Military Review

Does our fleet need a small multipurpose nuclear submarine

194

According to GPV-2020, the Navy was to receive 2020 new multipurpose nuclear submarines of project 8 (M) by 885.


In reality, he received only one (and with a "bouquet" of critical shortcomings described in the article APKR "Severodvinsk" handed over to the Navy with critical for combat effectiveness).

In fact, the program of modernization of the 3rd generation nuclear submarine was also disrupted.

At the same time, the question of the optimality of such a large multipurpose nuclear submarine as Yasen has been repeatedly raised in society, in the media, and among specialists. For example, the former head of the 1st Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Rear Admiral I.G. Zakharov in his article "Modern trends in the development of warships" (magazine "Military Parade" No. 5 for 1996) wrote:

“An important circumstance in the development of multipurpose submarines will seem to be the reduction in the cost of their creation while maintaining the achieved tactical and technical characteristics ...

Quite difficult, but apparently a necessary task will become preservation of the previously achieved combat capabilities of multipurpose boats while reducing their displacement to 5000-6000 tons. "

There is a certain and controversial experience of the USSR Navy in creating a series of "small" multipurpose nuclear submarines of Project 705 (for more details - "Goldfish" of Project 705: a mistake or a breakthrough in the XXI century?), which is assessed today mostly negatively.

Foreign experience


In the navies of foreign countries today the French Navy has the smallest submarines (submarines of the Rubis Amethyste series).


PLA type Rubis Amethyste

History Project PLA "Rubis" (Rubis Amethyste) actually began in the late 60s of the XX century.

However, initially, the military-political leadership of France had the highest priority program of strategic SSBNs. Therefore, despite the fact that the preliminary design of the multipurpose submarine was completed by 1972, the lead boat of the project was laid down only at the end of 1976. In 1979, the "Ryubi" was launched.

The construction of the first submarine cost 850 million French francs (equivalent to 325 million euros in 2019), which is an extremely low price not only for submarines (in fact, slightly more expensive than the "average" for modern non-nuclear submarines).

The main feature of the project was the use (for the first time in the world) of a single-block nuclear reactor with a capacity of 48 megawatts with a high degree of natural circulation of the coolant and a turboelectric power plant. The maximum underwater speed was 25 knots. Autonomy was 60 days. Crew of 68 people, including eight officers.

Armament: four 533-mm bow torpedo tubes (TA) for firing anti-ship missiles SM-39 and torpedoes F-17 mod. 2 (ammunition 14 units weapons).

Due to the original solutions for the power plant, the developers expected a very low noise level of the new submarine. However, due to a complex of little-studied problems, the real result was approximately at the level of American submarines built in the early 60s.

Taking into account that the French SSBNs had similar noise problems, a large-scale program was deployed to improve them (including low noise) "Improvement, tactics, hydrodynamics, silence, propagation, acoustics" (AMElioration Tactique Hydrodynamique Silence Transmission Ecoute).

The results of these measures, which required, among other things, lengthening the hull by 1 meter, changing the contours (and in the bow), were introduced starting with the fifth boat of the Amethyste series and the last Perle hull.

However, it is extremely interesting to carry out (before 1995) a deep modernization of already built submarines, with their output in terms of the degree of low noise to levels close to our 3rd generation. Which, of course, is a very big success for French developers.

Currently in the ranks of the French Navy are 4 multipurpose submarines: S 603 Casabianca (part of the Navy since 1987), S 604 Emeraude (1988), S 605 Amethyste (1992), S 606 Perle (1993) .).

Note. In a fire during repairs on June 12, 2020, the S 606 Perle submarine was seriously damaged. However, the great need for multipurpose submarines (and the delay in the construction of a series of new ones) forced the French Navy to decide on the restoration of submarines using the bow of the decommissioned Saphir submarine (1984).

Despite the fact that the next series of French submarines almost doubled in displacement, the experience of creating submarines of the Rubis Amethyste series should be considered very successful.

It is especially necessary to note the very high efficiency of modernization of the first submarines. This made it possible to bring them empirically to the level of modern requirements for detection and stealth means (for the 3rd generation).

This is confirmed by a number of examples of NATO naval combat training:

- In 1998, S 603 Casabianca managed to "sink" the aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower and a cruiser from the US Navy aircraft carrier group.

- During the COMPTUEX 2015 exercise, the Saphir submarine successfully attacked the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt and its escort.

However, the pioneers of "small" multipurpose submarines were the US Navy, in the late 50-ies received two mass series of such submarines (Skate and Skipjack) and a single submarine (not in the series) Tullibee.


Multipurpose submarines Skate, Tullibee and Skipjack.

A series of submarines of the Skate type (lead SSN-578) was created on the basis of the first experience of the two-shaft nuclear powered submarine Nautilus based on the Tang diesel-electric submarine (diesel-electric submarine) project.

At the same time, in order to ensure serial production, a step back was made in terms of the maximum underwater speed (with a decrease to 16 knots, according to various sources) and displacement (2400 surface and 2800 tons underwater - that is, less than that of the Rubis submarine).

Two submarines were ordered in the summer of 1955. Construction of the first boat began on 21 July. The second boat (and also the entire series of 4 submarines) was built before the end of 1959. The submarines had a fairly strong armament of 6 bow and two aft torpedo tubes and a total ammunition of 24 torpedoes.

The experience of the first exercises of the Nautilus submarine, which showed the great tactical value of high speed, the test results of the experimental diesel-electric submarine Albacor of a streamlined shape and the groundwork for a new steam-generating unit with the S5W reactor (unified for all promising submarines and submarines of the US Navy, including the second generation) led to the creation of a high-speed submarine Skipjack with a streamlined body ("albakor"), a powerful power plant with an S5W reactor.

At the same time, the short terms of creating new submarines did not allow introducing the latest developments in low noise and hydroacoustics into its project.

The maximum speed of the submarine was increased to 30-33 knots (while maintaining powerful weapons: 6 bow torpedo tubes and 24 torpedoes in ammunition load).

The entire series of 6 submarines was built before the end of 1960. At the same time, at about the same time, the first 5 USS SSBNs of the George Washington type were simultaneously built, created as a "missile version" of the Skipjack multipurpose submarine project.

The Tullibee submarine, which entered service in 1960, was the result of the Nobska project, launched in 1956, to create a low-noise submarine with powerful sonar weapons.

For the sake of quietness and assessment of the prospects for application, a turboelectric power plant with an S2C reactor was used for the first time in the world, which, however, provided only a very moderate underwater speed of 17 knots. Taking into account the emphasis on anti-submarine tasks, the armament of the submarine was reduced to 4 onboard TA and 14 torpedoes.

The Tullibee submarine became the smallest combat submarine with an underwater displacement of 2600 tons (with a crew of 66 people).

However, such a loss in speed of the US Navy was regarded as unacceptable.

And the subsequent development of the submarine was the result of the "crossing" of two "branches" - Tullibee (low noise, onboard TA, powerful hydroacoustics in the bow) and Skipjack (streamlining, high speed, S5W reactor). The result was the Thresher submarine project (with the inevitable increase in the underwater displacement already up to 4300 tons).

Subsequently, the new requirements for the US Navy submarines led to an even more significant increase in the submarine displacement (2,5 times for the SeaWolf submarine). Small submarines of the US Navy were in service until the end of the 80s and were actively used in the submarine confrontation of the Cold War.

However, the US Navy did not return to the real plans to create small submarines.

The position of the designer of the nuclear submarine of project 885 "Ash" (SPBMT "Malachite").
In the magazine "Sudostroenie" No. 2 for 2009, a very interesting article by A.M. Antonova (SPBMB "Malakhit") "Displacement and cost - the unity and struggle of opposites (or is it possible to create a cheap submarine by reducing the displacement)"?

“The point of view based on the principle“ less is cheaper ”is typical for a number of specialists, especially among ordering bodies of the Navy (Navy).

For example, in the mid-90s, the US Navy, justifying the need for a transition to the construction of Virginia-class nuclear submarines, publicly stated that one of the main tasks of creating a new nuclear submarine is to reduce its cost in comparison with the Seawolf-class nuclear submarine by at least 20%, for which it is necessary to reduce the displacement of the new nuclear submarine by 15-20% ...

It was decided to revise and reduce to an acceptable level the requirements for the combat qualities of nuclear submarines, as well as apply special technologies to reduce the cost of nuclear submarines.

It was considered possible: to maintain the acoustic secrecy of the nuclear submarine at the achieved level (that is, at the level of the Seawolf-class nuclear submarine), to restore the structure of the strike weapons adopted on the Los Angeles-class nuclear submarine - 12 outboard TLUs for cruise missiles and 4 torpedo tubes of 533 mm caliber with 26 ammunition. ... (against 50 units for the Seawolf-class submarine), equip the nuclear-powered submarine with a new S9G-type power plant of lower power (29,5 thousand kW) and limit the full speed to 34 knots (Seawolf has more than 35 knots).

The result of the measures taken was more than modest.

The surface displacement of the Virginia class submarine was reduced by only 9%. The average cost of building the first four Virginia-class nuclear submarines, compared to the average cost of two Seawolf-class nuclear submarines, has remained virtually unchanged. Taking into account inflation, it has nominally even increased slightly.

At the same time, funds equivalent to the cost of building two nuclear submarines were spent on R&D to create a new nuclear submarine, its weapons, technical means and equipment. "

As a commentary, it should be noted that these seemingly “correct” conclusions are in fact very sly. And that's why.

First. The question of how much the price of a Seawolf-class submarine would have grown in the course of its (hypothetical) serial construction was completely overlooked.

Second. Continuation of the Seawolf series would still require a significant amount of R&D to redesign it, taking into account the change of generations of the element-component base (and the termination of the production of the old one).

That is, the correctness of the conclusions indicated in the article without an objective analysis of these factors raises serious questions.

Undoubtedly, the Virginia submarines were considered by the US Navy as a more "budgetary" solution than the Seawolf-class submarines. However, it must be borne in mind that Virginia is not

"A consequence of the end of the cold war."

Its development (the "Centurion" project) began in the late 80s. And the main message for creating a more "budgetary" (but massive) submarine was that no matter how perfect a single ship was, it could not be at two points at the same time. Fleet you need, including the number (ships and submarines).


Tables from the article by A.M. Antonova "Displacement and cost - unity and struggle of opposites (or is it possible to create a cheap submarine by reducing the displacement)"?

In fact, the meaning of A.M. Antonov - allegedly "optimality" of a very large and oversized multipurpose nuclear submarine of the 4th generation "Ash" (project 885).

"The analysis of the relationship between the displacement of the ship and its
cost with the level of combat and operational qualities and the level of technologies used allows us to draw the following conclusions, which are the answer to the question raised in the subtitle of the article:

1. Reducing the displacement due to the use of special technologies while maintaining the level of combat and operational qualities leads to an increase in the cost of the ship.

2. Reducing the displacement while increasing the level of combat and operational qualities requires a significant rise in the level of technology and leads to a significant increase in the cost of the ship.

3. Reducing the cost of the ship is possible by reducing the level of its combat and operational qualities and simplifying the technologies used. At the same time, the displacement is an uncertain value (that is, it can both increase and decrease depending on the ratio of changes in the level of combat and operational qualities and the level of technology).

The findings can be summed up in one phrase: "Good military equipment cannot be cheap."

However, this does not mean that it is useless to optimize the cost of the ship.

This problem, of course, needs to be solved, but not according to the principle "instead of a large and expensive submarine, you need the same one, but smaller and cheaper."

It is necessary to understand and accept the objective laws that determine the value of the ship.

In short, you need to "understand and accept" ...

“Those who made the decision” “understood and accepted” (in GPV-2020).

Results of GPV-2020: a complete breakdown of the 4th generation nuclear submarine (the fleet received 1 nuclear submarine instead of 8, and in an almost incapacitated form), the modernization of the 3rd generation nuclear submarine was disrupted (where the SPBMT Malachite managed to disrupt not only the modernization of the 971 project boats, but also "valiantly flunked" the modernization project 945 (A), according to which he performed a very dubious "operation" to "intercept rights and documentation" from the developer - SKB "Lazurit").

In this case, life still forced "Malachite" to reduce the displacement.

Does our fleet need a small multipurpose nuclear submarine
Project "Laika", "tortured" during the research work "Husky" SPMBM "Malachite".

However, what was presented as a "promising nuclear submarine" of the 5th generation to the President a year ago in Sevastopol is not only puzzling.

But it also raises the fundamental question of the availability, in general, in the SPBMT "Malachite" of potential and intellectual resources to solve the problem of creating a nuclear submarine of the 5th generation (and most importantly - proper leadership and organization).

Problems of the Yasen nuclear submarine and an effective model of a small nuclear submarine


First. The project is expensive, complex and small-scale.

Second. Significant lag behind US Navy submarines in terms of low-noise speed and a certain lag in stealth (this issue is especially acute against new multi-position search engines for submarines with low-frequency "illumination" of the water area, for which the submarine noise level is practically irrelevant).

The third. Critical shortcomings in the complex of underwater combat weapons: a deliberately outdated complex of underwater weapons and self-defense means. In fact, a degraded version of the 3rd generation nuclear submarine complex. Literal assessment of the developers themselves:

"Either cry or laugh."

