Information about the withdrawal of the submarine missile carrier "Dmitry Donskoy" from the combat fleet has been refuted

87

Information about the withdrawal from the combat strength of the Russian fleet project 941UM "Shark" missile submarine "Dmitry Donskoy" is not true. This was reported by several sources in the shipbuilding industry and power structures of the North.

The information about the decommissioning of the last "Shark" was denied. As reported, no one wrote off the missile carrier, it is currently on the high seas, where it performs combat training tasks. The decision on its future fate will be made no earlier than December of this year, when the technical condition of the nuclear submarine and the stock of nuclear fuel will be checked. At the same time, it is not excluded that the service life of "Dmitry Donskoy" will be extended for another 4-5 years.



Regular reports about the withdrawal of "Dmitry Donskoy" from the Russian Navy do not correspond to reality. The ship is currently performing combat training missions at sea, participating in combat training activities. He will remain in combat formation until at least the end of the year.

- leads TASS words from one of the sources.

Earlier, a number of media reported unofficial information that the "Dmitry Donskoy" was taken out of service and will soon be disposed of. They began to talk about the decommissioning of the submarine for a long time, last year it was reported that after the laying of two new submarines of the Borey-A project, one of which will be named Dmitry Donskoy, the last Shark will remain just a numbered submarine TK-208 and will be used for weapons testing.

The TK-208 Dmitry Donskoy, a heavy nuclear-powered strategic missile submarine, is the lead in a series of six Project 941 Akula submarines. Laid down at Sevmash on June 17, 1976, launched on September 23, 1980, commissioned on December 29, 1981. In 2002, he underwent modernization, after which he took part in the tests of the Bulava missile.
87 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +15
    20 July 2022 15: 57
    It's good that they refuted, but the unknown is a field for all sorts of insinuations (.
    1. -2
      20 July 2022 17: 20
      Convert to Zircon carrier. In each mine, five of these missiles will fit. He alone will be able to melt the US fleet in one or another region of the world.
      1. +9
        20 July 2022 19: 20
        No one will remake it under the Kyrgyz Republic - it will take a lot of time and money, and the PLA has 5 years left to serve. And in order to serve for another 10-15 years, you need a cap. carry out repairs with modernization. For the price, it will come out to build a new Borey.
        But if, in the light of current events, they want to use it as another carrier of the "Mace", then the matter is different - it's easier, cheaper and 20 missiles plus the existing ones. Even if not for a long time, but he can serve and, if necessary, shoot back.
        And all "framework agreements" and arms limitation treaties can now be safely abandoned - as the United States did with respect to many of them.
        1. +4
          20 July 2022 19: 22
          she only had 1 mine converted under the Bulava - it was for testing .. so it’s unlikely ..
          1. +7
            20 July 2022 20: 12
            Quote: Level 2 Advisor
            she has only 1 mine under Mace redone

            I'm aware of this, but I don't think it's that hard to remake the rest if the need is recognized.
            And he (Dmitry Donskoy) also has 4 large TAs (except for another 4 533 mm.), In which you can load new KR "Caliber-M" with a range of 4000 - 4500 km. , which can be kept in ammo racks up to 20 pcs. , and the rest - torpedoes for self-defense ... But this will also require modernization. But in one gulp it will be able to take out 70% of the economic potential of the United States, and at least England - with cruise missiles.
            But this is if it can still serve due to its technical condition.
  2. -1
    20 July 2022 16: 02
    There is no smoke without fire .. So there are some problems
    1. +13
      20 July 2022 16: 09
      The ship is 42 years old. If we want to leave in service, then ALL cable routes are to be replaced. If it is converted into civilian transport (and there were such ideas), then all the same, change the cable routes of control systems, navigation, communications (partially) and life support systems. The sums are gigantic, remember the repair of "Peter".
      This time. And secondly, the main weapon of the submarine is stealth. With such dimensions, the submarine is very well visible for both acoustic and non-acoustic search methods.
      1. +5
        20 July 2022 16: 26
        Quote: Not the fighter
        And secondly, the main weapon of the submarine is stealth. With such dimensions, the submarine is very clearly visible both for acoustic and for non-acoustic search methods.

