Hard fate "Sharks"

97
In the fall of 2011, reports appeared in the domestic media that, by 2014, it was planned to decommission and dispose of all the remaining nuclear submarines of Project 941 Shark. The next day, officials from the Department of Defense denied this information. As it turned out, in the coming years, these submarines will remain fleet. Since then, from time to time, new messages have been received about the fate of the Sharks. First of all, the possible modernization of these boats is called. However, repair and re-equipment of "Sharks" are sometimes called inappropriate, because only three such boats remained in service. But in the early eighties, the Soviet Union was going to build ten submarines of project 941. Why, instead of the top ten largest submarines in the world, our country now has only three?



When in the CDB MT "Rubin" under the leadership of S.N. Kovalev began the development of the project 941, the command of the fleet could make quite bold wishes. According to some sources, the possibility of building a series of twelve new submarines was seriously considered. Obviously, for economic reasons, it was subsequently reduced to ten ships. Despite this reduction, the mid-seventies, when the project was created, can be called one of the best periods in stories domestic navy. Therefore, from the issuance of tactical and technical tasks to bookmark head "Shark" it took only three and a half years. Four years later, the first boat of the TK-208 project left the stocks and in December 1981 of the year was put into operation. Thus, the creation of the head of the submarine took about nine years.

Before 1986-87, seven submarines of the 941 project had time to be laid at the Sevmash plant in Severodvinsk. However, the problems began in 1988. Due to a number of financial and political problems, the seventh submarine, ready for 35-40 percent, was cut into metal. The last three boats of the series generally remained at the preliminary preparation stage for construction. The country has begun restructuring and financing of defense projects has declined significantly. In addition, the former (?) Probable adversary, who was directly interested in the absence of such equipment, found out about the new submarines.

It is worth noting that the United States had a strong reason to fear “Sharks”. The boats of the 941 project were the largest submarines in the world and carried solid armament. The original design of the boat with two main robust hulls located at a distance from each other, allowed to enter into the light hull contours two dozen missile silos of the D-19 complex with the Р-39 missiles. Record large size project boats 941 were due to the dimensions of the missiles. P-39 had a length of 16 meters and simply did not fit on the submarines of the old design like the later versions of the project 667. At the same time, the increase in the size of the boat made it possible to place comfortable cabins and crew cabins on it, a small room for rest, a gym, a swimming pool and even a sauna.

In both of the main robust shells, one OK-650BB type reactor was installed with a thermal capacity of up to 190 MW. Two steam turbine units with turbo-gear units had a total capacity of up to 90-100 thousand horsepower. Thanks to this power plant, the 941 project boat with a displacement of 23-28 (surface) or 48-50 thousand tons (underwater) can move under water at speeds up to 25-27 nodes. The maximum depth of immersion 450-500 meters, autonomy - up to 120 day.

The main payload "Shark" were ballistic missiles P-39. These three-stage solid propellant munitions could fly over a range of about 8200-8500 kilometers and deliver ten warheads with targets, according to various sources, from 100 to 200 kilotons. In combination with unlimited navigation range and relatively low noise of the boat carrier, the P-39 rocket provided the 941 submarines with high combat performance. It is worth noting that the P-39 missiles were not very convenient to use. Problems with them were connected, first of all, with weight and size parameters. With a length of 16 meters and a diameter of 2 meters rocket with units of the so-called. depreciation rocket-launch system (ARSS) weighed about 90 tons. After the launch, the P-39 got rid of six tons of APSS weight. However, despite such a mass and size, the P-39 rocket was considered serviceable and put into production.

In general, a potential opponent had every reason to be afraid. In 1987, there was a new reason for concern. The Soviet Union decided to modernize all the existing "Sharks" in accordance with the project XNUMHUTTH. Its main difference from the basic project was the use of upgraded P-941UTTH missiles. Before the collapse of the USSR, at Sevmash, they managed to modify only one project head boat, TK-39. Other submarines were not modernized - there was simply no money for it. In the future, the lack of money constantly affected the fate of "Sharks", and only in a negative way.

According to some sources, maintaining one “Shark” in combat-worthy condition cost 1,5-2 times more than operating boats of the 667BDRM project. In addition, in the late eighties and early nineties, the leadership of our country was ready to make various concessions in international negotiations, including those that were obviously unfavorable for their own defenses. As a result of consultations with, as they then began to speak, foreign partners completely forgot about the construction of the seventh submarine of the series, and decided to write off half of the manufactured ones gradually and dispose of them. In addition, in the early nineties, the production of P-39 missiles ceased. Submarines risk being left without their main weapons.



Due to the lack of funding for the 941 project boat, almost all the time they stood at the quays without any hope of going on the march. The submarine cruiser TK-202 was the first of the fleet combat fleet. Disposal was delayed: instead of the planned start in 1997, work began only in 1999. Cutting "on needles" was completed by the middle of the two thousandth. In 1997-98, two other boats, the TK-12 and TK-13, were excluded from the fleet's combat strength. They stood at berths for a very long time, and at the beginning of the two thousand years there was hope for their return. Considered the option to return to service boats TK-12. In addition, she was to receive the name "Simbirsk", since the administration of the city of Ulyanovsk expressed a desire to take patronage over her. But these proposals are not realized. In 2004, the United States achieved the beginning of the disposal of the boat. The contract for the destruction of the last submarine TK-13 was signed in 2007 year. A few months later, work began.

As you can see, the “foreign partners” still managed to push through the solution that was beneficial for them. The importance of destroying “Sharks” is perfectly illustrated by the fact that around 75-80% of the costs for the disposal of boats were paid by the United States and NATO. In total, they spent about 25 millions of dollars. Probably due to the danger of Soviet and Russian submarines, they were ready to once again lay out such amounts for disposing of the remaining Russian submarines, including other projects.