And the questions of the use of modern torpedoes "Physicist-1", especially with telecontrol, are not brought to light.

But the most important thing - in fact, the absence of any effective anti-torpedo protection (PTZ): the "Module-D" complex was outdated back in the 90s at the development stage. And the equipment of the nuclear submarine with anti-torpedoes "Lasta" was deliberately disrupted.

Let me emphasize that what has been said is not a “version”, but facts confirmed, among other things, by materials of special open literature and cases of arbitration courts under project 885.

Arctic


Separately, it is necessary to dwell on the problem of using nuclear submarines in the Arctic, especially in areas with shallow depths.

There are two problems here: “normative” and “technical”.

Regulatory
All our submarines have very serious "regulatory" restrictions on operations at shallow depths. I will give just one example (from the public procurement website).

The drifting device PTZ "Vist-2" purchased by the Navy cannot be used at depths (shooting) of less than 40 meters. From the point of view of common sense, this is just nonsense.

(For example, our diesel submarine (diesel-electric submarine) is charging batteries at periscope depth and is attacked by an airplane or submarine ...).

However, those who wrote the corresponding "requirements" proceeded from the fact that for the smallest submarines of the Navy (diesel-electric submarines of project 877), the safe depth (from the ram of a surface ship) is set at 40 meters. Finding the submarine between the periscope and safe depth is prohibited by documents. And correspondingly,

"War at depths less than 40 meters is canceled."

(It remains only to coordinate this with the enemy).

This example is far from the only one. But he clearly demonstrates that in many cases, instead of the real requirements and conditions of battle, the ships and weapons of the Navy are given frank delirium of "sofa theorists" from the Central Research Institute of "Shipwreck" (and a number of similar organizations).

technical
The second problem is “technical”.

Large displacement and dimensions (especially height) sharply limit the capabilities and actions of our submarines at shallow depths (up to the complete impossibility of using weapons).

In this case, the PLA

"So-called partners"

(V.V. Putin's expression) - The US and British navies have much less restrictions and weapons adapted for such conditions. And most importantly, they actually practice combat operations in such conditions (from research exercises and campaigns to bilateral exercises of submarine groups with the involvement of diverse anti-submarine forces).

"Popularized" in some of our "popular" media that the Arctic is "ours", alas, has a very distant relationship to reality.

For the enemy (we will call a spade a spade) has there an effective instrument of force influence on us - a prepared grouping of submarines, which our Navy cannot oppose today.

In the event of real hostilities, our submarines will drown there just like kittens.

An even more acute problem is the deliberate lack of combat stability of the deployed NSNF grouping. And the possibility of covertly shooting our deployed strategic missile carriers opens up the enemy the possibility of delivering a strategic "disarming" strike.


Shallow depths of the adjacent Arctic seas. And the actions of the US Navy submarine in these conditions (on the sidebars, feet is a third of a meter).

Thus, the issue of a massive multipurpose (with the priority of anti-submarine tasks) nuclear submarine, capable of effectively acting against modern and promising submarines (including in the Arctic), single ships and small detachments of warships, is urgent.

The importance of anti-submarine missions and especially the relevance of issues of application in the Arctic raise the question of the feasibility of developing and creating a small (but effective in its range of tasks) nuclear submarine, with a reasonable limitation of requirements for it, providing a moderate cost and mass serial construction.

At the same time, taking into account the significant reduction in ammunition, the key issues of the appearance and effectiveness of such a submarine are the "combination": "search-destruction-protection". That is the questions:

- effective search (which requires a powerful SAC and a power plant with a complex of noise suppression devices that provide the maximum possible search moves, and in the near future - combat UOA);

- high-precision complex of torpedo weapons;

- effective means of countering weapons and means of detecting the enemy.

Taking into account the significant lag of the Yasen nuclear submarine from the US Navy submarine in search speed (and, accordingly, search performance), and with the objective impossibility of reaching the US Navy submarine levels in the medium term, it is of considerable interest to solve this problem by a small nuclear submarine with a powerful SAC and a low-noise turboelectric installation, which has (despite a significantly lower maximum speed than the Yasen-type submarine) a large search speed and (accordingly) surpasses it in search performance.

The key requirement is to achieve the highest possible (without excessive costs) search (low noise) speed.

The nuclear submarine's weapons and self-defense complex should ensure a high probability of winning duel situations with foreign submarines. Moreover, excluding the possibility of dodging with a long stroke to break the distance (with a weapon to compensate for the lack of maximum speed).

Thus, the key is a high, low-noise search speed with a reasonable limitation of the maximum one and compensation for this by the high combat capabilities of a high-precision torpedo weapon complex (for more details, see the article "On the appearance of modern torpedoes of submarines" ("Arsenal of the Fatherland"). Link to it on "VO") and countermeasures.

It should also be noted here that the best anaerobic installation for submarines is atomic. And accordingly, the feasibility of building diesel-electric submarines for our ocean-going fleets (Northern Fleets and Pacific Fleets) has long been very doubtful. For even with a low power of a nuclear power plant, diesel-electric submarines with it will have many times greater efficiency.

Of considerable interest to us today are the search studies of the Canadian Navy at the end of the 80s of the appearance of promising submarines (with ensuring their long-term operations in ice conditions at shallow depths).

The "favorite" in terms of combat capabilities was the English submarine project Trafalgar, but the price was frankly "excessive" for the Canadians.

The French project PLA Rubis was considered with great interest. However, at that time, it had significant noise (the French had not yet had time to finish and implement the results of complex R&D on the secrecy and effectiveness of submarines).

And with extreme interest (and a direct recommendation of parliament), options for diesel-electric submarines for a small-sized nuclear power plant were considered. Several options have been explored. Briefly on them below.

Canadian small nuclear power plant ASMP. The thermal power of the reactor is 3,5 MW (with a compartment length of 8,5 meters and 10 MW with a length of 10 meters), the diameter of the NPP compartment is 7,3 meters. The mass of the 3,5 MW variant is 350 tons. A study was carried out for the placement of the ASMP nuclear power plant for diesel-electric submarines with a displacement of about 1000 tons of projects 209 (Germany) and A-17 (Sweden), which ensured a speed of 4-5 knots. For large diesel-electric submarines of projects TR-1700 (Germany) and 471 (Sweden), a modification of the ASMP nuclear power plant for an electric power of 1000 kW was worked out, which provided a speed of about 10 knots for these submarines.

Very interesting was the project of the French company "Technikatom" with a monoblock pressurized water reactor with natural circulation along the primary circuit and a turbine generator power of 1 MW, which provided for the Agosta type submarine (the study was done for this project) an underwater speed of about 13 knots (with 100 kW allocated for ship needs). The mass of the reactor with biological shielding was 40 tons, with a height of 4 meters and a diameter of 2,5 meters.

However, the end of the Cold War closed the issue of acquiring nuclear submarines for Canada.

Potential opportunities of the project 677 "Lada"


Speaking about the capabilities of promising domestic submarines of moderate displacement, it is necessary, first of all, to consider and focus on the scientific and technical groundwork of Project 677 "Lada".

Despite the dramatic history of creation and the big failure to meet the deadlines for the 677 project, it still has significant potential, including for the future.

However, the issue of anaerobic non-nuclear power plant is acute. Replacing traditional lead-acid batteries with lithium-ion ones also seems to be an ambiguous solution at the current stage (including taking into account the real prospects for more powerful and safer batteries). In any case, these options give any significant range under water only at low speeds (that is, low search performance).

At the same time, the submarine project 677 has a powerful hydroacoustic complex (SAC), and the use of this SAC on a low-noise carrier with a significant search speed is of great interest. This requires a sufficiently powerful nuclear power plant (AUE). At the same time, the optimal task seems to be the optimization of the parameters precisely by the maximum value of the low-noise speed. Here the situation is quite real that the “line of 20 knots” of a low-noise search line cannot be taken. But even 15 nodes will be a very, very good result.

Taking into account the expediency of using unified and used units, it makes sense to consider the possibility of using serial turbine generators (TG) with the 4th generation nuclear submarines.

A dilemma immediately arises: with the installation of one (TG) or two?

Taking into account the cost factor and the allocation of the maximum volumes of a small case for acoustic protection means, the most interesting would be the use of one TG. At the same time, it is obvious that for the "large variants" of the 677 project, it will obviously have insufficient capacity (one TG). In this regard, it makes sense to consider the possibility of using an NPP (with one TG) for the "small Lada" variants of the "Amur-950" project of a significantly smaller displacement.


Variants of the Amur project (http://ckb-rubin.ru/ ), hypothetical AEU units are conventionally marked in red.

Here it is advisable to "leave out the type of reactor".

The options are very different, including the use of a water-moderated "monoblock" with a high level of natural circulation of the coolant or LMC reactor.

Speaking about the Lada-Amur project, it is necessary to note the possibility of equipping it with very powerful weapons (including the Onyx and Zircon anti-ship missiles, even on the Amura-950 variant).

A solution that provides a large ammunition load for weapons and small-caliber anti-torpedoes is to place them in the outboard launchers in the volumes of the main ballast tanks, including the aft ones, implemented on some recent projects of small submarines SPBMT "Malachite".


On the one hand, for a nuclear submarine operating under the ice, anti-ship missiles "seem to be unnecessary." However, the situation may change. And even a few "Zircons" on a secret mobile carrier are a threat that the enemy cannot ignore during surface operations.

In addition, the correct technical formulation of missile launchers should consist in the creation of a universal launcher - a cargo container, into which not only anti-ship missiles, but also mines, deployable means of lighting the underwater situation can be loaded. And the "dimensions of Onyx" allow you to place a combat submarine with very high performance and capabilities.

At the same time, the task of delivering powerful strikes against ground targets (which requires a large number of cruise missiles) can also be solved by small nuclear submarines. Provided they are equipped with a "tactical backpack" - a hinged container with weapons (with a corresponding speed limit).

conclusions


1. The construction of obsolete diesel-electric submarines for ocean theaters, taking into account the development of the enemy's anti-submarine warfare means, is "a mistake worse than a crime."

2. An effective solution is to create as soon as possible and with a reasonable limitation of the requirements and cost of the project option 677, as a small nuclear submarine.

3. This option will have many times greater efficiency than the Project 885 (M) nuclear submarine in duel situations and the Arctic.

4. Failure to meet the deadlines for the creation of the 4th generation nuclear submarines and the modernization of the 3rd generation nuclear submarines are the most serious problems of the 885 Ash project.

In this connection, the question arises of the need for a deep and objective analysis of the situation and the real achievements and problems of our multipurpose nuclear submarines.

And including the search for alternative ways of developing multipurpose submarines-nuclear submarines of the Navy.
Author:
194 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mordvin 3
    Mordvin 3 17 February 2021 04: 49
    +2
    In short, you need to "understand and accept" ...

    Inspired by ...
    1. 2534M
      2534M 17 February 2021 05: 53
      +1
      Quote: Mordvin 3
      Inspired by ...

      there is "something like that"
      1. 2534M
        2534M 17 February 2021 06: 47
        +6
        Quote: 2534M
        there is "something like that"

        minus -
        Misha on the screen is at least HONEST
        unlike "all sorts of dorofeyevs" (and especially their "puppeteers")
        1. GTYCBJYTH2021
          GTYCBJYTH2021 17 February 2021 07: 16
          -32%
          Quote: 2534M
          Quote: 2534M
          there is "something like that"

          minus -
          Misha on the screen is at least HONEST
          unlike "all sorts of dorofeyevs" (and especially their "puppeteers")

          There is an abundance of scribble in the subject, but there is no essence ..... Glory to God, not submarine in the comments and overfloat ...... And about "duel" battles in the Arctic, these are fantasies of Muscovite scribblers, both from the authorities and from , supposedly, their bohemians ... negative
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. Aag
                  Aag 17 February 2021 19: 27
                  +2
                  Quote: 2534M
                  Quote: GTYCBJYTH2021
                  Have your face on the floor, citizen, dipped,

                  BUNNY, and for this nonsense you can bring at least one proof? eh?
                  Quote: GTYCBJYTH2021
                  ... And you will distinguish, people, a bollard from a warhead, and a scupper from a sluice ... and how they differ and what is the task.

                  throw beads??? in front of the notorious bunny who is NOBODY and HIS NAME?
                  Quote: GTYCBJYTH2021
                  And what is the spire and who is the windlass ...

