Military Review

Terms of withdrawal from the combat composition of the fleet of the last "Shark"

111

Project 941UM Akula strategic nuclear submarine cruiser "Dmitry Donskoy" fleet another three to four years. It is reported by RIA News with reference to a source in the shipbuilding industry.


According to the source, the last "Akula", which is in the combat composition of the fleet, will serve until the full depletion of nuclear fuel, which will take 3-4 years. After that, a decision will be made on the final withdrawal of the submarine from service. Rebooting of the reactor with the corresponding repair work is not planned.

As the commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy Nikolai Evmenov said earlier, after the laying of two new APRKSNs of the Borey-A project, one of which will be named Dmitry Donskoy, the last Akula will remain just a numbered submarine TK-208 and will be used for weapons testing.

Thus, the words of another source in the defense industry are confirmed, who at the beginning of this year announced that the Dmitry Donskoy submarine missile carrier would serve for about another five years and would be decommissioned. The restoration of the submarine was called too costly and impractical.

The TK-208 Dmitry Donskoy heavy nuclear-powered missile submarine strategic submarine is the lead in a series of six Project 941 Akula submarines. Laid down at Sevmash on June 17, 1976, launched on September 23, 1980, commissioned on December 29, 1981. Today it is the largest submarine in the world and the last "Shark" in the combat strength of the Russian Navy. Three "Sharks" were disposed of not without "help" from the United States, two more are in reserve.
111 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Intruder
    Intruder 2 May 2021 19: 39
    +35
    The heavy nuclear-powered missile submarine strategic TK-208 "Dmitry Donskoy" is the lead in a series of six Project 941 "Akula" submarines
    Thunderstorm of the seas and oceans hi when they can still build such ships .., sad news!
    1. Bashkirkhan
      Bashkirkhan 2 May 2021 19: 42
      +12
      There is no need to build such huge submarines. The project was very controversial from the very beginning. The formula "efficiency-cost" has won. While 667BDRM is "cost-effectiveness". The 941 had no chance of surviving after the collapse of the USSR. They didn't survive.
      1. Artavazdych
        Artavazdych 2 May 2021 20: 03
        +26
        It's a shame that they will simply be cut into trash. But the cases themselves are not just high technologies. This is the limit of human genius, and not only at that time. Can't you find a worthy application? Well, at least use the corps for scientific purposes. Explore the Arctic. Or transport goods along the NSR.
        1. Bashkirkhan
          Bashkirkhan 2 May 2021 20: 13
          -2
          Quote: Artavazdych
          Well, at least use the corps for scientific purposes. Explore the Arctic. Or transport goods along the NSR.

          In fact, no, if only because the youngest ship of the project is over 30 years old. It is clear that it was regularly operated, and others for a rather short time, but nevertheless. About how many spare parts from both of them have been dismantled over the years, it is better not to stutter at all.
          1. figwam
            figwam 2 May 2021 20: 19
            +7
            The Pindos again lost Varshavyanka.
          2. YOU
            YOU 2 May 2021 22: 04
            +17
            I have several good acquaintances who served on this project, from them I heard rather contradictory information about this boat. And the crew was very comfortable there. But nevertheless, this is a milestone in our shipbuilding. And with all the disadvantages, this is also a giant plus. pile such a colossus. It's a pity anyway. Maybe a museum in memory of the former might of the Soviet Union and Russian Navy. T. say for the edification of descendants.
          3. Vadim237
            Vadim237 3 May 2021 00: 23
            -1
            Most likely they will make a museum out of this Shark.
        2. Servisinzhener
          Servisinzhener 2 May 2021 20: 37
          0
          Only as a source of metal from which, after remelting, special ships will be built for the transport of goods along the NSR. Because in the carriage of goods on the nuclear submarine will be golden in comparison with a vessel designed specifically for cargo transportation.
        3. Ratmir_Ryazan
          Ratmir_Ryazan 2 May 2021 20: 52
          +7
          There is nothing unique except for the size in Project 941 "Shark".

          It is simply unprofitable and impossible to carry cargo and research something on these submarines.

          It is easier, cheaper and safer to transport cargo by surface vessels.

          And research is easier, cheaper and safer to carry out on surface vessels, and if something needs to be looked at at the bottom, there are special deep-water stations that are more effective for this.

          Project 941 "Akula" turned out to be so huge by necessity, otherwise it was not possible to place those ICBMs that this boat carried.

          These ships have fulfilled their task, have kept the peace for our country. In their place are boats of a new, more advanced project - Boreas, and the Sharks will go down in history, I hope they will leave one as a museum. There will always be many who wish to see such a giant.
          1. Lannan Shi
            Lannan Shi 2 May 2021 21: 28
            +12
            Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
            There is nothing unique except for the size in Project 941 "Shark".

            Uh huh, uh huh. The vitality there is unique. What became fatal for the Kursk, for the shark, most likely would be just a nuisance. Maybe not petty, but not fatal. And the ability to survive where another submarine dies is generally unique.
            1. Ratmir_Ryazan
              Ratmir_Ryazan 2 May 2021 23: 43
              -7
              Kursk has torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, and the Sharks, in addition to torpedoes, have huge ICBMs.

              And it is not a fact that a fire and explosion in the torpedo compartment will not be fatal for the Shark.

