The source called the reason for the write-off of the heavy nuclear submarine missile cruiser "Dmitry Donskoy" project 941UM

Heavy nuclear submarine missile cruiser "Dmitry Donskoy" project 941 "Shark" was decommissioned fleet from a nuclear reactor. This was told by a source familiar with the situation.

Termination of the service of the last "Shark" of the Russian fleet was associated with the development of the reactor core, the replacement of which was considered inappropriate. In addition, when making a decision to decommission a missile submarine, its 40-year service in the Northern Fleet was taken into account.

"Dmitry Donskoy" could no longer carry out combat service due to the development of the core of its nuclear reactor (...) the replacement of the core with a new one was considered inappropriate due to the very high cost of the operation

- leads TASS source words.

"Dmitry Donskoy" was withdrawn from the fleet at the beginning of this year and sent to await disposal. Currently, it is located on the territory of the naval base in Severodvinsk, along with two more submarines of this project, which have actually already rooted to the shore, but are still in reserve. The timing of the disposal of the last "Shark" has not yet been determined.

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. Today it is the largest submarine in the world and the last "Shark" of the Russian fleet. Three "Sharks" were disposed of not without the "help" of the United States, two more are in reserve.

Comments

[Silver99]

It's a pity !!! "Dmitry Donskoy" is the largest and most powerful nuclear submarine in the world. In 1988, the Dmitry Donskoy APK was entered into the Guinness Book of Records as the largest submarine. And so far, no one has been able to repeat the result of the work of Soviet engineers. The length of the ship is 172 m, the width is 23,3 m, and the height is 26 m. tons each. It is impossible to install such weapons on a conventional submarine. The boat is designed for a crew of 52 people. The maximum autonomous navigation time is 100 days. The working depth of immersion is 160 m, but if necessary, the agro-industrial complex can go to a depth of up to 120 m. The boat is designed for northern conditions and can break through ice up to 320 m thick - Ohio submarines do not know how. Each Bulava missile carries 400 warheads with a charge capacity of 2,5 kt each. Missiles can be launched from a submerged position and hit targets at a distance of up to 10 km. That is, from the North Pole, a rocket can reach the equator.

[ism_ek]

Quote from Silver99

Sorry !!!

You can not store any rubbish, no matter how advanced it was in the past.
It must be admitted that the ship was unsuccessful, primarily because of an unsuccessful rocket.

[K298rtm]

1. For its time, the boat was wonderful (maneuverable, low noise and very dangerous for a potential enemy). It is no accident that the 941st, and not the 667bdrm, were the first to be cut.
2. In 2024 will be the 40th anniversary of the 1st BS tk-208.
3. At present, it must be admitted, the combat value is zero.
4. If it is impossible to create a museum from the whole boat, then maybe make a CPU museum?

[Sergey39]

They began to be cut at the direction of the Americans, who came to power together with Yeltsin. They brought to Severodvinsk, for their own money, a “guillotine” for cutting boats and Sharks, the first went for cutting, and left the old boats for later! (((
Here, you and Yeltsin's post-Soviet democracy, by the hands of the Americans.
Time, Sharks has passed, before we have time to look back, Huskies or another project will come to replace Boreev. Life and early technical progress cannot be stopped!)))

[Vicontas]

If the missile silos and the equipment associated with missiles and torpedoes were removed, an underwater landing ship could be made.

[Hagalaz]

The most pointless idea possible.

[cast iron]

And if you put rocket engines on it, you get a starship!

[skeptic]

Quote: Vicontas

... it would be possible to make an underwater landing ship.

And where will you put it if the reason for the decommissioning is the depletion of the reactor's energy resource?

[Archon]

In the event of hostilities, everything will be mined with nets, cheap mines, drones, sound sensors. In a military sense, this will not be a very successful experiment. But you can carry smuggling on such a boat. It's scary to imagine how many tons of cocaine it can transport. Or how many processors and other electronic components. Or weapons and military equipment. The heavy weight of equipment in the water will not be as noticeable in comparison with air transportation.

[alexandre II]

You, sir, overdosed along the way, call 112 before it's too late, and then, my friend, to a psychologist, or better, a psychiatrist ....

[skeptic]

Quote: K298rtm

3. At present, it must be admitted, the combat value is zero.

The development of the reactor is not the development of a combat resource. The dispersal of cruisers, in the main directions, as the bases of stationary, missile systems. Providing air defense, an energy base and an appropriate foundation, in modern conditions, is a more rational way out.

[tsvetahaki]

Can't store trash

Old "galoshes" are thrown away when new ones are bought to replace them ... But they don't go barefoot.

[UAZ 452]

But if the repair of old galoshes costs comparable to the purchase of new ones, then these new ones will never be.

[Oleg812spb]

The capabilities and characteristics of this ship were chosen not only from the capabilities of the shipbuilding industry, but also from the real conditions of confrontation. The decommissioning of the last boat of the Ohio type of the Trident programs, which were counterbalanced by the Sharks, was scheduled for 2040. Now, few people argue with the fact that the amers print as much money for themselves as they need. support "Who does not want to feed his own army will feed someone else's!" (C)

[mmaxx]

The desire of people to hold onto any rusty piece of iron to the end is striking. If the horse is dead, you just need to get into it. It may sound harsh, but it's time. Without power, the ship is dead. There is simply nothing to put there now.

[Andrey “andrewTSO” D]

The scale is simply amazing! Almost two football fields in length, such a rather large building along the front in width and a 9-story building in height ...