                  BUNNY, I love bunny in the HOT
                  AFTER HUNT
                  gray and white
                  but with "colored" everything is much shorter for me - and the apercut here is "the main option"

                  Excuse me generously, -not "moreman", although the spire (in a broad sense, and in a narrowly specialized one) from the windlass, perhaps, I can distinguish ...
                  I don’t want to offend anyone, but it looks like you right off the bat, in a gait, are setting a non-constructive vector for discussing the article ...
                  To the author, - thanks again, health, energy in difficult (IMHO: necessary WORK, - to stir the swamp) !!!
                  hi
                  I take off my hat again!
                  (So, in the meantime, not everything is smooth with us, and with those types of troops (Strategic Missile Forces) on which the last hopes are pinned (and unusual tasks - "the Stalin Strait," the whole world in dust ", etc.) ...
                  ... Only there are no such truth-fighters there (in a good sense of the word).
                  1. GTYCBJYTH2021
                    GTYCBJYTH2021 18 February 2021 07: 23
                    -5
                    BUNNY, I love bunny in the HOT
                    AFTER HUNT
                    gray and white
                    but with "colored" everything is much shorter for me - and the apercut here is "the main var
                    Are you a kitchen boxer? And you do not love women, men who fry you on their hunt ... Do not write to me, do not need ...
              2. The comment was deleted.
          2. strannik1985
            strannik1985 17 February 2021 07: 54
            +10
            You shouldn't be like that, the Issex exercises are held every two years, they were held in 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020.
            https://andrej-kraft.livejournal.com/19383.html
          3. smart ass
            smart ass 17 February 2021 08: 19
            +5
            Chet did not understand what is the point of limiting himself in size if the power plant is enough in abundance?
            1. Skay
              Skay 17 February 2021 09: 23
              +4
              what's the point of limiting yourself in size

              the cost of dimensions per unit.
              1. Aerodrome
                Aerodrome 17 February 2021 13: 14
                +4
                the mess, as I understand it, does not end ...
                1. bayard
                  bayard 18 February 2021 00: 03
                  0
                  Quote: Aerodrome
                  the mess, as I understand it, does not end ...

                  He only approached his apogee.
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 17 February 2021 16: 46
          +6
          What is wrong with the author in the article? Usually they switch to discussing the personality of the author when they have nothing more to say.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A 17 February 2021 16: 58
          +6
          Quote: Oden280
          The author of the article is the main whiner on this site. And the most interesting thing is that he tries to judge the problems on the basis of the open press. Not having a professional understanding of the things being discussed, he fancies himself the ultimate truth.


          Those. do you think that "Mina" - does not know about the submarine and the weapons of this very submarine?
          Can you google who mina is?

          And the fact that he gives open sources - so why should you dig an article of treason yourself?
          In terms of the duty of work and service, he has enough knowledge knowingly having a state secret.
          1. Oden280
            Oden280 18 February 2021 03: 43
            -1
            I think that he very skillfully distorts facts and treats the material too superficially. And if he once served somewhere (dismissed from the service in August 1989), then good specialists are not released from the service. Yes, and decency on the forums does not differ.
            1. Revival
              Revival 26 February 2021 16: 01
              0
              So, will you argue that the GVP 2020 is completed, and not about ..., and we received 8 pl as planned?
        4. timokhin-aa
          17 February 2021 18: 15
          +3
          And where is the author wrong?
          1. georg 2
            georg 2 17 February 2021 20: 13
            +1
            And where is the author wrong?

            In the conclusions. The article is about everything, in terms of analyzing the prospects for the construction of submarines and at the same time about nothing. Russia needs both diesel submarines and nuclear submarines. And development will go exactly in these two directions, because we have where to use both submarines. They do not replace each other, they complement each other. It is clear that the author believes that creating a small reactor and sticking it into the DPL body is a trifling matter, and the profit is huge. But this is just in fantasy. In real life, everything is far from simple, especially if we consider such an idea as a whole, taking into account the operation and the creation of the appropriate infrastructure.
            1. timokhin-aa
              17 February 2021 20: 16
              +4
              It seems to me that you attributed to Klimov what he really did not write.
              The question is that we do not have nuclear submarines adequate to the threats now, moreover, the Ash will completely gobble up all the money that can only be scrapped for the underwater component of MSON.

              As a result, there is a need for a budget PLA. That's what the article is about, not what you wrote.
              1. bayard
                bayard 18 February 2021 15: 16
                +1
                Greetings Alexander hi ... And yet the idea to make MAPL out of Amur does not look very realistic. First, do we have nuclear power plants of such dimensions and power available?
                Taking into account the constructive and radar protection.
                If there is only one nuclear reactor, what will be used as an auxiliary power plant? If it is a diesel engine, then it will also require space and a supply of fuel, and this is VI and volumes. So it is hardly reasonable to dream of such a submarine in VI less than 2500 - 3000 tons.
                And with "Ash" ... yes, they have already been laid, they are being completed and fine-tuned ... just to avoid new bookmarks so expensive and unsuccessful ... And in no case should you allow bookmarks of the "Hasok-Laek" series. Instead of them, it is necessary to build normal small-sized MAPLs in VI 3000 - 5000 tons - a kind of analogue of Project 945 in a new iteration.
                But if it suddenly turns out that Rosatom HAS such a compact reactor capable of being installed in a Lada ... then it's really worth the risk.
                Otherwise, it is again extended in time ROC with amendments and wishes during the development and construction of the head.

                But it is precisely the topic of replacing "Husky-Laiki" with a new iteration 945 in the plans of the Ministry of Defense / Navy that needs to be pedaled. And this must be done right now.
              2. georg 2
                georg 2 20 February 2021 02: 20
                +1
                1. Construction of obsolete diesel-electric submarines for ocean theaters, taking into account the development of the enemy's anti-submarine warfare means, is "a mistake worse than a crime."

                Why do we have no others for ocean theaters? Why exactly obsolete, who needs them? We need modern DPLs to solve certain problems. They have been and will be built, especially since they have a good export potential.
                2. An effective solution is to create as soon as possible and with a reasonable limitation of the requirements and cost of the variant of the project 677, as a small nuclear submarine.

                Any nuclear submarine will be developed from a certain groundwork. Nobody builds these boats from scratch. For this, there must be an order from the MO. Nobody will develop the nuclear submarine on its own initiative, it's an expensive pleasure. There will be an order, there will be an effective solution to this problem within a given time frame (although unlikely) and with a reasonable limitation of requirements and cost (never fulfilled). A cheap and efficient submarine is always better than an expensive and ineffective one. This is commonplace.
    2. Machito
      Machito 18 February 2021 14: 53
      +1
      Quote: mordvin xnumx
      In short, you need to "understand and accept" ...

      Inspired by ...

      Rospilnaya activity of USC is beyond my understanding. Bearded man.
  2. Thrifty
    Thrifty 17 February 2021 05: 06
    +3
    Maxim, so the torpedo Fizik 2 was tested and adopted, and in addition, the small nuclear submarine will have a lower autonomy and range. ... First, you need to firmly decide whether such a submarine is needed by the fleet, and not by industry, which builds ordinary submarines with a long delay, constantly disrupting the state order.
    1. 2534M
      2534M 17 February 2021 05: 59
      +9
      Quote: Thrifty
      so the torpedo Fizik 2 was tested and put into service

      THERE IS NO PHYSICS-2
      IT'S FAKE

      Quote: Thrifty
      small nuclear submarines will have less autonomy and cruising range.

      the autonomy of the nuclear submarine is determined not by the displacement, but by the physiology
      (3 months maximum, and then problems begin)
      1. Aag
        Aag 17 February 2021 19: 30
        +1
        Quote: 2534M
        Quote: Thrifty
        so the torpedo Fizik 2 was tested and put into service

        THERE IS NO PHYSICS-2
        IT'S FAKE

        Quote: Thrifty
        small nuclear submarines will have less autonomy and cruising range.

        the autonomy of the nuclear submarine is determined not by the displacement, but by the physiology
        (3 months maximum, and then problems begin)

        What do you mean by the concept of "physiology" in relation to the topic under discussion?
      2. bayard
        bayard 18 February 2021 00: 15
        +1
        What is the approximate time frame for developing and obtaining such an MAPL?
        Is there a suitable reactor or will Rosatom have to develop it?
        Is the Lada's hull too small for an MAPL, is its size enough for a nuclear power plant with shielding and a turbine generator?
        In the pictures, the dimensions of the nuclear power plant look convincing, but not too optimistic. Will the radiation protection be sufficient?
        It still seems to me that VIs of 2500 - 3000 tons would be more optimal for MAPLs, and the BC could be increased to 24 units. ... But if the proposed version in the dimensions of "Cupid" and good serialization succeeded ... it would be a song.
  3. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 17 February 2021 05: 06
    +5
    I understand that if you do not chase speed, then a compact but "toothy" nuclear submarine is quite possible.
    1. 2534M
      2534M 17 February 2021 06: 00
      +5
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      if you do not chase speed, then a compact but "toothy" nuclear submarine is quite possible.

      especially if its deficiency is quite possible to compensate for the WEAPON
      1. Aag
        Aag 17 February 2021 20: 46
        0
        Quote: 2534M
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        if you do not chase speed, then a compact but "toothy" nuclear submarine is quite possible.

        especially if its deficiency is quite possible to compensate for the WEAPON

        Well, the author has been fighting for the "weapon" for a long time.
        IMHO-reasonably. Success !!! hi
    2. DrEng527
      DrEng527 17 February 2021 14: 33
      +3
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      I understand that if you do not chase speed,

      low-noise speed is important for most nuclear submarine tasks, except for AB races hi
  4. The comment was deleted.
    1. 2534M
      2534M 17 February 2021 06: 04
      +7
      Quote: sergo1914
      Another whining of professional whiners.

      Monsieur, could you find for YOUR usual whining another place?
      1. sergo1914
        sergo1914 17 February 2021 06: 48
        -9
        Quote: 2534M
        Quote: sergo1914
        Another whining of professional whiners.

        Monsieur, could you find for YOUR usual whining another place?


        What for? A whining topic. I whine here. Or are only the elite whining here? Navy retirees who do not have a nondisclosure agreement. They have no idea about the real state of affairs, due to the non-admission to information constituting state and military secrets.
        1. 2534M
          2534M 17 February 2021 06: 58
          +7
          Quote: sergo1914
          not having a nondisclosure agreement. Have no idea

          YOU have no idea what it is
          and just STUPID NOETE
          Quote: sergo1914
          having no information about the real state of affairs, due to the non-admission to information constituting state and military secrets.

          Quite recently, people again turned to me with approvals and positions - with the question "what is happening in general!?!?!?" (and a great desire to get specifics and facts on the essence of what is happening (which "for some reason" are NOT in the secret documents))
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. Scharnhorst
                  Scharnhorst 17 February 2021 12: 45
                  +3
                  sergo1914 (Sergey)
                  2534M

                  Guys, can you smack in personal correspondence without obscuring the discussion on the topic? Thank!
                  1. sergo1914
                    sergo1914 17 February 2021 13: 50
                    0
                    Quote: Scharnhorst
                    sergo1914 (Sergey)
                    2534M

                    Guys, can you smack in personal correspondence without obscuring the discussion on the topic? Thank!


                    Ok
            2. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. letinant
                  letinant 17 February 2021 14: 44
                  -4
                  Quote: 2534M
                  Quote: letinant
                  Yes, there are still some amateurish inaccuracies, the so-called, in snipers, "fool's cut"

                  Monsieur Ohfisier lol
                  but name as YOU your "specialty" ("the mouth closed the materiel in the original" - no need)
                  just a couple of very simple questions
                  and it will become clear to everyone what kind of leytEnant is wassat lol

                  BCH-7.
                  1. 2534M
                    2534M 17 February 2021 14: 54
                    +2
                    Quote: letinant
                    BCH-7.

                    How many types of hydrology are there for a low frequency signal?
                    waiting
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
          2. 2534M
            2534M 17 February 2021 14: 38
            0
            Quote: sergo1914
            vyser who

            WHAT YOU CALLED is there https://topwar.ru/user/sergo1914/
            STREAM http://topwar.ru/index.php?do=lastcomments&userid=49448
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
  5. letinant
    letinant 17 February 2021 09: 12
    +5
    The article is just wow. Comparison of blue and round. Two points in the article were especially pleasing:
    The drifting device PTZ "Vist-2" purchased by the Navy cannot be used at depths (shooting) of less than 40 meters. From the point of view of common sense, this is just nonsense.

    (For example, our diesel submarine (diesel-electric submarine) is charging batteries at periscope depth and is attacked by an airplane or submarine ...).
    How, tell me how, the acoustic countermeasure complex will help against the aircraft ?! And any boat on the surface or under the RPA is a target. And this complex is not used at depths less than 40 m, because it is not effective. CURTAIN!

    Second point:
    Large displacement and dimensions (especially height) sharply limit the capabilities and actions of our submarines at shallow depths (up to the complete impossibility of using weapons).

    How, PANCAKE, HOW, are the dimensions of the boat and the ability to shoot connected ?!

    All the same, I finished reading this nonsense and saw this:
    However, those who wrote the corresponding "requirements" proceeded from the fact that for the smallest submarines of the Navy (diesel-electric submarines of project 877), the safe depth (from the ram of a surface ship) was set at 40 meters. Finding the submarine between the periscope and safe depth is prohibited by documents.

    AAAAAAAAA !!!!!! Take the pen away from the author! or a keyboard! What nafig battering ram ?! No surface ship commander will ram a boat due to the presence of a GAS bulb in the bow, and in general you can drown your ship in this way. Just as the submarine commander will not climb to a depth of 40 meters in a submerged position due to the design features of the nuclear submarine + it can be seen from the air at such a depth. Proved by Iranian PLO forces in December 2020.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. letinant
        letinant 17 February 2021 10: 40
        +1
        Oooh, this is appagey:
        by the way, NATO tactical instructions, ON THE VERSA, RECOMMENDED A MAXIMUM LONG STAY at periscope depth

        It is for this reason that they create diesel-electric submarines with an air-independent installation, so that they can go under the RPA ?! Read the 1988 book of the Military Literature Publishing House, NATO's PLO. There is indicated the detection distance with the help of radar, diesel-electric submarines under the RDP and with the periscope raised (for memory 40-50 km under the RDP and 12-19 km the periscope is visible). And then there are gas analyzers and what else is there to detect diesel-electric submarines. In addition, under the RDP, the boat cannot urgently submerge (there is a standard: the time for transferring diesel-electric submarines from movement under the RDP to movement under electric motors).

