Military Review

Inexpensive SSBN from SSBN - is it possible?

57

One of the main problems of the Russian naval fleet (Navy), in particular its underwater component, is the lack of multipurpose nuclear submarines (MCSNS). The existing nuclear submarines (PLA) of projects 945 / 945A / 971 are rapidly becoming obsolete, and their modernization is proceeding extremely slowly. Submarines of project 671RTMK are withdrawn (withdrawn?) From the fleet. And new SSNS of project 885 (M) are being built extremely slowly and are extremely expensive - it is assumed that their series will be limited to 7 units.


At the same time, the construction of Project 955 (A) strategic nuclear-powered missile submarine cruisers (SSBNs) is proceeding quite successfully. At the same time, the series 955 / 955A is pretty stretched - according to the latest data, the total number of SSBNs of project 955 "Borey" and 955A "Borey-A" will be 12 units. The question arises about the advisability of building such a number of SSBNs capable of carrying in aggregate about 576-1152 nuclear warheads, which can lead to an unhealthy bias of the strategic nuclear forces (SNF) towards the maritime component. At the same time, the ability of the Navy to ensure the safe deployment of these SSBNs with a significant shortage of general-purpose forces, both in terms of the submarine and surface components of the fleet, is questionable.


SSBN K-549 "Prince Vladimir" project 955A "Borey-A"

SSGN from SSBN


At the same time, the proven design of the 955A project can also be considered as the basis for other promising forces of the Russian Navy. Earlier in the article Nuclear submarines - carriers of cruise missiles: reality and prospects considered the possibility of building on the basis of SSBN project 955A four to eight nuclear submarines, carriers of cruise and anti-ship missiles (SSGN).

Existing Project 949A SSGNs are becoming obsolete. Some of them will be upgraded according to the 949AM project: they will be able to carry 72 universal launchers to accommodate cruise and anti-ship missiles (KR / anti-ship missiles) of the Caliber, Onyx, and Zircon complexes. How many SSGNs of project 949A will be upgraded according to project 949AM is unknown, but one way or another, the entire series of 949 of the project will become obsolete, turning into a target for the enemy's anti-submarine forces due to the high noise and outdated hydroacoustic complex (SAC).


Part of the SSGN of project 949A can be upgraded to project 949AM and become carriers of 72 KR / PKR

At the same time, the conditional project 955K SSGNs, based on the 955A project, will be able to carry about 100-120 cruise and anti-ship missiles. A wide range of cruise and anti-ship missiles will allow promising 955K SSGNs to remain a threat to aircraft carrier and naval strike groups (AUG / KUG), including through destruction of his ships and submarines standing in the basesand used for delivering massive strikes with conventional weapons against enemy ground targets.

If necessary, to strengthen the forces of strategic nuclear deterrence, SSGNs based on the project 955A can carry cruise missiles with a nuclear warhead. Moreover, similarity of acoustic signatures SSBNs of project 955A and SSGNs of project 955K will greatly complicate the enemy's tracking of SSBNs when they enter combat duty in pairs, since the enemy will either need to know for sure whether he is tracking SSBNs of Project 955A or SSGNs of Project 955K, or to double the order of forces intended for hunting Russian SSBN ...

According to the open press, the possibility of building Project 955K (Borey-K) SSGNs was considered by the Ministry of Defense: it was planned that The Russian Navy can receive at least two SSGN "Borey-K"... It is possible that this issue has been postponed until the completion of the construction of a series of SSBNs of project 955A.

MCSAPL project 885 (M)


It was assumed that the project 885 (M) Yasen SSNS could become a unified solution for the fleet. However, as mentioned above, Project 885 (M) has become a long-term construction and a "road construction" of the Russian fleet. According to the open press, the cost of the project 885 (M) SSNS is about 41-50 billion rubles, while the cost of the project 955 (A) SSBNs is about 23 billion rubles.


MCSAPL project 885 (M)

If we consider the SSGN of project 885M as a SSGN, then in terms of the number of missile launchers / anti-ship missiles on board, it will be almost two times inferior to SSGN of project 949AM, and almost three times inferior to the promising SSGN of the conditional project 955K, while exceeding both projects in cost.

If we consider the project 885M SSNS as a torpedo submarine, then its exorbitant cost and construction time do not allow it to be built in sufficient quantities to saturate the fleet with multipurpose nuclear submarines at least in the amount to compensate for the obsolescence and withdrawal from the fleet Soviet groundwork.

"Husky" - "Laika"


At present, in the interests of the Russian Navy, a project is being developed for a promising multipurpose nuclear submarine of the fifth generation of the Husky project (ROC Laika). There is practically no reliable information on the Husky project. According to some data, this will be a unified project of SSNS / SSGN / SSBNs, according to other data, it will be the development of project 885A, according to the third, that the project "Husky" will use the developments under the project 705 (705K) "Lira" (small-sized submarine fighter? ).

Inexpensive SSBN from SSBN - is it possible?
The concept of an unknown submarine from the site of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) and the layout of the submarine "Laika"

Only one thing can be said with certainty - if the Husky project SSNS will differ significantly from the 885M project, which is gradually being mastered by the industry, then there is a risk that the Husky project will turn into another long-term construction / "expensive construction" of the Russian fleet.

PLA from diesel-electric submarines / submarines


Article Nuclear Reactor for NAPL. Will Poseidon lay Dollezhal's egg? the author considered the possibility of creating nuclear submarines on the basis of existing projects of diesel-electric and non-nuclear submarines (diesel-electric submarines / non-nuclear submarines).

“The cost of the project 885 / 885M MCSAP is from 30 to 47 billion rubles. (from 1 to 1,5 billion dollars), the cost of the SSBN project 955 / 955A is about 23 billion rubles. ($ 0,7 billion). The export value of Project 636 diesel-electric submarines is $ 300 million, respectively, their cost for the Russian Navy should be about $ 150-200 million. Even if their cost, in the case of equipping with an auxiliary nuclear power plant, doubles, then in this case the cost of diesel-electric submarines with nuclear power plants will be three to four times less than the cost of SSNs of project 885 / 885M. This does not mean at all that it is necessary to abandon "real" nuclear-powered ships in favor of diesel-electric submarines with nuclear power plants, but the fact that their existence in the fleet can be quite cost-effective confirms.

Is it possible to insert a compartment with a nuclear power plant into existing projects 636 or 677? Project 636 is too old to implement such radical innovations as an auxiliary nuclear power plant on it. The possibility of inserting an auxiliary nuclear power plant into the submarine of Project 677 can only be assessed by the developers of this submarine together with the developers of the nuclear power plant. The fate of the 677 project is already in limbo, according to some reports, precisely because of problems with the power plant. In this case, the study of the installation of an auxiliary nuclear power plant can both reanimate and finally bury the 677 project.

Even less information is available about the project of the Russian nuclear submarine of the fifth generation "Kalina". The fragmentary information contains information on the development of several versions, both with VNEU and with increased capacity batteries. Whether this information is reliable or is a good wish, one can only guess; accordingly, there is no point in speculating about the possibility of using an auxiliary nuclear power plant on the submarine of the Kalina project. "

At the moment, diesel-electric submarines of project 677 are beginning to be built at the very least, there has not been much information about the Kalina submarine. At the same time, Rosatom still exists, and quite successfully - Russian nuclear technologies are among the most advanced in the world (if not the most advanced).

Based on the foregoing, an inexpensive submarine based on diesel-electric submarines / submarines can potentially be created, but what will be the timing of its creation and technical characteristics is difficult to say. Of the potential drawbacks of SSNs based on diesel-electric submarines / non-submarines, we can assume the worst conditions for crew habitability, making it difficult to increase the autonomy of ships of this type, but this drawback may not be critical for a huge number of scenarios for the use of submarines based on diesel-electric submarines / submarines.

