Military Review

"Sevmash" shortens the construction period of nuclear submarines

93
"Sevmash" shortens the construction period of nuclear submarines

The slipway period for the construction of nuclear submarines at Sevmash will be reduced by a year and a half thanks to the new assembly method. The press service of the enterprise reports.


Severnoye Machine-Building Enterprise (Sevmash) is introducing a new block-modular method of assembling nuclear submarines, which will significantly reduce the construction period of submarines.

The block-modular method, introduced at Sevmash, will make it possible to reduce the slipway period for the construction of nuclear submarines by 18 months. The use of the new technology for creating nuclear submarines will also improve the quality of work and reduce labor intensity due to the assembly of submarine hulls from large block modules of a high degree of readiness.

- says the site of the company.

It was reported in October 2020 that Sevmash is introducing a new technology for building nuclear submarines. The technology being introduced involves the assembly of submarines from large blocks saturated with equipment. The block-modular method should replace the currently used modular-modular method at Sevmash, which was introduced during the construction of third-generation nuclear-powered ships. The new technology not only allows to reduce the construction time, but significantly reduces the cost of production, since a significant amount of work is carried out in specialized workshops, and blocks ready for assembly are delivered to the slipway.

Currently, Sevmash is modernizing production facilities and infrastructure to introduce a new method of building nuclear submarines.
Photos used:
Sevmash
93 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 7,62h54
    7,62h54 19 January 2021 11: 02
    +26
    pah-pah-pah, do not jinx
    1. senima56
      senima56 19 January 2021 11: 18
      +15
      I, too, am a superstitious person ... Once I watched a program on the "Spas" channel. There one clergyman said: “The whole country was“ knocked ”and“ spat ”! Well, if you don’t want to, say:“ God forbid! ”, And if everything is fine, say:“ Thank God! ”
      Since then I do not "spit" or "knock on wood", but only: "Thank God!" or "God forbid!"
      Which I wish to everyone.
      1. Flooding
        Flooding 19 January 2021 11: 25
        +26
        So I imagined:
        the head of the section walks, checks the work of subordinates
        - Thank God!
        - Thank God!
        - But here God forbid!
        Babbling and nothing more.
        1. avg
          avg 19 January 2021 11: 54
          +12
          Quote: Flood
          the head of the section walks, checks the work of subordinates
          - Thank God!
          - Thank God!
          - But here God forbid!

          But this, Lord forgive me! Your mother ... I will expand the anchor to you ... !!! sad
        2. senima56
          senima56 19 January 2021 23: 08
          +1
          "You about Thomas, and you about Erema!" hi hi
          1. Flooding
            Flooding 20 January 2021 07: 29
            +2
            Yes you are right. I admit and partly regret repeat
        3. sniperino
          sniperino 20 January 2021 09: 31
          +1
          Quote: Flood
          the head of the section walks, checks the work of subordinates
          It is inconvenient for him to spit in a mask, and you cannot find a piece of wood on every site, and a cork helmet will give him the appearance of a planter, which can negatively affect the climate in the team.
      2. 7,62h54
        7,62h54 19 January 2021 11: 31
        +3
        "What is opium for the people?"
        1. Flooding
          Flooding 19 January 2021 11: 57
          +4
          And then Ostap suffered.
          1. 7,62h54
            7,62h54 19 January 2021 12: 02
            0
            It is said very well about religion and priests in Belinsky's letter to Gogol. 170 years have passed, but it seems like it is now writing, to the point.
            1. Flooding
              Flooding 19 January 2021 12: 19
              +2
              November 1840, XNUMX
              Belinsky's letter to V.P. Botkin: "For me the Gospel is the absolute truth, and the immortality of the individual spirit is its main stone."
              November 1845, XNUMX
              Belinsky's letter to A. I. Herzen: "in the words of God and religion I see darkness, darkness, chains and whip"
              November 1847, XNUMX
              Belinsky's letter to N.V. Gogol (and these words sound like a criticism of Gogol, since Belinsky believed that Gogol had betrayed the social democratic ideas to which he himself was committed): “one cannot remain silent when, under the cover of religion and the protection of the whip, lies and immorality "

              So you think these words are still relevant?
              Is peasant Russia still overwhelmingly illiterate and subject to religious intoxication?
              What else have you read from Belinsky? Did you get the quote from the complete works? Is not it?
              1. A_Lex
                A_Lex 19 January 2021 13: 58
                +4
                "One cannot be silent when, under the cover of religion and the protection of the whip, lies and immorality are preached"


                Here we are talking about pharisaism, when the one who asserts his authority on the basis of certain correct principles does not follow these principles himself.

                are these words still valid?


                Because now is the time of unprincipled hypocrites.
                1. Flooding
                  Flooding 19 January 2021 14: 07
                  0
                  Quote: A_Lex
                  Here we are talking about pharisaism, when the one who asserts his authority on the basis of certain correct principles does not follow these principles himself.

                  Is this not inherent in various representatives of the human race? But only to the priests?
                  What then is this selectivity in the fight against pharisaism?
                  Why did the fighters against the church as such, neo-pagans and other brethren come close to the fighters against pharisaism?
                  Why do they turn a blind eye to the good that connects Russia's people with the church in the history of Russia?
                  Quote: A_Lex
                  Because now is the time of unprincipled hypocrites.

                  And among them there are those who have never read a book thicker than a magazine.
                  But on occasion they willingly screw something they've heard somewhere once into their accusatory atheistic speech.
                  1. A_Lex
                    A_Lex 19 January 2021 14: 25
                    +1
                    You are offering casuistic communication. I do not accept this. The problem is outlined. Trying to turn a blind eye to her under the pretext that "since there are such problems everywhere, then we can also" is wrong. This is essentially what Belinsky wrote about.
                    1. Flooding
                      Flooding 19 January 2021 14: 39
                      -3
                      Quote: A_Lex
                      You are offering casuistic communication. I do not accept this. The problem is outlined. Trying to turn a blind eye to her under the pretext that "since there are such problems everywhere, then we can also" is wrong. This is essentially what Belinsky wrote about.