A quite fair question may arise: why did not the Russian leadership break the agreement on the joint destruction of unique boats? There are reasons for this. During the first years, our country simply did not have the opportunity to fully maintain all six submarines. Without proper care, nuclear power plants could cause colossal environmental disasters. Later, at the beginning of the two thousandth years, money appeared, but at the same time another problem manifested itself. By the end of the nineties, the lack of missile production began to be felt. A little later, the ammunition situation acquired a fatal character: in 2005, there were reports that there were only ten P-39 missiles for three submarines. In other words, it was not possible to staff even one submarine.

It is worth noting that the command of the Navy drew attention to this problem in the mid-nineties. In 1998, the modernization of the TK-208 submarine began in accordance with the 941U project (another designation “941М”). Instead of the old launchers on the boat, several new mines were assembled, intended for the use of the Bulava P-30 missiles. The development of this rocket had just begun at that time, but appropriate measures had already been taken for testing and subsequent operation. After repairs, in 2002, the boat TK-208 received the name "Dmitry Donskoy", and from 2003, she began to participate in the tests of the Bulava.

Operation submarine "Dmitry Donskoy" continues to this day. The other two remaining boats were less fortunate: they were not modernized. In 2004, TK-17 “Arkhangelsk” and TK-20 “Severstal” were taken to the reserve. In the autumn of 2001, the boat "Severstal" went on a hike with the aim of conducting two training launches. Together with the sailors, television journalists, who filmed the Russian Shark documentary, set off for the combat training mission. Subsequently, the footage was repeatedly used in various films about record submarines. Ironically, these surveys were the last at the moment in the biography of the boat TK-20.

After memorable statements from an unnamed source from 2011, the situation with the boats of the 941 project was repeatedly the subject of discussion. A couple of months after the official denial news about the write-off, the management of the Sevmash plant confirmed that the Dmitry Donskoy submarine will continue to be used as a pilot for developing technologies and technical solutions intended for promising projects. The further fate of "Arkhangelsk" and "Severstal" was not called then. At the beginning of 2012, the commander-in-chief of the Navy, V. Vysotsky, said that all three submarines available would remain in the fleet and be operated during the following years. The situation with the lack of missiles has not been commented. Since then, there have been no official reports on the further fate of the remaining 941 submarines. Probably due to the lack of any clear prospects, Severstal and Arkhangelsk will remain in the fleet for several more years, and then they will be written off. At least, now nobody is going to upgrade them for the use of P-30 missiles. Probably, the fleet command assessed the possibilities and prospects of such modernization and came to the appropriate conclusions.

Submarines project 941 not lucky to appear in a very difficult period of history. In the midst of their construction, transformations began, eventually turning out to be fatal for the country. It took many more years to eliminate their consequences, and as a result, the Sharks spent most of their lives at the pier. Now, when it is possible to find opportunities for the return of boats to the system, the expediency of this began to raise questions. Despite the record-breaking characteristics of its time, the boats of the 941 project are fairly outdated and you will have to invest as much money in updating them as it would take to create a completely new project. Does this make sense?


On the materials of the sites:
http://flot.com/
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/
http://deepstorm.ru/
http://lenta.ru/
http://ria.ru/
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-578.html


Nerpichya Bay, 2004 year. Reserve. Photo http://ru-submarine.livejournal.com






Hard fate "Sharks"























97 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +17
    12 March 2013 11: 31
    The article is good and the photos are great, thanks to the author.
    But the sublok has a really difficult fate! How much has been lost in some 20 years ...
  2. +10
    12 March 2013 12: 46
    unique boats were of course a pity little served
  3. Sakolik
    +15
    12 March 2013 13: 17
    You look at the first photos, you take pride, you look at the last and sadness is already approaching, but there is always anger at those assholes who shamed the country.
  4. +6
    12 March 2013 13: 34
    Only mass executions will save the motherland !!!!
    1. +2
      12 March 2013 16: 11
      Quote: white_f
      Only mass executions will save the motherland !!!!

      So let’s start with you ..... I’m sure that half of your products from NATO countries and even cars too .... and Mr Putin wears NATO watches and suits with ties ..... and the government generally has NATO sixes .. .... so who to shoot? ..... where to start ??
      1. +8
        12 March 2013 17: 11
        and so we are dying a million a year, and you are talking about mass shootings again, Chikatill divorced a lot on the site ............... you need to give birth to seven or eight children in each family and this will save Russia
        1. -3
          12 March 2013 20: 58
          Rody himself at least ten!
        2. djon3volta
          -3
          12 March 2013 21: 06
          Quote: strannik595
          and so we die out for a million a year

          and that in Russia people are no longer born, they are only dying out?
          per million dead, in Russia at least a million born, why are you silent about this?
          Do you know how many Chinese die each year? More than 9 million, like that.
        3. Nesvet Nezar
          +1
          13 March 2013 07: 58
          7-8 children is overkill. 3 children are enough for the next 20 years. And the rest I agree with you.
          1. Kassandra
            0
            27 January 2015 14: 26
            "seven-i" means 5 children ...
    2. Nesvet Nezar
      0
      13 March 2013 07: 56
      I agree. Those who want to be shot must be shot and then the parasites will disappear ....
  5. +6
    12 March 2013 13: 34
    But they frightened the Americans in the 90s to the utmost. So life is short - but glorious. Maybe thanks to the Sharks, amers did not poke their heads in the 90s, into Russia with the democratization of a'la Yugoslavia.
  6. +7
    12 March 2013 13: 53
    Unsuccessful submarines, the creation of which was justified only by the desire to catch up and overtake. The creation of a submarine with 20 missiles was too weak a counterweight to the US Ohio, which has 24 missiles. At the same time, "Ohio" has a displacement half as much. Hence the loss in noise. Not to mention the cost of operation, this is indicated in the article. So the uniqueness lies only in the catamaran design and size. But the sub is not a residential building, its mission is stealth.
    1. +2
      12 March 2013 14: 01
      minus, minus)))) if you still had arguments ... yes where there ...
      1. +2
        12 March 2013 15: 40
        Less missiles, but warheads?
        1. 0
          12 March 2013 15: 52
          "Trident" - The combat compartment can hold up to 8 W88 warheads with a capacity of 475 kt or up to 14 W76 with a capacity of 100 ct

          R-39 missile - warhead - separable: 10 warheads with individual guidance of 100 kilotons in TNT each.