[Victor Leningradets]

Boreas in a meter is the same length. And Belgorod is even longer.
RKPSN are not intended to be measured by length and displacement. They must covertly create an irresistible threat to the enemy (no longer probable!).
What can "Shark" in this topic - nothing. She is not a threat.
So it is expedient (if the radiation situation allows) after unloading the core to organize a water park with an external inspection and an internal visit. It will be a big deal! And a restaurant with a "wine portion" and naval cuisine should become a "golden antelope."
Personally, I will buy tickets, take my grandchildren (they have already been on diesel engines), show them what we were building then.
And if there is crowdfunding (as it seems in the Russian transcription) for a museum or a water park-oceanarium, I will definitely take part.

[UAZ 452]

Quite right. The world's largest microcalculator does not mean the best.

[begemot20091]

FOR- and hands and feet. What our fathers knew how to build and continued WE must see our grandchildren. And this is after the war, which claimed the best from RUSSIA.

[mmaxx]

Amateurs are always fascinated by the size of something in football fields. Children are so forgiving. You can also measure with the Eiffel Towers.

[NKT]

Each Bulava missile carries 10 warheads with a payload capacity of 100 kt each. Missiles can be launched from a submerged position and hit targets at a distance of up to 9300 km. That is, from the North Pole, a rocket can reach the equator.

On the Donskoy, only one shaft was modernized for the Bulava missile, and that's it. It was used as an experimental test ship.

[Curt]

a museum from one of them is needed. Museum. If the state does not have money, let them go on a boost or kickstarter, they will start a collection group, I will even give money to the museum) such a ship must remain in history, like Orlan.
We can hardly afford to build something like this

[ism_ek]

Quote: Curt

even ladies to the museum

Its disposal is billions, and the museum is even more. It is better to build new ships with this money.

[Victor Leningradets]

It's not about money, we have fig American leaves like a fool's shag. The fact is that there is no capacity for building such unparalleled ones in the world (it began even under the adored D.F. Ustinov).
Instead of project 941UM, you can easily build two project 955A. It's high time to put an end to the solid fuel curse. There are no prophets in your Fatherland! Liquid-fuel rockets have long proved their superiority with proper operation (which, with a professional crew, is in abundance).
So you give a new RKPSN and new missiles!

[Victor Leningradets]

I know both systems.
If you launch in a zone blocked by Aegis, then you won’t break through one hell, but you yourself will die (if your heart warms, then heroically). Unlike a solid-propellant rocket with a liquid-propellant rocket engine, having passed the upper stage, it allows you to throw the necessary load according to variable ballistics and ensure guaranteed hitting of targets, both due to better anti-aircraft defense in the final section, and due to duplication of warheads on the target.
Solid propellant is only good for delivering SBCs at short medium ranges, the rest is liquid propellant rocket engines.

[Barracuda 148]

And the payload of a solid-propellant rocket is half as much.

[ism_ek]

The disadvantage of liquid fuel rockets is a wet start. The mine must be flooded, and then only shoot. It is impossible to flood all the mines at the same time. The advantage of Sharks (well, Borea later) was that she fired rockets at the same time. Actually, because of this, they suffered with the Mace afterwards.
Well, liquid rocket fuel is stored for a year. Every year it is necessary to take out the rocket, drain the fuel, fill in new one. And fuel is a terrible poison, Works only in chemical protection suits. But these are in principle solvable problems.

[drone-expert]

The minus of liquid rockets is precisely in ENERGY. Look how much Musk sticks in the ass of his heavy rocket launchers. It's just that you can't add power to a liquid rocket engine in a simple way, and it also weighs decently. Liquid fuel has a density comparable to water. A solid rocket can burn as much fuel as you like per unit of time, solid fuel weighs several times less than liquid fuel per 1 joule. There is no significant weight of the engine in a solid rocket; in fact, there is almost none of it. Solid fuel burns immediately. Therefore, solid-propellant missiles can cut in hellish thrust per 1 kg of weight and, due to it, accelerate along a short trajectory and a significant part in the atmosphere, so when the missile defense radar sees the missile, it will be too late. The "bus" will already begin to scatter warheads and decoys.

One of the problems of our Navy is that there are a lot of lovers of necrophilia in weapons, which the technologists of the USSR, who are already half a century old, consider the height of perfection. This inadequacy led to the shame of the drowning of Moscow and the tarantays right at the base of the Black Sea Fleet.

[Victor Leningradets]

Less emotions, Everything you write is for medium and short range missiles. LRE + fuel with the same weight thrown at a distance - two times less than a solid propellant (that's why its body and nozzle weigh nothing).
The main thing is the speed of launch. Here, yes - the advantage is on the side of the turbojet engine. But if you strike the FIRST blow (and the second one doesn’t make sense), then only a liquid-propellant rocket engine with multi-component fuel.
In fact, "Shark" gave us (and I am one of the participants in the creation) a lot. Spassky actually felt the limit of the development of a strategic submarine missile carrier, as well as a single mass of an underwater launch. Perhaps, after the completion of "Borea B" (I hope!) This experience will be embodied in a truly radically new project of the RKPSN,

[drone-expert]

Let me help you with a quote from Academician Solomonov
«Topol-M and Bulava have 3-4 times less active site compared to domestic missiles, and 1,5-2 times less than American, French, Chinese ones».

In addition, solid-propellant rockets like Bulava or Iskander were easily modified for maneuvering while climbing due to a variable thrust vector. This is done thanks to part of the solid fuel combustion channels with adjustable plugs.