                      You don't seem to be trying to understand.
                      For example, I do not accept criticism, which is not done out of good intentions, but is used as a subject of struggle.
                      This is exactly what I observe.
                      And if you were more attentive, you would not argue with me.
                      It is a shame to refer to Belinsky for and without reason, pursuing goals completely different from those that he pursued.
                      This is hypocrisy.
                      All the best.
                      1. A_Lex
                        A_Lex 19 January 2021 15: 11
                        +2
                        You don't seem to be trying to understand.


                        There is a semantic gap between "you do not understand" and "you disagree with me".

                        For example, I do not accept criticism, which is not done out of good intentions, but applied as a subject of struggle.


                        Casuistry again. You personally did not like the meaning of my post, so you arbitrarily gave an assessment - "criticism is not out of good intentions." It’s wrong to do this because you take on the authority to decide which criticism is acceptable and which is not. Those. doing voluntarism. With this approach, you are free to dismiss any criticism that you did not like, under the pretext that it was said "unfavorably".

                        At the same time, in reality, not a single problem, as a phenomenon, depends on the moral character and motivation of the one who, criticizing, points out the existence of a problem.

                        I am ashamed to refer to Belinsky for and without reason, pursuing goals completely different from thosethat he was chasing.


                        Yet again. You do not know the goal of your opponent, but you yourself and on your own initiative hint in advance at supposedly unworthy goals and do this solely in order to dismiss the opponent and, accordingly, from the criticism expressed by him. This is a typical approach in which a reluctance to discuss the substance of the issue leads to attacks on the critic. Those. in other words, if you do not like criticism, you need to either shut your mouth to the one who expresses it, or portray him as "unworthy", thus devaluing the criticism expressed by him. Moreover, all the accusations of the opponent are usually far-fetched. A simple strategy is used here: in order to accuse the opponent, you need to point out his mistake, and if there is no mistake in reality, you need to invent this mistake and either explicitly or by hint ascribe to the opponent. Technology is as old as the world.
                      2. Flooding
                        Flooding 19 January 2021 15: 30
                        -1
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        Casuistry again. You personally did not like the meaning of my post, so you arbitrarily gave an assessment - "criticism is not out of good intentions."

                        Again on the same rake.
                        Just try first to realize that I had no argument with you.
                        I wrote about a citizen who dragged Belinsky's letter by the ears without having any idea about its content.
                        Moreover, I agreed with you about the meaning of the lines in the letter to Gogol, and did not dispute your version.
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        You do not know the goal of your opponent, but you yourself and on your own initiative hint in advance at supposedly unworthy goals and do this solely in order to dismiss the opponent and, accordingly, from the criticism expressed by him. This is a typical approach in which a reluctance to discuss the substance of the issue leads to attacks on the critic.

                        You are chewing your own tail.
                        Without knowing your opponent's goals, you attribute to me the approach that you see as typical.
                        So in order. You joined in with the desire to open my eyes to the true meaning of Belinsky's lines.
                        I will not reproach you for being overly arrogant.
                        I will not mention either semantics or casuistry in which you succeed no worse than your opponents.
                        I'll just agree. Yes, it was an accusation of pharisaism to the church.
                        And he wondered if a hypocrite could accuse others of hypocrisy?
                        Does he have a moral right to this?
                        I hope you understand that this is not about the deceased.
                        We are talking about those who by a famous name are trying to give additional weight to their words.
                        If you have any more questions, please contact Citizen Prosecutor.
                      3. A_Lex
                        A_Lex 19 January 2021 16: 12
                        +2
                        You chewing your own tail.
                        You joined in with the desire to open my eyes
                        it's overly arrogant.
                        where you excel as well as your opponents.
                        citizen accuser.


                        This is your interpretation, which has nothing to do with reality. But the displayed rudeness is quite typical for a practicing voluntarism.

                        And I wondered can a hypocrite accuse others of hypocrisy?


                        And this is just a counter-accusation in response to criticism. And, of course, the accusation is not based on anything.

                        you attribute to me an approach that you see as typical.


                        A typical sequence of actions to dismiss criticism:
                        1. To dismiss criticism, you need to present it as inadequate.
                        2. To present criticism as inadequate, you need to find a factual or logical error in it
                        3. If there are no mistakes in the criticism, or if for some reason it is undesirable to discuss the criticism on the merits, it is necessary to present the opponent as inadequate.
                        4. If you imagine your opponent to be inadequate, then what he says will be inadequate.
                        5. To present an opponent as inadequate, one must blame the opponent.
                        6. To accuse an opponent, you need to point out his mistake, and if there is no mistake in reality, you need to think of this mistake and either explicitly or with a hint ascribe to the opponent.
                        7. During the discussion, the opponent can make mistakes of 2 types: in essence and in the process.
                        8. An error is essentially wrong facts and / or wrong logic of reasoning.
                        9. Process error - immoral behavior, showing disrespect for members of the discussion or for society as a whole.
                        10. In the case when criticism is not considered in essence, the analysis of "mistakes in essence" does not apply.
                        11. Therefore, it remains only to present the opponent himself inadequate.
                        12. To present an opponent as inadequate, one must either provoke him into inappropriate behavior, or ascribe "process errors" to the opponent, on the basis of which to present the case in such a way that it is "obvious" (that is, allegedly already proven, despite the fact that no proof given) that the opponent is already "unworthy", "hypocritical", "immoral", etc.
                      4. Flooding
                        Flooding 19 January 2021 16: 21
                        -1
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        This is your interpretation, which has nothing to do with reality.