          At the moment, in accordance with the WWS treaty, missiles in submarines cannot carry more than 8 warheads.
          1. +2
            12 March 2013 19: 56
            If I am not mistaken, the Trident I (1979) could carry up to 8 warheads of 100 Kt each. The total throwable weight is about 1200-1300 kg. R-39 (1982) could carry 10 warheads of 100 (sometimes indicate - 200) Kt., Throwing up to 2500 kg. So, "Shark" could "throw" more than "Ohio", although it was better in energy efficiency (the rocket is 3 times, read, heavier). With the advent of Trident II, the situation changed. The rocket became 2 times heavier and the throw weight increased by about the same amount. The answer should have been "Bark", but did not ...
      2. dv-v
        -4
        13 March 2013 04: 57
        minus blooms, spawning unfamiliar with elementary physics with mathematics - no uniqueness with engineering ingenuity does not justify the simple fact that the modern mace for the most part does not exceed the second trident, thirty years ago, and the p-52 was so monstrous that it was for the decision to build under her carrier wants to be judged as a sabotage against the Soviet eco-economy and the people.
        1. dv-v
          +1
          13 March 2013 07: 20
          the engine that was here ... the 39th, of course, the 52nd is brilliant.
    2. +5
      12 March 2013 16: 59
      This is the first boat in which people thought. Why destroy the corps is not clear. There were proposals to use, as submarine tankers, for the Northern delivery, the Platform for launching the LV from the equator. Platforms for research and drilling. Ditch the universal platform
      1. Misantrop
        +8
        12 March 2013 17: 31
        Quote: Vasya
        This is the first boat in which people thought
        There is a recreation area not only on "Sharks". So is the sauna. And in the pool, the guys often loaded potatoes into an autonomous unit lol The gym in the autonomous region is directly contraindicated. It is for medical reasons. Before that, simulators were on almost all nuclear submarines. As well as training manuals for physical training in an autonomous hike. Until they began to bring corpses from the sea. The Academy of Medical Sciences of the USSR sent a special commission of professors to the north, 14 people. And they went to autonomy, observing and conducting tests and analyzes. According to the results of the work of this commission, all the simulators were dismantled, and the manuals were seized. Sports fans, of course, continued to practice, but already under their own responsibility
    3. Misantrop
      +5
      12 March 2013 17: 23
      Quote: Delta
      the desire to catch up and overtake

      Not this one. Another desire (not outdated so far). It is MANDATORY to get hold of the desire solid fuel rockets, since the "trendsetters" have such. Despite the fact that they are more capricious in operation, more unreliable, more difficult to manage, etc. Given that the Makeev Design Bureau's missiles are much better, more durable and more unpretentious
      1. +5
        12 March 2013 17: 28
        Quote: Misantrop
        have the "trendsetters".

        By the way about fashion, I already raised the question but didn’t get an intelligible answer. Why can’t sharks be re-equipped with cruise missiles similar to Ohio with 150 tamahawks.
        1. Misantrop
          +7
          12 March 2013 17: 59
          Quote: Kars
          Why Sharks Can't Be Rebuilt

          Why not"? Just quite possible. And not only for cruise missiles. There's SO MUCH inside the place that you can even make an underwater large landing craft out of them. There would be desire and money. Although the money is now available, the desire remains.

          By the way, NONE of the sludge nuclear submarines has never created problems with radioactive contamination, and even more so with nuclear safety. So horror stories about a "time bomb" are fables of liberals
  7. DAEDALUS
    +2
    12 March 2013 13: 53
    This car is a huge splinter in the ass of the USA! (Which cannot but rejoice!)
    Kaby did not cut the remaining pieces.
  8. +1
    12 March 2013 14: 19
    In my publication "Ways of development of Russian ballistic missiles of submarines." (Which is still undergoing testing), I raised the issue of Project 941 boats.
  9. Mother russia
    +16
    12 March 2013 14: 28
    UNIQUE SUBMARINE.
    The mere presence of the Project 941 TRPKSN on alert sent fear to the entire US military leadership. And it makes no difference that there are 20 missiles on board versus 24 for Ohio-class submarines - mutual destruction and nuclear parity have not been canceled as a result.
    By the way, guys, are you aware that the RSM-52 missile system installed on these beauties carried 2800 kg (10 MIRVs with a capacity of 200 kilotons each) precisely for a maximum range of 8300 km (according to other sources - 9000 km)? I don’t remember where I read it, but the fact remains that the Trident D2 with a maximum load (the same 5 kg) of eight warheads with a capacity of 2800 kt flew less - by 475 km.
    The maintenance of the project 941 project boats subject to regular combat duty was 300 million rubles at the ruble exchange rate at the beginning of the 2000s. The maintenance of the project 667BDRM boats is 160 million rubles at the same rate.
    But! 667BDRM were modernized, as a result, their service life was increased to 35 years. TRPKSN'ov of project 941 - MODERNIZATION RESERVE MUCH BETTER. If "Ohio" with its steel hull will be in the composition for 42 years (according to the plan), then the modernized "TYPHOONS" could serve for the good of the Fatherland (with timely repairs and modernization, of course) with their durable titanium hulls could serve MUCH MORE. Fortunately, Sergei Nikitich Kovalev (Heavenly Kingdom to him, Eternal Memory) laid a modernization reserve much larger than on all other boats - due to a non-standard scheme.
    The criminal actions of the country's leadership of the 90s of the time of Yeltsin Russia destroyed the fleet. THANKS TO GOD that 3 boats survived.
    I hope that these 3 UNIQUE BEAUTY-CRUISERS WILL BE MODERNIZED AND STAY IN LONG FOR YEARS AT THE SERVICE OF THE FATHERLAND.

