Military Review

The postponement of the delivery date of the nuclear submarine "Kazan" was associated with the tests of "Zircon"

129
The postponement of the delivery date of the nuclear submarine "Kazan" was associated with the tests of "Zircon"

The lead multipurpose nuclear submarine "Kazan" of project 885M (Yasen-M) will be handed over to the customer during this year. This was reported by the press service of "Sevmash" with reference to the statement of the general director of the enterprise Mikhail Budnichenko.


New interesting challenges await us. Sevmash should transfer the fleet nuclear submarine "Kazan", continue construction of other nuclear-powered ships and repair of the cruiser

- said the CEO.

At the same time, sources in the Russian defense industry call more exact dates, specifying that the nuclear submarine will be handed over in the first quarter of 2021, since the submarine is completely ready and has passed the entire required test cycle. She was supposed to join the Navy "under the herringbone", but the transfer was postponed to a later date.

According to the general opinion of experts and specialists familiar with the situation, the postponement of the commissioning of the Kazan nuclear submarine is associated with the tests of the Zircon hypersonic missile, which is to enter service with the submarine. Initially, the project did not provide for the use of "Zircon" with nuclear submarines.

The Zirkon missile test program provides for launches from the submarine in 2021, and the Severodvinsk nuclear submarine will participate in them.

The Kazan submarine, the first multipurpose nuclear submarine of the improved 885M project (Yasen-M), was launched on 31 on March 2017 of the year. Compared to the 885 Ash project, the new submarine received many improvements and new systems that have not been used on submarines before. The Yasen-M project submarines have a displacement of 13800 tons, a depth of immersion of 520 meters, a crew of 64 people, autonomy of 100 days, underwater speed - 31 knot, armed with mines, 533 torpedoes, millimeters, Caliber and Onyx cruise missiles.
129 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 2 January 2021 08: 21
    +3
    From what line can the submarine attack the enemy's AUG with Zircon without damage to itself, and how will the target designation issue be resolved?
    1. KCA
      KCA 2 January 2021 09: 01
      +6
      AUG in the middle of the Pacific or Atlantic oceans clearly does not threaten Russia, and in the range of launching axes or an air wing, target designation will be quite accurate, the MAPL will specify the coordinates for firing on the spot, if everything is really bad, then DBKs, which, most likely, will also be equipped with Zircon , somewhere in the Kara Sea or the Laptev Sea, OUT can penetrate, but there is nothing to attack
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 January 2021 10: 07
        0
        Quote: KCA
        and in the range of launching axes or an air wing, target designation will be quite accurate

        How are you going to target something?
        1. KCA
          KCA 2 January 2021 10: 25
          +6
          Well, for example, from well-known sources, the Sunflower radar and the Liana satellites, but, as it seems to me to a non-specialist, this is not all
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 January 2021 13: 45
            -7
            Quote: KCA
            Radar "Sunflower"

            A stationary object that is relatively easy to destroy before the enemy NKs approach the zone under their control. He has a range of large NK - 250-300 km.
            Quote: KCA
            and satellites "Liana"

            The satellites are minuscule, the orbits are known ... you can go through the "window" between them, you can shoot down.
            Quote: KCA
            but, as it seems to me not an expert, this is not all

            The rest is about the same level
            1. lucul
              lucul 2 January 2021 15: 07
              -2
              The satellites are minuscule, the orbits are known ... you can go through the "window" between them, you can shoot down.

              This is if "they" attack))) If we attack first? )))
              1. St54
                St54 2 January 2021 15: 16
                0
                Can we? Or, shall we say, we want?)))
                1. lucul
                  lucul 2 January 2021 15: 18
                  -1
                  Can we? Or, shall we say, we want?)))

                  Why not ? The doctrine of the preemptive use of force, with the threat of the Russian Federation, was adopted)))
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 January 2021 18: 59
                -1
                Quote: lucul
                This is if "they" attack))) If we attack first? )))

                If you attack first, then satellites are not needed, it is enough to control the AUG with SSGNs with missiles. But we don't attack first. We don't need to start Armageddon
                1. lucul
                  lucul 2 January 2021 20: 48
                  +4
                  If you attack first, then satellites are not needed, it is enough to control the AUG with SSGNs with missiles. But we don't attack first. We don't need to start Armageddon

                  Putin directly hinted - that if the conflict cannot be avoided, then you need to hit first))))
                  If the West aggravates and aggravates everything, then I will not be surprised)))
        2. Hermit21
          Hermit21 2 January 2021 11: 09
          +1
          Own GAS, "Liana", other satellites of species, radio and radar reconnaissance, ZGRLS, ships, AWACS or radio reconnaissance aircraft. Enough? And just in case - a hypersonic missile needs accurate coordinates with frequent updates less than a supersonic one because of its speed, and to be sure, they shoot in a volley
          1. PN
            PN 2 January 2021 13: 32
            +2
            Quote: Hermit21
            Own GAS

            GUS for zircon, are you serious or is it your New Year's jokes?
            1. Hermit21
              Hermit21 2 January 2021 14: 09
              +4
              What's in the way? If there is no external control center at all, the SAC will fully provide it. Not too far, 250 kilometers, but all the better - less flight time
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 January 2021 19: 00
                +2
                Quote: Hermit21
                If there is no external control center at all, the SAC will fully provide it. Not too far, 250 kilometers

                In the northern seas, I think it will be good if 80 kilometers
                1. Hermit21
                  Hermit21 2 January 2021 21: 31
                  +1
                  So that's great. Less flight time, more energy from the rocket, it is possible and even necessary to launch along a low-altitude profile
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 January 2021 10: 20
                    +1
                    Quote: Hermit21
                    So that's great.

                    Try to approach the AUS at 80 km undetected ...
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 January 2021 13: 49
            +3
            Quote: Hermit21
            Own GAS

            In northern seas, the detection range will be scanty.
            Quote: Hermit21
            "Liana", other satellites of species, radio-technical and radar reconnaissance

            There are few of them, the issuance of CU is not guaranteed from the word "absolutely"
            Quote: Hermit21
            ZGRLS

            200 kilometers from the coast. It is knocked out when the NK approaches the detection area, as it is stationary objects.
            Quote: Hermit21
            ships

            AUS - ships? !!! Hmmm, they made fun
            Quote: Hermit21
            AWACS aircraft

            There is not a single one in the naval aviation
            Quote: Hermit21
            or electronic intelligence

            There is not a single one in the naval aviation
            Quote: Hermit21
            Is it enough?

            Absolutely NOT enough.
            1. Hermit21
              Hermit21 2 January 2021 16: 22
              +5
              In northern seas, the detection range will be scanty

              The detection range of the GAK pr. 949A is 220-230 kilometers. The 885 / 885M, I think, is bigger and in general the technical level is higher.
              There are few of them, the issuance of CU is not guaranteed from the word "absolutely"

              Guaranteed for a long time. On their shores - that's right.
              200 kilometers from the coast

              The export "Sunflower" has 450. The domestic one can easily have 550-600. And taking into account the EPR of the KUG (AUG) and individual ships, they will be seen at about this range.
              Knocked out when the NDT approaches the detection area, as it is stationary objects

              A SAM, electronic warfare and interceptors, apparently, chase the balls. Oh well.
              There is not a single one in the naval aviation

              There is not a single one in the naval aviation

              The VKS has them. No need, pliz, kindergarten conditions and restrictions, because it is more like and comfortable
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 January 2021 19: 10
                +2
                Quote: Hermit21
                The detection range of the GAK pr. 949A is 220-230 kilometers. The 885 / 885M, I think, is bigger and in general the technical level is higher.

                This is a big target in ideal conditions. In real conditions of the northern seas, the detection range will decrease by a factor.
                Quote: Hermit21
                Guaranteed for a long time. On their shores - that's right.

                I won't even ask how you see it for yourself :)))) Satellites over our shores are nailed to the firmament, apparently wassat
                The satellite constellation was NEVER enough for any reliable opening of the AUG position, and the main part of the satellite constellation is, in principle, incapable of giving the control center
                Quote: Hermit21
                The export "Sunflower" has 450. The domestic one can easily have 550-600.

                450 is the maximum detection range for aircraft flying at high altitude. For large ships, the export version works at 250-300 km to the maximum.
                Quote: Hermit21
                A SAM, electronic warfare and interceptors, apparently, chase the balls. Oh well.

                Air defense systems have never guaranteed air defense alone - this is an additional means. Interceptors ... Roughly speaking, the same SF now has the same number of multifunctional fighters as on a single US aircraft carrier. So they don't chase the balls, but they are simply not enough to solve the existing problems.
                Quote: Hermit21
                The VKS has them. No need, pliz, kindergarten conditions and restrictions, because it is more like and comfortable

                laughing What the VKS has will work for the tasks of the VKS. For the solution of which the available AAC aircraft fleet is CATEGORALLY INSUFFICIENT. Therefore, counting on the aircraft of the Aerospace Forces will also solve naval tasks - this is really a kindergarten.
          3. raw174
            raw174 2 January 2021 14: 05
            +5
            Quote: Hermit21
            Own GAS, "Liana", other satellites of specific, radio-technical and radar reconnaissance, ZGRLS, ships, AWACS or radio-technical reconnaissance aircraft. Enough?

