Veteran submariners opposed the disposal of the last "Shark" of the Russian fleet

83
Veteran submariners opposed the disposal of the last "Shark" of the Russian fleet

Heavy nuclear submarine missile cruiser "Dmitry Donskoy" of Project 941 "Akula", withdrawn from service fleet and sent for disposal must be preserved. This initiative was made by veteran submariners during a survey dedicated to Submariner’s Day.

A number of submarine fleet veterans have spoken out against scrapping the world's largest submarine. It is stated that Russia must preserve the nuclear submarine "Dmitry Donskoy" as a high-quality example of Soviet shipbuilding, which is inaccessible to anyone in the world. At the same time, there are different proposals, from turning this submarine into a museum, to returning it to combat service after modernization.



The nuclear submarine "Dmitry Donskoy" must be preserved as a symbol guarding our borders. However, if the TK-208 had undergone modernization, it could continue to carry out military service

- said Rear Admiral Vladimir Dudko, a member of the “Officers of Russia” council, academician of military sciences, adding that the Americans continue to operate the Ohio project submarines, created at the same time as the “Sharks”.

Member of the presidium of the all-Russian organization "Officers of Russia", ex-commander of the submarine cruiser "Tomsk", captain of the first rank of the reserve Vyacheslav Chernous, also stated that it is too early to write off the "Dmitry Donskoy". According to him, although it is clearer on the ground, he would still consider the option of upgrading the latest Akula for hypersonic Zircons. Veteran submariner Viktor Zima also supported him.

Let us recall that the Dmitry Donskoy was withdrawn from the fleet at the beginning of 2023 and sent to await disposal. The reason given was the depletion of the reactor core and 40 years of service. Recharging the reactor was considered impractical due to its high cost. Currently, the nuclear submarine is located on the territory of the naval base in Severodvinsk along with two more submarines of this project, which have actually already grown 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.
83 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    20 March 2024 07: 27
    The project is, of course, a grandiose one, but even turning a boat into a museum requires a lot of money, but I would like it...
    1. +27
      20 March 2024 07: 49
      Quote: South Ukrainian
      The project is, of course, a grandiose one, but even turning a boat into a museum requires a lot of money, but I would like it...

      "What about... is lost in heaps - can't be returned in crumbs..."
      That's what my grandfather told me. There is money for many much more stupid things, but preserving memory is “economically unfeasible”? People of my generation don’t need it - we already remember and know. This is necessary for those who are 10 years old now and who will be 30 in 10 years.
      We grew up with a symbol - we had the cruiser Aurora. They made cartoons, drew them on postcards, sang a song in chorus at school... What, what symbol is there now? Is it enough that only cadets of naval schools know about its existence?
      If only we could chop off a small piece from some “national project”, we wouldn’t be poorer. For a good cause...
      1. -3
        20 March 2024 10: 37
        Recharging the reactor is considered impractical due to high cost

        ...well, yes, it’s better to build a new one, and throw this one in the trash, like the Aurora
        1. +10
          20 March 2024 11: 12
          The current government needs to saw up and destroy everything Soviet, so that no one remembers, sees or understands what the great power of the USSR could do, like they cut up the Orlan missile cruisers, cut up the Lyra nuclear submarine, sold Soviet aircraft-carrying cruisers to the Chinese. After all, if museums had been made from Soviet ships, no one would have believed the nonsense that the USSR could only make galoshes.
          For the same reason, our new aircraft are not continuations of the familiar and legendary Soviet Tu, Il or Yak, but rather sets of letters such as Superjet or MS-21. Why not produce the Superjet and MC-21 under the Tupolev brand, which is not much younger than Boeing and is known all over the world? But no, this is Soviet and Soviet must be erased from memory!
          1. +3
            20 March 2024 12: 24
            "...cut, Shura, cut. They are golden" - so they cut the budget.
            ...joysticks instead of steering wheels, engines from behind the hill.
          2. +1
            21 March 2024 04: 24
            MS-21 was originally designated Yak-242.
            Well, then it was “worthy” to call him a newfangled name.
          3. -1
            21 March 2024 09: 11
            ...sarcasm is not understood, the level of intelligence of the locals is off the charts...
            I mean that under Lena, so much money was poured into the project of the “new” Aurora in order to replace everything, including the “golden” latrines. Sea trials were carried out, but all that was needed was... to fire from the tank, as in 1917
          4. 0
            21 March 2024 18: 59
            The current government needs to saw up and destroy everything Soviet, so that no one remembers, sees or understands what the great power of the USSR could do