    PRIDE FOR THE COUNTRY AND PEOPLE TAKES AN UN DESCRIBABLE !!!

    They knew how to build boats before. Now we need to save the existing boats and build new ones, so as not to lag behind the shit.
    1. 0
      12 March 2013 15: 30
      Quote: Mother Russia
      And it makes no difference that there are 20 missiles on board versus 24 for Ohio-class submarines - nobody canceled mutual destruction and nuclear parity as a result.


      Why then is parity maintained by the number of warheads?))) Let's have ten warheads per hundred American. All the same, mutual destruction is guaranteed.
      1. 0
        12 March 2013 19: 41
        It is more important to have parity in the carriers of the same weapons, the more you have concentrated warheads on one carrier, the greater the danger that a large number of missiles will not fly anywhere.
  10. -2
    12 March 2013 14: 30
    The creation of a boat of this size was a response of backward technologies to the challenge of boats such as OHIO because nothing Typhoons are better than Ohio were not. and the missiles carried 20-on 4-e less than Ohio. displacement was 2 times greater.
    The slogan our microcircuits - the largest in the world - does not roll.
    Cost, maintenance, operation - were exorbitant. The fleet has not in vain refused them.
    And the size here does not matter. Typhoons had a rescue chamber for the entire crew (inflows on the sides of the wheelhouse), why do Amers have no such devices at all?
    Despite the fact that their operating coefficient was 2 times higher (and boats should seem to break more often and their safety should fall)
    Because the Russian Navy did not have a reliable submarine rescue service. therefore, cameras, overweight, double-shells are an old concept - therefore, additional volumes, wetted surfaces, and therefore, but noise.
    Bad steel and alloy technology (as well as welding technology) is therefore an expensive and problematic titanium.
    Of course it sounds beautiful, titanium, catamaran, the largest in the world.
    But for some reason, the steel OGAY was lighter, with a smaller crew, quieter, carried more missiles and was many times more at sea than the best Soviet nuclear submarines.
    I saw Typhoons (father submariner). You can’t imagine this monster. All the other nuclear submarines, especially the drums next to them, seemed like boats. Already then the officers spoke. about the monstrosity of sizes, and by TTX worse than OHIO.
    A boat is not a member, size is not a determining value. In general, the creation of boats of such sizes was, oddly enough, a consequence of the lag of the USSR in the technologies of steel and welding.
    1. 0
      12 March 2013 15: 12
      Mr. Atticus flashed knowledge or decided to educate us, not democratic?
      Cheyt amers in the northern latitudes, in shallow water are written with fear? They do not like to go there, they are prettier to warm seas, as are countries without an SSBN. So, dear man, the glory of America in a banana country, while they need vassals. And in Russia, since it will be necessary - so more Sharks will be released into the ocean. With the biggest chips. It is our concern, not you to tell.
      shl
      Carrot is a big tank, for a small state has exorbitant ambitions, while the elder brother favors.
    2. biglow
      +6
      12 March 2013 15: 25
      atalef,
      if it’s enough to water your country, even though it’s been mud, it’s not ethical, as they used to say in former times ..
    3. Alexander 1958
      +7
      12 March 2013 15: 27
      Quote: atalef
      Bad steel and alloy technology (as well as welding technology) - that's why expensive and problematic titanium

      And it never occurred to you that the amers did not make boats of titanium because they did not have titanium welding technology on an industrial scale? And the firing range is more than almost 1000 km .. And as for the size, the article clearly states that the size of the boat was dictated by the size of the missiles. And also say that dad is a submariner! Although I heard that talents are transmitted through a generation, nature rests on children .. wink
      Alexander 1958
      1. Alexander 1958
        +3
        12 March 2013 15: 41
        for atalef
        By the way, have you already studied historical materials about the role of Stalin in the formation of Israel as a state? If so, can you ask Muscovites to put a couple of carnations at his monument? love otherwise, people will think that the Jews are an ungrateful people .. After all, is this not so?
        Alexander 1958
        1. -1
          12 March 2013 18: 26
          Quote: Alexander 1958
          By the way, have you already studied historical materials about the role of Stalin in the formation of Israel as a state?

          To the same extent as the role of Trotsky in the victory of the October Revolution. Both started for health. finished for rest.
          Quote: Alexander 1958
          to his monument? otherwise, people will think that the Jews are an ungrateful people .. After all, is this not so?

          I owe nothing to Stalin, and I believe that without the October Revolution Russia would be the most powerful state in the world.
          After a very long time all these commies put experiments on the people. , 100 years can not wake up.
          Stalin planted my great-grandfather (like a spy) that he was spying there in his furrier booth in Torzhok — I don’t know what intelligence agent he was. Was activated after 3 of the year of serving (at the construction sites of the north) and safely died after half a year on his return. Leaving my great-grandmother with 4 children.
          \ I owe this .... nothing and he will not wait for the cancellation of flowers.
          1. Alexander 1958
            +2
            12 March 2013 19: 46
            Quote: atalef
            Leaving my great-grandmother with 4 children

            It was a tough time .. and punishment too. ACCEPT MY CONDOLENCES.
            But speaking of the fact that the Jews SHOULD Stalin, I meant the help, both military and material, and intellectual, and by the people that Stalin rendered to the Jewish people, immediately after the declaration of independence of Israel. Help was not only great, but also on time.! And about the repressions of your grandfather, and that grandmother does not know anything? Maybe there was an anonymous letter, or maybe tax evasion or work without a patent? In the United States, and now for such things, you can rattle in jail for a long time ..
            Quote: atalef
            After too long all these commies put experiments on the people. ,