            I am not a specialist in this matter and served in the MP in the navy, but I think that the GAS is not suitable for the control center of missiles ... ZGRLS, are they in principle suitable for the control center? I thought that ZGRLS was for detecting the fact of the presence of equipment. And how many AWACS planes do we have? What is the range of their work and will they become a victim of the AUG air wing? I hope that we do not know everything here, and our Armed Forces have something to aim a missile at a moving defensive target ...
            1. Hermit21
              Hermit21 2 January 2021 16: 23
              +1
              Accuracy sufficient for Zircon, I think they will provide
              1. max702
                max702 3 January 2021 22: 05
                0
                Quote: Hermit21
                Accuracy sufficient for Zircon, I think they will provide

                No, it's not fair! For so play was not agreed!
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 January 2021 19: 16
              +2
              Quote: raw174
              but I think that the GAS is not suitable for the control center of missiles ...

              In principle, it will do.
              Quote: raw174
              ZGRLS, are they, in principle, suitable for the control center?

              Some - yes, like Sunflower, but they have a relatively short hand.
              Quote: raw174
              And how many AWACS planes do we have?

              Very little. Upgraded A-50U - 4 pieces, and unmodernized ... I don't know, but definitely not more than 15-20, and maybe significantly less.
          4. Charik
            Charik 2 January 2021 16: 55
            0
            Just turned on the GAS - everything was gone, and torpedoes and plows and bombs from nuclear submarines and NK and enemy aircraft - everything is yours
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 January 2021 19: 16
              +2
              Quote: Charik
              Just turned on the GUS

              In passive mode
              1. Charik
                Charik 2 January 2021 19: 19
                -1
                and in order to determine the type and distance of the target with an accuracy of a meter, will the passive mode help ?, so in passive the enemy can hang on the tail
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 January 2021 10: 27
                  0
                  Quote: Charik
                  and in order to determine the type and distance of the target with an accuracy of a meter - will the passive mode help?

                  How is it? The bearing will determine the approximate distance, classify. What else?
        3. don carleone
          don carleone 2 January 2021 11: 14
          -1

          How are you going to target something?


          Glonass tracks the signal and movement of the phone with great accuracy. And such a huge target as, for example, an aircraft carrier, to track, in our time does not seem to be something impossible.
          The version of the super-complexity of target designation is too far-fetched.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 January 2021 13: 52
            +7
            Quote: don carleone
            Glonass tracks the signal and movement of the phone with great accuracy.

            laughing fool
            Glonass does not track ANYTHING. You, at least, study the technology of work of glonass-jeepies before printing such nonsense.
            SATELLITE gives a signal. THE RECEIVING DEVICE determines the bearing for 3 satellites and calculates its position, because the location of each satellite is known at any moment in time. That is, the glonass will determine the position of the aircraft carrier if there is a glonass receiver on it and someone from the avik will kindly transmit the coordinates to you wassat
            1. don carleone
              don carleone 2 January 2021 19: 39
              -2
              Glonass does not track ANYTHING. You, at least, study the technology of work of glonass-jeepies before printing such nonsense.
              SATELLITE gives a signal. THE RECEIVING DEVICE determines the bearing for 3 satellites and calculates its position, because the location of each satellite is known at every moment of time. That is, the glonass will determine the position of the aircraft carrier if there is a glonass receiver on it and someone from avik kindly sends the coordinates of wassat


              Let it be known to you that the term "tracking" has long been widely used in relation to Glonass.
              And again, if we exclude other possible options (including which neither you nor I know about), then the receiver microchip may "accidentally" appear on the ships of a potential enemy. And it will be turned on when the situation requires it. And the same zircon will read the location from the receiver.
              1. don carleone
                don carleone 2 January 2021 20: 16
                -2
                Although here even a satellite is not needed. It is enough to install a beacon and the rocket will fly directly at it.
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 January 2021 10: 25
                +1
                Quote: don carleone
                Let it be known to you that the term "tracking" has long been widely used in relation to Glonass.

                Perhaps there are many ignorant people in journalism.
                Quote: don carleone
                And again, if we exclude other possible options (including which neither you nor I know about), then the receiver microchip may "accidentally" appear on the ships of a potential enemy. And it will be turned on when the situation requires it.

                To fantasize is not to roll bags. You just don't understand what you are writing about, as is the case with GLONASS.
                Let's say you dragged such a thing to AB. This is almost unrealistic, but let's say. What do you think will happen when the ship's crew detects an outgoing signal from not their equipment? Do you have any idea about the RTR and EW stations?
                However, what am I talking about ... Of course you don’t have
                1. don carleone
                  don carleone 3 January 2021 12: 49
                  -1
                  To fantasize is not to roll bags. You just don't understand what you are writing about, as is the case with GLONASS.
                  Let's say you dragged such a thing to AB. This is almost unrealistic, but let's say. What do you think will happen when the ship's crew detects an outgoing signal from not their equipment? Do you have any idea about the RTR and EW stations?
                  However, what am I talking about ... Of course you don’t have



                  How many eurodollars do you think it would take to get such a thing?
                  Now compare with the cost of a battleship.
                  And when the signal is found, then it will be too late. And it is clear that the beacon will be activated before the immediate launch of the zircon, and possibly only at the final stage to correct the location.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 January 2021 13: 00
                    +1
                    Quote: don carleone
                    And when the signal is found, then it will be too late. And it is clear that the beacon will be activated before the immediate launch of the zircon, and possibly only at the final stage to correct the location.

                    laughing fool
                    And we return to the question - who will give target designation to zircon?
                    1. don carleone
                      don carleone 3 January 2021 13: 08
                      0
                      laughing fool
                      And we return to the question - who will give target designation to zircon?


                      You are asking the question incorrectly. The problem, in this case, in your opinion, is generally in detecting the enemy.
                      And I'm telling you about when the target has already been detected, but the problem is in the accuracy of the coordinates, if any, and if this is not your fantasy.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 January 2021 14: 08
                        +2
                        Quote: don carleone
                        You are asking the question incorrectly. The problem, in this case, in your opinion, is generally in detecting the enemy.

                        Target designation in our case is information about the location (and in some cases - course and speed) of the enemy, received in time, allowing to prepare and fire an effective missile salvo. That is, the accuracy and urgency of the control center are such that they allow, taking into account the formation time of the missile mission, to fire a salvo at the given coordinates, at which the target does not go beyond the missile's capture sector by the time of their "arrival".
                        Finding a target and giving command control are two different things. The photo reconnaissance satellite can detect the AUG, but cannot give the control center, because while it collects information, while it is "leaked" to the control center, while they sort out the pictures and understand where the AUG is, too much time will pass, and by the time it is possible will transmit information for the same SSGN, AUG will be in a completely different place.
                        At the end of the last century and the beginning of this, the Americans prepared target designation for an object using satellite data for about 12-24 hours. That is, the control center could be given only for stationary objects. And now it is about the same.
                      2. don carleone
                        don carleone 3 January 2021 15: 13
                        0
                        Finding a target and giving control are two different things


                        So I’m talking about this.

                        I found a target, launched a rocket towards it, and turned on the beacon. Or another sequence: detection, turning on the beacon, launching zircon. Everything is based on the circumstances and capabilities of both ours and the enemy.
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 January 2021 21: 53
                        -1
                        Quote: don carleone
                        Found a target, launched a rocket towards it, and turned on the beacon

                        In this case, the beacon is no longer needed. The problem is precisely finding the target
                      4. max702
                        max702 3 January 2021 22: 35
                        0
                        As you know, AUG is not a horse in a vacuum, but a very real physical object, and the area of ​​possible use of AUG is also a very real physical object, and there are not so many areas of these, respectively, all this is taken on a pencil and monitored ... this is impossible, we do not need to divide the budget for military wishes, but we look at the real picture, in a threatening period EVERYTHING will be involved from civil ships and bookmarks on ships and to sleeping in general staffs and other tricks about which in peacetime during exercises (for which oh, how they like to refer) do not even mention .. AUG began preparations for the operation, this alone will put intelligence on the ears, because one grouping will not do anything to US, therefore, 3-4 at least, which in itself will alert anyone, at the request and other logistics possible targets will be determined, respectively, and the satellite constellation will receive certain input (or they are nailed) as well as other reconnaissance resources, after the release of the AUG into the ocean of its will begin to graze in all possible ways, on the approach to the necessary areas, the same ZGRLS will determine the presence of AUG in them, given that the areas will be limited reconnaissance and data control by other forces, both aviation and naval assets, respectively, and the problem of target designation will be simplified because it is approximately known who and where .. A banal fishing seiner and all AUGs have been opened, or the adversary will jam all communications or drown everyone on the way, and this of course will not raise any suspicion from the opposite side? And will not give her, frankly, the exact area of ​​all that is happening? Our country is not Upper Volta with missiles, as some think, but a somewhat stronger enemy with a much larger arsenal than banal anti-ship missiles, which the enemy will definitely take into account (this casts doubt on the whole scam with the AUG initially), so everything will be, and target designation and a call to Washington is on a secure line and questions about going straight to heaven or will suffer ... All I am talking about here are the apologists of the AUG and the impossibility of target designation remained in the 70s-80s, which is now possible to say is difficult because it is under the heading .. But the growth of the possibilities of communication means directly say that the impossible is possible, a fairy tale has become a reality .. ignor will not lead to anything good, guns have not been cleaned with bricks for a long time and it plays both ways ..
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 January 2021 00: 52
                        +1
                        Quote: max702
                        accordingly, all this is taken on a pencil and monitored

                        there are no funds to "monitor these"
                        Quote: max702
                        Play along with AUG shouting that this is impossible, no need

                        I am asking very specific questions. Do you have specific answers?
                        Quote: max702
                        EVERYTHING will be involved, from civil ships and bookmarks on ships to those sleeping in the general staffs and other tricks that are not even mentioned in peacetime during exercises (which they love to refer to) ..