            I’ll just add a couple of quotes from all of us from the “dearly loved and respected once again in quotation marks” “great Russian philosopher”,” who is so often quoted by many:
            for example, “Socialism is by its very nature envious, totalitarian and terrorist; and communism differs from it only in that it displays these features openly, shamelessly and ferociously”... Or, even more remarkable: “... the European peoples must understand that Bolshevism is a real and fierce danger; that democracy is a creative dead end; that Marxist socialism is a doomed chimera...”
            The question is, what do you want from people who profess similar views? There is only one thing - to quickly erase and reboot human memory. Only one and a half generations will die out and only bloody Stalin and galoshes will remain.
        2. +3
          20 March 2024 16: 27
          Quote from Egeni
          Recharging the reactor is considered impractical due to high cost

          ...well, yes, it’s better to build a new one, and throw this one in the trash, like the Aurora

          But I don’t believe that it is cheaper to dispose of the Akula than to modernize it.
          I think that someone else’s or a careless hand signed the decision to dismantle the cruiser.
          All three cruisers should be modernized and put into service!
          I don’t believe that building a new Yasen or Borey is cheaper than upgrading the Akula
          1. +4
            20 March 2024 19: 30
            All three cruisers should be modernized and put into service!

            Unfortunately, at Arkhangelsk and Severstal, commissioned in 1987 and 1989, respectively, on the orders of the Americans, the covers of the shafts of the durable hull were cut off so that it was impossible to restore them. And yes, despite the fact that these are the largest boats in the world, these catamaran boats were created specifically for polar latitudes and they were the most survivable submarines in history.
            And yes, in today’s situation of increased threat of war with NATO, the right thing to do would be to repair Donskoy and return to service.
            1. +3
              20 March 2024 20: 30
              Vasya, nothing is impossible. Maybe there will be craftsmen from the Russian land. As Vysotsky sang: “... comrade scientists, associate professors and candidates, since things are not going well for you...” will restore the submarine.
            2. +3
              20 March 2024 22: 07
              Are these covers impossible to restore?
              1. 0
                21 March 2024 20: 10
                Are these covers impossible to restore?

                The Americans knew what they were doing and their lackeys diligently helped them. Therefore, these boats can no longer be restored; in addition to the mine hatches, it is quite possible that other things were damaged.
                I remember on Soviet aircraft-carrying cruisers, which were not even 10 years old, American hacks in admiral's stripes sawed through the shaft lines, which cannot be restored, so that there would be no temptation to restore them, but then during the struggle there was a drunk.
            3. +2
              21 March 2024 04: 51
              Quote: ramzay21
              in today's situation of increased threat of war with NATO, the correct thing to do would be to repair Donskoy and return to service.

              Even if such a decision to modernize these or only the Donskoy were made, in terms of repair and modernization time (5-7 years and no less in our realities), we would not gain anything, and after this time we would receive a submarine with a residual life of years 15...well, even 20 years if you try really hard. But at what PRICE?
              The price is even higher than the construction of the new Borey. Because thanks to the long series of Boriya today it costs us 480 - 490 million dollars. (I’ll be in them), and the first ones were 550 million dollars each. So think about what is better for us in these 5-7 years, to build a new SSBN or SSGN with a service life of 35+ years, or for even more money an awkward (but very beautiful and impressive) old SSBN, for which there are not even corresponding missiles. And if you install "Bulava", then you will have to carry additional ballast with you for the weight of all these 20 missiles ("Bulava" is 2+ times lighter than what was there before). And if someone suggests stuffing “Zircons” there (up to 7 pieces in each shaft), then... where will you send this colossus with “Zircons”?? It was created for the Arctic - to carry out duty under the ice. Or do you believe that such a giant can sneak into the Atlantic unnoticed??
              But for Memory, as a Symbol of the Greatness of the Country killed by traitors... this is YES! But in the North it cannot be left in this capacity - it will have to be heated for more than six months (8 months), and there are... few tourists there. It would be nice to drag it to St. Petersburg and put it there. Connect to an external network, organize a themed hotel there (it’s huge), a themed restaurant... there’s already a sauna with a swimming pool there. . Well, organize classes for cadets and Nakhimov students there. And the onlookers will not even be in crowds, but in herds, swirling around looking at such a Miracle.
              But this is an idea for peacetime.


