost him his life. The submarine was raised to the surface and put under repair, in order to flood again two years later at the quay wall in Krasheninnikov Bay. The score is 1: 1, a draw with the Americans, who for some reason drowned their USS Guitarro at the pier.

With such an organization of the service, the only thing that the Pacific Fleet lacked was boats equipped with metal cooled reactors (LMC).

Only good news became the fact that both known emergencies with submarines "Skat" occurred either at the stage of construction, or due to improper operation - outright negligence on the part of the command. The laconic design of "Skatov" excluded the likelihood of severe accidents. For 20 years of military services, not a single incident was noted that caused numerous casualties or endangered the existence of a submarine. Taking into account the number of "Skatov" series, such a result testifies to the highest operational qualities of the submarines.

Epilogue. Under three flags


All attacks in the direction of "Scat" should be considered fiction. In reality, it was a mighty combat complex with an unparalleled main caliber. Only five states in the world owned the technology to create such weapons.

Indicative is the example of India, which since the early 1970s. led the development of its own nuclear submarine. As a result of fruitful scientific research in 1983, an agreement was reached on leasing one submarine from the USSR Navy. For everyone who is not aware of this story, the question is: out of all the variety of domestic projects, which boat did the Indian admirals choose?

Note. The title illustration shows the Indian nuclear submarine S71 "Chakra", ex. K-43 project "Skat", export modification 06709. Abeam - aircraft carrier "Viraat".


When using materials
http://deepstorm.ru
http://bastion-karpenko.ru
http://militaryrussia.ru
Author:
111 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. mark1
    mark1 24 October 2020 04: 51 New
    18
    This is the ideology that would suit our fleet now during mass construction. Provided that the quality is not bad, they beat it in quantity.
    1. Crabong
      Crabong 24 October 2020 06: 35 New
      +3
      Exactly it is necessary to build large series at least of corvettes ... But there is nothing ... Right now, if, for example, it would be necessary to throw an airborne division into Syria? Can we secure the operation? Horseradish! Even collect pennants from all fleets and that will be nonsense!
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 24 October 2020 10: 37 New
        -3
        ... ... Right now, if, for example, it would be necessary to throw an airborne division into Syria? Can we secure the operation?

        That is, it is necessary to build a mosquito fleet? How is your comment related to the subject?
        1. Crabong
          Crabong 25 October 2020 00: 03 New
          -1
          Well no! We need full-fledged frigates ...
          1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 25 October 2020 00: 47 New
            -3
            Quote: Krabong
            Well no! We need full-fledged frigates ...

            Which, if anything, could an airborne division be dropped into some theater of operations?
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 24 October 2020 12: 29 New
        +3
        Right now, if, for example, it would be necessary to throw an airborne division in Syria? Can we secure the operation? - With the help of VTA, everyone would be transferred to Syria - why the hell do you need to collect ships for this?
        1. Vladimir Chursin
          Vladimir Chursin 26 October 2020 20: 08 New
          -1
          Ava google - how many BTA aircraft are flying ?? The present-day Russia cannot raise the parachute regiment !!!
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 27 October 2020 09: 16 New
            0
            You know better from Kiev.
    2. nnm
      nnm 24 October 2020 07: 06 New
      29
      I will say from the outside: we have no understanding at all why the country needs a fleet. Maybe the 90s have settled in us, maybe the overland component prevails, maybe the echoes of Soviet pride - we remember the submarine, but now, in my opinion, as a land observer, we do not understand what we need on the seas, oceans, we do not need it for anything , nor what are we going to do about it. But if a country wants to extrapolate its strength, then it needs a navy. yes, it's expensive, but it takes a lot of time, but without the fleet we will remain a continental power.
      Maybe the SMP will make us think ...
      And as a matter of fact the article - you cannot rush to build a series. We must first understand and define - what exactly we need, for what, for what period, how many ships, etc. And then clearly follow the understanding of our strategy for using the fleet
      1. Rage66
        Rage66 24 October 2020 08: 19 New
        0
        Quote: nnm
        And as a matter of fact the article - you cannot rush to build a series. We must first understand and define - what exactly we need, for what, for what period, how many ships, etc. And then clearly follow the understanding of our strategy for using the fleet

        This is how it is now. We are looking for determined ... And then we will follow. hi
        1. Lex_is
          Lex_is 24 October 2020 08: 54 New
          +7
          And what will we do with the zoo that we have built?
          1. Rage66
            Rage66 24 October 2020 08: 57 New
            +2
            Quote: Lex_is
            And what will we do with the zoo that we have built?

            Firstly, this zoo is not that big. Secondly, we will exploit, but what else.
            1. Lex_is
              Lex_is 24 October 2020 09: 28 New
              13
              this zoo is not that big