                        But you don't need to roll cotton wool, I urge you. Don't talk about "devices that we won't show you".
                        Quote: max702
                        AUG began preparations for the operation, this alone will put the intelligence on the ears, because one group of US will not do anything, therefore 3-4 at least which in itself will alert anyone

                        In short. You do not know ANYTHING about the use of AUS
                        Quote: max702
                        the same ZGRLS will determine the presence of AUG

                        wassat fool
                        AIRPLANES define far away. But not ships, much less can they classify them
                        Quote: max702
                        accordingly, the problem of target designation will be simplified because it is approximately known who and where ..

                        In your rosy fantasies - certainly
                        Quote: max702
                        Banal fishing seiner and all the AUG are opened

                        fool
                        Quote: max702
                        or the adversary will jam all communications or drown all the oncoming ones and this of course will not cause any suspicion from the opposite side?

                        In a threatening period - easily
                        Quote: max702
                        All the apologists of AUG are using here and the impossibility of target designation remained in the 70s-80s, which is now possible to say is difficult because under the stamp ..

                        In other words - you don't know a damn thing, but you believe that SOMETHING is ...
                        Quote: max702
                        But the growth of the possibilities of communication means directly say that the impossible is possible

                        Yeah. I will not even ask what place the communication refers to the possibility of identifying the enemy ...
                        Live in the happy world of pink ponies. Until the thunder hits, of course
                      6. max702
                        max702 4 January 2021 10: 24
                        -2
                        It's you we have an omniscient pink pony, but what tells me about me that the truth is only about a pink pony .. Live further in your little world of the 70s. there will be a surprise ...
                  2. don carleone
                    don carleone 4 January 2021 12: 59
                    0
                    The reconnaissance satellite can detect the AUG, but cannot give the control center,


                    The problem is precisely finding the target


                    Maybe that's the problem. You will decide.
                  3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 January 2021 14: 11
                    0
                    Quote: don carleone
                    Maybe that's the problem. You will decide.

                    Or maybe you will still take into account the context in which the first and second phrases are said? Or is it too difficult for you?
                  4. don carleone
                    don carleone 4 January 2021 21: 41
                    0
                    Or maybe you will still take into account the context in which the first and second phrases are said? Or is it too difficult for you?


                    Not difficult. It’s just clear to me that you are here forcing everyone to think that our Ministry of Defense is guarding corn. And they absolutely do not track, even approximate, the location of aircraft carriers and other particularly important targets.
                  5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 January 2021 12: 49
                    +3
                    Quote: don carleone
                    It's just that I understand that you are forcing everyone here to think that our Ministry of Defense is guarding corn.

                    Alas, at sea it is about the same. Welcome to the real world
  • raw174
    raw174 2 January 2021 14: 11
    +3
    Quote: don carleone
    Glonass tracks the signal and movement of the phone with great accuracy.

    It remains to toss the phone with the Russian software on the aircraft carrier?))) But seriously, in my incompetent opinion, GLONASS will not work for the control center because of the time spent on signal transmission, in other words, the coordinates data from GLONASS will become outdated when they come to the brain rockets. Or am I wrong?
  • venik
    venik 2 January 2021 11: 29
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: KCA
    and in the range of launching axes or an air wing, target designation will be quite accurate

    How are you going to target something?

    ========
    At the same time, for some reason, everyone in chorus forgot that "Zircon" is not only an anti-ship missile system, it is also a means of destruction stationary coastal targets, the coordinates of which are known in advance! And here no target designation is needed - it is enough to accurately determine the coordinates of the boat and enter the flight program into the rocket!
  • lucul
    lucul 2 January 2021 15: 08
    -7
    How are you going to target something?

    Altius will close all naval target designation problems as soon as he appears in the troops.
    1. A_Lex
      A_Lex 2 January 2021 19: 02
      +3
      Altius will close all the problems of naval target designation, as soon as it appears in the army.


      30 years of rituals for the future gave rise to an unprepossessing present, which swaggers, using the Soviet backlog from the past.
      1. lucul
        lucul 2 January 2021 20: 57
        -6
        30 years of rituals for the future gave rise to an unprepossessing present, which swaggers, using the Soviet backlog from the past.

        I can also say that all pistols work on the reserve of a Colt revolver, and all gasoline cars are on the reserve of Benz's car.
        Passed already, yeah)))
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 January 2021 19: 18
      +3
      Quote: lucul
      Altius will close all naval target designation problems

      It will not close ANYTHING. The apparatus is useful, yes. But, like any UAV, it has a lot of features and limitations.
      1. lucul
        lucul 2 January 2021 20: 52
        -4
        The apparatus is useful, yes. But, like any UAV, it has a lot of features and limitations.

        The range of 11 km and 000 hours in the air cover almost the disadvantages.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 January 2021 10: 21
          +2
          Quote: lucul
          The range of 11 km and 000 hours in the air cover almost the disadvantages.

          Do not overlap - the UAV CANNOT operate in the zone of dominance of enemy aircraft. Will be discovered and destroyed.
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 2 January 2021 15: 13
    +7
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    How are you going to target something?

    The question is, of course, interesting ... (c)
    But let's take it in order. Not collecting everything in a heap. And we will immediately determine that this is not the task of the boat, but the operation of the fleet to destroy the AUG / AUS. Hence, all the reconnaissance assets of the fleet and the senior commander (RF Armed Forces) are in his interests ... to ensure the success of the operation. (no other way!)
    For starters goes detection stage. Determination of the location and composition of the enemy formation. Its course gene and aircraft carrier deployment speed gene.
    Undoubtedly, the main "piano" in this difficult matter is played by the aerospace forces and space, as well as coastal reconnaissance centers. And also all the forces at sea and in the air ...
    Further, everything that can influence the enemy in the interests of disrupting his task is drawn to the gene course. But after that it already goes additional exploration stage , determining the composition of the AUG. Because aviation rises, radars are working, then our RTR will have data at the connection point.
    885M at this time is out of the AUG deployment zone, in continuous communication through Lightning / Tsunami with extended antenna communication. On the radio line from the VII you can get the place (W, D), K, V, subscription time, source (error in direction finding and the place of the scout), then we conjure and get "/ spot /" lane "AUG. (Knowing the depth of the air defense / missile defense , you can get a "spot").
    Next, the trajectory and the opening time of the GOS sighting device of the 3M22 product are selected, which should cover 1/2 of the spot towards the course gene ...
    You can probably shoot in another way, but I don't know the specific parameters for the calculations ...
    Who knows - tell me, plz.
    AHA.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 2 January 2021 09: 35
    +3
    Quote: Lech from Android.
    From what line can the submarine attack the enemy's AUG with Zircon without damage to itself, and how will the target designation issue be resolved?

    According to military reports, while the Zircon did not fly more than 450 km,
    but even at this range, control centers are needed. How to do it, I
    I do not know.
    1. Orange bigg
      Orange bigg 2 January 2021 10: 39
      -1
      You do not know how to carry out target designation at 450 km, but nevertheless on tests it was like that, but they did it.
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 2 January 2021 10: 47
        +2
        Quote: OrangeBigg
        but nevertheless on trials it was like that, but they did it.

        Well, yes, they launched at the target with the coordinates known in advance.
        And you need to be able to launch on a newly discovered target, for which
        and target designation is needed.
        1. Orange bigg
          Orange bigg 2 January 2021 10: 58
          +3
          Well, yes, they launched at the target with the coordinates known in advance.
          And you need to be able to launch on a newly discovered target, for which
          and target designation is needed.

          And who told you that they fired precisely at previously known coordinates, and not at a newly discovered target using target designation. After all, we have experience with target designation like the Onyx and Vulcan anti-ship missiles. Where did you get such doubts? What are they based on?
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 2 January 2021 11: 45
            0
            Quote: OrangeBigg
            Who told you

            Sorry, but I will interrupt our conversation, it is useless ...
          2. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 2 January 2021 15: 21
            -1
            Quote: OrangeBigg
            Where did you get such doubts?


