Military Review

Borei: do not stop there

81

Source: forum.militaryparitet.com


In an article on the construction of new submarines for the Russian fleet Hurray for those who passed Kazan several considerations were made on how this direction should, in theory, develop. I am pleased to announce that information has emerged that Borei-class nuclear-powered strategic submarines will also be produced after the fleet receives the contracted ten ships.

Member of the Board of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation, member of the Marine Board under the government Vladimir Pospelov in an interview with RIA "News"Said that Russia may continue construction of Boreyev after 2030.

Here, of course, the word "may" is somewhat annoying. Because Russia may continue to build missile submarines, or it may not. The element of suspension of the situation is still present. But we will proceed from the fact that "may" means "will be."

In fact, 2030 is a very important milestone for the fleet. This is the last line of operation and the subsequent withdrawal from the fleet of Soviet-built nuclear submarines. We are talking about projects 667BDR "Kalmar" and 667BDRM "Dolphin", which after 2030 will go for disposal.


Of the 14 boats of the 667BDR project, only one has remained in service today. The Pacific Fleet is K-44 "Ryazan", which has been in service since 1982. "Only" 39 years old. And with the prospect of withdrawal from the fleet - and all 48.

With Dolphins, everything is easier and more difficult at the same time. They were launched later than the Kalmarov, from 1984 to 1990, one boat a year. K-64 "Podmoskovye" was converted into a carrier of small special-purpose submarines, the remaining six serve, having undergone a series of repairs and re-equipment from R-29RM to more modern R-29MU2 Sineva and R-29MU2.1 Liner.


That is, at the time of the "Rubicon" in 2030, the boats will be from 46 to 40 years old. Let's face it, it's the age limit. And take the risk of continuing to use boats, albeit armed with modern weaponswould not be worth it. This is really dangerous.

And let's face it - we need to be able to build new boats to replace old ones. At least, if it really does not matter in terms of finances, in our state, by the will of fate, there is a person who can borrow from friends. Still, in our case, not for the Olympics, but for a more important matter. So that…

So really, does it make sense to stop at ten "Boreas"? Of course not. We have one fundamental document, namely the START III Treaty. Limiting strategic offensive weapons that make up the weapons of the Borey, Kalmar, Dolphin.

What does the letter of the START-3 Treaty say?

The treaty provides that each of the parties shall reduce and limit its strategic offensive weapons in such a way that seven years after its entry into force (the treaty was ratified in 2010) and in the future, their total quantities do not exceed: - - 700 units for deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine ballistic missiles (SLBMs) ​​and heavy bombers (TB);
- 1 units for warheads on them;
- 800 units for deployed and non-deployed launchers (PU) of ICBMs and SLBMs, as well as TB.

The treaty introduced the concept of "non-deployed" launchers and launchers, that is, not in combat readiness, but used for training or testing, and without warheads (START-1 and START-2 covered nuclear warheads deployed on deployed strategic delivery vehicles).


As you can see, the START-3 Treaty clearly limits the number of missiles and charges, but does not at all limit the number of carriers (ships, submarines, aircraft) with the exception of strategic bombers. Tu-95 and Tu-160 from our side and B-52, B-1 and B-2 from the American side.

This means that it is possible to build submarines, which means it is necessary. For the Treaty makes no difference between a missile launched from a ground-based launcher or silo and from a submarine. Yes, a submarine missile carrier costs much more than a ground-based launcher. But it is also much more difficult to detect it than a ground installation. And where the silo launchers are located, and so everyone has known for a long time.

And we still have fewer missiles than the Americans. So, according to the START-3 Treaty, it is possible to quietly and calmly build boats that will quietly and calmly carry missiles to the point of salvo. At some distance from the objects of destruction, but still, at a much shorter distance than ground-based launchers. It’s impossible to intercept it. Point blank.

Borey, a Project 995A missile carrier, has generally shown itself to be a very successful and, most importantly, a cheap boat. 23,2 billion rubles ($ 313 million) compared to 47 billion rubles for Yaseny-M project 885 ($ 600 million).

In the United States, by the way, they like to discuss the consequences of a strike by a Russian submarine cruiser with Bulava missiles. Respected and objective in its own way, We Are The Mighty modeled the situation with one Russian submarine of the Borei class, which, even being west of Hawaii, could vaporize New York.


Photo: CDB MT Rubin

Computers of the Americans have shown that 96 warheads with a total yield of more than 9 kilotons from 000 Bulava missiles can do very sad (from the American point of view) deeds on the territory of the United States with practically impunity.

And it is not necessary to recharge. In the case of the Third World War, there will be nowhere, and there is no need. New York is worth more than $ 300 million. Is not it?

But "Borey" will come. It is not easy to find it, and even if it was found, the ship is more than toothy. Eight 533mm torpedo tubes, from which you can launch anything. The set is rich: torpedoes, rocket-torpedoes, self-propelled mines, anti-submarine missiles of the "Waterfall" submarine missile system, cruise missiles "Caliber-PL", in general, everything that can be loaded into the device - so you can jump.

You can take on board up to 40 different torpedoes and missiles.

In addition, at the base (they do not recharge at sea), you can charge such interesting things as the self-propelled hydroacoustic countermeasure device (SGAPD) MG-104 "Brosok" or MG-114 "Beryl". Despite the fact that the caliber of these gizmos is also 533-mm, they are loaded not into torpedo tubes, but into special launchers REPS-324 "Shlagbaum". A device very similar to a torpedo floats under water and tells all the enemy hydroacoustic stations that it is a very large and arrogant submarine. Maneuvers, changes course, depth, puts interference. And then, when the resource is used up, it just blows up bubbles and goes to the bottom.

A very pleasant impression is made by the picture of the presence of 10 "Boreis" in our fleet. But even better would be a picture of 15 or 20 of these ships.

Here is why.

Americans are not fools at all. Today, the role of strategic missile carriers is played by 18 Ohio-class boats.


The first was commissioned in 1981, the last in 1996. And they plan to change them starting in 2031. In fact, 50 years after Ohio went into business.

That is, in the United States, things are no better than ours, and even worse. We have Boreas, but their Columbia is just being developed. The difference between paper and waves is palpable.