              And in terms of combat survivability, Shark is much inferior to other nuclear submarines, it is larger, which means it is more noticeable from all sides.
              1. Lannan Shi
                Lannan Shi 3 May 2021 00: 09
                +4
                Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                And it's not a fact that the fire and explosion in the torpedo compartment will not be fatal for the Shark

                Shark's torpedo compartment is a separate hull. One in five, by the way. And far from the largest of them. Even its complete destruction is unlikely to be fatal for the submarine. And the complete death of the crew is absolutely unlikely. Two pop-up evacuation modules available. yes
                Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                And in terms of combat survivability, Shark is much inferior to other nuclear submarines, it is larger, which means it is more noticeable from all sides.

                From this logic, it is necessary to build human torpedoes, such as kaiten, and their missile counterparts. Missile / torpedo plus scuba patch. Less, and more inconspicuous can not be imagined. Giving up on the Premier League and DPL?
                1. Ratmir_Ryazan
                  Ratmir_Ryazan 3 May 2021 00: 13
                  0
                  It is necessary to build optimal boats.
                  1. Lannan Shi
                    Lannan Shi 3 May 2021 00: 30
                    +4
                    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                    It is necessary to build optimal boats.

                    Six or seven (depending on whether or not K-159 is counted) nuclear submarines lost by the USSR and Russia, lost in peacetime, seem to hint that survivability is best considered the most important parameter of a submarine. For if this parameter is zero, then the PL is clearly visible, or absolutely invisible, does not matter. Sooner or later she will drown herself.
                    1. Ratmir_Ryazan
                      Ratmir_Ryazan 3 May 2021 01: 41
                      0
                      What makes you think that the Sharks are more reliable than the rest of the nuclear submarines?

                      There are simply fewer of them and they were rarely used, which is why there are fewer accidents with them.

                      For a war, you need not just a large boat or a huge ship, but an effective one, that is, optimal in terms of cost and combat effectiveness.

                      You can ditch a bunch of resources on a huge ship or a heavy tank, build them in single copies, and then understand that they are simply unsuitable for war and all resources are essentially wasted. This was the case in many countries and this must be taken into account and not to repeat such mistakes.
                      1. Lannan Shi
                        Lannan Shi 3 May 2021 10: 37
                        +7
                        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                        There are simply fewer of them and they were rarely used, which is why there are fewer accidents with them.

                        One of the Sharks quite survived the explosion of its own rocket. More precisely, a series of three explosions. By the number of steps.
                        Whether something like this will survive the cost-optimized Northwind is a difficult question. Similar, in principle, Burbot, did not survive.
                        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                        effective, that is, optimal both in terms of cost and combat effectiveness.

                        What is optimal, cheap and cheerful, or expensive, but reliable, and you will sink the figs ... Everyone decides individually. If for me, then option number two. If for you, then plus or minus one or two nuclear submarines, plus or minus a hundred or two sailors, what are the right little things ...
                      2. Ratmir_Ryazan
                        Ratmir_Ryazan 3 May 2021 11: 21
                        -3
                        Huge boats for which you sink may be more resistant to accidents due to their size, but more noticeable to the enemy, again for the same reason, so in case of war they will have less chance of surviving.

                        And this will lead not only to the destruction of our nuclear submarines with crews, but also to a loss in a nuclear war, and this is already tens of millions of victims.

                        Another point is that economic crises happen often and the same Sharks did not survive the 90s, although there were only 6 of them, but the more compact Dolphins are almost all in the ranks and it is they who today constitute the country's nuclear shield, along with the new Boreas. and only one of the Sharks is still alive, and it serves as a test base for the new Bulava missile.
                      3. Lannan Shi
                        Lannan Shi 3 May 2021 14: 22
                        +9
                        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                        Huge boats for which you sink

                        Not tired of writing nonsense? The "huge" Shark is 5 meters longer than the "small" Dolphin. Just as much higher. And only in width it surpasses it 2 times. But for this factor to play, you need to be strictly above the Shark. And from a distance of 50-500 meters, it will not matter if the submarine is 11 meters wide, or 22. From such a distance it is possible to detect mini-submarines.
                        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                        Sharks didn't survive the 90s

                        The 90s didn't go through a lot. From military equipment. And how briskly they destroyed absolutely fresh Sharks, with direct funding from the Americans, of this process, and did not touch the same Dolphins, as bae hints which type of submarine our sworn "partners" considered more dangerous.
                        And if nuclear submarines like Sharks are too expensive for us, we must work to increase the revenue side of the budget, and not divide one ruin out of 100 hungry mouths.
                      4. Ratmir_Ryazan
                        Ratmir_Ryazan 3 May 2021 17: 53
                        -3
                        Shark consists of two hulls of conventional nuclear submarines and so are not small nuclear submarines, and naturally it has not become longer, it has become wider and more than 2 times.

                        Shark's displacement underwater is 48 tons, while Dolphin's is 000.

                        The larger the ship, the more it needs a propulsion system, which creates more noise, more mass and it creates more disturbance of the magnetic field.

                        Whatever one may say, the more nuclear submarines, the more noticeable and more expensive it is to use. And our budget is not rubber, and in addition to the nuclear submarine, there are a bunch of other urgent problems requiring money and solutions.

                        And the Americans were allowed to saw the Sharks because they understood that these boats had no prospects. There are even those who have not been sawing for a long time stand idle awaiting disposal.

                        And how much does one Shark cost, 2 billion in today's money, if not more, that's 12 billion was put to the wind, and they could have created a more optimal boat if instead of huge Sharks and a compromise Dolphin they did one thing, as now.

                        The Akuly nuclear submarine is the result of a strategic mistake in the design of the R-39 ICBM, it turned out to be huge. And instead of admitting a mistake and remaking the rocket, they made another mistake - a huge nuclear submarine.

                        And you discovered the sad consequences only now - you let in 12 billion dollars, if not more wind, and the boats did not last even 20 years each.