Project 658 (M) and project 627


The first Soviet nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine, commissioned in 1960, was the Project 658 submarine. It would seem, what does it have to do with the Russian Navy now?

The fact is that to speed up the development time, the project 658 was based on the first Soviet nuclear-powered torpedo submarine of Project 627, to which a missile compartment from diesel-electric submarines with ballistic missiles of Project 629 was added. was engaged in SKB-927, which later became SPMBM "Malachite", then project 143 was developed by TsKB-658 - the future TsKBMT "Rubin".


Project 658 missile carrier (above) and Project 627 torpedo submarine (below)

Of course, this decision was forced, but it suggests that on the basis of one type of submarine, another type of submarine may well be created.

Virginia block v


Another example, if not a change in the type of a ship, then a significant change in its design, is the construction of a series of American multipurpose submarines "Virginia Block 5". Block 5 differs from the Virginia submarine of the previous series by the insertion of a large VPM (Virginia Payload Module) armament compartment capable of accommodating 28 Tomahawk BGM-109 missile launchers or a promising CPS hypersonic complex, which includes a C-HGB hypersonic glider with a conventional warhead on two-stage launch vehicle. The CPS hypersonic complex is comparable in range and size to medium-range ballistic missiles, which actually makes Virginia a kind of simplified analogue of a nuclear submarine with ballistic missiles (SSBN). It can be assumed that the United States is quite capable of creating an intercontinental ballistic missile that can fit in the VPM compartment.


Multipurpose nuclear submarine "Virginia" with the VPM module, as well as mock-ups and images of the LRHW hypersonic complex - the land version of the CPS

As a result of the addition of the VPM module, the total length of the Virginia Block 5 boat, in comparison with the previous series, will increase from 115 to 138 meters, and the underwater displacement increases from 7800 to 10200 tons.

If from a torpedo submarine it is possible to make a strategic submarine missile carrier, and from a multipurpose submarine practically an SSBN, then why not consider the opposite option?

SSNS based on SSBNs


As mentioned at the beginning of the article, Project 955A SSBNs are the most advanced nuclear submarines in construction, being built for the Russian fleet. At the same time, they have a relatively low cost relative to the project 885M SSNS under construction (according to data from open sources).

The question arises - is it possible to implement a conditional project 955M on the basis of the 955A project with minimal time and financial costs?

The main changes will be the removal of the submarine ballistic missile (SLBM) compartment. Removing the SLBM compartment will reduce the length of the 955A project by about 40 meters, as a result of which the total length of the conditional 955M submarine will be 130 meters.

An option may also be considered when 2-4 silo launchers (silos) will be left, in each of which cassettes for 4-5 KR / anti-ship missiles or compartments for larger promising products can be placed.



Options for the implementation of the conditional project 955M and comparison of their dimensions with submarines of other types

According to the author, it is advisable to consider two options. The first is when specialized SSGNs of the conditional project 955K are used as carriers of a large number of missile launchers / anti-ship missiles - the successor of the project 949AM SSGN, and in the 955M project there are no vertical silos - if necessary, launch of the anti-ship missiles / anti-ship missiles is carried out from torpedo tubes (TA) The second option is that project 955K is abandoned in favor of unified multipurpose submarines of project 955M with 2-4 large silos.

The length of 130 meters corresponds to the length of the SSNS of project 885M and is shorter than the length of the SSNS of the original project 885, which is 139 meters, and is also shorter than the length of the multipurpose SSA "Virginia Block 5", which is 138 meters. At the same time, the width of the Project 955 (A) SSBN hull is 13,5 meters, which is slightly less than the width of the Project 971 submarine hull - 13,6 meters.

The rejection of the SLBM compartment will also allow the abandonment of some other equipment, for example, SSBN stabilization systems when launching SLBMs, possibly some other equipment.

Ultimately, the underwater displacement of a submarine of the conditional project 955M can be about 10000-12000 tons in a purely torpedo version. For the variant with 2-4 silos, the displacement can be about 12000-14000 tons, which is comparable to the displacement of the project 885M SSNS.

How realistic is it to achieve the above parameters? It can be assumed that this task is quite solvable. According to Project 955, a specialized submarine of reduced dimensions has already been created - Project 09851 "Khabarovsk".

In the design of the submarine project 09851 "Khabarovsk", the features of the project 955 are clearly traced, and the underwater displacement, according to open sources, is just about 10000 tons.


Images of the submarine project 09851 "Khabarovsk"

To what extent will the other characteristics of the conditional project 955M meet the requirements for multipurpose submarines?

The operating and maximum immersion depths of Project 955A SSBNs are 400 and 480 meters, respectively, which is inferior to the immersion depth of Project 885M SSBNs, which is 520 and 600 meters, respectively. However, the same Virginia multipurpose submarine has a maximum diving depth of 490 meters, the French Barracuda multipurpose submarine has a working depth of 400 meters, and the British Astute multipurpose submarine has a maximum diving depth of 300 meters.

The maximum underwater speed of Project 885M SSNS is 31 knots, and Project 955A SSBNs - 29 knots. However, the presence of a water cannon on the project 955A SSBN can presumably give a high low-noise speed, compared to the 885M project. In addition, due to a decrease in displacement by 1,5-2 times, the speed characteristics of the 995M project may increase. It is unclear whether a new reactor has been installed on the 885M project, since in the original 885 project there is the same reactor as on the 955 (A) - OK-650V project with a thermal power of 190 MW, but their power is likely to be comparable (the difference is in the first turn in noise and ease of use).

At the same time, the maximum underwater speed of the Virginia submarine, according to various sources, is 25-35 knots, the French multipurpose submarine Barracuda - about 25 knots, the British multipurpose submarine Astute - 29 knots.

The maneuverability of the submarine of the conditional project 955M should be sufficiently high, based on the available parameters of the SSBN of the project 955A, as well as a decrease in the hull length of about 30% and a corresponding decrease in displacement. In addition, to improve maneuverability, the 955A project was initially equipped with two PG-160 submersible two-speed rowing electric thrusters located in retractable columns in the aft of the submarine.

Project 885M SSNS has 10 TA caliber 533 mm, Project 955A SSBN has only 6 TA. But at the same time, the Virginia multipurpose submarine, which is considered one of the best (if not the best), has only 4 TA, the French Barracuda multipurpose submarine has 4 TA, the British Astute multipurpose submarine has 6 TA, so this decrease in performance should not be considered significant.

The hydroacoustic complexes (SAC) of the Project 885M SSMS and the Project 955A SSBNs are made on the basis of one Irtysh-Amphora complex. The author does not have exact data on the differences between the SJSC MCSAPL of project 885M and SSBN of project 955A, but it can be assumed with confidence that the parameters of SJC of project 885M are higher - the area of ​​the SJC antenna is larger, there are additional antennas. The question is different - if it is necessary to make a massive, inexpensive multipurpose submarine, will it be possible to place on it the same SJC as on the 885M project, or is it better? And if it succeeds, then won't the new submarine turn out to be as expensive and complex as the 885M? And if you make a small multipurpose submarine based on diesel-electric submarines / submarines, then its SAC will obviously be inferior to larger submarines, at least due to the impossibility of placing antennas of large dimensions.

The term and cost of R&D for the development of the 995M project is unlikely to be large, and the cost of building a 995M submarine should even decrease in comparison with the cost of the 995A SSBN - there will be no SLBM compartment and some other equipment.

Based on this, the question arises, what do we ultimately want to get - a massive, inexpensive multipurpose submarine with acceptable, albeit not maximum characteristics - some conditional analogue of Project 671 "Ruff", or an ultimatum solution issued in a limited series?

Yes, the resulting multipurpose submarine of the conditional project 955M will be somewhat inferior to the project 885M, yes, it will have larger dimensions, but how critical this difference will be, given that instead of one SSNS of project 885M, two or even three can be built PLA conditional project 995M?