                        Any uncomfortable thought can be passed off as an interpretation.
                        In fact, it is.
                        Since it is the fruit of perception and logical constructions through the prism of their own worldviews and accumulated experience.
                        But her attitude to reality can only be determined by a person who claims to be objective. Are you that person?
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        But the displayed rudeness is quite typical for a practicing voluntarism.

                        You are just misinterpreting my words once again.
                        But this is not my fault, is it?
                        I took the liberty of drawing an analogy with a dog chasing its own tail.
                        So that this does not sound offensive, I will note - a dog of exceptionally noble blood. What is rudeness here? We're not in the officers' assembly.
                      5. A_Lex
                        A_Lex 19 January 2021 16: 33
                        0
                        Any uncomfortable thought can be passed off as an interpretation.


                        This is not about any thought. You undertake to interpret the opponent's intentions, although you can only have grounds for this in one case - when the opponent expresses his intentions explicitly and unambiguously. Without this condition, all your interpretations of the opponent's intentions are your personal invention and nothing more.

                        Any uncomfortable thought can be passed off as an interpretation.


                        The expression "you chew your own tail" cannot be interpreted otherwise than rudeness. Man is not an animal. Comparing a person with an animal is an insult.

                        So that it does not sound offensive, I will note - a dog of exceptionally noble blood.


                        Casuistry again, i.e. in fact, the transition to meaningless verbiage. In general, all the observed tactics of behavior are extremely typical for apologists of pharisaism.
                      6. Flooding
                        Flooding 19 January 2021 16: 49
                        0
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        You undertake to interpret the opponent's intentions, although you can only have grounds for this in one case - when the opponent expresses his intentions explicitly and unambiguously.

                        I can not agree with you.
                        You can only interpret what is subject to interpretation.
                        Those phrases that allow for a different interpretation.
                        Since clearly expressed thoughts cannot be interpreted in any way.
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        Comparing a person with an animal is an insult.

                        I won't hurt you much if I notice that you are just an eagle.
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        Casuistry again, i.e. in fact, the transition to meaningless verbiage. In general, all the observed tactics of behavior are extremely typical for apologists of pharisaism.

                        The trouble is simple. As a result, it turned out that you do not know what casuistry is.
                        You have applied this word at every opportunity.
                        It was just some kind of joke. Designed to dilute your officialdom. It's a pity I didn't put it in brackets.
                      7. A_Lex
                        A_Lex 19 January 2021 21: 31
                        0
                        I can not agree with you.
                        You can only interpret what is subject to interpretation.
                        Those phrases that allow for a different interpretation.
                        Since clearly expressed thoughts cannot be interpreted in any way.


                        I wrote that you cannot know the intentions of your opponent, because he did not tell you them directly, and you cannot read his thoughts. You decided to completely ignore this phrase and set off into abstract rantings on the topic of interpretation. That there is a usual diversion of the conversation. Typical practice of sophistry.

                        I won't hurt you much if I notice that you are just an eagle.


                        The fact itself is remarkable. Earlier, the opponent clearly said that the comparison with an animal is considered an insult, after which he again receives from you another comparison with an animal, which in fact is outright mockery.

                        It was just some kind of joke.


                        The phrase of the interlocutor who is deliberately rude to the opponent is no longer perceived as a joke.
                      8. Flooding
                        Flooding 19 January 2021 22: 53
                        0
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        The fact itself is remarkable. Earlier, the opponent clearly said that the comparison with an animal is considered an insult, after which he again receives from you another comparison with an animal, which in fact is outright mockery.

                        You're right. Really remarkable case.
                        It was not by chance that I chose the word eagle.
                        Which is used in the Russian language only with a positive connotation.
                        But you have managed to screw up here too, stubbornly repeating, if not about rudeness, then about bullying.
                        Otherwise, nothing new. Only on the signboard instead of "casuistry" appeared "sophistry". Do not forget to indicate the opening hours under the sign.
              2. Flooding
                Flooding 19 January 2021 16: 29
                0
                Quote: A_Lex
                And this is just a counter-accusation in response to criticism. And, of course, the accusation is not based on anything.

                You have come up with a design that is convenient for yourself and do not want to part with it.
                - Firstly, I do not find anything wrong in counter-accusation against criticism.
                - Secondly, don't you think that phrases like "how much opium is for the people" pulled out of the cinema, with the greatest desire, are difficult to pass off as criticism?
                - Thirdly, how can you consider my accusation unfounded, when I have already tried to explain this accusation to you three times? Start over?
              3. A_Lex
                A_Lex 19 January 2021 16: 39
                0
                I do not find anything wrong with counter-accusation against criticism


                A baseless accusation is the same as an insult.

                Thirdly, how can you consider my accusation to be unfounded when I have already tried to explain this accusation to you three times?



                11. Therefore, it remains only to present the opponent himself inadequate.
                12. To present an opponent as inadequate, one must either provoke him into inappropriate behavior, or ascribe "process errors" to the opponent, on the basis of which to present the case in such a way that it is "obvious" (that is, allegedly already proven, despite the fact that no proof given) that the opponent is already "unworthy", "hypocritical", "immoral", etc.
              4. Flooding
                Flooding 19 January 2021 16: 40
                0
                Quote: A_Lex
                A baseless accusation is the same as an insult.

                Yes, stop already repeating the same thing
                Quote: Flood
                How can you consider my accusation unfounded when I have already tried to explain this accusation to you three times? Start over?
              5. A_Lex
                A_Lex 19 January 2021 16: 53
                0
                How can you consider my accusation unfounded when I have already tried to explain this accusation to you three times? Start over?