                        As a result, having shot b / k boats, they simply turned out to be unarmed and unnecessary for the fleet.
                      5. Lannan Shi
                        Lannan Shi 3 May 2021 21: 13
                        +9
                        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                        The larger the ship, the more it needs a propulsion system, which creates more noise, more mass and it creates more disturbance of the magnetic field.

                        The number and power of Akula and Dolphin reactors and turbines are practically the same. lol
                        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                        As a result, having shot b / k boats, they simply turned out to be unarmed and unnecessary for the fleet.

                        1200 warheads? Shot? We had a nuclear war that no one except you noticed? lol Sharks were simply leaked to our "dear partners". By firing ICBMs in volleys, and detonating them after launch. And what is characteristic, none of the authors of this, under the article of treason, never sat down. Although it was not difficult to find personal culprits and identify them in the zone in 2000, and even now it is not a problem.
                        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                        Submarine Sharks is the result of a strategic mistake in

                        Choosing a guarantor. In the gums of a man who is with Americans, the first two terms. yes I dare to remind, they sawed Sharks not with the damned ebn, but with the American fighter of the GDP. And there is no need for strategic miscalculations. Sharks carried 1200 warheads. Dolphins, to "raise the same and the same", you need 18.5. I kind of strongly doubt that 1 Shark is more expensive to build and operate than 3 Dolphins. Just Sharks - the nuclear submarine of the great fleet, great power. But for the mini-Navy, which exists on the pitiful handouts of the oligarchs, yes, the format is not the same. yes
        4. YOU
          YOU 3 May 2021 00: 44
          +3
          Let me disagree a little. As for Kursk, the issue is controversial. I have heard different opinions from submariners. There, everything is not unambiguous about the accident and the official version. And with a very powerful explosion of torpedo ammunition, it is not a fact that it will not knock out the passageways into two "main" Akula hulls at once. And the camera that pops up on the "loaf" is also available. And she didn’t help much at Komsomolets. T. that is not the point. The boats of this project were tested and prepared for the main voyage along the ice. And there was a serious task to provide almost 100% shooting, from ice to ice. And this is a serious plus. Practically on ice, not every boat will be able to provide a missile salvo at any arbitrary time. I will not say that a complete victory was achieved here, but quite serious competencies were achieved.
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 4 May 2021 01: 13
            +2
            Quote: YOU
            And with a very powerful explosion of torpedo ammunition, it is not a fact that it will not knock out the passageways into two "main" Akula hulls at once.


            The torpedo compartment in the front, between the two main hulls, and even halfway forward.
  2. scientist
    scientist 3 May 2021 03: 46
    +5
    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    research is easier, cheaper and safer to carry out on surface vessels

    In the conditions of drifting ice and the harsh climate of the Arctic and Antarctic, it has been repeatedly proposed underwater city projects... Now they are needed not only for scientific purposes. but also as a production base for the extraction of natural resources and a clear designation of Russian economic interests in these regions. Moreover, in the presence of hydrocarbon deposits, nuclear reactors are not particularly needed. But the powerful hulls of old submarines could come in handy.
  3. Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 4 May 2021 00: 49
    +1
    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    otherwise it was not possible to place those ICBMs carried by this boat.

    Project 955 Borey submarines were initially planned for the Bark missile system, and the Bark was created for the Akul missile silos.
    That is, ICBMs are not at all the main reason for the large size of the "Sharks" (after all, they were placed in the 955 project (12 pieces), with a much smaller displacement of the boat). According to the terms of reference for the Akula, the buoyancy reserve is four times higher than that of the American submarines. A large buoyancy reserve is both the survival of the boat and the cheaper infrastructure (the draft did not require great depths in the service ports). And surfacing in ice with an ice thickness of more than two meters, which is not possible for modern boats.
  4. Starover_Z
    Starover_Z 4 May 2021 18: 01
    +1
    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    and Sharks will go down in history, I hope they will leave one as a museum. There will always be many who wish to see such a giant.

    And it is not just to put it on the coast, but to install it on land, making a fragment of a high-rise building next to it for a real comparison of the dimensions of the boat and buildings. This will attract people even more than a boat just in the water near the coast.
  • midivan
    midivan 2 May 2021 21: 37
    +3
    Are you serious? Carrying cargo, what cost will such transportation result in, is the risk of the crew also worth it?
    1. Artavazdych
      Artavazdych 2 May 2021 22: 46
      -1
      20 thousand tons is such a rather big displacement.
      For example, to deliver cargo to Antarctica in winter.
      1. K-36
        K-36 3 May 2021 00: 49
        +1
        Quote: Artavazdych
        20 thousand tons is such a rather big displacement.
        For example, to deliver cargo to Antarctica in winter.

        Ahem ... I'm calling, of course, but can you tell me when it's winter in Antarctica?
        1. Artavazdych
          Artavazdych 3 May 2021 00: 56
          0
          Whenever the earth's axis is flipped 180 °. Then we have the bottom, and in Antarctica the top.
          1. region58
            region58 3 May 2021 14: 04
            +1
            Quote: Artavazdych
            Whenever the earth's axis is flipped 180 °

            If only they put a smiley face that is appropriate, otherwise there will be those who will take it seriously ...
            1. Artavazdych
              Artavazdych 3 May 2021 22: 39
              +1
              Yeah, someone did.
              In general, the law of humor - they laugh not from the phrase itself, but from the seriousness with which you pronounce it.
          2. Grits
            Grits 3 May 2021 15: 20
            +1
            Quote: Artavazdych
            Whenever the earth's axis is flipped 180 °. Then we have the bottom, and in Antarctica the top.