              This zoo is such that it is hard to find two identical ships. They are even within the series with different radar engines and weapons. And all this needs to be serviced and repaired.
              1. Rage66
                Rage66 24 October 2020 09: 34 New
                +2
                Let's say project 22350 seems very promising to me. I don't understand so much about the same engines in the series or not, but if they are different, then obviously this is due to the sanctions. The new radar on the ship can be understood, if by the time the construction of the sister ship began, a more advanced radar had been developed, then why not install it?
                I am sure our partners are doing about the same. hi
                1. Lex_is
                  Lex_is 24 October 2020 10: 36 New
                  0
                  Not a bad project.
                  Only now there is also Project 11356, which is in no way inferior to it, and also has a great modernization potential and had a well-established production, moreover, at two plants.
                  And so in everything: only something is mastered and adjusted, rushes forward, mastering new projects and technical solutions
                  1. Sahalinets
                    Sahalinets 24 October 2020 13: 19 New
                    10
                    11356 is inferior to 22350 in almost everything. Cruising range, seaworthiness, weapons. Calm on 11356 is a forced decision, Redoubt surpasses it in everything. The SAC on the new ship is much better, the gun is more powerful, the radar is not worth comparing. 11356 began to be built only because there was already an established production for India, and the new project and especially its armament still had to be brought to mind. The naval ones were afraid to be left without ships at all ...
                    1. Lex_is
                      Lex_is 24 October 2020 14: 33 New
                      +4
                      1356 is inferior to 22350 in almost everything.
                      of course.
                      This is not surprising, given that there was not much money for their construction, and they squeezed in what was on the leftover principle. But it was possible to equip them to an almost acceptable level.
                      And to build 6-8 pieces that would now be on the database, and in parallel to build the head 22350, on which to thoughtfully work out the same Polyment-Redoubt, and engines, and then transfer the released capacity to the construction of a worked-out, polished project.

                      6-8 acceptable ships on alert are much better than two good ones, but
                      brought to mind at the wall of the plant.
                      1. Ivanchester
                        Ivanchester 25 October 2020 12: 31 New
                        +3
                        So 11356 and wanted to build a series of 6 units. But because of the events in Crimea, supplies of Ukrainian gas turbine engines for these ships naturally stopped.
                        And it was impractical to develop a completely domestic analogue for an outdated project, so now there are no alternatives to 22350.
              2. Santa Fe
                24 October 2020 19: 43 New
                +3
                They are even within the series with different radar engines and weapons

                No ship in maritime history was 100% alike
                1. Lex_is
                  Lex_is 24 October 2020 19: 51 New
                  +1
                  Of course, it won't be 100% similar.
                  But the maximum unification of engines, weapons, control systems, radars, weapons can greatly reduce costs and time for construction, maintenance and repair, operation, crew training, simulators, etc.
                  This is a very big problem when equipment on only a few ships breaks down. And this greatly affects combat readiness, not for the better.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    24 October 2020 20: 02 New
                    +3
                    But the maximum unification of engines, weapons, control systems, radars, weapons can greatly reduce costs and time for construction, maintenance and repair, operation, crew training, simulators, etc.

                    What does maximum mean
                    Ships have always differed in the composition of weapons and installed fire control devices, etc.

                    I will say more, almost all known units (XX century) entered service in the absence of some of the mechanisms that were supposed to be according to the project

                    What is happening with shipbuilding now has other reasons
                    1. Lex_is
                      Lex_is 24 October 2020 20: 36 New
                      +1
                      Ships have always differed in the composition of weapons and installed fire control devices, etc.

                      And how does this hinder unification?
                      Unification is not when the ships are the same as a blueprint, it is the choice of the optimal number of sizes and types of projects, equipment, and weapons that are maximally compatible with each other and the use of the same parts, assemblies, units in the design.
                    2. ZEMCH
                      ZEMCH 27 October 2020 16: 41 New
                      0
                      Quote: Santa Fe
                      What does maximum mean
                      Ships have always differed in the composition of weapons and installed fire control devices, etc.

                      I will say more, almost all known units (XX century) entered service in the absence of some of the mechanisms that were supposed to be according to the project

                      What is happening with shipbuilding now has other reasons


                      Mars-Passat alone on Kuznetsov is worth something, from the moment of construction it "hangs" as a dead weight. Unsettled without a shock complex, etc.
                      But according to the power plant, there should be unification, look at the number of our gas turbine engines and the American LM-2500, the Americans have 72 hours to replace the gas turbine engine, see how much Chabanenko costs.
                  2. alexmach
                    alexmach 25 October 2020 12: 45 New
                    0
                    Come on, all modern ships are in series. There are some differences between the ships in the series, especially the head and early ones, but there are objective reasons for this, and in general this is normal.
              3. ZEMCH
                ZEMCH 27 October 2020 16: 01 New
                +1
                Quote: Lex_is
                This zoo is such that it is hard to find two identical ships. They are even within the series with different radar engines and weapons. And all this needs to be serviced and repaired.

                I completely agree! As one who served in the Navy, from the commander of the BC-5 and above, I will say that on the same project of ships, but built at different factories, even the diameters of the pipelines are different)))
      2. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 24 October 2020 11: 13 New
        +2
        Quote: nnm
        But if a country wants to extrapolate its strength, then it needs a navy.

        The country needs a fleet, and a fleet for different purposes. To do this, it is necessary to prioritize the long-term construction of the fleet, based on the capacity of the shipyards. The country now lacks a military fleet, arctic, fishing and river. Priority should be given to the construction of the Arctic fleet, linear icebreakers, military icebreakers, ships for the transport of LNG (the first "Arctic LNG" is promised to be laid at the end of 2020), tankers and ice-floating bulk carriers. The next priority is the construction of nuclear submarines / diesel-electric submarines, frigates, corvettes. The third priority is the large-scale fishing fleet, floating bases and transport, taking into account the loss of the largest suppliers of the Navy and practically the entire fishing fleet located in Ukraine, is not an easy task. It is necessary to decide whether super-expensive and technologically complex aircraft carriers and heavy cruisers are needed. We need to calculate the capabilities of shipyards, equipment supplier factories and the real monetary costs of building a fleet, whether the country can give what is needed.
        1. Koval Sergey
          Koval Sergey 24 October 2020 12: 36 New
          19
          Well, judging by the decisions of the management, the priorities are roughly the same. The refusal to continue the construction of "dear unclear what" pleases me
          1. tihonmarine
            tihonmarine 24 October 2020 13: 39 New
            +3
            Quote: Sergey Koval
            Well, judging by the decisions of the management, the priorities are roughly the same.