And so, starting in 2031, the United States plans to build and commission 12 Columbia-class boats. And all 18 Ohio's will retire.

Accordingly, we have time for a calm and systematic replacement of "Sharks", "Dolphins" and "Squid" for "Borei". It is not as difficult as it seems, the process has been mastered and is underway. You just need to extend it.

The Trident-2, which is planned to equip the Columbia, is a very good missile.

Borei: do not stop there
Source: wikipedia.org

Powerful, fast, with MIRV, but ... But it's still 1990. Our "Bulava" simply cannot be worse, if only because they began to develop it in 1998, knowing perfectly well what "Trident" is.

Columbia may turn out to be a good submarine, the Americans know how to build ships, that's a fact. And "Trident-2" of the next iteration of D-5 is quite a serious weapon. 8 warheads of 475 kilotons, or 14 warheads of 100 kilotons.

And something must be opposed to this. Even though Columbia will carry 16 missiles instead of Ohio's 24, the more Boreis we have, the better. This is precisely what is called "nuclear deterrence."

192 missiles on Columbia (and now 432 on Ohio boats) will best deter 320 Bulava missiles on 20 Boreas.

Therefore, it is indeed preferable not to dissipate forces on dubious projects, but to build up a real shield and sword of the country.

Borei must continue to be built in series. Those 10 submarines must be considered the first series, and the second must necessarily follow.

We will not scare the enemy with the construction of an aircraft carrier by 2055. Our potential adversaries are unlikely to be scared. And here is a quick and inevitable retribution from under the water ...



The Boreas must continue to be built.
Author:
81 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 21 May 2021 05: 00
    +27
    So, according to the START-3 Treaty, it is possible to quietly and calmly build boats that will quietly and calmly carry missiles to the point of salvo. At some distance from the objects of destruction, but still, at a much shorter distance, than ground-based launchers. It’s impossible to intercept it. Point blank.
    What nonsense, but what about the PLO breakthrough? Teleport? Without an ocean-going fleet, SSBNs will be forced to be near their shores, an elementary thing. Boats are good, of course, but without surface ships it's like a bunch of spoons in the kitchen and not a single knife.
    1. Anachoret
      Anachoret 21 May 2021 11: 14
      +12
      I agree that modern IPCs are also needed to replace albatrosses, moreover, 25-30 pieces, minesweepers (base and sea), more frigates (more than the planned 10 pieces) are needed, a destroyer (which is served as a frigate-M) is also needed, about 8 pieces, at least ... Since the current surface component for these positions is also being matched by the age of 40 (already now!)
      1. bayard
        bayard 21 May 2021 20: 50
        +3
        Quote: Anchorite
        , more frigates (more than 10 planned),

        There will be more of them, now all the building berths are occupied by their buildings, all without the power plant, waiting.
        Quote: Anchorite
        you need a destroyer (which is served as a frigate-M), too, at least 8 pieces.

        Numbers of 18 pcs were sounded. and 12 pcs. , with 18, earlier 12. But they also need GEM.
        They will learn how to make gearboxes at Zvezda ... and make them in marketable quantities, the Navy will have ships. They won't learn ... we'll listen to fairy tales.
      2. Grits
        Grits 23 May 2021 00: 33
        +1
        Quote: Anchorite
        I agree that modern IPCs are also needed to replace albatrosses, moreover, 25-30 pieces, minesweepers (base and sea), more frigates (more than the planned 10 pieces) are needed, a destroyer (which is served as a frigate-M) is also needed, about 8 pieces, at least ... Since the current surface component for these positions is also being matched by the age of 40 (already now!)

        By the way, at least one AB would not hurt. It is necessary to use something to drive anti-submarine aircraft and AWACS aircraft away from the deployment sites of SSBNs
    2. Borri
      Borri 22 May 2021 06: 23
      -1
      You're right. Will be destroyed.
  2. Glagol1
    Glagol1 21 May 2021 05: 17
    +12
    20 boats are not real. This was 23 billion for the first Boreyas, and even then, we do not know exactly the entire calculation, now at least 2 must be multiplied + volley ... If there is 12 - it's already good. But with some strategists you won't go far, so you need to build other types as well. And our ruble is getting thinner and thinner, another year - another and 100 rubles for a euro how to drink. So 20 boats is a dream or a skew at the expense of everything else you need ...
  3. Dante Alighieri
    Dante Alighieri 21 May 2021 05: 27
    +39
    Roman, with all due respect, I beg you to stop writing "victorious reports" on the naval topic ... well, this is not your word at all. You have wonderful social articles, where every word rings a bell in the heart, but when it comes to the fleet, such pearls appear from somewhere:
    The Trident-2, which is planned to equip the Columbia, is a very good missile.
    Powerful, fast, with MIRV, but ... But it's still 1990. Our "Bulava" simply cannot be worse, if only because they began to develop it in 1998, knowing perfectly well what "Trident" is.


    The logic is simply masterpiece: the new is a priori better than the old, simply because it is new. But the whole point is that just on the example of Bulava, this concept demonstrates all its inferiority, not withstanding any criticism, since the "new" Russian intercontinental ballistic missile just turned out to be worse than a similar American-made product at the end of the last century. You don't even need to have sacred knowledge, just open Wikipedia:

    Maximum firing range: Tradent 2 - 11 300 km, Bulava - 9 300 km. Throw weight: Trident 2 - 2 800 kg, Mace - 1 150. Block power: Trident 2 - 8 × 475 or 12 × 100, Mace - 6 × 150.

    And in what, I am ashamed, to ask superiority? Even if, according to official data, Bulava is at least 2 times behind Trident 2?

    We had and still have not just a commensurate answer to Trident 2, but an answer that is orders of magnitude superior to it. These are the same Sineva and Liner mentioned by you, the carriers of which were 667BDR "Kalmar" and 667BDRM "Dolphin" ). But here's the trouble: for some reason, modern delivery vehicles for these missiles are not being built, but under the obviously weaker and outdated Bulava. What is this zrada and is it a peremog?

    And you don't need to explain to me about the features of dry and wet start - I can imagine them less well. As well as the pros and cons associated with it. Yes, dry start is safer and quieter, which has a more favorable effect on the speed of construction of the carrier and its ability to survive in a global turmoil. But as Roman himself correctly notes:
    And it is not necessary to recharge. In the case of the Third World War, there will be nowhere, and there is no need.