        That is, I am delusional ?! But this text, what's this ?!

        YOU in YOUR CPSH and ARITHMETICS were not taught ???
        For example, the depth of XX meters, ice on top. Torpedoes (OUR) have a "starting bag" with which they stupidly crash into the ground. I'm not talking about the fact that the towed coil of the TU will immediately appear on the ground.

        If you used Roman numerals, then figure 20. The draft of the boat is 8 metro on average, I agree with such a depth, caterpillars and a tower with a gun are more needed. I repeat once again, not a single commander will climb to such a depth (40-60m). The boat is an underwater weapon and the depths of her forest where she can hide. This is not a boat. At such a depth it is visible visually, visible with active sonar, active and passive defense means are ineffective.

        The FACT is that PLA (USA and UK) climb to such depths
        about the fact that in WWII and WWII our diesel-electric submarines climbed generally to depths of less than 20 meters, not to mention

        Show me this fact. But the fact is, the diameter of the Virginia nuclear submarine is 10,4 m + the height of the deckhouse (let it be 5 meters, although I think it is more). TOTAL: 15,5 meters and the depth under the keel is also needed, because there are water intake shafts for cooling the reactor. Learn the construction. Stop talking nonsense.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. letinant
            letinant 17 February 2021 11: 28
            +2
            If you studied then why are you talking nonsense. And the appeal Bunny, Darling, Darling, should not be applied to the interlocutor of the Naval Officer (if you are an officer). Based on your knowledge of the submarine design, I doubt very much that you had anything to do with the submarine at all. And yet, I forgot last time, comparing submarines from the times of WWII and WWII with modern ones, it is tantamount to comparing the T-34 and T-90 and at the same time saying that the T-34 is weak in 2021. The "M" series boats were transported across the country on railway platforms, try to transport at least Project 705 "Lira" now. That's why I say, compare Blue and Round. Therefore, you did not finish anything. Adieu.

            PS The commander said: "We have neighing and that's enough. It's time to get busy." Therefore, write on demand. And if you are given a salary, send translations. wink
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. The comment was deleted.
              1. letinant
                letinant 17 February 2021 14: 43
                -3
                Quote: 2534M
                Quote: letinant
                to the interlocutor of the Naval Officer (if you are an officer)

                Monsieur YOU are not an officer
                YOU are stupid and deceitful verbiage
                Quote: letinant
                "M" series cars were transported across the country on railway platforms, try to transport at least pr. 705 "Lira" now That's why I say, compare Blue and Round

                with this to psychiatrists
                I'm not a doctor

                Do you have at least one argument?
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. Xenofont
                    Xenofont 17 February 2021 15: 54
                    +5
                    Sorry, but in vain you react so violently to the rude speeches of your opponents. I deduced a simple idea, based on life and professional experience, that semi-knowledge is much more dangerous than ignorance, because for a person immersed in a topic, it is absolutely useless to argue with the "educated", an amateur to broaden his horizons on any topic, for obvious reasons.
                    1. Aag
                      Aag 17 February 2021 21: 11
                      +3
                      Quote: Xenofont
                      Sorry, but in vain you react so violently to the rude speeches of your opponents. I deduced a simple idea, based on life and professional experience, that semi-knowledge is much more dangerous than ignorance, because for a person immersed in a topic, it is absolutely useless to argue with the "educated", an amateur to broaden his horizons on any topic, for obvious reasons.

                      A very succinct remark: "semi-knowledge is much more dangerous than ignorance ..."
                      If possible, deepen the topic. Without sarcasm ... (in some cases I notice myself).
                      In general, I did not expect to see (read) a pick in the comments to an article by such an author, on such a topic, on such a site ... address by name, patronymic?
                    2. Xenofont
                      Xenofont 17 February 2021 22: 16
                      +3
                      I understand you and sympathize! We are talking, of course, about individual individuals who, having received some knowledge, believe that they are capable of entering into a fierce polemic with a deep specialist solely for the purpose of self-affirmation. A person who is inquisitive and ignorant will prefer to ask questions without trying to discredit the author.
                    3. Aag
                      Aag 18 February 2021 04: 45
                      0
                      Quote: Xenofont
                      I understand you and sympathize! We are talking, of course, about individual individuals who, having received some knowledge, believe that they are capable of entering into a fierce polemic with a deep specialist solely for the purpose of self-affirmation. A person who is inquisitive and ignorant will prefer to ask questions without trying to discredit the author.

                      I agree.
        2. DED_peer_DED
          DED_peer_DED 17 February 2021 15: 16
          +2
          Quote: letinant
          And the appeal Bunny, Darling, My dear, should not be applied to the interlocutor of the Naval Officer (if you are an officer).

          Monsieur YOU

          Something smelled of cyanosis, an anchor down my throat ...
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 17 February 2021 19: 49
      +3
      Quote: letinant
      there is a standard: the time for transferring diesel-electric submarines from movement under the RDP to movement under electric motors

      Colleague, you are somewhat behind progress: now all modern "diesel engines" with full electric propulsion. Explaining for aviators. This means that their diesel engines are powered by a generator that feeds the HED (single! - underwater and surface running). The only difference is that under water it is powered by AB or VNEU. And under the RDP, he knocks out the AB (at the same time ventilates the compartments through the end ones) and moves according to the scheme: D-G-GED-FFS.
      Therefore, after the command: - "Urgent dive! Boatswain, dive 50 meters!" - Time is spent only on closing the RDP mine, well, and a blow to the ears ... but what about without this !? yes
      Somehow, however, in his youth it was ... And how are you, in aviation ??? bully
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 17 February 2021 23: 37
        +2
        Good evening Boa constrictor, my friend! If not in a hurry, then: stop the diesel engine !, stop the compressor !, close the external air flap and the RDP side valve !, lower the taxiway shaft !, the air pressure and ventilation system to its original position! Basically, everything is done quickly. If you need to very quickly or on the BS, then: urgent dive !, fill in the fast one, well, etc. Arming under the RDP takes more time.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 18 February 2021 09: 26
          +2
          Quote: rudolff
          Good evening Boa constrictor, my friend! If not in a hurry, then: stop the diesel engine !, stop the compressor !, close the external air flap and the RDP side valve !, lower the taxiway shaft !, the air pressure and ventilation system to its original position! Basically, everything is done quickly. If you need to very quickly or on the BS, then: urgent dive !, fill in the fast one, well, etc. Arming under the RDP takes more time.

          Hi Rudolph! fellow
          I did not begin to list all the teams ... Assuming that the VVD is not knocking out, but simply going under the RDP. These are the CEP teams, and then either the first mate or the VO. But everything is correct, and the fur would give you "excellent"!
          And, to be honest, I have already begun to forget something, I began to notice after the operation ... You have an air system, I had a hydraulic system under mid-life ... So, friend, call for flaws ... sad
          1. rudolff
            rudolff 18 February 2021 10: 19
            +1
            No, my friend, what flaws ?! Most often it is: Urgent immersion !, as you said.
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 17 February 2021 20: 09
      +3
      Quote: letinant
      Boat draft 8 meters on average,
      And where did you find such a "fat" diesel engine? She has such a PC diameter! next draft = 6,0m, because superstructure 1,8-2,0 m.
      no commander will climb to such a depth (40-60m).
      Tell this to our Balts!
      At such a depth it is visible visually, visible with active sonar, active and passive defense means are ineffective.
      In Mediterranean - yes ... there the maximum water transparency = 60,0 m. And in the Baltic - only 10 m !!!
      Show me this fact.
      Attack of the Century! 30.01.1945/13/12 Bay of Gdansk, S-16, A.I. Marinesko attacked "V.Gustlof" from the coast, from the NP. Sea depth = XNUMX-XNUMX m. The Germans could not even imagine such insolence: after the explosion of torpedoes, they announced "Air raid!"
      under the keel, After all, there are mines for water intake cooling the reactor. Learn the construction.
      NO COMMENT!!!
      For the author of the post thought about himself correctly:
      Stop talking nonsense.
      AHA.
  • sergo1914
    sergo1914 17 February 2021 10: 13
    -7
    Quote: letinant
    The article is just wow. Comparison of blue and round


    Never mind. On VO there is such a category of author. Xsperds in everything and nothing in particular. It's boring to sit in retirement. So they mold a hunchback.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. timokhin-aa
      17 February 2021 11: 17
      +6
      And how it really is then, please the audience.
      1. sergo1914
        sergo1914 17 February 2021 11: 29
        -11%
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        And how it really is then, please the audience.


        First, why?
        Secondly: I have already indicated the categories of knowledge on this topic. I do not want to be known as a talker who divulges the secrets of the state.
        PS Oops, you don't understand this.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. sergo1914
            sergo1914 17 February 2021 11: 45
            -4
            Quote: 2534M
            YOU A LIE WONDER and a slanderer


            Normally, you exploded.
            PS My parents came to Severodvinsk in the early 60s. All my relatives and friends are somehow connected with Sevmash. And now they are working there. But your knowledge of the subject at the Wikipedia level arouses pity and sympathy. Well, the pathos and conceit. To be honest. Current state. February 2021. You don't know shit. You shake some slogans that are not very bad. Everything is lost. Everything drowned. What for?
            1. timokhin-aa
              17 February 2021 12: 31
              +7
              Current state. February 2021. You don't know shit.


              You will specifically ask what interests you for February 2021.
              1. 2534M
                2534M 17 February 2021 12: 41
                -2
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                You will specifically ask what interests you for February 2021.


                no need to kill animals with their feet (for example, the question of why "Kazan" is called "execution")
                1. timokhin-aa
                  17 February 2021 12: 43
                  +6
                  By the way, THE MOST "Los Angeles" (which showed you 38 knots at the time) is now on the capital in Norfolk. I thought it would be cut soon, the old boat, but it looks like ...
            2. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
              2. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 17 February 2021 20: 32
                +1
                Quote: sergo1914
                what else to expect from a hysterical soldier?
                But this, dear, you are in vain ...

                then there will be beating of babies !!!
        2. letinant
          letinant 17 February 2021 12: 59
          -5
          Hello again!
          you are not a chatterbox, you are a deceitful verbalist and a slanderer
          The TOTAL absence of anaerobic facilities in our country and the serial construction of the ancient project 877-636 (which even its Chief Designer considers OUTDATE) are not "secrets" but a PUBLIC FACT

          Germany still uses Project 205, 206 boats on an equal basis with Project 212. Upgrades and uses.
          Let's go back to our early conversations.
          NO, OTHERWISE
          and "under the periscope" it was RECOMMENDED to "sit" not on the RDP

          You don't even remember your words.
          and, by the way, NATO tactical instructions, ON THE VERSA, RECOMMENDED A MAXIMUM LONG-TIME stay at periscope depth

          Let me ask you why they should be at periscope depth and in which NATO country they write such nonsense.
          1. 2534M
            2534M 17 February 2021 13: 07
            0
            Quote: letinant
            Germany still uses Project 205, 206 boats on an equal basis with Project 212. Upgrades and uses.

            fool
            YOU ARE A NARCOLOGIST ALREADY WAITING FOR

            Quote: letinant
            You don't even remember your words.

            no, it’s YOU don’t understand the meaning

            Quote: letinant
            Let me ask you why they should be at periscope depth and in which NATO country they write such nonsense.


            be ahead of aircraft detection
            1. letinant
              letinant 17 February 2021 13: 18
              -2
              Quote: letinant
              Let me ask you why they should be at periscope depth and in which NATO country they write such nonsense.


              be ahead of aircraft detection


              Everyone arrived, I saw a lot, but that the boat went at periscope depth for earlier detection of aviation than the aircraft designed to search for submarines. THIS IS THE FINISH !!! Cabbage is good, but you need to keep meat snacks in the house. You definitely beat "Silent Hunter", but that doesn't make you a leader.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. The comment was deleted.
                3. The comment was deleted.
      2. strannik1985
        strannik1985 17 February 2021 13: 15
        +3
        Germany still uses boats pr.205,206 on an equal footing

        Officially, as part of the Bundesmarine, 6 submarines pr.212A of which the first two entered service on 19.10.2005.
  • timokhin-aa
    17 February 2021 11: 38
    +7
    I "understand" everything.

    You cannot say that something is wrong without knowing how it really is.
    If you do not know how it really is, then you cannot distinguish "whining" from opening up problems dangerous for the country.

    But you are broadcasting something from under the plinth.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. timokhin-aa
        17 February 2021 12: 27
        +5
        Naturally, we will continue to open.
        And you continue to let gases out from under the baseboard.
        To each his own.
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 17 February 2021 20: 23
    +3
    Quote: sergo1914
    I do not want to be known as a talker who divulges the secrets of the state.