            Truly I tell you that soon the Earth will hit the celestial axis!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • aslanismaili611
    aslanismaili611 2 May 2021 23: 16
    -11%
    Quote: Artavazdych
    It's a shame that they will simply be cut into trash. But the cases themselves are not just high technologies. This is the limit of human genius, and not only at that time. Can't you find a worthy application? Well, at least use the corps for scientific purposes. Explore the Arctic. Or transport goods along the NSR.

    ... It's not a matter of being very sad either. Technologies of the 80s. Genius? Yes. But Einstein was also a genius. And why should Armenians be sad? In 5 years, the Armenians can charter it and transport their apricots from their native California to Chukotka or from Krasnodar to Alyaska. And without any customs. Into the idea! by the way, no less brilliant.
  • Paranoid50
    Paranoid50 3 May 2021 00: 55
    +4
    Quote: Artavazdych
    It's a shame that they will simply be cut into trash.

    Is not a fact. At least one, but they will leave it as a museum - SUCH ships should not just disappear.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 3 May 2021 04: 28
    -2
    Expensive and ineffective to research, expensive to transport.
    How will you load the container?
  • Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 2 May 2021 20: 26
    +2
    Quote: Bashkirkhan
    There is no need to build such huge submarines. The project was very controversial from the very beginning.

    This is where size matters. The huge displacement of the Sharks was required to be able to push the ice from below almost anywhere in the Arctic Ocean. The solution is called straight on the forehead, but at that time they did not come up with others.

    Let me remind you that Borei, they still haven't learned how to shoot rockets through the ice. So their ability to quickly launch a retaliatory strike is limited compared to the Shark.
    1. poquello
      poquello 2 May 2021 21: 14
      0
      Quote: Saxahorse
      Let me remind you that Borei, they still have not learned how to shoot rockets through the ice.

      in remind, the bourgeoisie did not learn, yet
  • Piramidon
    Piramidon 3 May 2021 00: 08
    +1
    Quote: Bashkirkhan
    There is no need to build such huge submarines. The project was very controversial from the very beginning.

    Sharks, due to their large size, have a large buoyancy reserve - more than 40%. In a submerged state, exactly half of the displacement falls on ballast water, for which the boats received the unofficial name "water carrier" in the fleet, and in the rival design bureau "Malakhit" - "the victory of technology over common sense."
  • xorek
    xorek 2 May 2021 19: 43
    -18%
    The strategic nuclear submarine "Dmitry Donskoy" of project 941UM "Akula" will be in service with the Northern Fleet for another three to four years.

    Why write this? Like to spit in the soul .. Now all the scatters will run up here and joyfully will throw mud ..
    Our "Shark" will still serve the Motherland! You bury her early "gentlemen" .. soldier
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 2 May 2021 20: 12
      +2
      choose - either these giants or 10 units of AB for 100 VI. everything needs money. and do not spit on me - on those who offend Moremans.
      besides the yacht of Rabramovich there is also professional football and hockey ,,,. and basketball .... and TNT and others "in fact"? other priorities in the heads of the hands.
      1. xorek
        xorek 2 May 2021 21: 22
        -6
        Quote: antivirus
        choose - either these giants or 10 units of AB for 100 VI. everything needs money. and do not spit on me - on those who offend Moremans.
        besides the yacht of Rabramovich there is also professional football and hockey ,,,. and basketball .... and TNT and others "in fact"? other priorities in the heads of the hands.

        Come on, swear .. I just wrote, sorry, I'm not special in this matter hi
        Well, I'm for 10 pieces, after reading you hi
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 3 May 2021 07: 36
          -1
          the question that I put more stupidly - 30-35 years all "meriem" in hard currency - dollar - there is no future war and blood. only money - and the cost of MO - protection for xx dollars to spend should be effective or = profit from investments of private business. the Gref-Chubais balance is still negative, it is too early to build AB.

          ++ Now Kyrgyz and Tajiks are fighting - where will the refugees go from both sides, oddly enough? - to the elder "we will never be brothers" !! how much can we take? what for? on what period?
  • RealPilot
    RealPilot 3 May 2021 03: 09
    +2
    Yes, sorry for the boat!
    Could be converted into a carrier of "calibers" or "zircons". I remember these conversations.
    The arsenal would have turned out to be a noble one, to the fear and envy of many underdogs ...
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 3 May 2021 04: 32
    -3
    Those who made the decision to build the party of giants are to blame.
    Pr 667BDRM was more than enough.
    The economy was already beginning to choke, but the Ministry of Defense continued to live "in grand style" in the Union.
    1. K298rtm
      K298rtm Yesterday, 21: 04
      0
      1. When the decision was made on 941 (this is rumored to be 1971), the BDRM did not exist in the project either. In my humble opinion, the modernization of the 2nd generation of strategists began due to the complexity and high cost of building the 3rd generation (941).
      2. The head Shark (208) was a fairly quiet and well-controlled boat (as eyewitnesses lie, during the first check of the absence of tracking it (in AB) it was not found, because the range was less than the position error.
      3. When 208 fired rockets for the first time (Dec 1981), in Severodvinsk some citizens thought it was a UFO.
      4. It would be great if a museum with modern multimedia services out of 208 could be removed (following the example of the leading French SSBN - it is located in Cherbourg).
  • RUSLAN
    RUSLAN 2 May 2021 19: 55
    +14
    Maybe you should leave at least one as a museum ???
    1. Doccor18
      Doccor18 2 May 2021 20: 00
      +22
      I do not know how about a tanker, but they simply have to make a museum out of one such boat. Memory for decades. This will never happen again.
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 2 May 2021 20: 49
        +4
        well, maybe they'll put it on the joke, and on occasion, to the museum
        1. K-36
          K-36 3 May 2021 01: 21
          +1
          Quote: Barberry25
          well, maybe they'll put it on the joke, and on occasion, to the museum

