Nuclear submarines of the near future

The first missile submarine "George Washington"

When asked who is more
alive or dead
he asked again:
"And who are the sailors?"
Anacharsis (c. 605–545) - Scythian,
son of king Gnur,
brother of King Saul and Caduit

Weapon near future. Things have not yet reached the point of using nuclear submarines during a special operation in Ukraine. Caliber missiles from the Black Sea are fired at coastal targets by diesel submarines, which launch them through torpedo tubes. But the fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, as before, plows the seas and oceans, and at any moment is ready to unleash its missile salvo on the cities of a potential enemy.

In addition, old nuclear submarines are regularly replaced by new, even more advanced ones. For example, quite recently, another strategic nuclear submarine missile cruiser (APRKSN) "Emperor Alexander III" was launched, which is the seventh submarine of project 955A, if we also take into account the first three missile carriers of the Borey base project - that is, such nuclear submarines, as "Yuri Dolgoruky", "Alexander Nevsky" and "Vladimir Monomakh".

As many as 16 nuclear missiles are hidden in the superstructure behind the wheelhouse of this submarine!

All ships of the Borey-A project have an underwater displacement of 24 tons, a maximum immersion depth of 000 meters, and a working depth of 480 meters. Crew - 400 people, autonomy - 107 days, underwater speed - 90 knots. They are armed with 29 R-16 Bulava missiles, 30 mm torpedoes and RPK-533M Vodopad missile torpedoes. All these submarines are distinguished by the fact that they have high maneuverability characteristics and low acoustic visibility.

How did the first nuclear submarine with missiles on board appear?

Yes, it’s very simple: in the United States, where high-speed nuclear submarines had already been built by that time, the Skipjack nuclear torpedo submarine project was used, into the hull of which a 40-meter compartment with 16 missile launchers was simply cut into. Like this, in the composition fleet United States in 1959–1961 and as many as five such "boats" were introduced.

Similar submarines "Navaga" were also built here - in the USSR, and it turned out that it was precisely such submarines, which had 16 ballistic nuclear missiles on board, that became a role model for everyone else. And - for a very long time.

Although we note that the very first missile launch from a submarine was made in our country in the White Sea on September 16, 1955. But the R-11FM rocket was launched from the B-67 diesel submarine (project 611V) under the leadership of Sergei Pavlovich Korolev. And the missile containers on these submarines were not located in the hull, but passed through the hull and wheelhouse. It was simply impossible to arrange them differently because of the small size of these boats.

Then, we built nuclear submarines of the Akula project (20 nuclear missiles on board), and in the United States, such missile carriers as the Ohio, already carrying 24 missiles with nuclear warheads. All these "boats" turned out to be very large and extremely expensive, both in terms of cost and maintenance.

And yet… they turned out to be very noticeable, no matter how cunning their creators resorted to to reduce their signatures. It's just that they are very, very large and too clearly visible from space. Therefore, if such a missile cruiser is destroyed before it launches its missiles, this will be a serious loss for any military fleet.

The height of the superstructure on the spindle-shaped hull of the submarine is determined by the size of the missile silos located under it, and the larger they are, the higher the superstructure itself is obtained

But is it really necessary to build just such huge nuclear submarines?

What if we think about it and move from their construction to the construction of very small, in comparison with them, “mini-missile carriers”, which will threaten the enemy not with the number of missiles on just one boat, but ... with the number of such deep-sea and therefore inconspicuous submarines with 1 -2 missiles on board?

To date, it has been established that the best protection for a submarine is its stealth and great diving depth. But try to "drown" the same "Ohio" deeper - and it turns out that this task is not at all simple. But with the bathysphere of the times of William Beebe and Otis Barton, no problems will arise in this case, it will “sink” perfectly and is not afraid of great depths, because it has ... the shape of a ball. And relatively small compartments on a small submarine are much easier to make than on a huge submarine cruiser.

However, today modern technology makes it possible to find submarines at any depth, that is, it is no longer possible for them to hide in the ocean!

Missile silo covers on the nuclear submarine "Ohio"

Submarines, no matter how hard their creators try to reduce their noise, still make noise, and the larger they are, the more they make noise.

Since they are made of metal, they can be detected in water using a magnetometer and, again, the more metal, the more noticeable the submarine is for the magnetometer.

Finally, boats can be found by the trail they leave in the water as they move, and this trail is visible even from space. In a word, today there are a lot of ways to detect an underwater enemy, and it is easier to get lost in a haystack than a nuclear submarine to hide in the vastness of the ocean!

This trace from a moving boat is visible on the water, even when it goes at great depths. By the way, this photo clearly shows how the personnel of the Pennsylvania nuclear-powered ship lined up on its deck in the form of the word FIFTY (50) in honor of the completion of their fiftieth military campaign

And if so, is there any point in investing in the construction of huge and obviously doomed warships, which have not frightened all those who are well aware of their shortcomings and specifics for a long time?

Promising missile ship of the submarine "mosquito" fleet

But let's see, how could a promising missile ship of the submarine "mosquito" fleet look like with just 1-2 missiles on board, quite small in size?

By the way, the missile armament of such a submarine may consist of Bulava or Sineva missiles located in cylindrical containers in the bow of the vessel. Behind them are two more solid compartments: the first is residential, the second is with a nuclear reactor along with a steam turbine or an electric generator that feeds the propulsion motor.

All compartments are surrounded by a light cigar-shaped hull, which provides the submarine with a high speed. By the way, the experience of the automated Soviet nuclear submarine "Lira" shows that the crew of such a vessel may not be large at all. So it will fit perfectly inside just one compartment.

Missiles of Russian submarine missile carriers: "Bulava" is R-30M, and "Sineva" is R-29RMU

Who could be the crew of this submarine?

First of all, of course, this is the commander of the ship and he is also the operator of her missile weapons. His assistant is engaged in the reactor and propulsion system. The third member of the crew performs the functions of a navigator, that is, he is responsible for navigation, and also listens to the ocean depths. The fourth is both a doctor and a cook. And that’s all, since all other functions for managing this miniature submarine on board are performed by “smart” electronics and automated control systems.

After all, if such a control system has fully justified itself on the largest cruise ships of the Oasis type, where there is not even a steering wheel, and the ship is controlled by a small “game” joystick, and then only during port entry, then why not use a similar control system and on a combat nuclear submarine?

The compartment should have four beds, a shower, a toilet, a refrigerator with a supply of rations for the entire period of combat duty (say, 120 days), and a small galley for quick cooking and warming up the “freeze”.

Scheme of a hypothetical nuclear submarine with a horizontal missile in the bow of the hull. Rice. A. Sheps

As for launching a rocket from a container, it is carried out as follows: four “petals” of the hull doors in front of the container open, the boat reverses, and a parachute is released from the inner container located inside the outer one, which pulls it out of the submarine hull.

This can also be done with compressed air, which can also be used to push one container out of another, which, by the way, is extremely necessary so as not to subject the rocket to sea water pressure. A float in the form of a torus made of durable material is inflated on the container, after which it is oriented vertically, and rises closer to the surface from the depths, and that's when the rocket is launched.

The boat itself, meanwhile, moves away so that an empty container does not fall on it!

The hull doors are closed, and... the ship can return to the base, if by that time this base still exists, and if not, then land on one of the islands of Polynesia and build a new civilization there!

Trident II rocket launch from underwater

Too much one missile is not enough? Let's put two on this nuclear submarine!

In the bow of the streamlined hull, you can also mount two durable containers for missiles, located either horizontally or vertically.

Behind them are also located control, residential, reactor and engine compartments. Moreover, the control compartment is completely isolated from the rest of the compartments and, since it has a spherical shape, it can rotate 90 degrees inside the case. That is, to launch both missiles, the boat must become vertical, after which both missiles are launched at a short interval.

Scheme of a hypothetical nuclear submarine with a horizontal placement of a missile in the bow of the hull and a turning wheelhouse - a room for the crew. Rice. A. Sheps

Here is an even more interesting project.

But this project is even more interesting.

It is also served by a very small crew, only it is not located in the submarine's hull itself, but in a separate durable capsule suspended above its cigar-shaped hull between two streamlined racks on the upper deck. The cabin suspended between them has a drop-shaped outline and a displaced center of gravity.

As for the hull of the submarine, there is only one missile container in the bow, and behind it are compartments with a reactor and an engine. Passage to them can be carried out through manholes inside the racks. But this is for the most extreme case - since all the control systems of this vessel, as well as on the spacecraft, are fully automated and duplicated several times.