    What commendable discretion!
    Only this, in my opinion, does not apply to you: you cannot blab out what you do not know! This is me regarding the FLEET. In the field of microbiology, you are probably a DOCA! One thing is not clear: why argue with those who dedicated their lives to this business !? bully
    1. timokhin-aa
      17 February 2021 21: 58
      +4
      One thing is not clear: why argue with those who dedicated their lives to this business !?


      He does not understand. They all don't understand. Can not.
  • letinant
    letinant 17 February 2021 12: 48
    -7
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    And how it really is then, please the audience.

    Well, in fact, almost all the performance characteristics of modern projects are SS. This is a stupid proposal on your part.
    1. timokhin-aa
      17 February 2021 12: 58
      +6
      The question was broader than the performance characteristics. And the performance characteristics are actually set in the TTZ (secret), open (unclassified) and actually achieved (there are some pretty good leaks).
    2. kepmor
      kepmor 17 February 2021 13: 13
      +4
      visit the naval salon in St. Petersburg or, at worst, look through the "Jane" directory ... I think the veil of secrecy will quickly disappear from the peephole ...
      1. letinant
        letinant 17 February 2021 13: 19
        -7
        Quote: kepmor
        visit the naval salon in St. Petersburg or, at worst, look through the "Jane" directory ... I think the veil of secrecy will quickly disappear from the peephole ...

        Well, you are like a child, honestly.
        1. 2534M
          2534M 17 February 2021 14: 18
          +2
          Quote: letinant
          Well you are like a child

          baby here YOU
          1. letinant
            letinant 17 February 2021 14: 22
            -6
            Quote: 2534M
            Quote: letinant
            Well you are like a child

            baby here YOU

            Are the arguments over? Which is to be expected. Intelligence on the face.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. The comment was deleted.
  • sergo1914
    sergo1914 17 February 2021 13: 36
    -4
    Quote: letinant
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    And how it really is then, please the audience.

    Well, in fact, almost all the performance characteristics of modern projects are SS. This is a stupid proposal on your part.


    They don't understand this.
    1. 2534M
      2534M 17 February 2021 14: 19
      +1
      Quote: sergo1914
      They don't understand this.

      Monsieur, YOU don't understand anything at all
      just ride
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Destiny
    Destiny 17 February 2021 05: 46
    +11
    The Navy needs a lot of things, but it should proceed from funding, and not try to buy a cart for altyn and a cow and grain. There is a desire and opportunity, that is, there is no money.
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 17 February 2021 06: 00
      +2
      Quote: Destiny
      Desire and opportunities, that is, there is no money.

      Let them build for desires with opportunities.
    2. Doccor18
      Doccor18 17 February 2021 09: 25
      +6
      Quote: Destiny
      Desire and opportunities, that is, there is no money.

      There is money. And there are many of them. There are so many that they do not know where to shove, buy green waste paper in the stabilization fund, or other transatlantic papers, so that America will live a little more beautifully ...
      But, just, there is no desire and strict control over the work.

      And regarding the specific project of a new small nuclear submarine, there is no point in this now. Because it is irrational to be scattered over several projects and will take a lot of time. 885 project is not ideal, but boats are being built, albeit slowly. They are expensive, but not so expensive that the budget does not pull them. And 25-30 pennants will not be introduced anyway. God grant that at least 8-10 pieces are built.
    3. Aag
      Aag 17 February 2021 19: 44
      +1
      Quote: Destiny
      The Navy needs a lot of things, but it should proceed from funding, and not try to buy a cart for altyn and a cow and grain. There is a desire and opportunity, that is, there is no money.

      Then, it's in the "Opinions" section ...
      There, for the layman, everything is generally sad (except for uryakolki, of course).
      Here, I hope, - for people who are versed in problems. Head in the sand, - criminal! ...
  • Yuri V.A
    Yuri V.A 17 February 2021 05: 58
    +9
    When creating the Burke destroyer, one of the main tasks was to obtain 2/3 of the Ticonderoga's capabilities for 3/4 of the cost. The result is a successful mass balanced ship. Why not take a similar approach.
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 17 February 2021 06: 01
    +7
    if the whole series of Ruby cost as one Sea Wolf, then instead of one Ash one could have 10-12 small submarines. If you know how to build ..
    Ps Question: Why does an American submarine need 50 homing torpedoes? Whom to drown then? Is that for a civil war
    1. 2534M
      2534M 17 February 2021 06: 09
      0
      Quote: Tlauicol
      Ps Question: Why does an American submarine need 50 homing torpedoes?

      by "thought" wassat "torpedykh teorEtikoF" from "Malachite" (and the "ladies with low social responsibility" (in the ranks of the 1st rank) from any "Central Research Institute of Shipwreck") our submarines should "fill up the sea" with multi-torpedo salvoes "square-nested" method wassat
  • The comment was deleted.
  • jonht
    jonht 17 February 2021 06: 06
    +7
    I think the main problem of our fleet is the lack of Understanding of what quality and quantity they need. A nuclear submarine, you can make a small one, but in terms of armament it will also be "small". There is no understanding of what the Navy actually needs. And apparently they don't need a fig.
    1. Koval Sergey
      Koval Sergey 17 February 2021 07: 08
      +22
      Quote: jonht
      the main problem of our fleet is the lack of Understanding what quality and quantity they need

      Everyone has been talking about this for a long time
      1. Aag
        Aag 17 February 2021 21: 25
        0
        Quote: Koval Sergey
        Quote: jonht
        the main problem of our fleet is the lack of Understanding what quality and quantity they need

        Everyone has been talking about this for a long time

        I repeat, apparently, - and the main thing is for what, - what goals and objectives are we setting ?;
    2. Scharnhorst
      Scharnhorst 17 February 2021 14: 05
      +2
      One of the few articles of the author with which I almost completely agree, except for trifles and pathos.
      A nuclear submarine, you can make a small one, but in terms of armament it will also be "small"

      Using the naval terminology and the desire to hide the indecent reality with loud pamphlets about its exposure in the spirit of the gossips "ayazhegovali!" ...
      But I'm talking about something else. Probably, we can agree with the author that only our nuclear submarines can effectively resist nuclear submarines of potential adversaries in the northern seas. For anti-submarine aviation and surface ships, the fight against them is either impossible or not very effective, and the submarines are on an equal footing. Perhaps, realizing the low effectiveness of our submarine anti-submarine weapons (according to the author's publications), the fleet management orders boats with a large ammunition load (by analogy with PMV artillery from hundreds of 1-2 shells and will hit the target) in order to use volley fire instead of a sniper shot with one ammunition ... Modern nuclear submarines of opponents are very expensive pleasure and a rather secretive product, so if our small nuclear submarine with an insignificant ammunition load in one campaign was worthy to drown at least one enemy submarine, then the crew could pierce the tunic for orders, and the commander could bust to his homeland during his lifetime!
      There is no understanding of what the Navy actually needs. And apparently they don't need a fig.

      Totally agree with you. And to paraphrase the bald character from the movie "Old New Year": they would only need wider flares, gold aiguillettes and daggers to open beer ... drinks
    3. Aag
      Aag 17 February 2021 19: 52
      0
      Quote: jonht
      I think the main problem of our fleet is the lack of Understanding of what quality and quantity they need. A nuclear submarine, you can make a small one, but in terms of armament it will also be "small". There is no understanding of what the Navy actually needs. And apparently they don't need a fig.

      Sorry for the of top, but it looks like this problem is inherent not only to the Fleet, but to the entire office under the brand of the Russian Federation ... How can you set tasks without formulating goals ?!
  • Runway
    Runway 17 February 2021 06: 16
    0
    The idea outlined in the article is absolutely sound. As a person far from the fleet, the question arose - how far is it possible to re-equip existing DPL hulls for nuclear power plants.
    Or is it easier to sculpt from scratch?
    1. 2534M
      2534M 17 February 2021 06: 19
      +5
      Quote: WFP
      Or is it easier to sculpt from scratch?

      full-fledged - of course with "almost from scratch" it's easier (of course, on the backlog of 677)
      because on the same 877 there is not even electrochemical regeneration of air
      however, even 877 (636) "atomic battery" ("external") is still needed - FOR A SPECIAL PERIOD, but there "the smoke will be thinner" - 5 nodes will already be very good
      1. Runway
        Runway 17 February 2021 06: 28
        +1
        Thank. Yes, a "battery" would be great (so as not to shine under the urdp).
        1. 2534M
          2534M 17 February 2021 06: 44
          +5
          Quote: WFP
          Yes, a "battery" would be great (so as not to shine under the urdp).

          There is a GAME, and very good
          but "all the steam" goes away "to the whistle" SCAM of the "Status-6" type ...
          1. Runway
            Runway 17 February 2021 06: 51
            +7
            Well, in my former, not very technologically advanced "conservatory" there is also a lot of "artistic whistle".
            Sailors need a Tug capable of demonstrative communication in the Arbat VO.
            Thank you for the article.
    2. Koval Sergey
      Koval Sergey 17 February 2021 07: 10
      +19
      Quote: WFP
      to what extent it is possible to re-equip the existing DPL hulls for nuclear power plants.

      There is no point in touching existing cases
      1. 2534M
        2534M 17 February 2021 07: 28
        +1
        Quote: Sergey Koval
        There is no point in touching existing cases

        more than there is
        if it "flames" with the same Japan, then the diesel-electric submarines of the Pacific Fleet (including the newest 6363) - DEATHERS
        1. Aag
          Aag 17 February 2021 20: 15
          0
          Quote: 2534M
          Quote: Sergey Koval
          There is no point in touching existing cases

          more than there is
          if it "flames" with the same Japan, then the diesel-electric submarines of the Pacific Fleet (including the newest 6363) - DEATHERS

          So ... this ... We have, according to BU (Combat Regulations), - all suicide bombers come out. The main thing is to complete the BZ, BP (Task, Order) ... Next, to Paradise ... Air Defense, Airborne Forces, Strategic Missile Forces, Navy ... Sorry, videoconferencing, SSO, in LANs, another topic. Yes! Another RHBZ !! That and the "civilian", apparently, should have enough work. Well, in the case of a big hipish, they will be the chroniclers of the end of the next (? ) civilization))), (((.
      2. Runway
        Runway 17 February 2021 07: 43
        +1
        Half a century ago, mobile nuclear power plants (TPP-1, etc., Pamir) were born. To solve the problem, even if (roughly speaking) fastening the diesel engine to the body (interbody space, cgb, but at least an "influx" hump is not my strong point, I can admit) an analogue of a mobile TPP - to increase the survivability of a diesel engine at least.
  • aars
    aars 17 February 2021 07: 35
    -1
    Replacement of traditional lead-acid batteries with lithium-ion ones also seems to be an ambiguous decision at the current stage (including taking into account the real prospects for more powerful and safer batteries).
    Why?
    Nothing but pluses is visible.
    There will be new ones - so we will replace, there are no restrictions on the layout of the batteries.
    1. 2534M
      2534M 17 February 2021 07: 47
      +1
      Quote: aars
      Nothing but pluses is visible.

      IT'S EVERYTHING TO CHARGE THEM
      DG
      IN Above water or UNDER RDP
      Quote: aars
      There will be new ones - so we will replace, there are no restrictions on the layout of the batteries.

      but there are restrictions on the EES of ships
      significantly complicating the use of new batteries without serious alteration of the EPS (and this is often the replacement of trunk cables)
    2. ironic
      ironic 18 February 2021 15: 41
      -2
      Lithium batteries are an appropriate level of safety, their safety, otherwise the explosion of a battery of such capacity could be cleaner than a torpedo explosion.
  • Andrei Nikolaevich
    Andrei Nikolaevich 17 February 2021 08: 01
    +5
    The article is interesting and very alarming. With regard to the capabilities of the fleet in the Arctic, it turns out that the Arctic may turn out to be the second "Crimea6" just the opposite?
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 17 February 2021 08: 25
    +9
    All this mess with the PL, and with the NK, comes from impunity.
    No one is responsible for planning and execution correctly
    plans. Honestly, this "Ash" is not clear to me ... Why do we need
    this fool, and even in this performance? Who's fooling whose brains?
    1. timokhin-aa
      17 February 2021 11: 38
      +4
      TTZ signed for it by Gorshkov and it was intended to replace the 949 project, this is a SSGN in fact.
      1. Shopping Mall
        Shopping Mall 17 February 2021 11: 59
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        TTZ signed for it by Gorshkov and it was intended to replace the 949 project, this is a SSGN in fact.


        Does it make sense to make three different submarines - SSBNs, SSGNs and SSNs? At least SSBNs and SSGNs can be unified. Those same 949 do not differ much from 955 in size, so they would make the "killer of aircraft carriers" 955K. Again, the American experience, SSGN based on Ohio.
        1. timokhin-aa
          17 February 2021 12: 26
          +5
          That's a moot point.
          It is possible to unify by subsystems in different cases, but in general tact. requirements for SSGN and SSBN are different.
          This refers to the SSGN, capable of striking surface targets and not just launching "Caliber".
          1. Shopping Mall
            Shopping Mall 17 February 2021 13: 21
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            That's a moot point.
            It is possible to unify by subsystems in different cases, but in general tact. requirements for SSGN and SSBN are different.
            This refers to the SSGN, capable of striking surface targets and not just launching "Caliber".