        under the ice belay
        Quote: Not the fighter
        The sums are gigantic, remember the repair of "Peter".

        but I’m wondering what is more expensive - repair and modernization or the construction of a new ship of the 1st rank, although what am I talking about, ships of the first rank are not being built now, for some reason it (a ship of the 1st rank) comes out in our price tag as an AB of the Nimitz type with an air wing (5-8 lard $)...
        1. +3
          20 July 2022 18: 34
          Quote: PSih2097
          but I wonder what is more expensive - repair and modernization or the construction of a new ship of the 1st rank

          There is no definite answer to your question. It's complicated...
          Modernizing such a ship is a significant amount of time.
          Time is the most important criterion. A spoon is needed for dinner.
          During this time, you can build 2 modern cruisers.
          They will perform their function better than one ship
          42 years old. Yes, and START-3 is still in force with us. hi
          PS. The Borey-A project turned out to be very successful. Price at
          him quite reasonable. Characteristics - very even. But
          the cost of ownership is lower and the life span is many times longer.

          although what am I talking about, now ships of the first rank are not being built

          Not seriously. SSBN - bake like pies.
        2. +4
          20 July 2022 19: 35
          Quote: PSih2097
          but I wonder what is more expensive - repair and modernization or the construction of a new ship of the 1st rank

          It has already been calculated and discussed more than once - a major overhaul (and there is no way without it) and the modernization of the Shark will cost the same (actually 20 percent more expensive) than the construction of a new Borea-A.
          And the timing - the period of such repairs with modernization will also be approximately equal to the period of construction of a new submarine cruiser. So choose for yourself what you need and are more interested in - an old cruiser (42 years old, this is a very respectable age) with 20 missiles, which will last another 10 years, well 15 after modernization, or a new SSBN with 16 missiles and a service life 40 - 50 years old.
          And there is one more minus - "Sharks" were created as carriers of heavy Typhoon ICBMs weighing about 100 tons, and now you have to load 2+ times lighter "Maces" ... PLAs will have to carry with them an additional ballast of about 1000 tons.
          So think about what to choose.
          Another thing is that "Dmitry Donskoy" has been used all these years as a test bench for the "Bulava" rocket launcher, and if there is such an opportunity to load 20 missiles into it and serve as a carrier for another 5 years, then ... why not?
          And in the current conditions, you can safely not give a damn about international treaties! As the United States has already done with respect to a number of such treaties ... Moreover, we have a certain shortage both in carriers and in nuclear warheads for ICBMs.
          In the light of everything that is happening, I would not have removed the Dolphins from service - the Sineva and Liner are much more powerful and long-range Bulava. So let the new Boreas-A enter service, and the Dolphins, as far as possible, be supported and left in service. In the most extreme case, put them in the bays and let them carry out combat duty continuously with the readiness to launch "from the pier".
          1. -1
            20 July 2022 20: 28
            Quote: bayard
            It has already been calculated and discussed more than once - a major overhaul (and there is no way without it) and the modernization of the Shark will cost the same (actually 20 percent more expensive) than the construction of a new Borea-A.

            I'm wondering - who counted?
            1. +2
              20 July 2022 21: 04
              Quote: DenVB
              who counted?

              USC, profile commission of the Navy, MO. Then the fate of all THREE SSBNs pr. "Shark" was decided. And they decided unanimously that it is better to build new ones.
              1. -3
                20 July 2022 21: 16
                Quote: bayard
                And they decided unanimously that it is better to build new ones.

                Somehow it does not inspire. Taking into account the general focus of all involved structures, first of all, on the development of budgets. If you do not want to do work that will not bring profit - wring the price tag. The approach is known.
                1. 0
                  21 July 2022 09: 16
                  Quote: DenVB
                  I'm wondering - who counted?

                  Quote: bayard
                  USC, profile commission of the Navy, MO.