    Therefore, a reasonable question arises: after the missiles go to the target, does it really matter what happens to the carrier that is now unnecessary?

    I understand cynically, but between the lives of the crews and the possibility of inflicting unacceptable damage to the enemy, one way or another, you will have to choose. Well, either make a new solid-propellant rocket, which with its performance characteristics would start at least a little in line with Sineva, or at least surpass its American counterpart. There is no other way.
    1. mark1
      mark1 21 May 2021 05: 54
      +11
      As for the Trident, not everything is so curly - at 2800 kg of throw weight, the range is somewhere on the order of 7 400-7800 km, and with a reduced load, the Bulava shoots by 11 300. (although of course the superiority of "Trident 2" in throw weight is obvious).
      As for the R-29, I completely agree - one shouldn't write off such unique missiles together with the carrier. Makeyevtsy at one time proposed to remake the P29 for a "dry" start (although "wet" increases the boat's capabilities in firing in full volley), so that it would probably be possible to perform a modification of the "Borea" under the "Liner" block.
      1. Dante Alighieri
        Dante Alighieri 21 May 2021 06: 10
        +11
        Makeevtsy are generally creative guys (although Krasnoyarsk residents will have a heavier fist laughing ), they would have brought the R-39 to perfection a little more. How long was it not enough for them to debug the same Bark? 8 starts or 10? But it was Bark (or maybe Thunder, I don't remember exactly) that was originally planned to be installed on Borei. The situation looks especially sad against the background of the following statements by the author:
        At least, if it really does not matter in terms of finances, in our state, by the will of fate, there is a person who can borrow from friends. Still, in our case, not for the Olympics, but for a more important matter.

        As in a joke: So what did they give? Yeah, and then they caught up and gave more ...
        1. ramzay21
          ramzay21 21 May 2021 07: 38
          +9
          The bark was able to break through the ice on its own, and the SSBN did not have to look for a wormwood, and the weight was thrown solid and at a decent range. Boreans were built specifically for them.
          Bulava is a compromise and very controversial decision; it is a huge step backward. Therefore, they are afraid to write off the carriers of liquid-propellant missiles.
          1. sanek45744
            sanek45744 21 May 2021 08: 40
            -9
            Well, you got excited about breaking the ice.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 21 May 2021 10: 30
              +7
              I did not get excited - the ice breakdown was at the rocket in TTZ
              1. sanek45744
                sanek45744 21 May 2021 18: 58
                -2
                Ahah. Yeah, you break the ice. Just think about writing something. And yes, I have seen in practice what ice is and what it does with the hull when it is icy, and I saw a rocket in the section of a true p29. Maybe they wondered what kind of system with outfits, well, for sure, the rocket would not break the ice. Experts ahah
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 21 May 2021 20: 03
                  +2
                  Breakdown, not breakdown.

                  Here
                  http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-441.html

                  Non-expert, ahah.
                  1. sanek45744
                    sanek45744 21 May 2021 20: 32
                    -2
                    Without practical shooting, it's all with a pitchfork on the water. Plus to the one I answered, I wrote what exactly to break the ice. You supported him. Right?
                    1. ramzay21
                      ramzay21 22 May 2021 05: 13
                      +1
                      This does not change the essence of the matter. Why cling to words? The rocket flies through the ice, and SSBNs do not need to look for a wormwood, and it does not matter whether it breaks through, gouges, pierces or burns.
                      Everything worked for Soviet designers. With a pitchfork on the water, this is for today's specialists, they change their shoes every two or three years.
                      1. sanek45744
                        sanek45744 22 May 2021 09: 40
                        -2
                        To cling to words ?? These are different words, you do not understand what you are writing about, that's all. Ahah, well, it has begun, we need to bring in some specialists when there are no arguments. You don't understand the term polynya
                      2. ramzay21
                        ramzay21 22 May 2021 18: 48
                        0
                        Everything is clear with you, you are an expert, I don't argue anymore
          2. PSih2097
            PSih2097 22 May 2021 01: 15
            +1
            Quote: sanek45744
            Well, you got excited about breaking the ice.

            on the "barge" (and then on the "mace") solid propellant rocket motors were installed for breaking the ice.
            1. sanek45744
              sanek45744 22 May 2021 09: 51
              -1
              This is all Wishlist, but in fact there was not a single practical shooting, which means there is no such thing. Why should I write how it will be that it was a fait accompli? You can put a lot of things in the performance characteristics.
      2. bayard
        bayard 21 May 2021 21: 43
        +1
        Quote: Dante
        still a little they would have brought the P-39 to perfection. How long was it not enough for them to debug the same Bark? 8 starts or 10?

        After the collapse of the Soviet Union, they had nothing left. Pavlograd PMZ became inaccessible to them in breakaway Ukraine. Both - the first and second stages of both "Typhoon" and "Barka" were made by Pavlograd. There were attempts to come to an agreement with the Votkinsk plant so that they would undertake this, but this would require considerable investment and time. Therefore, the project was simply closed.
        And then - in the early 00s, a citizen of Solomon returned from the United States. And he undertook to sculpt not only "Yars", but also "Bulava" ... having no experience in the design of naval ballistic missiles, not knowing the specifics of their launch ... Well, the documentation for the Bulava went to the Chinese at the same time.
        1. Dante Alighieri
          Dante Alighieri 22 May 2021 03: 58
          +1
          Well, Solomonov, if memory serves, has not been in a leading position for more than 10 years. Maybe that's why the Bulava finally flew? Who knows? We can guess for a very, very long time - anyway, no one knows their inner kitchen, except for the employees. But it may well surrender that the persons removed from direct control, having put a puppet in their place, may well continue to stealthily lead the parade.

          The problems of the Makeyevites have the same roots as the problems of equipping the domestic fleet with the main power plants. For three decades since the collapse of the USSR, with the proper political will, it was already possible to decide something. But apparently, not with the current leaders ...
  4. Alien From
    Alien From 21 May 2021 10: 51
    +2
    I join you! Roman unpleasantly surprised with this article .......
  5. Kalmar
    Kalmar 21 May 2021 14: 53
    +2
    Quote: Dante
    And in what, I am ashamed, to ask superiority? Even if, according to official data, Bulava is at least 2 times behind Trident 2?