The somewhat large dimensions of the submarine of the conditional project 995M will provide better living conditions for the crew, which will increase the efficiency of its work, and / or increase autonomy, ensure the installation of additional equipment during modernization, for example, promising anti-torpedo protection systems, or anti-aircraft missile system (SAM), capable of countering anti-submarine defense (ASW) aviation from periscope depth, or increase the ammunition.

The question of unification of the submarine fleet - will we not generate a "zoo" of submarines inherent in the Soviet Navy?

First, the "zoo" is in one way or another inherent in all fleets of the world, since the construction time for a series of ships is delayed, new modifications of ships and submarines appear, sometimes significantly differing from the original project. Secondly, the construction of a series of SSBNs of project 955A, SSGNs of the conditional project 955K and multipurpose submarines of the conditional project 955M will just contribute to the maximum unification of the underwater component of the Russian Navy.

As mentioned earlier, the similarity of the acoustic signatures of various modifications of the 955A / 955K / 955M projects can mislead enemy submarines, whose task is to track Russian SSBNs, that is, an indirect way can increase the safety of their deployment by simultaneously withdrawing from the base SSBN 955A, SSGN 955K and several PLA 955M.

The shipbuilding industry of the Russian Federation is quite capable of producing within a reasonable time a series of Project 955A SSBNs in the amount of 8-10 pcs., SSGNs of the conditional project 955K in the amount of 4-8 pcs. and multipurpose submarines of the conditional project 955M in the amount of 16-20 pcs., which, in combination with the 885 / 885M series and diesel-electric submarines / submarines, will provide a sufficient numerical strength of the underwater component of the Russian Navy (an increase in the series will help not only to reduce the cost of a separate submarine, but also to reduce the time construction by working out technical processes and ordering equipment in large quantities).


As for the promising project "Husky / Laika" or conventional small-sized submarines based on diesel-electric submarines / submarines, here it is necessary to be guided by common sense - if there is confidence that it will be possible to implement them quickly and relatively inexpensively, then resources must be concentrated on these projects, and if high cost and technical risks are predicted, then these projects are sent for revision, and the current needs of the Navy are covered at the expense of submarines of conditional projects 955K, 955M and construction of a limited batch of SSNS of project 885M.
Author:
Photos used:
bmpd.livejournal.com, deepstorm.ru, flot.com, bastion-karpenko.ru
57 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. mark1
    mark1 26 May 2021 05: 29
    +3
    Good offer, I liked it. On denyuzhkam it would be necessary to count.
    1. Anachoret
      Anachoret 26 May 2021 10: 27
      +5
      on the basis of Boreyev, to make at least 4 pieces of Boreev-K is a sensible idea, including for confusing the enemy) (about 8 pieces may not be bad, but the issue of economics needs to be included and counted, I cannot judge)
      all sorts of husky-huskies and other balalaikas are clearly not a close light of the project, and a torpedo atomic underwater hunter up to 5000 tons would not hurt right now, while making it affordable for mass production. Otherwise, Ash is a seawolf for the Russian fleet, and at the same time, there are clearly questions about its real combat power (whether the neo-workmanship was finalized or handed over as it is, according to the principle "you still won't have to fight")
  2. andrewkor
    andrewkor 26 May 2021 05: 31
    +7
    As an example, the creation of SSBN George Washington by inserting a compartment for 16 Poisedons into the hull of the nuclear submarine Skipjack. This was a long time ago, but is still relevant.
  3. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 26 May 2021 05: 41
    +7
    The shipbuilding industry of the Russian Federation is quite capable of producing within a reasonable time a series of Project 955A SSBNs in the amount of 8-10 pcs., SSGNs of the conditional project 955K in the amount of 4-8 pcs. and multipurpose submarines of the conditional project 955M in the amount of 16-20 pcs.,
    Even if the author's wish comes true, which I doubt, although I would only be for it, the weak surface component of the Russian Navy will still not allow the hypothetical two dozen SSNS to "roam".
    At the same time, the ability of the Navy to ensure the safe deployment of these SSBNs with a significant shortage of general-purpose forces, both in terms of the submarine and surface components of the fleet, is questionable.
  4. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 26 May 2021 07: 05
    +5
    Unification is our everything! Correct idea. A multipurpose boat with a KR-PKR (Short), with an insert with an ICBM and I propose to add an option with a conversion with a KR.
    1. Shopping Mall
      26 May 2021 09: 04
      +4
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Unification is our everything! Correct idea. A multipurpose boat with a KR-PKR (Short), with an insert with an ICBM and I propose to add an option with a conversion with a KR.


      It is in the article - SSGN 955K, and their MO seems to be going to build at least 2 pieces, if they don't change their minds.
  5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 May 2021 07: 15
    +9
    The idea is, perhaps, somewhat sensible, but too late. MAPL and SSBN are different classes of ships, with completely different tasks. Yes, it is probably possible to convert SSBNs into MPSS, but it will be a bad MPSS, it will cope with the tasks of submarine warfare worse than a specialized one.
    If, even before GPV 2011-2020, we had considered the option of building a limited series of anti-aircraft submarines - the carrier of a cruise missile based on the Borey-A and the massive construction of medium-displacement submarines, it would make some sense. But today we have 9 MAPLs in service and construction (and 7, according to the author): "Severodvinsk" and 8 "Yasen-M". That is, it is enough to build 2-3 more ships in order to fully meet the needs of the fleet for an MPSS of this subclass (SSGN). It makes no sense to undertake complex design work for the sake of 2-3 ships. So that...
    1. V1er
      V1er 26 May 2021 07: 59
      0
      Hello. What do you think about nuclear power plants in projects 636 or 677?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 May 2021 08: 05
        +4
        Quote: V1er
        Hello. What do you think about nuclear power plants in projects 636 or 677?

        In my opinion, the construction of an MAPL based on the 677 with a nuclear reactor attached to it is quite reasonable. Provided that its "filling" is still brought to a condition. But there are many nuances here, because you can try, for example, to make a small MAPL by taking something from the 885M ... or maybe not.
        There you have to sit down and understand in detail, professionals and with numbers in hand.
    2. Shopping Mall
      26 May 2021 08: 00
      +7
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      ... MAPL and SSBN are different classes of ships, with completely different tasks. Yes, it is probably possible to convert SSBNs into MPSS, but it will be a bad MPSS, it will cope with the tasks of submarine warfare worse than a specialized one ...


      What are the key differences? I constantly hear about the "different tasks" of SSNS and SSBNs, but this is understandable, but what are the key differences in technical characteristics (not counting the different set of weapons).
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 May 2021 08: 18
        +6
        Quote: AVM
        but what are the key differences in technical characteristics

        I would like to know myself :))))
        From the obvious, SSBNs are a bit wider, as they adjust to the size of SLBMs, MAPLs are not needed. An important task of the SSBN is to keep the launching corridor, that is, it must take on the impact of the missiles taking off, compensate for their weight with the received water, and at the same time maintain the given depth / course / speed as long as possible. For SSGNs, this is also important, but not so much - after all, 32 Caliber is 2 Maces by weight. MAPL should have a high speed of low noise, SSBN is not too necessary. The maneuverability of the MPS should be high, for SSBNs this is important, but hardly realizable. I think there is also a bunch of things (the difference in price between 885 and 955 is not just like that), but they do not report to me ...
        1. Shopping Mall
          26 May 2021 09: 02
          +6
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Quote: AVM
          but what are the key differences in technical characteristics

          I would like to know myself :))))
          From the obvious, SSBNs are a little wider, since they adjust to the size of SLBMs, MAPLs are not needed.


          Yes, the 955A is wider than the 885, but the 971 is more versatile.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          An important task of the SSBN is to keep the launching corridor, that is, it must take on the impact of the missiles taking off, compensate for their weight with the received water, and at the same time maintain the given depth / course / speed as long as possible. For SSGNs, this is also important, but not so much - after all, 32 Caliber is 2 Maces by weight.