              And in the face of the threat of a global War with the Global West, it is necessary to accelerate the completion of already laid down submarines, the repair and modernization of those under repair and modernization, and to leave in service all five remaining Dolphins with the Liner and Sineva SLBMs on board. And after the laying of the 12th “Borey-A”, continue laying these submarines as SSGNs - as a carrier of “Zircons” (up to 80 pcs.) or “Calibers” (112 pcs. only in launch cups). Build them at the maximum possible pace, not only for independent missions, but also to strengthen our KUGs with their arsenal, equal to the arsenal of the Admiral Nakhimov and even exceeding it. 12 of these Boreev-Ks need to be built. (6 pieces each for Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet). And think about the inexpensive but numerous MAPL series. We will need 24 of these in the series. Because the “Yasen” is not a MAPL, but quite a SSGN, but very expensive and insufficiently armed.
              1. 0
                21 March 2024 09: 01
                ...maybe you are right, but how can we drag this “shark” into the Neva and place it next to the “Aurora”?
                1. +1
                  21 March 2024 17: 09
                  Quote from Egeni
                  But how can we drag this “shark” into the Neva and place it next to the “Aurora”?

                  It's complicated . Very difficult . It will have to be towed after the dismantling of the reactors around Norway and all of Scandinavia from the Barents Sea to the Baltic Sea, the Gulf of Finland and there... She has nothing to do near Aurora, and she shouldn’t be left afloat. If there is any old dock, you can go to it... All this is not cheap and not easy, but it’s definitely worth it.
                  Only after the Victory we will do this, now there is no time for that.
                  And if anyone’s little hands are itching for disposal, let them dispose of the other two “Sharks”, since they have opened the mine hatches there. And let “Donskoy” wait for a better time to play the role of a monument in St. Petersburg. Now there are enough other worries.
            4. 0
              21 March 2024 17: 47
              In the USSR, as in Russia, the impossible should not be possible.
          2. 0
            20 March 2024 20: 24
            ... I’m talking about the same thing, if only there was the will.
            1. 0
              21 March 2024 19: 38
              ...and what was deleted? I should know my colonels... sorry, fans
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. -1
          21 March 2024 09: 11
          Quote from Egeni
          Recharging the reactor is considered impractical due to high cost

          ...well, yes, it’s better to build a new one, and throw this one in the trash, like the Aurora

          you should stop blowing winds into puddles...
          1. 0
            21 March 2024 09: 12
            ...sarcasm is not understood, the level of intelligence is off the charts...
            I mean that under Lena, so much money was poured into the project of the “new” Aurora in order to replace everything, including the “golden” latrines. Sea trials were carried out, but all that was needed was... to fire from the tank gun, like in 1917
    2. +29
      20 March 2024 07: 58
      Funds for converting the Shark into a museum of the Russian submarine fleet are needed no more than for the construction of some kind of temple, but money is found for them...
      You can also announce a nationwide fundraiser...
      1. +6
        20 March 2024 11: 17
        If you take the reactor out of the Shark and transfer it to St. Petersburg and make a museum, then it won’t be much more expensive than just sawing it up. But standing at the pier in St. Petersburg, she will earn a lot of money, which will return all costs and cover the costs of her maintenance.
        But the boat will be sawn apart. Because, firstly, the money for cutting will go to respected people and they settled everything, and secondly, the authorities do not need the memory that the USSR could make not only galoshes, but also such a miracle! This is not the Yeltsin Center!
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. +3
          21 March 2024 03: 36
          Quote: ramzay21
          the authorities do not need the memory that the USSR could make not only galoshes, but also such a miracle! This is not the Yeltsin Center!

          What has been asking for disposal for a long time is the Yeltsin Center.
        3. 0
          21 March 2024 19: 48
          Question.. How safe is this boat as a museum for tourists? Will there be a lot of noise?
      2. -2
        20 March 2024 20: 26
        Quote: assault

        Funds for converting the Shark into a museum of the Russian submarine fleet are needed no more than for the construction of some kind of temple, but money is found for them...

        I agree with you. But if you follow this logic, then we will soon convert all the ships into museums. Isn't it too much?
    3. +10
      20 March 2024 08: 13
      The project is, of course, a grandiose one, but even turning a boat into a museum requires a lot of money, but I would like it...