Under normal conditions, only this “tower” with the crew rises to the surface during the ascent. Well, when launching a rocket from the depths, the submarine hull occupies a vertical position, while the “cabin” - the habitable module, together with all the crews, rotates between the racks in such a way that it continues to remain in a horizontal position convenient for the crew! Moreover, due to its autonomy, the same compartment of the nuclear submarine is also its rescue capsule.

In the event that she sinks, her attachments to the submarine's hull will be automatically fired by squibs, after which she will float to the surface along with the crew.

In general, the rocket rushes into the sky, and the boat takes the ballast from the water and takes up a horizontal position, as well as the "cockpit" of the crew. After that, she again goes to the base or wherever she is ordered.

People and rockets. Human figurine and missiles of modern nuclear submarines

And now let's look at the combat capabilities of a squadron of 16 such submarines.

It turns out that she will be able to launch as many missiles as one modern strategic nuclear missile submarine. But it will be much more difficult to “catch” them all and destroy them. It's like catching big fish and lots and lots of small fish: one of them still won't be caught.

Well, if you have 80 boats with two missiles on board, then they will be able to launch 160 missiles, that is, the same number as 10 nuclear submarines. But it will certainly be much easier to build them, and the amount of work on each will be much smaller, and large slipways for their construction will not be needed. So it will be possible to build them even inside the country, and bring them out into the seas-oceans, rafting them along rivers and canals!

By the way, the horizontal arrangement of missile containers is also not news.

For the first time, it was proposed by none other than Wernher von Braun himself, the “father” of German rocket weapons, back in the fall of 1944. It was then that he suggested placing V-2 missiles inside floating containers, which would have to be towed by submarines, and would simultaneously serve as launchers.

Then, already in the summer of 1956, the US Navy began developing several programs at once to create nuclear missile submarines. It was supposed, in particular, that four Jupiter S rockets operating on liquid fuel should be placed horizontally in transport and launch containers outside the strong hull of the boat. Before the start, they had to take up a vertical position and refuel with fuel - liquid oxygen and kerosene. The system was complex, so it was abandoned.

But in our case, solid-fuel rockets are horizontally located, so you don’t need to refuel them before launch!

The modern nuclear submarine is truly a monstrous creation of the human mind, and in its most perverted form. In the photo, the nuclear submarine "Florida" on the way to the base of King Bay in Florida

Hack and predictor Aviator

In this way, it is quite possible to create a whole fleet of deep-sea missile carriers carrying 1-2 missiles of very high power on board.

It is clear that due to their small size, their invulnerability will increase significantly, but the armament, even if it consists of only one missile, but with 10-14 warheads on board, will sober up any aggressor.

In addition, such mini-submarines may well become carriers of the Poseidon super-torpedoes, which can also be placed in the forward missile compartment and then launched from it!

Can all these projects be realized in metal today? And thereby increase our chances for an effective confrontation with nuclear submarines of other states?

With today's level of science and technology - no doubt!

Comments

[Aleksandr1971]

The author is wrong.
Russia now cannot afford the creation of a mosquito fleet of strategic missile carriers. Even taking into account the fact that they will be simpler and, accordingly, somewhat cheaper than modern Boreas. In addition, SSBNs can hide at great depths, but they cannot launch missiles from great depths. A more reliable masking of SSBNs from detection is to merge with the bottom topography at shallow and medium depths.
And the most reliable defense of SSBNs is deployment in such water areas to which there is no access either to surface or submarine forces of NATO, or anti-submarine aviation. Surprisingly, Russia has such water areas - these are large closed reservoirs, primarily the Caspian Sea. A couple of years ago I already posted an article on this resource about this.
Russia needs to deploy an SSBN base in Kaspiysk per one division. At the same time, SSBNs for the Caspian Sea can be built single-hull, with a diesel power plant, without a HAK and without torpedo tubes. It will turn out many times cheaper than Boreev. The placement of Sineva and Liner missiles on such SSBNs will make it possible to reach the United States and all of Europe with them. The place of patrol for them is the Derbent depression, up to 700 meters deep.
Even if these SSBNs are visible from the satellite, which is unlikely, then before the arrival of NATO anti-submarine aviation from the Mediterranean Sea in the Caspian Sea, these SSBNs of ours will already have time to shoot back. In addition, NATO anti-submarine aircraft will be stopped by our ground and air defenses, which must be deployed near naval bases.

[dfk-80]

Instead of the Caspian (with its partners on three sides), Baikal and large reservoirs/rivers are better. But Baikal, with its depths and length, is beyond competition. And also train compositions.

[Vic Vic]

So, it's not about whether or not Russia can afford a mosquito submarine fleet with nuclear missiles.
The point is that such a small submarine for one or two missiles is more difficult to detect and, as a result, it has more chances of survival and, as a result, a greater probability of having time to fire a salvo.

[Alexey Anfimov]

It is true that the Sineva and Liner naval ICBMs deployed in the Caspian Sea will not be threatened by enemy anti-submarine ships, hunter submarines, or enemy PLO aircraft, and, as correctly noted, they will not need either nuclear power plant or GAS , no torpedo tubes, and to be consistent, the submarines themselves will not be needed. And takei "Bottom ICBMs" "Skif" have already been developed - these are autonomous TPKs with the Sineva naval missiles (or with the Liner ICBMs).

[Subtext]

Atomarina, is the neonym of one political worker-marinist, who actively exposes himself. Is he the author of this work? There are no "city" targets in the nomenclature of the rpk SN.

[voice of reason]

What about in economic terms? How much more expensive or cheaper will a mosquito fleet of 16 missile submarines be than one large submarine? And where are the mooring facilities, maintenance, repairs? in turn? and the number of crews will increase, to serve a full-fledged smaller submarine, but I’m a nuclear missile, do you still need an almost full crew? Everything must be weighed and calculated, except for the "visibility of underwater signatures." Otherwise, you can come to the conclusion that there is no need for submarines at all, but it is necessary to deliver suitcases with nuclear bombs in containers to enemy territory by undercover means and put them into action at hour "h". The planes of the drug cartels are somehow bringing drugs into the States.

[Doccor18]

First of all, of course, this is the commander of the ship and he is also the operator of her missile weapons. His assistant is engaged in the reactor and propulsion system. The third member of the crew performs the functions of a navigator, that is, he is responsible for navigation, and also listens to the ocean depths. The fourth is both a doctor and a cook.

He laughed heartily ...

[Azim77]

But if you make the mosquito fleet completely "unmanned", then there is a useful grain in this fantasy. This can also become economically profitable, because there will be no need for residential compartments, provisions, etc., etc. Looking at the photos of rockets, and even more so when Von Braun with V-2 was mentioned in the article, an association arose with the Progress rocket, but for flying under water) Taking into account that now large blocks are not needed for automation and navigation, and computing power has increased greatly, then why not?
Not in exchange for strategic nuclear submarines, but in addition.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

But if you make the mosquito fleet completely "unmanned", then there is a useful grain in this fantasy.

Any external control system can be hacked. Given that the drone carries a nuclear weapon……

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Azim77

why not?
Not in exchange for strategic nuclear submarines, but in addition.

"There is no need to steal anything: everything has been stolen before us!" - Said Experienced Coward, when he read an article from the Criminal Code of the USSR, how many years are due for theft from the base of Promtorg. (With)
Therefore, there is no need to invent anything: we are testing and fine-tuning the SKIF system. It is autonomous, secretive, automatically launches submarine-based ICBMs with the receipt of the SBU for use.

[frog]

Here do not laugh, then laugh excitedly, in half with matyuks

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: frog

Here do not laugh, then laugh excitedly, in half with matyuks

Yes, this is Shpakovsky!

[frog]

That seems to be a different surname ..... Again, judging by the text, it is still unlike. Comrade Shpakovsky obviously has flaws (like all of us)), but I don’t remember such enchanting delirium from him.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: frog

That seems to be a different surname ..... Again, judging by the text, it is still unlike. Comrade Shpakovsky obviously has flaws (like all of us)), but I don’t remember such enchanting delirium from him.

Here, in terms of style and delirium, (where you need to think and not describe Caliber usually sweeps a blizzard), just Shpakovsky. And so that there is no doubt, poke at the "surname" (pseudonym) of the author.

[frog]

Taki poked
On the other hand, here they didn’t see such nonsense

[Saburov_Alexander53]

And I rated this article as an excellent provocation from the author, which simply explodes the brain with absurdity. I see how much attention and discussion it has caused. Maybe that's the calculation?

[Amateur]

First of all, of course, this is the commander of the ship and he is also the operator of her missile weapons. His assistant is engaged in the reactor and propulsion system. The third member of the crew performs the functions of a navigator, that is, he is responsible for navigation, and also listens to the ocean depths. The fourth is both a doctor and a cook. And it's all,

And that's not it. The crew, according to the author, should not pee, poop, eat or sleep, but "steadfastly endure the difficulties of military service, do not spare their lives to fulfill military duty ..."
All in all, it's funny...

