Military Review

"Not only Russia has lost part of the nuclear submarines and shipyards": the United States told about the problems with submarines

32

Saida Bay became a symbol of the loss of the enormous potential of the Soviet underwater fleet... It was here, along with other production sites, that dozens of nuclear submarines that Russia inherited after the collapse of the USSR were cut. As reported on November 30 at a special workshop, out of 206 nuclear submarines that have been disabled since 1986, 199 have been dismantled.


The Premier League was cut, but the Curies were down


This work was generously sponsored by foreign "partners". The USA, France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway and Sweden allocated their funds for the elimination of Russian submarines. Many nuclear submarines were in urgent need of dismantling, posing a threat to the environment: a number of ships lay on the ground long ago and presented a radiation hazard.

Over the period from 2004 to 2020, the total accumulated activity in the Arctic decreased from 11,1 to 5,09 million Curies
- summed up in the Russian Federation the results of their work on cutting nuclear submarines.

The massive write-off of submarines in the post-Soviet period led to a sharp reduction in the submarine fleet. The refusal to build new ships led to the degradation of the production base and the loss of competencies by shipyards. But not only Russia has lost a significant part of its combat potential and industrial capacity, including nuclear submarines and shipyards.

"Not only Russia has lost part of the nuclear submarines and shipyards": the United States told about the problems with submarines

Source: Rosatom


Degradation of American potential


Today, the US Navy has 50 attack submarines, compared with about a hundred at the end of the Cold War [...] Despite the reduction in the number of SSN [attack submarines] by half, the infrastructure for their maintenance and support has shrunk even more: today the Navy has only [...] four state shipyards compared to 11
- told about the problems Rear Admiral Blake Converse, commander of the Pacific submarine forces of the US Navy.

He is deeply concerned about the Navy's ability to carry out maintenance on remaining U.S. facilities and at expedition sites, especially if the attack submarine fleet grows in the coming decades, as the Pentagon has announced. In his words, without taking emergency measures, this will cause extremely serious consequences:

Without targeted action taken today, this will lead to a crisis.

Against the background of the degradation of the fleets and shipbuilding of the former main geopolitical rivals, the process of the formation of powerful naval forces and a developed industrial base in the Asia-Pacific region has come to an end. New players entered the scene in the form of China, Japan and South Korea. Australia is to join the Major League soon.
32 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Victor_B
    Victor_B 1 December 2020 10: 55
    +1
    He is seriously concerned about the Navy's ability to carry out maintenance on remaining U.S. facilities and expedition sites, especially if the attack submarine fleet grows in the coming decades.
    And how worries me ...
    Well, I can't go straight to kyusha ...
    1. Leeds
      Leeds 1 December 2020 11: 20
      +6
      Hmm, I wish I hadn't seen this diagram. Although the scale of the disaster would not have changed ...
      1. Bashkirkhan
        Bashkirkhan 1 December 2020 11: 46
        +3
        No disaster happened. The West has spent billions of dollars on the disposal of the Soviet radioactive legacy. And now two hundred decommissioned nuclear submarines would rot at the berths.
        "The West tried to bring Russia to its knees, but it continued to lie."
        The USA, France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway and Sweden allocated their funds for the elimination of Russian submarines. Many nuclear submarines were in urgent need of dismantling, posing a threat to the environment: a number of ships lay on the ground long ago and posed a radiation hazard
        1. businessv
          businessv 2 December 2020 19: 41
          -2
          Quote: Bashkirkhan
          The West has spent billions of dollars on the disposal of the Soviet radioactive legacy.
          Cutting the BATTLE SHIPS! My friend, who participated in this Sabbath as a hard worker, told me about this! The boats that were not written off due to any reason, but efficient combat boats that came under their own power, were first disarmed essno, then the carvers - scrap metal workers began to work. "All unnecessary - for scrap! Let's collect scrap metal!"
          1. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A 2 December 2020 20: 45
            0
            Quote: businessv
            Quote: Bashkirkhan
            The West has spent billions of dollars on the disposal of the Soviet radioactive legacy.
            Cutting the BATTLE SHIPS! My friend, who participated in this Sabbath as a hard worker, told me about this! The boats that were not written off due to any reason, but efficient combat boats that came under their own power, were first disarmed essno, then the carvers - scrap metal workers began to work. "All unnecessary - for scrap! Let's collect scrap metal!"


            Lies...
            They cut boats built in the 50-60-70s ...
            Cutting boats already taken out of the fleet ...
            1. businessv
              businessv 2 December 2020 21: 10
              0
              Quote: SovAr238A
              They cut boats built in the 50-60-70s ...
              They cut boats already taken out of the fleet ..