            It is good that there are smart heads in the country's leadership, in contrast to the "top managers" and stool workers with the title of "Doctor of Economics".
      3. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 24 October 2020 16: 18 New
        +3
        It's not so bad to be a continental power occupying an entire continent)

        Ideologically, we are dissipating forces.

        The United States occupies virtually the entire continent. They can direct their power wherever they want.

        We have dubious neighbors from the west, east, and south. We should deal with the land.
      4. Doccor18
        Doccor18 24 October 2020 19: 53 New
        +3
        ... but without the fleet, we will remain a continental power

        It's hard to say if we'll stay ...
        Technology is increasingly making the military fleet into such a multipurpose supersystem, with which it is either very difficult or practically impossible, "sitting on the shore".
  2. demiurg
    demiurg 24 October 2020 05: 25 New
    +9
    What is the wrong Kaptsov. Not a word about armor.
    1. Livonetc
      Livonetc 24 October 2020 08: 22 New
      +5
      Talented in all directions.
      1. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 24 October 2020 13: 40 New
        +3
        Quote: Livonetc
        Talented in all directions.

        We need to give Oleg his due.
    2. Avior
      Avior 24 October 2020 09: 08 New
      +1
      He had long since changed his mind about the armor. smile
      1. Santa Fe
        24 October 2020 12: 08 New
        +6
        Why would? The question remained open, no one could bring a concrete argument against the defense
        1. Avior
          Avior 24 October 2020 15: 52 New
          +3
          Life is brought in the form of an objective reality smile
          It's just that you haven't written about this for a long time, from which we can conclude that you've changed your mind.
          I see I was wrong. smile
          1. dumkopff
            dumkopff 24 October 2020 17: 00 New
            +2
            What is the "objective reality"? Nobody conducted a series of natural experiments. It's as if there was no Russian-Japanese war, the battle at the Dogger Bank and the Jutland battle (and the entire First World War). What interesting krakozyabr would have given birth to by cross-pollination of the Navy and the military-industrial complex?
            The only objective assessment for military equipment is long-term and large-scale hostilities by approximately equal sides. At the moment, all the pros and cons of ship armor are purely speculative.
        2. Mooh
          Mooh 24 October 2020 18: 18 New
          +1
          Why would? The question remained open, no one could bring a concrete argument against the defense

          I brought, you then laughed it off and apparently forgot.
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 24 October 2020 19: 28 New
            +2
            Quote: MooH
            I brought, you then laughed it off and apparently forgot.

            Just "reinforced concrete" arguments to Oleg were given a lot. laughing
            1. Santa Fe
              24 October 2020 19: 45 New
              +1
              There was an objection to each of them - based on facts and comparison with real cases

              "Grooved concrete" - in the sense of the one to which nothing can be argued
              1. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 24 October 2020 20: 14 New
                0
                Sorry Oleg, but I mean reinforced concrete in the literal sense. You remember our disputes about the penetration of cruise missiles against concrete .. It is not possible to indicate real cases with regard to the fleet, there are no more armored ships at sea, and accordingly for anti-ship missiles they do not indicate penetration through battleships. laughing

                However, as I reminded you last time, breaking through concrete and other hard obstacles is quite a must for general purpose CR. And the penetration is more than impressive even if steel armor suddenly turns up instead of concrete.
                1. Santa Fe
                  24 October 2020 20: 40 New
                  +3
                  1. It is known that the German 280 mm projectile was considered useless against capital ships

                  2. The warhead of the Kh-29 is an analogue of the 280 mm projectile weight

                  Now you have to somehow explain the curvature of German gunsmiths, why their shell could not penetrate anything at two speeds of sound, and contained 20 times less explosives than the modern Kh-29
                  It is not possible to indicate real cases regarding the fleet, there are no more armored ships at sea

                  But on land, armored vehicles are developing
                  Because tanks are fighting every day, and there have been no sea battles for 70 years, we relaxed
                  1. Saxahorse
                    Saxahorse 24 October 2020 20: 50 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Santa Fe
                    It is known that the German 280 mm shell was considered useless against capital ships.

                    Yes ... It is not easy to penetrate even a battleship from Tsushima times with such a projectile. But from top to bottom, with a diving rocket, even Yamato breaks through without problems! There was no horizontal protection capable of holding 280 mm or more projectiles in the history of battleships. And if we take into account the flexibility of modern missiles, and the ability to select vulnerable points, it is difficult even to imagine a reservation scheme capable of holding even quite serial missiles of today. Note that this is even without any cheats like a vigorous warhead.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      24 October 2020 20: 54 New
                      +1
                      If you knew the thickness of the Yamato horizontal protection, you would not be so categorical

                      A dive missile is a gift for modern air defense. The armor completed the task
                      1. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 24 October 2020 21: 04 New
                        +4
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        If you knew the thickness of the Yamato horizontal protection, you would not be so categorical

                        This is precisely why Yamato remembered that his 200 mm deck is an absolute record among battleships. However, I would like to remind you that AGM-158 JASSM vertically punches up to 600 mm of steel or 6 meters of concrete plus 15 meters of cushion.