[Bingo]

Yes, a lot of fun. The easiest

As for launching a rocket from a container, it is carried out as follows: four “petals” of the hull doors in front of the container open, the boat reverses, and a parachute is released from the inner container located inside the outer one, which pulls it out of the submarine hull.

And NAFIGA? Then it’s easier to make a tugboat out of the boat, for example, under the bottom, at point E, unhook and don’t fool around - did they open, did the doors close and how many fish did you catch there
The Germans still did this on their Bibers

[andrewkor]

Exactly this version of the towed container for the V-2 (3,4) was worked out in Germany in WWII.

[Voronezh]

Did the author see the SSBN live? Are you familiar with the staffing table? It seems that even theoretically he has no idea what the crew of the submarine is doing. Combination of navigator and hydroacoustics? commander and commander of warhead 2? delusional nonsense ... I'm not even mentioning the technical and economic component of maintaining entire compounds of such boats .....

[Ezekiel 25-17]

This is not a matter of the near future, it will all be too expensive.

[Alf]

Quote: Ezekiel 25-17

it will all be too expensive.

"Expensive" is later, but initially "unrealistic".

[frog]

"Expensive" is later, but initially "unrealistic".

As for me - initially "nafua" without playing this flight ..... inspiration?

[Ezekiel 25-17]

"Expensive and unrealistic." More correctly: a fantastic sawing project.

[Adrey]

Laughed ! An article from the "humor" section?
This is what "poseidonization" of the brain leads to .
Does the author propose to rivet a horde of deaf-blind-mute mini-nuclear submarines? Because if you add everything that makes the submarine real, the price tag will jump out to 75% of the real SSBN, and the size will grow significantly. Until the country builds such a fleet, there will be nothing to defend, it will go bankrupt

[Vladimir80]

With all due respect to the work of the author, I propose to look at the development of the military thought of the first army in the world. And what will be on the agenda? - maritime drones, period.

[Mikhalych]

According to the former submariner Konstantin Yuryevich Dushenov, ocean waters are not a homogeneous mass, but are divided into layers due to different temperatures and the presence of underwater currents. Submariners have maps of such layers. It is worth diving under such a layer and you cannot be heard or seen from the surface, and the sonar does not help.

[Saburov_Alexander53]

Such maps cannot exist in principle due to the volatility of the environment. Therefore, every time the submarine dives, the temperature (hydrology) of the layers is recorded. And it happens that the stealth of the submarine is higher, immediately below the boundary of the first layer at a shallow depth, than to go to the maximum. But all this only reduces the likelihood of detecting submarines, and does not give absolute secrecy.

[bath]

Why create expensive, increasingly decentralized weapons when the existing technology alone can guarantee you the best value for money?

Know that war also has an economy.

[Maks1995]

Alas
Everything is exactly the opposite:

Mini-submarines performed poorly in wars.
In terms of cost and equipment, 1 large one is much more profitable than many small ones. Of which there is simply no money
do (you know)

And for accidents - and much safer than large ones.
Here, large boats emerge from time to time in an emergency, and if there are 10 times more small boats, and 10
more emergency?

Yes, and it is easier to capture a small opponent!

Therefore, there seems to be a tendency to increase the number of missiles in nuclear submarines. not decrease

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Max1995

Therefore, there seems to be a tendency to increase the number of missiles in nuclear submarines. not decrease

The trend is just the opposite - to optimize the number of SLBMs on board. New boats: Columbia - 16 units, Borey -16 units, English. Dreadnought - 12 units From 24 and 20 Yankees and we refused. The rest follow trendsetters and the voice of reason.

[Saburov_Alexander53]

Our "Poseidon" comes to mind with so far the only carrier of the nuclear submarine Belgorod. If for Poseidon there are no restrictions on the range and orientation on the way to the target, then why do we need a nuclear submarine at all as a carrier that will most likely be destroyed before the first launch of Poseidon? Isn't it easier to make launchers on the shore, at least hundreds of "dummies" per loaded one. We have enough uninhabited islands and coasts.

[DrRey]

At one time, in the Soviet school, I came across a task about organizing the transportation of passengers by helicopters and it was necessary to calculate what was more profitable for one large or three small ones. One big one is better. This example is not to say that the concept is bad, but to the fact that there should be more accounting criteria. First of all, this concerns the issues of inter-way service. Naturally, maintenance of one nuclear reactor is easier and cheaper than maintenance of ten nuclear reactors.

[Timur_kz]

According to this logic, the Mi26, and not the Mi8, would be the most massive helicopter now. Accounting criteria should be sorted and the main ones determined. What is the use of simpler maintenance if it is easier to establish surveillance and destroy them in case of conflict? The main criterion is secrecy and the inevitability of a strike, the rest is working moments.

[Nikolay Anatolyevich]

Uh ... And if the crew is 4 people, when will they sleep? Where is the mechanic, electrician, acoustician? Is it the commander and assistant?

[dmiitriy]

After how many days, sitting in a tiny living compartment, idle, waiting for orders, surrounded by several of the same people, will the crew start to go crazy? Large boats have a large crew, lounges, simulators and more. Small diesel ones do not leave the base for months, constant dives / ascents.
I read that scientists in bathyscaphes, despite being busy and the relative short duration of immersion, still feel tightness and depth put pressure on the psyche.

[Gromovanton]

As a non-specialist in naval matters, the material seemed very interesting to me. Fairly detailed. The idea of ​​placing a mini nuclear submarine in the closed waters of the Russian Federation also seems interesting, although of course you should not put all your eggs in one basket, but the author did not suggest this. But he imagined that, for example, nuclear submarines would be placed in Baikal, and knowing that no equipment could be insured against accidents, it became uncomfortable.

Some of my general questions:
1. Why is a submarine cruiser forced to hide from everyone - that in modern conditions it is not capable of giving a serious battle to both underwater and surface enemies, to successfully resist torpedoes, depth bombs? It's easy to sink enemy submarines, ships, aircraft - the gigantic size of a submarine allows you to put just an abyss of weapons into such a floating arsenal.
2. In the case of a mini-apple, how will the issue of self-defense be resolved?

3. What are the advantages of submarines over the ground grouping of the Strategic Missile Forces?

Some thoughts towards underwater mini-drones:

If we take one more step and make single nuclear-powered missiles constantly cruising at depth (nuclear drones), the only question is how to guarantee them to bring the command to launch and self-destruct when trying to capture. It is even more effective not just to constantly move, but to lie down on the ground. There is a complex task - to hide, knowing where and who is looking for. Then it is guaranteed to ascend and fly to the target.

[Gromovanton]

It's inconvenient that you can't edit your own posts over time.
Corrections need to be made: the author did not write anything about the placement of a mini nuclear submarine in the closed waters of the Russian Federation, I read this proposal from the author with the nickname Alexander1971.
Of course, there are many problems that remain behind the scenes:
these are the problems of habitability in a very small volume of the micro-collective - almost like astronauts and, accordingly, the strength of the psyche and the load on it.
This is a feasibility study - there is a whole research and a tome of calculations, of course, and this is a drawback, but it is also not right to reproach the author that he did not do the work for the whole research institute.
Questions about the operation of the boat: as if something went wrong on a hike (and there are no extra hands there) and maintenance on the shore is the creation of a new service infrastructure.
Will a standard engine be taken on the engine or will it be necessary to develop a new one?
Will the navigation capabilities, locator, etc. be standard or new systems for a new boat? It's just that if 1: 1 from a standard SSBN vyazt all sections and save in terms of the number of missiles and their location - not vertically, but horizontally, then even without large calculations it is obvious that the option to assemble many small nuclear submarines from 90% of spare parts will be much more expensive in construction than a large boat, since the costs of all systems are "smeared" not by 16 missiles, but by 1 ..
Could you clarify the details of your concept in this regard ?

[Alf]

Quote: gromovanton

2. In the case of a mini-apple, how will the issue of self-defense be resolved?

You do not.

Quote: gromovanton

3. What are the advantages of submarines over the ground grouping of the Strategic Missile Forces?

Constant movement and difficulty of observation.

Quote: gromovanton

the gigantic size of the submarine allows you to put just an abyss of weapons into such a floating arsenal.

Here is the whole "abyss" and is equipped only with vigorous missiles and torpedoes, the other simply does not fit, the boat is still not rubber.

Quote: gromovanton

that he is not capable of giving a serious battle to deep bombs in modern conditions?