      It's not a sin to spend money on it. Descendants should know about the achievements of the USSR and be proud of them. The nuclear submarine "Dmitry Donskoy" is a worthy symbol of the power of Russia. Something to be proud of
      1. 0
        21 March 2024 11: 26
        It's not a sin to spend money on it. Descendants should know about the achievements of the USSR and be proud of them. The nuclear submarine "Dmitry Donskoy" is a worthy symbol of the power of Russia. Something to be proud of
        It’s not a sin to spend money, and I would retire from retirement so that my descendants would walk around gaping in amazement at the accomplishments of their ancestors... But that’s what we think, but the Kremlin doesn’t think so, they told you, they didn’t do anything except galoshes, but here such a colossus with a 12-story building... It turns out to be a problem, dear Guarantor. That's why they erase the memory of the Red Empire
    4. -8
      20 March 2024 09: 25
      The problem with Sharks is their size. It is unlikely that something like this can be turned into a museum, or rather delivered to the place where the museum will be installed. It was a great ride from the first nuclear submarine, but even there it was “on the thin side”.
      And a complete modernization of a 40-year-old hull will be more expensive than a new submarine cruiser. There is no particular meaning, other than nostalgic.
      1. +6
        20 March 2024 11: 25
        The problem with Sharks is their size. It is unlikely that something like this can be turned into a museum, or rather delivered to the place where the museum will be installed.

        That is, for the sake of the parade, it was possible to drag this same Donskoy to St. Petersburg, but it was no longer possible to take out the reactor and drag the same boat to the same St. Petersburg? Maybe the people should be asked to spend money on maintaining the Yeltsin Center, for which there is money, or to turn the Shark into a museum? I think that the answer is obvious, and such a museum will bring in much more money than the museum of a drunkard traitor.
        1. +1
          20 March 2024 12: 02
          And what does the Yeltsin Center have to do with it? It is not in the context of the discussion. If I was all hands and feet behind the museum from the first nuclear submarine, then the Shark is already too expensive. In St. Petersburg there is an Aurora and a nuclear submarine, where and how to drive the Shark? At one time it made sense to make a museum out of the Lyra, it is the second most historically significant (my personal opinion, mainly from the point of view of the history of technology), but everything was cut up for nothing.
          1. +3
            20 March 2024 22: 09
            "Bargaining is inappropriate in this case"
    5. 0
      20 March 2024 11: 00
      Considerable funds. But the veterans will chip in to organize the museum. Today government funds are needed for other things, and veterans understand this very well.
      1. +4
        20 March 2024 11: 31
        For example, for the maintenance of the Yeltsin Center?
        1. +2
          21 March 2024 03: 40
          Quote: ramzay21
          For example, for the maintenance of the Yeltsin Center?

          Not only. Here’s an article next door where 1,7 trillion rubles went to migrants and their families.

          This vividly reminded me of France, where tens of billions of euros are spent on migrants every year, and when Napoleon’s tomb needed repairs, the state had no money. Concerned people gathered all over France and declared as much as they could.
    6. 0
      22 March 2024 07: 09
      For a project on forts for someone’s daughter, more than 4 billion were found without straining.
  2. +13
    20 March 2024 07: 27
    They really could have left it as a museum. A most monumental project.
  3. +14
    20 March 2024 07: 40
    Now is not the time to cut up ships.
    The core is exhausted, but it is not cold.
    As a launching pad, even now it’s the best.
    Let's sort out Ukraine, then we'll see what to do.
    1. -5
      20 March 2024 07: 48
      Quote: 75Sergey
      As a launching pad, even now it’s the best.

      Launch pad for what? These missiles are not in service. Is the crew already ready and waiting on the pier? Is the replacement crew undergoing retraining?
      Nobody knows these boats in the fleet anymore! Those people from their crews are no longer on the crew. Well, think wisely before you say...
      1. +7
        20 March 2024 07: 58
        What were you thinking when following the lead of the mattress makers? Create such power and bury it in the ground? Isn't this mismanagement? You shouldn't be doing that!
        1. +7
          20 March 2024 08: 12
          Quote: SEVERIN
          What were you thinking when following the lead of the mattress makers?

