Military Review

Hurray for those who passed Kazan

162

So, the second submarine of project 885 in general and the first of project 885M raised the flag and became part of fleet.


Many media outlets, many experts and specialists have already expressed their opinion on this topic. Statements are different, from very noisy, with all these "unparalleled ..." to restrained doubters. We will take a place in the middle, because despite the veil of secrecy, I want to understand how significant this event is and a serious help to the fleet. But the main thing is what prospects are opening up for us in the future.

Submarines (I really hope that we will talk about them in the plural) are called by many as the future of the Russian submarine fleet. With the acceptance of Kazan, the future is gradually becoming the present.

In general, the prevailing diversity of our submarines is a little depressing. Projects 941, 667BDRM, 955, 885, 949, 945, 671, 971 are too much. The unitarity of the American submarine forces, operating mainly with two types of boats (Los Angeles and Virginia), is worthy of emulation.

Actually, we are no worse in this regard, and sooner or later we will put the submarine fleet in order. Naturally, I would like to do it early. And, given that we can build nuclear submarines, this should not be a problem, unless the adherents of the aircraft carrier sect get in the way.

And here everything is simple. Even for metal, how much steel can be spent on one flat-deck trough is probably enough for three or even four missile submarine cruisers, which can become a real shield of the country, and not a consumer of budget money.

By the way, the idea is not mine, I took it from Kyle Mizokami from National Interest. The Americans also seriously think that submarines are cheaper and more efficient than floating hangars with aircraft. But their keyword is "cheaper."

For us, the speed with which we can build new ships is more important.

Everything turned out to be not so simple with Kazan. The delivery of the ship was delayed, and they delayed great. And although now it makes no difference, in general, why this happened, I think the reason lies a little differently in the reasons that were voiced by the "experts".

Kazan is still very different from the first boat, Severodvinsk. So the ships seem to be similar, "Kazan" is a little shorter (9 meters), but it takes more missiles. Placing additional silos is not easy. And "Severodvinsk" takes 40 "Caliber" or 32 "Onyx". "Kazan" - 50 "Caliber" or 40 "Onyx".

This means that space was freed up precisely due to the greater automation of all processes. Plus, there was information that the "Boreyevsky" hydroacoustic complex MGK-600B "Irtysh-Amphora-B-055" was installed on "Kazan". Almost fully automated hydroacoustic complex with a range of more than 300 km.

Kazan entered trials a very long time ago, in 2018, and repeatedly went to the plant. Something was being completed and altered there. The leadership of the fleet and the Ministry of Defense got off with indistinct releases on the topic that "the shortcomings in the work of the auxiliary system are being eliminated." In the press, as expected, a howl was raised about the fact that "we cannot build a submarine either."

However, here it is still worthwhile to understand that the release "for everyone" is one thing, and the revision of a fundamentally new weapon, for example, which could well turn out to be the Zircon missiles, is another. And here a slightly different approach is needed. But "Zircon" behaved quite normally during tests on "Severodvinsk", so, perhaps, there is something completely new. There is a possibility that the "Caliber-M", which, as they say, will be thicker than its predecessor, and therefore some difficulties may be associated with it.

In addition, we generally have a lot of things that can be loaded into the launch silo. So criticism, of course, is a good thing, but only when it is justified.

By the way, about criticism. For some reason, no one is foaming at the mouth of the new generation American aircraft carrier Gerald Ford. He seems to have been in the fleet since 2017, but not brought to mind. There is no air group, electromagnetic catapults are failing, electric lifts are failing, in general - a standard set of "childhood" illnesses. And no one really knows how long the Americans will finish finishing the Ford. For a very complex mechanism.

The submarine is also not a simple ship. Moreover - stuffed with new products. At Kazan we have a new reactor, which is more compact and quieter. Another novelty is the pop-up escape pod for the entire crew. Able to lift people from depths, "to the extreme."

But in our case, it's not even a matter of the number of new products. It is clear that in quality. I repeat that it is a matter of quality and quantity.

Let's take a look (though it will be sad) at the composition of our submarine forces. It is clear that we will talk about our two fleets, where nuclear submarines are available.

ARPKSN project 941 - 1
ARPKSN project 667BDRM - 7
ARPKSN project 995 - 4

SSGN project 885 / 885A - 2
SSGN project 949A - 8
AMPL project 971 - 10
AMPL project 945 / 945A - 4
AMPL project 671RTMK - 2

In general, I somehow do not want to compare with the US Navy. 12 strategic cruisers and 26 nuclear submarines with or without cruise missiles.

The United States has at the disposal of the fleet exactly 70 nuclear submarines of various purposes and freshness.

SSBN (strategists) "Ohio" third generation - 14
SSGN "Ohio" - 4

MPLATRC "Los Angeles" - 32
MPLATRK "Seawulf" - 3
MPLATRC "Virginia" - 17

"Seawulfs" and "Virginias" are, I note, the fourth generation. 20 nuclear submarines, even if three of them are not very good, the Seawolf program is closed, but twenty boats are twenty boats.

And here we have the most important point of the whole study. The most valuable thing in this situation is not even how perfect Kazan is in terms of new products. Most importantly, mass production of boats is possible and possible today.

"Novosibirsk" is undergoing mooring tests. "Krasnoyarsk" is preparing to launch. Arkhangelsk, Perm, Voronezh, Vladivostok, Ulyanovsk are under construction. The completion line for the last (hopefully at least) boat is 2028. That is, in 7 years we will have 8 more nuclear submarines of the fourth generation.

This is not comparable to the American Navy, but in principle it is enough to keep potential people in suspense and understanding of inevitability. It is clear in what situation.

If a salvo of 10 strategic cruisers is needed to wipe a country off the face of the earth, then you shouldn't keep a fleet of 70. 20 is enough, with a margin. But on alert, with trained crews, and so on.

We really need an underwater sword to become a shield.

It is a nuclear submarine, invulnerable at great depths, poorly detectable, with modern weapons on board in the silos - that's the real tomorrow. Whatever the fans of budget-eating ships with hangars are trying to prove. For even three aircraft carriers will not be able to do anything special on the scale of the war of tomorrow.

And what can a salvo of an atomic submarine strategic cruiser do? 16 missiles with 10 warheads, 100-150 kilotons each?

The "fat man" that wiped out Nagasaki was 21 kilotons. Here you can understand what kind of things to do. One vile in its inevitability in a volley, even emerging, even from under the water.

So, while our factories are working on the construction of the rest of the ships of the series, they will work on the Kazan, correcting all the shortcomings and shortcomings that arise. And that's okay. This is not a Chinese diesel engine produced by cutting the ship's hull lengthwise. This is a normal job.

But when they finish with Kazan, it will be easier with the rest.

A start, one might say, has been made. The surrender of "Kazan". Yes, it sounds ambiguous, but this is exactly the case when handing over Kazan is about the same in terms of efficiency as taking Kazan. And here you just need to pass all the other cities of the series as quickly as possible.
Author:
162 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Ru_Na
    Ru_Na 12 May 2021 04: 37
    +17
    Well, finally, I would like to hope that the submarine was brought to mind and now the process of building the rest will go livelier, but the crew of "Kazan" is seven feet under the keel!
    1. Eldorado
      Eldorado 12 May 2021 10: 19
      +40
      Nobody wants 7 feet under the keel for submarines and their crews.
      They simply do not have a keel. repeat They want the number of dives to be equal to the number of ascents and drink for the strength of a solid hull. drinks
    2. RealPilot
      RealPilot 12 May 2021 18: 45
      +1
      The article is inspiring!
      Nice to hear sound reasoning.

      I, not a sailor, becomes more comfortable and safer from such news.
      And let the very specific details and details remain behind the scenes, this forum is not only read by patriots hi

      The Poles were crying the other day that the plans to build radio-technical intelligence centers were leaked to the public, in detail! And where was it? That's right, on the public procurement website wink
  2. magdama
    magdama 12 May 2021 04: 45
    +17
    About other. I haven't seen so many mistakes in the text for a long time. Guys, carefully prepare the material, carefully ...
    1. Eldorado
      Eldorado 12 May 2021 10: 21
      +12
      Yes, there are enough factual errors.
      1. Andrey NM
        Andrey NM 13 May 2021 16: 11
        0
        As an example, we now have 6 BDRMs. One is under repair. Once there was 7, but one was converted into BS-64 ...
  3. magdama
    magdama 12 May 2021 04: 55
    -21%
    Compliment to the author. Good article, correct. The main thing is that these issues are understood by high-sitting uncles in Moscow.
    1. 210ox
      210ox 12 May 2021 06: 07
      +1
      If this happens, then more than one country will have to be demolished. Let it be on the conscience of the uryakalok about "those who have no analogues in the world". The technical and technological state of the industry does not yet allow doing something like that. And so, well done, the shipbuilders, wish our sailors successful service and seven feet under the keel.
      1. The leader of the Redskins
        The leader of the Redskins 12 May 2021 07: 00
        +2
        All the same, the author, although he promised at the beginning of the article to take a neutral position "in the middle", in my opinion, wrote subjective material, approaching the "no analogs". Well, yes, you can understand it - an event, all the same, joyful.
        1. lucul
          lucul 12 May 2021 15: 20
          0
          Well, yes, you can understand this - an event, all the same, a joyful one.

          Yes, it turned out to be a good submarine.
          But there is still room for modernization.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 12 May 2021 22: 54
            0
            This submarine at Sevmash was called "This invalid" until they changed its name, after which it received the nickname "Execution".
            And it’s not just that.
      2. kytx
        kytx 12 May 2021 10: 22
        0
        if "this" happens, then everyone will extinguish everyone. we are not at war with the "Papuans" as actively as the Americans, so we don't really need the type of Ohio stuffed with 128 lionfish (emnip)
  4. FRoman1984
    FRoman1984 12 May 2021 04: 55
    +2
    I agree. The submarine fleet in our realities should become the future of the Navy. For the cost of an aircraft carrier, air group, escort, you can build more than 885 boats
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 12 May 2021 22: 37
      -1
      Quote: FRoman1984
      I agree. The submarine fleet in our realities should become the future of the Navy. For the cost of an aircraft carrier, air group, escort, you can build more than 885 boats

      that's right, I will say more for the cost of an aircraft carrier, you can re-create half of the air force or all the air defense of the country or a dozen nuclear submarines, or ... in general, five annual budgets of the Ministry of Defense = this is a lot
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 12 May 2021 22: 58
      +3
      No, this is not true, the result of such an undertaking will be even worse than the Battle of the Atlantic for the Germans.
      1. andybuts
        andybuts 1 June 2021 17: 33
        0
        Alexander, what a battle for the Atlantic, who with whom ... the Navy is claiming the role of the Germans ... that you are carrying something ...
    3. Kalmar
      Kalmar 13 May 2021 10: 55
      +2
      Quote: FRoman1984
      I agree. The submarine fleet in our realities should become the future of the Navy. For the cost of an aircraft carrier, air group, escort, you can build more than 885 boats

      And some "Buyans" can generally be configured so much that they will not fit in the Black Sea. Only it will not be a fleet, but a fiction. Well, there is no silver bullet, which is one from all misfortunes, there is no! The fleet must be complex, contain diverse forces, then it will be able to solve all the tasks facing it. On the 885s alone, he "will not leave" (especially in light of the current situation with torpedo armament).
  5. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 12 May 2021 05: 08
    +18
    And, given that we can build nuclear submarines, this should not be a problem, unless they get in the way adherents of the aircraft carrier sect underfoot... ... who can become a real shield for the country, and not a consumer of budget money.
    By the way, the idea is not mine, I took it from Kyle Mizokami from National Interest.
    Bringing the "thoughts" of Mizokami, a patented iksperd, as an argument in defense of a very weak, to put it mildly, concept is something new.
    It is a pity that the author of the article, listening to Mizokami, completely ignores the experience of building the USSR Navy.

    Submarines are good, newer submarines are great, but this is not a reason to go to extremes.
  6. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 12 May 2021 05: 10
    +3
    In general, I somehow do not want to compare with the US Navy.

    For some reason, I guessed who the author of the article is ... wink
    Novel. Of all this recent thirty-year history (from 1991 to 2021) of the development of the Russian Armed Forces, I always want to note one feature: the snail's pace of creation. Sorry, but it's just some kind of insanity to claim that the troops are provided with new weapons in sufficient quantities. It is clear that it is difficult. It is clear that “analogs will become submissive”. But !!! Was it possible to win a victory in the Second World War with weapons of WWII? And today we have been led to the fact that it is impossible to jump over our heads, and everything that in words and in drawings is better than the Soviet one is available in single copies or requires refinement.
    But what about:
    "First think about your homeland, and then about yourself ..."?
    In a word, I will not repeat myself, the conclusion is simple:
    And here you just need to pass all the other cities of the series as quickly as possible.
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 12 May 2021 05: 24
      -1
      Quote: ROSS 42
      "First, think about your homeland, and then about yourself ..."