How do you imagine it? The boat should shoot down the outback falling on it? For example, RBU fires from 6 to 12 "gifts" at once.
At the very least, the boat can resist torpedoes.

Quote: gromovanton

Just sink enemy submarines

It's the same as offering a strategic bomber to shoot down a lot of fighter-weapons ... Remember how the YB-40 idea ended ...

Quote: gromovanton

Just sink aircraft

How ? Float to the surface?

[Gromovanton]

How to deal with aviation:
I do not pretend to be an engineering study of the issue, but it seems so. The submarine has
a) a towed antenna or a drone carrying it as part of a submarine operating at a distance from the submarine. This locator antenna pops up and can work in passive / active mode as a locator, an electronic intelligence station for assessing the surface situation. The data is transmitted to the drone, which transmits them to the submarine. The easiest option is a long cable from a submarine, but not the most effective.
b) the submarine has underwater launch-air defense missiles launched according to data from a towed surface radar antenna. perhaps from the same system of the Liana space system, which should conduct electronic intelligence and transmit data on the surface situation to such antennas, which will be captured by a surfaced buoy, antenna ... I don’t know how well and whether RTR satellites detect aircraft. But it’s already good to warn about ships.

[Alf]

Quote: gromovanton

underwater launch-air defense missiles launched according to data from a towed antenna

From what depth?

Quote: gromovanton

The submarine has
a) a towed antenna or a drone carrying it as part of a submarine operating at a distance from the submarine.

That is, the nuclear submarine screams at the whole sea - I'm here ...

[Gromovanton]

One of the possible options for the implementation of submarine air defense already implemented in metal by our non-partners, see the article
https://topwar.ru/172233-raketa-na-povodke-zenitnaja-sistema-idas-dlja-podvodnyh-lodok.html
At the same time, the submarine does not unmask itself at launch. According to the depths of the proposed and implemented in metal 20 meters. Strategists shoot from 45-50 meters. What are the problems when firing from these depths with anti-aircraft missiles and from great depths, apart from the ascent time and the requirements for the strength of the hull, I am not ready to answer.
If you seriously deal with the issue, this is at least a year of work only on collecting data for the resolution of the technical specifications for research on the topic and not one that is far from the problem for me, but a very strong team of pros on the topic. There, only a list of articles open on the topic in Russian will obviously be over 1000 pieces.

[Gromovanton]

Not a nuclear submarine, but a radar that is deployed and towed by a separate drone / drones within a radius of 50-70 km from the boat from the location of the submarine. With the reception of data from Liana and other reconnaissance means via a satellite communication channel with their transmission to the submarine.

[Gromovanton]

on the question "The boat should shoot down the outback falling on it? For example, the RBU fires from 6 to 12 "gifts" at once." Again, I may be wrong - I'm not an expert here at all, but from the outside I emphasize it looks like this:
1. Fighting a bunch of torpedoes, depth charges is the wrong concept in the sense that you need to destroy their source, and not deal with the consequences. It’s like missing a hail of blows, and then starting to try not to die ... It’s clear that life is richer than my fantasies, and it happens that for various reasons it was not possible to hit a weapon carrier, in this case a ship, and the bombs went hail ... What is proposed to do except how to run?
It is trite to torpedo the carrier again by hook or by crook, maneuvering. As for the methods of countering depth charges - active protection systems, I’m not ready to issue a decision at once, it will be necessary to study the issue. The closest I repeat, perhaps an incorrect analogy, is dynamic protection on a tank, when a charge and plates are thrown towards an incoming ammunition to destroy either a cumulative jet or a projectile. There are options with active tank protection. How to do this for a submarine was not my profile. Again, I'm not an expert on this. I'm talking about the principle.

[Alf]

Quote: gromovanton

It is trite to torpedo the carrier again by hook or by crook, maneuvering

A boat carrying 16-20 nuclear missiles on board was created for only one purpose - to release them at the right time, that's all, this is the whole essence of her life, and you propose to the RKSN to fight anti-submarines? By the way, all the RKSN going on duty are usually accompanied and guarded by the so-called "fighter boats", whose task is precisely to make sure that no one interferes with the RKSN to shoot back.

Quote: gromovanton

What are you supposed to do besides run?

No, don't run, run VERY FAST.

Quote: gromovanton

How to do this for a submarine was not my profile.

And you try to think...
The mass of the Mk48 torpedo warhead is 295 kg, the question is, what should be the protection? In addition, the main type of target destruction for torpedoes is non-contact, try to defend yourself from it ...

Quote: gromovanton

I'm talking about the principle.

You should not have written this phrase ... There is an old joke, I apologize in advance if I offend you.
Hares came to the owl and they say.
Owl, you are wise, tell me how to make sure that the wolf does not eat us?
Owl-And you fill the wolf's face.
Bunnies - How do we do it?
Filin-Guys, do not load me, I give you an idea, but how to put it into practice is your problem.
No offense.

[Gromovanton]

"The mass of the warhead of the Mk48 torpedo is 295 kg, the question is, what should be the protection? In addition, the main type of target destruction for torpedoes is non-contact, try to protect yourself from it ..."
The method of protection against torpedoes was not invented by me and they are called anti-torpedoes ...
Thought 2 I don’t have data at what distance from the nuclear submarine during the explosion of a torpedo, a depth bomb is safe for her. Let's assume that this is a 30 meter zone to the hull. Accordingly, after detecting the release of depth charges in parts of those going in its direction and falling calculated into the 30-meter zone of the boat hull (inevitable hit), containers-mini-bombs-charges built into the outer hull rush towards them to counter-detonate descending depth charges with the condition that before reaching the border 30 meters to the hull to be blown up next to a depth charge .. If these are smart bombs fired from RBU and remote-controlled torpedoes? There is a complex question here: how far and how far away our submarines detect a torpedo attack, are there dead zones, hence the speed with which not even an anti-torpedo, but let's say the weapon of last resort -30 meters to the hull should quickly and accurately undermine the warhead of enemy torpedoes.
I could be wrong, but here's a move so far thoughts.

[Gromovanton]

"Are you proposing to the RKSN to fight anti-submarines?" Of course not. The only thing I would like is two points: an understanding of the surface situation before the ascent of the submarine to launch ballistic missiles so that they are not cut off at the start. The second is not excluding the possibility of preventive destruction of the SSBN security forces in order not to leave them defenseless against various seawolves and virgins, as well as against anti-submarine aviation. Perhaps the best strategy is not to detect our submarines. I don't know how invisible they are and how their routes are not tracked by our partners.

[Boa kaa]

I read the article and all the comments. I will try to speak softer and shorter on the essence of the author's "fantasies".
1. The author is off topic and had no relationship with the submarine fleet. Otherwise, he would not have written that 941 pr and Ohio turned out to be "very noticeable" due to their size. Quite the opposite: 941 pr was the quietest boat and, in terms of its noise characteristics, was suitable for the III generation of PLA, a low-magnetic PC made of steel from titanium alloys ... Before the advent of Sea Wolf, Ohio was the quietest PLA of the US Navy. Borey-A is quieter than Ohio. and Virginia...
2. You can see from space, but to a depth of 180m, and then with the help of a laser. Visually in the Sargas Sea - up to 60m, and on average -40 / 45m. Our APRK SN shoot from 45 m, Nut - from 30 m. Therefore, "shadow! SSBN, going in the launch corridor, we can see from the satellite. The Yankees are not with us.
3. The trend towards an increase in the size of the submarine is due to the need to install a 2-stage depreciation system for components and mechanisms, and not someone's evil will. The fight against low-frequency vibrations is the reason for this.
4. Deep-sea mini-SSBNs with 4 compartments ... This is the path to claustrophobia of the "crew" members and the extremely low autonomy in terms of stocks of such a submarine. Colleagues have written enough about the "crew", I will not repeat myself.
5. About the secrecy of submarines. The author's statement that the larger the submarine, the "noisier" it is is incorrect. 941 was quieter than 667 BDR-a, and 955A was quieter than 885 of the project.
"Metal" does not mean "magnetic": 212A, 945 and 949 projects are not magnetic! Because they are made of non-magnetic alloys.
To the question of the trace of the submarine.
a) aviation does not see our boats under the ice;
b) in areas where there is no UAV, there is no one to detect boats;
c) disguise yourself behind the NK and you will not be detected unless a cutting / intercepting barrier of the RGAB is installed. etc.
6. About fantasies about the combat use of a 4-compartment "miracle" with 1 SLBM, according to the author.
- Shooting SLBMs "from the nose compartment" ... with a wild differential. moment, and even in the "reverse" of the submarine or even in a vertical position ... This is a nightmare for any commander !!! The author, apparently, did not hear anything about the "submarine sunset angle", exceeding which she no longer returns to an even keel, but falls like a stone into the abyss ... (Comrade Commander! How far to the ground? - Three tram stops down, comrade sailor ...)
- Such a mini-submarine has neither TO, nor PTZ, nor means of imitation and electronic warfare, and in general - this is a platform for "launching" only 1 SLBM ... Which, in my humble opinion, "the game is not worth the candle."