            Where did you get confidence?
            1. A_Lex
              A_Lex 2 January 2021 18: 55
              +2
              Where did you get confidence?


              How can you not trust the authorities. The authorities were appointed to tell only the truth. Otherwise, he is immediately removed from office. This is a common knowledge, yes.
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 2 January 2021 19: 17
                0
                So after all, even the authorities did not say anything on this topic either. Well, or I missed it.
                1. A_Lex
                  A_Lex 2 January 2021 20: 49
                  +1
                  So after all, even the authorities did not say anything on this topic either.


                  Since the authorities say nothing, then everything is going according to plan. It is obvious.
                  1. The eye of the crying
                    The eye of the crying 2 January 2021 21: 09
                    -1
                    But how does he know the boss's plan? A spy, I guess.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 January 2021 13: 53
        +7
        Quote: OrangeBigg
        You do not know how to carry out target designation at 450 km, but nevertheless on tests it was like that, but they did it.

        Nobody exercised. Such tests are carried out on a target with previously known coordinates
        1. lucul
          lucul 2 January 2021 15: 12
          -1
          Nobody exercised. Such tests are carried out on a target with previously known coordinates

          Why ? What prevents target designation, from the same Orion, when he sees a target, to transmit over a long range? That is, relay target designation along the chain? )))
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 2 January 2021 15: 55
            +1
            Are you saying that Orion saw the target and "relayed the target designation along the chain"? If so, on what basis?
    2. Charik
      Charik 2 January 2021 17: 06
      0
      and I did not hear shooting at surface targets
      1. Orange bigg
        Orange bigg 2 January 2021 18: 19
        +1
        Quote: Charik
        and I did not hear shooting at surface targets


        You are welcome. Zircon test data on a surface target from the RF Ministry of Defense.
        The rocket was launched from the frigate "Admiral Gorshkov" in the White Sea. This was the first test of ammunition by hitting a surface target. The test results were found to be successful.



        "Yesterday at 7 hours from the White Sea the frigate" Admiral of the Soviet Union Fleet Gorshkov ", as part of flight tests, for the first time fired a hypersonic cruise missile" Zircon "at a sea target located in the Barents Sea," said General army Valery Gerasimov.

        According to Gerasimov, the launch tasks were completed, the firing was recognized as successful, and the missile hit the target directly. The rocket's flight range was 450 km, the maximum altitude was 28 km, and the flight time was 4,5 minutes. Achieved hypersonic speed over Mach 8.

        https://warspot.ru/18171-tsirkon-porazil-nadvodnuyu-tsel
        1. Charik
          Charik 2 January 2021 18: 54
          +1
          by stationary?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Sergey Averchenkov
    Sergey Averchenkov 2 January 2021 21: 29
    0
    I would like to know that myself. Are you shpien?
  • oleg-gr
    oleg-gr 2 January 2021 08: 21
    +6
    The nuclear submarine "Kazan" is the first multipurpose nuclear submarine of the improved project 885M - once the first, then all sorts of surprises may come out that will require revision.
    1. Orange bigg
      Orange bigg 2 January 2021 10: 43
      +1
      Yes, everything has already popped up everything that could and everything has already been finalized. The text says that the tests of Kazan are actually completed. It's just that no one is in a headlong hurry.
      Interesting news has come across: Will the Husky start building this year?
      In 2021 Sevmash will start building fifth-generation nuclear submarines
      MOSCOW, December 30, 2020, 09:34 AM - REGNUM JSC PO Sevmash, which is part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, plans to start building nuclear submarines of the next, fifth generation. Currently, there is an active preparation for production. This was announced on December 30 by the general director of the enterprise Mikhail Budnichenko.



      Details: https://regnum.ru/news/it/3154640.html
      Any use of materials is allowed only if there is a hyperlink to REGNUM.
    2. venik
      venik 2 January 2021 11: 23
      +4
      Quote: oleg-gr
      The nuclear submarine "Kazan" is the first multipurpose nuclear submarine of the improved project 885M - once the first, then all sorts of surprises may come out that will require revision.

      ==========
      Well, they drove it for quite a long time, I even remember it, it seems like it was returned to the plant to eliminate some flaws ..... So, the main "childhood diseases", hopefully, have been eliminated. But in the course active exploitation, yes! Something may "come out"!
    3. Sergey Averchenkov
      Sergey Averchenkov 2 January 2021 21: 33
      -1
      They can. I'm even sure that they will come out. Because of this, do not build 885m?
  • Commissar77
    Commissar77 2 January 2021 08: 22
    0
    SEVEN FEET UNDER THE KEEL
    1. rudolff
      rudolff 2 January 2021 09: 32
      +21
      The sub does not have a keel, and God forbid to have seven feet under the hull of the submarine. Submariners don't want that.
      1. Crowe
        Crowe 2 January 2021 10: 14
        +19
        Submariners wish
        "So that the number of dives is always equal to the number of ascents!"
        And they raise a toast "To the strength of a solid case!"
      2. Tiksi-3
        Tiksi-3 2 January 2021 10: 36
        +4
        Quote: rudolff
        The sub has no keel

        drinks hi wink
        Quote: rudolff
        and God forbid to have seven feet under the hull of the submarine. Submariners don't want that.

        good
        Rudolph, what do you think? Really, because of the zircon, did you postpone the change, or are there other problems?
        1. rudolff
          rudolff 2 January 2021 10: 51
          +8
          In theory, yes, it is possible. But there are plenty of examples when the missile system passed the state and was put into service after the submarine was adopted. If I am not mistaken, the same Garnet. Moreover, launches from Severodvinsk are also planned. I'm afraid Kazan also has other problems.
          1. Tiksi-3
            Tiksi-3 2 January 2021 10: 55
            +4
            Quote: rudolff
            Moreover, launches are planned from Severodvinsk.

            this phrase is annoying!
            drinks
          2. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 2 January 2021 14: 17
            +4
            Quote: rudolff
            I'm afraid Kazan also has other problems.

            Rudolph, hello! drinks
            I already wrote that most likely something with minced meat. And it's really annoying. sad
            As tested by 3M22. There may be 2 options: a) the professionals want to train the crew on the hardware in the combat use of the new complex; and b) the boat is immediately prepared around the corner, so that later they will not be allowed to use the main weapon with the performance of practical shooting ... it's still an expensive pleasure. Moreover, it is now fashionable to shorten the training course. All tests will be immediately counted as passing L-1, L-2/3 and forward! (innovators, damn it!)
            And I really wanted everything to be in chocolate and we could still run a hedgehog in the Yankee pants! And this would have happened if we had announced that the newest unit went on patrol with the latest set of weapons! I guess you gotta GET STAINED in earnest bully
            Happy New Year!
            1. rudolff
              rudolff 2 January 2021 14: 52
              +3
              And you with the come, buddy! I do not know, I would not like to guess. Let's see! But I think Zircon is an excuse, a problem with the ship. The LTI product is in full swing, being put into service not earlier than the second half of the year, there is no point in pickling the ship at the outfitting wall so much. Moreover, launches from Severodvinsk are also planned, and there the crew is already first-line and the ship itself is in the campaign.
              1. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 2 January 2021 15: 24
                +2
                Quote: rudolff
                Moreover, launches from Severodvinsk are also planned, and there the crew is already first-line and the ship itself is in the campaign.

                Totally agree with you. And I also wrote about this when it was first announced that Zircon would test Kazan.
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 2 January 2021 09: 06
    +3
    The year, as always, begins with feeding on promises? And if Zircon has nothing to do with it, and the reason is the usual breakdown of the contract due to non-delivery of components on time? ??
    1. bayard
      bayard 2 January 2021 11: 04
      +2
      Quote: Thrifty
      The year, as always, begins with feeding on promises?

      At the beginning of the last year, they promised to hand over 2020 (SIX) submarines by the end of 6, including 2 diesel-electric ones, the rest - submarines.
      Passed - 2 (two).
      But they tried to hand over Kazan in 2018 ... but something traditionally went wrong ...
      "Crocodile is not milked, bamboo does not grow ..."
      And this at the cost of "Kazan" (type "Ash-M") as two "Boreas".
      The problems of these submarines with respect to torpedoes and anti-torpedoes remain unclear.
      In a word, they were too clever with the coefficient of novelty, dimensions, complexity of production and exotic placement of TA. They laid down a large series with the price of each cruiser as two Borei SSBNs ... and everything hung on the stocks and at the outfitting walls.
      But perhaps it was intended that way.
      And so that the clips do not creak, they need to be lubricated with fresh promises.
      1. nobody75
        nobody75 2 January 2021 11: 46
        +2
        exotic location of TA

        Who is it exotic for? For half a century, Americans have been placing TA in a similar way.
        Sincerely
        1. bayard
          bayard 2 January 2021 12: 49
          +6
          This led to a lengthening of the boat's hull and a reduction in ammunition - instead of 40 pieces. on "Pike-B" (of which 12 caliber 650 mm), on "Yasen" only 30 torpedoes and haemorrhoids with reloading.
          The dimensions and VI are huge, the price is like two "Boreas" ... and all for the sake of 32 - 40 KR in the UVP.
          It would be better to have a SSGN based on the same "Borey" - it has a water-jet propeller (low noise), and the ability to place 112 missile launchers in launchers (7 pieces in each), and 40 torpedoes for self-defense ... and cheaper in 2 times .
          But we have never looked for easy ways ...
          hi
          1. nobody75
            nobody75 2 January 2021 13: 16
            +1
            You know that such a placement of TA on Ash is explained by the overall SJSC Irtysh - Amphora. In Kazan, it was changed to Lira, but no one changed the layout.
            Excuse me, what is the point of a salvo of 112 KR? Better to do something quasi-balistic with individual targeting warheads.
            Sincerely
            1. bayard
              bayard 2 January 2021 13: 58
              +3
              Quote: nobody75
              You know that such a placement of TA on Ash is explained by the overall SJSC Irtysh - Amphora.