      That's when our patriotic oligarchs are imbued with this slogan, then the construction of the fleet will become commonplace, like the release of another car at KAMAZ ...
      1. Lech from Android.
        Lech from Android. 12 May 2021 05: 40
        +5
        smile When the income of the oligarchs will depend on how much he invested in his homeland, then the result will come, gentlemen from the State Duma, work on the laws in this regard.
        1. Stirbjorn
          Stirbjorn 12 May 2021 07: 53
          +7
          Quote: Lech from Android.
          gentlemen from the State Duma, work on the laws in this regard.

          gentlemen from the State Duma are lobbying the interests of these very oligarchs, and the oligarchs have no homeland - no
          1. lucul
            lucul 12 May 2021 15: 08
            0
            and the oligarchs have no homeland - no

            All oligarchs just have one historical homeland - Jerusalem, and they want to make it the main world capital.
            For this they work))))
            1. Stirbjorn
              Stirbjorn 12 May 2021 18: 02
              +2
              Quote: lucul
              All oligarchs just have one historical homeland - Jerusalem, and they want to make it the main world capital.
              For this they work))))

              And Potanin with Malofeev ?!
      2. georg 2
        georg 2 12 May 2021 10: 53
        +3
        That's when our patriotic oligarchs will be imbued with this slogan,

        They will never be imbued with this slogan, they have a completely different task and worldview. Their task is to make a profit and invest it in production that brings the maximum income. There are no other tasks. Therefore, they stand "above the Motherland." Their homeland is where their capital and a cozy house by the warm sea are.
        1. Uncle lee
          Uncle lee 12 May 2021 11: 17
          +4
          Quote: georg 2
          There are no other tasks.

          Patriotic oligarchs are incompatible concepts, like dry water or warm ice! This is my sarcastic sarcasm ... hi
      3. Barberry25
        Barberry25 12 May 2021 14: 23
        0
        laughing Poor oligarchs have already stuttered .. Nobody told you that the delivery of the head unit is always a "headache"?
    2. Ka-52
      Ka-52 12 May 2021 08: 36
      +1
      And today we have been led to the fact that it is impossible to jump over our heads, and everything that in words and in drawings is better than the Soviet one is available in single copies or requires refinement.

      do not write nonsense
    3. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 12 May 2021 09: 44
      -3
      Quote: ROSS 42
      But what about:
      "First think about your homeland, and then about yourself ..."?

      Funny.
      It seems that many years have passed since 1991, but the naive still do not overlap.
      We have one slogan now - "enrich yourself!"
      And you mean some kind of homeland.
    4. Captain45
      Captain45 16 May 2021 13: 53
      0
      Quote: ROSS 42
      But what about:
      "First think about your homeland, and then about yourself ..."?

      This is how it was before. Since the 90s, it sounds like this:
      "I used to think about my Motherland, but now about myself ..."
  7. Dante Alighieri
    Dante Alighieri 12 May 2021 05: 45
    +14
    Yes, they started for health, and finished for peace ...
    It is a nuclear submarine, invulnerable at great depths, poorly detectable, with modern weapons on board in launch silos - that's the real tomorrow. Whatever the fans of budget-eating ships with hangars try to prove. For even three aircraft carriers will not be able to do anything special on the scale of the war of tomorrow.

    And what can a salvo of an atomic submarine strategic cruiser do? 16 missiles with 10 warheads, 100-150 kilotons each?


    And where does Kazan have to do with it? Kazan is for a second MAPL or AMPL (whatever you like), not SSBNs. We have no special problems with SSBNs, the fleet receives all ordered units more or less on time. But with the MAPL, the situation is completely different. Actually, I have only one question for the serial production of 885: why did it become necessary to redraw the project of an already finished serial product on the fly, while it would seem that the lead boat of the series was launched and accepted into the fleet. No, it is clear that some systems are being changed or refined, but conceptually the appearance of the project should already be predetermined, but instead we see dramatic changes, already in literally the next boat, which instead of becoming the first serial one, again turns out to be the head one. Nonsense, isn't it?

    And here we have the most important point of the whole study. The most valuable thing in this situation is not even how perfect Kazan is in terms of new products. Most importantly, mass production of boats is possible and possible today.


    I don't even want to comment on this "pearl" of the author, but apparently I will have to.
    No one has ever questioned the capabilities of the Russian Federation to produce nuclear submarines. The possibility of serial production of boats whose performance characteristics are comparable or superior to the potential enemy's MAPLs were questioned. Undoubtedly, Project 885 is a significant leap forward compared to 971 projects in this direction, however, all its advantages are largely offset by the use of a number of outdated solutions, which are obviously present purely for the sake of a general reduction in the cost of the project. And this despite the fact that the same water-jet propellers have been perfectly tested on the SSBNs of project 955. The situation could have been saved by the transition from one-and-a-half to a single-hull design, which would have a beneficial effect not only on the speed of construction of the ship, but also on its cost, allowing additional funds to be allocated for a more expensive type of propulsion device. It is clear that everything has a price, in this case, the transition to a completely single-hull design would reduce the overall reliability of the boat. However, our overseas "partners" considered this risk acceptable, preferring to a certain extent quantitative characteristics to qualitative ones. A reasonable question arises: should we, in our situation of total enemy domination, reinvent the wheel, stuffing bumps where others have already stuffed them, and completely free for us?
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 12 May 2021 08: 00
      0
      Quote: Dante
      No one has ever questioned the capabilities of the Russian Federation to produce nuclear submarines.

      Let's stop looking for the truth in the arrangement of words in a sentence and in all honesty on ... on ...

      let's say with full responsibility that it is in the USSR ...
      ... no one has ever questioned the possibility of producing nuclear submarines, as well as other equipment. Whether serially, as a prototype, or as an "analogue".
      Here is this: “could”, “planned”, “wanted the best, but it turned out ...” we will leave it alone and send it to a container with sanctions, sticks from wheels, figs from pockets and stones from behind the bosom. The aircraft development price was determined a long time ago and has not undergone any changes:
      A nation that does not want to feed its own army will feed someone else's.

      In our case, a certain group of people does not want to feed both the army and the people, by no means a puny build and a modest constitution, but with a desire to EAT (!!!) without looking back and without measure. And all your one-and-a-half-body and single-body designs are "waist-deep" to them. For thirty years of transformations, they did nothing but beat their thumbs. and we stuffed bumps out of the blue, listening to the reasons for the postponement of commissioning, launching, serial production and other excuses for which absolutely everyone is to blame, except for these parasites.
    2. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 12 May 2021 09: 52
      +1
      Quote: Dante
      there is only one question to the serial production of 885: why did it become necessary to redraw the project of an already finished serial product on the fly,

      Good question, only you yourself answered it.
      Quote: Dante
      Project 885 is a significant leap forward compared to 971 projects in this direction, however, all its advantages are largely offset by the use of a number of outdated solutions,

      And it's not just about the propellers instead of water cannons, it's about everything, because the lead boat is a project of the last century based on the equipment of the last century.
      It would be strange now to put on new ships, for example, tube electronics.
      1. Dante Alighieri
        Dante Alighieri 12 May 2021 11: 25
        +1
        for the lead boat is a project of the last century based on the equipment of the last century.

        I don’t deny, but did it then make sense to mess around with the lead ship for so long and meticulously, if it was already obvious that the project was morally outdated and needed corrections? Maybe it was worth making a strong-willed decision and pulling off from Severodvinsk everything that could be useful for the accelerated construction of Kazan, and letting the rest of the scrap for the next boats of the project? Thus, we would have reduced a lot of time, finances, and most importantly, man-hours for the construction of Kazan and its subsequent tests, and today we would discuss the surrender of not even Novosibirsk, but the pro minimum of Krasnoyarsk.

        In addition, I will note that even the modernized 885M did not become a truly ultra-modern ship, as Seewulf once became for amers, tk. too many compromises were made when creating the same Kazan. Rather, this is a good attempt to give a symmetrical answer to the Virginias, who are also just a budget version of their progenitor. Of course, the fact that we can create something like this is not bad, but do not forget that we are in the position of catching up, and therefore we need to either initially raise the bar set by the enemy (that is, work for the future), or take by quantity. Unfortunately, pr. 885M offers neither one nor the other.

        However, let's not be too strict - this is, indeed, already at least something. True, given that the perturbations I described took a significant period of time from us, I think that the victorious reports should be left some other time.
        1. Jacket in stock
          Jacket in stock 12 May 2021 11: 58
          +1
          Quote: Dante
          Maybe it was worth making a strong-willed decision and pulling off from Severodvinsk everything that could be useful for the accelerated construction of Kazan, and letting the rest of the scrap for the next boats of the project? Thus, we would reduce a lot of time, finance, and most importantly - man-hours.

          It would be interesting to know what could be "pulled off".
          It seems that nothing, except that the same metal. Of course, I'm not particularly in the subject, but knowing how it happened in other cases, most likely they just decided to finish the Soviet project from the old backlog, picking up everything that was lying around the bottom of the barrel, quickly dropping off the replacement that was discontinued and remained abroad.
          And the "modernized" project is essentially a completely new boat, which has as much in common with the previous one as, for example, the Tu22m aircraft with the Tu22.
          1. Dante Alighieri
            Dante Alighieri 12 May 2021 12: 04
            -5
            Well, not only metal, of course. Another reactor, power plant, gearboxes, drives, etc. The list is actually extensive.
            And the "modernized" project is essentially a completely new boat, which has as much in common with the previous one as, for example, the Tu22m aircraft with the Tu22.

            Well, the TU-22M is being built at least on the basis of previously released aircraft that have already been in operation. And then they had to build a completely new boat. And yes, I understand that it was impossible to do without it, that's why I say that it probably would make sense not to bring the epic with Severodvinsk to its logical end.
            1. Jacket in stock
              Jacket in stock 12 May 2021 12: 11
              +4
              Quote: Dante
              reactor, power plant, gearbox, drives, etc.

              I don't know about the rest, but the reactor is just different.
              Quote: Dante
              it would probably make sense not to bring the Severodvinsk epic to its logical conclusion.

              Probably when the decision was made, they had to calculate the economy. Although, it is sometimes impossible to understand someone else's decision-making logic, especially when you do not know all the circumstances.
              1. Dante Alighieri
                Dante Alighieri 13 May 2021 11: 16
                0
                I don't know about the rest, but the reactor is just different.

                I consulted with the "competent comrades" and said that the reactor remained the same; as I understood some kind of circulation equipment, but everything else remained the same.
                it is sometimes impossible to understand someone else's decision-making logic, especially when you do not know all the circumstances

                And we will never know all the circumstances: something "under the heading", something is due exclusively to the backstage agreements, which are also not accepted to advertise. We can only access what is the property of the public environment and what logically follows from this. Another issue is the correlation of these factors and the fact that one should not dominate over the other. Ideally at least. Why is that? Yes, because it is not the gods who burn the pots, but the same people, and people, as you know, are inclined to make mistakes.
            2. bk316
              bk316 12 May 2021 13: 33
              +5
              Well, the TU-22M is being built at least on the basis of previously released aircraft that have already been in operation.

              This is all you confused, not the TU-22M is being built on the basis of the TU-22.
              The Tu-22M3M is being built on the basis of the TU-22M3, it is really just being modernized.
              And the Tu-22 and Tu-22m are completely different aircraft.
              1. Dante Alighieri
                Dante Alighieri 12 May 2021 15: 54
                0
                Excuse me, but where in my words is the speech about the TU-22? I just didn’t list all the indices, because it’s lazy. Therefore, I wrote on the basis of previously released aircraft hi
                1. bk316
                  bk316 12 May 2021 17: 21
                  -1
                  The man wrote to you.
                  And the "modernized" project is essentially a completely new boat, which has as much in common with the previous one as, for example, the Tu22m aircraft with the Tu22.

                  And rightly so.

                  You wrote.
                  Well, the TU-22M is being built at least on the basis of previously released aircraft that have already been in operation.

                  And this is wrong.

                  Further explain?
                  1. Dante Alighieri
                    Dante Alighieri 13 May 2021 08: 46
                    0
                    Further explain?

                    If you don't bother. For so far nothing is clear from your words. First you say
                    The Tu-22M3M is being built on the basis of the TU-22M3, it is really just being modernized.

                    those. you seem to confirm my words that the latest modifications of this aircraft are being built on the basis of previously released aircraft already in operation, but at the same time tell me that I am wrong. request
                    1. bk316
                      bk316 13 May 2021 12: 40
                      +1
                      For so far nothing is clear from your words

                      All right.
                      There are the following aircraft.

                      Tu-22
                      Tu-22M
                      Tu-22M3
                      Tu-22M3M

                      Tu-22 has a very distant relation to the Tu-22M *** family. They wrote about this, comparing it with Severodvinsk and Kazan with the Tu-22 and Tu-22M.

                      In response, for some reason, you wrote that the Tu-22M was made from operated aircraft.
                      It is not true that the Tu-22M were made from scratch, they are not a modernization of anything, and even the project itself is not a modification of anything.

                      Further, the project developed and turned out first Tu-22m2 and then Tu-22m3, but the aircraft themselves were also built from scratch, and were not altered from the operated ones at all.

                      And only the latest modernization of the Tu-22M3, called the Tu-22M3M, is obtained by reworking aircraft that are already in operation.

                      In military technology, as in mathematics, any symbol can mean a lot. Iskander-M is not Iskander-K at all. , Tu-22 is not Tu-22m at all, and Project 885M is far from 885
    3. bayard
      bayard 12 May 2021 15: 16
      +6
      Quote: Dante
      Kazan is for a second MAPL or AMPL (whatever you like), not SSBNs.