          As a friendly cartoon: can you tell me which museum you can go to "put"an exhibit of this size?
          drinks
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 3 May 2021 05: 47
            +3
            Yes, even to St. Petersburg. She, I remember, herself came there for the parade.
            Isn't there really 200 meters near the pier in our country for such a miracle of Soviet design thought ..?
          2. Barberry25
            Barberry25 3 May 2021 09: 46
            +1
            laughing to the Hermitage ...
      2. garri-lin
        garri-lin 3 May 2021 00: 23
        +4
        The classic Orlan has already been written off the other day. Although the museum would have turned out to be excellent. And the Sharks will be written off in the same way. Unfortunately. There is no strength in the country to establish a normal patriotic education.
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 3 May 2021 05: 51
          +4
          Quote: garri-lin
          The classic Orlan has already been written off the other day. Although the museum would have turned out to be excellent.

          I absolutely agree.
          Quote: garri-lin
          There is no strength in the country to establish a normal patriotic education.

          Unfortunately, I agree with you again ...
        2. Petro_tut
          Petro_tut 3 May 2021 09: 44
          +2
          There is no strength in the country to establish a normal patriotic education.

          Dear colleague, Patriotism is not a populist phenomenon implanted from the top, it is a deep feeling that arises when interacting with your land on which you live and which you understand, and all attempts to impose it from the top will be smashed against the modern negative realities of society hi
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 3 May 2021 10: 14
            0
            It is precisely for unity with the earth, with roots, with ancestors that museums are needed. History lessons. Local for each region. A good example of living history. The museum is an element. Vvzhny.
    2. xorek
      xorek 2 May 2021 21: 27
      -8
      Quote: RUSLAN
      Maybe you should leave at least one as a museum ???

      It is unlikely .. There is a secret technology, they will cut it .. Or maybe I will upgrade again!
      Well, another naughty near the shores of the United States will lead, etc. .. They will stick to bastards negative
  • rocket757
    rocket757 2 May 2021 20: 00
    +2
    the last "Shark" will remain just a numbered submarine TK-208 and will be used for testing weapons
    ... This is also a SERVICE. And dangerous and difficult.
    1. xorek
      xorek 2 May 2021 21: 33
      +1
      Quote: rocket757
      This is also a SERVICE. And dangerous and difficult.

      Victor agrees! And the devil is not their brother .. hi

      This is how we live and dive anywhere in the world .. !!
      1. YOU
        YOU 2 May 2021 22: 36
        +5
        This boat had a sauna and pool. And they poured it with salt water at sub-zero temperatures. In particular, when surfacing at the North Pole. The guys told and showed a film about life on this boat. Very interesting. It would be better to leave it as a museum.
  • CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz 2 May 2021 20: 03
    +3
    Will leave the last water carrier as museums khotelos bi but rather it will be cut into metal.
  • Nikolay Ivanov_5
    Nikolay Ivanov_5 2 May 2021 20: 04
    +1
    Recently, the Chinese in vain, perhaps, built the largest submarine "Sun Tzu" ??? Maybe the time has not yet come for the giants of the World Ocean ???
  • tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 2 May 2021 20: 12
    +19
    How huge she is!
    1. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 2 May 2021 20: 29
      +5
      An underwater battleship however!
  • Alexander Kopychev
    Alexander Kopychev 2 May 2021 20: 23
    +9
    Farewell "Sharks of Steel". soldier
  • UVB
    UVB 2 May 2021 20: 36
    +10
    One thing is not clear - the oldest APRKSN is still in service, and much newer ones are scrapped. What were you guided by when making decisions on the decommissioning of new ships?
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 2 May 2021 20: 47
    0
    well ... on the one hand, it's a pity ... but on the other ... you need to count and look ... how much will the capital cost with modernization for anti-ship missiles ..
    1. Dangerous
      Dangerous 2 May 2021 22: 47
      +1
      What's the point of modernizing it? It was only good with an ICBM. If cruise missiles are put on it, then only if the barmaley are chased across the desert in peacetime. With its size and noise in a military environment, it will quickly be found and destroyed.
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 2 May 2021 23: 10
        +2
        Well, for a number of operations it will do .. the Americans use Ohio .. + the current anti-ship missiles work at a range of about 1 km, Well, suppose that the Zircons are still finished to 000 .. although I doubt .. the main reason is what is the restrictions on the VPU. .And if you put a large TLU? Still, the difference is 1 meters + there are no restrictions on the diameter ... you can easily make an anti-ship missile with a range of 500-4 km. by order, he can drown the entire AUG, without even endangering himself .. Although under such a carrier I see more Dolphins ..
      2. Grits
        Grits 3 May 2021 15: 27
        +2
        Quote: Dangerous
        What's the point of modernizing it? It was only good with an ICBM. If cruise missiles are put on it, then only if the barmaleevs are chased across the desert in peacetime. With its size and noise in a military situation, it will be quickly found and destroyed.