                Yes, stop already repeating the same thing


                It is impossible to stop, because you were doing a typical trick - you tried to present your opponent as guilty, without arguing or substantiating such a position at all. Of course, within the framework of a dispute, it is beneficial for you to present your opponent as guilty, since the easiest way to gain an advantage is to denigrate the other.
              6. Flooding
                Flooding 19 January 2021 17: 02
                0
                Quote: A_Lex
                It is impossible to stop, because you performed a typical trick - you tried to present your opponent as guilty, without arguing or substantiating such a position at all

                What you personally consider to be typical is not necessarily typical of others.
                I have already hinted to you rather boldly that claims for objectivity do not make the interlocutor, especially his unfamiliar counterpart, at least somewhat attractive person for a conversation. This is at least not cultural.
                Where did you get the idea that you can blame me for insufficient reasoning of your accusations, if you yourself reproach me every now and then for some mistakes typical of you?
                Leave your ponderous attempts at psychoanalysis to yourself.
              7. A_Lex
                A_Lex 19 January 2021 17: 15
                -1
                What you personally consider to be typical is not necessarily typical of others.


                It is about the typical tactics of conducting a dispute in the mode of applying casuistry and sophistry methods. The purpose of the methods of sophistry is to present one's claim as allegedly proven, without providing adequate evidence and argumentation. The easiest way is to denigrate the opponent, which in turn will devalue his statements for the public.

                This is at least not cultural.


                9. Process error - immoral behavior, disrespect to members of the discussion or to society as a whole.


                reproach me for insufficient reasoning


                The arguments are not "insufficient". There are no arguments. For example, you call your opponent a hypocrite without proof. Which in turn translates him into the category of "immoral", ie. is a typical slanderous practice.

                ponderous attempts psychoanalysis


                Another ascribing to an opponent what he did not do.
              8. Flooding
                Flooding 19 January 2021 18: 03
                -2
                Quote: A_Lex
                The purpose of the methods of sophistry is to present one's claim as allegedly proven, without providing adequate evidence and argumentation. The easiest way is to denigrate the opponent, which in turn will devalue his statements for the public.

                Bravo. Not everyone would have succeeded in describing the essence and purpose of their actions so briefly and succinctly.
                I understand you haven’t thought about it yet. But everything you have written so far fits well into the logic of these two sentences.
                Quote: A_Lex
                There are no arguments. For example, you call your opponent a hypocrite without proof.

                I will summarize so you don't have to spray.
                - the opponent referred to Belinsky's letter addressed to Gogol.
                Quote: 7,62x54
                It is said very well about religion and priests in Belinsky's letter to Gogol. 170 years have passed, but it seems like it is now writing, to the point.

                To which I replied with a quote from this letter and a question clarifying the opponent's opinion.
                - the citizen did not consider it necessary to enter into a discussion with me. But you connected.
                And I immediately thought you were right. Most likely, Belinsky's words were denounced as pharisaism, rather than reflecting his attitude towards the church and religion in general.
                - but this in no way changes the fact that pharisaism is widespread in society everywhere, and is not a birthmark of either the priesthood in general, or the Orthodox Church in particular. Although the term is rather narrow, it has a broad interpretation.
                - therefore I insist that it is hypocritical to look for a speck in someone else's eye, not noticing the log in yours. If we talk about the church and the laity as two different organisms.
                - it is hypocritical to use, in general, a fair negative reaction to any deception, forgery, scam inherent in every healthy person, to indulge his personal emotions and his personal dislike of the church.
                - you need to refer to famous personalities, having shown at least a little diligence and having read at least a little with the text to which it refers. Otherwise, the accusation of hypocrisy, supported by such a reference, turns into a shameful sight.
              9. A_Lex
                A_Lex 19 January 2021 20: 46
                0
                Bravo. Not everyone would be able to describe so briefly and succinctly essence and purpose their actions.


                look for a speck in someone else's eye, not noticing the log in his, hypocritically.


                - to enjoy, in general, that fair negative reaction to any deception, forgery, scam inherent in every healthy person, to indulge your personal emotions and your personal dislike for the church - hypocritical.


                you need to refer to famous personalities by showing even a little diligence and after reading at least a little with the text being referenced. Otherwise, the accusation of hypocrisy, supported by such a link, turns into shameful sight.



                A lie does not become true from repeated repetition.
            2. Flooding
              Flooding 19 January 2021 18: 07
              +1
              Quote: A_Lex
              Another ascribing to an opponent what he did not do.

              How else can you call this, if not an attempt to bring a logical basis under your conclusions, based on psychoanalytic methods?
              I will not undertake to judge how well you do it.
              But it turned out quantitatively, do not hesitate.
            3. A_Lex
              A_Lex 19 January 2021 21: 36
              -1
              What else can you call it


              To ascribe to an opponent what he did not say is to lie to the opponent.
              I don’t know why you suddenly called psychoanalysis an ordinary statement of lies.
  2. Flooding
    Flooding 19 January 2021 16: 38
    0
    I answer in small portions, because It's more convenient for me to write on a tablet.
    Do not blame me.
    Quote: A_Lex
    1. To dismiss criticism, you need to present it as inadequate.

    Of course, a standard trick. And, it should be noted, it is quite logical.
    But I didn't use it.
    On the contrary, I will note that the citizen acted quite in the spirit of the times.
    It is a trend to vilify the church and religion.
    And he was absolutely adequate in the understanding of very, very many of our contemporaries and compatriots.

    Quote: A_Lex
    To present criticism as inadequate, you need to find a factual or logical error in it.