                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        Dive missile - a gift for modern air defense

                        This is the curse of modern air defense .. As a rule, the vertical guidance angles of the radar are no more than 75 degrees ..
                      2. Santa Fe
                        24 October 2020 21: 41 New
                        0
                        1.The rocket will be riddled at high altitude

                        2. The data you provided on Jassm contradict all known combat episodes with ammunition of a similar mass

                        3. Burke - scanning in elevation 90 degrees
                        Radar Sampson (esm type 45) - it is possible to install a third afar, looking directly at the zenith. But they considered it superfluous, the British destroyer carries only 2/3 of the standard armament
                      3. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 25 October 2020 21: 12 New
                        0
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        The data you provided on Jassm contradicts all known combat episodes with ammunition of a similar mass

                        These data are directly indicated in the performance characteristics. The ability to destroy bunkers is considered an important characteristic of a general purpose RC. The Americans paid a lot of attention to developments in the field of penetration, it is believed that the next generation of Tomahawks will have a penetration three times better than Jassm, they promise a tandem warhead with a leading shaped charge.
                      4. Santa Fe
                        25 October 2020 22: 36 New
                        0
                        there they promise a tandem warhead with a leading shaped charge.

                        The content of explosives in the main warhead will be like a hand grenade

                        Let me remind you that the task is not easy to break through. The task is to bring enough explosives under the armor to cause damage to a 100-meter frigate
                      5. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 26 October 2020 00: 56 New
                        0
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        Let me remind you that the task is not easy to break through. The task is to bring enough explosives under the armor to cause damage to a 100-meter frigate

                        Exactly! That is why the Americans pay so much attention to penetrating warheads. To destroy a bunker, an explosion on the surface is also useless, so we learned how to make warheads that can go through six meters of concrete and explode where necessary, inside the bunker.
                      6. Santa Fe
                        26 October 2020 02: 02 New
                        0
                        Taliban bunker and 100-meter ship are not comparable in size

                        Tandem warhead will destroy 1 compartment, the rest are intact
                        These data are directly indicated in the performance characteristics.

                        I know what they say there. But is the truth written there

                        The specified performance characteristics are several times superior to the performance characteristics of ammunition, which were used in practice, with known results. By what means? New physical principles?
                      7. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 26 October 2020 23: 29 New
                        0
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        By what means? New physical principles?

                        Bunker bombs have been known since WWII. What's so incredible about a penetrating, armor-piercing warhead? All the more so for a rocket capable of accelerating before striking.
                      8. Santa Fe
                        27 October 2020 03: 21 New
                        0
                        Bunker bombs have been known since WWII

                        They weighed 5 tons

                        A rocket with such a warhead - will you launch it from a baikonur?
                      9. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 27 October 2020 23: 36 New
                        0
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        They weighed 5 tons

                        Duc GPS was not there yet. :) We threw from 10 km, it was not easy to get there. So they did it with a margin so that it would not seem a little to anyone underground. And modern concrete-piercing units start from 250 kg, and it’s not a pity for the enemy to get higher.
                      10. Santa Fe
                        28 October 2020 03: 14 New
                        0
                        So they did it with a margin so that no one seemed a little underground

                        Battleships and underground tunnels were bombed like this

                        Therefore, the size of the bombs
                        The lightest (fritz-x) - twice as heavy as the warhead of Granite
                        And modern concrete-driving machines from 250 kg

                        Against a 100-meter ship
                        with a system of internal compartments and bulkheads?
                        and above it is not a pity for the enemy.

                        Who will let the bomber fly over the ship
                        S-300 will smear it on approach
                      11. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 28 October 2020 23: 46 New
                        0
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        Against a 100-meter ship
                        with a system of internal compartments and bulkheads?

                        Here I agree. Bulkheads and compartments are much more useful than armor. However, frigates and corvettes were drowned with such warheads. Yes, and a modern destroyer will get very bad from several missiles.
                      12. Santa Fe
                        29 October 2020 05: 18 New
                        0
                        Bulkheads and compartments are much more useless than armor.

                        These are parts of a single system

                        Without external protection of the citadel, a 250 kg warhead full of TNT will fly into the compartment. Bulkheads won't help from this

                        When installing protection, half or more of the mass of the warhead will be spent on various nonsense to overcome 150-200 mm of steel. Lower filling rate, all kinds of boosters or tandem charges, etc.
                      13. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 29 October 2020 23: 20 New
                        0
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        When installing protection, half or more of the mass of the warhead will be spent on various nonsense to overcome 150-200 mm of steel.

                        In part, it is.
                        The JASSM uses the J-1000 unitary penetrating warhead (serial designation WDU-42 / B) weighing about 450 kg. The warhead body is made of tungsten alloy and is loaded with 109 kg of AFX-757 high-performance low-sensitivity explosive.