        If our leadership has no thoughts to use it even as a carrier of "Caliber", then it can be directed to other purposes. For example, it can be used as a kind of floating base in the Arctic. After all, this is a whole village with its own autonomous power supply. If the space for missile silos and equipment for weapons is cleared, then a habitable living module for hundreds of people is ready.
  • Moonsund
    Moonsund 2 May 2021 21: 04
    +5
    Say our farewell cry
    Harsh marine thread,
    And do not rush into the sky with a seagull
    Him from the navy chest.
    Goodbye, goodbye, mainland!
    You lead us a smile.
    We will not see each other soon ...
    And what lies ahead? ...
  • AC130 Ganship
    AC130 Ganship 2 May 2021 21: 09
    0
    They made the Amers nervous. But it was a long time ago. As far as I understand, this boat has not been sailing to BD for many years. New missiles are tested on it, it is used exclusively as a test bed. Once these missiles are placed on the OBD, the test bed will no longer be needed.
    1. Piramidon
      Piramidon 3 May 2021 00: 13
      0
      Quote: AC130 Ganship
      Once these missiles are placed on the OBD, the test bed will no longer be needed.

      And missiles will no longer be developed and tested?
  • D16
    D16 2 May 2021 21: 13
    +1
    Great picture.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 2 May 2021 21: 43
    -5
    Quote: Bashkirkhan
    There is no need to build such huge submarines. The project was very controversial from the very beginning. The formula "efficiency-cost" has won. While 667BDRM is "cost-effectiveness". The 941 had no chance of surviving after the collapse of the USSR. They didn't survive.
    2 reactors for 20 missiles are ineffective.
    1. YOU
      YOU 2 May 2021 22: 48
      +1
      Everything is so, everything is so. But she could also shoot straight from the base. And the rockets are unique. And the design. I can tell right away that it is similar to landing boats. But they didn’t build this real project. And it was not for nothing that the Americans were in a hurry about the cut. But it's still sad. I am for the museum.
    2. Grits
      Grits 3 May 2021 15: 29
      0
      Quote: Pavel57
      2 reactors for 20 missiles are ineffective

      Do you think there are fewer reactors on BDRM or Borea?
  • Babermetis
    Babermetis 2 May 2021 22: 15
    0
    40 years!!! This is the power of production technology!
    1. ironic
      ironic 2 May 2021 22: 47
      0
      Ohio will last about 50. They were designed for 42. wink
  • hohohol
    hohohol 2 May 2021 22: 51
    +1
    And it would not be bad for her to surface off the coast of America and parade there along the entire coast. Let the audience freeze in anxious and delighted trepidation.
    1. ironic
      ironic 3 May 2021 00: 25
      -2
      They will simply be drowned for violating territorial waters. They did not negotiate with the RF Ministry of Defense for a direct telephone in Russian.
  • opuonmed
    opuonmed 2 May 2021 22: 54
    0
    maybe something can be done with her? research there or excursions there, etc.
    1. YOU
      YOU 2 May 2021 23: 13
      -1
      No, it's not too big. The design is unique, several cases are durable. And around a lightweight body. And it fills with water. And one way or another, this water has to be transported. And this is an empty load and too much cost.
      Quote: opuonmed
      maybe something can be done with her? research there or excursions there, etc.

      And then a super hotel will not work there, its own specifics, and what a rich man will go to sit in locked under water.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 3 May 2021 02: 17
        -1
        and what a rich man would go to sit in a lock under water.

        Why Submarine Life Sucks smile
        https://youtu.be/TkOO8qQ26bE
      2. region58
        region58 4 May 2021 00: 18
        0
        Quote: YOU
        And around a lightweight body. And it fills with water. And one way or another, this water has to be transported.

        So it is with any submarine that has a light and durable hull. The light body is not sealed, there is water between the bodies.
    2. Piramidon
      Piramidon 3 May 2021 00: 15
      0
      Quote: opuonmed
      maybe something can be done with her? research there or excursions there, etc.

      A cruise ship. good laughing
  • Osipov9391
    Osipov9391 2 May 2021 23: 56
    +5
    The destruction of the Sharks was purely political and not financial or technical. This is confirmed by the fact that this very old boat from the entire series was chosen as a platform for testing the Bulava. And the rest of the younger ships of this project were quickly withdrawn from the fleet and cut. Moreover, they were cut with the money of the USA and Canada, which were allocated in the 2000s.
    An ideal battery could be obtained, carrying up to a hundred or more cruise missiles - 6 pieces in each silo. And such a boat could hold at gunpoint all NATO bases in the north.
    The betrayal of the political elite, theft and corruption have done their job. The Americans, unlike us, will NEVER go to or will not fulfill any contract with us, which they consider unprofitable for themselves.
    And so it happened. The first "Ohio" was remade for the carriers of the 154 "Tomahawks". And they didn’t cut it like we did it "Sharks". Moreover, the threat to us from these converted Ohio SSGNs has not diminished.
    When disposing of "Sharks" (we will also add the theft of Western money allocated for this), tens of kilograms of precious metals, tens of tons of nickel, titanium, copper, aluminum scrap, hundreds and thousands of tons of good steel were recovered.
    All this was plundered and stolen. Of course, the yacht oligarchs received additional ones.
    1. YOU
      YOU 3 May 2021 00: 13
      +2
      Everything is correct until they were afloat and the newest of the built SSBNs, contain 6 pieces, since there is already a series, it is not so expensive. It is not very efficient to transport water, but the reactor must be recharged more than once a month or even a year. And they carried a very serious potential. After everything has been cut and the rest has rotted, for the sake of one boat it may really make no sense. Let effective managers deal with this. Although they do not have any special "faith". But cut the newest boats first. And leave the oldest afloat. This is outright betrayal. And for some reason no conclusions are drawn. I mean "personalities". Full amnesty. am
      1. Osipov9391
        Osipov9391 3 May 2021 02: 29
        0
        Yes, because everyone was in the share and these people are close to the president. Ivanovs, Serdyukovs and the like. They put in the army and the navy, as a rule, like themselves.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 3 May 2021 02: 12
      0
      The first "Ohio" was remade under the carriers of the 154 "Tomahawks". And they didn’t cut it like we did it "Sharks".