    There are no mistakes and cannot be when you take a well-known person as a witness and sprinkle him with quotes, thus acting out your own ineptitude.
    Cunning and resourcefulness cannot be wrong. On the contrary, sometimes a big mistake and serious consequences can turn out to be ingenuous directness and adherence to principles.
  3. A_Lex
    A_Lex 19 January 2021 16: 43
    -1
    On the contrary, I will note that the citizen acted quite in the spirit of the times.
    This is the trend - vilify church and religion.


    9. Process error - immoral behavior, showing disrespect for members of the discussion or for society as a whole.


    winning back own ineptitude


    5. To present the opponent as inadequate, you need to blame the opponent


    Cunning and resourcefulness cannot be wrong


    The end justifies the means only if the end is correct.
  4. Flooding
    Flooding 19 January 2021 17: 10
    -1
    Excellent.
    So you agree that it is immoral to revile the church?
    Otherwise, this rowset I interpret I can not.
    So which of us is blaming whom?
  5. A_Lex
    A_Lex 19 January 2021 17: 22
    0
    vilify церковь


    Instead of the term criticism, in this case, the emotionally colored term "revile" is used, the essence of which is that the very fact of mentioning the problem is a violation of social foundations, i.e. an immoral act, which in turn is inadequate.

    1. To dismiss criticism, you need to present it as inadequate.
  6. Flooding
    Flooding 19 January 2021 17: 39
    -1
    Quote: A_Lex
    Instead of the term criticism, in this case, the emotionally colored term "revile" is used

    First, ask yourself what criticism is.
    And can criticism be considered as such if it is not justified.
    And if it comes to that, then any word that has a negative context can be called emotionally colored.
    Your password has only one purpose - to put the usual seemingly human action in the right angle at a convenient angle, allowing you to give it the desired color.
    As in childhood, in the dark, in front of the mirror, they illuminated their faces from below with a flashlight, turning them into terrible faces.
    Quote: A_Lex
    the term "revile", the essence of which is that the very fact of mentioning the problem is a violation of social foundations, ie an immoral act, which in turn is inadequate.

    Now let's try to understand the essence of what has been written.
    I understood you correctly, what do you mean - the very mention of the word "reproach" is not adequate, because I am trying to elevate a simple mention of a problem to an unacceptable absolute category?
    Or will you try to express yourself in a more understandable language?
  7. A_Lex
    A_Lex 19 January 2021 21: 16
    -1
    First, ask yourself what criticism is.
    And can criticism be considered as such if it is not justified.
    And if it comes to that, then any word that has a negative context can be called emotionally colored.
    Your password has only one purpose - to put the usual seemingly human action in the right angle at a convenient angle, allowing you to give it the desired color.
    As in childhood, in the dark, in front of the mirror, they illuminated their faces from below with a flashlight, turning them into terrible faces.


    Verbiage.

    I understood you correctly what you mean


    No, of course not. Ascribing to an opponent what he did not say is a common method of sophistry.

    Or will you try to express yourself in a more understandable language?


    If the opponent uses the methods of sophistry, ascribes to the opponent what he did not say, including retelling the opponent's text, distorting the original meaning, then such a dialogue is basically meaningless.

    There is no point in such a dialogue, because the goal of the sophist is simple - to eliminate the very possibility of dialogue in essence, while trying to arrange the correspondence in such a way that to those third parties who read the dialogue it seemed as if the sophist was communicating either with a fool, or with an ignoramus, or with a hypocrite, and it is better, of course, that the opponent immediately possesses all possible negative qualities. Ultimately, the essence of the sophist's efforts boils down to the standard denigration of an opponent who has expressed a "wrong" point of view.

    That is why, literally from the very first posts, the sophist uses boorish comments and an invented personal characteristic of the opponent, in order to discredit him.

    The opponent, which is remarkable, does not say anything at all about the personality of the sophist, but discusses exclusively the technology of the use of demagogy by the latter, which is always used in order to eliminate the very possibility of discussion on the merits of the issue.
  8. Flooding
    Flooding 19 January 2021 16: 52
    0
    Quote: A_Lex
    3. If there are no mistakes in the criticism, or if for some reason it is undesirable to discuss the criticism on the merits, it is necessary to present the opponent as inadequate.
    4. If you imagine your opponent to be inadequate, then what he says will be inadequate.
    5. To present an opponent as inadequate, one must blame the opponent.
    6. To accuse an opponent, you need to point out his mistake, and if there is no mistake in reality, you need to think of this mistake and either explicitly or with a hint ascribe to the opponent.
    7. During the discussion, the opponent can make mistakes of 2 types: in essence and in the process.
    8. An error is essentially wrong facts and / or wrong logic of reasoning.
    9. Process error - immoral behavior, showing disrespect for members of the discussion or for society as a whole.
    10. In the case when criticism is not considered in essence, the analysis of "mistakes in essence" does not apply.
    11. Therefore, it remains only to present the opponent himself inadequate.
    12. To present an opponent as inadequate, one must either provoke him into inappropriate behavior, or ascribe "process errors" to the opponent, on the basis of which to present the case in such a way that it is "obvious" (that is, allegedly already proven, despite the fact that no proof given) that the opponent is already "unworthy", "hypocritical", "immoral", etc.

    I think you've had enough of my attention.
    You have reproached me too many times for casuistry and verbiage for me now to answer all these points with all seriousness, which are not at all marked with the stamp of verbiage.
    You, my friend, are very laconic and logical.
  9. A_Lex
    A_Lex 19 January 2021 17: 00
    0
    very laconicism and logic.


    I accept praise and slander indifferently.
  10. Flooding
    Flooding 19 January 2021 17: 41
    -2
    Quote: A_Lex
    I accept praise and slander indifferently.