            Among the Communists of the Leninist wave, Jews were the majority, and the vast! The situation changed only after 38 years ..
            By the way, Jews were the majority among the revolutionaries because they were one of the most, if not the most persecuted nationality ..
            .
            Quote: atalef
            Russia would be the most powerful state in the world

            RI was never the first, nor the second, and even more so, the most powerful. Its destiny was to take loans and supply raw materials and cannon fodder for the war. As demonstrated by the Russian-Japanese and PMV. Only the USSR could become the second economy in the world.
            Alexander 1958
            1. -2
              13 March 2013 09: 24
              Quote: Alexander 1958
              I meant to Stalin, that help, both military, material, and intellectual, and by the people that the Stalin gave the Jewish people

              Thank you for this, but the next USSR policy crossed out all the good that Stalin did for Israel. Or do you think that you need to remember only the help of Stalin and you need to close your eyes to everything that the USSR tried to do to destroy Israel?
              Quote: Alexander 1958
              Help was not only great, but also on time.!

              The Soviet Union helped Israel a year or two, and it seems to me that Israel would have managed (but with much greater sacrifices). Assistance to the enemies of Israel continued for 50 years, and I am sure that without the Soviet Union there would have been no Arab-Israeli war ( from 1956 years). Only the instigator of the USSR and the unlimited supply of weapons. specialists and loans - created the prerequisites for the Arabs to start wars. Do you suggest forgetting it?
              Quote: Alexander 1958
              Among the Communists of the Leninist wave, Jews were the majority, and the vast! The situation changed only after 38 year

              Those. (38 years later) after the death of Stalin? laughing Those Jews who staged the October Revolution and participated in the repressions are just like the whole U.S. Bloc and the whole communist gang.

              Quote: Alexander 1958
              RI was never the first, nor the second, and even more so, the most powerful. Its destiny was to take loans and supply raw materials and cannon fodder for the war.

              You have a very low opinion of both Russia and the Russian people. Russia (without the Communists) had all the prerequisites to become the greatest country in the world.
              Quote: Alexander 1958
              Only the USSR could become the second economy in the world.

              It’s ridiculous.
      2. -4
        12 March 2013 18: 20
        Quote: Alexander 1958
        And it never occurred to you that the amers did not make boats of titanium because they did not have titanium welding technology on an industrial scale?

        They did not need it (such grandmothers to shoot). He uses steel in the USSR to provide greater depth of immersion (and to ensure stealth) due to the great noise of the USSR nuclear submarines, they simply were quieter among amers. they did not need titanium to achieve the desired performance characteristics
        Quote: Alexander 1958
        And the firing range is more than almost 1000 km

        What are you talking about ?
        What missiles are we talking about?

        Quote: Alexander 1958
        So the article clearly states that the size of the boat was dictated by the size of the missiles.


        The same monster is still the same
        P-39 - 90 tons, 10 blocks. 8250 KM
        Trident 2 - 53 tons, 14 blocks, 11300 km
        There really is something to compare.
        Quote: Alexander 1958
        And also say that dad is a submariner! Although I heard that talents are transmitted through a generation, nature rests on children ..

        Submariner (KAP 2). Well, it's hard to call him a genius, the same talent. . although the engineer is good, I’ll probably be better. And the father, he is always the father and the children in general should be better than the parents (in any case, I bring up my son)
    4. +2
      12 March 2013 15: 43
      Dear, you don’t understand much in welding technology, otherwise you wouldn’t have given such pearls ..
      1. -1
        12 March 2013 18: 28
        Quote: Firstvanguard
        Dear, you don’t understand much in welding technology, otherwise you wouldn’t have given such pearls ..

        I don’t understand, read Cherkashin (for starters), I think he understands. Based only on the literature on the topic.
    5. +1
      12 March 2013 16: 10
      размер
      Quote: atalef
      A boat is not a member, size is not a determining value.

      It's right. The main thing is not that Typhoon is inferior to Ohio in anything, but that, despite its shortcomings, this boat was a very, very effective means of deterrence.
      1. -3
        12 March 2013 18: 29
        Quote: Alekseev
        despite its shortcomings, this boat was a very, very effective deterrent.

        You can restrain a million slingshots.
        We are talking about the value-return position. And nothing more
        1. Mother russia
          0
          12 March 2013 19: 20
          Let's buy not a million, a billion slingshots - there will be something to defend against every Chinese! This is an amazing deterrent! lol
          1. +1
            13 March 2013 09: 25
            Quote: Mother Russia
            Let's buy not a million, a billion slingshots - there will be something to defend against every Chinese! This is an amazing deterrent!

            Hold a hand, not enough
    6. +5
      12 March 2013 16: 45
      What the hell are you talking about.

      If there was a lag, it was not in welding technology, but in rocket technologies that did not allow making a compact and light heavy-class sea-based missile. Ohio, it might have been better, but for a minute it cost almost a BILLION US dollars at the time of production. If the USSR had resources similar to the USA, then probably domestic boats of this class would be similar to Ohio. But the main thing is that these boats coped with their task of delivering the right amount of missiles to the launch zone.

      And by the way, your dad submariner didn’t tell what color did the officers envy when observing the level of comfort for the crew on the Sharks?
      1. -3
        12 March 2013 18: 34
        Quote: abc_alex
        If there was a lag, it’s not in welding technology,

        And why did they switch to titanium, just like a question. You can also make a huge boat out of steel - it will be cheaper - don’t you?
        Quote: abc_alex
        not allowing to make a compact and light heavy-duty sea-based missile.