      In Russia, there were no Tomahawks and money for these alterations.
      The United States organized loans that were spent on paying salaries to public sector employees in the worst years.
      Moreover, the threat to us from these converted Ohio SSGNs has not diminished.

      There are no restrictions on "conventional" nuclear submarines.
      Whoever can build and maintain as much as he can.
      We haven't caught up with Portugal (despite the promises) ..
      1. Osipov9391
        Osipov9391 3 May 2021 02: 27
        0
        How was it not? There is RK-55 "Granat", there are long-range aviation missile launchers. They are easy to remake.
        And special modifications are not required - a "revolver" fixed for 6 missiles, for example, is placed in the mine. And the electronics on the boat is being finalized - BIUS.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 3 May 2021 03: 54
          -1
          There is RK-55 "Pomegranate"

          Only in the nuclear version, it was developed for this warhead.
          The accuracy was not enough to use a conventional warhead.
          It was necessary to make a new rocket on its basis. What happened - Caliber.
          there are long-range aviation CDs. They are easy to remake.

          Yeah, tell me what else is cheap.
          Salaries have to be paid, the work routes were blocked. Everything has its time.
          The Kh-55 had only a nuclear warhead. Here again the question of insufficient accuracy for a non-nuclear warhead.
          http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-702.html

          Accuracy (KVO), Kh-55 up to 100m, Kh-55M / Kh-555 - up to 20m.

          What is it about. Small for 400kg high-explosive warhead, but suitable for 200-300 kT smile

          For comparison: Tomahawk block II (1986) gave KVO 10-20 m, block III (1993) - up to 10 m.
  • nnm
    nnm 3 May 2021 00: 11
    +4
    Our era, damn it, is leaving ... if only the coming stage was not worse. Thanks to our ancestors for such a shield and a sword in our hands.
    1. STORM 12
      STORM 12 3 May 2021 00: 18
      +3
      systematically destroy the legacy of the PEOPLE
      1. nnm
        nnm 3 May 2021 00: 25
        +2
        Not everything that we can withstand can withstand metal, microcircuits, wiring ...
        One must be able to part with the past. But you also need to be able to create the future. I do not know how it is accepted among the Moremans, but I would simply take off my cap in front of the boat, which kept them at depth. I really don't know how they do it ...
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 3 May 2021 00: 25
      0
      There are Boreas in return.
      1. nnm
        nnm 3 May 2021 00: 28
        +2
        This is already different .... I think, for the crews, the boat is like a child, like a part of you. And this is never to be forgotten. They will be both more modern and newer ... but each of them will forever remain your being, your soul ..
        But it’s me, the land one ... and I don’t understand those who have been autonomous on it for dozens, hundreds of days ..
        Therefore, you just need to honor her in the last (unfortunately, not extreme) campaign.
        I have the honor, Mrs. "Shark" .... "Raise the flag and jack !!! (I don't know if this command sounds right in the navy).
  • YOU
    YOU 3 May 2021 01: 04
    +1
    I don’t know, maybe I’m not quite right. But as far as I know so far only a boat of this type was able to fire off at once with all the ammunition of 20 ballistic missiles. True from the surface. But as far as I know, no one has ever done anything like this either before or after, not from underwater, not surfaced. This type of boat is the only one that has confirmed this in practice.
  • K-36
    K-36 3 May 2021 01: 14
    0
    Quote: Artavazdych
    Whenever the earth's axis is flipped 180 °. Then we have the bottom, and in Antarctica the top.

    Uv. namesake, as it is difficult for me to understand you. In school (still Soviet), I was taught that the Earth's axis (passing through the North and South Poles) remains, as it were, unshakable, and the Earth rotates around this axis exactly 24 hours a day. And so that this axis "flips 180 degrees", I did not hear this in the classroom ... However, now a lot of things have changed in school programs, maybe I'm already outdated recourse
    hi
  • STORM 12
    STORM 12 3 May 2021 01: 33
    +1
    Quote: nnm
    Not everything that we can withstand can withstand metal, microcircuits, wiring ...
    One must be able to part with the past. But you also need to be able to create the future. I do not know how it is accepted among the Moremans, but I would simply take off my cap in front of the boat, which kept them at depth. I really don't know how they do it ...


    be able to melt with what? with the pinnacle of underwater carblasting ...
  • st2st
    st2st 3 May 2021 02: 12
    -4
    And when will the creatures in the Kremlin answer for the death of the Kursk? She did not "drown," as one acting president said. Every tragedy has names and titles
  • viktor_ui
    viktor_ui 3 May 2021 08: 38
    +4
    Candelabra interfere with bad dancers (like they can't find a worthy use except for sawing needles ... the most offensive thing is that such a product, not just to recreate it again - to further develop the theme of the gut of the new optimizers ... the legacy of the USSR is fading into oblivion. Burn on ... sad.
    1. Adimius38
      Adimius38 3 May 2021 12: 00
      0
      Unfortunately, they laugh at us and get 80% in the elections.
  • Adimius38
    Adimius38 3 May 2021 11: 59
    0
    In fact, the well-known formula comes into play (NO funds) is too costly and impractical.) When our fleet and new hulls were cut on needles in the 90s or fused to ferrous metal in third countries, this was exactly what they explained to the common people. And little has changed since that time .... A wonderful 941 project that can still be used for various projects, they just try to cut and saw it, spending billions of budget funds on it.
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 3 May 2021 16: 12
    +2
    Sorry. Very sorry.
    People built / tried ...
    Not surprised, though. Need to say...
    1. Petrol cutter
      Petrol cutter 3 May 2021 18: 38
      0
      Titanium is cut at once! For example, gas.
      But it is being cooked ...