And nevertheless, the author - well done! I had some fun, changed the subject of the endless marathon in NWO and everything connected with it.

[agond]

The author is absolutely right, it is high time to abandon underwater airships with upright missiles. the height of the nuclear submarine, the diameter of the hull plus the height of the cabin, are obtained under 20m and above, under the ice in our shallow northern seas it is very difficult or impossible at all, and the enemy’s detection means do not stand still. Nuclear submarines of 22 thousand tons of displacement cease to be strategic due to their size, they have a critical strain with stealth, for those who are not yet in the know - submarines are needed for the sake of stealth-stealth, the larger the submarine, the less stealth it has. There is only one entrance, a sharp decrease in size, one small nuclear submarine with 3 large missiles, approximately as in the author's drawing. It's time to understand that if there are no restrictions on the length, then it is possible to design a normal missile with a long range and a large throw mass, with high energy. By the way, dividing the displacement by the mass to be thrown gives an idea of ​​the degree of technical perfection, and dividing the cost of the nuclear submarine by the mass to be thrown indicates the price of the cast, while it must be borne in mind that small ships and boats are built much faster than large ones and it is easier to repair them, and the service life is the same as at the big ones.
A small boat with large rockets like Sarmat can launch them from anywhere, even from the coast of Antarctica. and try to trace it

[Boa kaa]

Quote: agond

Nuclear submarines of 22 thousand tons of displacement, due to their size, cease to be strategic, they have a critical strain with concealment,

1. VI under construction Columbia / SSBN (X) / is estimated at about 20-22 Kt, but, contrary to your statements, it remains a SSBN. Because it will carry SLBMs of the Trident II, D-5 type, which determine the purpose of the k-la, and not its size.
2. Our and American SSBNs do not have "critical tension with secrecy." By the technical and constructive measures taken, they are made inconspicuous and make much less noise than other ships. The level of their physical fields is extremely low, and the absorbing coating of the LC saves them from the operation of the GAS in the active mode.

Quote: agond

submarines are needed for the sake of stealth-stealth, the larger the submarine, the less stealth it has.

The stealth of submarines is their main tactical quality, but far from being an end in itself. and submarines are needed not so that they "play hide and seek", but to solve the tasks assigned to them. The dimensions of the submarine affect its stealth only when parked in the base at the pier. There it is easier to visually detect. At sea, only its physical fields unmask the submarine, and they, as a rule, do not depend on the size of the ship.

Quote: agond

division displacement by the thrown mass gives an idea of ​​the degree of technical excellence, and dividing the cost of the nuclear submarine by the thrown mass indicates the price of the throw,

Incorrect use of some words does not allow you to immediately understand the meaning of your puns! Replace the word "division" with "ratio" - so at least your message will become clearer ...

Quote: agond

A small boat with large rockets like Sarmat can launch them from anywhere, even from the coast of Antarctica

This is outright nonsense, but I will allow myself a couple of remarks ...
1. A small boat with big rockets is BSK !!!
Sarmat weighs 208 tons. R-39 weighed 90 tons, 941 VI projects in 43 Kt were built for it; The Yankee Trident II weighs 59,1 tons, the carrier, Ohio, has VI = 18Kt ...
Attention, question! - What VI should be the carrier for the Sarmat, weighing 208 tons, so that when such an SLBM is launched, it does not drown?
And the last. After the launch of the first SLBM, the carrier loses its stealth and becomes the primary target for destruction by ALL POSSIBLE MEANS, including the SBP.
AHA.

[Alf]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

(Comrade Commander! How far to the ground? - Three tram stops down, comrade sailor ...)

[Vladgar]

Well, the author, you are a dreamer! I read it and seemed to plunge into childhood. You have some kind of Captain Nemo's submarine.
Firstly, a crew of 4 people is very small. It should consist of at least 10-12 people. Secondly, why do such a complex maneuver as the vertical orientation of a boat before launching a rocket? This will require a very complex blasting system. And when the boat approaches the vertical position, it will simply collapse to the top with the bottom. Since the whole structure is not symmetrical and has a displaced center of gravity due to the living compartment and the control center placed outside the hull, therefore the boat will overkill. Wouldn't it be easier to orient only the launch container vertically before launching the rocket? Yes, and one rocket in a container will not be enough. The game is not worth the candle. Four rockets must be inserted into the container without going beyond the diameter of the boat. Maybe something will come out of this.
And the best option from the whole triad of strategic nuclear forces would be to recreate the BZHRK as the most secretive and at the same time the most effective and less expensive complex.

[Alf]

Quote: Vladgar

And the best option from the whole triad of strategic nuclear forces would be to recreate the BZHRK as the most secretive and at the same time the most effective and less expensive complex.

It was not for nothing that Gorbachev's "partners" in the first place insisted on the reduction and destruction of Molodets.

[Ryaruav]

author --> author --> author in a day 24 hours of which a person must sleep 8 hours, that is, three watches of all warheads, well, count the crew

[agond]

Regarding the fears of launching "on a torpedo", everything can be made much simpler, the missile compartment does not need to be made strong, a fairly light hull inside which there are three strong self-propelled containers with missiles and zero buoyancy, opened the bow cover and the container left the boat under its own power , then it turns around and floats vertically with a set speed, if there is ice on the surface, it breaks through it and comes out of the water by a third, followed by a dry launch of the rocket using a mortar method. If we take a container diameter of 3m and a length of 30m, then the displacement of the container will be 200t. this is enough to break through 2.5-3m of ice.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: agond

If we take a container diameter of 3m and a length of 30m, then the displacement of the container will be 200t. this is enough to break through 2.5-3m of ice.

I have a feeling that you didn't study physics at school!
Ice of such thickness with difficulty and very carefully broke the TPRK pr 941, but it had an underwater VI of 48 Kt! And his VU fence was made equally strong with the PC of the boat. Have you decided to break through 211,95 m of ice with a container of 3 tons? "Well, you fucking give!!!" (With).
And the second. It will not work to break through the TPK shell. And to follow the BARK path, you need another boat and a vertical launch of SLBMs.
You can also "open" the polynya with torpedoes ... But this is already from another opera.
Learn physics - a useful thing for understanding the world!
AHA.

[Alf]

Quote: Ryaruav

author-->author-->author -->author there are 24 hours in a day, of which a person must sleep 8 hours, that is, three watches of all warheads, well, count the crew

The crew will consist of terminators...

[Aviator_]

This trace from a moving boat is visible on the water, even when it goes at great depths. By the way, this photo clearly shows how the personnel of the Pennsylvania nuclear-powered ship lined up on its deck in the form of the word FIFTY (50) in honor of the completion of their fiftieth military campaign

What kind of nonsense? Wake - this is what remains behind the hull, and here - intense wave formation near the hull, characteristic of poorly streamlined objects - naturally, the shape of the nuclear submarine is optimized for underwater movement. So it's not "the same track". Article minus.

[Ruyter-57]

It's good to write about something you don't understand at all. Blow yourself bubbles of fantasies unlimited.
The author is not even aware that if sixteen boats are built instead of one, then sixteen times more reactors will need to be built, and there will be a multiple of everything else. And you can reduce the boat to a certain limit, because you need to provide the necessary autonomy. And much more can be said on this issue to the author. Obscene.
In a word - monsters are born not only by the dream of the mind, but also by its uncontrolled activity.

[agond]

Everything is relative,
Nuclear submarine "Ryubi" France project 1976 underwater displacement 2 tons, autonomy up to 607 days, 60 built in service 6
, for comparison
Nuclear submarine "Akula" project 941 1976 displacement underwater 48 tons
the difference is 18 times!!! , autonomy up to 180 days built 6 in service there is not one
The comparison may not be entirely correct, nuclear submarines for various purposes, but nevertheless, small boats still serve and it was much faster to build them and orders of magnitude easier to repair and can even be upgraded for reasonable money

[Ruyter-57]

Everything is relative

That's for sure. It is only necessary to compare identical objects. However, the Rubis-class is a multi-purpose nuclear submarine, and the Akula is a heavy strategic missile cruiser. And it was made so monstrous out of necessity - the smaller "unparalleled" missiles did not fit.