      Actually, "Kazan" is a classic SSGN, which was supposed to replace the 949 project, and the terms of reference for which were personally compiled by Admiral Gorshkov (back in the 70s). This is the Soviet groundwork and the Soviet development of the Onyx carrier.
      But the MAPL was seen in the late USSR quite different - VI of the order of 4500 - 5000 tons, with a dimension of about 945 pr. With torpedo armament and CD launched through TA. It was developed. And even a full-size model was ready ... But the Country was gone and the work was closed.
      And when in the 00s they remembered the Fleet, they decided instead of a separate SSGN and a separate MAPL, to build "Ash" as ... a multipurpose nuclear submarine. Only she came out (and could not but come out) VERY expensive and difficult. And its cost, equal to the cost of two (!) "Boreyev", says a lot.
      And today we do not even have a modern MAPL in the project.
      Absolutely not .
      Inexpensive, massive, only with torpedo tubes, which means that it is as simple as possible in construction and operation. Cost as corvette 20380.
      That's right, because the cost of "Borey-A" today is approximately equal to the cost of frigate 22350.
      But time has already been lost forever. The Yasenei-M series was founded and is being built, eating up the lion's share of the Navy's budget. There is simply no money, time, free capacity and design personnel.
      Today, the Soviet-built MAPLs - 971 ave., Which were stagnant in anticipation, have gone for modernization and repairs. Excellent MAPLs, but they will last 15 years after repairs ... at best twenty (I doubt it) ... And what next?
      "Husky \ Laika"?
      Sizes and displacement as the same "Ash"?
      Where does such a passion for "walking to the last" come from? After all, these submarines will never become real MAPLs. They will never go free hunting or escort SSBNs. They will always be "pitied" - like battleships in WWI. And the range of their tasks (based on their weapons) will always differ from the tasks of the MAPL.
      And they will always be missed.
      While the creation of a SSGN based on the Borei-Borei-K SSBN would not only halve the cost of the program for the creation of this type of submarine, ensure their complete unification with SSBNs, provide 2 - 2,5 times more powerful salvo of one such The SSGN (in comparison with the "Ash"), would have made them more secretive, thanks to the jet propulsion unit, but would also free up HUGE funds sufficient for the development and construction of a large series of MAPLs of moderate VI.

      But today nothing can be changed. The total number of mortgaged and contracted "Ash trees" approached ten ... and willy-nilly they need to be completed and put into operation.
      And there was no money for the MAPL, and there is still no money.
      And "Husky \ Laika" promises to be even more expensive, senseless and merciless than the long-suffering (for the budget and the Navy as a whole) "Ash".
      We will never be able to fight on an equal footing with the enemy's fleets if we do not ensure sufficient MASS, which means the serial production of our MAPLs. The main workhorses of the submarine fleet.
      And mass scale can never be ensured by relying on the most expensive and complex projects.
      This is a road to a dead end.
      And if no one stopped this locomotive with "Ash" into the abyss, then it is necessary at least to stop it in relation to this ill-fated "Laika" (13 tons of VI) and redirect material resources and intellectual resources to create a large series of inexpensive and moderate in VI MAPL. The Fleet needs about 500-20 such units.
      1. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl 12 May 2021 21: 22
        +3
        Quote: bayard
        Actually, "Kazan" is a classic SSGN, which was supposed to replace the 949 project ... But the MAPL was seen in the late USSR completely different - VI of the order of 4500 - 5000 tons,
        essentially Vitaly (!)... I support (!). I can only try to add that the project bore the code "Cedar" ... yes
        Quote: bayard
        And when in the 00s they remembered the Fleet, they decided instead of a separate SSGN and a separate MAPL, to build "Ash" as ... a multipurpose nuclear submarine. Only she came out (and could not but come out) VERY expensive and difficult. And its cost, equal to the cost of two (!) "Boreyev", says a lot.
        correct statement of facts (!).
        Quote: bayard
        But today nothing can be changed.
        but here I do not agree. You can change everything what are you trying to change (!)... But you can belatedly, or you can not even try ... and then, yes, the result itself will not come. winked
        As for the joy over the delivery of Kazan, I really want to believe in it (!), especially in:
        - improved stealth (!),
        - improved SAC (who will hear the enemy earlier) (!),
        - and availability effective PTZ (!), which will not let this happen with "Kursk" ...
        And the idea that the version of the SSGN in the form of 955-K, quite possibly, could be no worse than the 885M (and it is possible that it is cheaper) ... also has the right to life (!)...
        But now we really probably need "Cedars" (on a scale less than RTMK for VI), as an SSMN ... hi
        1. bayard
          bayard 12 May 2021 23: 08
          +3
          hi Greetings to Vladimir.
          Quote: Vl Nemchinov
          Quote: bayard
          But today nothing can be changed.
          but here I do not agree. You can change everything that you try to change (!). But you can belatedly, or you can not even try ... and then, yes, the result itself will not come.

          The fact is that all the mortgaged and contracted Ash trees will have to be completed in any case. Despite all their flaws. Nobody can stop the technical process.
          But further plans ("Laika") would very much like to prevent, because this is a continuation of the ideology of the same monstrous "Ash". And after all, the first reports about the future "Husky" said that it was ... practically the reincarnation of the "Cedar" idea - a moderate VI, a liquid-metal reactor, compact and powerful. They wrote about it as the revival of the idea of ​​"Lyra" - small, fast, brisk, massive ... And then suddenly ... "the project" Husky "has undergone some changes" and under the new name "Laika" it will be ... a monster VI 13 500 t.
          What happened?
          Ash's lobby won again.
          Timokhin wrote to me about this in a personal note when they discussed the idea of ​​"Borey-K".
          And this "Ash's lobby" breaks both the Glavkomat and the General Staff ... and Shoigu, who has already announced that after the completion of the Borei-A series bookmarks, the Ministry of Defense will finance the Borei-K series start-up. years ago ... and the first bookmarks should have already taken place, but ... instead, the Borey-A series was continued. Perhaps later, the laying of the SSGN based on the Borey will take place.
          It is obvious that the laying of the Boreev-K series would have stopped further laying of new Ash trees.
          And perhaps this would lead, by the very logic, to the reanimation of the Kedr or Husky project.
          But Ash's lobby breaks everyone and everything.
          And if we consider that the secrecy of the "Ash" is low and the speed of the low-noise stroke is low, several times lower than that of the enemy's MAPL ... (alas - the open propeller against the water cannon looks pale) ... then in dueling situations "Ash" will yield "Virginias" and the British MAPL ... So the "lobby" undermines the defense capability.
          And this is no longer just "cutting the budget", but something more.
          That is why there is little optimism in this regard.
          1. Dante Alighieri
            Dante Alighieri 13 May 2021 09: 27
            +2
            Bayard, I greet you! Thank you very much for correcting me. Indeed, if you strictly follow the terminology, then Yaseny is, indeed, a classic SSGN, but there is a feeling that they want to turn it (at least on paper) into a single platform connecting the functions of both a missile cruiser and an underwater hunter (although I personally have little idea of ​​the latter) by analogy with Virgins. Therefore, the debugging. I would not be surprised if something else in this direction is implemented on the next hull (as usual with the next shift in the date of delivery of the boat). Therefore, I referred them to the MPSS as there is a feeling (I hope it is still deceptive) that we will not have any other series of submarines, with the exception of strategists and diesel-electric submarines, in the near future.
      2. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin 12 May 2021 21: 30
        +2
        Yes, unfortunately, there is nothing to add to what has been said. But how well to describe the versatility of "Ash" and their capabilities! They are really rather big, but at the same time it is necessary to take into account that there will be 2-3 enemy submarines against them. And then if only the US Navy is considered, without allies.
  8. anclevalico
    anclevalico 12 May 2021 07: 27
    +6
    Still, with the torpedoes, things should be adjusted.
  9. Ratmir_Ryazan
    Ratmir_Ryazan 12 May 2021 07: 36
    +6
    Severodvinsk "takes 40" Caliber "or 32" Onyx ". "Kazan" - 50 "Caliber" or 40 "Onyx".


    What is it like? Is the Onyx charged through one into the launching cell, and the Caliber into each one?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 May 2021 09: 26
      +18
      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
      What is it like? Is the Onyx charged through one into the launching cell, and the Caliber into each one?

      And this is Skomorokhov's analyst in all its glory. He seems to have climbed into Wikipedia, read that 885 / 885M are equipped with launchers, which include either 4 "onyx" or 5 "calibers" :)))))
      That for 885 the number of installations = 8, and on "Kazan" there are, according to some sources, 10 - he knows that. That's how it happened, what happened :))))
      Alas, the author is unable to understand that the number of missiles in the launcher = the number of silos for them (except for the cases when several small missiles can be placed in one silo), and that if the launcher contains 4 "onyx", then the calibers will also be included in it. four.
      By the way, deepstorm, a very serious site, generally believes that only 3 missiles can be included in one installation, for Severodvinsk it gives 24-32 missiles. According to my information, there are still 32 of them (plus a certain number can be taken instead of torpedoes). And data on 5 calibers in one installation - from a completely illiterate article "Quiet hunter: the submarine" Yasen-M "will neutralize an aircraft carrier with one torpedo" in which there are, for example, such pearls
      In addition, it is reported that a new, less noisy engine has been installed at Kazan. However, there is no official confirmation of this - the propeller was covered with a special cover at the launching ceremony.

      How, the SCREW can indicate the low noise of the ENGINE. I think it's better not even to ask ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Orkraider
        Orkraider 12 May 2021 15: 35
        +1
        Greetings!

        That for 885 the number of installations = 8, and on "Kazan" there are, according to some sources, 10 - he knows that.

        Yes, it seems that the number of launchers is the same in both Severodvinsk and Kazan.
        Screenshot of the video from the flag-raising ceremony at Kazan.
        It turns out 8.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 May 2021 16: 19
          +4
          Quote: Orkraider
          Screenshot of the video from the flag-raising ceremony at Kazan.
          It turns out 8.

          Yes, if there is no mistake, and this is Kazan - it turns out 8 launchers and 32 missiles hi
          1. Bashkirkhan
            Bashkirkhan 13 May 2021 07: 51
            0
            Dear Andrew! hi It's good that you are using the data from the assault depth site, I also recommend taking a look at the sea airbase forum on the 885M profile branch. There is a photo in good quality, which, when transferred to VO, is compressed to an indecent state. And on airbase it can be increased.
            http://forums.airbase.ru/2021/05/t70309_146--podvodnye-lodki-proekta-885.2026.html
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2021 07: 57
              +2
              Good morning, dear Bashkirkhan!
              Quote: Bashkirkhan
              It's good that you are using the data from the assault depth site.

              I took your advice with great pleasure. In general, I try to follow good advice :))))) Taking this opportunity - thanks again for the excellent "tip", because at one time I, without understanding, ignored this site. hi
              Quote: Bashkirkhan
              I also recommend taking a look at the naval airbase forum on the 885M profile thread.

              And again - thanks, I will definitely drop by!
  10. Yaroslav Zhigulin
    Yaroslav Zhigulin 12 May 2021 07: 50
    +4
    The Sea Wolves were that much. Very good and very expensive that, in the absence of a potential enemy, the 90s decided to do like with Tikanderoga and Arlie Burke 3/4 of the possibilities for 1/2 of the cost turned out to be a virgin

    Which, in their new iteration, are very similar in concept to ash
    And then the question is that they are preparing to withdraw the Ohio rocket launchers or are they already preparing with notches with powerful nc connections, guess whose ...
    1. ramzay21
      ramzay21 12 May 2021 08: 09
      +5
      Sea Wolfe is much better than Virginias, that's for sure.
  11. ramzay21
    ramzay21 12 May 2021 08: 08
    +9
    And how will you defend SSBNs from anti-aircraft missile and nuclear submarines of a potential enemy? There is no better protection for SSBNs than AUG.
  12. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 May 2021 08: 10
    +23
    By the way, the idea is not mine, I took it from Kyle Mizokami from National Interest.

    Sometimes it's better to think with your own head ...
    Let's take a look (though it will be sad) at the composition of our submarine forces. It is clear that we will talk about our two fleets, where nuclear submarines are available.

    let's get a look
    ARPKSN project 941 - 1
    ARPKSN project 667BDRM - 7
    ARPKSN project 995 - 4

    In fact, we do not have Project 941 SSBNs, but we have an experimental Bulava missile test ship with one operating missile silo. Also, we do not have seven SSBNs of Project 667BDRM, there are six of them, since one of the ships of this type, Podmoskovye, has been converted into a carrier for special purpose submarines.
    SSGN project 949A - 8

    SSGN 949A we have not 8, but 7, since the eighth ship of this type (Voronezh) is withdrawn into the reserve for disposal (its name was given to one of the 885M under construction)
    MPLATRC "Los Angeles" - 32

    In fact - 28
    MPLATRC "Virginia" - 17

    in fact, at least 19, if not all 20, if the Oregon went into operation.
    "Seawulfs" and "Virginias" are, I note, the fourth generation. 20 nuclear submarines, even if three of them are not very good, the Seawolf program is closed

    The author does not know that Virginia is the budget version of Seawolf. Of course, progress does not stand still, but "Seawolf" is clearly more interesting than the first "Virginias" at least
    And here we have the most important point of the whole study.