        And this is the same.
        Quote: abc_alex
        Ohio, it might have been better, but for a minute it cost almost a BILLION US dollars at the time of production

        Do you think their money? Or do you think a titanium monster is cheaper (I'm not talking at all about the huge number of different types of boats for which it was necessary to draw up a separate project. Technologies, spare parts, crew training), etc. Why are the Amer types of boats much less?
        To take just the cost of the boat is not enough. How much R&D cost for each type and boathouse (the largest in the world) for the construction of only a dozen Typhoons, which the fleet refused after 15 years.
    7. Misantrop
      +6
      12 March 2013 17: 48
      Quote: atalef
      The creation of a boat of this size was a response of backward technologies to the challenge of boats such as OHIO because nothing Typhoons are better than Ohio were not. and the missiles carried 20-on 4-e less than Ohio. displacement was 2 times greater.
      Name one case of firing more than 2 rockets from Ohio. Why was it a pity for money? Or will this super trough crumble into a heap of garbage when trying to fire a volley? Why, after each rocket fire, they go not to the loading pier, but to the factory? The "Sharks" had enough flaws, but there was no need for tales about American "kings of the sea".
      Quote: atalef
      the operating coefficient they had

      Why didn’t you think about it? Do you climb into your car with wrenches, or do you prefer to drive it to the service station, to professionals with tools and stands? And the submarine will be more difficult. But at the same time they got into the plant only for medium repairs or upgrades, all were repaired and serviced by the crew
      Quote: atalef
      Bad steel and alloy technology (as well as welding technology) is therefore an expensive and problematic titanium.
      And with titanium, of course, there are fewer problems lol Rummage through American literature. You will find that combining sea water through microcracks on their submarines "due to the characteristics of the steel used" and does not constitute a defect FOOT. And we at one time could not understand why an American couldn’t drive an American deeper than 100 m with logs, even though he had three times the TTX. But it’s why, it seems ...
      1. 0
        12 March 2013 18: 09
        Quote: Misantrop
        Name at least one case of shooting more than 2 missiles from Ohio. And why, was it a pity for the money?

        The maximum volley of the American Ohio nuclear submarine is the 4 of the Trident-2 missile

        .
        Quote: Misantrop
        And why do they after each missile firing go not to the loading pier, but to the factory?

        Probably because the nuclear submarines in case of war are not intended for volley, going home. reloads and another volley. Waste of money, don’t you?
        Quote: Misantrop
        "Sharks" had enough flaws, but no tales about American "kings of the sea" are needed.

        So we are talking about the flaws. and why if they are so successful (in your 0 fleet refused them? But this project is much younger than Ohio. and they still run? Your answer.
        Quote: Misantrop
        And the submarine will be more difficult. But at the same time they got into the plant only for medium repairs or upgrades, all were repaired and serviced by the crew

        Empty excuses. the boat should be at sea as long as possible, for this they keep 2 crews. The larger the boat at sea. the less you need them, this determines the coefficient of operational voltage.
        In 1967, the Navy Commander-in-Chief introduced a schedule for the cyclic use of nuclear submarines. Alas, this schedule was not fulfilled without proper theoretical justification and without the necessary tactical calculations, which did not take into account the real ship repair capabilities of the plants. Instead of the operational voltage coefficient (KOH) of 0,57, we hardly pulled out 0,23, while among the Americans it was equal to 0,68. This meant that in our combat service there were constantly 8-9 missile carriers, and the Americans had 24.

        those. to maintain parity, the USSR should have had in 3 times the number of nuclear submarines (at KOH 0.23), for an equal number of nuclear submarines in the sea
        There was no need to repair the crews. The crew should rest. and repaired by ship repair specialists.
        Quote: Misantrop
        And with titanium, of course, there are fewer problems

        Titanium - read the problems of electrochemical reactions of titanium in contact with other metals. and when titanium is saturated with hydrogen.
        1. GP
          GP
          +1
          12 March 2013 19: 12
          Quote: atalef
          Probably because the nuclear submarines in case of war are not intended for volley, going home. reloads and another volley. Waste of money, don’t you?

          Explain how is it?

          A volley of a dozen rockets with a dozen vigorous bars on each in case of war is a waste of money ?! This is, if you estimate, a stone age for a state.
          1. -1
            13 March 2013 09: 33
            Quote: Misantrop
            And why, after each rocket fire, they go not to the loading pier, but to the factory? "Sharks" had enough flaws, but no tales about American "kings of the sea" are needed.

            That. that after launch the boat goes to the repair plant, and not to rockets to the pier - I see neither a disadvantage nor an advantage in this. The nuclear submarine is a disposable weapon (during the war) and invest in the possibility of reloading it at the pier, rather than on a rem. factory - no great dignity. You better answer why, with all this, Amerov’s nuclear submarines broke down by an order of magnitude less and spend 3 times more time on combat duty (as seen by KOH)
            Quote: GP
            This is, if you estimate, a stone age for a state.

            I do not know at what interval Ohio releases all ammunition. But somehow I’m sure. Thu same fast enough. My father was present at the 8 missile salvo, preparing for this for more than a year. From the choice of boat. crew and training. Therefore (believe me) a full-missile salvo was set) if they can repeat it, I don’t know. If necessary ? same question
      2. dv-v
        -1
        13 March 2013 07: 29
        Well, it’s obvious - to smoke a question how the Yankees approached the project. and builds. Ohio and ours with a traditional priority for the second * wash these or give birth to new ones *, and therefore - a dd in the database or sucks in anticipation of repair.
    8. +14
      12 March 2013 17: 54
      atalef you know I'm not a nationalist, but "your" nation is tired of the know-it-all.
      If your father was a submariner then he should have told you that the Sharks were never titanium.
      I don’t know what you saw, but I’ll answer so that when the missiles were disposed of in 2001 by blasting when 12 missiles were launched, then the observers from America very quickly went to their cabin, since the Americans did not achieve such reliability until now.
      they have a crew with a smaller size of 180 people, in contrast to the 170 shark crew.
      In terms of noise, the TK-20 at the time of the descent was close to Ohio, and then the lack of repair led to its growth.
      The competition between BDRMi and Sharks had a great impact on the fate of sharks, so as the fate of which ships to decide at that time was decisive, a strong role was played by the fleet commanders coming from dpl bdrm. Moreover, since 1997, all division commanders have been temporary workers - newcomers and they were on them
      that's why we have ships that were designed in 60 years, and more and more freshly cut first of all "patriots" bdrm your ship is all that could be squeezed out of azuha.
      1. -1
        12 March 2013 19: 06
        Quote: andreitk20
        atalef you know I'm not a nationalist, but "your" nation is tired of the know-it-all.
        If your father was a submariner then he should have told you that the Sharks were never titanium.