[Alf]

Quote: agond

Nuclear submarine "Ryubi" France project 1976 underwater displacement 2 tons, autonomy up to 607 days, 60 built in service 6

And how many ballistic missiles does Ruby carry?

[Devil13]

Apple sharks were decommissioned due to the transfer of Yuzhmash to Ukraine.
There were no more missiles under them
Plus drank 90, plus the cost of maintenance, plus the fact that a large boat is harder, of course, to provide, base, etc.

However, how many 667 are in service?
What about 671RTMK, they wouldn’t have drank, if there had been an economy.
And 705 topics. More.
How old is 945? They'll last just as long.

It is incorrect to compare completely different boats and situations.
France, you know, has not collapsed in the last 30 years, has not lost 80% of its production and economy, and has not been plundered for 30 years.

[Devil13]

Reminds me of figures from the RF Ministry of Defense, yeah. It's genius.

[Etoya]

We need to do:
1. Put a jet propulsion on a new project and move away from the system with an open propeller
2.more actively introduce nuclear technologies for the power plant, and in general more technologically advanced elements to reduce the thermal footprint
3.Use bioengineering and neural networks to design more streamlined and stronger hulls.
4. I would go for a radical change in the bow in terms of abandoning large torpedoes in favor of small and compact ones - who will you shoot them at and when was the last time an Apl fired torpedoes in a real battle? This will greatly unload the bow.
5 nuclear submarines, it is imperative to make it possible to use small underwater drones both in defensive and reconnaissance terms.

[Aviator_]

and when was the last time an apl fired torpedoes in a real battle?

In May 1982, the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano was sunk by the British nuclear submarine Conqueror during the Falklands War.

[Alf]

Quote: Aviator_

and when was the last time an apl fired torpedoes in a real battle?

In May 1982, the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano was sunk by the British nuclear submarine Conqueror during the Falklands War.

Moreover, it is stupidly drowned, with an ordinary upright torpedo.

[Aviator_]

Moreover, it is stupidly drowned, with an ordinary upright torpedo.

Vika writes that it is almost a sample of 1927, which is hard to believe - did the subjects of the British Crown use such antiques in 1982 with the nuclear submarine?

[Alf]

Quote: Aviator_

Moreover, it is stupidly drowned, with an ordinary upright torpedo.

Vika writes that it is almost a sample of 1927, which is hard to believe - did the subjects of the British Crown use such antiques in 1982 with the nuclear submarine?

Not certainly in that way. The Mk8 torpedo was indeed adopted by the RN in 1927, but the Mk8 mod4 version, which drowned the Admiral, appeared before WW2, which, however, is not much newer.

[Alf]

then land on one of the islands of Polynesia and build a new civilization there!

Reproduce among themselves?
It doesn't look like spring is in the yard...

[Saburov_Alexander53]

There charming Polynesians are waiting for our sailors.

[Cure72]

Shpakovsky does not burn at all, yes.
Is Samsonov, Sarmatov and other indecency also our "many-faced"?

[agond]

Quote: Ruyter-57

That's for sure. You only need to compare identical objects

identical ,
Shark 1976 48000t 20 missiles with a throw weight of 2550kg each,
in all rockets 2550x20=51000kg
one rocket accounts for 2400 tons of displacement
Ohio 1976 18750t 24 rockets with a throw weight but 2800kg
in all rockets 2800x24=67.200kg
One missile accounts for 701 tons of displacement
By displacement per rocket 2400t and 710t, the difference is 3.41 times
In terms of casting weight 51000 and 67200, the difference is 1.31 times
These are non-identical indicators of comparison of identical objects.
I repeat for those who do not have their own arguments (although there is the ability to minus someone else's argument) - submarines have been built, are being built and will be built for covert placement of weapons on them, and large sizes do not contribute to stealth in any way, rather the opposite, This is an axiom for all countries, with one exception...

[Ruyter-57]

submarines have been built, are being built and will be built to covertly place weapons on them

Does anyone argue with this?

large size does not contribute to secrecy

Here, rather, the question is not in the size of the object, as such, but in the physical fields that this object generates.
However, I criticized not reducing the size of the submarine, but bringing the idea to insanity, in which the author succeeded.

[Alf]

Quote: Cure72

Shpakovsky does not burn at all, yes.
Is Samsonov, Sarmatov and other indecency also our "many-faced"?

At first I thought it was Kaptsov Santa-Fe resurfaced ...
By the way, Samsonov does not write such .... garbage, unlike Caliber, although sometimes he also brings it in.

[Ruyter-57]

By the way, Samsonov is such .... garbage, unlike Caliber

Everyone has their own bullshit.

[Alf]

Quote: Ruyter-57

By the way, Samsonov is such .... garbage, unlike Caliber

Everyone has their own bullshit.

[Timur_kz]

My fantasies are much more intense. I offer an underground boat! These were even planned to be built in Soviet times. Essentially the same launch container. Naturally unmanned. Power hybrid, the main one can be made on hydrogen cells or traditional on any fuel + thermoelectric nuclear battery for starting after hibernation in the ground. Yes, he will not move, only once he will go underground and that's it! Then the standby mode, the signal, the launch to the surface and the launch of the rocket. Unlike mines, such a boat cannot be detected, even if it becomes known where it sleeps, it will be impossible to destroy it. As a system of guaranteed retaliatory strike - quite to itself. It can be combined with the Perimeter system and, even in the event of complete nuclear destruction, such boats can safely crawl out of the ground and strike back. The main problem is communication. How to maintain contact with boats underground, how to signal to start, etc.

[Al_lexx]

I haven't had this much fun in a long time..
Modern boats have a high degree of automation and the crews are dominated by officers and midshipmen. The author proposes to train a dozen, or even more, instead of one crew. Given that the training of a submariner (in time) is comparable to the construction of the submarine itself. I am generally silent about the training of captains and chief mates.))

[Alf]

Quote: Al_lexx

The author proposes to prepare a dozen instead of one crew,

And in the process of learning to put them on "wheels", because they will not have to sleep ...

[Sancho_SP]

There are obvious limitations:

1. A reactor 20 times smaller will not be 20 times cheaper. Yes, there is a limit to miniaturization.
2. Some control equipment for launching missiles will be needed 16 times more. Like navigation, communications, etc.
3. There must be at least 3 watches per day, there cannot be less than 20 crew members for autonomy.

[Alf]

Quote: Sancho_SP

There are obvious limitations:

These are obvious to you, but not at all to the author ...

[Sancho_SP]

If we consider the options for miniaturization in general, then there are such ways:

1. Autonomous launch container, no crew at all. With some minimal autonomy. A kind of floating underwater missile silo. It is placed in inland waters or at any point in the world's oceans by a carrier at a safe (so that it would not be possible to cover with one atomic bomb) distance from each other, then it is assembled. The carrier can even be surface, and the duty is long and open. And rockets can be smaller, like Topol.
2. Sacrifice the missile launch range (up to 2-3 thousand kilometers), approximately retaining the number. The size of the vessel is determined by the smallest possible size of the reactor and habitable zone. But it is not clear whether simultaneous duty in the launch zone of the same number of missiles will be ensured. But the boat will be universal and in parallel can be used to launch the same missiles in non-nuclear equipment.
3. Disguise missile launchers as sea containers, by analogy with the bzhrk. Put on random transport ships.

[Alf]

Quote: Sancho_SP

3. Disguise missile launchers as sea containers, by analogy with the bzhrk. Put on random transport ships.

I could be wrong, but one of the Caliber options was created just for this.

[Sancho_SP]

There was definitely an ad. But whether it is in the iron I do not know.

[Saburov_Alexander53]

This is about what I asked myself: Why place Poseidons on nuclear submarines, and not make launchers on the islands or the coast of our oceans? There are frontier posts in the Kuril Islands, where you can install launchers in different skerries in combination. And in which and how much it is realistic to keep Poseidons, the question is still open. I can’t imagine how much Poseidon requires maintenance and preparation for the launch. Even a simple torpedo does not allow you to simply leave it without maintenance for a long time. Or why is it necessary to place Poseidon on a nuclear submarine, and not adapt a special boat for this? Go and find out that it has Poseidon on it.

[dmiitriy]

Quote from Etoya

4. I would go for a radical change in the bow in terms of abandoning large torpedoes in favor of small and compact ones - who will you shoot them at and when was the last time an Apl fired torpedoes in a real battle? This will greatly unload the bow.
5 nuclear submarines, it is imperative to make it possible to use small underwater drones both in defensive and reconnaissance terms.

And these drones are best placed in the bow with launch silos.
In short, we draw back the bow torpedo compartment under 533 on the diagram, only we sign "unmanned vehicle compartment".