    Another point that has always been interesting: the R-29 and Trident-2 have an astrocorrector declared, while the Bulava only mentions the ANN. The question is: how can she, "Bulava", in these conditions ensure a decent performance of the KVO?
    1. Dante Alighieri
      Dante Alighieri 21 May 2021 15: 32
      -1
      poll: how can she, "Bulava", in these conditions ensure a decent performance of CEP?

      Who knows? And who knows, I think he won't tell.
      Maybe there is laser guidance from a sabotage group? I will not be surprised that this can be. One thing I can say - I personally feel very sorry for such a group, the deviation by deviation, and the affected area of ​​the 150 kilaton land mine will practically not leave them a chance.
    2. Tektor
      Tektor 21 May 2021 18: 14
      -3
      The main advantage of the Bulava is that it is able to "shoot" along a flat trajectory ... This means that the warheads will fly low, along a shortened route, and the delivery time for the "payload" will be significantly reduced. Those. within 20-25 minutes instead of 30-40. But firing rockets is an extreme option anyway. And you need to understand that there are very few warheads, and you need to spend each with the calculation of maximum damage. Hence the conclusion that warheads will not be spent on cities: exclusively for infrastructure ... for energy facilities, the most important transport hubs and bases, the most important industries and data centers. In this case, about 10% of the population will die, and the war will move into the next phase. No nuclear winter is in sight, and the war will continue by other means. It is possible to radically reduce the enemy's population only with the use of "dirty" ammunition from semi-used nuclear fuel, for example. Disposable drones of the appropriate range will be needed. But this weapon will pollute the whole nature and will get us in the end. This is already a very difficult case, when the very existence of Russia is at stake.
      And the most profitable way is to deliver the charges by soldiers of special forces, moreover, preferably stolen ones, in order to substitute burdocks.
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 21 May 2021 18: 23
        -1
        Quote: Tektor
        The main advantage of the Bulava is that it is able to "shoot" along a flat trajectory ...

        As far as I know, not only she can do this trick. The problem is that in this mode, the launch range is sharply reduced. At the same time, our "strategists" will be on alert in the "bastions" - the Barents and Okhotsk Seas - from where, along a flat trajectory, it will be possible to finish shooting a little.

        Quote: Tektor
        And the most profitable way is to deliver the charges by soldiers of special forces, moreover, preferably stolen ones, in order to substitute burdocks.

        How many charges are needed and how many soldiers are needed to deliver them? It is doubtful that they can be thrown in significant quantities into the very rear of the enemy, especially in the pre-war period, when all the special services are working in an enhanced mode.
      2. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 22 May 2021 00: 49
        +2
        Quote: Tektor
        The main advantage of the Bulava is that it is able to "shoot" along a flat trajectory ... This means that the warheads will fly low, along a shortened route, and the delivery time for the "payload" will be significantly reduced. Those. within 20-25 minutes instead of 30-40. But firing rockets is an extreme option anyway. And you need to understand that there are very few warheads, and you need to spend each with the calculation of maximum damage. Hence the conclusion that warheads will not be spent on cities: exclusively for infrastructure ... for energy facilities, the most important transport hubs and bases, the most important industries and data centers.

        Teach materiel.
        On a really high-speed flat trajectory, an SLBM can fly no more than 2500 km.
        Accordingly, in order to really cover the bases in Montana, Wyoming, Dakota, Mizzuri, it is necessary to conduct military service close to the shores of the USA and Canada.
        Both in the Pacific Ocean and in the Atlantic.
        And our SSBNs have BS places - near our shores.
        And yes.
        Shooting on a flat trajectory makes sense only when the missile flight time does not exceed 6-7 minutes.
        And your 20-25 is complete nonsense ...
  • sergo1914
    sergo1914 21 May 2021 07: 41
    +6
    ... At least, if it really does not matter in terms of finances, in our state, by the will of fate, there is a person who can borrow from friends.


    From friends who stole from the state that this person heads? I have not confused anything?
    1. ramzay21
      ramzay21 22 May 2021 18: 52
      +1
      Friends of the citizens of NATO member countries. It's easier for them to jump around Krasnoyarsk, they have no acquaintances or relatives there, and they don't need to lend money to anyone.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 May 2021 07: 55
    +30
    Americans are not fools at all. Today, the role of strategic missile carriers is played by 18 Ohio-class boats.

    A novel in his repertoire - he undertakes to write articles about ships, but cannot count their number
    SSBN "Ohio" today is not 18 but 14, the rest have been converted into carriers of cruise missiles
    But THIS
    Our "Bulava" simply cannot be worse, if only because they began to develop it in 1998, knowing perfectly well what "Trident" is.

    Generally a masterpiece of pseudo-patriotic delirium. Usually Roman does not go further than Wikipedia, but this time he was even banned by the wiki - the American rocket has a significant advantage in the throw weight.
    Borei must continue to be built in series. Those 10 submarines must be considered the first series, and the second must necessarily follow.

    Yes, yes, let's set up 20 SSBNs right now, which in 20 years will be relatively easy to detect by the modern MPSS at that time. Masterpiece.
    1. Artyom Karagodin
      Artyom Karagodin 21 May 2021 09: 14
      +17
      Yes, in general, articles about the fleet of our "non-aviation non-sectarians" more and more often suggest an order either from industrialists, or from an uncle with big stars on his shoulders. Because it’s not stupid people who write, but it comes down to nonsense (and what kind !!!!). Strange, right word.