          The mattress makers were the first to want us to dispose of these boats, not the older ones that remained. The fact that the R-39 was not produced here is a strange excuse; it is a solid-fuel missile, which has a longer shelf life, there was a supply of these missiles, plus from the arsenal of the first two cut up boats. Finally, the diameter of the shafts is large, not small, into which inserts could be made, either for the Bulava or for other missiles. The Americans on "Ohio" were not too lazy to do this under the Kyrgyz Republic.
          Project 941 was intended for duty under the polar cap; the boat has excellent autonomy and comfort for the crew.
    2. +10
      20 March 2024 07: 52
      An example should be taken from the Americans - they do not scrap a single aircraft - they store everything just in case. And there are cases when equipment is removed from its pedestals and sent into battle.
      1. +2
        20 March 2024 07: 56
        I can’t imagine how to mothball and then re-mothball such a boat in 10-15 years, so that it would be cheaper than at least a major overhaul.
      2. 0
        20 March 2024 19: 40
        The Americans have a convenient deserted desert for their planes, where they stand for decades without shelter in dry air and do not deteriorate.
  4. +14
    20 March 2024 07: 41
    I think that the interested parties have already divided the profits from the disposal. So the ship is doomed. We will not have a monument to the brilliant work of the peoples of the USSR. The pygmies won't give it.
  5. -6
    20 March 2024 07: 42
    Are “Russian officers” ready to rent this ship and maintain it themselves?
    In conditions when fleet losses amount to billions and tens of billions, such a step would look like real concern for the fleet, and not “because it’s a pity.”
    It's a pity. I'm sorry too. My “Stormy” is being cut up this year, I can’t tell you how sad it is. But I don’t make a groan.
    1. +1
      20 March 2024 08: 20
      This is exactly how the pygmies reason.
    2. +3
      20 March 2024 08: 27
      Andrey, I agree completely. Let’s start with where to put “Dmitry Donskoy” so that the excursions pay for its maintenance? Maybe it would be better to build "Ash" or "Borey" with this money. To make it not so sad, humor comes from the submarine of the Northern Fleet.
      1. 0
        20 March 2024 09: 17
        Let's start with where to put "Dmitry Donskoy" so that excursions will pay for its maintenance?
        ...as where....in Leningrad....Aurora has been standing and not asking to eat for like 100 years, so...painting, cleaning and that's it...and Typhoon to boot...yes, this is a museum Eldorado there will be... oh, our managers are missing out on such loot... and this loot is on a silver platter
        1. 0
          20 March 2024 17: 12
          How do I speak? QUESTION IS NOT ABOUT SALARY! We need to think bigger - make a museum out of the three remaining boats... only in China! If “brothers for a century” from the unfinished “Varyag” were able to create the flagship of the aircraft carrier fleet, then imagine a division of three “Sharks” in the Pacific Ocean... Yes
          1. Savings on storage and disposal. 2. The proceeds from the sale should be enough for three more new Boreys. hi
  6. +11
    20 March 2024 07: 43
    There is no need to return the Akula to service, it will cost a lot of money, with which you can build several Boreys. And so we spent a lot of money on useless Armatas, Boomerangs, Kurgans, and we are fighting with equipment from the 60s. In addition, the Shark is huge, and is clearly inferior in noise to modern Boreas. But preserving it as a monument-museum is a viable idea.
    1. +4
      20 March 2024 08: 25
      For example, I would specifically go to look at this grandiose miracle of technology. Even though I’m several thousand kilometers away from any port.
  7. UVB
    +5
    20 March 2024 07: 43
    I don’t understand why much newer boats were scrapped or laid up, while the lead boat served the longest. If not sabotage, then what should we call it?
    1. +2
      20 March 2024 07: 57
      Were the shafts cut so that they could be seen from a satellite? The logical train of thought should be reproduced in the appropriate series below, nothing new, and we will survive this...
  8. +8
    20 March 2024 07: 47
    Project 941 was an attempt at the end of the USSR to open a new era in the submarine fleet.
    Of course, the achievements are fantastic, but the costs were also enormous. And disposal will cost a pretty penny. So further use should be considered.
    As a combat unit, the project is, of course, already outdated. So in my opinion there are two ways:
    - ocean-going self-propelled platform for space launches from the equator;
    - a museum with simulators demonstrating the combat work of the RKPSN.
    It would be nice to make the installation of the 406-mm B-37 gun on Rzhevka the same museum object.
    1. +1
      20 March 2024 08: 39
      By the way, the ocean platform could provide a pseudo-reusable launch. If the platform is equipped with appropriate crane equipment, then it would be possible to pick up spent stages from the surface of the ocean, while ensuring their buoyancy.
  9. +6
    20 March 2024 07: 48
    Indeed, those who invested their souls and gave half their lives to this unique submarine are now finding it difficult to come to terms with the fact that it will no longer exist. But if there is no effective engineering solution for its modernization, then it is stupid to put it at risk and risk the lives of future crews.
    If veteran submariners want to keep the boat, then it makes sense to assemble an initiative group and develop a concept for its modernization.
  10. +4
    20 March 2024 07: 49
    Understanding emotions, you still need to include logic. Single copies are more expensive to maintain, and their combat effectiveness is lower. Well, a museum is a museum, that’s a separate question.