Liquid rockets are thrown out precisely because they have virtually no chance of survivalif the launch is in the zone even of air defense, and not of missile defense. If Sarmat can be launched 5000 km from the border, then in the positional area of ​​\u10b\uXNUMXbthe nuclear submarine can be XNUMX US destroyers with normal missile defense. They shoot liquid antiques easily and simply when climbing

[Victor Leningradets]

They will not do anything with a launch trajectory of 70 degrees to the missile defense coverage area. Air defense - not at all in the subject. Once again - launch outside the aegis coverage area - otherwise everything - for any carrier. And after the deployment of space missile defense them. I. Mask, all ground starts in the Russian Federation (3,4% of the globe) will be closed tightly, so an energetic start with exorbitant acceleration will only bring the final closer.
No, only the ocean (71% of the globe) leaves room for a start on UNPREDICTABLE BALLISTICS.
From this - 94 tons of launch mass, the thrown mass - not less than four tons, the trajectory - with access to orbit.
An alternative to the Akula was an Ohio-style preliminary design with the Sineva armament, but the requirements for the diameter of a strong hull outweighed common sense. So Borey, although a compromise, is a step in the right direction.
God willing, the grandchildren will grow up and do everything right.

[bk0010]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

An alternative to the Akula was an Ohio-style preliminary design with the Sineva armament, but the requirements for the diameter of a strong hull outweighed common sense.

There was no common sense outweighed there. The point was that the amers made Los Angeles and a new torpedo. The combination of a new HAC, a new level of noiselessness and a new torpedo resulted in the fact that all existing ships turned into targets (as in the creation of the Dreadnought). To somehow compensate for the current situation, they created a huge Shark. The colossal size of the boat was due not only to the size of the missiles, but also to the fact that it could be on duty under the ice, where the noise of hummocks muffled its noises, break open the ice shell for launch and could continue launching after being hit by 4 torpedoes from Los (Los has 4 TA) .

[ism_ek]

Quote: drone-expert

“Topol-M and Bulava have an active site 3-4 times less than domestic missiles

Only this LRE rocket carries 10 warheads, and Topol - 3. The thrust of the first stage rocket engines is open information. For Bulava and Sineva, it is approximately the same - 100 t.s. Not a single modern anti-aircraft missile will catch up with either Bulava or Sineva. Interception is possible only on a collision course

[Barracuda 148]

If no one shoots the destroyers, the boat will simply go to another area.

[Victor Leningradets]

About Joules - this is just past. The hydrogen number - for LREs is much higher, which is a sentence for solid fuels (not nuclear-fueled!)
That's about the nuclear - there is something. It is a pity that field tests are not carried out.

[mmaxx]

One of the problems of our Navy is that there are a lot of lovers of necrophilia in weapons, which the technologists of the USSR, who are already half a century old, consider the height of perfection. This inadequacy led to the shame of the drowning of Moscow and the tarantays right at the base of the Black Sea Fleet.

You can't really say. Fall in love with a pile of iron and pray for it. Even sailors have reality in their heads. And write off the ship. That's how they've always done it! And these are ready to fight for the hundred rubbish to the death. They simply do not understand that they will sink this miracle submarine right away. And then they will yell that everyone around is to blame.
It's the same with all sorts of huts in the cities. Just stutter, and hysterics and obscurantists will come running.

[Lexus]

rave. such gigantism of the apl was born only from the fact that in the USSR they could not master solid-fuel boosters in any way.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Lexus

rave. such gigantism of the apl was born only from the fact that in the USSR they could not master solid-fuel boosters in any way.

Themselves then, write things that are not too smart, moreover, with a claim to an axiom. Look at the old Borea projects, when it was designed for the Barks, which in themselves are not much smaller than the missiles that were on the Shark (and they were made to replace them, that is, for the same mines). Unlike modern Boreevs, the one under the "barges" has a hump behind the wheelhouse - that's all the difference.

The large displacement of the project 941 Shark boats (according to NATO Typhoon) was not least its buoyancy coefficient, which is four times greater than that of the Ohio nuclear submarine (and was specified in the TOR). And buoyancy is survivability, as well. But the main reason was to make her draft under the already existing ports, where the infrastructure for its maintenance should be built and excluded deepening work, which would not cost a penny at all.
If the American nuclear submarine "Ohio"
Surface displacement 16 746 t
Underwater displacement 18 750 t
Average draft (on design waterline) 11,1 m
Then the "Shark" has a comparable draft at
Surface displacement 23 200 t
Underwater displacement 48 000 t
Average draft (on design waterline) 11,2 m
And the fact that the "Shark" could surface, breaking the ice, and shoot with strategic missiles almost anywhere in the Arctic Ocean, it is not at all superfluous to recall here:

[Oleg812spb]

The sketch is more like a Dolphin. Early.

[Bad_gr]

.... Power plant of the 3rd generation with a rated power of 100.000 l. With. made according to the block layout principle with the placement of autonomous modules (unified for all boats of the 3rd generation) in both durable hulls. The adopted layout solutions made it possible to reduce the dimensions of the nuclear power plant, while increasing its power and improving other operational parameters. The power plant includes two water-cooled reactors on thermal neutrons OK-650 (190 MW each) and two steam turbines. The block layout of all units and component equipment, in addition to technological advantages, made it possible to apply more effective vibration isolation measures that reduce the noise of the ship. The nuclear power plant is equipped with a batteryless cooling system (BBR), which is automatically activated in the event of a power failure. Compared to previous nuclear submarines, the reactor control and protection system has changed significantly. The introduction of pulse equipment made it possible to control its state at any power level, including in a subcritical state. A self-propelled mechanism is installed on the compensating organs, which, in the event of a power failure, ensures that the gratings are lowered to the lower limit switches. In this case, there is a complete “silencing” of the reactor, even if the ship capsizes .....