              Atomic ones released in the 50s? The boats produced in the 70s in the 90s were 20 years old, but I myself did not participate in this, and I believe my friend because he was talking about atomic double-hulled submarines, which began to be produced in 1984!
      2. tolancop
        tolancop 2 December 2020 10: 47
        0
        And what is the disaster on the diagram? I believe that the ships were disabled for a reason, but because their service life had come to an end or, at least, there were not enough funds for deep repairs. And the fact that the disposal was carried out with bourgeois money is generally excellent. And I really liked the diagram in terms of recycling, there is a minimum on the balance. Worse, the fleet is clearly not getting enough to replace the disabled and decommissioned ships. But there is no such diagram in the material.
        1. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A 2 December 2020 20: 48
          +1
          Quote: tolancop
          And what is the disaster on the diagram? I believe that the ships were disabled for a reason, but because their service life had come to an end or, at least, there were not enough funds for deep repairs. And the fact that the disposal was carried out with bourgeois money is generally excellent. And I really liked the diagram in terms of recycling, there is a minimum on the balance. Worse, the fleet is clearly not getting enough to replace the disabled and decommissioned ships. But there is no such diagram in the material.


          That's it ...
          Most of the money was allocated by the fishing industry lobbyists in these countries. because they were afraid (scared by Chernobyl). that due to devastation, a nuclear ecological catastrophe may occur, due to sea currents very quickly spreading to their fishing areas and the complete paralysis of the fishing industry ...
  2. zwlad
    zwlad 1 December 2020 11: 09
    +15
    Horror how many boats were ditched.
    And how much human labor was invested in them, and state funds.
    1. Victor_B
      Victor_B 1 December 2020 11: 20
      +12
      Quote: zwlad
      And how much human labor was invested in them, and state funds.

      And with what enthusiasm the great Ukrainians cut the Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 ...
    2. seregin-s1
      seregin-s1 1 December 2020 12: 29
      +12
      How much junk went into the sea in the 80s! We got on an internship at the "Lenin Komsomol", it really leaked, but went out to sea for show. I'm not even talking about diesel people, including those with suspended reactors. Half of these 206 definitely had to be disposed of!
      1. zwlad
        zwlad 1 December 2020 21: 12
        +1
        Even I strongly doubt about the junk walking in the sea. For an emergency on the scrap at that time, it was easy to get under a tribunal and sit down for a long time.
        Perhaps there were several such boats, but not 100 of them.
    3. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 2 December 2020 20: 57
      0
      Quote: zwlad
      Horror how many boats were ditched.
      And how much human labor was invested in them, and state funds.


      And they should have just rotted and arranged the places of the new Chernobyls?

      Well, in fact, almost 270 nuclear submarines were built in the Soviet Union.
      Almost 100 of them are missile.

      And there was no recycling and cutting in the Soviet Union ...
      150 boats just rotted by the end of the 80s ...
      This is exactly how it was in fact ...
  3. Max Lebedev
    Max Lebedev 1 December 2020 11: 25
    +25
    The USSR disappeared - the USA relaxed somewhat. And inaction corrupts.
    1. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 1 December 2020 11: 32
      +3
      Quote: Max Lebedev
      The USSR disappeared - the USA relaxed somewhat. And inaction corrupts.

      New players entered the scene in the form of China, Japan and South Korea. Australia is to join the Major League soon.

      Where is Australia jumping? What do they want?
      They have already fully mastered their mainland and are they missing something ?!
      In my opinion, nobody needs them!
      1. Max Lebedev
        Max Lebedev 1 December 2020 11: 36
        +22
        Quote: Starover_Z
        Where is Australia jumping? What do they want?

        hi Australia under the British crown - hence the ambition.
      2. Darkesstcat
        Darkesstcat 1 December 2020 11: 40
        +5
        They have good reserves of resources, they may well take the lead in the region.
        1. bayard
          bayard 1 December 2020 14: 03
          +3
          Quote: Darkesstcat
          They have good reserves of resources, they may well take the lead in the region.

          If part of the population from the former Britain and Europe flows into them. The size also matters.
          Well, yes, Australia has always been considered a spare mainland.
      3. Reserve buildbat
        Reserve buildbat 1 December 2020 19: 45
        -1
        They are looking for reserve areas for resettlement in case of war against kangaroos. laughing
  4. Tsoy
    Tsoy 1 December 2020 11: 36
    +4
    Only they may have problems, but we already have ...