    For nuclear submarines, on the contrary, maximum unification is needed. Ideally, the tail and bow are generally the same for all types of boats, and the central part depends on the specialization.
  11. +7
    20 March 2024 07: 54
    Quite a reasonable proposal. I support and vote for him.
    It must be preserved in memory of the power of the Soviet fleet.
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. +6
    20 March 2024 07: 56
    To turn it into a museum, both Americans and Chinese will come in droves to look at such a miracle of technology. The only thing is to close or remove nodes with secret technologies. Let the experts decide which boats to return and which ones to make into a museum.
  14. +2
    20 March 2024 07: 58
    Hospadi, well, do it like with the Aurora, include it in the fleet as a “non-self-propelled rack-mounted vessel.” Lead excursions, tourists, film films. No matter how much money it will bring. In St. Petersburg :)
    Or like the Japanese did with Mikasa. They concreted it on the shore.
  15. +10
    20 March 2024 08: 02
    The current ones would rather build another Yeltsin Center or Chubais-Nano than worry about the fate of some kind of submarine, and even a Soviet one, reminiscent of the terrible times of totalitarianism, when there was no ts̶v̶e̶t̶o̶v̶o̶y̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶ts ̶а̶ц̶и̶и̶ ̶ш̶т̶а̶н̶о̶в̶ separation between rich and poor, and the Soviet government did not steal, but she worked for the Soviet people. Moreover, during recycling you can put it in your pocket quite a lot.
  16. 0
    20 March 2024 08: 02
    Oh, how we lack modern things... And the “platform crisis” has not been canceled.
  17. +6
    20 March 2024 08: 07
    Americans treasure their Iowas. In this sense, we have a lot to learn from them.
  18. +1
    20 March 2024 08: 21
    The museum is a good thing: let it be.
  19. -1
    20 March 2024 08: 21
    Instead of pouring budget money into the island of forts, replace the active zone
  20. +4
    20 March 2024 08: 38
    Veteran submariners opposed the disposal of the last "Shark" of the Russian fleet
    Now all they have to do is create an initiative group and announce a nationwide collection of signatures in support of creating a museum out of this ship. Such a ship cannot be scrapped.
  21. +3
    20 March 2024 08: 38
    At the same time, there are different proposals, from turning this submarine into a museum, to returning it to combat service after modernization.

    This giant is not suitable as a combat unit. Too noticeable and cumbersome, requiring multiple options for deployment sites if the main site is destroyed. As a museum of the submarine fleet - yes, but there is an option to use it as a scientific platform. Remove all military equipment, install scientific equipment, including the bathyscaphe, reduce the depth of the dive and send them to study the oceanic expanses covered with ice. feel
  22. +2
    20 March 2024 08: 45
    It would be nice to put it as a museum somewhere in Sevastopol. So that it attracts tourists. Over there in the states, battleships are used as museums.
  23. +2
    20 March 2024 09: 24
    .Aurora stands and doesn’t ask to eat for 100 years, so...painting, cleaning and that’s it...and Typhoon to boot...yes, this will be a museum Eldorado...oh, our managers are missing out on such money...and this is the loot on a silver platter.... and even if the Lyra (according to Alpha) of Project 705 was not all sawn off... then the Bombay museum would be... akin to a Muslim Mecca
    1. 0
      21 March 2024 12: 41
      The Aurora that we have now is not original. In the 80s it was completely redone, this is a remake. Not surprising. In 1941, the Nazis still sank it, although before the sinking they managed to remove the 152 mm guns from Aurora and this battery managed to shed a lot of blood on the shore to the barbarians.
  24. +3
    20 March 2024 09: 26
    Veteran submariners opposed the disposal of the last "Shark" of the Russian fleet


    I just want to ask how they sell it in metal? - who is “warming their hands” on this?
    and regarding the lack of funds (how many of them are needed to disassemble it, have you thought?) to turn it into a museum - so contact Ksyusha, who is Shoigu - she has a significant budget from the Russian Defense Ministry - maybe she can help?
  25. +3
    20 March 2024 10: 47
    It is stated that Russia must preserve the nuclear submarine "Dmitry Donskoy" as a high-quality example of Soviet shipbuilding, which is inaccessible to anyone in the world. At the same time, there are different proposals, from turning this submarine into a museum, to returning it to combat service after modernization.