When creating the Project 941 submarine, great attention was paid to reducing its hydroacoustic visibility. In particular, the ship received a two-stage system of rubber-cord pneumatic shock absorption, a block layout of mechanisms and equipment was introduced, as well as new, more effective soundproof and anti-sonar coatings. As a result, in terms of hydroacoustic secrecy, the new missile carrier, despite its gigantic size, significantly surpassed all previously built domestic SSBNs and, probably, came close to the American counterpart, the Ohio-type SSBN.

Read more at: https://motherhouse.ru/mortgage/razmer-podvodnoi-lodki-v-metrah-akula-shchuka-ogaio-razmer-imeet/...

[9lvariag]

It's a pity the only underwater catamaran in the world ...

[mmaxx]

It was clear to me, even to a child, that the Ohio was 100 times more perfect than our Sharks. It was worth looking at the dimensions and characteristics. Not to mention the price and, accordingly, the number of boats.
And all other advantages are simply invented to justify the then technological backwardness.

[Oleg812spb]

It would be interesting to know the opinion of the beauty blogger on this matter.

[mmaxx]

Are you an internet warrior? Would you say that to your eyes? A man on the Internet does not offend behind his back.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: mmaxx

It was clear to me, even to a child, that the Ohio was 100 times more perfect than our Sharks.

Well, with a child, it’s understandable - I haven’t gained my mind, but to present this opinion as true, I apologize, but it doesn’t speak for your benefit.

[Jager]

You, like, from that very childhood, stopped in education. Take an interest in the technical reasons for the creation of "Shark"

[mmaxx]

The reasons are the creation of Ohio and Trident missiles. Compare the number of missiles and their range. Then compare the submarines. And sing hosannas to Soviet submarines.
With many good things, in general they were WORSE than American ones. And no amount of patriotism will change that.
And the amers approach to boats is more correct - reliability and noiselessness. Yes, and they don’t call the boats with stupid names: the atomic submarine cruiser strata ...... You get tired of writing and memorizing. The more beautiful the name, the dumber those who gave it.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: mmaxx

The reasons are the creation of Ohio and Trident missiles. Compare the number of missiles and their range. Then compare the submarines. And sing hosannas to Soviet submarines.

Looks like a friend again. who is a writer, not a reader. You should at least read this thread before interfering with comments.

[Gekki66]

Memory is not measured in money. In any case, in Russia.

[Yaroslav Tekkel]

Yes, if. How many things, both their own and captured, were cut into metal, shot during exercises, they simply fell in love - and this is still in the USSR. However, abroad is often no better, if not worse.

[Sergey39]

There were two boats left, and Dmitry Donskoy in the sludge. It is most suitable for a museum. I looked at the boat and there the crew looked like ants.

[Galleon]

Reloading fuel in the reactor is a normal procedure for Rosatom. Yes, on a boat you need to open a strong hull, so what? Is it cheaper to destroy a missile carrier ??
The real reason lies elsewhere, and we do not consider it necessary to name it.

[evgen1221]

I am even lost in conjectures, only an agreement with the West, just an agreement with the West. There were also proposals to remake the tomohawk ala ryus carriers.

[KCA]

I don’t know how the fuel is reloaded there, if it is reloaded at all, maybe the hull needs to be cut, it can completely change the reactor core, the fuel costs not 2 kopecks, if the load life is 40 years, is that a boat up to 80 years will be on the move? Or load it for a billion, say, and write it off after 5 years, then expose the reactor to fresh air, in which U235 is for a dozen bombs or 20 loads of fuel for the Boreas?

[Bingo]

That's it. There, apparently, reloading is not structurally provided, it happens.
Everything can be recycled, but I do not exclude that the boat is built around the reactor

[Barracuda 148]

Everything is provided for there and reloading was already on it, it’s probably not advisable to just keep it for one rocket, but it’s expensive to use it as a floating test stand, and new missiles will most likely be different, which means the mine needs to be redone again. And this is again money and not small .

[URAL72]

Opening the case is not enough. This is not a fuel replacement, but a reactor replacement. Almost a lard of bucks. The new one from Borea will not work, I think. New Borey is cheaper. I think they simply don’t make kits for the cruiser anymore, which means a complete modernization with the Borea and Ash kits. It will be 2 Boreas and more. Last? I'm sorry, but goodbye. Unification. I am for the museum.

[KCA]

The reactor, in fact, is just a big barrel into which they put fuel assemblies, which are heated by hollowing each other with neutrons and slowed down by a moderator made of graphite or another substance, just water, for example, which regulate this process, but the execution can be anything, but itself the barrel is 1/100 part, there is nothing complicated, but the body kit, 1st, 2nd heat exchange circuit, protection, oh

[VALERIK_097]

Just a "big barrel" has its own resource. Sat.01 has a limited number of pressure tests (hydraulic tests 1k.), And the reactors on this ship were unloaded more than once. In the reactor-steam generator connection, the reactor is not the weakest link. guess why the ship was taken to the sludge. There are many reasons, and they are all very expensive to repair. And one more important detail, where to dock the ship? About the dock at 35SRZ in Murmansk, you can not remember yet.

[Sergey39]

You don't have to indulge in conspiracy theories. Experimental boat for testing Mace missiles. One mine has been modernized. She is already obsolete. Her problem is too big, even if it consists of two buildings. The boat was built, under the R-39 missiles, these missiles are yesterday and they are not. Sharks and 667BDRM replaced the nuclear submarine of the 4th generation Borey A, the basis of today's strategic forces at sea.