                        However, even 100 kg is not bad at all, pomnitsa mines from the RYAV and PMV times contained 60-100 kg of explosives. And nothing, even battleships of 15000 tons did not seem a little. The main thing is to blow up in a soft place, and it will turn a big hole.
                      14. Santa Fe
                        30 October 2020 03: 34 New
                        0
                        The JASSM uses the J-1000 unitary penetrating warhead (serial designation WDU-42 / B) weighing about 450 kg. The warhead body is made of tungsten alloy and is equipped with 109 kg

                        How does this description indicate a high penetration - in comparison with a BB shell from the Second World War

                        Where to wonder here
                        pomnitsa mines from the times of RYAV and PMV contained 60-100 kg of explosive

                        Do not compare underwater and surface explosion

                        In an explosion under water, the Japanese log lance could cut the cruiser in half, how many parts do you think the Tkr Mikuma broke, on which the entire torpedo cellar detonated (up to 20 !!! Long lences)
                      15. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 30 October 2020 22: 44 New
                        0
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        Do not compare underwater and surface explosion

                        And who promised you a surface explosion? For this, the Americans got bogged down with adaptive fuses for anti-ship missiles after the tanker war in the Gulf, in order to detonate warheads in the most convenient place. Under the armor, closer to the belly.

                        Well, specifically, JASSM is a smart rocket at all. It, or rather its naval version, was not in vain taught to visually identify targets. Now the anti-ship missile not only distinguishes the destroyer from the scow, but also chooses the most delicious place to hit. The detonation of 100 kg of explosives in a heap of Tomahawks of a vertical launcher promises noble fireworks!
                      16. Santa Fe
                        31 October 2020 01: 22 New
                        +1
                        The deceleration of the fuse does not mean that the PKR have learned to determine the structure of the ship and find vulnerabilities in it. You need to go to Hollywood with such fantasies

                        99% of modern missile systems, except for LRASm, cannot even determine the type of ship. They are aimed at the most radio-contrast target - at the side or superstructure. What is the likelihood that it will hit the ammunition placement?

                        The designers are also not stupid, at all times the ammunition had maximum protection
                      17. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 31 October 2020 22: 24 New
                        0
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        The deceleration of the fuse does not mean that the PKR have learned to determine the structure of the ship and find vulnerabilities in it.

                        Who told you about primitive deceleration? The Americans just didn't like the Harpoons piercing through their victims. They taught the rocket to determine the hardness of the target.

                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        99% of modern missile systems, except for LRASm, cannot even determine the type of ship.

                        The link to LRASm is more than appropriate. Unfortunately, we are lagging behind here too. But this very mentioned LRASm is the anti-ship missile of the near future. Plus many more interesting features from the network battlefield capabilities. A swarm of drones, by the way, also follows directly from it.
                      18. Santa Fe
                        1 November 2020 02: 15 New
                        +1
                        The Americans just didn't like the Harpoons piercing through their victims. They taught the rocket to determine the hardness of the target.

                        The harpoon has no such option
                        In addition to the primitive deceleration of the fuse
                        But this very mentioned LRASm is the anti-ship missile of the near future.

                        Those. in the near future there will be no missiles analyzing the structure of the ship

                        All Lrasm learned was to determine the type of ship, cruiser or boat
                        By the way, the swarm of drones also follows directly from it.

                        Than this will break through the citadel
                        Due to what. The mass is scanty, the combat load is minuscule, the subsonic speed
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 24 October 2020 21: 28 New
    10
    Quote: Santa Fe
    The question remained open

    Oleg, thank you for the article. But there are some clarifications.
    1.
    The designers of "Amethyst" focused their efforts on the development of a balanced complex, where the flight range corresponded to the capabilities of the guidance equipment.
    The phrase is incorrect by definition, because after receiving the P * c from the SAC, their data on Vts and Kts were entered into Ladoga, special maneuvering for Thor to generate 4K66 head-firing data, and then "START"! And that's it - there was no more guidance and control of the missile. It was the first in the world missile system on the principle of "fire - forget!" If the shooting was fully prepared, then they shot at the UMC. But most often in a semi-prevented target location, given the complexity of AMG maneuvering and errors in determining the EDC. At the same time, 670 could form a salvo of 4 items (2 were with SBPs of 200 each), but 661, having 10 items, could only fire 5 in a salvo, because substitutes were no longer accepted.
    2. Was 4K66 that bad (for its time)? No. Start is wet, underwater. Warhead per tonne in weight (despite the fact that TGA = 1,7 TNT). She could carry up to 200 kt SBP. Speed ​​310m / s. And this despite the fact that the Harpoon carried 224kg of explosives and its speed was 285-290 m / s. YABP did not carry. And in general, according to the idea, the P-70 was made for Anchar, but she "was delayed at the start." Therefore, the cheaper 670 "overtook" the 661 project sprinter, being the first to be armed with Amethyst.
    2. About issuing control centers in real time. And the 670 did not have anything else, because the shooting was according to our own GAS, in real time. Therefore, there was no data aging time. Direction finding accuracy is approximately 1,0 *. The side of movement C (general course) is known, so the group target did not have time to get out of the "spot" for the T approach ...
    3. Regarding the weakness of the Kerch State Joint Stock Company. The Rubicon MG-400 appeared, installed on the 670M, as well as the P-70 was replaced with the P-120. And when the TTZ was issued in 1964, what was, that they were happy ... then they put it.
    4. About 25 knots of full speed. Propeller cavitation began at 12-15 knots (depending on the depth) of the stroke. And you could run 25 moves away from the tracks and for a very short time, until SOSUS copied you and transferred the data to the BPA ... So,
    25 knots were enough.
    5. Low body strength. no one even walked at the working depth, unless, of course, it was necessary to force the PLO line, or it was necessary to listen to what was going on in the PZK ... Usually 70-80 m, rarely deeper than 100-150. Therefore, it is not critical: the AK-29 normally allowed a short stay at 300m. But with electrochemical corrosion it was necessary to fight with protective protection.
    6. The author casually mentioned 6 torpedo tubes and an atypical stock of torpedoes - 16 units. The thing is that 670 had 4x533mm and 2x400mm NTA. In the first there were SET-65, 53-65K, and in the second - SET-40, MGT-2 and SGPD MG-14 "Anabar".
    And so the article is good, easy to read and enjoyable.
    Oleg, hi
    1. Santa Fe
      24 October 2020 21: 42 New
      +3
      Boa constrictor, I will take any comments from you as an honor
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 24 October 2020 21: 44 New
        +1
        I am flattered by such a high assessment of my remarks ... laughing
        1. Santa Fe
          24 October 2020 21: 53 New
          +2
          With a torus of data of shooting in the head 4K66, and then "START"! And that's it - there was no more guidance and control of the missile