        Robust enclosures made of titanium alloys, light - steel, coated with non-resonant anti-radar and soundproof rubber coating with a total weight of 800 t [2
        4].
        This is where we end.
        And then I really have to your knowledge. laughing
        Maybe they were rubber * All the same 800 t rubber
        1. +2
          12 March 2013 19: 11
          Perhaps I would have agreed only I served on them from 1994 to 2005, you confuse titanium ships that are 705, 945, 661 projects and that's it. A sturdy case made of the same alloys as the steel of the third generation
    9. +2
      12 March 2013 19: 35
      Israeli nuclear submarines are known to be the best in the world, and "Sharks" is Stalin's mania for gigantism? )))) By the way, if you think about it, the lousy "Wasp" will also be easier and with a smaller crew, and its shock capabilities for capturing and holding a bridgehead are wider than that of "Nimitz", why don't you blame the Americans for being backward ????)
      1. -1
        13 March 2013 09: 36
        Quote: tomket
        Israeli submarines are known to be the best in the world

        Israel does not build submarines. especially since she does not have a nuclear submarine
        Quote: tomket
        and "Sharks" is Stalin's mania for gigantism?

        Sharks - this is not necessary (but from hopelessness) - gtgantism

        Quote: tomket
        By the way, if you think about it, the lousy "Wasp" will also be easier and with a smaller crew, and its shock capabilities for capturing and holding a bridgehead are wider than that of "Nimitz", why don't you blame the Americans for being backward ????)

        ??????????? 7
        Stupidity is utter. Talking about boats
    10. +6
      12 March 2013 20: 56
      No need to hang noodles on the ears - the Navy did not refuse from the Typhoons, they did not ask him when the drunk was merging the whole country pi-n-do-himself! These boats can now be upgraded even under Sineva or Liner, even under a whole bag of long-range cruise missiles, and they’ll catch up with them even after that.
      If these boats were not so magnificent, the am-ri-braids would not have been cut so much for their destruction.
    11. dv-v
      0
      13 March 2013 05: 05
      the stove, from which everything danced - a solid rocket, the fuel backwardness was incredible, yes, because monstrous mass-and-dimensions like pH, that pl. the engineers / designers are still good fellows, they have solved quite well the non-trivial tasks, but the leaders ... are the military, the scientific and factory, the political are uniform criminals.
  11. 0
    12 March 2013 15: 11
    Flashed with knowledge or decided to educate us, not democratic?
    Cheyt amers in the northern latitudes, in shallow water are written with fear? They do not like to go there, they are prettier to warm seas, as are countries without nuclear submarines. So, dear man, the glory of America in a banana country, while they need vassals. And in Russia, since it will be necessary - so more Sharks will be released into the ocean. With the biggest chips.
    shl
    Carrot is a big tank, for a small state has exorbitant ambitions, while the elder brother favors.
  12. Krasnoyarsk
    +3
    12 March 2013 15: 15
    The sharks are too huge, they are unlikely to be modernized. Better let them build the Boreas, and not the heavenly castles.
  13. +3
    12 March 2013 16: 19
    Sergei Nikitich told us a lot, the kingdom of heaven to him, about his brainchildren, it's not for you to judge these nuclear submarines. From their very existence, the Amers felt sick, for this they were built, retribution will come immediately and on a significant scale. Talk about the backwardness of these boats is ridiculous, because in such offspring the USSR embodied everything that it had advanced, even if they were "lagging behind", then let your Amerskie nuclear submarines in the Northern latitudes be like half a year on duty, I'll see who was behind) A worthy brainchild of a worthy country. About steel and welding comment in general killed, so where where, and we knew how to do it, titanium monsters to help you) I remember how the Americans and other "friends" at our university were courteous running, learning how and what they teach ... Probably out of boredom.
    1. 0
      12 March 2013 16: 48
      Quote: RMRS
      not for you to judge these submarines


      let us judge what?
      1. +2
        12 March 2013 16: 52
        Sorry. Do better and judge them. I, personally, also have my own ideas, but the boat itself was very difficult, thousands of people worked on it - not for you to say that it’s bad in over 20 years. It has a huge modernization potential , but alas, ah, you need a lot of money, and there’s no weapons complex.
        1. -1
          12 March 2013 17: 07
          Well, then people are supposed to be silent about everything that they did not create with their own hands. The 667 project really has a huge potential, so many years after the creation of the first building, its modernization (BDRM) serves and will still serve. If the "Sharks" were just as successful the fleet would not refuse them. It was not for nothing that they were called "water carriers".
          1. +3
            12 March 2013 17: 16
            I’m not saying that this boat is a panacea for everything. The problem of this boat is armament. The filling, and it itself, is excellent for its time (I value the boat itself, not its armament). The modernization potential is huge, believe me, but the price - that’s what we rest on. It is colossal, in fact it’s two nuclear submarines in one building. If there were any means, it would have kept America in awe. It’s not S. S. Kovalev’s fault that they gave him such weapons. missiles, before the trident of the 2nd. The Union collapsed. They would say - whoever said something ... But alas, I agree, the boat, of course, is not for today's Russia (I’m just a little offended, I was taught by Sergey Nikitich. By the way, about the noise, the ice is thick - A reliable defender for many kilometers around the missile carrier.
          2. Misantrop
            +2
            12 March 2013 17: 53
            Quote: Delta
            the fleet would not refuse them