    The author clearly did not work with the research.
    The most valuable thing in this situation is not even how perfect Kazan is in terms of new products. Most importantly, mass production of boats is possible and possible today.

    I'm glad for Roman. Everything is possible with him. Just one moment. If from 2013 (I do not specifically consider Kazan, which was laid down in 2009, we will consider it as the lead ship and from this in many respects an experimental ship) to 2028, that is, in 15 years we plan to build as many as 7 serial SSGNs (in reality terms, as usual, will go to the right), then this is anything but mass construction.
    I have nothing against submarines, and I consider them one of the most important components of the Navy. But it's funny that the author, who so zealously defends the priority of their construction, is unable to even count their number in the Russian and US Navy.
    However, what to ask of a person who is confident that the submarine is capable of solving all the tasks of the fleet without the help of naval aviation?
    1. slm976
      slm976 12 May 2021 09: 57
      +11
      However, what to ask of a person who is confident that the submarine is capable of solving all the tasks of the fleet without the help of naval aviation?


      I generally cannot understand how otherwise adequate people can oppose the surface and submarine fleets!)))
      This is some kind of schizophrenia - they do not need surface ships, they have to pump all the means into the submarine ...
      And the fact that without cover for surface combat ships and naval aviation of nuclear submarines, during the war, they will not even be able to leave the bases, not to mention any effective combat service, for some reason nobody takes into account ... nonsense.
      As for Roman Skomorokhov, his style of his opuses on the marine theme is immediately apparent - confusion, categorical and incompetent! (((
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 May 2021 10: 33
        +10
        Quote: slm976
        This is some kind of schizophrenia

        "Note, I didn’t suggest it!" (from) :))))) hi
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 12 May 2021 22: 21
        -1
        Quote: slm976
        This is some kind of schizophrenia - they do not need surface ships, they have to pump all the means into the submarine ...

        don't lie, no one speaks against frigates and minesweepers, the question is about unnecessary aircraft carriers and superlinkers = destroyers
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 12 May 2021 22: 46
          +1
          How will frigates protect themselves from an air attack without aircraft?
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 12 May 2021 22: 50
            -2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            frigates will protect themselves from air attacks without aircraft

            we are for powerful and efficient coastal aviation! and the Witnesses of the aircraft carrier against aviation, this is obvious, the sect of the aircraft carrier witnesses want to destroy not only the nuclear submarine, but also the VKS by stopping funding ... that's how they are byaks (especially the sectarians don't like TU160 for some reason).
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 12 May 2021 22: 52
              +1
              There is more than 3 km from Severomosk-800 to the North Cape-Medvezhiy-Spitsbergen PLO line. How are you trying to protect the ships on it with coastal aviation? There, from the moment the enemy strikers enter the frigate field designated by the radar before the attack, there will be several minutes.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 12 May 2021 22: 54
                -1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                more than 800 km

                Tu-22M / Flight range
                5 100 km
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 12 May 2021 22: 55
                  +1
                  He cannot shoot down fighters.
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 12 May 2021 23: 27
                    -3
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    He cannot shoot down fighters.

                    we will teach, for 5 percent of the cost of your unnecessary AB
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa 13 May 2021 14: 14
                      +1
                      But then the question will arise - how can they find themselves 800 km from the airfield in 20-25 minutes in an amount sufficient to repulse an aircraft carrier "strike" (24 striker with missiles, up to 12 escort interceptors)?
                      1. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 13 May 2021 20: 12
                        -1
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        how they find themselves 800 km from the airfield in 20-25 minutes in an amount sufficient to

                        the answer is obvious, we sell Kuzya and build 40 TU160 with this money,
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        24 strikers with missiles, up to 12 escort interceptors

                        it is obvious that you need to use coastal front-line long-range aviation, and air defense of frigates, 6 deck SU33 with Kuzi will definitely not help here
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa 14 May 2021 23: 09
                        +1
                        I asked you a very specific question - how can a base plane be at a distance of 800+ km from the base as part of a large group of its own kind in a few minutes.

                        What are you joking, just answer. Tu-160 will not be able to conduct maneuverable combat with fighters if you are not in the know.
                      3. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 15 May 2021 23: 46
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        a specific question - how can a base plane be at a distance of 800+ km from the base as part of a large group of its own kind in a few minutes.

                        I love specifics! flight time su35 for 800 km = 17 minutes, and Tu 160 is not advisable to fly so close

                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Tu-160 will not be able to conduct a maneuverable battle with fighters

                        and it is not necessary, it will destroy the enemy's AV for 3000 km and return to the base, and the carrier-based aircraft fall into the sea
              2. tone
                tone 13 May 2021 05: 59
                +2
                Alexander, my respect, I always read your articles with great pleasure, but there is no place where I could find out about their release! Earlier you made an announcement on LJ but abandoned it. On the Sea Power telegram channel, you are not announcing all the articles.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 13 May 2021 14: 17
                  0
                  To be honest, there is such a problem.
                  On the channel I post only what is on the topic, in zhezhe, I confess, I sometimes forget to post.

                  Here is the most reliable link for VO - https://topwar.ru/user/timokhin-aa/

                  In "VPK-Courier" - https://vpk-news.ru/authors/8012
                  In "Vzglyad" only monitor, although it would be necessary to spread them in zhezhe ...
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 13 May 2021 16: 26
              +2
              Quote: vladimir1155
              Tu-22M / Flight range
              5 100 km

              Money again for the fish.
              Are you going to keep in the air at the 24 km line a grouping capable of repelling a strike from the AUG air wing strike group 7/800? Because our reserve from the position of "duty at the airfield" at this line simply does not have time to come to the aid of the duty forces - for the time interval between the detection of the enemy and his exit and the launch range of anti-ship missiles.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 13 May 2021 20: 17
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Are you going to keep in the air at the 24 km line a grouping capable of repelling a strike from the AUG air wing strike group 7/800?

                every time on the entom place ... first of all, why should they keep them there for 24 hours, aug does not fall from the sky, it needs to be drowned before the decks take off from it, in any case, if there are bees, it means there will be honey if AUG is approaching we fly out, no matter what we will destroy AB itself or its planes (it is better, of course, AB itself is an easily sweated vessel) if it is not sitting at the base, the obvious tactic is incomprehensible only to laymen
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 14 May 2021 10: 33
                  +2
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  first of all, why on earth should they be kept there for 24 hours, aug does not fall from the sky, it needs to be drowned hedgehog before the decks take off from it

                  Need to. And you need to find it in advance.
                  Here are just 100% control over the movement of AUG is only in bad alternatives. In real life, even the mighty USSR discovered AUG at least three times after it formally completed its task. However, the issues of detecting AUG have been considered here many times.
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  we fly out, no matter what we will destroy AB itself or its planes (it is better, of course, AB itself is an easily sweated vessel) if it is not sitting at the base, the obvious tactic is incomprehensible only to laymen

                  Great tactics. It's just not clear what to do if you flew out - and did not find AUG. Or found - and this is not AUG. And then AUG will nightmare our PLO forces for at least half a day.
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 14 May 2021 19: 21
                    -2
                    [
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    Need to. And you need to find it in advance.
                    Here are just 100% control over the movement of AUG is only in bad alternatives. In real life, even the mighty USSR discovered AUG at least three times

                    Well, your Timokhin claims that the nuclear submarine is allegedly detected in two counts, so we will find the AB with those sonars that it is so "easy" to find the nuclear submarine, you will not argue that the AB is noisy .... and there are also satellites and the A100, and from the moment the collapse of the USSR, a quarter of a century has passed, technologies have not stood still and the detection of objects has become easier ... all early on there are no AWACS aircraft on your Kuza and in terms of searching for ships it is rather weak, at the level of a frigate
                  2. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 14 May 2021 23: 11
                    +1
                    so we will find AB with those sonars that it is so "easy" to find the nuclear submarine


                    And they cannot take surface targets as well as underwater ones, in addition, if we talk not about noise direction finding, but about modern methods of searching for submarines, then everything is done there in completely different ways.
        2. 2 Level Advisor
          2 Level Advisor 13 May 2021 14: 30
          +1
          the question of cover, that's what Alexander is ... a blow will be applied to the AUG simultaneously with the nuclear submarine, if it comes to that, and from all directions - from the ground, water and air (and possibly nuclear weapons) - she would have to defend herself in such rasklade- not that covering another nuclear submarine ..
          And what else is meant by cover .. Suppose boats are going under the AUG .. sooner or later they get out of the AUG, and there, on a parallel course, a bunch of amersky goes and immediately falls on the tail, if you just stand / cover in the area of ​​the border - too he big size of his 1 AUG cover .. BUT! if you mean that 5-6-7 of our AUG-constantly standing at the turn-it will be blocked, then of course it makes sense .. although it is not clear what will prevent amers from waiting abroad, even in this case ..
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 14 May 2021 10: 36
            +2
            Quote: Level 2 Advisor
            And what else is meant by cover .. Suppose boats are going under the AUG .. sooner or later they get out of the AUG, and there, on a parallel course, a bunch of amersky goes and immediately falls on the tail, if you just stand in the area of ​​\ u1b \ uXNUMXbthe line / cover, too he big size of his XNUMX aug cover ..

            AUG does not cover the submarines themselves and not the line. AUG provides protection of surface and air forces of PLO on the line from enemy aircraft. As well as long-range detection of this aircraft and, possibly, over-the-horizon control center for shipborne air defense systems (if they have air defense missile systems with ARLGSN and the ability to adjust the trajectory of the air defense missile system according to data from external sources).
      3. Sandor Clegane
        Sandor Clegane 15 May 2021 11: 52
        +1
        Quote: vladimir1155
        we are for a powerful

        when you write - write me, not us, or indicate specifically who we are
  • Ivanchester
    Ivanchester 12 May 2021 10: 01
    +9
    Good day, Andrey!

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The author clearly did not work with the research.


    Unfortunately, almost all of Roman's articles on naval topics are a strange mixture of factual errors and assumptions taken from the ceiling, and this one is no exception.

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    However, what to ask of a person who is confident that the submarine is capable of solving all the tasks of the fleet without the help of naval aviation?


    A certain positive is that the author still gives the submarines the right to life and does not believe that all their tasks can be solved with the help of the Tu-160.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 May 2021 10: 35
      +12
      Quote: Ivanchester
      A certain positive is that the author still gives the submarines the right to life and does not believe that all their tasks can be solved with the help of the Tu-160.

      Yes, you are absolutely right, it's worth saying thank you for that alone :) hi
      Progressing little by little wassat
  • Artyom Karagodin
    Artyom Karagodin 12 May 2021 14: 50
    +4
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    If from 2013 (I do not specifically consider Kazan, which was laid down in 2009, we will consider it as the lead ship and therefore an experimental ship in many respects) to 2028, that is, in 15 years we plan to build as many as 7 serial SSGNs (in reality terms, as usual, will go to the right), then this is anything but mass construction.


    And this "aircraft carrier sect" again interferes. Sorry, he gets confused under his feet. How did you not understand request ? lol
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 May 2021 15: 11
      +6
      Quote: Artyom Karagodin
      And this "aircraft carrier sect" again interferes.

      BUT! Well, yes, of course, how could I forget :))))) We are everywhere :)))) At night it is better not to look under the bed - there are thousands of us, and darkness and darkness :)))))))))
      1. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin 12 May 2021 15: 36
        +2
        With slanted eyes and greedy for budget money wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat wassat
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 12 May 2021 22: 31
      -2
      Quote: Artyom Karagodin
      The "aircraft carrier sect" is again in the way. Sorry, he gets confused under his feet.

      Yes, read the posts above, even such good news as the Premier League. they pour their poison right here ... not a word of wishes to the respected submariners, they did not find us a kind word to the builders ... here it is the essence of the sect of an aircraft carrier boasting its rusty, unrepaired money vacuum cleaner, they are not able to formulate goals for AV, only viciously minus and pour their poison everywhere ...
      1. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin 13 May 2021 00: 38
        +5
        Vladimir, you will be unpleasantly surprised - I am also a "sectarian", notorious and convinced. In general, lost for all 100.

        Further. This is not the first time I have read your comments, and I am used to relate to your point of view in a somewhat unexpected way. If you praise something, there is a reason to at least be wary, if you scold it, then it’s worthwhile. Sorry for such an impartial assessment.

        In short, we will never agree. Not worth trying.

        PS I also actively minus you.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 13 May 2021 00: 50
          -2
          Quote: Artyom Karagodin
          If you praise something, there is a reason to at least be wary, if you scold, it means that

          here you personally proved the postulate about your sectarianism, because you do not think logically, but you have blind faith in an aircraft carrier, and fiercely minus me for disagreeing with your blind faith, it is impossible to argue your blind faith, so you are not arguing
          1. The comment was deleted.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 12 May 2021 22: 26
    -2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    In fact, we do not have Project 941 SSBNs, but we have an experimental Bulava missile test ship with one operating missile silo.

    So is he there or not? ... yes, its one missile is more important than your rusty aircraft carrier 20 times in firepower, .. and we all expect AB targets from you ... are you a man of your word? come up with at least some real goal for AV other than empty show-offs ... you need to keep your word! you were taught this as a child? Yes? waiting to smash your false concept to smithereens
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 13 May 2021 16: 46
      +3
      Quote: vladimir1155
      so does he exist or not?