          This is what was said

          About the need for correction - I meant the first generation of PCR. Amethyst has a short flight time, the target is at the calculated location
    2. Yuriy Malyshko
      Yuriy Malyshko 27 October 2020 05: 14 New
      0
      Regarding the warhead of the "Amethyst" in a ton of weight - this is not understand whose invention, posted on Wikipedia. In reality, the warhead was (all assembled) about 450 kg. But this was quite enough, because the warhead was high-explosive-cumulative with the inclination of the cumulative notch downward in order to defeat the nodes and mechanisms below the waterline.
  • Crabong
    Crabong 24 October 2020 06: 23 New
    +5
    We have everything "super-duper-liquid metal-titanium"! And to delve into the details - so questions arise in efficiency ... What about hydroacoustics, what about torpedo weapons, what about radar systems of fighters, what radar systems and air defense systems are weapons of new ships. And the Americans are building Arlie Berks in a series of tens ...
    And if we talk about "Lear" so it was generally a fiasco in my opinion. That from the point of view of application, that from the point of view of the ruin of the national economy. And the adoption of the Yak-38 in the number of 200 units ... What was that? The crime is likely ...
    1. Rage66
      Rage66 24 October 2020 08: 21 New
      +9
      Quote: Krabong
      And the adoption of the Yak-38 in the number of 200 units ... What was that? The crime is likely ...

      How much was needed? And for what?
      And not 200, but 234. And by the way, "Harrier" produced 278.
      And in both cases, the amount is understandable. They were made for media that could not be produced in tens and hundreds.
      1. Crabong
        Crabong 25 October 2020 00: 06 New
        +2
        A completely useless car, no radar, no rocket ...
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 27 October 2020 11: 15 New
        -2
        There was no need to do this misery at all.
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 24 October 2020 06: 28 New
    18
    Yes, gold elephants and goldfish do not win the war. But simplicity, reliability and quantity usually do the result.
    For a long time Oleg has not been seen
  • mik193
    mik193 24 October 2020 09: 03 New
    11
    In essence, the article - we do not need outstanding characteristics in single copies. We do not need an insane speed at which the submarine yells at the ocean and itself does not hear anything. The use of rocket weapons is not associated with a long stay on the surface and turning oneself into a target. For a fight with an escort or KPUG, the firing range was enough. Single-shaft design - real noise reduction. Dimensions also contribute to stealth. The working depth of diving is 240 meters - but not so little - for the same "Ruff" - 320 meters. Well, the hydroacoustics would be better - in the process they removed it, put MGK-400. In general - a good inexpensive workhorse of the Soviet fleet, suitable for mass construction.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 24 October 2020 12: 19 New
      +7
      Quote: mik193
      Single-shaft design - real noise reduction.

      Not only. At 670, for the first time, stealth was systematically engaged. To reduce noise, for the first time on domestic submarines, mechanisms for closing ventilation and scupper holes were used.
      To increase the sound transparency, a setless fairing of the main antenna of the SAC was used; to reduce the visibility of the submarine in the sonar and hydroacoustic fields, the outer surface of the light hull, superstructure and deckhouse fencing are lined with an anti-hydrolocation rubber coating, and the outer surface of the strong hull is lined with a sound-insulating rubber floor, vibration damping coatings are applied to the foundations of vibroactive mechanisms, bulkheads and deck decks; a low-noise propeller is installed to increase the maximum low-noise travel speed; to compensate for its own magnetic field, the installation of a demagnetizing device, etc. is provided. (http://bastion-karpenko.ru/670-plakr)
      Without this, it would be extremely difficult to get in touch with KON, DesO, KUG to generate data on the Ladoga firing. Because the tactics of using the 670 provided for a torpedo attack after the missile attack in the development of the success of the missile strike. The calculation was simple: 2 CR per ship and 2 ships with torpedo weapons. But the trouble is, the GOS "Amethyst" chose the biggest target, which it was aiming at. Later, the Malachites received the logic of target selection (like "second from the left is mine!"). And before that, all the anti-ship missiles in the main target!
  • Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich
    Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich 24 October 2020 09: 03 New
    0
    I apologize in advance, my question is probably off topic. I'm not an expert in the topic, but the beginning of the article: "Titanium boats. Supercavitating torpedoes and liquid metal reactors. What other weapons could surprise the fleet?"and, in particular," liquid metal reactors "gave me the following question: during the First and Second World Wars, military lots used steam turbines.
    The question is: why nobody used "mercury" turbines to increase power and other characteristics; analogue of a steam turbine, in which water (steam) would be replaced by mercury?
    1. Pashhenko Nikolay
      Pashhenko Nikolay 24 October 2020 10: 04 New
      +4
      The metal coolant in the reactors was used to remove a large amount of heat from a relatively compact reactor, due to its high heat capacity, compared to water. And only in the first circuit. The second circuit is a classic water circuit, working on a turbine. In conventional boilers there is no need to fence an intermediate link. Yes, and imagine a mercury leak on a ship. It is almost akin to a radiation leak in terms of the consequences for the crew.
      1. Santa Fe
        24 October 2020 12: 05 New
        +2
        due to its high heat capacity compared to water.