      I understand that what was said smacks of a terry conspiracy, but here it is like with those spoons. Find - were found, but the sediment will not dissolve in any way ...
    2. agond
      agond 21 May 2021 09: 17
      +11
      There is some kind of ambiguity in the title of the article "Borei - do not stop there"
      Known general boat data
      Borey - surface 14720t submarine 24000t missiles 16 pcs
      (we have 1 rocket for 1500t displacement)
      Ohio - surface 16746t submarine 18750t missiles 24 pcs
      (they have 1 rocket for 781 tons of displacement)
      we divide our 1500 tons by theirs 781 tons, we see that the technical perfection in the number of missiles per ton of displacement in their Ohio is 1.92 times higher than our Borei,
      Now let's compare the total throw of Trident and Mace
      2.800 kg x 24pcs = 64000kg and 1150kg x 16pcs = 18900 kg,
      we see that their total cast weight of warheads is 3.39 times greater.
      (of course, comparison without taking into account the range, but this is not important)
      Comparing the general technical perfection of missile carriers together with missiles
      Ohio - 18750t of displacement divided by the throw weight 64tg = 293 t
      Borey - 24000 t of displacement divided by the throw weight 18.9 t = 1270 t
      we see that the technical excellence in the mass of the thrown warheads per ton of displacement of the missile carrier from our Borey is worse than that of Ohio in
      Divide 1270t by 292t = 4.33 times !!!
      Is this the very achievement or what?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 May 2021 10: 21
        +12
        Quote: agond
        we divide our 1500 tons by theirs 781 tons, we see that the technical perfection in the number of missiles per ton of displacement in their Ohio is 1.92 times higher than our Borei,

        With all due respect, the ratio of displacement to the number of missiles is not a criterion. SSBNs must have a number of important performance characteristics, such as low noise, etc., for which it is not a pity to waste displacement. The same Americans are now designing the Columbia, for which this figure is much worse than the Ohio - 20 tons of underwater passage and 800 missiles.
      2. Barberry25
        Barberry25 21 May 2021 12: 43
        -6
        laughing eternally dissatisfied topvar experts ... what's the difference in size? The main thing is that the missiles fly
      3. Vlad_20
        Vlad_20 21 May 2021 14: 03
        -1
        All this is the advantage of the Americans due to the significantly greater buoyancy of our submarines. And this is the demand of the sailors - they know better, they walk the seas, and do not lie on the couch !!!
    3. Dante Alighieri
      Dante Alighieri 21 May 2021 09: 55
      +6
      let's set up 20 SSBNs right now, which in 20 years will be relatively easy to detect by modern MPSS at that time


      Andrey, welcome! hi
      In my dilettante opinion, the Boreyev series would make sense in 2 cases:

      - firstly, if the Makeev Design Bureau would have brought the work on Bark to its logical end, in parallel, having managed to fit the size of the rocket into the volume of the missile compartment available to Borey (thereby turning the ships into carriers of truly formidable weapons);

      - secondly, if, along with the strategists, we organize the release of the conditional pr. 955-K, which, as it seems, would become a real headache for the conditional adversary: ​​in this case, the differences between strategists and simple missile cruisers are reduced to a minimum. The latter, in theory, should at times complicate the identification of our submarine forces, significantly complicating the process of tracking them (since more attention is traditionally riveted to strategists than to other elements of the underwater component).
      1. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 21 May 2021 13: 05
        +11
        Quote: Dante


        - secondly, if, along with the strategists, we organize the release of the conditional pr. 955-K, which, as it seems, would become a real headache for the conditional adversary: ​​in this case, the differences between strategists and simple missile cruisers are reduced to a minimum. The latter, in theory, should at times complicate the identification of our submarine forces, significantly complicating the process of tracking them (since more attention is traditionally riveted to strategists than to other elements of the underwater component).


        Useless.

        First.
        As far as I understand, every submarine, even a super-serial one, like baked pies, has its own individual acoustic portrait.
        Accordingly, the very first contact of the boat at the exit from the base with the adversary will allow determining its actual identification.

        Second.
        The modern world around us has practically no secrets.
        The locations of all the crew's smartphones, movement dynamics, and call activity are monitored. And not only sailors, but also their family members.
        Changing the activity of calls among themselves, shutting down from the systems - all this makes it clear that such a crew is going to military service. Binding of satellite visual control over the base, activity on the base to control the movements of crew members, control of payroll payments (data sent to the Labor Inspectorate, Tax Service, Pension Fund, control of payments from payroll cards by geography (if they are issued in payment systems), etc. etc. and much more.All in the aggregate - gives an almost 100% guarantee of knowing which boat is going to the BS.
        1. Dante Alighieri
          Dante Alighieri 21 May 2021 15: 11
          +3
          Your truth!

          I am aware of the acoustic portrait, and I perfectly understand that it is almost impossible to deal with it. Another question is that here you can maneuver. For example, feeding the enemy pre-prepared disinformation.

          To do this, consider a situation where we have 2 absolutely identical submarines, but one is a strategist, and the other is a missile cruiser. Again, visually and technically the boats are no different: everything is identical to the last screw, the only difference is in the load. Another important condition: submarine crews are interchangeable and capable of performing a combat mission on both types of ships.

          So the situation described by you: every exit to the sea with 100% probability is tracked by a probable enemy using all the means you have enumerated, and at the most convenient point the ship is already awaiting a delegation of escorts. At the same time, these annoying gentlemen show an especially unhealthy interest in strategic missile carriers. And we just need the strategist to get at least a minimum head start. What to do? With a sufficient surface fleet, it was possible to squeeze these suitors to hell, but we have one or two necessary surface ships and they are busy in other directions. How to be?

          Personally, I would try to put on a little show. Through all the open and closed channels, information about the preparation for the release of our strategist would have passed. This is indirectly confirmed by the fact that the crew was recalled from the vacation, and the necessary preparatory work is in full swing at the berth around the desired vessel. And now the X-hour: the boat went on a hike. Observers among those who sympathize with democracy report that it was the crew assigned to the strategic missile carrier that left the sea, which is again confirmed by the absence of your designated "social activity" of its members. However, after a n-th period of time, a missile cruiser also sails from the pier, whose preparation for the exit against the background of the information noise around the strategic brother remained by few people noticed (in fact, another convention, but why not, because she could at the end end counterintelligence after the next communication session to reveal a good part of the informants?). And so the longed-for guests meet our first hero, get in touch with him and soon realize that this is not a strategist at all, but a missile cruiser. A slight confusion begins, familiar to everyone who was taken to the police station to clarify the identity, although this time the essence of the origin of the Russian submarine is being clarified. All this time, the escorts by inertia continue to pursue the poor missile cruiser, which takes them further and further into the open ocean. At this time, the strategic missile carrier, but with the crew of the cruiser on board, safely bypasses the rendezvous point and calmly goes to the position assigned to it.