            So can the requirements be corrected? If we are talking about attacking AUG or KUG, then the optimal solution is to strike from the maximum possible distance with an external control center. In this case, the number of anti-ship missiles in a salvo will play an important role.

            The base SSBN has secrecy, and if not, then the question of building the SSBN itself is already a question. The volumes required to accommodate a significant nomenclature of anti-ship missiles are available, the SJSC seems to be also worthy.

            What is there in the minuses, less mobility / maneuverability, low-noise speed? But is this so critical for the SSGN acting as an element of the system, and not as an independent "hunter-killer"?
            1. timokhin-aa
              17 February 2021 13: 22
              +6
              Here the question is that the very concept of SSGN needs to be rethought.
    2. Aag
      Aag 17 February 2021 20: 31
      +1
      Quote: Bez 310
      All this mess with the PL, and with the NK, comes from impunity.
      No one is responsible for planning and execution correctly
      plans. Honestly, this "Ash" is not clear to me ... Why do we need
      this fool, and even in this performance? Who's fooling whose brains?

      '... All this mess with the PL, and with the NK, comes from impunity.
      No one is responsible for planning and execution correctly
      plans. "
      Narrowly applied, apparently, so ...
      If it's wider, it's like that everywhere! Regarding the Fleet (by no means only), this is a consequence of the general approach (financing, personnel policy, economics) ... I want to howl.
      We saw a greater collapse. But there were reasons for that. Obvious, partly objective. And now, I think, a number of vital problems could have been avoided by moderating the appetites of the "servants of the people" (although this term has ALREADY become obsolete, you understand me) ... hi
  • Shopping Mall
    Shopping Mall 17 February 2021 08: 27
    +7
    The construction of submarines based on diesel-electric submarines / nuclear submarines can be very promising. Such a possibility was considered back in the USSR, and now the technological capabilities for automation and reduction of the size of equipment have grown significantly, including in the nuclear power industry.

    I considered this topic in the article:
    Nuclear reactor for NNSL. Will “Poseidon” lay Dollezhal's egg?
    https://topwar.ru/157454-jadernyj-reaktor-dlja-napl-otlozhit-li-posejdon-jajco-dollezhalja.html

    The best solution would be a unified project:
    1. With a small-sized nuclear reactor for the Russian Navy.
    2. With VNEU or an additional package of lithium / other batteries for export, as well as for the Black Sea Fleet, possibly for the Baltic Fleet.
  • d4rkmesa
    d4rkmesa 17 February 2021 08: 43
    +2
    Plus a lot. Unfortunately, there is no one to do it already. For USC it would be a shot in the leg.
  • Aviator_
    Aviator_ 17 February 2021 08: 52
    +4
    It should also be noted here that the best anaerobic installation for submarines is atomic. And accordingly, the feasibility of building diesel-electric submarines for our ocean-going fleets (Northern Fleets and Pacific Fleets) has long been very doubtful. For even with a low power of a nuclear power plant, diesel-electric submarines with it will have many times greater efficiency.

    An interesting paragraph of the article. The fact that the nuclear submarine does not require battery charging is obvious. The fact that diesel-electric submarines will be less effective in the ocean theater than nuclear submarines is quite possible, although the noise of nuclear submarines is higher. But what the last sentence means - why suddenly diesel-electric submarines have greater efficiency - is unclear. The last proposals contradict each other. The article is chaotic.
    1. jonht
      jonht 17 February 2021 09: 09
      +2
      The nuclear submarines and diesel-electric submarines have different capabilities and tasks, which was originally laid down in them. The diesel-electric submarines are mainly tasked with protecting the bases of the fleet, while nuclear submarines have the protection of strategists and hunting on enemy communications. Therefore, for diesel-electric submarines, the low speed of the underwater economic course of 5 knots. not critical, but for a nuclear submarine it is necessary in the region of 20 knots. low-noise running speed and maximum speed not lower than 35 knots. to detach from when following.
      1. 2534M
        2534M 17 February 2021 10: 09
        0
        Quote: jonht
        Diesel-electric submarines basic task - protection of the bases of the fleet

        why did you decide this?
        in SPM our diesel-electric submarines (and the squadron - as part of the brigades) what "bases were they guarded"?
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 17 February 2021 11: 52
          +2
          Quote: 2534M
          Quote: jonht
          Diesel-electric submarines basic task - protection of the bases of the fleet

          why did you decide this?
          in SPM our diesel-electric submarines (and the squadron - as part of the brigades) what "bases were they guarded"?

          Yes, it is clear that not only for the protection of bases ...
          But it will be difficult to replace all submarines with nuclear-powered ships. In the Baltic and Black Sea regions, nuclear-powered ships are redundant, and the infrastructure will need to be established for two more fleets ...
          1. 2534M
            2534M 17 February 2021 12: 02
            0
            Quote: Doccor18
            In the Baltic and Black Sea regions, nuclear-powered ships are redundant, and the infrastructure will need to be established for two more fleets ...

            he's not talking about them
      2. Aag
        Aag 17 February 2021 20: 39
        0
        Quote: jonht
        The nuclear submarines and diesel-electric submarines have different capabilities and tasks, which was originally laid down in them. The diesel-electric submarines are mainly tasked with protecting the bases of the fleet, while nuclear submarines have the protection of strategists and hunting on enemy communications. Therefore, for diesel-electric submarines, the low speed of the underwater economic course of 5 knots. not critical, but for a nuclear submarine it is necessary in the region of 20 knots. low-noise running speed and maximum speed not lower than 35 knots. to detach from when following.

        Thanks for the explanations! Logic, it seems, and so prompted (not special.) And the Author expressed an opinion on this matter, -compensation with weapons ...
    2. 2534M
      2534M 17 February 2021 10: 08
      0
      Quote: Aviator_
      the last sentence - why suddenly diesel-electric submarines have greater efficiency - is unclear. The last proposals contradict each other. The article is chaotic.

      WE READ CAREFULLY:
      For even with a low power of a nuclear power plant diesel-electric submarines with it will have many times greater efficiency
      1. Vovanya
        Vovanya 17 February 2021 13: 26
        0
        For some reason, nothing is said about Stirling, although there are precedents for its use on submarines. True, everyone is following the "Swedish" path - not at all the best, but with an appropriate design, competently organizing the thermodynamic process, its specific effective efficiency will be higher than the listed power plants. In addition, it is multi-fuel and for various tasks can be designed to operate both from the heat of a nuclear installation and from simple safe chemical components with an exothermic reaction.
        1. 2534M
          2534M 17 February 2021 14: 15
          +2
          Quote: Vovanya
          For some reason, nothing is said about Stirling, although there are precedents for its use on submarines.

          low aggregate power
      2. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 17 February 2021 18: 37
        +1
        diesel-electric submarines with it

        I read it carefully. Complaints about the text remained. If you make a nuclear submarine of small displacement, like a diesel-electric submarine, then all the same it will not become a diesel-electric submarine from this. Should have written: a small-displacement nuclear submarine. "And here -" options for diesel-electric submarines with her. "If the reactor is installed, then it will not be a diesel-electric submarine. Written extremely sloppy.
  • stalkerwalker
    stalkerwalker 17 February 2021 10: 59
    -7
    There are too many lured authors here. They have one task - to be noted by their own, if not delirium, then certainly by their incompetence.
    1. 2534M
      2534M 17 February 2021 11: 11
      +2
      Quote: stalkerwalker
      There are too many lured authors here. They have one task - to be noted by their own, if not delirium, then certainly by their incompetence.

      how YOU wrote it self-critically! apparently about these opuses:
      https://topwar.ru/88123-folklor-kak-lakmusovaya-bumazhka-istoricheskoy-pamyati.html
      https://topwar.ru/46710-chto-sluchilos-s-zhurnalistikoy.html
      you can see YOU over them for a long time pushed lol
  • Undecim
    Undecim 17 February 2021 11: 35
    +5
    An interesting situation. The author calls for the construction of nuclear submarines instead of diesel submarines.
    And serious American naval strategists believe that the US Navy needs an urgent increase in numbers through the construction of diesel submarines.
    I suspect that the author will call them "bunnies" and send them to a psychiatrist with their theories, but the question is interesting.
    1. 2534M
      2534M 17 February 2021 11: 40
      +1
      Quote: Undecim
      And serious American naval strategists believe that the US Navy needs an urgent increase in numbers through the construction of diesel submarines.

      fool
      the next RAVE wassat
      unrelated to reality
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 17 February 2021 12: 00
        0
        I thought that the head of the department of naval strategy at US Naval War College gave exceptional delirium to the mountain. Convincing reasoning.
        1. 2534M
          2534M 17 February 2021 12: 22
          +3
          Quote: Undecim
          I thought so,

          it's not YOUR
          better buy yourself a trampoline
          Quote: Undecim
          the head of the department of naval strategy of the US Naval War College gave exceptional delirium to the mountain

          unlike YOU, I know the difference between their open and closed documents
          and it can be VERY great
          A diesel-electric submarine for the US Navy is not even delirium, but delirium in a cube
    2. Doccor18
      Doccor18 17 February 2021 11: 42
      +4
      Quote: Undecim

      And serious American naval strategists believe that the US Navy needs an urgent increase in numbers through the construction of diesel submarines.

      The United States has NATO, and its members have many quite modern nuclear submarines. So the situation is not so critical for the Americans. Russia has no NATO, no allies ... and is full of hypothetical theaters of war. Where are we without diesels? We are building nuclear submarines in a "teaspoon hour" ...
    3. timokhin-aa
      17 February 2021 12: 28
      +3
      And serious American naval strategists believe that the US Navy needs an urgent increase in numbers through the construction of diesel submarines.


      An example please of such a strategist
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 17 February 2021 12: 42
        +2
        An example please of such a strategist
        https://navaldiplomat.com/the-naval-diplomat/
        A counter question - who wrote the article?
        1. timokhin-aa
          17 February 2021 12: 51
          +4
          Holmes urged to build diesel-electric submarines for the US Navy? Throw off the link please.

          The article was written by Maxim, there is also a signature at the bottom.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 17 February 2021 12: 56
            +2
            there is a signature at the bottom.
            For some reason I remembered a bearded joke about the signature.
            Drop the link please
            https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/09/24/diesel_submarines_the_game_changer_the_us_navy_needs_113832.html
            1. timokhin-aa
              17 February 2021 13: 03
              +4
              Holmes suffered something.
              Or is it some kind of desuha ...
              1. 2534M
                2534M 17 February 2021 13: 08
                +2
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Or is it some kind of desuha ...

                Yeah
                This article originally appeared in the National Interest
            2. The comment was deleted.
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 17 February 2021 13: 10
                0
                and now I will just PUT THE LINK
                1. The comment was deleted.
              2. timokhin-aa
                17 February 2021 13: 12
                +7
                By the way, National Interest is a trash can, but Newport professors are published there regularly.

                There were a couple of funny examples when Lyle Goldstein was getting creepy there, starting from an article by Andrey from Chelyabinsk, and he also reviewed one of my articles.

                I urgently needed to see the money laughing
      2. 2534M
        2534M 17 February 2021 13: 08
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        An example please of such a strategist

        "Hussars to be silent !!!" laughing
        The best SLOVOBLUD now and will "get" to the "banana" lol
  • The comment was deleted.
  • sleeve
    sleeve 17 February 2021 13: 28
    -2
    Why do we need this "little atomic fish"? "Dispel targets" by increasing the number of combat units? Indeed, submarines with conventional power plants are obviously more advantageous for short-range defense. The nuclear submarine is "long arms", strike systems. When reducing the size, you need to observe the financial benefit. If we leave the combat power comparable to the 885 project (better equal to the equivalent of 971 of course, but the 885 "fish" is stuffed with missiles, so from it) then this is: 1. Unlikely, 2. costly in terms of "mechanization". Then it turns out with a price ratio of even 2: 1 (roughly "Ruby"), "one" will turn out with 14-16 weapons, well, let our Russian genius insert 8 more missiles in the mines, or expand the total BZ to 20. All one benefit is not visible. Better to keep 2 branches. And do not form a third.
    1. 2534M
      2534M 17 February 2021 14: 12
      +1
      Quote: sleeve
      Indeed, submarines with conventional power plants are obviously more advantageous for short-range defense.