        The heat capacity of water is 10 times that of any metal
        1. Aviator_
          Aviator_ 24 October 2020 14: 04 New
          +3
          The previous commentator skipped the topic "Heat engines" and therefore does not know the Carnot cycle.
        2. Kostya Lavinyukov
          Kostya Lavinyukov 24 October 2020 21: 15 New
          0
          I think I meant the volume. And the boiling point of the metal is very high.
      2. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 24 October 2020 14: 02 New
        +4
        due to its high heat capacity

        In accordance with the Carnot cycle, the higher the temperature of the working fluid, the higher the efficiency of the heat engine. Heat capacity has nothing to do with it.
        1. Motorist
          Motorist 25 October 2020 23: 34 New
          0
          Quote: Aviator_
          Heat capacity has nothing to do with it.

          It is not the heat capacity that is important, but the thermal conductivity (as an intermediate heat carrier). And for the turbine - the latent heat of vaporization, and for metals it too - don't worry about it; i.e., theoretically, it is possible to use metal in the second circuit, but in practice it is easier and more convenient to use water. The turbine, by the way, did not stand next to Carnot ... hi
          1. Aviator_
            Aviator_ 26 October 2020 08: 17 New
            0
            The turbine, by the way, did not stand next to Carnot ...

            Then explain to me why the gas temperature in front of the turbine is raised in every possible way in a gas turbine engine, why would it be so difficult?
            1. Motorist
              Motorist 26 October 2020 20: 07 New
              +1
              Hello. hi I, probably, put it wrong: the workflow of all heat engines does not stand next to Carnot, the turbine - even more so. As for the efficiency, everything is correct. Therefore, the efficiency of diesel engines is higher than the others due to the large difference between T2-T1.
              1. Aviator_
                Aviator_ 26 October 2020 22: 33 New
                +1
                This is what I wanted to say. Carnot is an ideal cycle, it is very good, but in nature there are only approximations to it. It does not exist in its pure form, just like an ideal gas.
    2. Mountain shooter
      Mountain shooter 24 October 2020 10: 15 New
      +4
      Quote: Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich
      The question is: why nobody used "mercury" turbines to increase power and other characteristics; analogue of a steam turbine, in which water (steam) would be replaced by mercury

      Because any accident with such a coolant will kill the boat and crew pretty quickly. Well, technical problems. Mercury is a rather corrosive metal. Even gold dissolves ... laughing
      1. UVB
        UVB 24 October 2020 19: 00 New
        +3
        Because any accident with such a coolant will kill the boat and crew pretty quickly. Well, technical problems. Mercury is a rather corrosive metal
        In addition, the world (!) Mining of mercury does not exceed 2000 tons, which is less than even gold!
  • Catfish
    Catfish 24 October 2020 09: 24 New
    14
    Great article, just brilliant! Swallowed in one breath. Bravo, Oleg !!! good
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 24 October 2020 11: 16 New
      +5
      Quote: Sea Cat
      Great article, just brilliant! Swallowed in one breath. Bravo, Oleg !!!

      I support!
      1. Santa Fe
        24 October 2020 12: 04 New
        +2
        Thank you for your rating.
        Nice to see familiar faces hi
  • Eug
    Eug 24 October 2020 10: 29 New
    +4
    Another confirmation of the thesis that we need, relatively speaking, “well-riveted reliable troughs”, and not “wunderwafli”, “unique”, “unparalleled” record characteristics of which have been achieved at an unacceptable price. All of the above applies not only to marine technology. Marine I ask not to be offended by the term "trough", this is not about ships.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 24 October 2020 12: 48 New
      +1
      Quote: Eug
      we need, relatively speaking, "competently riveted reliable troughs", and not "wunderwafli", "unique", "unparalleled" record characteristics of which have been achieved at an unacceptable price.

      I disagree. The history of the issue says that even a single "superwunderwafe" sometimes decided the outcome of the battle or thwarted the enemy's strategic plans. Examples? Pzhlsta! - T-34, Tigers, Bismarck, V-2, FX-1400, our "Kuz'kina mother", GZO - GCH 15F678 Avangard, 14Yu71, X-47M2 Zircon, etc.
      And how much crap does even one Seawolf deliver in the operating area of ​​the Northern Fleet?
      To create a weapon ahead of its time means to seriously "puzzle" the counterpart for a long time. Until the antidote is found. And this is time, money, brains !!!
      It often happens that something from this gentlemen's set ... is missing.
      And most often - the last one: BRAIN !!!
      1. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 24 October 2020 14: 38 New
        +4
        The T-34 is not a prodigy. A simple workhorse with a bunch of flaws that really changed the course of the war. And all these "Bismarcs" and "Fau" - a waste of hearts. "Vanguards", "Daggers" and "Zircons" are controversial projects, still "things in themselves." Whether they will justify the resources invested in them is unclear.
    2. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 24 October 2020 13: 30 New
      -2
      Quote: Eug
      Marine I ask not to be offended by the term "trough", this is not about ships.