[Virus-free crown]

The author is a well-deserved plus, at least for his dreams !!!
Even 70 years ago, it was believed that no one would need a computer - however, we are writing with you all the same The same drones 10 years ago and now - "earth and sky"))) who knows what will happen to submarines in 20-25 years, huh?

[Aleksandr1971]

Quote: Timur_kz

My fantasies are much more intense. I offer an underground boat! These were even planned to be built in Soviet times. Essentially the same launch container. Naturally unmanned. Power hybrid, the main one can be made on hydrogen cells or traditional on any fuel + thermoelectric nuclear battery for starting after hibernation in the ground. Yes, he will not move, only once he will go underground and that's it! Then the standby mode, the signal, the launch to the surface and the launch of the rocket. Unlike mines, such a boat cannot be detected, even if it becomes known where it sleeps, it will be impossible to destroy it. As a system of guaranteed retaliatory strike - quite to itself. It can be combined with the Perimeter system and, even in the event of complete nuclear destruction, such boats can safely crawl out of the ground and strike back. The main problem is communication. How to maintain contact with boats underground, how to signal to start, etc.

Such ideas have already been implemented by the Chinese.
They have built several hundred launch silos for several dozen ICBMs that move between the silos underground on rails. The mines are separated from each other over a space of tens of kilometers. The idea is that from space it is not visible where the rocket will start from. But the truth is that the mines themselves are visible from space.
Here, even a fool understands that this is a monstrously costly project in terms of finances and labor resources. Russia will not pull. Yes, and there is no need.

[agond]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

I have a feeling that you didn't study physics at school!
Ice of this thickness with difficulty and very carefully broke the TPRK pr 941, but it had an underwater VI of 48 Kt! And his VU fence was made equally strong with the PC of the boat. Have you decided to break through 211,95 m of ice with a container of 3 tons? "Well, you fucking give!!!" (With)..

In project 941, the boat slowly floated up and, due to the buoyancy force of Archimedes, pressed on the ice from below, the ice cracked from pressure. In this method, a strong self-propelled container floats under its own power, one might say from the bow ballast tank where it was stored, then it takes a vertical position and moves up due to the engine (it has zero buoyancy and does not have its own ballast tanks), for example, the launch of the container will occur at a depth of 300m -400m is enough to accelerate and, like a crowbar weighing 200 tons, break through the ice and fly half the length of the hull above its surface.
According to the wall thickness of a strong container with a diameter of 3m and a length of 30m with a surface area of ​​280m2, if the wall thickness is the same as 30mm, (assume that with a small diameter and a large wall thickness, a transverse set can be dispensed with, the nose drop cone can be strengthened), the weight of the container will be 66t, Next, we subtract from the displacement of 200 tons the weight of the walls of the container, we get 134 tons, that is, 134 tons remain for the power plant of the self-propelled container, equipment for launching the rocket and the rocket itself, this is more than enough.
To be honest, I didn’t want to write or count anything, for the negatives of which there are about a dozen.

[Alf]

Quote: Alexander1971

Such ideas have already been implemented by the Chinese.

In the 60s and 70s, the American military came up with this idea, they say, why cover and armor the mines, the coordinates of which are still known, it’s better to make an underground railway along which a train with a rocket will constantly run and predict which mine the shot will come from impossible. But when we calculated how much it would cost, we realized that even the richest country in the world would not be able to afford it.

[Alexey Anfimov]

At first glance, it may seem that the author thinks outside the box, i. original and seems to be a very reasonable solution to an important problem - the vulnerability of all our nuclear SSBNs with ICBMs on board, which are pursued by American submarines directly from our naval bases and are CONTINUOUSLY under their constant sight, which the American Admirals report to each new US President, those. with a 100% guarantee, they are ready to destroy all our SSBNs and SSNs as soon as they receive an order from the US President ...
And the author proposes to increase the very number of nuclear submarines with ICBMs by reducing their size and cost.
However, he repeats the same mistake that for several decades has been repeated by all our Admirals of the Navy without exception and absolutely all the designers of design bureaus developing our submarines.
Or, as A.V. Suvorov: "For our Russian army, the main danger is not at all the soldiers, officers and generals of the enemy, but our own fools in high positions" ...
FIRST:
Ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads on submarines appeared when they were not yet intercontinental, and that is why they needed a nuclear power plant to ensure the intercontinental range of movement of the submarine itself on the "atomic move".
SECOND:
The flight range of naval ballistic missiles was constantly increased, and once ... all these ballistic missiles have already become full-fledged ICBMs, and can be launched directly from Murmansk, from Severodvinsk and from Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky.
BUT ! ! !
"Our own fools in high positions" did not understand that it is better to place these naval ICBMs covertly in Russia's well-defended internal waters - at the mouths of the northern rivers (this is an option) or in the never-freezing Caspian Sea, and if the range turns out to be is not enough, then simply reduce the "thrown mass" (number of nuclear warheads) and
then these ICBMs from any part of the Caspian will reach even Miami ...
And for this, the "Bottom ICBM" "Skif" has already been developed ...
(i.e. for ICBMs launched from Russian waters, submarines are no longer needed)
And what is IMPORTANT to understand! ! !
Tohe, the same applies to the Poseidon nuclear vehicles, which can be launched from any rivers in Russia that flow into any oceans.
For all SMART people, it’s just like 2x2 = 4 and it’s completely obvious, but our Russian Defense Ministry simply doesn’t have such SMART Admirals ...
And not only Admirals ...
It seems that no one in the Security Council of Russia understands this either ...

[abc_alex]

But I didn't understand. The boat dragged the rocket to the launch point. Shot. Suppose, even it was not blown apart at the time of launch. But there was an empty missile compartment in it. If you just close it, can the boat sink? Or fill the compartment with water?

In my opinion, the authors of the projects are too smart about something. If ultra-small strategists are needed, then why load super-large missiles on them? Nuclear weapons today are carried not only by ballistic missiles, but also by cruise missiles. Well, yes, one such rocket will not smash 10 cities into the trash. But it is planned that there will be many of them.
So why not get pissed off then, but remember Lear's project. This is an atomic marine in the dimensions of a diesel boat. 6TA 533 mm. 20 torpedoes. This is 6 launchers for 20 KR Caliber. Let me remind you that Caliber is a conventional version of the Granat missile, which had a nuclear warhead of 200 kt. If the warhead power of a 6-meter Grenade is small, then you can switch to a 650 mm TA and here you have the opportunity to place an 11-meter rocket.

[Saburov_Alexander53]

But I didn't understand. The boat dragged the rocket to the launch point. Shot. Suppose, even it was not blown apart at the time of launch. But there was an empty missile compartment in it. If you just close it, can the boat sink? Or fill the compartment with water?
The question is correct, but it betrays a complete misunderstanding of firing missiles and torpedoes from any submarine. After all, what you are asking about applies to any missile and torpedo on existing submarines. To compensate for the change in buoyancy after the launch of the warhead, the submarine has a special system of tanks, the filling of which prevents a sharp change in buoyancy after launch. And in this case, the author of the article does not at all take into account the volume of such an equalizing tank, which will gobble up all his savings on displacement, on which he makes the main bet.

[Aleksandr1971]

Quote: abc_alex

But I didn't understand. The boat dragged the rocket to the launch point. Shot. Suppose, even it was not blown apart at the time of launch. But there was an empty missile compartment in it. If you just close it, can the boat sink? Or fill the compartment with water?

In my opinion, the authors of the projects are too smart about something. If ultra-small strategists are needed, then why load super-large missiles on them? Nuclear weapons today are carried not only by ballistic missiles, but also by cruise missiles. Well, yes, one such rocket will not smash 10 cities into the trash. But it is planned that there will be many of them.
So why not get pissed off then, but remember Lear's project. This is an atomic marine in the dimensions of a diesel boat. 6TA 533 mm. 20 torpedoes. This is 6 launchers for 20 KR Caliber. Let me remind you that Caliber is a conventional version of the Granat missile, which had a nuclear warhead of 200 kt. If the warhead power of a 6-meter Grenade is small, then you can switch to a 650 mm TA and here you have the opportunity to place an 11-meter rocket.

You are not right.
Ultra-small strategists are just not needed. For 16 small SSBNs with one ICBM each will be many times more expensive than one large SSBN with 16 ICBMs.

You remembered Lira inappropriately, because Lira is not an SSBN, but an attack submarine without ICBMs.

You also remembered the caliber inappropriately because the launch range of Caliber and the launch range of ICBMs from SSBNs differ by an order of magnitude. Our SSBNs will not be able to reach the US coast to hit the US with Caliber. For every second, from decade to decade, our SSBNs are at gunpoint at enemy attack submarines: until recently it was Los Angeles, and now Sivulfs and Virginias. As soon as the US submarine hears the pre-launch preparation in our SSBN, our SSBN will immediately be sunk.