    Neither one nor the other. Take this as my sarcasm.
  11. vitvit123
    vitvit123 19 January 2021 18: 47
    0
    Strong! I am pleased to read your dialogue. Your position, in my opinion, is more competent. But give your opponent his due! It even became curious how much time each of you spent thinking over the answer. In my opinion, your position was more difficult, but you did better. I even envy you both a little if you (both) are able to quickly formulate such answers ...
  • Xnumx vis
    Xnumx vis 20 January 2021 08: 35
    +2
    Hitler's Nazis also denied God. _ "The hardest blow that ever shook humanity is the arrival of Christianity. Bolshevism is an illegitimate child of Christianity .... and there is no Conscience. Conscience was invented by the Jews."
    So . that GOD for one the water in the well is clean and useful, for another it is not purified with bleach and not bottled ..
  • sniperino
    sniperino 20 January 2021 09: 33
    0
    Quote: 7,62x54
    Very well said about religion and priests in Belinsky's letter to Gogol
    By God, this Gogol would not have believed you.
  • antivirus
    antivirus 19 January 2021 13: 30
    0
    to spit on AV. I have cons, you - pluses. and AB as it was not - so it will not be. They build a nuclear submarine and a trifle.
    Kuzya always stood outside the base - in factories.
    base? and for the air wing, where is the spare take? -only Seva (?) and Vladivostok
  • FRoman1984
    FRoman1984 20 January 2021 06: 25
    0
    Quote: 7,62x54
    pah-pah-pah, do not jinx

    :)
    The question is not in terms of construction, but in terms of delivery to the Navy. They can build something quickly, and then take 4 years due to hundreds of problems. Example - "Kazan"
  • Tiksi-3
    Tiksi-3 19 January 2021 11: 03
    +1
    The block-modular method, introduced at Sevmash, will make it possible to reduce the slipway period for the construction of nuclear submarines by 18 months.
    this is good news, the main thing is that the timing of the introduction of the modernized equipment is not shifted) !!
  • Svarog
    Svarog 19 January 2021 11: 03
    +8
    The block-modular method, introduced at Sevmash, will make it possible to reduce the slipway period for the construction of nuclear submarines by 18 months.

    18 months is a huge acceleration. Well done.
    1. Nasrat
      Nasrat 19 January 2021 12: 13
      +3
      Quote: Svarog
      The block-modular method, introduced at Sevmash, will make it possible to reduce the slipway period for the construction of nuclear submarines by 18 months.

      18 months is a huge acceleration. Well done.

      Svarog condescended to positive news, with positive comments !!! Something has really changed in the country !!!!
      1. Svarog
        Svarog 19 January 2021 13: 12
        -1
        Quote: Nasr
        Svarog condescended to positive news, with positive comments !!! Something has really changed in the country !!!!

        In the country, unfortunately, the changes are more and more sad .. and from year to year it is getting sadder. But then the guys impressed, well done really ..
        1. Nasrat
          Nasrat 19 January 2021 13: 51
          +3
          Quote: Svarog

          In the country, unfortunately, the changes are more and more sad .. and from year to year it is more and more sad. ..

          Everyone sees only what he wants to see ...

          Quote: Svarog

          But then the guys impressed, well done really ..

          What are you impressed with? the fact that the production chains have become stronger (from that and the terms have been reduced)? So, in your opinion, from year to year everything is only getting worse ... and such a giant like Sevmash is very sensitive to the economic atmosphere in the country, due to the huge number of subcontractors .. and modularity was still under the union ...
          1. Svarog
            Svarog 19 January 2021 13: 57
            0
            Quote: Nasr
            What are you impressed with? the fact that the production chains have become stronger?

            The article is not about any "production chains". This is about :
            The block-modular method is to replace the currently used modular-modular method at Sevmash, which was introduced during the construction of third-generation nuclear-powered ships. The new technology not only allows to reduce the construction time, but significantly reduces the cost of production, since a significant amount of work is carried out in specialized workshops, and blocks ready for assembly are delivered to the slipway.

            and modularity even during the union was ...

            So everything from there .. they haven’t come up with anything of our own .. It’s good that they have enough intelligence to return to progressive Soviet technologies in some areas. And it would be very good to return all the best from the experience of the USSR.
            1. Nasrat
              Nasrat 19 January 2021 14: 06
              +4
              Quote: Svarog
              So everything from there .. they haven't come up with anything of their own

              His ???? But what about the same Block-modular instead of modular-aggregate ??? bully

              Quote: Svarog
              It is good that there is enough sense to return to progressive Soviet technologies in some areas.

              so smart people do not divide the history of their country into before and after ... they took the best in Soviet times, from tsarist Russia ...
              1. Svarog
                Svarog 19 January 2021 14: 08
                0
                Quote: Nasr
                His ???? But what about the same Block-modular instead of modular-aggregate ???

                He was still in the USSR. Moreover, Koreans have been building using such technologies for a long time.
                1. Nasrat
                  Nasrat 19 January 2021 14: 17
                  -1
                  Quote: Svarog

                  He was still in the USSR.

                  Wait a minute ... here is an excerpt from your quote ?:

                  Quote: Svarog

                  New technology not only allows you to reduce construction time, ...


                  then you have a new technology, then it was done back in the USSR, as I told you earlier:
                  Quote: Nasr
                  and modularity was still under the union ...
                  ...
                  wassat you have gone to bed!

                  Quote: Svarog

                  Moreover, Koreans have been building using such technologies for a long time.

                  What does the Koreans have to do with it?
                  1. Svarog
                    Svarog 19 January 2021 14: 43
                    -3
                    Quote: Nasr
                    The new technology not only allows to shorten construction time, ...