                  Quote: DenVB
                  Somehow it does not inspire.

                  Your proposal - "if it does not inspire? Call import experts or trust you to calculate?
                  1. +1
                    21 July 2022 09: 32
                    Quote: your1970
                    Your proposal - "if it does not inspire? Call import experts or trust you to calculate?

                    Trusting me to do the math would be a good option. A little less fabulous - the parliamentary committee on maritime affairs should think about this. Appoint special auditors who would check such "unanimous decisions" of the departments concerned.
                    1. +1
                      21 July 2022 09: 53
                      Quote: DenVB
                      Trust me to calculate - it would be a good option

                      Do you have competencies? belay recourse
                      Quote: DenVB
                      should think the parliamentary committee on maritime affairs. Appoint special auditors who would check

                      And "special auditors" - where did they gain knowledge? An hour not in the "interested departments"?
                      or we have shipyards - thousands, where you can gain experience?
                      And yes, auditors must be licensed as experts by just those very "interested departments" ....
                      In fact, you are offering to pay several tens million auditors and get the same result ....
                      1. 0
                        21 July 2022 10: 25
                        Quote: your1970
                        Do you have competencies?

                        I can count. This is a skill that is not available to everyone.

                        Quote: your1970
                        And "special auditors" - where did they gain knowledge? An hour not in the "interested departments"?

                        Not necessary. Auditors - they have extensive experience in auditing business activities. Knowing how they cheat, say, in construction, it is not so difficult to find bullshit in ship repairs.

                        Quote: your1970
                        And yes, auditors must be licensed as experts by just those very "interested departments" ....

                        No.

                        Quote: your1970
                        In fact, you offer to pay several tens of millions to auditors

                        Firstly, tens of millions of rubles are a penny compared to the cost of a submarine cruiser. And secondly, this is nonsense. It can be done much cheaper. There would be a desire. Our parliament does not demonstrate any desire.
                      2. +1
                        21 July 2022 10: 51
                        Quote: DenVB
                        I can count. This is a skill that is not available to everyone.

                        Quote: DenVB
                        Knowing how they cheat, say, in construction, it is not so difficult to find bullshit in ship repairs.

                        Well yes....
                        You confuse accounting revision audit...
                        These are two - absolutely different!!! - things.
                        When according to accounting everything beats to the penny, but in fact - you can already plant everyone.
                        Quote: DenVB
                        It can be done much cheaper. There would be a desire.
                        that is, you know a way to reduce the cost of, for example, flaw detection All potentially dangerous places, components and assemblies?
                        Or will he look at the eye and go away like that?

                        Quote: DenVB
                        No
                        according to the current legislation of the Russian Federation, an expert must be licensed to carry out certain expert activities. Otherwise, he cannot sign expert conclusion.
                        For which he has a separate article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
                        So that -"Yes"...
                      3. 0
                        21 July 2022 11: 02
                        Quote: your1970
                        You're confusing audit with audit...
                        These are two - absolutely different!!! - things.

                        "Accounting audit", as you call it, is part of the audit.

                        Quote: your1970
                        that is, do you know a way to reduce the cost of, for example, defectoscopy of ALL potentially dangerous places, components and assemblies?

                        Of course not. And you don’t know anything about whether someone did flaw detection ALL potentially dangerous places, components and assemblies.

                        Quote: your1970
                        according to the current legislation of the Russian Federation, an expert must be licensed to carry out certain expert activities.

                        You forget that the laws are adopted by the parliament. And if the parliament sets out to conduct an independent parliamentary audit of military shipbuilding and ship repair, then who can prevent it from passing a law stipulating who should license the auditors and experts appointed for this?
      2. 0
        20 July 2022 16: 31
        Quote: Not the fighter
        the main weapon of the submarine is stealth. With such dimensions, the submarine is very well visible for both acoustic and non-acoustic search methods.