    206 nuclear submarines, disabled since 1986, 199 units have been dismantled.
  5. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 1 December 2020 11: 40
    +3
    This work was generously sponsored by foreign "partners"
    Still, a potential enemy destroys his nuclear submarines with his own hands. This is probably the Americans did not even imagine in their dreams. Well, and the problems of the United States with the nuclear fleet, frankly speaking, should not worry us, but only please. Although the difference in "degradation" (as the author called it) is significant.
    1. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 2 December 2020 21: 01
      +1
      Quote: rotmistr60
      This work was generously sponsored by foreign "partners"
      Still, a potential enemy destroys his nuclear submarines with his own hands. This is probably the Americans did not even imagine in their dreams. Well, and the problems of the United States with the nuclear fleet, frankly speaking, should not worry us, but only please. Although the difference in "degradation" (as the author called it) is significant.


      Again.
      You know that the SOversky Union has produced more than 280 nuclear submarines since the 50s ...
      But the Soviet Union did not dispose of a single boat ...
      Where did these boats go?
      Were they all in combat formation?

      Or did the Soviet Union have only 80 nuclear submarines in combat formation at the end of the 130s?

      So where were those early 150 submarines?


      Learn to think with your head, and not just throw a slogan and throw blotters ...
  6. Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 1 December 2020 11: 43
    +11
    In fact, the topic is not to say that it is linear in understanding its essence. I suspect that half of the boats, if not more, should have been scrapped anyway. The second half seems to be a pity, but it is not clear what money they would have been kept with in the 90s and, as a result, by zero and they would also have to be written off as clean. And again, all for their own money. And so .. even though the foreigners helped in this, although it is clear that not from the best intentions. On the other hand, if there was some kind of accident due to the inability to maintain the decommissioned boats normally, the conversation would now be about something completely different.
    Well, the last positive point. A serious drawdown in the number of nuclear submarines gave a kind of podzhopnik in the development and construction of new (fundamentally new) boats and their weapons. Of course, the pace is not the same as in the days of the USSR (who would argue), but the submarine is still slowly being updated and this cannot be denied. The boats are new, the degree of automation has increased dramatically, the crews have been reduced, and the firepower of each individual has increased.
    In general .. In my opinion, the article is somewhat one-sided. Special for the gloomy all-friars and leavened giggles.
    1. bayard
      bayard 1 December 2020 14: 34
      +2
      Quote: Al_lexx
      The boats are new, the degree of automation has increased dramatically, the crews have been reduced, and the firepower of each individual has increased.

      Unfortunately, a gross mistake was made in choosing the type of the new MAPL. In fact, this is not a multipurpose nuclear submarine at all, but a full-fledged SSGN - an attack nuclear missile cruiser (underwater) VI 13 800 tons.
      And at the cost of two "Boreas"!
      Difficult to manufacture and operate will be expensive
      And it was necessary to choose MAPL class and VI as a 945 project - inexpensive, easy to build and maintain, and you can build a lot.
      And as a SSGN it was necessary to lay the same "Borei", only as carriers of the CD ("Caliber", "Onyx", "Zircon"). Such SSGNs would come out two times cheaper and carry 3 (THREE) times more CD. And their propulsion is a water cannon, and not a bare propeller like the "Ash". And this is low noise and stealth for hydroacoustic detection equipment.
      As a result, the already spent budget would have been enough to re-equip the submarine fleet, the ships would already be in service and in marketable quantities.
      But ... for some reason, they chose a huge, expensive and with a high coefficient of novelty ... Ash.
      And today it is too late to change anything. Therefore, all the already laid down "Yasen-M" needs to be completed and put into operation. But the new and voiced / advertised "Husky \ Like" in the VI the same as the "Ash" CANNOT be laid!
      This will be a crime against the defenses and general combat readiness of the fleet.
      It is urgent to start R&D at the MAPL in VI of the order of 5000 tons, the functions of which will include the tasks of protecting SSBNs, escorting the KUG and working on communications.
      Without vertical mines for KR and with conventional TA, through which KR can be launched if needed.
      The main requirements are inexpensive, mass-produced, based on existing technologies, low-noise, toothy.
      Such MAPLs will be needed for both Fleets approximately 20 - 24 units.

      If the rumors about the parameters of the promising "Husky \ Laiki" (another "cruiser") are true, then the project must be URGENTLY closed and all efforts must be directed to the speedy development and launch into series of the above-described MAPL, which is urgently needed by the Fleet.
      1. Al_lexx
        Al_lexx 2 December 2020 14: 37
        +1
        Unfortunately, a gross mistake was made in choosing the type of new MAPL.