                    But for Russia it is new .. where does the lie wassat
                    In Russia, in years to come .. it will seem like a miracle free housing .. now they are optimizing those who have found the USSR .. and free housing, for future generations, will look like fantasy .. And if they return to this, it will be new or old?
                    So here too .. it dawned on some that there were progressive technologies in the USSR and they were applied .. it came about thirty years later .. which I am glad and hope that everything that was good in the USSR, including the planned economy .. will also come. ...
                    1. Nasrat
                      Nasrat 19 January 2021 16: 14
                      +2
                      Quote: Svarog
                      Quote: Nasr
                      The new technology not only allows to shorten construction time, ...

                      But for Russia it is new .. where does the lie wassat
                      In Russia, in years to come .. it will seem like a miracle free housing .. now they are optimizing those who have found the USSR .. and free housing, for future generations, will look like fantasy .. And if they return to this, it will be new or old?
                      So here too .. it dawned on some that there were progressive technologies in the USSR and they were applied .. it came about thirty years later .. which I am glad and hope that everything that was good in the USSR, including the planned economy .. will also come. ...

                      Slovoblud ... pulled an owl on a globe ... bully By the way, even now they give out free housing ... relocating from dilapidated housing (it would seem - where did the dilapidated housing come from, if everyone was given free housing in the USSR?), Though without registering it as property, but leaving the Soviet principle of social hiring ... the cleaning lady received this in a new house, several times I took an administrative one - I went to choose an area, floor and so on ...
        2. AlexeyEg
          AlexeyEg 19 January 2021 15: 27
          -2
          Is this method new for Russia, but not entirely new for the States? As I understand it?
      2. Paranoid50
        Paranoid50 19 January 2021 13: 42
        +2
        Quote: Nasr
        Svarog condescended to positive news,

        Just do not frighten off, otherwise he will be offended and say that it was sarcasm. laughing hi
        1. Nasrat
          Nasrat 19 January 2021 13: 54
          +2
          Quote: Paranoid50
          Quote: Nasr
          Svarog condescended to positive news,

          Just do not frighten off, otherwise he will be offended and say that it was sarcasm. laughing hi

          In my opinion, his first "speech" on the topic responded from the fight against the bloody regime .... really spoiled himself and inserted his truthful word in the subsequent comments ...
          1. Paranoid50
            Paranoid50 19 January 2021 14: 35
            +2
            Quote: Nasr
            really spoiled and inserted his truthful word in the subsequent comments ...

            Wow, glory-te-bast shoes, otherwise I’m already tensed ... So everything is in order, and you can not worry about Svarog - he is the same, still the same ... wassat
      3. vitvit123
        vitvit123 19 January 2021 18: 48
        +1
        Perhaps you just need pluses ...
      4. sniperino
        sniperino 20 January 2021 09: 50
        +2
        Quote: Nasr
        Something has really changed in the country !!!!
        Or something big died in the forest.
  • Alexander X
    Alexander X 19 January 2021 11: 04
    +4
    Good news. So the technical re-equipment has begun.
    Keep it up!
  • Flashpoint
    Flashpoint 19 January 2021 11: 05
    +12
    Super news, but not new.

    Here with a picture:

    Sevmash introduces a new method of nuclear submarine construction


    Sevmash introduces block-modular method of nuclear submarine construction
    1. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith 19 January 2021 11: 41
      +3
      Thank you for the information. Judging by the link, the news from October 8, 2020.
  • Linxs
    Linxs 19 January 2021 11: 05
    -1
    At least one good news.
  • Turist1996
    Turist1996 19 January 2021 11: 06
    +4
    I wonder why this would be a new method? As far as I remember, it was the block-modular construction principle that was used in the USSR in the construction of boats of the "cat" series. Looks like there was a rollback, but now they remembered the well-forgotten old.
    As far as I remember, on boats of Project 971.
    1. Podvodnik
      Podvodnik 19 January 2021 11: 21
      +3
      during the construction of "cat" series boats.


      I subscribe to the question. About thirty years ago I was on a business trip at Sevmash and climbed the "animals" from nose to stern. Naturally, we were also told about the methods of building our ships. The zone block of the compartment was saturated with fittings and equipment, then rolled into the shell of a strong case and docked. What has changed? Are they rolling now not from left to right but from right to left?
      Explain, shipbuilders, what our effective managers have invented there again?
      1. faiver
        faiver 19 January 2021 11: 35
        +1
        effective or rather defective managers found a folder from the archive ...
        1. Uncle lee
          Uncle lee 19 January 2021 12: 21
          +4
          In a loud voice
          ...
          like today
          the water supply entered,
          worked
          still slaves of Rome. wassat
  • Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 19 January 2021 11: 18
    +1
    The method is not new, of course, it seems that this method was used in the USSR, but the main thing is that it was introduced and built faster. Great news.
    1. d4rkmesa
      d4rkmesa 19 January 2021 11: 20
      +2
      Fact - they built it faster under the USSR.
      1. Linxs
        Linxs 19 January 2021 11: 34
        -6
        So they stole less
        1. d4rkmesa
          d4rkmesa 19 January 2021 11: 41
          0
          Hard to tell. But the competencies were partially lost for sure.
        2. A_Lex
          A_Lex 19 January 2021 14: 06
          -1
          Against the background of the current annual figures of capital outflow from the country towards offshores, then it can be said that they did not steal at all. And what is remarkable - everyone had enough to live in human conditions, and the usual for capitalist countries the prospect of being on the street in a box from a copier was basically impossible. So to compare the current level of degradation with the then progress is simply ridiculous.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 19 January 2021 18: 48
            0
            From the beginning, you will figure out what the capital outflow consists of, then you will already write about offshore companies.
            "Then one can say they did not steal at all." And what is remarkable - everyone had enough to live in human conditions, unfortunately, the shortage of everything grew every year - in the end, the whole USSR ended up in a full "box", capital countries with their boxes of copiers continue to live and develop, and Russia, like the former The USSR continues to buy from them modern consumer goods and equipment worth tens of billions of dollars and to be equal to them.
            1. A_Lex
              A_Lex 19 January 2021 20: 02
              -1
              what does capital outflow consist of


              From the money that is earned on the export of raw materials and exported to offshore in the West, thereby subsidizing the metropolis.