        Why does she need to hide? It has long been used not as a combat unit, but as a platform for testing weapons. Thanks to her, for example, the "Sarmat" was tested. In fact, this is a floating laboratory.
        1. +1
          20 July 2022 17: 28
          Quote: Piramidon
          Thanks to her, for example, the tests of "Sarmat" were passed
          The Bulava was launched on it, the Sarmat is too heavy for this boat
          1. +1
            20 July 2022 17: 50
            Of course, Bulava. The error came out. hi
        2. 0
          20 July 2022 18: 08
          Which Sarmat? Ay!
          1. 0
            20 July 2022 18: 48
            Already corrected. Look a little higher.
      3. -2
        20 July 2022 16: 36
        Quote: Not the fighter
        The ship is 42 years old. If we want to leave in service, then ALL cable routes are to be replaced. If it is converted into civilian transport (and there were such ideas), then all the same, change the cable routes of control systems, navigation, communications (partially) and life support systems. The sums are gigantic, remember the repair of "Peter".
        This time. And secondly, the main weapon of the submarine is stealth. With such dimensions, the submarine is very well visible for both acoustic and non-acoustic search methods.

        Agree with you..! And the situation in the world is very serious .. We decided to leave it. He will be on duty under the ice of the Arctic, and we'll see.
    2. +1
      20 July 2022 16: 33
      Quote from gansales
      So there are some problems

      Still ... so many years in operation. Previously, repairs were carried out by the method of "technical cannibalism", due to boats of a similar design that are in the sludge, but now how?
      one of which will be named "Dmitry Donskoy"
      And I wonder why not "Prince Dmitry Donskoy"?
      1. +3
        20 July 2022 18: 52
        Quote: svp67
        And I wonder why not "Prince Dmitry Donskoy"?

        I won’t say for sure, but even before the revolution, when, it would seem, God himself ordered simply “Dmitry Donskoy”

        The same applies to "Vladimir Monomakh" and "Alexander Nevsky", but the earlier one was exactly that of "Prince Pozharsky" (And, of course, "Prince Potemkin Tauride")
        1. 0
          20 July 2022 22: 45
          Quote: Senior Sailor
          I won’t say for sure, but even before the revolution, when, it would seem, God himself ordered simply “Dmitry Donskoy”

          I agree, but at the same time there were "Askold" and "Oleg", and we suddenly had "Prince Oleg", although the person who gave the name to the ship was never a prince
          At the same time, the fleet of the Republic of Ingushetia had a squadron battleship "PRINCE Suvorov", and we had an atomic ship "GENERALISSIMUS Suvorov"
      2. +1
        20 July 2022 20: 26
        Quote: svp67
        And I wonder why not "Prince Dmitry Donskoy"?

        Probably because "Donskoy" is a nickname.
        1. 0
          20 July 2022 22: 44
          Quote: DenVB
          Probably because "Donskoy" is a nickname.

          Then why did Prophetic Oleg, who had never been a former Prince, suddenly give the name to the atomic marine "Prince Oleg" ?????)))
          1. 0
            20 July 2022 22: 49
            Quote: svp67
            Then why Prophetic Oleg, who has never been a former Prince

            And who was he? Count?
            1. 0
              20 July 2022 22: 56
              Quote: DenVB
              And who was he? Count?

              From what point to look. With the modern one, he was the regent under Prince Igor, and in that one, he was the Prophetic ... What this means, we now will not know for sure. Apparently, something is akin to a commissar, that is, a wizard, commander and priest in one bottle
              Otherwise, it is difficult to explain why he did not take the princely title, being of a princely family ... In reality, now, there is simply not enough knowledge about the power system of that time.
              So he had, by today's standards, all the reasons to become a Prince, he was Rurik's relatives, he had an heir, great authority among the squad and subject peoples, but he deliberately remained regent and when Rurik's son reached adulthood, he simply left .. .
              Let me remind you that in the fleet of the Republic of Ingushetia there was a cruiser named after him, and it was simply called "Oleg", and the cruiser "Askold" walked next to it, the man who gave him the name tried to be a Kyiv prince, but was killed precisely by Prophetic Oleg and precisely for this
              1. 0
                20 July 2022 23: 06
                Quote: svp67
                Otherwise, it is difficult to explain why he did not take the princely title, being of a princely family ...