      THAN?!?!?
      that a plane would come and just kill her?
      or enemy submarines when charging our diesel-electric submarines battery?
      Quote: sleeve
      If we leave the combat power comparable to the 885 project

      YOU GENERALLY READ THE ARTICLE?!?!
      1. sleeve
        sleeve 17 February 2021 14: 55
        +2
        More signs, otherwise you can't hear. Was reading. Are you my post? Estimate the expected short-range defense zone and autonomy of modern diesel-electric submarines. Now the factor of the coastal defense itself, air defense (400 km for the S-400 is conditional) and the range of coastal aviation (where is the AUG against a full-fledged air army). Or are you going to move "near defense" to the Canary Islands? I dare to assure you that the regime of flights over our border sea areas will change dramatically in the event of a ... case. Therefore, once again: where is the article itself, its main idea and "accompanying" and my thought in the comment about "price-quality"? The author over there and "Ruby" recalled the 705 project. And he did everything right. In the past, "less is not cheaper" was absolutely true. And for the French, even "worse" was added. What is even better diesel-electric submarines for short-range defense? Once again I will repeat the thought of the comment-price. 6 or 9 diesel-electric submarines, that is, 2-3 full-fledged regional squads, are currently exactly 2,5 times (although I may be wrong) from "Ash". That is, we have three times fewer platforms for solving a local problem. Well, once again I ask you to note that we are talking about close defense. That is, the Japanese (North), Okhotsk, Barents, Kara, Baltic and Black seas. I mean it.
        1. 2534M
          2534M 17 February 2021 15: 22
          +3
          Quote: sleeve
          Now the factor of the coastal defense itself, air defense (400 km for the S-400 conditionally)

          THAT SUSHIENOVY SMELLED
          despite the fact that:
          1.With SAM for 400 cases until very recently were to put it mildly belay
          now the process has started, but TO EXPORT
          2. The earth is actually round. With all that it implies ...
          Quote: sleeve
          I dare to assure you that the regime of flights over our border sea areas will change dramatically in the event of a ... case.

          YOU TASS "authorized to declare"? Or is the shift supervisor in Holgin?
          Quote: sleeve
          Once again I will repeat the thought of the comment-price. 6 or 9 diesel-electric submarines, that is, 2-3 full-fledged district outfits,

          How do you "intend"?
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 17 February 2021 13: 35
    -1
    As I can see, "our regiment has arrived"))) once argued with citizen Timokhin about the fact that not a single mattress (British, etc.) commander would climb to shallow depths, primarily because of touching love for your skin)))) well, there are still a lot of other reasons. And now, there was another, deep and broad specialist))) author, have you seen the nuclear submarine close up or only in pictures?))))
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. sleeve
        sleeve 17 February 2021 14: 58
        +1
        Oh ... And something is very emotional in principle. Then I will sit with my thoughts in the shade ... Until the AZ of the fallen one is pinched))
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • yehat2
    yehat2 17 February 2021 13: 59
    +2
    I think you can't talk about submarines in terms of small or large
    you need to rely on their functions. For example, we need a multipurpose submarine for patrol for 2-3 weeks for such and such depths and other conditions. Let's call it the near-radius multipurpose.
    From here displacement dances and much more based on current technologies.
    1. 2534M
      2534M 17 February 2021 14: 08
      +2
      Quote: yehat2
      For example, we need a multipurpose submarine for patrol for 2-3 weeks for such and such depths and other conditions. Let's call it the near-radius multipurpose.

      where is the near radius?
      the same "rubis" and went around the world (real, which none of our nuclear submarines did not pass)
      it can be called conditionally "submarine sea battle"
      because along the coast and large ship formations it is worth having a large BC
      although even for a small one it is possible - "backpack" (hinged containers)
      but you can't run with them anymore
      1. Shopping Mall
        Shopping Mall 17 February 2021 15: 00
        +1
        Quote: 2534M
        Quote: yehat2
        For example, we need a multipurpose submarine for patrol for 2-3 weeks for such and such depths and other conditions. Let's call it the near-radius multipurpose.

        where is the near radius?
        the same "rubis" and went around the world (real, which none of our nuclear submarines did not pass)
        it can be called conditionally "submarine sea battle"
        because along the coast and large ship formations it is worth having a large BC
        although even for a small one it is possible - "backpack" (hinged containers)
        but you can't run with them anymore


        A few questions.

        Why is the United States now cutting into the new series of Virginias a compartment for the CD and for the ballistic missile with a hypersonic warhead, making them essentially closer to the Ash (not in technology, but in concept)?

        It is often mentioned that from the point of view of stealth a water jet is better than a propeller, but in fact we have a 955 water cannon, a propeller on Ash, a 677 propeller, a propeller on Ohio, a Seawolf water cannon, in Virginia a propeller in a fairing, Columbia will have a water cannon, Suffren and They shoot a water cannon. It turns out that both we and the United States have water cannon technologies, but they use both? Why?
        1. 2534M
          2534M 17 February 2021 16: 40
          +2
          Quote: AVM
          Virginia Fairing Screw

          no
          water cannon
          Quote: AVM
          It turns out that both we and the United States have water cannon technologies, but they use both? Why?

          the jet has more low-noise speed, but less efficiency at low speeds
          therefore, new submarines come with a water cannon, and diesel-electric submarines with GV
      2. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 17 February 2021 18: 54
        -2
        Masterpiece, but for what did the people of the Hero of the Soviet Union receive, for launching plastic models in a Moscow bathroom?))))
  • yehat2
    yehat2 17 February 2021 14: 06
    0
    Quote: sleeve
    more profitable for short-range defense

    more attention needs to be paid to the average opportunities to be at sea on patrol - conditions of autonomy and habitation of the crew, conditions of requirements for operation and repair, etc.
    After all, the meaning of such submarines is precisely in the patrol, moreover, equipped with powerful sonars capable of at least somehow finding submarines at low speed, and the possibilities of passive reconnaissance and location above the water will probably not be superfluous. At the same time, you need to be able to lie still a lot, and you don't need to pay much attention to maintaining high speed for a long time.
  • Luty
    Luty 17 February 2021 14: 13
    0
    The fact that God is always on the side of large battalions was said by Napoleon - Bonopart.
  • yehat2
    yehat2 17 February 2021 14: 36
    +1
    Quote: 2534M
    "backpack" (hinged containers)
    but you can't run with them anymore

    and who prevents the trailer from being made?
    he will not slow down the boat much, and after shooting it can be thrown.
    moreover, another vessel can deliver it to the desired point
  • Vovanya
    Vovanya 17 February 2021 16: 03
    0
    Quote: 2534M
    low aggregate power

    This is if you build the engine according to the old schemes.
  • demiurg
    demiurg 17 February 2021 17: 54
    0
    Maxim, why not just screw Dollezhal's egg to Warsaw women?
    From traditional fast, good, cheap minimum two will be met.
    There are drawings of the additional reactor compartment, it remains only with the next medium repairs to attach this beauty to the diesel-electric submarine.
    The underwater speed "on the reactor" will of course be low, but higher than on the stirlings, and the batteries remain. Exchange them for silver, because they will be less exploited now. And voila, for 2-3-4 hours a submarine can accelerate to 10-15 knots.
    Varshavyanka still serve at least 20 years. So why not?
    Cupids immediately sharpen under the reactor.
    Of course, I'm a couch genius, but keeping in mind the small resource of the egg, why not make it relatively quick-detachable? Like the submarine got up for repairs, at the same time the reactor was changed. No need to go to Severodvinsk. The reactor can also be taken away on a dry cargo ship.
    P.S. Timokhin is rude. Doesn't know how to argue. This is regardless of his knowledge.
    1. 2534M
      2534M 17 February 2021 18: 32
      +1
      Quote: demiurg
      Maxim, why not just screw Dollezhal's egg to Warsaw women?

      look and compare:

      651E project (two-shaft with "surface contours")

      877 project (single-shaft "drop")
      if 877 is "like 651E" then there will be a sharp deterioration in hydrodynamics + increase in noise
      there are options, but non-trivial

      Quote: demiurg
      keeping in mind the small resource of the egg, why not make it relatively quick-detachable?

      so it should be done
      1. agond
        agond 17 February 2021 20: 07
        +3
        Everyone understands perfectly well that our nuclear submarines are too big for sailing under the ice and in the shallow waters of the Arctic, but at the same time they have built and continue to build two-hull underwater airships. water is frankly poured into boat projects, and in Varshavyanka water is ballast., as much as 40%, and you know it is praised,
  • Usher
    Usher 17 February 2021 20: 08
    -3
    This issue is especially acute against the new multi-position search means for submarines with low-frequency "illumination" of the water area, for which the level of submarine noise is practically irrelevant
    then if noisiness does not matter, so how do amerskie nuclear submarines differ from ours, judging by these words, that ours, that their nuclear submarines are the same? If not, then why write this?
    And so the article is somehow delusional.
    1. timokhin-aa
      17 February 2021 21: 56
      -5
      Are you really that stupid or are you pretending?
      1. Usher
        Usher 17 February 2021 22: 02
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Are you really that stupid or are you pretending?

        Don't be smart. You yourself write that: for "low-frequency" illumination, the noise level of the submarine is practically irrelevant, right? So what is it?
        and the presence of a certain secrecy lag
        ... If there is a lag in stealth from the "low-frequency" illumination, for which the noise level of the submarine does not matter. So what is the contradiction? What kind of lag we are talking about then if our and American submarines are equally detected? Can you build a logical chain in your head?
        1. timokhin-aa
          17 February 2021 23: 00
          -3
          Don't be smart. You yourself write that: for "low-frequency" illumination, the noise level of the submarine is practically irrelevant, right? So what is it?


          This is written by Maxim Klimov. You don't even have enough brains to distinguish two people from each other who have never tried to pass themselves off as one.
          In essence, for low-frequency illumination it really does not matter whether the object has noise or not, these systems allow you to find even an absolutely dead noiseless object.
          But the fact is that only a surface ship can provide illumination strong enough. A weak one can give an active low-frequency buoy. But you need to know where to dump it. A descending helicopter GAS also gives it, but again, a helicopter at a significant distance from the coast can only fly in from a ship.

          Accordingly, you take out NK to the enemy, and there is no illumination. Low noise is again becoming a very significant value. And under the ice, it is critical, and when there is a confrontation between submarines without the support of other forces.

          And Klimov described it quite clearly. It's just that some people just eat in their heads, that's all, but nature did not give them the option to "think".
          1. Usher
            Usher 17 February 2021 23: 07
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Don't be smart. You yourself write that: for "low-frequency" illumination, the noise level of the submarine is practically irrelevant, right? So what is it?


            This is written by Maxim Klimov. You don't even have enough brains to distinguish two people from each other who have never tried to pass themselves off as one.
            In essence, for low-frequency illumination it really does not matter whether the object has noise or not, these systems allow you to find even an absolutely dead noiseless object.
            But the fact is that only a surface ship can provide illumination strong enough. A weak one can give an active low-frequency buoy. But you need to know where to dump it. A descending helicopter GAS also gives it, but again, a helicopter at a significant distance from the coast can only fly in from a ship.

            Accordingly, you take out NK to the enemy, and there is no illumination. Low noise is again becoming a very significant value. And under the ice, it is critical, and when there is a confrontation between submarines without the support of other forces.

            And Klimov described it quite clearly. It's just that some people just eat in their heads, that's all, but nature did not give them the option to "think".

            Well, why should people be misled? After reading the article, I saw several logical inconsistencies, this one of them. Reading this paragraph
            Significant lag behind US Navy submarines in terms of low-noise speed and a certain lag in stealth (this issue is especially acute against new multi-position search engines for submarines with low-frequency "illumination" of the water area, for which the submarine noise level is practically irrelevant).
            comes to mind, just what I wrote above. And what you wrote, the author kept silent. What is a certain lag in stealth? You can say more specifically. I can also say whatever, without examples, etc. And here is the conclusion. Does the author know the documentation? Examples? Situations? Analytics in the end? Just as a constant it gives out "there is a lag". Should I take my word for it?
            1. rudolff
              rudolff 17 February 2021 23: 25
              +5
              The submarine can also use the active path of the SAC for illumination. By analogy, it is like a person with a flashlight. You can see absolutely non-luminous objects in complete darkness. The problem is that a person with a flashlight can be seen even farther than he can see himself. Regarding the SP, this is a loss of stealth. Although, sometimes the use of an active LF path is more than justified.
              The simplest example of a lag in stealth is the lower maximum low-noise course of our submarines. This is if you do not go into the jungle.
              1. timokhin-aa
                18 February 2021 02: 13
                +3
                The question is in frequencies. GAK submarine in the same ranges as towed radiation sources of ship GAS, as far as I know, does not work.
                In addition, this is really a loss of stealth, and active modes with low frequencies are applied already during the battle, as I understand it.
                1. rudolff
                  rudolff 18 February 2021 10: 14
                  +3
                  During the battle, well, or in a threatened situation when it is not possible to detect the enemy in other ways. There should also be personal courage of the commander, such things are not welcome. Yes, all questions are in frequencies. Sonars, echo meters, side-scan sonars, or mine detection can be used relatively safely. The higher the frequency, the faster the attenuation of the sound wave and the shorter the propagation distance. Although, for the unauthorized turning on of the echo sounder on the first BS, I was so fucked up that then for a week I was afraid to touch the flush valve of the toilet bowl. Everything is relative.
                  1. rudolff
                    rudolff 18 February 2021 10: 36
                    +2
                    The most powerful third-party illumination can of course give NK. The problem is that he can highlight not only a possible foe, but also his submarine. Sound LF package to the light bulb from whom and where to reflect.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      18 February 2021 11: 45
                      +1
                      They mostly know who is where. In peacetime, at least for sure. The second point is that they will light up their boat, but will the enemy see it or not?
                      1. rudolff
                        rudolff 18 February 2021 12: 08
                        +1
                        It is highly likely that he will see.
                  2. timokhin-aa
                    18 February 2021 11: 48
                    +1
                    During the battle, or in a threatened situation, when it is not possible to detect the enemy in other ways. There should also be personal courage of the commander, such things are not welcome. Yes, all questions are in frequencies.