      Yes, on such machines ... With such a degree of responsibility ...
      Are the professionals still alive? ..
      Our professionals - x-rays for the forty-fifth time pass ...
      And it would seem very experienced welded.
      And there, our welded ones have nothing to do. With such successes ...
  • Old26
    Old26 3 May 2021 17: 29
    +3
    Quote: Paranoid50
    Is not a fact. At least one, but they will leave it as a museum - SUCH ships should not just disappear.

    They shouldn't, Alexander, but they disappear. About 40 years ago in the "Technology of Youth" magazine there was an article about maritime museums, more precisely, about ships-museums. And even then it was said that we had lost a whole layer of marine equipment. In fact, only two EMNIP surface warships are museum ships. These are "Aurora" and "Mikhail Kutuzov", and the latter can hardly be called a full-fledged museum. Unfortunately, museum ships are too expensive and not every country can afford to maintain such ships. Here it is necessary to make a museum similar to the state one in the waters of New York and put such a museum on a separate line in the balance of the state. Everything else is UNREAL. Any city WILL NOT PULL a full-fledged museum ship. After all, it is necessary not only to rebuild and repair it, but also to maintain certain mechanisms in working order. Alas, it is not given to us to see not "Lazarev" in the form of a ship-museum, and "Shark" too

    Quote: xorek
    Our "Shark" will still serve the Motherland! You bury her early "gentlemen" ..

    She is already dead, although still in working order. Moreover, if the "Dmitry Donskoy" is laid down on May 9, then the numbered experimental boat will go into oblivion in a few years. Rather, even one of the 667BDRMs to be written off in the future will be converted into an experimental boat. So walk her until she runs out of fuel. And it hasn't been heard lately that "Dmitry Donskoy" has appeared somewhere. The Bulava tests have been completed - there is no new submarine missile yet.

    Quote: RealPilot
    Yes, sorry for the boat!
    Could be converted into a carrier of "calibers" or "zircons". I remember these conversations.
    The arsenal would have turned out to be a noble one, to the fear and envy of many underdogs ...

    The conversations were exclusively in the media and the internet. Converting the boat into a KR carrier at the cost of EMNIP would be like 2,5 "Boreas". Besides, the situation turns out to be strange. When we talk about aircraft carriers, the main argument of AB's opponents is the following: Are we going to fight overseas with someone "? But when they talk about boats carrying the Kyrgyz Republic, for some reason they forget about this argument? Send Sharks from the Kyrgyz Republic to the coast. The United States should send them “for slaughter.” And against whom should they be used “overseas?” Against Yemen or Chad?

    Quote: Doccor18
    Yes, even to St. Petersburg. I remember she herself came there to the parade

    She came to Kronstadt, not to St. Petersburg ...
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 4 May 2021 10: 49
    0
    Quote: Gritsa
    Quote: Pavel57
    2 reactors for 20 missiles are ineffective

    Do you think there are fewer reactors on BDRM or Borea?


    "AKULA" - 2 water-moderated nuclear reactors OK-650VV, 190 MW each.
    "BOREY" - OK-650V 190 MW.
    Your truth is here - "DOLPHIN" - 2 reactors VM-4SG with a total capacity of 180 MW (older and less powerful).
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 4 May 2021 10: 53
    0
    Quote: Old26
    The conversations were exclusively in the media and the internet. Converting the boat into a KR carrier at the cost of EMNIP would be like 2,5 "Boreas". Besides, the situation turns out to be strange. When we talk about aircraft carriers, the main argument of AB's opponents is the following: Are we going to fight overseas with someone "? But when they talk about boats carrying the Kyrgyz Republic, for some reason they forget about this argument? Send Sharks from the Kyrgyz Republic to the coast. The United States should send them “for slaughter.” And against whom should they be used “overseas?” Against Yemen or Chad?

    Perhaps the ships-arsenals make sense, but the alteration of the boat and such an arsenal is long, expensive, it is not clear under what type of conflict, and again the question of the stability of such a component of the weapon in the conditions of a weak fleet as a whole.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 4 May 2021 11: 13
    0
    Quote: YOU
    Everything is so, everything is so. But she could also shoot straight from the base

    It's a good idea to shut down one of the reactors and not go far out to sea. Don't dive deep. Like a swimming pool. Savings while maintaining punching power.
  • svoit
    svoit Yesterday, 19: 03
    0
    Maintaining technical readiness requires money, some systems have already been defecting and extending the resource for five years already, but ... it's a pity, of course, there are pleasant memories of climbing it
  • Diverter
    Diverter Yesterday, 22: 04
    0
    I was unlucky, or vice versa, now I don’t know whether to become a Moreman. But in this case, I would suggest converting all the remaining boats of the project into the carriers of Caliber. And in non-nuclear equipment.
    And the main task would be to patrol along the mattress stand and geyropa. Moreover, the patrolling is not secretive but, as it were, careless or something. The head of some Spain or Portugal, receiving every day a report from his Navy about the presence of a Shark with missiles at the border, which are ready to fly into the bedroom window, would think very hard about relations with the Russian Federation.
    Well, as an option