          For this, special equipment is installed, which we will remove - we will reduce the cost and free up the useful volume for something else (or cut the dimensions a little more).

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          MAPL should have a high speed of low noise, SSBN is not too necessary.


          Yes, but what is interesting, there is a propeller on the MCSAPL 885, which should potentially give a lower low-noise speed than the water cannon on the 955A. And for SSBNs, a high low-noise speed is even more important than for a multipurpose submarine - if you constantly go at low-noise maximum, then all hunters with a lower low-noise speed will be eliminated (or will be detected).

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The maneuverability of the MAPL should be high, for SSBNs this is important, but hardly realizable.


          Thrusters, even huge tankers and bulk carriers, make you "spin on a patch." In addition, by reducing the length, we will increase the maneuverability. The United States did not hesitate to enlarge Virginia with the VPM compartment; now it is longer than our ASSRs Ash.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I think there is also a bunch of things (the difference in price between 885 and 955 is not just like that), but they do not report to me ...


          And this is a big question. Is there a problem in SSBNs - SSNS or specifically in 955A - 885M?

          For example, in the USA, the opposite is true:

          PLA Los Angeles - $ 220 million in 1976 prices, or roughly $ 1 billion now
          SSBN Ohio - $ 1 billion at 1980 prices, or about $ 5,1 billion at current prices.
          Submarine "Virginia" about $ 2,5 billion.
          Only the fancy Seawulf is knocked out - $ 4,3 billion in 1997, or $ 7 billion at current prices.

          So the logic can be traced.
          1. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A 26 May 2021 09: 34
            +2
            Quote: AVM


            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            I think there is also a bunch of things (the difference in price between 885 and 955 is not just like that), but they do not report to me ...


            And this is a big question. Is there a problem in SSBNs - SSNS or specifically in 955A - 885M?

            For example, in the USA, the opposite is true:

            PLA Los Angeles - $ 220 million in 1976 prices, or roughly $ 1 billion now
            SSBN Ohio - $ 1 billion at 1980 prices, or about $ 5,1 billion at current prices.
            Submarine "Virginia" about $ 2,5 billion.
            Only the fancy Seawulf is knocked out - $ 4,3 billion in 1997, or $ 7 billion at current prices.

            So the logic can be traced.


            Again.
            Usually, the SSBN contract comes with missiles.
            The contract for SSBNs goes without missiles, since missiles are sold separately under state contracts.
            One Bulava cost about 5 billion rubles 1 years ago.
            Accordingly, now it should cost about 1,5 billion rubles.
            The cost of materials and components is always exchange-based.
            Accordingly, $ 1 billion worth of Borey may have been 30 billion rubles, but now it is almost 75 billion rubles. Add to them almost 25 billion rubles for missile ammunition and we get the total cost of a relatively ready-to-BS boat of 100 billion rubles ($ 1,5 billion) ...
            1. Shopping Mall
              26 May 2021 09: 41
              +3
              Quote: SovAr238A
              Quote: AVM


              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              I think there is also a bunch of things (the difference in price between 885 and 955 is not just like that), but they do not report to me ...


              And this is a big question. Is there a problem in SSBNs - SSNS or specifically in 955A - 885M?

              For example, in the USA, the opposite is true:

              PLA Los Angeles - $ 220 million in 1976 prices, or roughly $ 1 billion now
              SSBN Ohio - $ 1 billion at 1980 prices, or about $ 5,1 billion at current prices.
              Submarine "Virginia" about $ 2,5 billion.
              Only the fancy Seawulf is knocked out - $ 4,3 billion in 1997, or $ 7 billion at current prices.

              So the logic can be traced.


              Again.
              Usually, the SSBN contract comes with missiles.
              The contract for SSBNs goes without missiles, since missiles are sold separately under state contracts.
              One Bulava cost about 5 billion rubles 1 years ago.
              Accordingly, now it should cost about 1,5 billion rubles.
              The cost of materials and components is always exchange-based.
              Accordingly, $ 1 billion worth of Borey may have been 30 billion rubles, but now it is almost 75 billion rubles. Add to them almost 25 billion rubles for missile ammunition and we get the total cost of a relatively ready-to-BS boat of 100 billion rubles ($ 1,5 billion) ...


              Where does the information come from that in the USA SSBNs come immediately with missiles at a price?

              Regarding the cost of Borealis, I have already written in another comment that everything stated in the article is true, provided that the price of an "empty" Borealis is about two or more times less than the price of an empty "Ash".
              1. SovAr238A
                SovAr238A 26 May 2021 10: 15
                +2
                Quote: AVM

                Where does the information come from that in the USA SSBNs come immediately with missiles at a price?

                Regarding the cost of Borealis, I have already written in another comment that everything stated in the article is true, provided that the price of an "empty" Borealis is about two or more times less than the price of an empty "Ash".


                Earlier it was written in the ZVO about this.
                Likewise indirectly.
                Contracts for the conversion of Nuts from SSBN to SSGN - paid by the US Department of Defense only to Electric Boat. And the boats left with a full set of 154 Tomahawks each.
                Accordingly, the manufacturer himself (at that time) Tomahawks - did not receive money directly from the budget ...
            2. bayard
              bayard 27 May 2021 03: 42
              +1
              Quote: SovAr238A
              Borea he may have been once 30 billion rubles, but now it is almost 75 billion rubles

              The cost of Borey is now about 42 billion rubles (adjusted for the latest inflation of this year, it may already be 45 billion rubles). The cost of Yasen-M is about 80 billion rubles (up to 85 billion rubles, taking into account this year's inflation). Even if we take the cost of "Borey-A" with ammunition, then 45 + 25 = 70 billion rubles. against 85 billion rubles. - the cost of dry "Ash-M". But "Ash-M" in BC has from 40 to 50 KR ("Onyx" or "Kadibr", respectively), which also cost money.
              And torpedoes in the BC at "Ash-M" - 30 pcs. , and "Borey-A" - 40 pieces.
              If the potential "Borey-M" will cost 15 - 20% (VI decreases by 30%) less than "Borey-A", then we can safely say that for the cost of 2 "Ash-M" you can build 5 "Borey" M ".
              Or 4 "Boreya-K", which will have 5 times more CD and almost 3 times more torpedoes.
              In addition, due to a large series of Boreyevs of various modifications, the price tag may drop a little more. Their repair, maintenance, provision of spare parts and consumables, education and training of personnel will be radically simplified, the transfer of officers and junior ranks from ship to ship will be simplified ...
              The idea of ​​creating a whole family of MAPLs and SSGNs based on Borey is sound, timely, technically and financially justified. They can and should be built in large series at the same capacities that are now engaged in the construction of Boreyev-A, as well as eventually give away for their construction the capacities currently occupied with the construction of the Yasenei-M series.
              Both the navy and industry will only benefit from this.
              Of course, the interests of the "Ash's lobby" will lose, but the series of those already laid down must still be completed. But not more .
              And "Malachite" should be offered to deal with the MAPL project of moderate VI - up to 5000 tons.
              A kind of "new" Lyra ".
              But with the condition of creating an inexpensive, technologically advanced (easy to manufacture and maintain) MAPL, only with TA.
              And let them work.

              And at the Borey-M MAPL it is wiser to leave 2, or better 4 launch cups for the CD, in order to always be able to work both on surface targets and on the enemy's coastal infrastructure. This option will not particularly affect the price and pace of construction, but the benefits will be great. It would be extremely irrational to build such a large submarine (10 - 000 tons) without an ODP for the Kyrgyz Republic.
          2. Per se.
            Per se. 26 May 2021 14: 06
            +1
            Quote: AVM
            So the logic can be traced.