                From Wikipedia:
                When they boarded the boat, Oleg told them: “Az єsm Olg knѧz · and єst Ryurik Igor knѧzhich” - and immediately killed Askold and Dir.
                1. 0
                  21 July 2022 04: 28
                  Quote: DenVB
                  From Wikipedia:

                  I'm sorry, but this is not a source to be trusted...
                  In the Tale of Bygone Years the text is written as follows)))))

                  And in a textbook translation it sounds like:
                  "... and Oleg Askold and Dir said:
                  “You are not princes and not of a princely family, but I am of a princely family,”

                  and showed Igor:
                  "And this is the son of Rurik."
                  1. +1
                    21 July 2022 09: 38
                    Quote: svp67
                    I'm sorry, but this is not a source to be trusted...

                    I agree.

                    Quote: svp67
                    “You are not princes and not of a princely family, but I am of a princely family,”

                    Well, perhaps he did not consider himself a prince. Perhaps it is historians who consider him a prince.
                    1. 0
                      21 July 2022 09: 50
                      Quote: DenVB
                      Perhaps it is historians who consider him a prince.

                      I repeat once again, in the fleet of the Republic of Ingushetia, there was a cruiser "Oleg", not a battleship, not an armadillo and without mentioning the princely title, and this suggests that historians did not think so before
                      1. +1
                        21 July 2022 10: 36
                        Quote: svp67
                        and this suggests that earlier historians did not think so

                        I have never been interested in this issue. In general, I remember Oleg only from Pushkin. And to judge historians, it is necessary to read them. See what they wrote about Oleg, say, Tatishchev, Karamzin, Solovyov. Yes, at least one Karamzin.

                        Upd. Mentioned Pushkin and decided to refresh his memory. And literally in the very first stanza:
                        With his team, in Constantinople armor,
                        The prince on the field rides on the right horse.
    3. +1
      20 July 2022 16: 50
      Phew, and I'm already screaming here)
      For such disinformation, the media should be fined, they post all sorts of nonsense!
      It seems to me that it is most expedient to make a museum out of it, as a combat unit its value is decreasing every year
      1. +2
        20 July 2022 17: 14
        Quote: р_у_с_с_к_и_й
        as a combat unit, its value is decreasing every year

        As a combat unit, it has not been used for a long time. This is a weapons testing platform.
      2. 0
        21 July 2022 09: 19
        Quote: р_у_с_с_к_и_й
        I think it's best to make a museum out of it,

        Slightly glaring museum?
  3. -1
    20 July 2022 16: 02
    But how many POSEIDONs can enter it ... With its displacement and internal volume. hi
    1. +5
      20 July 2022 16: 08
      Kharosh, in order to stir up such a topic, you will have to redraw the entire durable hull ... Belgorod was not just re-designed
      1. +5
        20 July 2022 17: 40
        Quote: Angry 55
        But how many POSEIDONs can enter it ...
        For "Poseidons" this boat is unlikely to be suitable. "Poseidon", as I understand it, is launched from a horizontal position, as it should be for a torpedo, and if project 941A (on the basis of which "Belgorod" was made) had weapons along the sides and you can find a place for 6 horizontally located "Poseidons", then the project 941 missiles are located between the two buildings and the Poseidons will not be here.
  4. +1
    20 July 2022 16: 05
    Information about the withdrawal of the submarine missile carrier "Dmitry Donskoy" from the combat fleet has been refuted
    those times, those two, and then many more times!
    As they say .... hurry slowly!!!
  5. +1
    20 July 2022 16: 26
    but to make it a platform for a mobile sea launch for light (space) rockets ...
  6. +1
    20 July 2022 16: 26
    And in the morning it was already buried here ...
    1. +4
      20 July 2022 16: 29
      Quote: Andrey Moskvin
      And in the morning it was already buried here ...

      alas, amen did not work out, which pleases ...
    2. +5
      20 July 2022 16: 34
      Yeah. Local craftsmen quickly made a museum out of it, and a tanker and almost a cruise liner. lol
  7. +2
    20 July 2022 16: 33
    Such a colossus in the scrap, this is wastefulness. And after the service can be useful for something.
    1. -6
      20 July 2022 17: 13
      Quote: Ros 56
      Such a colossus in the scrap, this is wastefulness. And after the service can be useful for something.