That is why it is necessary to build large diesel SSBNs with a large stock of ICBMs in the Caspian Sea, Baikal, Ladoga and Onega.

[Aleksandr1971]

Quote: Alexey Anfimov

It is true that the Sineva and Liner naval ICBMs deployed in the Caspian Sea will not be threatened by enemy anti-submarine ships, hunter submarines, or enemy PLO aircraft, and, as correctly noted, they will not need either nuclear power plant or GAS , no torpedo tubes, and to be consistent, the submarines themselves will not be needed. And takei "Bottom ICBMs" "Skif" have already been developed - these are autonomous TPKs with the Sineva naval missiles (or with the Liner ICBMs).

You are speaking correctly. But unfortunately, Russia has an agreement with the United States that prohibits underwater unmanned vehicles carrying ICBMs.
And besides, the drone has the risk of interception of control.

[Aleksandr1971]

Quote: gromovanton

"Are you proposing to the RKSN to fight anti-submarines?" Of course not. The only thing I would like is two points: an understanding of the surface situation before the ascent of the submarine to launch ballistic missiles so that they are not cut off at the start. The second is not excluding the possibility of preventive destruction of the SSBN security forces in order not to leave them defenseless against various seawolves and virgins, as well as against anti-submarine aviation. Perhaps the best strategy is not to detect our submarines. I don't know how invisible they are and how their routes are not tracked by our partners.

The best understanding of the underwater situation will be in the Caspian. It is clear in advance that there are no anti-submarine ships, no submarines, no NATO anti-submarine aviation. And what is most magnificent, in answer to your question, is that our SSBNs cannot be detected by NATO countries there.

Well, as for the neighbors in the Caspian Sea, they do not have anti-submarine forces for us. Well, if the neighbors start to grumble, then they can be punished. And we cannot punish NATO.

[Alf]

Quote: Alexander1971

Well, if the neighbors start to grumble, then they can be punished.

Just like Ukraine?

[Aleksandr1971]

Quote: Saburov_Alexander53

This is about what I asked myself: Why place Poseidons on nuclear submarines, and not make launchers on the islands or the coast of our oceans? There are frontier posts in the Kuril Islands, where you can install launchers in different skerries in combination. And in which and how much it is realistic to keep Poseidons, the question is still open. I can’t imagine how much Poseidon requires maintenance and preparation for the launch. Even a simple torpedo does not allow you to simply leave it without maintenance for a long time. Or why is it necessary to place Poseidon on a nuclear submarine, and not adapt a special boat for this? Go and find out that it has Poseidon on it.

You are not right.
Neither ICBMs (except for first-strike ICBMs) nor Poseidons can be kept in static places. For a static location quickly becomes known to the enemy and will be subjected to a disarming nuclear strike.
Therefore, carriers of Poseidons, like SSBNs, should not go on some unpredictable routes, so as not to be caught on the fly by Sivulfs and Virginias, of which the United States has more than 70 pieces, and which are on duty at sea for up to six months.

[Saburov_Alexander53]

Thanks for the reply and I'm well aware of the disadvantages of static launcher placement. But on the other hand, I understand the vulnerability of the Poseidon carrier nuclear submarine, which will be under the special control and sight of the enemy. It was not in vain that I mentioned "dummies" for which you cannot stock up on disarming nuclear strikes. And vice versa, it is precisely these "blanks" that can play the role of diverting a large number of carriers of nuclear destruction to deserted remote places. Judging by the photographs, the Poseidon differs little from a conventional torpedo, and the whole question is in the launch and control system of this device, how expensive it is to place on all "dummy" if they must be ready to become charged at any moment. An ordinary roof-visor made of metal profile over the launcher can hide the process of real charging of the device from observation. Go find out which one is really loaded.

[agond]

Quote: Alexey Anfimov

And the author proposes to increase the very number of nuclear submarines with ICBMs by reducing their size and cost.
However, he repeats the same mistake that for several decades has been repeated by all our Admirals of the Navy without exception and absolutely all the designers of design bureaus developing our submarines.

The author's proposal to reduce the size is long overdue and everyone agrees that the world's largest boats (not only nuclear, but also diesel) are not a reason to be proud .. The proposal to place SSBNs in the Caspian is also true, but it is not clear whether they can get there again, due to their size .. It is also obvious that it is not difficult to track 4 units of large SSBNs at the Pacific Fleet and 9 units of SSBNs individually, and then they are not at sea all year round. .Change the situation cardinally is possible only by a sharp increase in the number of units with a simultaneous decrease in size. The question is to what extent should it be reduced, where is the critical dimension barrier that cannot be crossed

[Aleksandr1971]

Multi-purpose nuclear submarines were built at the Krasnoye Sormovo shipyard in Nizhny Novgorod. So the Volga is a route that is quite suitable in terms of depth for conducting SSBNs for the Caspian. If the Caspian SSBNs do not have a second hull, nuclear power plant, HAK and torpedo tubes, then their displacement will be half that of the current Boreys with the same load in the form of ICBMs.

[Aleksandr1971]

Quote: Alf

Quote: Alexander1971

Well, if the neighbors start to grumble, then they can be punished.

Just like Ukraine?

Of course, but each in turn. Except for Iran. This one is for us. Kazakhstan at risk

[Saburov_Alexander53]

Except for Iran. This one is for us.
The question is, how long will this "for us" last? The history of relations with Iran is far from better than with Turkey. Suffice it to recall that the very first complaint to the UN came from Iran against the USSR, when, in violation of our obligations, we began to delay the withdrawal of troops from the north of the country after the 2nd MV, wanting to arrange the export of the revolution there. Churchill's speech in Fulton was based on this precedent, exposing the USSR as an aggressor and a violator of international norms. In the war between Iraq and Iran, we were also on the side of Iraq, to ​​which Iran responded by banning and defeating all pro-communist forces in the country. Iran has not forgotten our accession to the sanctions and the embargo on the supply of S-300s, although these are purely defensive weapons.

[Aleksandr1971]

Quote: Sancho_SP

If we consider the options for miniaturization in general, then there are such ways:

1. Autonomous launch container, no crew at all. With some minimal autonomy. A kind of floating underwater missile silo. It is placed in inland waters or at any point in the world's oceans by a carrier at a safe (so that it would not be possible to cover with one atomic bomb) distance from each other, then it is assembled. The carrier can even be surface, and the duty is long and open. And rockets can be smaller, like Topol.
2. Sacrifice the missile launch range (up to 2-3 thousand kilometers), approximately retaining the number. The size of the vessel is determined by the smallest possible size of the reactor and habitable zone. But it is not clear whether simultaneous duty in the launch zone of the same number of missiles will be ensured. But the boat will be universal and in parallel can be used to launch the same missiles in non-nuclear equipment.
3. Disguise missile launchers as sea containers, by analogy with the bzhrk. Put on random transport ships.

You are not right. In peacetime, our submarine will be able to reach the US coast at a launch range of 2-3 thousand km. But she won’t have time to shoot because every second for decades of existence she will be at gunpoint at the US nuclear submarine. In wartime, our SSBNs will not have time to reach the US coast, as they will be destroyed. Therefore, a guaranteed launch of our nuclear submarine missiles against the United States is possible only from protected waters. What protected waters are is a topic for another discussion.

[DO]

it will be possible to build them even within the country

First of all, this applies to St. Petersburg, the exit from which to the world ocean may be blocked in the near future by NATO countries located on the shores of the Baltic.

[Boris63]

Raise from the water completely without "support", a blank of several thousand tons ... I think there will be another trouble. The author probably needs to ask the divers how many meters the boat drops after working out at least one launcher in a submerged position.

[Devil13]

1. The production of even 1 boat is a colossal labor cost.
2. In the boat, the HAC, Control Systems, and the power plant cost the most.

You're stupid? Instead of 10 boats, 160? 16 times the cost?
Who have you seen 160 boats? From the USSR? Overpower its economy?

3. On the photo 667 and not 955

The future of the fleet is for Lira-type nuclear submarines (Project 705) as multi-purpose boats, and for SSBNs with powerful missiles capable of launching up to 12 blocks + KSP.
Все.

[storm]

Submarines in large numbers are very expensive, neither the Russian budget nor shipbuilders can afford it.
Two dozen trains with 6-8 Bulava ballistic missiles on each, hidden in underground and mountain tunnels, will turn out to be much cheaper.
It is almost impossible to track them, but it is not a problem for them to go to positions and fire a volley of 160-180 missiles.