        Not quite sure where does this refer to what I was talking about? I was commenting on the article about how and why old boats were decommissioned and cut. And that the new ones are still better than the old ones, as well as that there is nothing wrong with someone paying for the disposal of our old stuff and what would have turned into old stuff after ten years. More about nothing.
        I cannot substantively comment on your post, since it is not in the subject of such nuances. Do not blame me.
        1. bayard
          bayard 2 December 2020 15: 02
          +1
          And in this I do not argue with you at all. Moreover, I am completely in solidarity. At the end of the 80s - the beginning of the 90s, the fleet in the conventional "ranks" was a heap of outright rubbish that needed to be urgently disposed of, and the fact that external sponsors were found to finance this greatly facilitated the situation.
          I answered that part of your comment, which I made a quote.
          However, this topic has already been discussed more than once on the forums and is rather hackneyed.
          hi
  7. Merry_Militarist
    Merry_Militarist 1 December 2020 12: 06
    +12
    The respected author, speaking about the cutting of the Soviet Navy and the "loss of potential" for some reason, did not mention that the boats of the 1st and 2nd generations were put on the pins first of all (although there were probably tragic exceptions), which entered service in the 60s. e - the 70s, which, in their performance characteristics, did not at all meet the requirements for acoustic secrecy of the so-called "roaring cows", the payroll thinned - yes. In addition, many nuclear submarines were in poor technical condition. Well, yes, I think that it is better to have a dozen boats, but modern, than any 100 "registered" ones that land admirals command in their offices.
    1. LifeIsGood
      LifeIsGood 1 December 2020 12: 12
      +8
      Absolutely agree! Before you start crying, you must first give the specifics of "what and for what reason" let it go.
      Most likely it will turn out that all this good has long been outdated and has served its time.
  8. Tests
    Tests 1 December 2020 14: 16
    +2
    Dear author! Please reveal the secret: on November 30, who and where held a special meeting, who announced the figures for the USSR-RF nuclear submarines that have been out of service since 1986, and who have passed the scrapping procedure. Some of those who were at that meeting did not “saw” the money from Canada allocated for the dismantling of our nuclear submarines? For some reason, Canada was not remembered among the sponsors. And, according to the speakers, only those nuclear submarines that lay on the ground were dangerous? And the "Sharks" - "Severstal" and "Arkhangelsk" did not and do not represent a radiation hazard? ... "The refusal to build new ships led to the degradation of the production base and the loss of competencies by the shipyards." - this is about which company specifically and about what years? In addition to dismantling nuclear submarines, Zvezdochka made ships for border guards and fishermen, repaired and modernized nuclear submarines of the Russian Federation, diesel-electric submarines in India, built a jack-up offshore drilling platform Arkticheskaya, launched into series vessels pr. 20180 Zvezdochka (workshops for the manufacture of propulsion systems and cut diamonds into diamonds were launched), the house of young specialists was commissioned, the residential 9-storey 6-entrance building was commissioned, the ice arena and the universal sports complex at the Belomorets stadium were commissioned ... And the three-compartment blocks, as in the photo, they ceased to be radioactive for 16 years? And those nuclear submarine reactors east of Novaya Zemlya lie at the bottom, not very far from the reactors of the Lenin icebreaker, have they been counted, and the activity in them has decreased? Unclear...
  9. pleschakovai
    pleschakovai 1 December 2020 14: 16
    +1
    The headquarters of the USSR Navy had to plan in a timely manner the disposal of nuclear submarines that had worked out their lines, and not to operate until the last rust of a leaking hull, wear of equipment. And do not bow and kneel before you !!! But the great talker and talker Gorbachev is time to be brought to trial by a military tribunal !!! For the betrayal of the great and mighty country of the USSR !!! For the collapse of the Soviet Army and the Navy !!! Look and look back, for whom and for what the Soviet Army liberated the peoples of Europe from the brown plague, for what they defeated fascism !!! What would the offspring of the Nazis now surround us from all sides "??? What would not friends and partners" play off the peoples of the former Soviet republics ??? Does the Security Council of the Russian Federation understand the approaching misfortune hanging over Russia ???
  10. APASUS
    APASUS 1 December 2020 19: 47
    0
    Here we still have to grieve for the American submarine fleet. The guys will print dollars tomorrow and for 5 years they will restore the previous pace of nuclear submarine construction, but we will not restore it, because we are dependent on the dollar.
  11. IC
    IC 6 December 2020 10: 53
    0
    The USSR has banned huge funds for the massive construction of nuclear submarines. The quest for quantity has often led to poor quality projects.
    At the same time, there was not enough funds for repairs, high-quality maintenance, and the development of coastal infrastructure. There was no time to think about further disposal, and there were no funds.