            With a slight movement of your hand ... I beg your pardon, Andrei, but this is the logic of making a "can" out of the "cistern".
            If we need multi-purpose boats, making them based on strategists is a very dubious idea. If you exaggerate, then you would have figured it out from Project 941. The United States does not build diesel-electric submarines, and in this niche we could dominate by creating an ideal low-cost and low-noise boat, with the ability to strike the CD on coastal cities and US bases. To do this, you need to create a VNEU.
            If nuclear multipurpose, the whole question is how to make the existing projects cheaper ("Husky"), and not at the expense of quality. In many ways, the problem is in the system itself, our capitalism, our "effective managers", staff failure, and education and science in general.
            1. bayard
              bayard 27 May 2021 04: 02
              +3
              Quote: Per se.
              we could dominate by creating the ideal low-cost and quiet boat, with the ability to strike the CD on coastal cities and US bases. To do this, you need to create a VNEU.

              VNEU ... repeat how much in this sound ...
              The "stone flower" did not come out, how much money they did not give Danila ...
              And in general - the best VNEU - nuclear power plant. Any submariner will confirm this to you.
              Our craftsmen even failed to make LIAB sensible ... the tragedy of "Losharik" is a witness to that.
              Because, as you rightly noticed:
              Quote: Per se.
              In many ways, the problem is in the system itself, our capitalism, our "effective managers", staff failure, and education and science in general.

              Therefore, the idea to make MAPL from SSBN is quite sensible and timely.
              Especially after the technical and financial failure of Ash.
              And Borey, by the way, also has anti-torpedo launchers (small caliber TA) ... But the system itself is not finished.
              If a program of such a MAPL ("Borey-M") appears, then there is a chance that it will be completed ... and funds will be found.
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 27 May 2021 06: 12
                +1
                Quote: bayard
                Therefore, the idea to make MAPL from SSBN is quite sensible and timely.

                As the saying goes, pike without fish and cancer, as long as all the assumptions, would be useful.
        2. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 26 May 2021 14: 07
          -1
          Quote: AVM
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          ... MAPL and SSBN are different classes of ships, with completely different tasks.

          What are the key differences? I constantly hear about the "different tasks" of SSNS and SSBNs, but this is understandable, but what are the key differences in technical characteristics (not counting the different set of weapons).


          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          An important task of the SSBN is to keep the launching corridor, that is, it must take on the impact of the missiles taking off, compensate for their weight with the received water, and at the same time maintain the given depth / course / speed as long as possible


          Not necessarily, you can convert SLBMs into "torpedo missiles" (TR), which first depart from the submarine and only then start, thus removing the load on the submarine.

          ps I myself am a supporter of multifunctional submarine carriers (MPN) with shock, reconnaissance, reconnaissance and strike, sabotage, transport, engineering and many other functions.
    3. Podvodnik
      Podvodnik 26 May 2021 08: 20
      +9
      The idea may be somewhat sensible, but


      That's exactly the "but"! It spoils everything. This "but" includes lobbying certain circles of stakeholders on a budget schedule. Who cares to build cheaply? Nobody. You need "expensive and rich". This is the whole point.
      Let's compare: the living compartment needs another? -No, another reactor? -No, energy? -No, tiller compartment? -No, VSK different? -But why ?, torpedo compartment? -No. Everything except the rocket can be the same. But it's cheap and uninteresting.

      You will ask the "tankists" about the nomenclature of rollers ..... Do they need so much? Whatever "box" - to her new rollers. "Better than the old ones." Is it rounder? Well no. Loot drives everyone. Warehouses are packed with these "rollers". Spare parts need to be stored somewhere.

      Alas. In peacetime, only the "comfortable" move upstairs. And they only make the same "convenient" decisions. For yourself.
      1. Cympak
        Cympak 26 May 2021 11: 39
        +6
        That's exactly the "but"! It spoils everything. This "but" includes lobbying certain circles of stakeholders on a budget schedule. Who cares to build cheaply? Nobody. You need "expensive and rich". This is the whole point.

        The point is that even if they think about building a multipurpose submarine based on Project 955A, lobbyists from SPMBM "Malakhit" will run from office to office, proving that such a project is harmful and that a specialized multipurpose submarine is needed exclusively designed in "Malachite".
        In general, "Malakhit" will do everything to prevent the project from the MCSPL from the Rubin Central Design Bureau.
        1. Podvodnik
          Podvodnik 26 May 2021 12: 01
          +3
          In general, "Malakhit" will do everything to prevent the project from the MCSPL from the Rubin Central Design Bureau.


          Who would doubt that.
    4. Vikxnumx
      Vikxnumx 26 May 2021 09: 19
      +3
      It makes no sense to undertake complex design work for the sake of 2-3 ships. So that...

      Isn't it time to get back to something like 671 projects?
      Or have they forgotten how to build boats of this size in Russia?
      1. Shopping Mall
        26 May 2021 09: 35
        +1
        Quote: VIK1711
        It makes no sense to undertake complex design work for the sake of 2-3 ships. So that...

        Isn't it time to get back to something like 671 projects?
        Or have they forgotten how to build boats of this size in Russia?


        If done from scratch, the fleet will receive them by 2050. That is why I propose to do something like 671 based on the 955A project. Everything written in the article is correct only if the thesis about the ratio of the cost of projects 955A and 885M is correct. If their costs are comparable, then there is no point in bothering.

        Then you can consider another approach - an inexpensive submarine based on diesel-electric submarines / submarines with an insert of a compact autonomous reactor compartment, there is also information about this in the article.
  6. S. Viktorovich
    S. Viktorovich 26 May 2021 09: 41
    +2
    Unification, incl. on hulls is good in itself, but the need for a large series of small boats is obvious.
  7. SovAr238A
    SovAr238A 26 May 2021 09: 51
    0
    I, from my couch, believe that it is impossible to make MPLA from SSBNs.
    They have different tasks and, accordingly, different volumes.
    There are rules for the ratios of boat dimensions - the most famous is the "albakor hull shape" with a certain ratio of hull length to diameter.
    By shortening the boat length (by cutting / shortening the missile compartment), we change the ratio.
    Thus, all questions of the flow around the hull of the boat become completely different.
    The boat becomes a "loaf" instead of a "spindle".
    Much more noisy, requiring more power, reactors, turbines, gearboxes - to compensate for losses due to the resistance of water flow than those of her classmates, made in standard, classical proportions.
    In fact, there will be no savings.
    all the same, you will have to redesign everything anew and recalculate again, even if it seems to someone that the missile compartment has been cut out - what is there, we will leave everything else unchanged and you will not have to think about anything.
    We'll have to, and how.
    The whole balance of "weight distribution" was violated.
    All VVD systems, cable routes, pipelines were violated.
    All these ballast tank systems were broken.
    With a decrease in size and weight, the boat will probably have previously imperceptible imbalances and vibrations, with an unknown result for elimination ...
    In general, in my opinion, "redesigning SSBNs in the MPLA and eliminating shortcomings in fine-tuning" will result in:
    1.More expensive than designing a new boat in the MPLA format.
    2. will give MPLA with guaranteed worse characteristics.
    1. Shopping Mall
      26 May 2021 10: 09
      +2
      Quote: SovAr238A
      I, from my couch, believe that it is impossible to make MPLA from SSBNs.
      They have different tasks and, accordingly, different volumes.
      There are rules for the ratios of boat dimensions - the most famous is the "albakor hull shape" with a certain ratio of hull length to diameter.
      By shortening the boat length (by cutting / shortening the missile compartment), we change the ratio.
      Thus, all questions of the flow around the hull of the boat become completely different.
      The boat becomes a "loaf" instead of a "spindle".
      Much more noisy, requiring more power, reactors, turbines, gearboxes - to compensate for losses due to the resistance of water flow than those of her classmates, made in standard, classical proportions.
      In fact, there will be no savings.
      all the same, you will have to redesign everything anew and recalculate again, even if it seems to someone that the missile compartment has been cut out - what is there, we will leave everything else unchanged and you will not have to think about anything.
      We'll have to, and how.
      The whole balance of "weight distribution" was violated.
      All VVD systems, cable routes, pipelines were violated.
      All these ballast tank systems were broken.
      With a decrease in size and weight, the boat will probably have previously imperceptible imbalances and vibrations, with an unknown result for elimination ...
      In general, in my opinion, "redesigning SSBNs in the MPLA and eliminating shortcomings in fine-tuning" will result in:
      1.More expensive than designing a new boat in the MPLA format.
      2. will give MPLA with guaranteed worse characteristics.