[Sochi]

It's not about the fuel, it's about the reactor itself. He worked for 40 years... under constant exposure to very hard radiation, and very high pressure. And now no one can guarantee its integrity during further operation. metal fatigue.

[Oleg812spb]

Yes, on a boat you need to open a strong hull, so what?

In general, this is a standard operation for a reboot.

[drone-expert]

Where is the sect of ship lovers, which should howl that there is nothing to sail on Tsushima 2.0 against the USA?

Everything that does not fight in the NWO is really at risk of being written off in metal. The SVO also showed that even tactical nuclear weapons cannot really be used, so the importance of strategic carriers of nuclear weapons has greatly decreased.

Old nuclear submarines are still quite noisy by today's standards. Most of our Navy can be safely sawn in metal, because. these old ships and submarines are more likely to pose a danger to the crew than to NATO.

[man]

Everything that does not fight in the NWO is really at risk of being written off in metal. The SVO also showed that even tactical nuclear weapons cannot really be used, so the importance of strategic carriers of nuclear weapons has greatly decreased.

Then let's also write off the NW as scrap metal, because it is also not used in the NWO!
Old nuclear submarines are still quite noisy by today's standards. Most of our Navy can be safely sawn in metal, because. these old ships and submarines are more likely to pose a danger to the crew than to NATO.
Right! Let's have the entire Navy in scrap metal, otherwise they didn’t finish it off in the 90s! The country needs metal, "partners" are waiting!

[drone-expert]

If we could use tactical nuclear weapons, we would have won the war long ago. It is now fairly obvious that the bias towards strategic nuclear weapons was a major mistake. That is why when you are mobilized and put into the T-54, then you will open your manuals about the antiques of our Navy there. You are not sitting in Armata and die precisely because someone was masturbating heavily on the museum ships of our Navy and the ground forces were underfunded. The problem of Almaty is not the engine, as sofa idiots think here, but that it is "expensive". Even 1 yard of bucks was not found for modern armored vehicles, because. everything was torn apart by the practically useless Navy.

Certainly our submarines are responsible contemporary the criteria for low noise is extremely serious power. However, the old nuclear submarines rattling on half the ocean are just a FETISH of our sea wankers. Even if you stand up for the IMF, then this is Fleet 2.0, where the emphasis is on submarines and SEA DRONES.

See how the tarantaki drones are kicking the ass of our Black Sea Fleet, actually driving it into the bay. They leave in fact to shoot Caliber. In fact, Caliber can launch the usual Iskander installation simply called "Iskander-K". Moreover, since it is limited to 500 km from the INF, the amount of fuel is reduced there, and the weight of the combat head is 1,5 times more.

Why are your troughs if they cannot fight? Entertain children in parades. Now tell even the child in Sevastopol, whom you rubbed that this is what a cool flagship of the Black Sea Fleet we have, that it was stupidly drowned by two old Soviet missiles with minor modernization.

I am absolutely sure that the Kremlin will put such a miracle fleet under the knife. Now is not the time for parades.

Either fight or go to hell

[yaglon]

The radius of destruction of tactical nuclear weapons = 1 km, the battalion defense area according to the standards of the Second World War = 2 km. By modern standards, the battalion defends a much larger front. TNW can destroy at best 1 (one) battalion. The destruction of even a brigade will require several dozen TNW ammunition. This is not a victory, this is the transformation of the front line into a radioactive desert.

[drone-expert]

This 1 km shock wave defeat has a fatal destruction of shelters. However, no one will make a ground nuclear explosion, because. he is "dirty". The thermonuclear bomb itself is "clean". In a thermonuclear reaction, no radioactive substances are produced, only penetrating radiation. Also, the fuse from a conventional uranium / plutonium nuclear bomb burns out completely in a thermonuclear furnace due to their irradiation, and even the scattered part of the uranium will separate and cease to be radioactive. Radioactive contamination is obtained by irradiating the soil.

Therefore, throw out your training manuals for schoolchildren about tactical nuclear weapons. In reality, only air nuclear explosions will be used so as not to cause radioactive fallout. An air nuclear explosion has completely different main damaging factors. 80% of the energy of a nuclear explosion will be spent on air ionization, where electrons will escape from oxygen atoms, i.e. all this energy turns into a powerful EMP, which will destroy all electronics and energy in a radius of 50-100 km and overwhelm a couple more satellites above the epicenter of the explosion. Also, about 20 km around, the radiation will cause fires. In Ukraine, most of the population lives in IZHS houses where the roofs are made of wooden frames for sure. Therefore, "TNW" will cause big fires, but EMP is the main thing here.

If Putin wants Ukrainians to turn off the light and communications and send them to the stone age, then he will not need to make more than 5 air nuclear explosions.

[yaglon]

Opa, another adherent of the sect of the use of tactical nuclear weapons. But why write about tactical nuclear weapons (20 kt) that will destroy a battalion stronghold on the strength, then write strategic nuclear weapons and not by troops, but by cities, and then it will be clear what you need. A massive strike of nuclear weapons from the category "the whole world is in ruins." You are probably already so old that you do not care what will happen to the world. In general, there is such a program on the Internet https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/, point Nuku to any point on the Earth, select a charge and the program calculates all the results. All radii of all lesions and the approximate number of killed and wounded.

[drone-expert]

It is you who is an adherent of manuals on nuclear weapons for schoolchildren. It seems that even a 7th grader would understand me.
Due to the fact that no one needs radioactive fallout, no one will spend Iskander with a 50 kt head on a opornik. You also keep in mind that if there are reinforced concrete bunkers, then such a tactical nuclear weapon may not destroy them. The Genbaku building survived in Hiroshima, 150 meters (!) from the epicenter of an air nuclear explosion.