      As a battleship it is not. This is a floating test bench.
      Quote: vladimir1155
      yes, its one missile is more important than your rusty aircraft carrier 20 times in firepower

      Judging by their firepower, the TSC and IPC are the most useless ships. But the SSBN will not leave the harbor without them.
      With AV the picture is the same - without it, our SSBN may simply not reach the positional area. Because there will be no one to cover the forces from the air at the ASW line at a distance of more than 400 km from the nearest airfield.
      Quote: vladimir1155
      and we all expect AB goals from you

      It has long been announced: cover for ASW forces (providing the deployment of SSBNs) beyond the effective radius of coastal aviation.
      In this case, the effective radius is understood as the distance from the nearest coastal airfield, within which the reserve from the airfield reaches the launch range of the RVV according to the detected strike group of enemy aircraft earlier than this group reaches the launch range of the anti-ship missile system. Simply put, the flight time of the reserve should be less than the time interval between the time the enemy was detected and classified and the time it reached the launch range of the anti-ship missile system.
      1. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin 13 May 2021 20: 12
        +1
        Alexey, this has been written about a thousand times - more than one keyboard has been erased to the very table. But did that convince anyone? In general, in pedaling the theme that we do not need aircraft carriers, it is already a sinful thing to see a double bottom. Okay, Vladimir, whom you decided to oppose (everything is simple and unpretentious, like a rake - and no double bottom), but then much smarter people sculpt such nonsense about the fleet that you are amazed.
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 13 May 2021 20: 25
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA

        As a battleship it is not. This is a floating test bench.

        fine conscript in the french army, came to the doctor
        -sit down! .... write valid ....
        -but doctor you didn't even examine me! ...
        - and why inspect, you heard my order and were able to carry it out, soldiers are waiting for you in the army!

        So explain how your stand differs from a battleship ??? (by the way, he is listed in the fleet and goes to parades) explain the difference ... and even more so compared to your unnecessary vulnerable Kuzey, he is a combat unit, 1 is able to move under water on its own 2 is capable of launching a missile at targets for thousands of kilometers ... not the fact that your Kuzya is rusty at the wall for decades and requires tugs and a lot of money
      3. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 13 May 2021 20: 53
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        cover for ASW forces (providing the deployment of SSBNs) beyond the effective radius of coastal aviation.

        Well, finally, it was announced! and with two actual errors at once 1) "deployment" is very far and fantastic, to reach the shores of the USA (California) on the Kuza, or the North Pole where there is eternal ice, 2) the limits of the "effective radius of coastal aviation" are so wide and far taking into account the TU160 , and you are also going to go beyond these limits, that obviously there the enemy will drown your Kuzya ...
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 14 May 2021 10: 43
          +3
          Quote: vladimir1155
          Well, finally, it was announced! and with two actual errors at once 1) "deployment" is very far and fantastic, to reach the shores of the USA (California) on the Kuz, or the North Pole where there is eternal ice,

          Imago (here: substitution - lat.) - the sixth method.
          It consists in the fact that the reader is slipped some unimaginable scarecrow that has nothing to do with the real enemy, after which this fictional enemy is destroyed.
          © K.Chapek
          The PLO boundary is the North Cape-Bear-Spitsbergen. No North Poles or California - literally next to the base.
          However, yes, for the Navy without AV this line is really fantastic. Because coastal aviation will not be able to cover the area near Medvezhye from the air - flight time will not allow.
          Quote: vladimir1155
          2) the limits of the "effective radius of coastal aviation" are so wide and far taking into account the TU160, and you are also going to go beyond these limits that the enemy will obviously drown your Kuzya there ...

          Again, mriyas about the Tu-160 group with IDDQD IDKFA begin - invulnerable, undetectable and always going right on target. smile
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 14 May 2021 19: 32
            -2
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The PLO boundary is the North Cape-Bear-Spitsbergen. No North Poles or California - literally next to the base.

            Well, that's a completely different matter! then there is nothing to argue about who will deny the importance of ensuring the security of this zone, and you first wrote that at the deployment lines, "line" = the place of the strike, ... "deployment" = the place of the main strike position ... (and the scarecrow that has nothing to do with it, I just caught the inaccuracy of your wording, and by the way, all aircraft carriers are guilty of this, confusing the deployment lines and the area around the base to ensure the exit of the nuclear submarine into the open ocean) well, you admitted two of your mistakes and this is good, clarified that it was not deployment lines, and in the exit zone from the base, ... now we need to clarify how much in this zone we can ensure a safe exit into the ocean of the nuclear submarine ... (already discussed, from Murmansk to the ice border,) ... and why there, according to you will coastal aviation be ineffective? have already found out that the shoulder of the front-line aviation is 1500 km, and the shoulder of the distant one significantly exceeds the area we need
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 14 May 2021 23: 14
              +2
              What a dishonest person you are, Vladimir. I showed you the capabilities of basic aviation a little higher - you are already spinning like a snake in a frying pan.
              And here you pretend that you have not read anything.
              Ay-yay-yay, an adult shouldn't behave like that, Vladimir.
      4. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 13 May 2021 20: 59
        -1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        from the nearest coastal airfield, within which the reserve from the airfield reaches the launch range of the RVV according to the detected strike group of enemy aircraft earlier than this group reaches the launch range of the anti-ship missile system.

        this postulate assumes the presence of some surface ships very far from the coast, there are almost no of them and there is no need for them to go so far
      5. 2 Level Advisor
        2 Level Advisor 13 May 2021 21: 37
        0
        Explain to me, what is this deployment cover? in peacetime, you don't need to nafig, nobody will drown the SSBNs ..
        In the military, the AUG will simply be taken out in the first place, so that it does not cover anyone, as soon as it leaves from under the coast - from the water, from under the water and from the air ... but if you assume at least 3 pieces of AUG immediately to cover, you can take it for a ride ..
        And in general, if it's already military time, and SSBNs are still in the base, this is already a complete failure ..
        They are still in the threatened period (when they do not need to cover, they will not be drowned yet), should already go to the database .. so what kind of cover for the deployment? In the sense that everyone clicked, it's already war, and the boats are not on the hike yet, are you talking about this? so then there will already be 4-5 enemy AUGs on the way and there will be nuclear submarines of 10-15 + pieces from coastal aircraft on approach - what will 1 AUG do with all this?
        it feels like the cover of the deployment is at least some kind of seemingly adequate goal invented by the supporters of the aircraft carriers ..
        BUT! from the AUG (taking into account the forces of our opponents, this is one of the main parameters for assessing the possibilities) there may be an effect about which their supporters say ... but there is one big BUT - there are at least 5 of them - on the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet you need that in the near the future, just fantastic and not even scientific, unfortunately .. although my arms and legs and my tail are in favor of Russia being able to afford 10 AUG ..
        And if there is only 1 AUG, this is with 100% success, only the Papuans can be hammered and frightened by someone like Poles ..
        1. slm976
          slm976 14 May 2021 08: 17
          0
          In the military, the AUG will simply be taken out in the first place, so that it does not cover anyone, as soon as it leaves from under the coast - from the water, from under the water and from the air ... but if you assume at least 3 pieces of AUG immediately to cover, you can take it for a ride ..


          Of course they will take it out))), of course, in case of war, most likely, we will all die, but .... until this AUG was taken out, it will allow the submarine missile carriers to leave the bases to retaliate, so thanks to this AUG, we we will not die alone ... and "we will go to heaven, and they will simply die" (c)

          And in general, if it's already military time, and SSBNs are still in the base, this is already a complete failure ..
          They are still in the threatened period (when they do not need to cover, they will not be drowned yet), should already go to the database .. so what kind of cover for the deployment?


          In a threatened period when "they will not drown," behind each of our SSBNs that left the base, a Virginia will hang, which will then simply sink it on command at the "X" hour, and anti-submarine aircraft of the enemy will hang in the sky above them to prevent even an accidental separation of our boat from tracking, and if at this time we do not have a grouping of surface warships in the SSBN deployment area, including at least one aircraft carrier that provides air defense, to cut off enemy boats and aircraft, then our submarine missile carriers, no matter how wonderful they are, will go en masse to the bottom and not having time to inflict a retaliatory nuclear missile strike!

          To ensure a guaranteed retaliatory nuclear strike, we need at least 1 AUG for each ocean-going fleet. And not at all in order to measure the number of AUG with NATO or defeat the Americans at sea .. And without building a compact balanced surface fleet capable of supporting the deployment of missile submarines, the construction of SSBNs is just throwing money into the air ...
          1. 2 Level Advisor
            2 Level Advisor 14 May 2021 10: 05
            0
            1. "Of course they will take it out))), of course, in the event of a war, most likely, we will all die, but .... until this AUG is not taken out, it will allow the submarine missile carriers to leave the bases to retaliate, so thanks to this AUG, we will not die alone ... and "we will go to heaven, and they will simply die" (c) "

            you know Sergey, in this case, which you describe, when there is already a war and at the exit of SSBNs and AUGs crowds of enemies are waiting under and above the water and they need to break through into the ocean to start up, in general it is easier to shoot from the pier, it is stupidly more reliable, they will definitely fly and no one will be drowned before, neither SSBNs nor AUG ... before, when the missile range was not enough, you would be right ..

            2. "During the threatened period, when" they will not be drowned, "for each of our SSBNs that left the base, there will be a Virginia, which will then simply sink it on command at the" X "hour, and anti-submarine missiles will hang in the sky enemy aircraft to prevent even an accidental separation of our boat from tracking, etc. "

            and how will AUG help them in dumping the "tail"? Will they, in fear, scatter from his mere presence and jump off the tail of ours, in the threatened period, knowing that they will not shoot at them anyway? What for? In addition, if the aggressors are not us, they will strike first at the AUG (everyone) - it will not be up to him to cover the SSBN (just stupidly torpedoes with Virginia hanging on the tail) and the AUG, even if it fights back, the SSBN will no longer be there. ...
            Moreover, we will help them ourselves, so that it will be clear - where the AUG is - there all the SSBNs have gathered ...

            In total, I see the meaning of AUG in cover, only when applied by us first! RYAU on the enemy .. only with 1 number if we hit, if with the second, there is no point .. and even then, it's not a fact that Virginias will all be cut out before they have time to launch torpedoes ... not a fact at all ..

            For me, SSBNs should not graze in the same area with the AUG, but scatter across the entire ocean - the submarine's strength is in stealth and the ability to strike from any point of the ocean, and not in a seat under the wing of the AUG .. but yes .. Virginia from the tail at the same time AUG is strong it will not help to remove it .. and all at once SSBNs diverging in different directions, then other "chips" are needed ...
            1. slm976
              slm976 14 May 2021 10: 41
              0
              you know Sergey, in this case, which you describe, when there is already a war and at the exit of the SSBN and AUG, crowds of enemies are waiting under and above the water and they need to fight their way into the ocean for launch-


              Nikolai, look, now there is no war at all, but enemy nuclear submarines are on duty on the routes of exit from the bases of our SSBNs, and enemy patrol aircraft are patrolling in possible areas of their deployment ... so we can assume that the war for the possibility of our response salvo is already underway (it never stopped), and so far with our big loss!

              in general, it is easier to shoot from the pier, it is stupidly more reliable, they will definitely fly and they will not drown anyone before that, neither SSBNs nor AUG ... before, when the missile range was not enough, you would be right ..


              You can, of course, shoot from the pier, but it is much easier to destroy the nuclear submarine at the pier, all the coordinates of the bases are known, one missile strike and we have no strategic missile carriers ... In general, if we proceed from your point of view, then SSBNs do not need us at all - you can shoot from the mines or from the PGRK.)) Why do we spend such money on the submarine fleet?) The whole point of the SSBN is in mobility and stealth.

              and how will AUG help them in dumping the "tail"? Will they, in fear, scatter from his mere presence and jump off our tail, in the threatened period, knowing that they will not shoot at them anyway? What for?


              Well, how what? Anti-submarine aircraft will simply be stupidly pushed out of the deployment zone, for this you do not need to shoot ... Now there is no war, but the escort and displacement of enemy aircraft from our airspace occurs regularly ..
              As for the submarines of enemy hunters, it is simply enough to detect them themselves, with the help of NK warrant ships and anti-submarine aircraft and helicopters, after which they will become targets, in these conditions they will no longer have time to track our SSBNs.

              For me, SSBNs should not graze in the same area with the AUG, but scatter across the entire ocean - the submarine's strength is in stealth and the ability to strike from any point of the ocean, and not in a seat under the wing of the AUG .. but yes .. Virginia from the tail at the same time AUG is strong it will not help to remove it .. and all at once SSBNs diverging in different directions, then other "chips" are needed ...


              So in order for them to safely scatter and you need to cover their deployment from the enemy, otherwise they will run away very shortly, already accompanied by enemy nuclear submarines and aviation.
              1. 2 Level Advisor
                2 Level Advisor 14 May 2021 11: 02
                -1
                Quote: slm976

                Nikolai, look, now there is no war at all, but enemy nuclear submarines are on duty on the routes of exit from the bases of our SSBNs, and enemy patrol aircraft patrol in possible areas of their deployment ...

                Yes I agree! and there is! I'm talking about the fact that the AUG doesn't really help here, you can't shoot at them ...