    Yeah, so that those who are now at the helm of shipbuilding and not only make this an eyesore, pointing a finger at them as their grandfathers could, but they are hands-on. They'll cut it up, of course, out of sight and out of mind.
    1. 0
      20 March 2024 13: 13
      In general, things are going well at Sevmash, so there won’t be much reproach. They build quite decently and a lot. And the fact that managers are fussing is a tribute to the times. Previously, party organizers of all stripes prevailed.
  26. +1
    20 March 2024 22: 03
    Definitely a museum, otherwise you'll regret it later
  27. +1
    20 March 2024 23: 23
    Durable cases are made of titanium alloys.
    Projects of submarines with hulls made of titanium alloys
    661 “Anchar” 685 “Fin” 705(K) “Lyra” 865 “Piranha” ⁠941 "Shark" 945 "Barracuda" 945A "Condor" 945B "Mars"
    They are distinguished by the widespread use of titanium alloys in the design, as a result of which the housings have virtually no restrictions on the calendar service life.
    .............The issue of ensuring the possibility of long-term presence of our submarines at increased (from normal) depths - to ensure secrecy from new search engines - arises extremely urgently.
    And this is where titanium hulls with a much longer resource get a decisive advantage over steel ones.
    The issue of detecting submarines was discussed in detail in the article “Detecting a Submarine”, and the importance of a large immersion depth as a means of ensuring secrecy was discussed in the article “Plavnik”/“Komsomolets” - a mistake or a breakthrough into the 21st century.”
    ......TK-13 of project 941 "Shark" was disposed of in 2008-2009 within the framework of the Global Partnership programs....Funding with the participation of the USA and Canada within the framework of the Global Partnership and Cooperative Threat Reduction programs .

    Five “sharks” at their base in Zapadnaya Litsa (Nerpichya Bay). The sixth nuclear submarine is obviously in combat service.
  28. +1
    21 March 2024 00: 06
    So recycling costs a lot of money! What is the urgency of cutting it down during the Northern Military District, when a lot of funds are required for the Army? Let it stand for now, and then you can think about the museum...
  29. +2
    21 March 2024 02: 51
    Why the hell are we in a hurry? We don't have enough metal for needles? So, why do we cut up boats? We allocated a reactor - and okay. We'll decide on the rest later. And so the questions are through the roof...
  30. -1
    21 March 2024 10: 44
    Quote: ramzay21
    All three cruisers should be modernized and put into service!

    Unfortunately, at Arkhangelsk and Severstal, commissioned in 1987 and 1989, respectively, on the orders of the Americans, the covers of the shafts of the durable hull were cut off so that it was impossible to restore them. And yes, despite the fact that these are the largest boats in the world, these catamaran boats were created specifically for polar latitudes and they were the most survivable submarines in history.
    And yes, in today’s situation of increased threat of war with NATO, the right thing to do would be to repair Donskoy and return to service.

    Severstal went on a military campaign in 2004, there was also a Discovery program about this, so it’s good to tell fairy tales
  31. 0
    21 March 2024 12: 25
    There is no modernization anymore... But to preserve it as a museum - yes! You can't cut such masterpieces. We need to think about where to actually put it. Murmansk? Kronstadt? Arkhangelsk? There may not be any depth to Kronstadt. Disposal also costs money, but there will be nothing left after it.
  32. +1
    21 March 2024 17: 31
    With good repairs they will last a long time.
  33. +1
    21 March 2024 18: 15
    Eptmed, comments of mature men, or youths, need to be divided. In everyday life there is an opinion (bull tail - rope). The fleet should be modernized. Peter-Kamchatsky-50. r.s. (welder).
  34. 0
    22 March 2024 02: 02
    What the hell is modernization?
    We cannot modernize the 949s and 971s. All deadlines were missed 10 times.