Therefore, the use of tactical nuclear weapons will most likely be more in scenarios resembling strategic nuclear weapons. Most likely, 50 kt warheads will begin to pop at large thermal power plants in Ukraine, which usually have the largest substations nearby. From EMP they will burn out completely. The destruction of the TPP building itself is secondary, it is more like a Genbaku will be a nuclear bombing museum.

[yaglon]

Lord, when will you calm down, old grandfathers who want to die with the youth?

[mmaxx]

Everyone measures nuclear contamination in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But for those bombs, 30% I did not work, but simply scattered around. Modern charges are very clean. No one needs to then be poisoned in the occupied area.

[Victor Leningradets]

Once again, do not write that you yourself have not tried, but only read from the Internet.

If we could use tactical nuclear weapons, we would have won the war long ago. It is now fairly obvious that the bias towards strategic nuclear weapons was a major mistake.

And how do you imagine the use of tactical nuclear weapons to win the war. You destroy enemy targets to the full operational-tactical depth and...
The enemy (not the one against which you used tactical nuclear weapons, but completely transatlantic) uses ALL means of attack on the theater in response, plus it carries out an attack from the sea and knocks out over 90% of our strategic arsenal, because it remained undeployed. That's it, we have nothing to get the enemy with, his strategic potential is almost untouched, and we have to choose between death from the destruction of our infrastructure (with an undepleted supply of tactical nuclear weapons!) Or shameful surrender followed by ethnic cleansing (this is without illusions!).
So V.V. Putin was right when he started the rearmament of strategic nuclear forces. The only thing wrong is that he spread the funds for the triad, but it was necessary only for SSBNs and support.
And attempts to pile on more tanks, UAVs, artillery and millions of mobilized will only lead to a multiple increase in losses, without much change in the position of the parties (the Nivelle operation of 1917).

[man]

Either fight or go to hell
Take your pick, you brat! The last time I held a weapon in my hands was in the 80s. Why aren't you at the front?

[Victor Leningradets]

About the noisiness of the "Shark" I and my still living colleagues know for sure. Do not write about what you just heard, but people saw, all the more did. They didn’t catch us in the 80s and 90s, and in the XNUMXs too.
Another thing is that the boat itself is unsuccessful, as a project, it has served its purpose. Everything - the ocean is ordered to her. So either - a sea target in the exercises, or - a museum, an aquarium, etc., or - on pins and needles.
All the same, half a century later, as he read the motto of Bryusov (Yakov Vilimovich - an associate of Peter the Great) "We were" - he felt it.

[drone-expert]

The question is that I have the modern calculations of acoustic detection by the Leksin brothers, who are our leading designers of modern passive detection systems.

You probably don’t even imagine that the difference between the old and modern nuclear submarines in terms of low noise is not even like a hang glider against the Shuttle, everything is much cooler.

A modern nuclear submarine like Virginia with a pump jet and without gears (electric transmission) is so quiet that at a creeping speed of up to 20 knots, its detection range is ZERO in COMPLETE CALL. It’s just that there is an almost laminar flow around everything, the noise from the nuclear submarine is practically suppressed and below the fine noise level of the sea, even in practical calm. Our modern nuclear submarines are actually detectable at about 400 meters, which in practice is also practical stealth.

Your ancient Soviet shit can be heard over 10-15 km with modern acoustics.

[Victor Leningradets]

The low noise mode for all PLAs is the same. Cruising - different, but it was the "Shark" on the cruising that did the "Ohio" quite well. And if you are in a search area (10-15 km, as you write), then low noise will no longer help you. You will be detected by active means and destroyed, that you do not portray in the end. And the farewell salvo will also be blocked.

[mmaxx]

The only question is that "Ohio" is also old trash. And we almost couldn't track their boats as they left the bases. And they could.
I’ll imagine the Americans who whine: they wrote off all the Ohios! ((, they put all non-nuclear aircraft carriers on needles! ((they cut all the nuclear cruisers! !((d

[955535]

The Donskoy has two reactors. The source speaks of reactors in the singular.
In short, again infa from attendants at the entrance to Portovaya Street.
I think the problems there are more significant than the replacement of cores.

[alystan]

In short, again infa from attendants at the entrance to Portovaya Street.

This is Grandma #1.

This was told source familiar with the situation.

And this is number 2.

приводит TASS source words.

[drone-expert]

Quote: 955535

The Donskoy has two reactors. The source speaks of reactors in the singular.
In short, again infa from attendants at the entrance to Portovaya Street.
I think the problems there are more significant than the replacement of cores.

"Something must have happened." Actually, the nuclear submarine is old as shit mammoth. You probably have a bad idea of ​​what a nuclear reactor looks like and how much noise and knocking there is in the mechanics on the circuit pumps. Plus, this is an old nuclear submarine scheme, where the gears of the gearboxes, which give a grinding sound for modern acoustics, like a roaring cow in the ocean.

Also old propellers without new pump jet technology and new form of anti-cavitation propellers.

I’m usually quite skeptical about Klimov’s verses, but the noise of our old nuclear submarines is really beyond the decent. If 40 (FORTY!!!) years separate the creation of nuclear submarines and modern acoustic systems, then you should not be surprised that what kind of Virginia will sit on the tail of this old trough immediately from our Navy base.

Plus, you don’t understand well that the real cost of nuclear power plants is completely indecent in terms of maintenance. For about 10 years of operation of even a civilian nuclear reactor, you need to spend approximately its cost on current repairs. The military is even worse.