                Quote: slm976
                You can, of course, shoot from the pier, but it is much easier to destroy the nuclear submarine at the pier, all the coordinates of the bases are known, one missile strike and we have no strategic missile carriers ... In general, if we proceed from your point of view, then SSBNs do not need us at all - you can shoot from the mines or from the PGRK.

                Sergei, you didn’t understand me at all .. I’m just for the nuclear submarine .. and I was talking about the fact that if the war has already begun, then you need to shoot from the pier, you need to leave the position area BEFORE the war starts .. after - a loss of time and risk be destroyed before launch .. of course, we are only talking about those who are at the base .. those who are on the campaign do not concern ..

                Quote: slm976
                Well, how what? Anti-submarine aircraft will simply be stupidly pushed out of the deployment zone, for this you do not need to shoot ... Now there is no war, but the escort and displacement of enemy aircraft from our airspace occurs regularly ..
                As for the submarines of enemy hunters, it is simply enough to detect them themselves, with the help of NK warrant ships and anti-submarine aircraft and helicopters, after which they will become targets, in these conditions they will no longer have time to track our SSBNs.

                If they have an order to keep our SSBNs at gunpoint no matter what, how will their planes be driven away? menacing screams? as for the NK - when the enemy strikes first, the only thing that can be done by NK is to destroy the hunters too .. SSBNs who received torpedoes from this will not be easier to launch missiles from this .. Not to mention that the hunters may not know that they were found , but they may pretend that they do not know and keep ours at gunpoint, or they may not find them ..

                That is, I mean that the nuclear submarines are needed! but also about the fact that the AUG will help them with something, of course, but first of all the boat's assistant is stealth, quietness, the skills of the crew and the commander, false targets and other means to get lost, and the AUG in this matter is just a small bonus, and not a guarantee of success in withdrawing the nuclear submarine.
                1. slm976
                  slm976 14 May 2021 11: 39
                  0
                  Yes I agree! and there is! I'm talking about the fact that the AUG doesn't really help here, you can't shoot at them ...


                  Well, how does that not help? All their life, the exit from the strategists' bases was covered by anti-submarine ship groups - it helped, without firing it helped ... but here the AUG with anti-submarine ships in a warrant and anti-submarine aircraft will not help?

                  Sergei, you didn’t understand me at all .. I’m just for the nuclear submarine .. and I was talking about the fact that if the war has already begun, then you need to shoot from the pier, you need to leave the position area BEFORE the war starts .. after - a loss of time and risk be destroyed before launch .. of course, we are only talking about those who are at the base .. those who are on the campaign do not concern ..


                  I understand you perfectly. I just developed your thesis. If the war has already begun, there will be no one to shoot from the pier; if the strategists have not yet left the bases by this time, they will be destroyed along with the bases. Therefore, he described the absurdity of a possible shooting from the pier.

                  If they have an order to keep our SSBNs at gunpoint no matter what, how will their planes be driven away? menacing screams? As for the NK - when the enemy strikes first, the only thing that NK can manage is to destroy the hunters too ..


                  I do not know the exact non-lethal methods by which anti-submarine ships and anti-submarine aircraft can drive away a submarine hunter, but I know for sure that such methods exist.) And most importantly, the hunter, who was already figured out himself, is at the sight, in case of the start of mixing it can be destroyed preventively ..

                  That is, I mean that the nuclear submarines are needed! but also about the fact that the AUG will help them with something, of course, but first of all the boat's assistant is stealth, quietness, the skills of the crew and the commander, false targets and other means to get lost, and the AUG in this matter is just a small bonus, and not a guarantee of success in withdrawing the nuclear submarine.


                  How will stealth help the boat if it is taken for tracking as soon as it leaves the base? Stealth will help her only later, when she broke away from the escort, and helping her to break away is the duty of the surface ships and the naval aviation covering them. That's all. Without ship groups, we cannot even theoretically cover the strategists, and without an aircraft carrier, almost any ship group is very vulnerable immediately upon leaving the zone of action of coastal aviation, and this is a very small area ..
                  1. 2 Level Advisor
                    2 Level Advisor 14 May 2021 15: 12
                    -1
                    Quote: slm976
                    I do not know the exact non-lethal methods by which anti-submarine ships and anti-submarine aircraft can drive away a submarine hunter, but I know for sure that such methods exist.) And most importantly, the hunter, who was already figured out himself, is at the sight, in case of the start of mixing it can be destroyed preventively ..


                    You see, but I'm sure that such methods do not exist, otherwise at least the theoretical justification of such weapons would have been voiced more than once ... well, if we proceed from the fact that we are not aggressors, the batch will begin with the launch of torpedoes by hunters on SSBNs - from the fact that they will then be destroyed - SSBNs will not be any easier ..

                    Quote: slm976
                    Stealth will help her only later, when she broke away from the escort, and helping her to break away is the duty of the surface ships and the naval aviation covering them.


                    Again, the same question - how will they help to break away? I have only one idea - to transfer the coordinates of the enemy to our boats - and avoid convergence, but then the technical question is how to transfer this to the boat at a depth ... and so - well, we found, say today - 5 aircraft and 6 NC Virginia on the tail of SSBNs in international waters and?

                    The main thing for the nuclear submarine is not AUG, but stealth, anti-torpedoes, etc. and the skill of the crew .. without this, no AUG will help ..
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 14 May 2021 11: 23
          +1
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          They are still in the threatened period (when they do not need to cover, they will not be drowned yet), should already go to the database .. so what kind of cover for the deployment? In the sense that everyone clicked, it's already war, and the boats are not on the hike yet, are you talking about this?

          I'm talking about the main task of the fleet - half an hour of life for an SSBN.
          Our Navy must not defeat the USN in battle - this is, alas, impossible. Our Navy must ensure the impossibility of delivering a disarming strike against the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces. That is, the survival of SSBNs during the time required to make a decision to launch, transmit the command and test it. The future is unlikely to worry anyone.
          To do this, the fleet must be capable of:
          - during a threatened period - to track the enemy's SSNS near the bastion and inside it, ideally - to disrupt the tracking of SSBNs (but without the use of weapons directly on the SSNS - by non-lethal methods);
          - with the beginning of the war - to attack the SSBN inside the bastion, to delay the penetration of enemy ASW forces from outside the bastion, giving the SSBN the same 30 minutes.

          If the Navy can provide this in theory, then it sharply reduces the likelihood of the start of a war (due to the impossibility of excluding our only weighty argument - ICBMs and SLBMs). For the concept of "inevitable retaliation with unacceptable losses" chills the heads of even the most aggressive politicians and military.
          1. 2 Level Advisor
            2 Level Advisor 14 May 2021 15: 19
            -1
            Alexey completely agree with you!
            I will only add that if a bastion with a base in the person of AUG is considered, then AUG needs at least 3 pieces - 1 AUG cannot hang in the sea for years ... or there will be long periods without a bastion .. and from 1 AUG to the entire fleet - not cold , not hot .. as I already wrote, rather to hammer the Papuans ..
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 14 May 2021 23: 19
              0
              We do not need AUG at all, this is an American concept, we need an aircraft carrier as part of a grouping of missile ships.
              Without enemy surface forces, the effectiveness of his submarine's actions will be several times less than with them, since they provide low-frequency illumination for all forces, and due to ship helicopters, they expand the zones of acoustic illumination by hundreds of kilometers.
              In order for the boats to turn around, these forces must be interrupted.
              the second point - using its carrier-based aircraft, the enemy can destroy our NKs, incl. anti-submarine operating in support of our submarine.
              And to prevent this, it is necessary to tie down the carrier-based aircraft and its carriers in battle.

              That's what aircraft carriers are for.
  • Vladimir61
    Vladimir61 12 May 2021 08: 34
    +1
    You can rejoice and support, given the title itself
    Hurray for those who passed Kazan
    !
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 12 May 2021 08: 45
    +6

    ... even though three of them are not very good, the Seawolf program is closed ...

    Is this Seawulf "not very"?
    We are "not very" like that, about a dozen ...
    Virginia is a simplified and economical version of Seawulf. And they closed the project only because they were too expensive and perfect for their time, and there were no potential opponents already. The USSR was dying ...
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 12 May 2021 09: 11
    +1
    In general, the prevailing diversity of our submarines is a little depressing. Projects 941, 667BDRM, 955, 885, 949, 945, 671, 971 are too much. The unitarity of the American submarine forces, operating mainly with two types of boats (Los Angeles and Virginia), is worthy of emulation.


    This is our "ALL"!
    From tanks (T64, T-72, T-80, T90, T-90M, Armata), Helicopters (Ka52, Mi28), Fighters (Su27, Su30, Su34, Su35) to submarines. The West is already considering the concept of unification of nuclear submarines - shock and multipurpose in the bow and stern. The average will differ with mines. And they are testing inserts for 4 pieces of KR in the mine BR .....
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 12 May 2021 10: 38
      +5
      Quote: Zaurbek
      This is our "ALL"!
      From tanks (T64, T-72, T-80, T90, T-90M, Armata), Helicopters (Ka52, Mi28), Fighters (Su27, Su30, Su34, Su35) to submarines.

      Well, there is at least some kind of continuity in fighters - these are all branches of a tree, which is based on the Su-27. The problem is that in addition to Sukhoi fighters, we also have two types of MiGs.
      Although, against the background of helicopters (three fundamentally different types, two subtypes) and a tank zoo, these are such trifles ... smile
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 12 May 2021 10: 49
        +2
        Mi35, MI28, Ka52 ...... and options for upgrading the Mi24. During the Second World War, Me109 was made at different enterprises and the tail section from the factories of Czechoslovakia was docked m with the front part from a factory in Germany .....
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 12 May 2021 13: 43
          +4
          Quote: Zaurbek
          Mi35, MI28, Ka52 ...... and options for upgrading the Mi24.

          The Mi-35 and the latest modifications of the Mi-24 can be considered "branches of the same tree".
          And the three main types of helicopters ("flying infantry fighting vehicle", "Apache" and co-axle) are a heavy legacy of the narrow specialization of our military-industrial complex plants for a specific design bureau / product, as well as long-term refinement of machines already adopted for service.
          Specifically, the Mi-28 and Ka-52 were ordered in parallel, since the helicopters were urgently needed, and it took too long to redesign production for a "foreign" helicopter. In short, about the same reason as with the ordering of two different Sushki models in Irkutsk and Komsomolsk-on-Amur.
          And the Mi-35 insured them - since the furniture maker was not sure that the Ka-52 and Mi-28 would normally be operational. And he turned out to be right - at the right moment in 2014, only the Mi-35s were combat-ready. And with new machines like Kamov and Mil, there were problems above the roof - so, from all weapons they could only work with cannons (NAR - problems with the operation of helicopter engines during launch, ATGM - problems with guidance).
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 12 May 2021 14: 16
            -1
            How to do it right is shown by American tenders: F22 and 23, F35 and 36 .... Cobra and Apache
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 13 May 2021 11: 03
              0
              Quote: Zaurbek
              How to do it right is shown by American tenders: F22 and 23, F35 and 36 .... Cobra and Apache

              Yeah ... while "Cobra" and "Apache" are simultaneously in service. Rogues from the ILC always spoil the picture of total unification and standardization. smile
              Only the rogue helicopter units of the Air Force with their Twin Hueys of the first series (produced in the late 70s - early 80s), servicing the missile units and providing the evacuation of the country's leadership in the event of DEFCON 1, were cooler than them.
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 13 May 2021 12: 36
                0
                Cobra in the Navy ...... Moreover, it was historically there, then there was Cobra on land too.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 13 May 2021 14: 47
                  0
                  Quote: Zaurbek
                  Cobra in the Navy ...

                  I write:
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Rogues from the ILC always spoil the picture of total unification and standardization.

                  Quote: Zaurbek
                  Moreover, it was historically there, then there was also a Cobra on land.

                  Yeah ... and when the army team began to switch to the "Apaches", the KMP also wanted the "sea Apache". We ordered it, tested it, did not meet the budget - and returned to Cobra.
                  The KMP had money for Osprey and the EFV program, but not for upgrading attack helicopters. smile
                  1. Zaurbek
                    Zaurbek 13 May 2021 14: 57
                    0
                    Cobra Viper ... not much narrower and cheaper.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 12 May 2021 09: 43
    +2
    who wiped out Nagasaki


    I'm afraid that Nagasaki was not completely erased from the face of the earth, since the city is highly distributed and there are mountains, so the bombing was notable, but not as efficiently as in Hiroshima.
  • Tests
    Tests 12 May 2021 10: 16
    +4
    “Another novelty is a pop-up rescue capsule designed for the entire crew. It is capable of lifting people from depths,“ to the extreme. ”Dear author, are you serious? "There was already a rescue capsule on it. The designers designed it - SEVMASH did it.
    1. Glory1974
      Glory1974 12 May 2021 14: 19
      0
      Pop-up rescue pod for the entire crew. Capable of lifting people from depths, "up to the extreme"

      On "Komomolets" in an accident in the late 80s, it was even used for emergency ascent from maximum depth.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 12 May 2021 10: 32
    +12
    Even for metal, how much steel can be spent on one flat-deck trough will probably be enough for three or even four missile submarine cruisers, which can become a real shield of the country, and not a consumer of budget money.