          Of course, in the example I have given there are many fontazmagorias and assumptions (in the end, I am a land person - I am allowed), and I perfectly understand that such barriers put up by our opponents may not be one or two, but in my understanding, if there is a possibility at least to mislead the enemy a little - you can't help but use it. After all, war is the art of deception. Is not it?
          1. Borri
            Borri 22 May 2021 06: 28
            0
            Quote: Dante
            when we have 2 absolutely identical submarines, but one is a strategist, and the other is a missile cruiser.

            It's not clear what the difference is? It seems to me that the opposing side has enough strength to track both at the same time.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 21 May 2021 15: 19
          +5
          Quote: SovAr238A
          Second.
          The modern world around us has practically no secrets.
          The locations of all the crew's smartphones, movement dynamics, and call activity are monitored. And not only sailors, but also their family members.
          Changing the activity of calls among themselves, shutting down from the systems - all this makes it clear that such a crew is going to military service.

          Pfff ... at 08.08.08 on the Sevastopol forum it was possible to track the movements and loading of the Black Sea Fleet ships in almost real time: whose husband, brother, matchmaker, godfather, friend where and what went, what was loaded on board and when he plans to return.
        3. Gori
          Gori 21 May 2021 22: 27
          -3
          Quote: SovAr238A
          Second.
          The modern world around us has practically no secrets.
          The locations of all the crew's smartphones, movement dynamics, and call activity are monitored.

          Crews are prohibited from using smartphones during the hike, and smartphones are surrendered. Smartphone signals do not pass through the hull of the submarine (shielding), much less through the water column. It is impossible to control the locations of smartphones, movement dynamics and call activity. I have not yet said about the range of cellular stations, which is very small.
          1. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A 21 May 2021 22: 55
            +3
            Quote: Gori
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Second.
            The modern world around us has practically no secrets.
            The locations of all the crew's smartphones, movement dynamics, and call activity are monitored.

            Crews are prohibited from using smartphones during the hike, and smartphones are surrendered. Smartphone signals do not pass through the hull of the submarine (shielding), much less through the water column. It is impossible to control the locations of smartphones, movement dynamics and call activity. I have not yet said about the range of cellular stations, which is very small.

            You just do not understand the essence of the issue sufficiently.
            And underestimate ...
            The simultaneous shutdown of hundreds of communication devices, previously "illuminated" in the vicinity of service at strategic facilities, gives unambiguous information about who exactly is a member of the crew of a particular boat ...
            With all that it implies.
            From the subsequent total control of all calls, contacts, payments, loans, messages in Mamba, Tinder, PornHub, VKontakte, OK, etc.
            The frequency of views by a specific subscriber, albeit anonymous, of channels on YouTube, which is interspersed with 2-3 months of complete "voids" ...
            All together in the Bigdate system - tracked at 1-2-3 ...
            This even our management K and R uses as matches, although they do not even have 1% of the opportunities that Bigdate gives.
            A psycho-portrait of each "character" is formed.
            Up to the line on the "conversation" ...
  • prior
    prior 21 May 2021 08: 25
    +2
    Isn't it time to put the Yars complexes on sea duty! wink
    A small submarine, approached in shallow water, rested on the bottom, fired with Yars and hello ....... lol
    With the same success, you can use ships of the "river-sea" type ..... you get the river "Barguzin", but without wheels.
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 21 May 2021 09: 10
      +5
      Quote: prior
      Isn't it time to put the Yars complexes on sea duty!

      Jokes are jokes.
      But somersaults ... some fifteen years ago, when Bulava appeared in the press, it was about the unification with the then Topol that we were told, like putting a ready-made land rocket into a boat would not be a lot of trouble.
      And then it turned out that she didn’t just stick it in, there were so many features that they did and did, then they reworked and re-peredeled ... and it is still not clear whether they did it or still not.
      1. prior
        prior 21 May 2021 09: 15
        0
        Thanks for the comment. With the Bulava it is clear, it is sharpened for an underwater launch. And I meant surface, so Yars or Topol-M. Underwater is only an exit to the position.
    2. Artyom Karagodin
      Artyom Karagodin 21 May 2021 09: 17
      +3
      And even better "Sarmat". We will re-equip a couple of cruise ships sailing on inland waterways for it, and hello hot))))!
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 21 May 2021 09: 24
        0
        Quote: Artyom Karagodin
        And even better "Sarmat". We will re-equip a couple of cruise ships for it

        "Sarmat" is certainly better, it is liquid. At least the fuel, as it was in the Bulava, will not shake with constant vibration. Although, it is also hardly designed for such an appeal.
        And why, if there is a "Liner".
        1. Artyom Karagodin
          Artyom Karagodin 21 May 2021 09: 34
          +3
          Duc it was just a joke, in the tone of his reverend Prior Vlad)))). How do you imagine a cruise ship as an ICBM carrier?
          1. prior
            prior 21 May 2021 10: 00
            +1
            I'm glad you recognized the joke on my part. But perhaps the cruise ships are too much, Your Eminence. In winter, all our rivers freeze. What kind of cruises are there? winked
            1. Artyom Karagodin
              Artyom Karagodin 21 May 2021 11: 52
              +1
              We make them ice class - and you're done))).
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 21 May 2021 10: 29
    +14
    An article has already been written about the real survival of submarines in modern warfare; it will be published here soon, let's see what you guys will sing then
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 May 2021 11: 45
      +12
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      let's see what you guys sing then

      Yes, they will sing the same thing. You might think that their once reasonable arguments convinced of something
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 21 May 2021 11: 47
        +9
        let's see. today at 15.00 Moscow put
      2. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin 21 May 2021 11: 54
        +2
        I agree with you, Andrey 100%. They will tactfully keep silent or write something unintelligible-emotional like "While there is not enough water in Africa, and our spaceships are no longer plowing the open spaces ..." and everything like that. As they did before.
    2. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 21 May 2021 21: 35
      0
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      An article has already been written about the real survival of submarines in modern warfare

      Already published, though in the next section. It turned out funny. In one place they call for "more boats" in another they expose the "invisibility" of the submarine.
    3. ramzay21
      ramzay21 22 May 2021 05: 23
      +1
      Realists will be interested, the rest will not prove anything anyway.
  • Dmitry Chelyabinsk
    Dmitry Chelyabinsk 21 May 2021 10: 42
    +7
    Good afternoon, Roman. Interested in how you plan to meet the contractual limits with 20 Boreas?
    There should be no more than 3 non-deployed launchers for START-100, this is 6 boats (in practice, even fewer, since quotas must also be reserved for the Strategic Missile Forces). The remaining 14 will carry 224 SLBMs and 1344 warheads. Let's leave 50 more strategic bombers, as you suggested in a recent article. In total, the Strategic Missile Forces will have a quota of 150-160 warheads.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 21 May 2021 12: 07
      +16
      Good afternoon, Roman. Interested in how you plan to meet the contractual limits with 20 Boreas?