              Of course I know, but this layout was invented back in the USSR (then the head one was laid), which had both the means, the capabilities, and the MAPL / SSGN in the ranks - unlike the present times. Union built titanium boats ... could afford.
              But in new times, it was time to think about whether it was worth building such an innovative, complex and expensive submarine in such a large series. It was possible to finish building the head one and check / work out all the possibilities and tasks on it in order to assess the value of this product ...
              Moreover, the Yasen is by no means a MAPL and was not conceived of such under the Union. It was supposed to be a SSGN - in addition and to replace the Batons, as the carrier of the Onyx and Granat missiles.
              Quote: nobody75
              In Kazan, it was changed to Lira, but no one changed the layout.

              Nobody began to change the lineup for the entire series, as a result, the budget of this series gobbled up the budgets for the construction and modernization of many other ships that are very necessary for the fleet.
              In fact, it was not necessary to "change the line-up" of Ash, but to build modernized "pike-BM", in which, if necessary, it was possible to add a section with the UKSK behind the wheelhouse. Yes, to fit it as a propeller the same water cannon as the "Borey", and it would have turned out not a MAPL, but a toy, at the price of a little more than the basic version, but worked out by the industry. And MAPLs do not need such KR batteries, 20 pieces would be quite enough for typical BZ. But they would cost half the price and be built much faster. The Americans won - to this day, "Losy" is modernizing, developing the project.
              Quote: nobody75
              Excuse me, what is the point of a salvo of 112 KR? Better to do something quasi-balistic with individual targeting warheads.

              CDs are compact and have a long range. That is, the transportable BC is much larger than with other types.
              What is the meaning of such a volley?
              Well, firstly, there may be more than one salvo, if we are talking about hunting for AUG and KUG, but in the BC of the Onyx or Zircon missiles.
              And secondly, what do you think, if such a submarine secretly approaches the enemy coast for about 500 km. and will fire such a salvo at the coastal, land and port infrastructure of the Zircon missile defense system (air defense systems, command posts and naval base) and the Kalibr-M missile launcher (range up to 4500 km) for other targets deep in its territory ... And if at the same time, the warheads on the CD will be special ... Will this action have meaning, sense and benefit?
              Even with a conventional warhead 112 CR can do a lot. For example, take out all air defense and command centers of a small / medium state, predetermining the outcome of the war with one such salvo.
              Quote: nobody75
              anything quasi-ballistic with individual gliding warheads

              Why invent some kind of exotic when we have Zircon and Caliber-M on the way, which perfectly fit into such a UKSK? And they are solving all possible tasks in the medium term.
              By the way, about a year and a half ago, Shoigu announced his intention to build such SSGNs based on Borey - Borey-K, but so far they have laid down a couple of Boreyev-Ms with Bulava. I hope the next bookmarks will be the already promised Borei-K.
              And if the Ministry of Defense and the Supreme Command had made the right decision at the start of all programs, and money would have been saved for other projects (for example, there would have been something to modernize the entire fleet of "Shchuk-B" and 945 etc.), and most of these missile carriers would already be in build, because they are easier to build - less novelty.
              Well, now - just finish building the series and think about real MAPLs, which should be smaller VI, torpedo and not very expensive ... "simple" and fast to build. A kind of new iteration of pr. 945.
              1. A_Lex
                A_Lex 2 January 2021 20: 34
                +1
                Well, now - just finish building the series and think about real MAPLs, which should be smaller VI, torpedo and not very expensive ... "simple" and fast to build.


                So what is the main complaint about the project? That it is unbalanced in the context of the claimed functionality? It turns out that, as for SSGNs, there is not enough CD. As for the MAPL, there are few torpedoes, a large displacement, inadequate price and construction time.
                As far as I understand, the SSGN now, in principle, does not need to be built. And what about the project as an MAPL?
                1. bayard
                  bayard 2 January 2021 22: 09
                  +2
                  Quote: A_Lex
                  So what is the main complaint about the project?

                  Price, complexity, construction time.
                  And you have indicated everything else correctly.
                  In the USSR, they wanted to make an innovative experiment, and in the Russian Federation they decided to implement this miracle in a large series ...
                  Quote: A_Lex
                  As far as I understand, the SSGN now, in principle, does not need to be built. And what about the project as an MAPL?

                  I think that "Borey-K" still needs to be built, and in a series of about 6 pieces. It will justify itself by all 200%, because it can be used not only as a nuclear deterrent and a hunter for AUG / KUG, but also as a highly effective means in a non-nuclear conflict with any country - as a highly effective strike weapon, the deployment of which can be hidden until the moment the blow itself. A very powerful salvo of CD with covert deployment can decide the fate of the conflict with one blow.
                  And in the event of a global conflict, the deployment of two such ships in 500 km. from the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States and their coordinated strike, will take out all their military and civil infrastructure on both coasts, all naval bases, command and administrative centers, airfields, troop bases and warehouses of military property, energy facilities ...
                  448 cruise missiles in one disarming strike, of which about half are hypersonic ... followed by ICBMs and SLBMs ... when all missile defense and early warning systems have already been hit ...
                  It's worth a lot.
                  And "Ash" is best used as a classic SSGN - against the enemy's AUG \ KUG. Ammunition for this (40 pieces "Onyx", "Zircon") will be enough.
                  But MAPL needs to be dealt with.
                  And besides - immediately.
                  And design them as a further development of the 945 project.
                  hi drinks
                  1. A_Lex
                    A_Lex 2 January 2021 23: 55
                    +2
                    Price, complexity, construction time.


                    Probably as a result of the desire to get a kind of universal wunderwizard, in which they tried to combine the functions of different products, which led to an increase in complexity and, as a result, to an increase in costs and production times. Apparently a typical example, when the desire for universality goes sideways.

                    And "Ash" is best used as a classic SSGN - against the enemy's AUG \ KUG


                    So why are there so many of them - as many as 10 exclusively for AUG - against the background of the absence of both strategy and the lack of allocated resources for the former global confrontation? What is the point of spending money on such a niche, highly specialized project, at a time when there are not enough common minesweepers? So far, it turns out that this is a "golden" project that takes resources away from much more urgent ones.
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 3 January 2021 00: 25
                      +2
                      Quote: A_Lex
                      So far, it turns out that this is a "golden" project that takes resources from much more relevant

                      That's right, but most of the funds for this series have already been spent, the ships are laid down, are in varying degrees of readiness and must be built so as not to waste money already spent in the event of a refusal to complete it.
                      It was unnecessary to lay the last pair of such, because the idea of ​​Borey-K had already been announced and the cost of one Ash-M could have been used to build two Borei-K with much greater benefit to the business.
                      Quote: A_Lex
                      Probably as a result of the desire to get a kind of universal wunderwizard, in which they tried to combine the functions of different products, which led to an increase in complexity and, as a result, to an increase in costs and production times. Apparently a typical example, when the desire for universality goes sideways.

                      Exactly .
                      Quote: A_Lex
                      So why are there so many of them - as many as 10 exclusively for AUG - against the background of the absence of both strategy and the lack of allocated resources for the former global confrontation?

                      6 - 8 would be enough, and in a more ... budgetary and industry-friendly form.
                      But you need to have a tool to fight not only the AUG, but also the enemy’s KUG. With a lack of surface forces of DMZ and OZ, with practically no MRA, such ships can seriously correct the balance of power. But with reliable and high-quality target designation.
                      The construction of a series of such ships was a fatal mistake. It is because of the excessive cost, complexity and duration of construction and fine-tuning. An improved "Shchuka-B" with a water cannon and a 20 KR control unit behind the deckhouse would be the best alternative ... But what has been done cannot be corrected.

                      It seems that strategic planning is not done by professionals in their field, but by the ubiquitous "effective managers" who destroy everything they touch.

                      If it was possible to abandon the construction of the last two Yasenei-Ms just laid down / ordered, and instead start the construction of Borey-K, then there would be enough money to build as many as 4 such handsome men. And the series is needed in 6 pieces (three for the Pacific Fleet and the Northern Fleet).
                      And by the time the next construction sites are vacated, you see, the project of a new MAPL based on 945 pr.
                      And then all the forces (production) will be thrown into their construction, for they must be at least 12 pieces.
                      And ideally 20 - 24 pcs. , because it is necessary to cover the missile carriers in the bases and go out hunting.