Therefore, the Americans have long since sawn their nuclear cruisers into metal, it’s only our lovers of the nikrophilic fleet that announce Petya, although the Americans are laughing above us, how we burned 100 yards of rubles for this piece of scrap metal. For this money it was possible to stir up several Varshavyanka.

[Lexus]

plus. weapons created using 40-year-old technologies are very limited in usefulness (which it showed). she has no secrecy and is of no use either. it was like a modernization project for the Kyrgyz Republic (now useless, like a handful of RTOs) - like a floating battery, because under the agreement, the Kyrgyz Republic could only be placed on marine carriers. Big and expensive target.

[Doctor]

Therefore, the Americans have long since sawn their nuclear cruisers into metal, it’s only our lovers of the nikrophilic fleet that announce Petya, although the Americans are laughing above us, how we burned 100 yards of rubles for this piece of scrap metal.

Why didn’t the aircraft carriers cut it? And along with Ohio and Virginia?

It's just that not every port can be entered by ships with nuclear weapons. Percent 10 from all ports approximately.

[mmaxx]

So all non-nuclear and sawed And nuclear cruisers, even recently commissioned, also sawed.

[bk0010]

Quote: drone-expert

Therefore, the Americans have long sawn their nuclear cruisers into metal

Don't look up to the states. They have bases around the world where their ships will be refueled plus a colossal supply fleet, we do not. They can build ships the size of Arleigh Burke, we can't. So we must at least support what has been done by a more advanced civilization. Moreover, Varshavyanka has completely different tasks.

[Yaroslav Tekkel]

Quote: bk0010

They can build ships the size of Arleigh Burke, we can't.

True, for some reason we can build nuclear submarines in quantities second only to the United States (the question of quality is more debatable, but at least the dimensions are impressive). But in the construction of the surface fleet, we are even as far as Italy as a turtle before Rome. Maybe different managers are sitting (more precisely, they are not sitting yet)?

[955535]

I devoted most of my life to nuclear power plants PL. Went to sea on 5 nuclear submarine projects. Reading you is just funny. If in my comment I only hinted at the presence of other problems, this means that I am not ready to voice all of them.

[PN]

Yes, there is a significant problem for the entire ship: the active zone is over, rusty tired metal, the instrumentation is old and probably not 100% functioning, the mechanisms are worn out, plus the ship itself does not meet modern requirements.
His time has gone by. Although he has recently served well in the testing of new ships.

[Sergey39]

Also, say that st. Port in Severodvinsk, where submariners lived. Ha-ha-ha!

[Amateur]

It is interesting how much the "partners" from Washington "unfastened" to our admirals for writing off and disposing of these outstanding creations of the Soviet engineering genius.

[tralflot1832]

In your opinion, the United States unfastened our admirals so that we would continue the series of "Boreev" - SSBNs, the power of the volley is only growing. Go to the US Embassy in Moscow, just don't hurt your forehead.

[Chief Officer Lom]

I think that they were at least unfastened for the fact that in the first place they disposed of the newest boats from the series. After all, Dmitry Donskoy is the leader in the series, i.e. the oldest. There was not enough money for everything, but if not him, but his younger brother, were kept in the ranks, then he could still serve.
PS It was also done when Ukraine began to chop Tu-160 into scrap metal. I didn’t have time to chop everything, but it was hardly an accident that they started chopping with the newest aircraft, and Russia managed to buy out the oldest remaining ones that were appropriated by the Europeans.

[Sergey39]

Amateurishness multiplied by stupidity>(((

[Ruslan Sledkov]

Phonite is already apparently strong. But after all, it could be used after the appropriate re-equipment as an overall underwater weapon transporter

[tralflot1832]

Fonit in your toilet, underwater transport of weapons? How do you imagine that?

[Piramidon]

Quote: Ruslan Sledkov

But after all, it could be used after an appropriate re-equipment as an overall underwater weapon transporter

This is from a series of proposals that at one time flashed in "Young Technology" and in "Technology - Youth". Convert nuclear submarines into tankers and transport oil and gas around the world on them. Expensive hydrocarbons will turn out.

[Engineer]

Do not pull out the reactor, do not change it. Basically disposable.
You can fantasize about modular schemes, the act of modern automobile platforms, but it’s impossible even now, because the submarine’s hull is assembled / welded once and for all, and the reactor won’t crawl through the hatches

[drone-expert]

Quote: Engineer

Do not pull out the reactor, do not change it. Basically disposable.

HAHAHAHA. And how did they put him in the submarine? ))) There inside the nuclear submarine and assembled directly at the shipyard in your opinion?)))

How many crazy people are there with delusional fantasies that they believe in

[VALERIK_097]

Do not be so categorical, everything can be changed. Only the ship is already very tired. I personally participated in the dismantling of the PPU from the Siberia and Arktika aircraft.

[mmaxx]

A plus.
These experts can no longer help. There are no brains. At low speeds, the main resistance is friction. For a surface tanker, this is the underwater part. And in a submarine, this is the entire hull. They do not even understand why supertankers appeared. I would say about such harder. But I already have two mustard plasters.

[Frettaskyrandi]

If you have already decided to withdraw from the fleet, then you would be honored with a museum ship. Indeed, a truly unique submarine. Is it really just cut into metal?

[mmaxx]

Will you take your children there? Somehow the background is higher there. Submariners are literate people. They look after themselves. Do you know what and how?

[sagitovich]

How quickly time has flown by! 40 years!
And it seems that more recently, the media read about its commissioning.

[75 Sergey]

Or maybe we’ll wave it all the same .... the active zone, to hell with it, with money, otherwise it will come in handy.