      There is such a thing as "metal fatigue" And there's nothing you can do about it, alas.
      1. +5
        20 July 2022 18: 34
        As a mechanical engineering technologist, I am aware of this concept. Just a question, but did someone conduct an analysis on this matter? The spars and the power set in the wings of aircraft experience alternating loads in each flight, and many of them are still flying. So, this is a moot point about metal fatigue.
        1. 0
          20 July 2022 18: 43
          Well, I won’t argue with you, I just made an assumption
          Quote: Ros 56
          Just a question, but did someone conduct an analysis on this matter?

          Are you asking me this? Well, let's say it was and is being carried out more often than in airplanes .. All the same, the nuclear submarine carries a weapon that can destroy any country ..
          1. 0
            21 July 2022 06: 33
            Well, let's say it was and is being carried out more often than in airplanes.

            I have very big doubts about this thesis of yours.
        2. 0
          20 July 2022 20: 03
          The spars and the power set in the wings of aircraft experience alternating loads in each flight.
          The power set of the submarine also experiences alternating loads during dives and ascents. I don’t know if strength tests are being done for submarines, but flight is simulated in aviation - typical loads are applied to the airframe and fuselage, the resource is assigned about half of what was on the stand (I’m not sure about the number), if an element is destroyed on the stand, then everything flights are stopped and the node is reinforced on all devices. Leading tests on the bench continue, then flights are resumed.
          1. 0
            21 July 2022 06: 39
            Well, well, very ambiguous statements for an aviator.
            1. 0
              21 July 2022 08: 40
              very ambiguous statements for an aviator.
              Go to the TsAGI website and look at the resource test section, the ambiguity will be removed.
  8. +5
    20 July 2022 16: 39
    Dear anonymous author! The shipbuilding industry is a new department in the USC (USC - not in the sense of the Joint Strategic Command "Northern Fleet", but USC - the open joint-stock company "United Shipbuilding Corporation"? Does the Royal Canadian Mounted Police belong to the power structures of the North? And Grønlands Politi? One of Were there sources from the FSSP Office for the Kamchatka Territory and the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug? From the expression "power structures of the North" there is some kind of smell of separatism ...
    1. +2
      20 July 2022 17: 30
      ))) This anonymous source and "Tiger" has already been repaired and at the end of 22. was going to transfer to the fleet.