              They only stole about it, no one spoke only in the 80s, they began to speak.


              Provide the figures for "theft".

              unfortunately, the shortage of everything grew every year


              Provide the "lack of everything" figures.

              capital countries with their boxes of copiers continue to live and develop


              Yes, because they "live and develop" at the expense of their colonies.
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 19 January 2021 18: 36
        +1
        They built it faster in the USSR - but the quality of these built was very lame, either fires or equipment failure, and this is with all boats and often.
  • Stirbjorn
    Stirbjorn 19 January 2021 11: 26
    +1
    God forbid! And then all the terms were shifted
  • Alceers
    Alceers 19 January 2021 11: 31
    -1
    And where is that spoon that turns a barrel of honey into a known substance?
    I am translating. If your pump burns out somewhere in the hold, then in order to replace it you need to pl to the plant, cut the body and pull out the entire assembly ...
  • zwlad
    zwlad 19 January 2021 11: 45
    +1
    was like this news a month ago.
  • storm
    storm 19 January 2021 12: 16
    0
    And the deadlines for the delivery of three nuclear-powered ships went into the 21st year, the acceleration in the opposite direction turns out ...
  • Maki maki
    Maki maki 19 January 2021 12: 41
    +12
    If you really succeed in shortening the time, then definitely a plus.
  • lucul
    lucul 19 January 2021 13: 19
    +1
    For 18 months - this is a very, very good result.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 19 January 2021 14: 09
    -1
    Again a report on future achievements ...
  • A_Lex
    A_Lex 19 January 2021 14: 15
    +2
    After many past news in the "will" style turned out to be nothing, I now fundamentally do not take such messages seriously.

    I will note a positive change on this topic only when no more than 6 years have passed from the moment the Yasen-class submarine was laid down to the moment it entered the fleet. Moreover, no later than six months after the introduction of the submarine into the fleet, the new boat will have to go on alert.
    Only then I will say - well done.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 19 January 2021 14: 42
    -3
    you need as many nuclear submarines as possible of the main strike force of the fleet, and part of the Strategic Security, the basis of stability in the world
  • Tests
    Tests 19 January 2021 16: 51
    -1
    Turist1996 (Turist), Podvodnik (Igor) dear BRAVO! You are 202% right. Otherwise, I would have to consider my parents, my wife's entire family, hundreds of my friends from SEVMASH, tens of thousands of SEVMASH shipbuilders, tens of thousands of employees of SEVMASH contractors from all over the USSR and the Russian Federation as feeble-minded, and declare all SEVMASH products as one of the consumer goods, which SEVMASH made in the 60s of the 20th century - with enamel bowls. On the outer side of the bottom of the white bowl, SEVMASH put a blue stamp: from a wavy line that symbolized a wave, a straight line emerged at an angle, at the end of which there was a small circle - a spindle and a sea anchor bracket. In the last century, it was a thing to go to the woods and go fishing! I still have several such bowls at my dacha. But SEVMASH, besides those bowls, repaired, made and completed a lot of interesting things ...
    aiver (Andrey), dear, it is possible that "effective or rather defective managers have found a folder from the archive .." But, I think that the matter is in the absence of a specific result in the work of one of the leaders of the SEVMASH PKB - Alexander Spiridonov. Our city resource IA "BelomorKanal" on tv29.ru today gave the following material: "At Sevmash in Severodvinsk, a block-modular method of building a nuclear submarine is being introduced." But even the cranes of Boathouse No. 2 have not been replaced. And to build a new workshop and a new aisle of the PCB ... And also, I already wrote about this, there is a floating dock "Sukhona" that takes orders from the workshops to the filling pool, it is high time to repair it ... Too little time has passed since the previous speech on the Internet of Mr. Spiridonov, the people have not forgotten ... And about the reduction of the slipway period for the construction of nuclear submarines by 18 months - we'll see. There are a lot of enterprises - SEVMASH's counterparties. Failure to deliver one or two devices from one enterprise - failure to deliver the entire order, this, alas, is the reality of all shipbuilding and ship repair enterprises. Then SEVMASH can add this enterprise to the list of unscrupulous suppliers, but the deadlines for the delivery of the order are shifted to the right, and besides this enterprise, no one in the Russian Federation produces such devices. And Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are in NATO. Moldova and Ukraine are looking there too. The last who? That's right - the director of SEVMASH Budnichenko ... It is the press service of SEVMASH who writes, and we read it. This morning I already wrote about this gold division of the SMP in the comments about the upcoming tests of "Admiral Nakhimov" ...
  • Charik
    Charik 19 January 2021 21: 10
    -1
    what kind of demagoguery - about submarines there will be something
  • CommanderDIVA
    CommanderDIVA 20 January 2021 10: 28
    0
    The Germans began to use this assembly method back in WWII, Denitz described it in his memoirs, and the Americans, in my opinion, began to use it when assembling their nuclear submarines, apparently Sevmash makes our military-political leadership seriously accelerate with the commissioning of new nuclear submarines
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 20 January 2021 18: 00
    0
    Since the Sevmash was kept in the hard times of the "corrupt" 90s (In those years when I was there on business trips - NSR), then it is necessary to introduce advanced technologies of military shipbuilding on it am
  • The comment was deleted.