      So are examples of submarines in which compartments were added? Even projects 885 and 995M of different lengths, Virginia has been greatly enlarged by the VPN compartment.

      "Classic proportions" is a very vague concept - compare the outlines of different submarines 636, 677, 971, 885, 705, etc. etc. This is already a question for specialists in hydrodynamics.

      In terms of the complexity of the redesign, how much did the cost of the same Virginia block 5 increase? After all, there is everything the same - a large compartment, large products in it, a change in weight distribution, a system of ballast tanks, at the start of a two-stage rocket with a GZLA, there is also a tangible push, which is not there when launching Tomahawks, cable routes are broken, pipelines are broken, imbalance and vibrations? But somehow this was taken into account in the design?

      I cannot say that this is an ideal and optimal solution, I can only assume that it can be considered. The most important question is, what is the real cost of building now 955A and 885A, and what will it be, or at least predicted, for the Husky?
      1. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 26 May 2021 10: 35
        +2
        Quote: AVM

        So are examples of submarines in which compartments were added? Even projects 885 and 995M of different lengths, Virginia has been greatly enlarged by the VPN compartment.

        "Classic proportions" is a very vague concept - compare the outlines of different submarines 636, 677, 971, 885, 705, etc. etc. This is already a question for specialists in hydrodynamics.

        I'm not an expert in hydrodynamics.
        But ...
        It seems to me, but lengthening the body (lengthening the spindle) is not a deterioration in the main characteristics ...
        But the reduction of the body with a constant diameter (creating a loaf, thick and short) is the strongest deterioration in performance.


        Quote: AVM

        I cannot say that this is an ideal and optimal solution, I can only assume that it can be considered. The most important question is, what is the real cost of building now 955A and 885A, and what will it be, or at least predicted, for the Husky?


        So I'm broadcasting from the couch.
        Each new generation is about three times more expensive than the previous one ...
        But.
        mainly due to electronics.
        It is impossible now even to compare Pike-B with the newest project.
        There is a gap between them in the level of electronics, which should be in accordance with the potential that the boat has in 2060-2070 ...
        exactly. After all, the boat will have to serve 30-40 years and be designed for another 5-8 years and built for another 5-8 years ...
      2. Podvodnik
        Podvodnik 26 May 2021 12: 56
        +6
        anyway, you have to redesign everything again and again


        Why redesign everything? It is clear, we remove the rocket with all the fittings. Together with the adjoining ballast tanks and VVD cylinders behind a strong body, outboard fittings. If the 1st torpedo (I exaggerate in the compartments) then what is there to redo? The second residential and CPU - remove the ballistics control panel from the CPU (if it is there), remove the 3rd missile, 4th energy - redesign the cable glands in the 2nd and the interface of the pipelines of general ship systems (3rd "no"), 5 -th reactor-we leave, 6th turbine-is it really necessary to have a new one ?, aft and tiller-what is there to change?

        It's one thing to redesign the entire ship, another thing to cut out the compartment. Why change the rest? Why change the crew cabins, the galley ?, the wardroom ?, torpedo tubes with racks ?, what does the turbine do not suit you ?, the reactor is bad, do you need a new one? Can the VVD compressor and diesel standby others need?

        When in the apartment they re-paste the walls with new ones? And when replacing jambs and doors, the balcony cannot be replaced?

        Regarding the weight distribution: the appropriate ballast is placed in the right places or the extra-a kind of "bricks" iron with handles "flush" are removed. You will evaporate to carry. They are heavy. All hand-cramped conditions. Darkness!
        A whole leveling and trimming system with tanks available.

        It is clear, it is not easy to "cut", redesign and new calculations will be necessary, but not on the same scale as in the construction of a new submarine. New PL - new body contours, sheet and rubber profiles, new patterns, assembly drawings, a range of different pipes, sensors and other "little things" in thousands and thousands of names. All this must be redesigned again! Even tables and chairs in the wardroom! Wash basins and taps with siphons in the cabins! Locks in doors! The type of covering for bulkheads, decks, ceilings and who knows what else. Moreover, it will be necessary to design everything from scratch at some enterprises. According to new drawings. Everything from nuts and rivets to pop-up rivets. And then another and experience !!!!!! Even av ... e M3 cogs. And gadgets to their knife. And the screw! The old screw is not the same as the new screw! One program of its processing on the machine will cost "additional" rubles. The old one doesn't fit. Not to mention the casting procedure itself.
        In general: If "on paper", then this is not a carriage, but the composition of the drawings!

        The way out is simple. We turn to the Central Design Bureau and say: "Cut". We find out the terms, price, calculate everything and make a decision.

        The problem is that no one wants to count. What for? We do not spend ours. On the contrary, we will drink.
        We see the result. "Convenient" solutions, but only for whom?
      3. AAK
        AAK 26 May 2021 16: 12
        0
        The ratio of length to width on the best boats of Soviet projects: 671RTMK - 1: 9,8 (106m x 10,7m), and on 971 - 1: 8 (113m x 13,6m). EMNIP, according to publications, the interval of the ratio between 8 and 9 is the optimum, giving, among other things, the possibility of performing intensive horizontal and vertical maneuvers, which is very important for a submarine hunter
        1. Shopping Mall
          26 May 2021 19: 14
          +1
          Quote: AAK
          The ratio of length to width on the best boats of Soviet projects: 671RTMK - 1: 9,8 (106m x 10,7m), and on 971 - 1: 8 (113m x 13,6m). EMNIP, according to publications, the interval of the ratio between 8 and 9 is the optimum, giving, among other things, the possibility of performing intensive horizontal and vertical maneuvers, which is very important for a submarine hunter


          Conditional 955M will be 130 meters long, i.e. 130x13,5, or 9,6: 1
  8. qaz
    qaz 26 May 2021 09: 55
    0
    Immediately a question to the author - where are the prices for Boreas and Ash trees taken from? For the lead ships?
    1. Shopping Mall
      26 May 2021 09: 57
      +2
      Quote: qaz
      Immediately a question to the author - where are the prices for Boreas and Ash trees taken from? For the lead ships?


      From open sources. No others.
  9. qaz
    qaz 26 May 2021 10: 10
    -1
    Quote: AVM
    From open sources. No others.

    So, the same Borey was built from the ALREADY existing hull of an unfinished ship, Ash from scratch. The "filling" of Borey and Ash is fundamentally different. All this talk about a "water cannon" on Borei is nonsense. There is a hydro-jet propulsion system, a similar scheme was used on Typhoons, just the shape of the blades was different.
    1. Shopping Mall
      26 May 2021 10: 24
      +2
      Quote: qaz
      Quote: AVM
      From open sources. No others.

      So, the same Borey was built from the ALREADY existing hull of an unfinished ship, Ash from scratch.


      Only the first one. From elements of hull structures.

      Quote: qaz
      The "filling" of Borey and Ash is fundamentally different.


      What is it? Can be more? (this is not sarcasm).

      Quote: qaz
      All this talk about a "water cannon" on Borei is nonsense. There is a hydro-jet propulsion system, a similar scheme was used on Typhoons, just the shape of the blades was different.


      And this for an hour is not a "smart" name for a jet propulsion unit, "for documents"?