      You are right, we never take offense at the people of the shore. For you, what is the trough where the women wash their underpants, the trough from which the pigs are fed, and the trough walks the seas, for you there is no difference.
  • Operator
    Operator 24 October 2020 10: 45 New
    -15 qualifying.
    An article by the author with permanent residence in an African-American rogue country: like, what a hell to you your "Sarmatians", "Zircons", "Poseidons" and "Petrels" (which in America does not exist and never will be) - take an example from us, build habitable mega-nuclear submarine with bare pressurized water reactors of the 1960s.

    There would be no Soviet "Komsomolets" and "Lyra", the Russian "Poseidon" would not appear - therefore, the goods are Americans, sit on your priest straight (twitch, flush it down the toilet) bully
  • Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 24 October 2020 11: 27 New
    +1
    ... spontaneous launch of the reactor on the K-320 located on the slipway, resulting in a rupture of the circuits with grave consequences
    Discharge of active water mass into the shop.
    7 sailors-dosimetrists died from ARS within a week. In subsequent years, another 300 people for reasons directly or indirectly linked to the accident.
    After 2 years, already on the Northern Fleet, the K-320 collided with the K-131 SSGN (project 675). The last one was delivered.
    A year later - partial flooding of the reactor compartment as a result of the accident.
    In general, there were, of course, more incidents of a different order than the two mentioned by the author. K-201 hitting the Japanese nets near Kamchatka, the destruction of the ballast tank during blowing on the K-429, collisions, fire, contact with the ground, an incident with a K-25 missile hitting a tug, etc.
    Thanks for the article to the author, well written, with love to the topic good
    1. Santa Fe
      24 October 2020 12: 01 New
      +4
      incidents of a different order were, of course,

      All of the above - navigation accidents and friendly fire
      The design had nothing to do with it
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 24 October 2020 12: 22 New
        0
        .The design had nothing to do with it

        I have not argued otherwise.
        You, too, have given examples with a 'human factor', not with design flaws.
  • Alien From
    Alien From 24 October 2020 12: 41 New
    +2
    Thanks to the author. Interestingly written.
  • faterdom
    faterdom 24 October 2020 18: 35 New
    +2
    The presentation of the material is very good. Lucidly, with a lively language and appropriate allegories. It is read in one breath, like Dumas or Conan-Doyle, to the author of respect and health, as well as creative Uzbeks!
  • Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 24 October 2020 19: 32 New
    +2
    I won't say that I agree with the author in everything, but I liked the article anyway. Thanks!
  • bk0010
    bk0010 24 October 2020 21: 55 New
    +3
    Very interesting and unusual. For the first time I did not recognize the author by style.
  • K298rtm
    K298rtm 24 October 2020 23: 48 New
    +2
    Thanks to the author for an interesting article.
    For its time - quite worthy "hardware".
    The Rubicon was installed at 670 M (it did not fit into these dimensions of the Skat).
    The Rubicon was also installed on the 670s in the middle of the renovation.
  • Ersh
    Ersh 25 October 2020 12: 11 New
    -3
    Where do such authors get the "nicknames" of submarines? God bless him, with foreigners, but in our fleet there are no "stingrays". "Ruffs" and other dregs were not used.
    The author seems to know something, but it is not clear from where? Did he even serve? And in what position?
    1. Oleg Bykov
      Oleg Bykov 26 October 2020 14: 05 New
      0
      These are the names of the topics, the initial design documentation, so to speak. Also like Shark, Borey, Antey, Murena, Lyra, Halibut, Pike, Varshavyanka, etc. Usually used when building.
  • Maki maki
    Maki maki 26 October 2020 07: 52 New
    17
    Thanks to the author for the work - article good I agree that boats should be cheap and massive. Now there are not enough of them.
  • Oleg Bykov
    Oleg Bykov 26 October 2020 14: 19 New
    +1
    The last illustration is not entirely relevant. There SSBN of the potential enemy.
  • Yuriy Malyshko
    Yuriy Malyshko 27 October 2020 05: 47 New
    +1
    Yes, pl of projects 670 and 670M (670M1) were the real "workhorses" of the Soviet Navy. Combat services on them lasting 7-9 months were commonplace. The technique did not fail, the potential enemy respected. I met with them when loading (unloading) b / s at the piers - I remember the sallow complexion of the crew members from the long absence of ultraviolet radiation. I was surprised by the lack of any ostentatiousness, running around, loudness in comparison with surface ships.
  • VALERIK_097
    VALERIK_097 28 October 2020 22: 31 New
    +2
    Thanks to the author for the article, I will add on my own, the only nuclear submarine with two passage corridors in the RO.
  • merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet 29 October 2020 01: 44 New
    -1
    As for doubts about the reliability of a single-shaft scheme with one reactor, then we can talk about a non-existent (fictitious) problem. For 65 years of the history of the nuclear submarine fleet, not a single submarine has been lost for this reason.
    Not quite understood obzats? But what about Thresher and Scorpio, K-278 Komsomolets, also single-shaft and with one reactor?
    1. Santa Fe
      29 October 2020 05: 20 New
      +1
      If they had two reactors - would it help them?

      They died for reasons other than one-pot propulsion
  • voenmor
    voenmor 7 November 2020 13: 13 New
    0
    K-429 sank again not in Krasheninnikov Bay, but at the wall of the shipyard in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky-50.