      VALERIK_097 (Valery)
      17 July 2022 12: 43
      NEW
      -7
      ((((I didn’t find the source, a peppy article about nothing.
  9. +1
    20 July 2022 16: 44
    It's good that the information has been refuted ... And so large warships can be used as platforms for new weapons ... "Dmitry Donskoy" is perhaps too large and too noticeable for the SSBN function ... Why not use it as a carrier of cruise missiles "Caliber". Given its size, hundreds of "calibers" can be placed there ... One salvo of such missiles is capable of crushing air defense, destroying headquarters, ZKP, warehouses, airfields of some regional (and maybe not only regional) power ... Such a ship is quite can replace another multi-purpose aircraft carrier (it will take a lot of time to raise an air group, aircraft can carry a maximum of two long-range missiles, and here, practically, an instant strike, while not entering the enemy’s air defense coverage area, into the coverage area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbhis anti-ship missiles ... So after all, you don’t need to build anything, you just need to modernize the ship, replace the Bulava SLBMs in the mines with universal units with “calibers” ... Dmitry Donskoy, at the same time, has good protection against various kinds of “harpoons” already due to the fact that there is both a strong and light hull ... The strong hull of this kind of submarine is able to withstand almost a torpedo hit, so small anti-ship missiles are not a threat to it !!!
    1. +1
      20 July 2022 16: 57
      You don’t take into account that the construction of new Boreys will be much cheaper than the modernization of the Shark, and what’s the point in that at such costs? production has been set up for the construction of Ash and Boreev.
      1. 0
        21 July 2022 22: 11
        I think that the cost of modernizing "Dmitry Donskoy" is overestimated by propaganda ... And so, the Americans have an "Ohio" with "tomahawks", the "shark" is more than twice as much and much more missiles can be loaded there (for " Ohio" is 154 cruise missiles).
    2. -1
      20 July 2022 16: 59
      Arsenal ships are an old idea, but no one has decided yet. They push it into destroyers for a hundred CDs.
      1. +2
        20 July 2022 18: 16
        You really think so. The states of their Ohio were remade for Tomahawks. Already 154 pieces entered. Not so bad. And it seems they were used in Libya.
    3. -1
      20 July 2022 17: 21
      A decade to remake under the "Caliber". Who needs it?
      1. 0
        29 July 2022 15: 39
        With appropriate funding, the modernization of "Dmitry Donskoy" can be carried out quite quickly .... At the same time, the modernized "sharks" will not compete with the "Boreas", they will replace the class of aircraft carriers that actually does not exist in our country, they will act as a means of powerful non-nuclear strike. ... At this forum, it was calculated that a volley of the Black Sea Fleet is a little more than a hundred "calibers", and, meanwhile, one "shark" could fire a volley many times more powerful than the entire Black Sea Fleet ... The value of such a ship is obvious ... At the same time, it has already been built, it exists, it only needs to be modernized.
  10. +2
    20 July 2022 16: 53
    As a training center, it's also not bad ... if only not on pins and needles.
  11. +1
    20 July 2022 17: 02
    Well, thank God, otherwise they already managed to saw him into needles in the morning, and those who "wrote" him off with bad, but literary words within the framework of what is permitted, are called))))))
  12. 0
    20 July 2022 17: 04
    Life has shown that it is time to write off "Donskoy" and "Kuzya" in order to save money and the absence of any meaningful tasks for them.
    1. +6
      20 July 2022 17: 33
      "Donskoy" is very convenient for testing new weapons. It has a very high survivability, it is convenient to embed new equipment into the mine compartment, there are living places for scientific, engineering and technical personnel, there are no restrictions on the place and time of use.
  13. +3
    20 July 2022 17: 48
    Find the source of the message about the withdrawal of the nuclear submarine from the fleet and put him in jail for a long time for spreading panic messages.
  14. +1
    20 July 2022 17: 50
    VALERIK_097 (Valery), yes... Returning to the material about the "Tiger". The main thing is that the welders of Sevmash and Zvyozdochka did not know that Pike-B was made of titanium. Most importantly, Malachite knew nothing about the titanium hull of the Tiger. And, maybe they are lying, British scientists did not know about this ...
  15. -1
    20 July 2022 17: 58
    Sooner or later, you will have to write it off, convert it into a museum or other transport, it is not profitable because it is expensive, taking into account the nuclear installation ...
    1. +1
      20 July 2022 20: 11
      converting it into a museum or other transport is not profitable because it is expensive
      You can't save money on museums. Vaughn, the nuclear submarine "Leninsky Komsomol" 627 of the project is being made into a museum, and the reactor compartment does not interfere.
      1. +2
        20 July 2022 21: 04
        Quote: Aviator_
        Vaughn, the nuclear submarine "Leninsky Komsomol" 627 of the project is being made into a museum, and the reactor compartment does not interfere.

        Because it is not there - the reactor compartment was cut out back in 2013 and is currently located in Saida-Guba. In place of the reactor compartment, a dummy made from the turbine compartment of a nuclear submarine of the same type was welded.
        1. +1
          20 July 2022 21: 43
          A dummy is welded into place of the reactor compartment
          Naturally, that's how it should be. The previous commentator suffered all about the price.
          1. +1
            20 July 2022 21: 57
            Quote: Aviator_
            Naturally, that's how it should be. The previous commentator suffered all about the price.