      What are you with the trump cards at once?
    2. Barberry25
      Barberry25 21 May 2021 12: 45
      +2
      laughing do not touch my beloved Yars! hands off the trucks hi
    3. SVD68
      SVD68 21 May 2021 13: 26
      +1
      Quote: Dmitry Chelyabinsk
      Interested in how you plan to meet the contractual limits with 20 Boreas?

      It's just that simple - you can reduce the number of warheads on a missile or the number of missiles on a cruiser. The main thing is that the probability of simultaneous destruction of 4 submarine cruisers on alert is much lower, the probability of simultaneous destruction of two.
      1. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 22 May 2021 00: 55
        +2
        Quote: SVD68
        Quote: Dmitry Chelyabinsk
        Interested in how you plan to meet the contractual limits with 20 Boreas?

        It's just that simple - you can reduce the number of warheads on a missile or the number of missiles on a cruiser. The main thing is that the probability of simultaneous destruction of 4 submarine cruisers on alert is much lower, the probability of simultaneous destruction of two.

        There is no difference, provided that the enemies have 60 active nuclear submarines that meet our SSBNs already at the exit "in a group of 2-3 boats, not alone ...
        Remember how many enemy boats were noted at the time of the death of Kursk ...
        And this is always ...
  • bk0010
    bk0010 21 May 2021 12: 34
    +7
    This means that it is possible to build submarines, which means it is necessary. For the Treaty makes no difference between a missile launched from a ground-based launcher or silo and from a submarine.
    But the states control the ocean, not us. They have a lot of ships and PLO planes and they will almost all chase our Boreas. And you also propose to send SSBNs to the states under the nose, where it will be most convenient for them (both in terms of weather, and in terms of supply and the availability of stationary PLO assets) to hunt them.
    Our "Bulava" simply cannot be worse, if only because they began to develop it in 1998, knowing perfectly well what "Trident" is.
    Actually, it can: the possibilities of the industry impose restrictions. For example, we had a gap in composite fuel.
    will best deter 320 Bulava missiles on 20 Boreys.
    And we will definitely be able to build an additional 320 solid-propellant missiles, will the industry pull out? If "suddenly" new SSBNs appear, they will most likely have Sineva.
  • smaug78
    smaug78 21 May 2021 13: 19
    +3
    Computers of the Americans have shown that 96 warheads with a total yield of more than 9 kilotons from 000 Bulava missiles can do very sad (from the American point of view) deeds on the territory of the United States with practically impunity.
    And what will the 96 Trident warheads do in Russia?
  • CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz 21 May 2021 13: 58
    +5
    The article is controversial, to put it mildly.
    And the Bulava is complete nonsense.
  • Runway
    Runway 21 May 2021 15: 03
    +5
    The chicken is in the nest, and the author is fried eggs ... By the year 30, it was not necessary to change the three letters on the Mausoleum on the basis of the "referendum".
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 21 May 2021 17: 00
    +1
    Thank God, the leadership has enough wisdom to build Borei, the basis of the fleet and the basis of world security, otherwise we would have been bombed long ago as Serbs Iraqis and Libya, and Syria and Grenada
  • g1v2
    g1v2 21 May 2021 19: 08
    +3
    Boreas are part of the nuclear triad. How many of them will be determined by the number of other components to keep within SNV3. The General Staff will have to choose what to order - an extra Borey or a Yars regiment or a Tu160 squadron. What will be more effective is an open question. Especially considering that it will be more or less safe to shoot only from the Bastions, under the cover of aircraft, corvettes and depl. How many will be able to leave from there to some other positions for the attack - xs. Colombia is going to build 12, Boreyev has been contracted for 10, but the figure was previously announced at 14. That is, the replacement of Dolphins and Squids as they leave.
    Whether the Mace is better than Trident or not - the war will show. fellow In theory, she has less throw weight, but better brains. That is, they should fly through someone else's about more, but again
    but this can only be shown by a war that no one wants.
  • Victor Tsenin
    Victor Tsenin 21 May 2021 21: 48
    0
    > Our “Bulava” simply cannot be worse, if only because it began to be developed in 1998, knowing perfectly well what “Trident” is.

    Trident 2 has more throw weight, range and better CEP (according to some sources, and according to others, on the contrary, it is worse). But Bulava has the means to overcome the missile defense. Although Trident 2 can be improved in the latter aspect. However, Trident is noticeably heavier. It is difficult to compare these products of course.
  • Earthshaker
    Earthshaker 22 May 2021 08: 57
    +3
    Only a balanced fleet is effective. The Karakurt and Borei fleet is doomed.
  • Basarev
    Basarev 22 May 2021 10: 54
    -2
    Waste of time. In the previous article, it was made clear that our boats have nothing to hope for. They will find and sink right at the pier. The ocean is lost forever, as is the air. We don't stand a chance.
    1. agond
      agond 22 May 2021 13: 58
      0
      Yes, the ocean is already practically closed for our "underwater airships" with a displacement of 10 thousand / t -20 thousand / t, but for small boats the ocean remains open, for example, the Iranian "Ghadir":
      Length, 29; m
      Width,: 3; m
      Displacement, surface: 115; t, underwater 125t
      The crew, according to various sources, 7-14 people, if necessary, 2 people cope
      Armament: two large 533 mm torpedoes,
      Power plant diesel - accumulators (converted to lithium-ion)
      If Iran masters the production, maraging steel is similar to the one from which the sphere of deep-sea vehicles MIR was made in 1987 (why is not Iran doing a lot of things). and make the hull of this submarine out of it, then no one will say to what depth it will be able to sink, while this very expensive steel will not require so much, the boat is small. by the way, Iran also mines and exports titanium ..
  • Borri
    Borri 22 May 2021 14: 52
    -1
    Quote: Gori
    Smartphone signals do not pass through the hull of the submarine (shielding), much less through the water column.