                    Maxim explained this topic in the following way - when the enemy throws in an SPDT, the torpedo CLS itself cannot distinguish them from the target, but if it is being guided to the TU at this time, then it is possible to filter out interference and false signals by sending a boat GAK, and in this chaos to determine where the target boat is real, and where is the bait or just through interference to see where the target is, and then lead a torpedo to it on the TR.

                    In an ideal world, of course, where there is a TR and they know how to use it. Well, in the fleets there are craftsmen on the topic "go through the GPA", but there the problem is in the dead TR.
                    1. rudolff
                      rudolff 18 February 2021 12: 19
                      +2
                      In theory, in combat conditions, yes. On practical shooting, exercises, I don't remember this even once. Although ... at the exercises to search for a surface target, I remember the radar was turned on, anyhow to shoot successfully, stealth on the side. Well, these are the features of the power supply unit of our fleet.
          2. S. Viktorovich
            S. Viktorovich 18 February 2021 08: 28
            +1
            A variant of using for illumination and, in general, for PLO purposes, the Poseidon-type vehicles suggests itself.
            1. timokhin-aa
              18 February 2021 09: 00
              +1
              Don't say that in a serious society.
              1. S. Viktorovich
                S. Viktorovich 18 February 2021 15: 17
                0
                The situation considered in the article is "from the past". All this happened in Soviet times ("The Moth", etc.). It was considered correctly, because the situation, by and large, has not changed.
                But, understanding the real balance of forces at sea, it is necessary to look for breakthrough solutions. Let the conditional "Poseidon" go in the wrong direction, but the money has been invested, there is some kind of technique, and the result from it can be obtained in a different plane. It would be good for the authors to move away from the small-town struggle with competitors from the neighboring farm, to reduce the attack of polemics and see the real directions of development.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  18 February 2021 17: 00
                  0
                  The money has not been invested, it has been cut, there is no result, and if it does appear, it will be even worse than if it did not exist.
                  1. S. Viktorovich
                    S. Viktorovich 18 February 2021 17: 34
                    +1
                    The carriers demonstrate that something will have to be put on them, better meaningful.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      18 February 2021 19: 09
                      +1
                      This clearly does not apply to a nuclear torpedo.
                      1. S. Viktorovich
                        S. Viktorovich 18 February 2021 19: 44
                        0
                        Do not consider it as a torpedo. Power-to-weight ratio, control systems, etc. for many useful things you can use.
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        18 February 2021 20: 24
                        +1
                        You fell from the moon.
                        Yes, I have lists of components at the GTZ of this thing with numbers, in principle, a lot is already known about it, and the type of reactor and its life.
                        DO NOT BREAK.
  • AAK
    AAK 17 February 2021 23: 30
    +5
    A serious topic, and two-thirds of the comments are about the showdown between Panikovsky and Balaganov and there is very little constructiveness.
    Taking into account the realities of the probable "partners", as well as the state and priority tasks of our submarine - for the Northern Fleet / Pacific Fleet, a series of at least 12-15 sufficiently compact nuclear submarines is needed in 24-30 years, primarily to protect / accompany their SSBNs and countering enemy nuclear submarines while ensuring the combat deployment of NSNF, especially during a threatened period (the priority of protecting our SSBNs over the destruction of alien the Pacific Ocean Basin);
    Possible characteristics of such a nuclear submarine:
    - displacement - up to 4500t with a length to diameter ratio of 8x1;
    - NPP - water-to-water monoblock (for nuclear reactor with liquid metal coolant, there are no proven projects yet);
    - Implemented electric propulsion (turbine generators without GTZA on GGED);
    - propulsion unit - a water cannon or a low-speed propeller in an annular nozzle, the ability to provide the submarine with a maximum low-noise stroke of 14-17 knots;
    - armament - 6 TA (4 x 533mm and 2 x 324 or x 400mm for anti-torpedoes) and UVP for 8 cells (KR + 1-2 unmanned underwater vehicles for various purposes), total ammunition with UVP - 24-30 units;
    - SAC and BIUS of the 4th generation;
    - crew - 55-60 people. (3 full-fledged watch + command staff, including the possibility of ensuring the fight for survivability);
    The living conditions of the crew and provisions should provide the nuclear submarine with an autonomy comparable to that of the SSBN.
  • Svetlana
    Svetlana 17 February 2021 23: 49
    +3
    Very interesting was the project of the French company "Technikatom" with a monoblock pressurized water reactor with natural circulation along the primary circuit and a turbine generator power of 1 MW, which provided for the Agosta type submarine (the study was done for this project) an underwater speed of about 13 knots (with 100 kW allocated for ship needs). The mass of the reactor with biological shielding was 40 tons, with a height of 4 meters and a diameter of 2,5 meters.

    Russia also has projects for small-sized nuclear reactors. For instance:
    - nuclear reactor (NR) of the Poseidon unmanned vehicle;
    - modular transportable integral power plant "Vityaz", based on a pressurized water-cooled water reactor, with an electric power of 1 MW and a thermal power of 6 MW, weighing no more than 60 tons. The core campaign is 40 hours, the reload frequency is six years, air cooling, with mechanical air circulation. Developed by NIKIET.
    https://integral-russia.ru/2019/05/17/yadernoe-serdtse-neyadernogo-podvodnogo-sudna-protivorechie-ili-surovaya-neobhodimost/
    The mentioned development of NIKIET can also be used in a disk-shaped thermal airship with a diameter of 136m, a height of 36m (volume 341000m3), but the thermal power of the nuclear reactor will have to be increased to 18MW with a temperature difference outside and inside the shell of 100C and a lifting force of 116t.
  • Mikhail Drabkin
    Mikhail Drabkin 18 February 2021 04: 02
    0
    The analysis uses the thesis of the unfulfilled program of deliveries of 8 Ash trees by 2020.
    The feasibility of this was more than doubtful at the time this task was formulated.
    I am an engineer.
    The overwhelming majority of programs for new technology are not feasible if all three key parameters - timing, cost, quality - are constants.
    There are many problems in underwater shipbuilding, and they will never end - after all, this is an advanced branch of the military-industrial complex.
  • ironic
    ironic 18 February 2021 14: 55
    -1
    A couple of questions about western boats. The Centurion project is still more attributed to the early 90s. Maybe the intelligence of the USSR had information about its earlier beginning, but in open sources I did not find any mention of earlier developments. It seems that they began to design the sea wolf in 83 and there were plans to build 29 boats, then they reduced it to 12 and then decided to switch to a more modest project, reducing the series to the initial three. As for the cost of projects, on the one hand, they are growing due to inflation and innovations, on the other, they are getting cheaper due to the large-scale production and unification of at least part of production. I tried to figure out what it turns out in terms of money and came to the conclusion that the 5th block will approach the cost of wolves, taking into account inflation and an approximate calculation of the benefits from unification, but the wolf still remains a more expensive solution and it is not known how much the innovations in its series would additionally cost.
  • svoit
    svoit 18 February 2021 16: 23
    0
    Ash, of course, was a little delayed, but this is the head, the rest will go faster, since there is already a reserve., Maybe 162 will be transferred to the fleet in 2022, and then by boat a year
  • Connor MacLeod
    Connor MacLeod 18 February 2021 17: 00
    +1
    Yes, we are building a 545 project (aka the shortened Ash tree) and that's it! And then we will think about the fifth generation! No time!

  • Connor MacLeod
    Connor MacLeod 18 February 2021 17: 21
    +1
    Well, we also build Lada. repeat
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 18 February 2021 17: 57
    +1
    I support all the conclusions of the respected Maxim Klimov, for tactical purposes the smaller the more compact the weapon, the better, it is more mobile and it will turn out more for the same money, the list of potential manufacturers is wider. For example, if instead of 8 EBRs and cruisers, 20 gunboats with a pair of 305x40 and 50 gunboats of the Koreets type for the destruction of destroyers came to Tsushima (for the same money), then we would defeat the Japanese. Of course a dozen small apl Lada, better than a lone Ash. and release Sevmash for SSBN
    1. agond
      agond 18 February 2021 18: 32
      0
      We look and see in the project 885 Ash a surface displacement of 8600t, underwater 13800t, naturally, questions to the designers and those who issued the design assignment,
      1 Why did you pour so much water into your project as much as 5200 tons, which is 37.7% of the underwater displacement and 60% of the surface displacement?
      2 If you have a length of 130m, the diameter of the hull is 13m, then, together with the wheelhouse, the height will be 20m, for comparison, the height of a five-story building is about 15-16m, how will your airship squeeze under the ice if the average depths of the Laptev and Kara seas are only 50m ,,,?
      There is little information on Laika, but the same scheme with two hulls, the same outer diameter and obviously the same percentage of water in the project.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 18 February 2021 21: 24
        +1
        Quote: agond
        Why did you pour so much water into your project as much as 5200 tons, which is 37.7% of the underwater displacement and 60% of the surface displacement?

        the problem is that it is just too big for tactical tasks
  • Pamir
    Pamir 18 February 2021 21: 44
    0
    I reread the article twice, what to say? Excellent, M. Klimov, at least someone, writes something interesting, in essence. Even if there is someone to object to? Then in his own article, reasonably, without dirt, let them write, BUT reasoned . Respect, those who are to the brim, as they say, even if it is wrong in the little things, Timokhin Alexander of patience, in comments, fights back, plus in the majority. And Alexander's articles are NOT frail. Respectfully. The problems of the Navy, there are NOT problems of the Navy, these are problems state. For the article, respect. So should declare to everyone, for this and respect. Write, write and do not hesitate, support, there are people, write about what no one writes about.
  • Sckepsis
    Sckepsis 18 February 2021 22: 16
    0
    Something I do not recognize the author. There are a lot of dubious statements and conclusions.
  • Evgeny Kirov
    Evgeny Kirov 19 February 2021 11: 17
    -2
    ... Does our fleet need a small multipurpose nuclear submarine?
    No, not needed. We need decent wages, pensions, healthcare and medicine.
    1. agond
      agond 19 February 2021 18: 26
      0
      If Ash is redesigned into an external solid hull and the extra compartments that have piled up the "designer" are removed, his underwater displacement will become less than 10000 tons, with the same set of weapons, the construction price will drop 1.5 times and the construction time will decrease 1.5 times, and if all boats are built at all according to a single-body scheme, you can free up a lot of money for salaries, pensions and medicine
  • demos1111
    demos1111 21 February 2021 09: 57
    0
    Small boats are needed. But not in the perspective in which the author describes them.
    Poseidon, converted into a crew, I think 8 people, to arm her.
    And 5-8 basic Poseidons like drones. That would be effective.
    1. agond
      agond 22 February 2021 16: 24
      0
      And so we decided, small boats are needed, and now let's ask ourselves whether we need large boats, for example Belgorod has a length of 184m, a width of 18.2m and 23760t of underwater displacement of which 9060t of water, that is, 38%, there are already 4 strong inside the outer light hull case, you see a designer with "talent"
  • Dymik
    Dymik 4 March 2021 20: 37
    0
    everything is gone)) the arctic duel is canceled))
  • skusha54
    skusha54 16 March 2021 01: 54
    0
    Not that you clog your brains "comrades".
    Our people need peaceful, good-neighborly relations with other countries, decent modern medicine, affordable competitive education, a fair and independent judiciary, a cult of intelligence, decency, dignity, culture, and not a cult of strength, ignorance, illegal enrichment, arrogance and arrogance, a cult " thieves "and" siloviki "...
    Then the boats will not be needed, (enough of those that already exist, "by the eyes") ...
  • Rlptrt
    Rlptrt 25 March 2021 18: 32
    0
    A small boat is needed like air. Moreover, in quantities comparable to * wolf packs. "Not only for anti-submarine and anti-ship warfare, but above all to ensure the stability of the only real component of the strategic nuclear forces - SSBNs! only small multipurpose boats in the squadron can bring a strategic cruiser to the launch area, and the huge problem of the surface fleet - the absence or weakness of means of searching for submarines, the lack of modern anti-submarine and anti-torpedo weapons in boats is much less acute.
    But I don't understand why a small boat must necessarily be atomic? A boat with VNEU costs much less and much cheaper to build, and its performance characteristics are not inferior to a nuclear one. So, maybe he should finish crushing Lada and build it instead of the very tired Varshavyanka and not pour money into the super-expensive Ash trees, which they did not learn to build either.
    The main thing is that the will of the leadership is needed. Boats with VNEU are built by all and sundry. Even Turkey was able to. But we couldn't. Maybe the management is the case?
  • AC130 Ganship
    AC130 Ganship April 2 2021 16: 32
    -1
    I don't understand how a Russian boat can cost more than American counterparts (the same class, etc.) if the salaries of both development engineers and construction workers in the United States are 7-8 times higher than in Russia. Let's say the metal is worth the same. Where does the money disappear to? This is not a cosmodrome. The shipyard is already there, it does not need to be rebuilt
  • Eug
    Eug April 21 2021 14: 58
    0
    I see the PU for the KR in a conformal version (like the fuel tanks on the F-16,18) - 4-6 pcs., Attached side by side.
  • Nikkon
    Nikkon 17 May 2021 01: 06
    0
    About nothing, polysyllabic and unproven.