[Engineer]

Although the USSR remained in electronics and exact sciences / technologies, it was still a superpower .. he knew how to build the largest formidable ships, planes, submarines

And fast! 4 years and times, without robotic lines and slide rule calculations

[drone-expert]

The Lira nuclear submarine was the most computerized nuclear submarine in the world with the smallest crew, this is the presence of the most complex and powerful liquid metal reactor, which even allowed Lyra to sail away at speed from the torpedoes of her time. Somehow our grandfathers just understood the importance of computer technology.

For some reason, our drochers in the USSR Navy love it on the hull of the ship. And the larger the trough, the greater the orgasm. This is not logic at all and R&D in the USSR. This is some kind of madness already of the 1990s generation, which invented its own fleet of the USSR in the spirit of Star Wars.

[mmaxx]

They would also ask the submariners how many problems they grabbed with these liquid metal reactors. And with no, the highest underwater speed, you can’t get away from an airplane or helicopter. The only chance is in the ocean in a storm. And even then the noise was all over the ocean.

[Yaroslav Tekkel]

I assure you, they used the best computers possible for design ("Kreys" were not for peaceful pig breeding), and the most advanced machines were mined bypassing the then sanctions (the Japanese can remember a lot on the topic).

[Penzyak]

Farewell, one of the last "galoshes" of the USSR.

[Nosferatu]

Nostalgia. Read the "Sharks of Steel" cycle for anyone interested in these boats and those who served on them.

[Void]

Well, she can shoot from the pier. Let it stand when it's time to bang, bang)

[Void]

and what is there to disassemble it, put 2 and a half Kyrgyz on it, and let it be sawed slowly

[petrol cutter]

Well, well ... I had a chance to see one of the Sharks alive. Far from the truth.
It's a pity the work of shipbuilders.

[km-21]

40 years ago, it was hardly possible to predict the flawless operation of the reactor during the entire life of the ship. Therefore, the design of the Akula probably includes the technologies for routine maintenance and repair of both the reactor and all other large-sized units.

[mmaxx]

For 40 years, no metal has been kept in the sea. Everything has its limit.

[mr wolf]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

So it is expedient (if the radiation situation allows) after unloading the core to organize a water park with an external inspection and an internal visit. It will be a big deal! And a restaurant with a "wine portion" and naval cuisine should become a "golden antelope."

And if there is crowdfunding (as it seems in the Russian transcription) for a museum or a water park-oceanarium, I will definitely take part.

This is how they seem to be doing it now in Kronstadt from the K-3 Museum ... Of course, this is not the scale of a shark, but not as small as the D-2 in the Harbor ...

[Victor Leningradets]

K-3 is just a nuclear submarine, well, yes, the first one.
But "Shark" is something!
If in the aquarium it will be possible to walk around it through pedestrian pipes, see slowly rotating propellers, see an imitation of a rocket launch with sound accompaniment, then for this it will be possible to ride to the North. Such attractions are in the southern seas. There are also battleship museums in the USA. So it's up to creative youth and funding.

[mr wolf]

Quote: drone-expert

Quote: Engineer

Do not pull out the reactor, do not change it. Basically disposable.

HAHAHAHA. And how did they put him in the submarine? ))) There inside the nuclear submarine and assembled directly at the shipyard in your opinion?)))

How many crazy people are there with delusional fantasies that they believe in

This is the reactor compartment of project 941.

Is the desire to change still valid?

[Oleg812spb]

During disposal, they simply unload the core, cut out the reactor compartment, jam its communications, fill them with concrete and "bury".

[Oleg812spb]

In your opinion, is the submarine's durable hull, like, "solid-drawn"?

[Pavel_Sveshnikov]

No reason to dispose of it. Let it stand in reserve. Here is an example from the Americans. They do not dispose of their aircraft, but carefully store them at special sites. Because God forbid war - everything will come in handy. Likewise with us. Today there is no money, but tomorrow there will be more like it.

[Yaroslav Tekkel]

First, nuclear submarines should be compared with nuclear submarines, not with aircraft. Storage of ships with nuclear reactors is not practiced anywhere in the world. The only nuclear submarine that has become a museum ship (the French Redoutable) has had its reactor removed.

Secondly, God forbid a war with an enemy against whom such boats are required - as long as we return to service, while we collect the crew, the war will end. It'll be over in a day or so.

[mark1969]

There are many who want to support the museum project on this legendary underwater giant. This is very necessary for the education of the next generations.

[Oleg812spb]

I believe that it should be preserved as a monument to the engineers and shipbuilders who created it, as well as to the military who guarded our Motherland on it.

[digger]

Everything is correct. The cruiser has long exhausted its resource and is outdated both morally and technically. Moreover, there cannot be two cruisers with the same name in the fleet at the same time, because the new project 955A Borey-A cruiser Dmitry Donskoy has ALREADY been laid down in 2021 and, according to the plan, will enter service in 3 years in 2026. So it's all feng shui.

[former soldier]

Three "Sharks" disposed of not without "help" from the United States

In the early 90s, the Americans first of all "persuaded" the Ukrainians for money to cut the Tu-160 missile carriers, and Russia nuclear submarines. There were also proposals to convert the factories of turbojet engines to the production of bicycles, etc. Benefactors

[Ezekiel 25-17]

It is a pity that he is leaving, but objectively: time ... And a museum would have turned out great from him.

[Rostislav Prokopenko]

LEGEND Gone...
Maybe now he would be visible on all radars, but such power ...
At least he made the "friends" think about the inevitability of a retaliatory strike.