The timing of the launch of the factory sea trials of the first serial "Ash" of the modernized project has been announced

The first serial multipurpose nuclear submarine of the modernized project 885M (Yasen-M) "Novosibirsk" will enter the factory sea trials at the end of June. Transfer of the submarine to the fleet planned by the end of the year.

The second "Ash" of the modernized project is to become part of the Russian fleet by the end of this year. The submarine will have to undergo factory running and state tests, and it is scheduled to enter the ZHI at the end of June. According to sources in the defense industry, the words of which are quoted by TASS, the submarine is still to launch missiles "Caliber" and "Onyx".

The nuclear submarine K-573 "Novosibirsk" is the second in the series and the first serial submarine of the Yasen-M project. Laid down at Sevmash on July 26, 2013, launched on December 25, 2019.

Compared to Project 885 Ash, the new submarine received many improvements and new systems not previously used on submarines. Submarines of the Ash-M project have a displacement of 13800 tons, a depth of immersion of 520 meters, a crew of 64 people, autonomy of 100 days, an underwater speed of 31 knots. They are armed with mines, torpedoes of 533 mm, Caliber and Onyx cruise missiles, and in the future hypersonic Zircon missiles.

At present, Sevmash has seven submarines of project 885M Yasen-M at different stages of construction, the last two of them were laid down last year.

Comments

[bistrov.]

In spite of all sorts of "Timokhin" ....

[sergo1914]

Quote: bistrov.

In spite of all sorts of "Timokhin" ....

You play with fire ...

[bistrov.]

Quote: sergo1914

You play with fire ...

As they say, they will not be sent further than the front, and I never chased after the stars ...

[S. Smirnov]

Quote: bistrov.

In spite of all sorts of "timokhin"

Do you think Timokhin is against the construction of submarines? I think you are wrong.
In his last article, it was about coverage of the underwater and surface conditions, which NATO is developed, but we do not.

[Per se.]

Quote: S Smirnov

Do you think Timokhin is against the construction of submarines?

Here, rather, to Andrey Mitrofanov (under "everyone"), there was an article dated May 26 "Inexpensive SSBN from SSBN - is it possible?", where the shortened Borey was proposed as a multipurpose nuclear submarine, in fact, as an opposition to Ash.

[bayard]

Quote: Per se.

Here, rather, addressed to Andrei Mitrofanov (under "everyone"), there was an article dated May 26 "Inexpensive SSNN from SSBN - is it possible?"

And what is bad about getting for the same money for the fleet 2 - 2,5 times more MAPLs with about the same capabilities, while being quieter, with a higher low-noise speed and in marketable quantities?
"Ash trees! Can never become a mass phenomenon - they are too expensive." Borey "at the same time has already been perfectly worked out by the industry. (at the same time with shock capabilities, because it is highly desirable to have 4 launch cups for 20 - 28 CD on them).
After all, no one offered to cut the already laid "Ash" on the stocks. All submarines laid down must be completed and incorporated into the Fleet. But when the so-called submarine (in fact - a classic SSGN) costs 80 - 85 billion rubles, and the SSBN "Borey-A" - 40 - 45 billion rubles. ... this is simply unacceptable. The price ratio should be the opposite (MAPL is 1,5 - 2 times cheaper than SSBN), and the phenomenon of MAPL itself should be massive.

But the fact that "Ash-M" is finally brought to mind, put into service and begins to rhythmically enter the Navy, cannot but rejoice. The forces and resources invested in it should work for defense.

[Per se.]

Quote: bayard

And what's wrong with getting 2-2,5 times more MAPLs for the same money?

There is nothing wrong, personally I am for a strong, full-fledged fleet. But, I will not hide, there are doubts about the "Boreyev" castrated in the mines. "Tolstovats" should get multipurpose boats, and the analogy, wherever from "Bentley" and "Lexus" a platform for a pickup and "loaf" began to be made, does not strongly convince in cheapness.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm not "tearing the vest", my opinion is not a verdict, not the ultimate truth. Moreover, Andrei Mitrofanov, or you, will not guarantee that the assumptions in the rework of the Boreyev are one hundred percent correct and the only true. If a redesigned Borei will be, it will be quiet, powerful, and even relatively cheap - great.