    There are specialists for this.
    Authors need a third co-author. Like "for three".
    I'm talking about a general, especially since it's fashionable now after Putin's "teeth".

    "RG | Are you kidding?
    Ratnikov | Not at all! I said that in the USSR they were quite successful in developing the technology for entering someone else's consciousness. And we have made great progress.
    In the early nineties, I had a meeting with a rather specific CIA employee. We received him well, in the end the American declared that there was no secret of our nuclear submarine missile carriers for the United States. As if their specially trained psychics lead each of our nuclear submarines, "observing" the actions of the crew and the state of strategic weapons. At the same time, he presented us with evidence, which, paradoxically, really confirmed the correctness of his words. "(Rossiyskaya Gazeta" 22.12.2006)
    1. VORON538
      VORON538 23 May 2021 00: 52
      0
      What does Putin have to do with it? Again, “he is to blame?” And if someone else comes, he will also be guilty of the fact that you cannot do anything for yourself :))) In general, what kind of vegetable is the president of Russia worried about foreigners?
  • zootechnik 22
    zootechnik 22 22 May 2021 19: 02
    -1
    Gentlemen-comrades ... why discuss this? for the sake of a word of mouth? or help a potential adversary? maybe it is considered a disclosure of state secrets? or - I'm so smart! Let me remind you for those who have forgotten, "the clever will not say, will not understand"
  • zootechnik 22
    zootechnik 22 22 May 2021 19: 05
    -1
    deliberately missed the word "" in the hope that they will not be banned
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey 24 May 2021 20: 08
    +1
    The author, you are such an author - very funny and funny.
    1. agond
      agond 25 May 2021 09: 50
      0
      Quote: Borri
      in the USSR, they were quite successfully engaged in the development of technology for entering someone else's consciousness

      Any information that gets into our head affects our consciousness.
  • Ivanushka Ivanov
    Ivanushka Ivanov 3 July 2021 13: 55
    0
    The author writes correctly. Connoisseurs-hollow holes playing pocket billiards with numbers from open sources pounced on the author with great appetite. But the article is about Boreas. The problems of the fleet, and the problems of the Boreyevs, are unlikely to be solved by anyone here, even one iota. The author dreams of real defense of our Motherland with real weapons. Both Boreas and Mace are a little of the real that we have.

    Well, now to the point.

    1. Estna, the "suite" must be at least 700 kilometers from the house.
    2. Ok. Retinue. What are we building for the retinue? Boreas under water rushing 30 knots. And the "entourage" does not even squeeze twenty. What is this comedy and idiocy? Moles, are you out of your mind? The guards should be faster, and this is at least 35 knots. It's minimum. No, "and so it will do" - will not work ..



    3. For the function of guarding the boat, and protecting the border, you really do not need to build expensive bridgeodonts, but making "Swiss knives" out of these boats - when there are a lot of functions, but they are all none and truncated, is also not the case.



    These should be very sharp-toothed boats, which should mostly perform "narrow" functions, but really of high quality. If this is air defense, then something like S-400 + Pantsir. If this is PLO, then why the hell is there to keep extra junk? If it is a rocket ship against enemy ships - Onyx + Carapace.

    4. The entire detection system (air defense and anti-aircraft defense) should be a single mechanism. But in order for these systems to become a single mechanism, they, at least, must be deployed de facto on a strip along our coast with a width of at least 500-700 km. Islands to help. Then the boat will be able to get off safely where it is most convenient.

    5. Kuznetsov, of course, needs to be repaired, but aircraft carriers are too expensive and useless burden for our fleet. This type, when all the big players have long, fast rockets, is only good for chasing the naughty natives. But this privilege is currently unavailable for Russia. Now no one will allow the natives to offend us, and even Sergei Anxious will not save us. Or finish off a defeated enemy.
  • Podvodnik
    Podvodnik 10 July 2021 12: 03
    0
    the caliber of these things is also 533 mm


    Since when did beryl / throw get fat to 533 if they were 324mm all the time? Even the code for the launcher PU REPS 324. Do not you think of the corresponding thoughts?
    Take a look at the TA and REPS breakdown shields. Even the naked eye can see the difference in size.
    Most interestingly, many of the available sources have the same error. Which indicates the qualifications of the experts. Copy paste.
    Sorry... .
  • dranthqu
    dranthqu 11 July 2021 16: 44
    0
    This is all great, 20 Boreis, counting missiles ... But where is the construction of forces to ensure the combat stability of these same Boreis, even those already built?

    If we assume that the coefficient of operational tension is approximately the same for both SSBNs and SSBNs and surface ships, then it is necessary to build least in the ratio 1 SSBN - 2 ISSAPL - 3 PLO corvettes - 1 multipurpose frigate.

    About SSNS - in the US and Chinese navies, the ratio is about 4 SSNs per SSBN. In France and Britain - 1,5-1,7 to 1. Thus, 2 to 1 seems to be the minimum necessary. Question: if 10 Boreys and 9 Ash Trees are contracted, then where did the other 11 Ash Trees disappear to?

    A similar situation with surface forces. To ensure the exit from the base and the combat stability of SSBNs in the Barents and Okhotsk Seas, it is necessary to constantly have at least one ship search group to solve ASW missions. That is, again, at least 3 PLO corvettes and 1 frigate per 1 SSBN. With four Boreas already handed over and two more expected this year, I have a question: where the hell are 12 of 18 corvettes and 4 more frigates for the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet for the existing Boreys?

    And this we have not yet touched on minesweepers, patrol aircraft and the practical absence of naval strike aircraft in the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet. And they certainly did not touch on the fact that for an additional 10 Boreis, you need to build 20 more Ash, 10 Gorshkovy and 30 corvettes.