    Pomnitsa, some have already relied on submarines in the war at sea. Everyone remembers how it ended: the carrier and base aviation made the life of the submariners bad, but short-lived.
    By the way, the idea is not mine, I took it from Kyle Mizokami from National Interest. The Americans also seriously think that submarines are cheaper and more efficient than floating hangars with aircraft. But their keyword is "cheaper."

    Uh-huh ... it was already written here that when the USSR began to build AV, a wave of articles went in the American press about the uselessness and high cost of large AVs and the need to build small ones. However, the USN shipbuilding policy remained unchanged.
    1. Ivanchester
      Ivanchester 12 May 2021 10: 52
      +8
      When I read this
      Even for metal, how much steel can be spent on one flat-deck trough is probably enough for three or even four missile submarines.

      remembered the classic: "Rabbits are not only valuable fur, but also three to four kilograms of dietary, easily digestible meat."
      It is strange that Roman did not offer the aircraft carrier to be counted in the RTO, the result would be simply mind-blowing. laughing
  • iouris
    iouris 12 May 2021 12: 02
    -3
    Compare:
    Hurray for those who passed Kazan.
    Hurray for those who passed Kazan.
  • Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 12 May 2021 13: 35
    +3
    The choice between aircraft carriers and submarines is the choice of a person in a wheelchair who has no money for an operation and is offered to sell a kidney or an eye.
    It is better to be rich and healthy, and the poor and the sick, as you know, are to blame.
  • bk0010
    bk0010 12 May 2021 14: 19
    +1
    Here one comrade offered to score on 885M and build new SSGNs based on Boreyevs, which are half the price, quieter, and they learned how to churn them one by one. It makes sense?
  • Orkraider
    Orkraider 12 May 2021 14: 46
    +3
    Greetings!

    Novel,
    And where does the information about the number of increase in launching shafts come from?
    but it takes more missiles. Placing additional silos is not easy. And "Severodvinsk" takes 40 "Caliber" or 32 "Onyx". "Kazan" - 50 "Caliber" or 40 "Onyx".


    If you watch the video from the flag-raising ceremony at Kazan, you can clearly see 4 covers, which means only 8.
    Same as at Severodvinsk



    In general, the event is extremely positive! Finished, then it will be easier, on the knurled. Hooray!
  • Toucan
    Toucan 12 May 2021 15: 50
    +1
    The unitarity of the American submarine forces, operating mainly with two types of boats (Los Angeles and Virginia), is worthy of emulation.

    "Sea Wolf" author where are you?
    In general, there are too many inaccuracies in the text, and the author is overly emotional.
  • Osipov9391
    Osipov9391 12 May 2021 18: 46
    +1
    Why did the author not mention the British and French nuclear submarines in the article, both multipurpose and strategic? After all, they are all modern and quite powerful in armament.
    And it is clear that in case of war, they will side with the United States.
  • K298rtm
    K298rtm 12 May 2021 20: 33
    +2
    1. The fact that we have finally passed is already good.
    2. It is especially gratifying that the reactor is "quieter".
    3. In my humble opinion, opposing boats to aircraft carriers (this despite the fact that for me AB has always been a goal) is extremely unconstructive. The fleet must be balanced, the main thing is to find the right balance.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 12 May 2021 22: 15
    -1
    hurray hurray hurray, the big ship needs a great voyage, it needs more submarines, the main thing is that the sect of aircraft carriers does not put a spoke in the wheels of the main tasks of the fleet, that is, the tasks for nuclear submarines, the basis of the fleet = nuclear submarine ... I support the balanced and objective article of the respected Roman Skomorokhov
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 12 May 2021 22: 50
      +6
      Failure in anti-torpedo protection, the complex of torpedo weapons is not better than that of the third generation, monstrous secondary acoustic signs due to size, a propeller that reduces the speed of a low-noise stroke by three times relative to the enemy, a bunch of factory defects, which is not a fact that they have been eliminated, because ... the boat was planned to be kept in the factory until the summer.

      Hooray! Hooray! Hooray!

      If it falls under low frequency illumination from 200 kilometers away from some pathetic NATO frigate, it will raise the guard into the air and finish off the boat.

      And these people are also called adequate sectarians, some kind of horror.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 12 May 2021 22: 52
        -2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        If it falls under low frequency illumination from 200 kilometers away from some pathetic NATO frigate, it will raise the guard into the air and finish off the boat.

        T. came and vulgarized everything, do not croak and stop pouring out your poison, the holiday is still
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 12 May 2021 22: 53
          +7
          But it's true.
          Submarines cannot survive if the enemy uses their full range of anti-aircraft weapons. This has been the case since the 80s.

          so what?
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 12 May 2021 23: 05
            -1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Submarines cannot survive if the enemy uses their full range of anti-aircraft weapons. This has been the case since the 80s.

            your untruth! Pacific Ocean / Area
            165 200 000 km² .... depth 10 994 m
            km from east to west. The area with seas is 178,684 million km², the average depth is 3984 m. The greatest depth of the Pacific Ocean (and the entire World Ocean) is 10 994 m (in the Mariana Trench). ...


            compare and determine how many shihawks do you need to find a submarine? a task for the first class in arithmetic ... there is still ice ... there the helicopters will freeze and will not find anything, because ice

            .See Hawk Helicopter Flight Performance
            Maximum speed:
            at sea level: 270 km / h
            at an altitude of 1 m: 525 km / h
            Combat radius:
            anti-ship version: 139 km (with 1 × AGM-119 Penguin and 1 × 455 l PTB)
            in anti-submarine version: 185 km (with 2 × torpedoes)
            Practical range: 834 km
            compare the helicopter with the ocean !!!! tongue
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 12 May 2021 23: 29
              -2
              The advantages of the passive method are its secrecy - the target does not know about the fact of detection, a relatively long range - in some cases, STRONGLY NOISING !!!!! objects are detected at distances of 100 ÷ 150 miles, - and the ability to classify targets by the nature of the noise ....... and a boat cannot be found in a couple of miles tongue checkmate to you, your move!
            2. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 13 May 2021 14: 12
              +1
              There, the entire bottom is covered with fields of hydrophones.
              Ours haven’t come out of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk for nothing since the mid-80s, the Americans are punishing them harshly for this.
              Reconnaissance systems and radar reconnaissance satellites provide initial detection, albeit with an error of 50-60 km, then the BPA goes there, which keeps contact until it is transferred to its submarine or NK.
              All.
              This has been the case for decades, Vladimir.
              Nakhimov is easier to hide than a submarine.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 14 May 2021 23: 23
                -1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Reconnaissance systems and radar reconnaissance satellites provide initial detection, albeit with an error of 50-60 km, then the BPA goes there, which keeps contact until it is transferred to its submarine or NK.
                All.
                This has been the case for decades, Vladimir.
                Nakhimov is easier to hide than a submarine.

                so much nonsense in one phrase ... you amaze me already! Nakhimov is noisier than the nuclear submarine and that means, according to your logic, it is detected faster, the captain is obvious! ...
                the disadvantage "is a short detection range. Magnetic anomalies quickly smooth out with distance. To determine the presence of an anomaly, you need to go from it no further than 1 ÷ 3 miles. At modern aviation speeds, this means almost directly over the boat. Moreover, the lower the flight , the easier it is to notice the anomaly. Accordingly, the boat, in order to reduce the likelihood of detection, can go to a depth! .....
                sonars go blind against the background of disturbance from excitement 2 ÷ 3 points. And, the RDP heads are detected by radar at distances of 12-15 miles, periscopes at distances of 4-5 miles, and radio direction finders and radio reconnaissance antennas at 1-2 miles "..... so once again compare the size of the ocean with the radius of detection of submarines by means of PLO ..... https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5% D0% BD% D0% B8% D0% B5_% D0% BF% D0% BE% D0% B4% D0% B2% D0% BE% D0% B4% D0% BD% D1% 8B% D1% 85_% D0% BB% D0% BE% D0% B4% D0% BE% D0% BA

                and in general, repent, I remember when Timokhin was taken by the KGB at the Finlyandsky railway station while trying to move to the side of the state border, (by train to Sestroretsk), he publicly repented on Soviet TV ... and you will repent as your namesake, ... so that you do not run on a train in a woman's dress past the Lenin steam locomotive to Finland under the guise of a stoker .... and we will understand you, warm food and our hospitality await you ... just leave your totalitarian destructive sect of aircraft carriers https://www.youtube. com / user / JesusInRussia
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 14 May 2021 23: 28
                  0
                  It is enough for Nakhimov not to fall under the satellite and shoot down the reconnaissance aircraft that discovered it, so as not to be detected.
                  And the boat gets under the "highlight" and that's it.
                  The ship cannot be spotted like that, especially Nakhimov, who will simply incinerate the "illuminator".
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 14 May 2021 23: 40
                    0
                    It is enough for a nuclear submarine not to make noise and not to make radio communications, neither a satellite nor an AWACS aircraft reconnaissance aircraft is afraid of it, so as not to be detected, just to be quietly silent.
                    And Nakhimov falls under the light and that's it.
                    A surface ship is easy to spot, especially Nakhimov, which is huge visually and radar-visually most noticeable.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa 15 May 2021 09: 37
                      -1
                      Vldadimir submarine noise does not matter. It can be generally silent.


                      Why do you so diligently overlook modern search methods?
                      1. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 15 May 2021 23: 40
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        modern search methods

                        I put them on the shelves for you, they are there, but they all have one or another drawback and, most importantly, the search area is limited to several miles, as a result, it is impossible to cover the entire ocean with them
        2. Artyom Karagodin
          Artyom Karagodin 13 May 2021 00: 46
          +1
          T. came and trivialized everything

          "... If not for Archie: he took it and ruined everything." laughing lol
  • Adam men
    Adam men 13 May 2021 08: 55
    -1
    Weighted, impeccably reasoned, competent article. The author is my respect. Alas, there are less and less such articles on the net ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 13 May 2021 14: 19
      +2
      The article is full of factual errors
  • Artemion3
    Artemion3 13 May 2021 10: 07
    -2
    The "effectiveness" of the use of aircraft carriers can be judged by the French de Gaulle and the Syrian campaign of Kuznetsov. The costs of maintaining and repairing them outweigh their benefits.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 13 May 2021 14: 18
      +2
      This is not because of the ships themselves, but the eccentrics with the letter m in command.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 13 May 2021 14: 52
      +3
      Quote: Artemion3
      The "effectiveness" of the use of aircraft carriers can be judged by the French de Gaulle and the Syrian campaign of Kuznetsov. The costs of maintaining and repairing them outweigh their benefits.

      It was at Kuznetsov's that they saved money on repairs. More precisely, they did not even save, but constantly postponed - because there were always tasks for which blood from the nose needed a single AB. And iron ... and what will happen to it - it's iron. So they regularly postponed repairs "for next year", limiting themselves to a partial restoration of combat effectiveness.
      If the schedule of repairs and combat training of 11435 had been observed, a ship with a normal power plant, with normal tested aerial reinforcement ropes and a trained team would have gone to Mediterranean.
      1. agond
        agond 13 May 2021 18: 08
        +3
        The submarine was built for 12 years, the average service life of the nuclear submarine is about 25 years, it would be wiser to build boats of a smaller size, which would shorten the construction time without reducing the service life.
  • Tambov-there is god
    Tambov-there is god 14 May 2021 09: 48
    -1
    "... if only the adherents of the aircraft carrier sect will not get in the way ..." - well, the guilty ones were found, the thought "what to do" would have come to mind. Except "come on, come on", it seems, nothing comes.
  • EMMM
    EMMM 15 May 2021 00: 07
    0
    Kazan entered trials a long time ago, in 2018, and repeatedly entered the plant. Something was being completed and altered there.

    Please note that this is not a refinement of a separate boat, but of a complex of strategic weapons as part of the submarine itself, a delivery vehicle, a striking element and mission control equipment (this is usually somehow silent about). All components can have adjustments.
    And so, I wish an equal number of dives and ascents.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 15 May 2021 09: 38
      -1
      Since when did the MPLA become a strategic weapon?
      1. EMMM
        EMMM 17 May 2021 00: 53
        0
        And what is this steamer armed with?
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 15 May 2021 10: 00
    +1
    Comment from Maxim Klimov:

    In general, the prevailing diversity of our submarines is a little depressing. Projects 941, 667BDRM, 955, 885, 949, 945, 671, 971 are too much. The unitarity of the American submarine forces, operating mainly with two types of boats (Los Angeles and Virginia), is worthy of emulation.


    This is only if you do not know anything on the subject. "Los" have a number of sub-series, very significantly different from each other. With "virgins" the same situation. "Sturgeon" and what the Russian Navy called "Sturgeon-M" had differences no less than 671 and 671RTM projects, etc.
    With all this, it should be noted that despite the formally large number of projects of our submarines, they had a very high degree of equipment unification, and this is what is decisive in operation.

    Actually, we are no worse in this regard, and sooner or later we will put the submarine fleet in order. Naturally, I would like to do it early. And, given that we can build nuclear submarines, this should not be a problem, unless the adherents of the aircraft carrier sect get in the way.


    For the sectarians of the "submarine forces" (and who watched them only on TV and the monitor screen), it will be useful to remind

    Those. what is happening with our submarine shipbuilding is called not just "drank", but an enchanting saw - "the development of budget dough" for very dubious ships in terms of combat.