It's good when there are different opinions, if only the important uncles made the right conclusions for our long-suffering fleet.

[bayard]

Quote: Per se.

But, I will not hide, there are doubts about the "Boreyev" castrated in the mines. "Tolstovaty" should be multi-purpose boats,

Yes, no thicker than 971 projects - our best MAPL.
"Borea" has a water-jet propulsion unit \ "Ash" has a bare propeller - stealth is better in "Borea".
Borey has 40 torpedoes in its ammunition rack, and Ash has 30.
The GEMs are the same for both (at least for the original versions it was so).
Ash is worth 85 billion rubles. \ "Northwind" - 42 billion rubles.
"Ash" is excessively complex and unnecessarily expensive.
I am afraid that the "Ash" will be the same story as with the battleships in WWI, which they took care of and were afraid to send to services and into battle, because they were "VERY EXPENSIVE".
And the Navy needs massive, reliable, inexpensive MAPLs. In the absence of other projects (we did not deal with MAPLs in New Russia at all), the option with Borei-M and Borei-K looks especially attractive. Including the fact that they are all on one successful and proven base "Boreya-A".

[Per se.]

I hope that your optimism and arguments are justified, that our fleet will become stronger.

[bayard]

Unfortunately, too much time has been lost. But maybe even now, when the threat of a new war and confrontation with a natural enemy have become obvious even for Power, the time will come for the right decisions ...

[Alex777]

The states are also thinking about the new MAPL.
Initially, they wanted to take Sea Wolfe as a basis.
And to build torpedo submarines without VPU KR.
Then Virginias were going to finalize.
Now they are thinking of taking Colombia as a basis.
So the idea of ​​a MAPL based on Borey is in trend.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: bayard

And what is bad about getting for the same money for the fleet 2 - 2,5 times more MAPLs with about the same capabilities, while being quieter, with a higher low-noise speed and in marketable quantities?

Ash is twice as expensive as Borey, not because of the price of the case, but because of its filling, which is more complicated than that of a strategist.

[bayard]

This could be proud of if it justified itself with the best opportunities. But "Ash" has a lower low-noise speed, less stealth as such - because of the open propeller, there is no anti-torpedo protection (anti-torpedoes), while Borey's small-caliber TA (for anti-torpedoes) are provided and available .. . just the system itself is not finished ...
Ash has a more developed SAC in the bow, while Borey has a somewhat truncated version of the same SAC. Both have BUGAS. Borey has more ammo torpedoes (40) than Ash (30). On the basis of "Borey-A" it is possible to execute "Borey-K" with BC up to 112 KR in the VPU (versus up to 50 units at "Ash"). And on the MAPL "Borey-M" you can optionally provide 2 - 4 - 6 or 8 launch cups for 5 - 7 CR each (but it is wiser to limit yourself to 4 such cups).
MAPL should be massive and inexpensive. "Ash" is not by definition. Massiveness with such a price tag cannot be obtained.
And the cost of the MAPL "Borey-M" with 4 launchers) will be about 40 billion rubles. Moreover, they will be built quickly, because Borey has been well mastered by industry, cooperation has been streamlined, and the construction time for each next ship will be reduced. This is the most convenient version of the MAPL for the industry and its operator - the Fleet.

[bistrov.]

Quote: S Smirnov

about coverage of the underwater and surface conditions, which NATO is developed, but we do not.

Perhaps that is why not so long ago NATO lost and could not find a Russian submarine in the Mediterranean?

[Alex777]

coverage of the underwater and surface conditions, which NATO is developed, but we do not.

We have GUGI.

[bistrov.]

Quote: S Smirnov

it was about coverage of the underwater and surface conditions, which NATO has developed,

And who is this "Timokhin"? Some, like, "military journalist". Not one day really did not serve on the ships of the Navy. Somewhere, something, once, heard, somewhere, something, once, read, here, "it should be", but in fact it never happens, so that, not a fig to pose as a "famous expert" to create panic here. All-scorching ...

[Vladimir1155]

it is great that new nuclear submarines appear, the basis of the fleet

[Anachoret]

especially modern multipurpose boats, oh how there is not enough, so the news is encouraging))

[Marachuh]

More dangerous and different submarines!

[Xscorpion]

Quote: S Smirnov

Quote: bistrov.

