Military Review

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

29

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.
29 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. bistrov.
    bistrov. 28 May 2021 07: 14
    +4
    In spite of all sorts of "Timokhin" ....
    1. sergo1914
      sergo1914 28 May 2021 07: 25
      0
      Quote: bistrov.
      In spite of all sorts of "Timokhin" ....


      You play with fire ...
      1. bistrov.
        bistrov. 28 May 2021 15: 21
        0
        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 ...
    2. S. Smirnov
      S. Smirnov 28 May 2021 07: 30
      +27
      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.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Per se.
        Per se. 28 May 2021 10: 11
        +3
        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.
        1. bayard
          bayard 28 May 2021 12: 32
          +1
          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.
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 28 May 2021 13: 06
            +2
            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.
            1. bayard
              bayard 28 May 2021 13: 49
              +1
              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".
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 28 May 2021 14: 34
                +2
                I hope that your optimism and arguments are justified, that our fleet will become stronger.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 28 May 2021 14: 49
                  0
                  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 ...
                  1. Alex777
                    Alex777 28 May 2021 17: 19
                    +2
                    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. hi
                  2. Bad_gr
                    Bad_gr 28 May 2021 17: 48
                    +2
                    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.
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 28 May 2021 18: 16
                      0
                      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.
      3. bistrov.
        bistrov. 28 May 2021 15: 19
        +1
        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?
      4. Alex777
        Alex777 28 May 2021 17: 11
        +2
        coverage of the underwater and surface conditions, which NATO is developed, but we do not.

        We have GUGI. hi
      5. bistrov.
        bistrov. 7 June 2021 12: 29
        0
        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 ...
    3. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 28 May 2021 08: 48
      +2
      it is great that new nuclear submarines appear, the basis of the fleet
      1. Anachoret
        Anachoret 28 May 2021 09: 25
        +1
        especially modern multipurpose boats, oh how there is not enough, so the news is encouraging))
  2. Marachuh
    Marachuh 28 May 2021 07: 17
    +1
    More dangerous and different submarines!
  3. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 28 May 2021 07: 58
    +4
    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.
    1. S. Smirnov
      S. Smirnov 28 May 2021 08: 26
      +20
      They constantly argue about this: "What is better - to go out into the operational space or sit in the" bastions "?"
      1. bayard
        bayard 28 May 2021 12: 46
        +2
        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.
    2. soul
      soul 28 May 2021 08: 38
      +2
      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.
      1. Xscorpion
        Xscorpion 28 May 2021 08: 47
        0
        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.
        1. bayard
          bayard 28 May 2021 12: 50
          +1
          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.
    3. Kalmar
      Kalmar 28 May 2021 09: 54
      +2
      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.
      1. bayard
        bayard 28 May 2021 12: 57
        +1
        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.
  4. 22 dmdc
    22 dmdc 28 May 2021 08: 24
    0
    Crew - 69 sailors.
  5. musorg
    musorg 28 May 2021 13: 35
    -1
    But it is simply not possible to hand it over before the end of the year.