                      But I'm afraid that with common sense we have today ... hard.
                      1. A_Lex
                        A_Lex 3 January 2021 02: 27
                        0
                        But I'm afraid that with common sense today ... it's hard.


                        Initially, the series was supposed to consist of 30 boats. Thus, apparently only Ash was planned to close the functionality of both the MAPL and the SSGN. I understand that Borei-K is an analogue of Ohio, and Ash was oriented towards Virginia.

                        However, if we ignore all the plans, and look strictly after the fact, I think that the undeclared purpose of the fleet renewal is to ensure the deployment of NSNF. Those. this is a key goal. Within the framework of this logic, there should be no Borei-K, no destroyers, no aircraft carriers, no mass submarine submarines, simply because a global confrontation "as before" is not expected in all areas of the global map. Strategists will cover 885, 22350 and 20380.

                        The rest of the fleets will adjust with the help of 20380, 22800, 12700 and 636, and for each they will give 22350 as a flagship, but someday later, because all those under construction are clearly planned for the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet. Considering that GPV-2027 in money is the same as GPV-2020, and the ruble has since fallen by 2 times, and prices could not but rise, and the costs of the fleet itself have been cut, most likely what has already been contracted for ships and for boats this is about 90 percent of the upcoming order, which is planned to be delivered in the next decade. Actually, this is probably why the task was set for defense enterprises "to increase the portfolio of civil orders by 2025 to 30%, and by 2030 - to 50% of the total production", because in the future there will be only single bookmarks of relatively large ships.

                        According to this logic, 885 really should build about 10. Maybe even 12. Well, simply because there will be no others. 22350 is needed in an amount of somewhere between 14-16. And 20380 is somewhere under 30. That is. even 22350M as a series in the next 10 years is pure Manilovism. And, of course, small ships like 22800 and 12700 can build up. More or less like this. Those. This is all that is already there, including in the form of contracts, this is essentially the rearmament, which, by and large, has already taken place. Excluding SNF, of course. Therefore, all these huskies, viburnums, leaders, armata - I would honestly not count on all this too much.
                      2. bayard
                        bayard 3 January 2021 10: 47
                        +2
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        I understand that Borei-K is an analogue of Ohio

                        Of course, the Americans then showed a good example - submarine arsenals based on SSBNs, but our Borey-K arsenal will be much more diverse and expressive.
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        and Ash was oriented towards Virginia.

                        And here is just the opposite. "Ash" was designed and laid back in the USSR, when "Virginia" did not smell yet. In addition, at the "Virginia" at first they put one launcher on 7 "Tomahawks". But looking at our series of "Ash", in the USA they decided to build a series of improved "Virginias" with four launchers behind the wheelhouse (up to 42 KR), and even declared them as their answer to our series of "Ash".
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        undeclared purpose of fleet renewal - to ensure the deployment of NSNF

                        Yes, but this goal is not the only one, although it is the main one.
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        Within the framework of this logic, there should be no Borei-K, no destroyers, no aircraft carriers, no mass submarine submarines, simply because a global confrontation "as before" is not expected in all areas of the global map. Strategists will cover 885, 22350 and 20380.

                        If this were the case, then 885 is not needed at all, but it is the MAPLs that are needed, which will cover the strategists. And it turned out to be stupid to amazement - the defended strategist costs TWO times less than the 885 defending him ... posing as a MAPL. It's like driving nails with a microscope.
                        Objectives 885 - hunting and destruction of the enemy's AUG and KUG, as well as ocean supply convoys, after the main ammunition has been fired.
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        and for each they will give 22350 as a flagship,

                        lol 22350 is too small as a flagship, except for the Baltic. And the 22350M is just a frigate rocked by VI and BC, but up to the level of a destroyer. And its cost (estimated) will not differ too much from 22350 - 650 million dollars. against 500 \ 550 million. But autonomy, seaworthiness and shock capabilities will increase very seriously. And if they provide not one, but two helicopters, then the submarine capabilities.
                        And high-speed ones - both at cruising / economic speed, and maximum.
                        And you cannot do this with industry, especially with the military - having barely restored and rocked production, curtail and force the release of "pots". This was already the case with the traitor Marked, and this can only re-destroy what was restored with such difficulty and expense.
                        The military-industrial complex should work rhythmically, have orders constantly, so as not to lose skills.
                        AND FRAMES!
                        In addition, all investments in the military-industrial complex remain in the country, pour fresh blood into the economy, saturate the market with liquidity, increase tax collections and, as it may seem paradoxical to someone, strengthen the budget.
                        This is the nature of money.
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        According to this logic, 885 really should build about 10. Maybe even 12. Well, simply because there will be no others.

                        But what about such a publicized project "Husky-Laiki"? They are just going to be built, and also in a rather big series ... Stepping again on the same rake as from 885 Ave. - monstrously expensive and complicated, and again to the detriment of the much needed MAPLs.
                        Instead of THIS nonsense, it is necessary to start (urgently!) OCD on MAPL in the format of pr.945. And as the project is ready, lay the series. In the meantime - to modernize (what is being done) the existing pr. 971 and preferably four 945 pr.
                        885 Ave. in the "bastions" with its battery of missiles, there is NOTHING to do. There, his missiles are absolutely useless, and their combat potential is not in demand. Their place is the sea-okiyane, to hunt for the enemy's AUG, to follow with weapons, to intercept at distant approaches.
                        And in the bastions will serve "Pike-B" and (possibly) 945 etc. after repair and modernization.
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        22350 is needed in an amount of somewhere between 14-16.

                        Enough and 10 - 12 pieces. , but 22350M are needed in the amount of 12 - 18 pcs. in three fleets. Their price is close to the price of 22350, but the combat capabilities are many times higher, so the return on the invested ruble will be higher on the 22350M ships.
                        But the same AV air defense systems in the bastions are very much even needed, because only their carrier-based aircraft is capable of dispersing / destroying enemy anti-submarine aircraft over the areas of combat deployment of underwater strategists. Shipborne air defense systems will be of limited effectiveness (you cannot be everywhere, and detection zones and affected areas have their natural limitations. Fighters of base aircraft will almost always be late and will not be able to stay in the patrol zone for a long time.
                        Therefore, the only way out is carrier-based aircraft.
                        But without Napoleonic quirks - AV should be medium VI, flat-deck, with a catapult and airplanes (2 pcs.) Or helicopters (4 pcs.) AWACS.
                        Without them, we will not achieve combat stability in the "bastions". Japan alone has more than a hundred excellent PLO aircraft. You won't dismiss such a swarm with a fly swatter.
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        And, of course, small ships like 22800 and 12700 can build up.

                        They cannot build up anything, it would be much more useful for this money to purchase MRA aircraft - the same Su-34 with strike missile weapons. Reaction to a threat is much faster and more effective.
                        And these troughs, although armed with serious missiles, are absolutely defenseless against threats from under the water and from the air, they have extremely limited seaworthiness (look at the weather for a year in the Okhotsk Sea region and nearby waters and cannot use weapons on a good wave.
                        And they began to build them not because of a good life.
                        They were building to build at least something.
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        even 22350M as a series in the next 10 years is pure Manilovism.

                        As soon as the power plant is ready for them, it is necessary to lay them, and not 22350.
                        And in general, the shipyards cannot stand idle - they go broke, the specialists scatter, where to look for something later?
                        You cannot build a Fleet simply by allocating money, for this you need a powerful, complex, well-coordinated system, which is easy to break, but to restore ... we have not yet restored it.
                      3. A_Lex
                        A_Lex 3 January 2021 12: 29
                        0
                        If this were the case, then 885 is not needed at all, but it is the MPS that are needed, which will cover the strategists

                        too small 22350 as a flagship, except for the Baltic

                        And you can't do that with the industry, especially with the military - having just restored and rocked production, curtail and force the release of "pans".

                        Instead of THIS nonsense, it is necessary to start (urgently!) OCD on MAPL in the format of pr.945.

                        but 22350M are needed in the amount of 12 - 18 pcs. in three fleets. Their price is close to the price of 22350, but the combat capabilities are many times higher, so the return on the invested ruble will be higher on the 22350M ships.

                        But the same air defense systems in the bastions are very much even needed, because only their carrier-based aviation is capable of dispersing / destroying enemy anti-submarine aircraft over the areas of combat deployment of underwater strategists.

                        They cannot build up anything, it would be much more useful for this money to buy MRA aircraft - the same Su-34 with strike missile weapons.

                        As soon as the power plant is ready for them, it is necessary to lay them, and not 22350.


                        It seems to me that you are making a typical mistake in this case. Judge others by yourself. You look at the problem through the eyes of a professional who, so to speak, "cares about the case", you see what system solutions are needed to close known problems, and you expect that a similar point of view will gradually prevail "there" too, because its goal is to benefit the industry in general, but "there" to care about the industry seems to be obliged. From this point of view, many decisions made are classified as "stupidity" and cause natural bewilderment.