    And here everything is simple. Even for metal, how much steel can be spent on one flat-deck trough is probably enough for three or even four missile submarine cruisers, which can become a real shield of the country, and not a consumer of budget money.


    CAN'T, Skomorokhov.
    Stupid because METAL IS OTHER.
    Moreover, its "price tag" (for submarines) does not differ much (within the framework of the "final product") from titanium alloys

    By the way, the idea is not mine, I took it from Kyle Mizokami from National Interest. The Americans also seriously think that submarines are cheaper and more efficient than floating hangars with aircraft. But their keyword is "cheaper."


    UUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu ... well, if the absence of other arguments of supporters of "underwater lobby" resorted to "services" frank trash and lies Monsieur Mizokami of "yellow pages", "NO", - this is "Kratina Repin - Sailed"

    For us, the speed with which we can build new ships is more important.


    Uh-huh.
    So how much 885M should the Navy receive BEFORE 2020? Oh, Mr. Skomorokhov? Why are YOU so much "bypass" these FACTS?

    Everything turned out to be not so simple with Kazan. The delivery of the ship was delayed, and they delayed great. And although now it makes no difference, in general, why this happened, I think the reason lies a little differently in the reasons that were voiced by the "experts".


    Those. "Tightened" ??? Those. "no difference"????
    THE SHIP ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS AND THE STATE CONTRACT
    Being at best "of limited combat capability"

    Kazan is still very different from the first boat, Severodvinsk. So the ships seem to be similar, "Kazan" is a little shorter (9 meters), but it takes more missiles. Placing additional silos is not easy. And "Severodvinsk" takes 40 "Caliber" or 32 "Onyx". "Kazan" - 50 "Caliber" or 40 "Onyx".


    Wow, what numbers! And what about 100 or 200 missiles? No, a thousand! - some figs the level of "argumentation" is the same!
    I wonder where are they from? Did Keith Mizokami find it again?

    This means that space was freed up precisely due to the greater automation of all processes. Plus, there was information that the "Boreyevsky" hydroacoustic complex MGK-600B "Irtysh-Amphora-B-055" was installed on "Kazan".


    This is just nonsense and trash. For the "Boreyevsky" complex is deliberately WEAK of the "Yasenevsky" - stupidly on the antennas

    Almost fully automated hydroacoustic complex with a range of more than 300 km.


    Why write words whose meaning is incomprehensible to the writer himself?

    Kazan entered trials a very long time ago, in 2018, and repeatedly went to the plant. Something was being completed and altered there. The leadership of the fleet and the Ministry of Defense got off with indistinct releases on the topic that "the shortcomings in the work of the auxiliary system are being eliminated." In the press, as expected, a howl was raised about the fact that "we cannot build a submarine either."


    In fact, there was some specifics in the comments on VO.
    Incl. on the fact that with the "main parameter" "turns out sour".

    However, here it is still worthwhile to understand that the release "for everyone" is one thing, and the revision of a fundamentally new weapon, for example, which could well turn out to be the Zircon missiles, is another. And here a slightly different approach is needed. But "Zircon" behaved quite normally during tests on "Severodvinsk", so, perhaps, there is something completely new. There is a possibility that the "Caliber-M", which, as they say, will be thicker than its predecessor, and therefore some difficulties may be associated with it.


    Sorry, but this is Baba Mani's fortune telling on the coffee grounds.
    Incidentally, they have nothing to do with reality.

    In addition, we generally have a lot of things that can be loaded into the launch silo. So criticism, of course, is a good thing, but only when it is justified.


    Gorgeous phrase. Only now, "for some reason" the "underwater lobby" (and which saw the submarine only in pictures) is furiously "drowning" for the colossal material investments in the submarine, while being strenuously shortened from simple questions on the critical problems of its secrecy in terms of combat effectiveness and the factor of an integrated optimal approach to the development of the Navy, - where the submarines would be PROVIDED (and cover and CU ...)

    By the way, about criticism. For some reason, no one is foaming at the mouth of the new generation American aircraft carrier Gerald Ford. He seems to have been in the fleet since 2017, but not brought to mind. There is no air group, electromagnetic catapults are failing, electric lifts are failing, in general - a standard set of "childhood" illnesses. And no one really knows how long the Americans will finish finishing the Ford. For a very complex mechanism.


    There are specific engineering mistakes with Ford.
    Nevertheless, their elimination and revision are in a hurry.
    By the way, the tests "shock trilaz", which "Ford" passed successfully, not just NOT ONE SHIP of the Russian Navy of the latest generations passed us (before this was done), they are simply AFRAID
    Despite the fact that they are OBLIGED.
    If they are carried out for "Kazan" (we look at the characteristics of the export M15E in terms of warheads and the distance of destruction), then it will be on the "flag above the boat", "blood in scuppers" will then stand. And the ship itself will BE AT LEAST A YEAR after that.
    Therefore, such tests "can not be carried out in any way", and the point of view of the "underwater lobby" of the Navy simply "MUST" accept virtually INCIDENTAL SUBSTANCES.

    The submarine is also not a simple ship. Moreover - stuffed with new products. At Kazan we have a new reactor, which is more compact and quieter.


    G. Skomorokhov, are YOU sure of this statement? I highly doubt this (for there are real reasons). Or will it be OBS like Kyle Mizokami again?

    Another novelty is the pop-up escape pod for the entire crew. Able to lift people from depths, "to the extreme."


    Actually, this "novelty" is more than half a century old.
    And she first appeared on the 705 project.
    In general, it was a good idea for those writing on the topic to study it a little.

    But in our case, it's not even a matter of the number of new products. It is clear that in quality. I repeat that it is a matter of quality and quantity.


    No, Mr. Skomorokhov.
    Concerning "Kazan", the case is in a HUGE NON-CONFORMITY WITH THE SETTLEMENT TECHNOLOGIES AND THE STATE CONTRACT

    Let's take a look (though it will be sad) at the composition of our submarine forces. It is clear that we will talk about our two fleets, where nuclear submarines are available.

    ARPKSN project 941 - 1
    ARPKSN project 667BDRM - 7
    ARPKSN project 995 - 4

    SSGN project 885 / 885A - 2
    SSGN project 949A - 8
    AMPL project 971 - 10
    AMPL project 945 / 945A - 4
    AMPL project 671RTMK - 2


    It would be nice for an author writing on the topic to at least slightly understand it.
    Maybe then in its "composition of the Navy" (in quotation marks) will not get boats not just LONGLY REMOVED from the composition, but already DISPOSED.

    Continued in the next comment.
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 15 May 2021 10: 01
    +1
    Continuation of Maxim Klimov's answer

    "Seawulfs" and "Virginias" are, I note, the fourth generation. 20 nuclear submarines, even if three of them are not very good, the Seawolf program is closed, but twenty boats are twenty boats.


    Is it "Seawulf" then "not very"?!?!? Maybe the author will study the issue after all?

    And here we have the most important point of the whole study. The most valuable thing in this situation is not even how perfect Kazan is in terms of new products. Most importantly, mass production of boats is possible and possible today.


    Back to GPV-2020 once again
    The Navy should have received 1 + 7 (885 + 885M)
    I received ONE "Severodvinsk" (and then only because "to sign without looking", with a number of SHAME details, such as Chirkov's withdrawal of his signature on the following day after signing). FACTS on the MASS "jambs" of "Severodvinsk" - more than enough on the pages of "VO" for critical complexes (including with reference to the documents of arbitration)

    "Novosibirsk" is undergoing mooring tests.


    "Indiscreet questions" ... "Module-D", practically incapacitated, received a closed mooring certificate? Sure YES.
    Does Novosibirsk meet the specified requirements and the State Contract? UNWAYS NO

    "Krasnoyarsk" is preparing to launch. Arkhangelsk, Perm, Voronezh, Vladivostok, Ulyanovsk are under construction. The completion line for the last (hopefully at least) boat is 2028. That is, in 7 years we will have 8 more nuclear submarines of the fourth generation.


    Theoretically yes.
    In fact, these are "disabled people" (by the way, at Sevmash, this is the "name" received by "Kazan") with a very limited combat capability. But the dough in them will be vbuhanno immeasurably.
    By the way, the cost of "Kuznetsov" was approximately 2 times different from the cost of "loaves" of the 949A project.

    This is not comparable to the American Navy, but in principle it is enough to keep potential people in suspense and understanding of inevitability. It is clear in what situation.
    If a salvo of 10 strategic cruisers is needed to wipe a country off the face of the earth, then you shouldn't keep a fleet of 70. 20 is enough, with a margin. But on alert, with trained crews, and so on.


    And the author is generally aware that the 885M is a MULTI-PURPOSE nuclear submarine (and not a strategic one, like the 955A project)?
    And as for the "demolition", to the point and moment of the launch of our submarine, you still need to LIVE and REACH. But with this we have very, very big problems. Incl. due to the practically absent combat support system (almost all the money was "gobbled up" by the submarine).

    We really need an underwater sword to become a shield.
    It is a nuclear submarine, invulnerable at great depths,


    Did the author hear anything about anti-submarine torpedoes?

    poorly detectable


    Is this against multi-position low frequency illumination systems? Or against the new "non-acoustics"?
    Or again, "the kid around the corner" Kyle Mizokami said?

    with modern weapons on board in the silos - that's the real tomorrow. Whatever the fans of budget-eating ships with hangars try to prove.


    At the moment, the “underwater lobby” is the budget proponent (apparently that is why it is so hysterical from facts, - by itself strenuously avoiding them). The Borey-Bulava program is the MOST expensive military program in modern Russia. The "Yasenevskaya" scam was not far from her. And all this was done, incl. by REMOVING other programs, incl. those without which the possibility of effective use of our submarine forces will be ALWAYS NOT PROVIDED

    For even three aircraft carriers will not be able to do anything special on the scale of the war of tomorrow.


    The author is not only completely incompetent in the question, but also bloodily and clearly biased substituting the facts with "bogeymen" such as "budget-eating ships with hangars"

    And what can a salvo of an atomic submarine strategic cruiser do? 16 missiles with 10 warheads, 100-150 kilotons each?

    Before this volley of APRK, you still need to LIVE. But with this we have big problems.
    By the way, and there (on the "Bulava") exactly 10 "heads"? Or again - "why should the busurman feel sorry for them", "Kyle Mizokani said ..."?

    So, while our factories are working on the construction of the rest of the ships of the series, they will work on the Kazan, correcting all the shortcomings and shortcomings that arise. And that's okay. This is not a Chinese diesel engine produced by cutting the ship's hull lengthwise. This is a normal job. But when they finish with Kazan, it will be easier with the rest.


    Wow! After all, the "little piece of truth" has made its way!
    It turns out that “we still need to work” on Kazan! Those. it DOES NOT MEET (the specified requirements and the government contract). But what about the "signed act" then? And this is definitely "normal" (from the point of view of the author) SO TO REDUCE the fleet to put it mildly "limited combat-ready" ships?

    A start, one might say, has been made. The surrender of "Kazan". Yes, it sounds ambiguous, but this is exactly the case when handing over Kazan is about the same in terms of efficiency as taking Kazan. And here you just need to pass all the other cities of the series as quickly as possible.


    So can you sign the acts right away? Reception rooms - at the time of the conclusion of State contracts for the building? What, so to speak, “don't get up twice”?
    Do you propose this, Mr. Skomorokhov?
  • tank64rus
    tank64rus 17 May 2021 12: 00
    0
    Bow to our shipbuilders. It is now difficult for everyone to maintain the country's defense. And especially to comrades from the military-industrial complex. About "elite" I do not say she and Russia are different concepts.
    1. agond
      agond 17 May 2021 14: 56
      0
      How in general can it happen that admirals want universal nuclear submarines for all occasions, a Swiss, a reaper, a gamer on a pipe, of course the ship turns out to be large, complex, it takes a very long time to build, and therefore quickly become obsolete, and modernizing again is long and difficult, changing inside what then a large one needs to be cut into a light and durable hull then a deck ... easier to write off. Regardless of the universal ship, it will always lose to the specialized ship or ships.
      1. Devil13
        Devil13 18 May 2021 19: 48
        0
        Well, if he is better than anyone specialized in everything, then no.
        A question of concept, a question of expectations / outcome.
  • Devil13
    Devil13 18 May 2021 19: 47
    0
    1. 1 gauge or 1 onyx fits into the mine. Nobody heard anything about simultaneous loading in TA. As well as about the new mines in Kazan. Sources in the studio.
    2. GAS, with such outstanding characteristics - can you link to the facts?
    3.final speed of construction of Kazan? So how long will it take for us to have 8 boats? What about the speed of construction by Virginia that continues to build?
    4. And how much is the minimum number of boats required to at least ensure the exit of strategists to patrol places?
    5. Undoubtedly, the official delivery of the boat is a holiday, especially when it is the second multi-purpose one in almost 30 years.
    6. As has been said more than once, strength is in interaction. At least once did the boat receive a zu from the MR or the MRKTS system, if she is still alive, of course? Or the suicide will shoot according to his SAC?
  • anclevalico
    anclevalico 20 May 2021 07: 59
    0
    Why criticize amers' aircraft carrier if they have one of more than a dozen? With us, even the only one will not be brought to mind, but they have already dreamed about the second. And the delivery of the boat for the holiday hints at not very good. Again, the delivery times returned to dates, not readiness.