      Mechanics - one shaft, one hydro-jet propulsion system GRDK-3.5M - a water-jet propulsion system (VDK) with high propulsive characteristics ...
  10. Barberry25
    Barberry25 26 May 2021 13: 03
    +1
    if you make purely torpedo nuclear submarines, without silos, then you need to return to the torpedo tubes of 650 mm caliber
  11. Conjurer
    Conjurer 26 May 2021 14: 48
    0
    In my opinion, it makes no sense to develop (consider) projects of certain types of weapons in isolation from the concept of using the Armed Forces, and not modern, but future ones, taking into account trends.
    Well, for example, the tendencies of network-centricity, automation (robotization), multimedia (in the sense, mutual coordination of the actions of aircraft components in all environments), high-precision / long-range action. What will these trends lead to in relation to this type of weapon - submarines?
    1 Their stealth will decrease (due to the action of underwater and surface search robots).
    2 Requirements for detection systems will be reduced (at least not critical) due to the receipt of information from external sources.
    3 Requirements for noise, maneuverability and speed will decrease (at least they will not be critical), because they will not help much from detection (robots are ubiquitous), and you will not get away from means of destruction (a bullet is always faster than an infantryman).
    4 Requirements for security will increase as the likelihood of being shot and hit will increase.
    5 Requirements for autonomy, the amount of ammunition will increase, because a combat unit must hit the enemy and cover its own, and not go to the base and back, especially, with the acceleration of hostilities, it may not have time to go.
    6 Requirements for range, accuracy, automaticity and the likelihood of destruction of weapons will increase.
    Considering at least this, what should we demand from the project / designers?
    1 Increased survivability in case of damage.
    2 Strengthening the means of protection against defeat.
    3 Increase in ammunition.
    4 Improvement of living conditions.
    All this will lead to an increase in boat displacement. In addition, their tasks will change. The boat will not need to chase the enemy, it needs to release search robots, and then send long-range automatic torpedoes or missiles, if the time of defeat is critical, according to their target designation (or target designation of other aircraft components). Or to launch missiles on land or surface ships on external target designation. It turns out that the boat is a kind of conditionally hidden moving universal arsenal, which has external means of search and target designation. SSBNs now have design features due to heavy missiles launched from them. If it is possible to make rockets that first float up and then start, then it may be the same design.
    That is, trying to design now, you need to lay the possibility of subsequent modernization when the appropriate weapons appear.
  12. NF68
    NF68 26 May 2021 16: 09
    +1
    Why not.
  13. g1v2
    g1v2 26 May 2021 19: 21
    +3
    The idea of ​​reworking the maple from strategists is a strange idea. Borey has a displacement of 24000 tons, Ash - less than 14000 tons. These are, as it were, completely different submarines with different purposes. It's like a proposal to replace the Su34 with the redesigned Tu160. As if the purpose and price they will be different.
    But the very idea of ​​building several Borei-k submarines as arsenals with the replacement of Bulav missile silos with silos for launching missile launchers or calibers is quite working. Only such pls will not be independent, but will be used as part of a KUG type compound and walk with them. Hundreds of modern kr is something that can overload any real air defense system and pro - even object, even ship. request You just need to understand that the same calibers were produced just 2 hundreds per year, hardly more onyx. I am generally silent about zircons. They are clearly not cheap. How many of them will be produced per year - xs. The latest voiced data on NATO say that they have only 5 thousand kr at all. That is, in order to load one such submarine, it will take a long time to produce missiles only for it, while missiles are needed for all types of modern ships under construction from the UKSK and all new submarines.
    As for the Ash, the problem with the lead ship is understandable. In theory, if Kazan was accepted, then the project's problems were solved and the next Ash trees will obviously be built faster. When testing the lead ship, not only the ship itself is tested, but the project is tested in order to catch all the shortcomings and shortcomings. The next tests will be much shorter.
    1. Beregovic_1
      Beregovic_1 26 May 2021 21: 01
      +1
      A hundred modern kr is something that can overload any real air defense system and pro - even an object
      There won't be a hundred missiles there. The author suggested that 16 missiles could be rammed into the 7 Borey silos, as was done on the Ohio SSGNs converted into SSGNs. But the diameter of the Tomahawk mine is 533mm. The diameter of the Calibers is the same, but .... The diameter of Onyx and, presumably, Zircon is 670 mm. That is, only 4 cruise missiles will enter the BR mine. By simple calculations - 64 rockets per bandura of 24000 tons of displacement. Is it worth building a garden? The project for reworking Batons, KMK is more profitable.
      1. Shopping Mall
        27 May 2021 07: 55
        0
        Quote: Beregovyhok_1
        A hundred modern kr is something that can overload any real air defense system and pro - even an object
        There won't be a hundred missiles there. The author suggested that 16 missiles could be rammed into the 7 Borey silos, as was done on the Ohio SSGNs converted into SSGNs. But the diameter of the Tomahawk mine is 533mm. The diameter of the Calibers is the same, but .... The diameter of Onyx and, presumably, Zircon is 670 mm. That is, only 4 cruise missiles will enter the BR mine. By simple calculations - 64 rockets per bandura of 24000 tons of displacement. Is it worth building a garden? The project for reworking Batons, KMK is more profitable.


        I am not against the Batons, but they themselves become obsolete, moreover, in those parts that are difficult to modernize - reactors, vessel fatigue, and it will be difficult and expensive to change the GAK, as far as I know, when modernizing it at AM, it will not be replaced with a new one, just modernize.

        As for the mines - in my opinion, the best option is a large mine with a replaceable tube cassette, i.e. it is necessary, we put a hundred calibers, or 64 Zircon (this amount will be really difficult to beat off the AUG / KUG air defense), or 16 "large" products, similar to the planned American hypersonic HZLA on a two-stage rocket.
    2. Shopping Mall
      27 May 2021 08: 04
      0
      Quote: g1v2
      The idea of ​​reworking the maple from strategists is a strange idea. Borey has a displacement of 24000 tons, Ash - less than 14000 tons. These are, as it were, completely different submarines with different purposes. It's like a proposal to replace the Su34 with the redesigned Tu160. As if the purpose and price they will be different.


      Not really, the Poseidon 09851 carrier "Khabarovsk" is made on the basis of 955, apparently, and it has a displacement of only 10000 tons. After dismantling the missile compartment and add. equipment can and turn out to reach this figure.

      Quote: g1v2
      You just need to understand that the same calibers were produced just two hundred times a year, hardly more onyx. I generally keep quiet about zircons. They are clearly not cheap. How many of them will be produced per year - xs. The latest voiced data on NATO says that they have only 2 thousand kr for all.
      That is, in order to load one such submarine, it will take a long time to produce missiles only for it, while missiles are needed for all types of modern ships under construction from the UKSK and all new submarines.


      These are quite optimistic figures - well, if so - for 10 years, about 3000 KR / RCC. Enough for everyone. The rest of our carriers take little ammunition and there are few of them.

      6 pcs. (middle figure) Boreev 955M - 600 CR Caliber, 8 Ash - about 200 Onyx / Zircon anti-ship missiles. Surface fleet - another 500-800 KR / anti-ship missiles for everything there is

      Quote: g1v2
      As for the Ash, the problem with the lead ship is understandable. In theory, if Kazan was accepted, then the project's problems were solved and the next Ash trees will obviously be built faster. When testing the lead ship, not only the ship itself is tested, but the project is tested in order to catch all the shortcomings and shortcomings. The next tests will be much shorter.