                        Yes, but this goal is not the only one, although it is the main one.


                        Well, can you list the minimum without which, in your opinion, the process of deploying the NSNF cannot be guaranteed to be carried out? As far as I understood, this is MAPL, and not Ash, which is not suitable for this role, aircraft carriers and MRA? All 3 ingredients or something can be thrown away?
                      4. bayard
                        bayard 3 January 2021 13: 09
                        +2
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        Well, can you list the minimum of what, in your opinion, the process of deploying the NSNF cannot be guaranteed to be carried out?

                        Without air cover, enemy ASW aircraft are the main enemy of the submarine fleet. The enemy has a lot of aviation and of excellent quality, therefore, a reliable air defense dome must be provided over the area of ​​combat deployment. Surface ships alone cannot provide this, even full-fledged radar control at all altitudes ... therefore, an AWACS aircraft must be on duty for all-altitude detection and detection of threats. And the ability of the basic fighter aircraft to be over the deployment area in time to repel the threat.
                        The surface forces of the Fleet in the area must have sufficient anti-submarine and anti-aircraft capabilities. Therefore, the number of surface forces in the area should be sufficient.
                        Watch in the air in the area of ​​own PLO aircraft to identify enemy submarines and destroy them in a timely manner with their own forces (torpedoes, depth charges).
                        MAPLs for escorting and isolating the area - torpedo, preferably nuclear, because diesel-electric submarines cannot keep up with enemy nuclear submarines. Diesel-electric submarines should be on duty in the straits and guard the naval base.

                        This is what is needed at a minimum.
                        And at the optimum - an aircraft carrier air defense / anti-aircraft defense and a detachment of surface forces (corvettes, frigates).
                        In the case of an aircraft carrier, the reaction to the threat of its carrier-based aircraft will be minimal in time (almost instantaneous), and its PLO helicopters will be able to conduct a continuous search and, if detected, destroy the enemy's MPS with weapons on board. Consequently, the load on the PLO aircraft will be much less and will only be required on the outer circuit.
                        For underwater escort and cover SSBNs need purely torpedo, but nuclear submarines. MAPL dimensions pr. 945 are ideal for these parameters. They have all the necessary weapons, they are cheaper and can be built in the required quantity without ruining the budget and within a reasonable time frame.
                      5. A_Lex
                        A_Lex 3 January 2021 13: 29
                        +1
                        Okay, but do I understand correctly that from 1991 to the present, the real technical means supporting the process of deploying the NSNF have been progressively reduced and continue to decline? Those. the reduction continues even against the background of the arrival of the same corvettes, since it does not cover the number of decommissioned? In general, on the Internet, there is somewhere a dynamics on this process, so that you can see that there were 10 submarines, 6 remained, there were 20 ASW ships, 5 remained, etc.?
                      6. bayard
                        bayard 3 January 2021 15: 04
                        +1
                        Yes, and this is a natural process - ships get old, do not receive timely repairs and upgrades, new ones I act extremely slowly and do not always meet the requirements.
                        But something has changed for the better in recent years. So the fleets received a number of diesel-electric submarines, which ensure the withdrawal of nuclear submarines from the bases. New corvettes with a good GAK and a helicopter have appeared at the Pacific Fleet, and they will now be built in a decent series.
                        There remains an acute problem with anti-submarine and patrol aircraft. There is nothing new and there is no way to see on the horizon, the modernization of the old Il-38 has somehow turned sour, and this modernization was ... weak.
                        And, of course, you can find statistics on the Internet, but I won't advise you anything at a glance, just try through a request - you will get a lot of options and sources.
                        You can inquire by types of ships and submarines.
                        hi
                      7. A_Lex
                        A_Lex 3 January 2021 17: 50
                        +1
                        Yes, and this is a natural process - ships get old, do not receive timely repairs and upgrades, new ones I act extremely slowly and do not always meet the requirements.


                        Those. it turns out that the main goal of updating the fleet - ensuring the deployment of NSNF - has not been fully resolved. And other goals, apparently, have not been resolved either. Given that, purely technically, these problems could be solved by launching at one time the process of modernizing existing ships and continuing the construction of modernized Soviet projects. Instead, a lot of time and money was lost, when this money was still there, and inevitable savings looming ahead under the pretext of successful completion of rearmament, the criterion of which is the abstract and out of touch with reality figure of 70%.

                        So if this problem has not been solved for 30 years, maybe no one sets such a task? The question arises - those who govern, are they at least the owners? Because if so, then they could well have abandoned the global confrontation, but they needed to provide the NSNF purely for their selfish interests, to protect the privatized territory.
                      8. bayard
                        bayard 4 January 2021 12: 18
                        +1
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        Those. it turns out that the main goal of updating the fleet - ensuring the deployment of NSNF - has not been fully resolved.

                        This is an obvious fact, since even 30% of the rearmament program until 2020 has not been completed. Why didn't they launch modernization programs for Soviet-built ships? Apparently, they hoped that they would have time to build new ones by 2020, so they only maintained their condition until the designated date. As a result, no new ones were built, and the old ones began to be modernized with a very long delay. And many ships, having not received timely repairs, have exhausted their resource in the trash and now only for retirement.
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        and the inevitable economy looms ahead under the pretext of successful completion of rearmament, the criterion of which is the abstract and out of touch with reality figure of 70%.

                        Yes, the funds and energy available for rearmament, for the most part, went to the whistle, and now they will save.
                        And they will ditch the defense industry for the second time in 30 years. And if this happens, then there will be no chances for a new revival. Even now, much has not been restored in our country ...
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        So if this problem has not been solved in 30 years, maybe no one sets such a task?

                        Until the end of 2008, no one set such tasks. The army crumbled, the defense industry lay flat.
                        After the roast rooster in South Ossetia, they began to stir, make up programs ... the result is clear today. But the fighting efficiency of the Army has been partially restored ... the truth of which Army?
                        And what is this army capable of today?
                        With the number of Ground Forces 280 thousand people. ?
                        With such a fleet of the Aerospace Forces ... without AWACS aircraft and tankers ...
                        Of course, enough for a war with some Georgia or Ukraine.
                        And for more?
                        And what is the reserve of this Army?
                        Does anyone cook it?
                        How much can we raise by mobilization in the first 2 weeks?
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        The question arises - those who govern, are they at least the owners? Because if so, then they could well abandon the global confrontation, but they needed to provide the NSNF purely for selfish interests, to protect the privatized territory.

                        Yes, nowhere do they globally oppose, so - peck at the grain, unable to resolve any of the conflicts in which they intervened.
                        Because having said "A", on "B" there is neither will nor strength.
                        And it was the past year that tore all the masks from the "great chess players" and "opponents", "guardians for the people" and other "good kings, with bad boyars."
                        Inability, incompetence and lack of will.
                      9. A_Lex
                        A_Lex 4 January 2021 23: 43
                        +1
                        Apparently, they hoped that they would have time to build new ones by 2020, so they only maintained their condition until the indicated date.


                        Against the background of well-known promises from the first elections and up to 25 million and the retirement age, everything here fits into the general trend "we say one thing, do another." In essence, it turns out 2 options: either the subject-owner, and then must take care of the weapon, so that other owners prowling in the jungle do not unscrew their head, or the object-liquidity, working out for another owner, and then the weapon must be systematically destroyed, and you can even in sophisticated ways, when the weapon seems to be built, but it is expensive, long, and not quite what is needed, therefore de jure it turns out that the weapon seems to be there, but de facto it is not there, because there is no exactly what you need , which is critical for the world of high-tech weapons.
  • Nemchinov Vl
    Nemchinov Vl 3 January 2021 14: 25
    +1
    Quote: bayard
    ... and now - just finish building the set series and think about the real MAPL That should be smaller VI , torpedo and not very expensive ... "simple" and fast to build ... A kind of new iteration of pr. 945.

    Yes !!!. hi Happy New Year Vitaly !!! I agree with you. drinks
    1. bayard
      bayard 3 January 2021 15: 08
      +1
      Greetings Vladimir !!! hi
      Happy New Year !!! drinks
      Let the new one be better than the trash that has already passed. bully
      1. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl 4 January 2021 01: 15
        +1
        Quote: bayard
        Let the new one be better than the trash that has already passed


        let the old year go away ...
        the year is tall and difficult.
        let him take it with him
        all the failures and ailments.
        And in the new year, let everyone,
        smiles will appear again
        does not fade in the house, children laugh,
        and everyone will forget the mistakes ...
        Let dreams come true
        and desires come true
        The house will be full of warmth
        and the wildest expectations !!!
        Health to everyone in the family,
        prosperity, to the house of love and affection!
        May the world be filled with good
        and life will become more beautiful than fairy tales !!!
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 2 January 2021 09: 08
    -2
    Better to pass a little later, but with better characteristics. In general, according to plans, 27 units of nuclear submarines should be commissioned by the 14th year. Roughly speaking, 2 pieces per year
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 2 January 2021 09: 46
      +8
      It is better to pass a little later, but with better characteristics.