In spite of all sorts of "timokhin"

Do you think Timokhin is against the construction of submarines? I think you are wrong.
In his last article, it was about coverage of the underwater and surface conditions, which NATO is developed, but we do not.

As always, the Americans have everything, but we have nothing? And what is it that the Americans have deployed in the Barents Sea or the Sea of ​​Okhotsk? And our submarines do not need to go further. Long gone are the days when the launch range of SLBMs was several hundred kilometers and they had to break through to the coast of the United States. So their SOSUS performs only a symbolic function and most of the stations have long been mothballed, since they are simply outdated and not needed in principle. By the way, we have, for example, Harmony in our seas.

[S. Smirnov]

They constantly argue about this: "What is better - to go out into the operational space or sit in the" bastions "?"

[bayard]

Quote: S Smirnov

They constantly argue about this: "What is better - to go out into the operational space or sit in the" bastions "?"

SSBNs sit in "bastions", but "Ash-M" where to go?
With their 40 "Onyxes" / "Zircons" or 50 "Calibers" in launchers?
We will work out in Europe and from land launchers, but SSGNs must go under the enemy's coast, or hunt him AUGi \ KUGi in the open ocean. because through the barriers

Quote: alma

SOSUS

you still have to break through. And a huge "Ash" with a low speed, low-noise, with an open screw, which can be heard from all angles, but with low-frequency illumination by the enemy ... the option is by no means the best.
We need to work very carefully on this.

[soul]

Quote: Xscorpion

their SOSUS performs only a symbolic function and most of the stations have long been mothballed, as they are simply outdated and not needed in principle. But by the way, in our seas there is, for example, Harmony

What is there with SOSUS and Harmony, none of us knows, only specialists. And here we can only measure with buoys and hydrophones from Vicky.

[Xscorpion]

Quote: alma

Quote: Xscorpion

their SOSUS performs only a symbolic function and most of the stations have long been mothballed, as they are simply outdated and not needed in principle. But by the way, in our seas there is, for example, Harmony

What is there with SOSUS and Harmony, none of us knows, only specialists. And here we can only measure with buoys and hydrophones from Vicky.

What do they have with SOSUS, I honestly don't care, since our strategists have not walked through their barriers for a long time, since there is absolutely no need for this. The range of action of modern SLBMs allows strategists not to leave their territorial waters. And SOSUS was created precisely to prevent breakthrough of Soviet submarines to the coast of the United States, because missiles from submarines in those years flew very close, and therefore it is now absolutely useless.

[bayard]

Quote: Xscorpion

And SOSUS was created precisely to prevent the breakthrough of Soviet submarines to the US coast, because missiles from submarines flew very close in those years, and, accordingly, it is now absolutely useless.

Do you think that we will also hide the "Ash" with their battery of 50 KR in the "bastions"?
Restoring the frontiers

Quote: Xscorpion

SOSUS

it is precisely connected with the resumption of cruises of our MAPLs under the American shores.
And "Ash-M" is the place under these shores.

[Kalmar]

Quote: Xscorpion

And what is it that the Americans have deployed in the Barents Sea or the Sea of ​​Okhotsk?

The question is what is deployed there. The Americans can catch up with a decent number of SSNS in these waters, which we can do little to oppose, and even attract anti-submarine aviation with due dexterity. Whether it will be possible in these conditions to ensure the proper protection of our SSBNs is a big question.

Quote: Xscorpion

Long gone are the days when the launch range of SLBMs was several hundred kilometers and they had to break through to the US coast.

There is still a point in a breakthrough to the coast: launch along a flat trajectory with a minimum flight time. A very useful trick for a decapitation strike.

[bayard]

Quote: Kalmar

There is still a point in a breakthrough to the coast: launch along a flat trajectory with a minimum flight time. A very useful trick for a decapitation strike.

A salvo of "Zircon" and "Caliber-M" nuclear warheads on the coastal infrastructure, missile defense bases and ships in the naval base - and even more useful. Possessing such CDs and their carriers, one cannot help but think about deploying them and their combat duty on an ongoing basis off both coasts of the United States.

[22 dmdc]

Crew - 69 sailors.

[musorg]

But it is simply not possible to hand it over before the end of the year.