      Well, if so. I am not a dogmatist - "We only need to build Boreas in different versions !!!", I am just considering options ...
      1. HefeDMB69
        HefeDMB69 27 May 2021 14: 53
        -1
        And where do you see the proposed theater of operations for these CDs? The coast of the chief Satan? And how much will it cost the budget to launch one RC from a submarine in comparison with that from a native land or an airplane? Is it not many times more expensive? And we won't make it to the salvo area. Tsushima 2 smells like that. It's a bad thing, submarine. Some losses and no profit for the homeland.
      2. g1v2
        g1v2 27 May 2021 16: 50
        +1
        Khabarovsk, as far as I read - on the contrary, will be almost comparable to Borey, well, in any case, more ash. This is the carrier of a number of underwater drones and bathyscaphes. So far, all performance characteristics are kept secret. The figure indicated in Wikipedia is hardly reliable. But I repeat - so far we do not know his performance characteristics.
  14. Baron pardus
    Baron pardus 26 May 2021 20: 47
    +1
    Emnip in the USA, from the submarine Skipjack, made submarine missile carriers of the "George Washington" class simply by shoving a 40-meter compartment with 16 Polaris into the Skipjack. So, I think that first of all there is nothing innovative in this project, but it will work calmly. The George Washington-class missile carriers performed well and served quite well.
  15. moody
    moody 26 May 2021 23: 42
    +1
    There are rules for the ratios of boat dimensions - the most famous is the "albakor hull shape" with a certain ratio of hull length to diameter.
    By shortening the boat length (by cutting / shortening the missile compartment), we change the ratio.
    Thus, all questions of the flow around the hull of the boat become completely different.
    The boat becomes a "loaf" instead of a "spindle".


    A secret report of the test results of models designated "Series 58" was published in April 1950. According to the conclusions of the report, the most effective was the case with a length-to-width ratio of 6,8, which had a smooth taper at the rear. Enclosures with a length-to-width ratio in the range from 5 to 9 also had acceptable characteristics. It was also considered acceptable to use a cylindrical body, which is more advantageous from the point of view of the internal layout.
    From Wikipedia.

    Length-to-width ratio according to Wikipedia:

    SSBN Borey: 170 / 13,5 = 12,6
    SSNN based on Borey: 130 / 13,5 = 9,6

    From the point of view of approaching the "Albacorov" shape of the hull, it will only get better.

    In fact, there will be no savings.
    all the same, you will have to redesign everything anew and recalculate again, even if it seems to someone that the missile compartment has been cut out - what is there, we will leave everything else unchanged and you will not have to think about anything.
    We'll have to, and how.


    You will definitely have to change the project, and think a lot too. But it's one thing to design from scratch, and another to refine a real proven project, having ready-made "cubes".
    However, first you need to persuade the fleet to go for a decrease in characteristics (decrease in maximum speed, operating and maximum diving depth, number of TA, other placement of TA and GAK, etc.). In Yasen, in comparison with Borey and previous projects, they significantly changed the design, and if these changes were justified, then a step back must be very seriously justified. If there is no significant gain in terms and cost due to a large series and proven standard solutions, then there will be no arguments for the fleet.
    Naturally, all these amateurish arguments are based on information from Wikipedia, and how much they relate to reality is an open question.
  16. Riegell
    Riegell 26 May 2021 23: 46
    +1
    I liked the article. I have long wanted to see material on this topic. It’s too late to think about the Boreys (let the Ashkeys pass at least 12), but in a promising project ("Husky") this issue must be taken into account.
  17. DLord
    DLord 27 May 2021 02: 13
    +1
    Unification is a good thing. The author is great. Now he would have been heard upstairs ...
    1. agond
      agond 27 May 2021 09: 00
      0
      The first and also the last indicator of the effectiveness of weapons carriers as well as their delivery vehicles is the amount of technical excellence,
      if Borey
      underwater displacement of 24000 tons of missiles 16 pcs and the total throw-weight of warheads
      1150kg x 16 pcs = 18900 kg, we divide by 24000t, one ton of displacement accounts for
      0. 77 kg !!! abandoned warhead mass (funny)
      and Ohio
      underwater displacement of 18750 tons of missiles 24 pcs total throw weight of warheads
      2800 kg x 24pcs = 67200kg, we divide by 18750t per one ton of displacement.
      3.58 kg of abandoned warhead mass.
      then this means (3.58 kg. divided by 0.77 kg. = 4.64) that the technical perfection of the Ohio-class nuclear submarine is higher than that of the project 955 "Borey" somewhere in 4.64 times
      1. Shopping Mall
        27 May 2021 10: 07
        0
        Quote: agond
        The first and also the last indicator of the effectiveness of weapons carriers as well as their delivery vehicles is the amount of technical excellence,
        if Borey
        underwater displacement of 24000 tons of missiles 16 pcs and the total throw-weight of warheads
        1150kg x 16 pcs = 18900 kg, we divide by 24000t, one ton of displacement accounts for
        0. 77 kg !!! abandoned warhead mass (funny)
        and Ohio
        underwater displacement of 18750 tons of missiles 24 pcs total throw weight of warheads
        2800 kg x 24pcs = 67200kg, we divide by 18750t per one ton of displacement.
        3.58 kg of abandoned warhead mass.
        then this means (3.58 kg. divided by 0.77 kg. = 4.64) that the technical perfection of the Ohio-class nuclear submarine is higher than that of the project 955 "Borey" somewhere in 4.64 times


        There are no 4,64 times. You judge the whole complex by one indicator - the cast weight.

        Firstly, we do not know a huge number of parameters, for example, the rate of rise of a rocket, and this is important from the point of view of resistance to missile defense (shooting in pursuit) and to a disarming nuclear strike (the missiles will go to a height before the enemy's nuclear warheads start to explode.

        Secondly, even if we are lagging behind in some way, for example, solid fuel SLBMs are slightly worse, this is not the end of the world.

        Thirdly, the United States is cunning with weight and range, with the maximum indicated throw weight, their range is greatly reduced, ours, on the contrary, often underestimates the characteristics (although recently this is not always the case, they also began to "show off").

        And many other parameters - means of overcoming missile defense, maneuvering warheads, etc. etc. - there are too many unknowns to say that they are definitely better and by how much (although most likely this is so, but by 4,64 times for sure).
  18. Angry
    Angry 27 May 2021 08: 32
    +1
    Of course, there is no need to breed a zoo. It is necessary to analyze the historical experience, in particular the United States. They took the Sturgeon submarine, cut it in half, and inserted a 39-meter missile block into 16 Polaris missile launchers, and the result was the George Washington SSBN. And we need to build "Borei" without a missile compartment (or a shortened one) and stamp and stamp in order to at least change the "keel for keel" 949 and 971 projects. Well, then we'll see.
    1. agond
      agond 27 May 2021 09: 24
      0
      It is much easier to cut a single-hull boat in half and add or remove an extra compartment than in a double-hull.
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 27 May 2021 17: 38
        0
        this is not a problem, you can make an external lightweight body in the form of a separate module or redesign its structure to move inside welders with equipment
  19. Klonser
    Klonser 28 May 2021 12: 43
    +1
    It would be nice if Borey was converted into MAPL. A former colleague who is now working on the NSR spat from Ash. Speaks easier to build 3 Boreas than one Ash. I don't understand why to build boats according to space price tags. We have not had the USSR for a long time. It used to be possible to build, though expensive, but quickly. And now it’s expensive and long and there’s no way to go. Although, of course, interested persons will put a couple of million, or even more, in their pockets.
    1. Angry
      Angry 29 May 2021 22: 35
      0
      Sure. Not those times. It would be more reasonable to stop laying down the 885 boats, and the hulls that were laid down, it is understandable to finish building them, and instead of them stamping 995 "U" short, 8 launchers, like on Yasen. What else is such a modernization of Borey good for, that "if something happens" in its launcher it is possible to put a Bulava SLBM as well. Until we move on to pr.545 Laika.
      1. agond
        agond 30 May 2021 08: 41
        0
        Quote: AVM
        There are no 4,64 times. You judge the whole complex by one indicator - the cast weight.

        Yes, the indicator is highly averaged and does not take into account many features, but the approach itself is objective since it compares related and comparable values, and the lag in technical perfection of Borey from Ohio is largely due to its two-hull design, which has a lot of weight and gives an excess buoyancy margin of 39% -40% , if it were built single-hull, then its displacement with 16 missiles should have been less than that of Ohio with 24 missiles (18750 tons), that is, the underwater displacement of Borey could be at the level of 16000-17000 tons instead of the available 24000 tons