      This story lasts 12 years
    2. tinkle
      tinkle 2 January 2021 10: 02
      +5
      don't even know what needs to happen to keep up with such a schedule? from the beginning of the construction of Kazan, the Americans managed to transfer 8 or 9 Virginias to the fleet.
    3. bayard
      bayard 2 January 2021 11: 23
      +3
      Quote: Ros 56
      according to the plans, 27 units of nuclear submarines should be commissioned by the 14th year.

      According to earlier plans, they were supposed to be completed by 2020, at least by 2022, not 14, but 15 (8 +7). In this case, only 2 types: "Borey" and "Ash", excluding special-purpose submarines (at least 2 more pieces).
      Meanwhile, the representative of the Ministry of Defense reported on the fulfillment of the plans for the supply of weapons for 2020 by 99,8% (? belay ) ... how is it possible against the backdrop of a disruption in the delivery of 2020 (!) nuclear missile carriers and one diesel-electric submarine in 3 ?!
      6 of them should be delivered by the end of the year. , and only 2 ...
      Is it the missing 0,2%?
      And after that, how can you take seriously any of their promises? ... As a rule, bravura and spiritually strong ...
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 2 January 2021 14: 02
        -1
        Let's wait and see, maybe something will change in reality.
        1. bayard
          bayard 2 January 2021 14: 46
          +1
          The really good news was the return of the Vepr to service after modernization and the imminent delivery of the modernized Leopard. MAPLs in the Navy are now needed like air.
      2. Charik
        Charik 2 January 2021 17: 14
        +1
        I promise to promise promised
        1. bayard
          bayard 2 January 2021 21: 32
          0
          Exactly .
          Moreover, each year begins like this - a list of promises and plans for commissioning, and it ends in the same way - "the plans and terms have not been disrupted, but transferred to the law."
  • Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 2 January 2021 10: 02
    +2
    Can anyone give an example of moving the dates not to the right, but to the left?
    1. tinkle
      tinkle 2 January 2021 10: 04
      +1
      just not in modern russia
    2. alexmach
      alexmach 2 January 2021 21: 51
      +2
      Can. The Novosibirsk plant completed the order for the Su-34 ahead of schedule. Probably they were trying to get more units to be contracted.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 2 January 2021 12: 38
    +2
    Nuclear submarines are the main direction of development, the main striking force of the Russian Navy, all other forces of the fleet only provide for the exit and return of nuclear submarines from bases
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 2 January 2021 13: 14
      +3
      Quote: vladimir1155
      Premier League

      If in your commentary replace the nuclear submarine with SSBN,
      then everything is so.
  • St54
    St54 2 January 2021 15: 21
    +1
    Quote: lucul
    Can we? Or, shall we say, we want?)))

    Why not ? The doctrine of the preemptive use of force, with the threat of the Russian Federation, was adopted)))

    So it is so ... but in 1941 there was also a doctrine: "with little blood on foreign territory", however ...
  • Charik
    Charik 2 January 2021 16: 42
    -1
    this has already been argued about in an article about Zircons at 949 instead of Granites - there people destroyed AUG with 40 Zircon missiles, which instead of 20 Granites will probably be at 949 after repair and modernization in 949 AM, because the missiles are not knocked down (hypersound), at AUG PLA for 200 km maximum flies from ships and submarines as part of AUG, too, does not solve anything, so it surfaced 100 km from AUG-found with my own means and launched all 40 without problems and left, - https: //topwar.ru/178628- modernizirovannomu-anteju-vdvoe-uvelichili-kolichestvo-raket.html # comment-id-11101145
  • Old26
    Old26 2 January 2021 16: 48
    +2
    Quote: OrangeBigg
    And who told you that they fired precisely at previously known coordinates, and not at a newly discovered target using target designation. After all, we have experience with target designation like the Onyx and Vulcan anti-ship missiles. Where did you get such doubts? What are they based on?

    Sorry, Alexander, but EMNIP was 4 tests of "Zircon", two for the range (and these are known coordinates) and 2 for the sea target. For the first 2 I can not say anything, but on the third test I saw NOTAM. And I will not say that there was a very large area of ​​the water area closure. They shot from the White Sea across the Kola Peninsula. In addition, the test experience shows that the first tests, so that they do not fail, are always carried out on fixed targets. The main task of these test stages is to check the performance of the product itself. And only then there will be a stage of testing, at which the operation of control and guidance systems will be tested.
    As for the "Volcano" and "Onyx", As far as I remember, the last launches of the "Volcano" took place on the shield. Immobile. Honestly, I have not heard any cases of Onyx shooting. In any case, even for supersonic missiles, sufficiently accurate target designation is necessary, because the parameters of the seeker are such that they have limitations in the capture range. And we simply do not have aviation capable of carrying out target designation, if not on-line, then with a slight delay. There is no MPA in the fleet.

    Quote: lucul
    Nobody exercised. Such tests are carried out on a target with previously known coordinates

    Why ? What prevents target designation, from the same Orion, when he sees a target, to transmit over a long range? That is, relay target designation along the chain? )))

    And they, "Orions", are not just in the army, but in the fleet, so that they can be used for these purposes?

    Quote: nobody75
    Better to do something quasi-balistic with individual targeting warheads.

    Quasi-ballistic on a boat means putting the boat in a worse position beforehand. The main advantage of the quasi-ballistic trajectory is a much shorter time between the recording of the fact of the start and the time of the finish. Less time for the enemy to react. The two biggest drawbacks are a decrease in the launch range by almost 3 times and, accordingly, by about 2-3 times in the payload weight. That is, to make it clear to everyone. If there is some SLBM Kh-01 with 4 BB and a flight range of 9000 km along a classical ballistic trajectory, then when launched along a quasi-ballistic trajectory, it can no longer carry 4 blocks, but 1-2, and its launch range will be about 3000 km, instead of 9000

    Quote: bayard
    And secondly, what do you think, if such a submarine secretly approaches the enemy coast for about 500 km. and will fire such a salvo at the coastal, land and port infrastructure of the Zircon missile defense system (air defense systems, command posts and naval base) and the Kalibr-M missile launcher (range up to 4500 km) for other targets deep in its territory ... And if at the same time, the warheads on the CD will be special ... Will this action have meaning, sense and benefit?
    Even with a conventional warhead 112 CR can do a lot.

    I beg your pardon, comrade, you wrote everything correctly regarding applicability. Only there will be no 112 "Zircon" and "Calibrov-M" on such boats. Because of their size. And the Zircon is unlikely to be a mass cruise missile in the next 10-20 years. It is unlikely that the entire BC of such boats ("Borey-K" or "Ash-M") will consist only of "Zircons". Most likely there will be diversification. The same Anthea will have 48-6 Zircons out of 8 KR, 10-12 Onyx units, and the rest - missiles of the Caliber family (PKR 3M54, KR Caliber 3M14 and possibly for the future Caliber- M ".
  • Charik
    Charik 2 January 2021 16: 52
    -1
    I wonder how the rocket head captures both the range and the angle of capture - unknown?
  • Old26
    Old26 2 January 2021 17: 59
    +5
    Quote: Charik
    I wonder how the rocket head captures both the range and the angle of capture - unknown?

    "Onyx" has a range of target acquisition of the "Cruiser" type - 75 km. I think that Zircon will have a range of at least 100 km. The capture sector at Onyx is ± 45 °. In place, these are + 10 ° (up) and -20 ° (down). If you leave the parameters (angles) the same, and increase the range to 100 km, then you can calculate.
    For example, take this picture
    1. Charik
      Charik 2 January 2021 18: 58
      -1
      I think the distribution of goals there is no worse, for example, than that of Granite, and is the activation of the gsn set before launch?
  • eleronn
    eleronn 2 January 2021 21: 45
    0
    They are masters of tying! Neither give nor take! The main thing: - to crow and get funding, and then at least the grass does not grow! You will not find those responsible for the missed deadlines.
  • Old26
    Old26 3 January 2021 00: 35
    +4
    Quote: bayard
    448 CR in one disarming strike, of which about half are hypersonic

    I would cut the sturgeon. "Zircon" in the coming years will not become a mass rocket. So counting on 224 "Zircon" is from a series of unscientific fiction. On average, our enterprises produce about 00 "Calibers" per year. and about 80 Onyxes. In addition, one should not think that Borey-K will have 7 cruise missiles in each launcher. If you can still agree with 7 KR "Caliber", then 7 "Onyxes" or "Zircons" will not fit there
  • musorg
    musorg 3 January 2021 12: 37
    0
    You could pass, and then continue, what hinders that? However, this is not the problem.
  • Old26
    Old26 3 January 2021 16: 46
    +3
    Quote: musorg
    You could pass, and then continue, what hinders that? However, this is not the problem.

    And for what? For a "tick", what did they deliver when they promised? Unfortunately, we do not know everything. What was the reason for the next postponement, what technical problems. And although, as usual, it is unpleasant to hear about the next shift to the right of the dates, it is better to move than to transfer the unfinished boat to the fleet