            I suspect that the dismantling of the reactor compartment should not be included in the price of museumification. This is an operation that is performed for all dismantled nuclear submarines.
            1. 0
              20 July 2022 22: 06
              I also think that the spent reactor goes to landfill in any case.
  16. +5
    20 July 2022 18: 06
    Ne_fighter (Roman), dear, not all cable routes are replaceable. The Donskoy was modernized for testing the Bulava. However, you are right, those that have not been replaced since the ship was launched into the water are tests for the crew, there may be a fire at any moment.
    "Arkhangelsk" and "Severstal" specialists of the "Arktika" examined 10 years ago already. Then the experts said that all cables and wires need to be changed. The specialists of "Arktika" cannot guarantee any characteristics of the cables, especially their insulating properties. After that, all talk about converting 2 of these "Sharks" into CD carriers stopped. And "Dmitry Donskoy" will be older and exploited it more intensively. In addition, parts of the factories that did a lot of things for the "Sharks" simply do not exist in the world. Some of those enterprises remained in countries that today are not friendly.
    I'm talking about it on "VO." already wrote earlier. And I am writing again - I have not worked a single day in the "Arktika". Visitors "VO." Once again I ask you not to throw slippers at me! I did not conduct surveys of Arkhangelsk and Severstal, although I drank tea with the commander of these nuclear submarines many times.
    1. 0
      20 July 2022 21: 06
      Quote: Tests
      Ne_fighter (Roman), dear, not all cable routes are replaceable. The Donskoy was modernized for testing the Bulava.

      I'm afraid that's all. Because it is one thing - a test bench with one shaft, going out to sea for a maximum of several days for testing, and another - carrying nuclear submarines on alert.
      1. +2
        20 July 2022 21: 30
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Because it is one thing - a test bench with one shaft, going out to sea for a maximum of several days for testing, and another - carrying nuclear submarines on alert.

        It was considered the most comfortable for the crew:
        1. +1
          20 July 2022 21: 49
          Quote: Bad_gr
          It was considered the most comfortable for the crew:

          So I'm not talking about comfort. And about the fact that combat duty lasts much longer than the test exit - and all this time all on-board equipment should work normally.
          On the database, you can’t get up to the factory wall every few days. And all systems, and not just those, should work on the database. required for testing.
  17. 0
    20 July 2022 18: 14
    Regular reports about the withdrawal of "Dmitry Donskoy" from the Russian Navy do not correspond to reality. The ship is currently performing combat training missions at sea, participating in combat training activities. He will remain in combat formation until at least the end of the year.
    And the ship performs combat training missions. good drinks smile
  18. 0
    20 July 2022 18: 29
    Here is another matter! It's good that they listened to the members of the forum, those who: you can't write it off, leave it!
    By the way, in terms of displacement, it is correct that 2 Boreas are being built immediately to replace the Shark.
  19. 0
    20 July 2022 19: 01
    Let him serve as long as he can, the pride of shipbuilding! soldier
  20. 0
    20 July 2022 21: 16
    Aviator_ (Sergey), dear, "Leninsky Komsomol" stood in the sludge for many, many years. There were much fewer sources of the strongest radiation on board than on the "Sharks", given that "Dmitry Donskoy" still goes to the seas. "Chyavo and lope" scored every element of the ship and what, and in what quantity, it emits, and most importantly, how many more years it will emit - none of the scientists will say for sure ... In Severodvinsk, the "logging" of the "Goldfish" is planned in "Seaside Park" as a monument to establish. And she, how many years since she shut down the reactor, the weapons were removed from her and the fuel was unloaded? They disposed of it at Zvezdochka for 5-8 years already ...
  21. -1
    20 July 2022 22: 04
    Can she still shoot? Hour H wait is not long.
  22. 0
    21 July 2022 11: 36
    I want a museum, such ships need to be kept for history!