            Not the fleet, but the country's leadership. The very one that, out of economy and the rescue squad in Polyarny, abandoned several years before the Kursk was destroyed
            1. 0
              12 March 2013 18: 04
              Well, sorry - this is your government
            2. 0
              12 March 2013 18: 07
              Is the fleet separated from the state? leadership of the country, yes. Does this change things? they themselves chose such a leadership
              1. Misantrop
                +1
                12 March 2013 18: 08
                Quote: Delta
                they themselves chose such a leadership

                Remind about Yushchenko? I did not choose him. And I’m not going to answer for all the blizzard that he carried
          3. +2
            12 March 2013 18: 06
            The 667 project has no potential, if you know that you are lagging behind in self-defense weapons, you are lagging behind in reactors, and in terms of noise you do not stand up to criticism at all, even after modernization, the BDM did not reach the noise of the first shark body. Rockets at the time of the 90s were approximately the same in terms of performance. Now, if 667 was successful, then it would be cut first. By the way, the maneuverability of the BDRM is equal to the "Zaporozhets", believe me, I can compare.
            1. +2
              12 March 2013 18: 15
              I support, they didn’t cut anyhow what, but what posed the greatest threat. Not in vain in the 90s they sat and thoroughly studied everything (
              1. Mother russia
                0
                12 March 2013 19: 30
                These s were both creatures and remained. I did not notice the generosity from them in the Cold War, unlike ours.
            2. Misantrop
              +1
              12 March 2013 18: 19
              Quote: andreitk20
              667 project has no potential

              Yeah, that's why he's got a hell of a lot of modifications. This project has been in service since 1966. And still. And it was developed even earlier, generally for the installation of the 1st generation. Akulv is a pure third generation. Still it would be worse lol
              1. +1
                12 March 2013 18: 28
                There are many modifications because the USSR made a rocket and a ship for it, and if you want to compare, then take the characteristics and compare. And the shark is not a pure third generation, but a transitional option, it did not have a BBR and the acoustics of the second. But compared to what is and is in service is a Mercedes.
                And we are building a new one worse in some respects of the old.
            3. +1
              12 March 2013 22: 09
              Quote: andreitk20
              667 project has no potential


              if it did not exist, it would no longer exist in nature. And so - 4 large series, still serving. It is clear that Borei had to be launched into production 20 years ago, but who is to blame for the poverty ... Then the potential 667 would not have been needed either. Especially considering its backwardness today. During the years of his first series, it was a wonderful boat. Here, according to the principle "what we have, we carry"
            4. dv-v
              0
              13 March 2013 07: 36
              I do not care, dear edition! dear man, you should at least ask the Severodvinsk engineers how unified and similar the shark is to the delta.
  14. -2
    12 March 2013 17: 38
    SSBN "Akula" is a vivid example of the extensive development of the USSR. Improving performance by increasing size. And there is nothing special to be proud of. Each new rocket with us was better than the previous one, but at the same time its size increased and it was no longer possible to use it from the previous carriers, new carriers were required, hence the increased costs and small-scale production ...
    1. Misantrop
      +1
      12 March 2013 18: 03
      Quote: Nayhas
      The Akula SSBN is a vivid example of the extensive development of the USSR. Improving performance by increasing size. And there is nothing special to be proud of. Each new rocket was better than the previous one, but at the same time its size increased.

      Oh really? A 667 project then an example of what? lol Only the rocket block was changed if necessary. And RSM-54 "Sineva" without any problems got into the old mine
      1. 0
        12 March 2013 18: 12
        667 bdrm project of insanity, and without Sineva is not necessary about the problem
        1. Misantrop
          +1
          12 March 2013 18: 26
          Quote: andreitk20
          667 bdrm frenzy project

          Stop raving
          1. 0
            12 March 2013 18: 31
            Maybe I'm raving, give at least one example that this is not so.
            1. Misantrop
              0
              12 March 2013 18: 35
              Quote: andreitk20
              Maybe I'm raving, give at least one example that this is not so.
              Have you read this yourself? belay I propose to give an example that you are not raving? wassat
              1. 0
                12 March 2013 18: 43
                No need to get cancer behind the stone, you understood correctly. 667 bdrm is a project of insanity, since its characteristics are worse in some respects even for its progenitor Azuhi. Although maybe you do not know this, and you have nothing to do with your picture. If you can see an example than 667 bdrm is better than a shark, only do not touch a modern rocket, it is still modern, not 90 years old.
                1. Misantrop
                  0
                  12 March 2013 18: 54
                  Quote: andreitk20
                  its characteristics are worse in some respects, even for its progenitor Azuha

                  Is that interesting?
                  And the R-29 rocket, which he was equipped with at the beginning, and in itself was very good

                  PS Really interesting, no jokes. He started on the BDR, then he took the BDRM from the plant, but ended up in the 19th division on A.
                  1. 0
                    12 March 2013 19: 02
                    Well, for you I’ll tell you a secret: it’s maneuverability, specifically agility, and it’s much worse at maximum underwater speed, but I will not say anything about the sounds around the hump.
                    And the missiles on the shark and on the BDM in 90 were about the same.
                    1. Misantrop
                      +1
                      12 March 2013 19: 21
                      Quote: andreitk20
                      about the sounds of a hump

                      On the BDR, this was worse. That "prison of peoples" made a lot of noise at full speed. As for the maximum speed under water, the weight gain was quite decent at the same power of the installations. And at the same time against 28 knots 667A BDRM gave out 25. Mine, at least, on running more than 25 gave out. By the way, the maximum stroke was determined not by the power of the propulsion turbines, but by the load limit on the GUP-190 (the main thrust bearings of the shaft lines).
                      Although, IMHO, the maximum move is important for multipurpose, strategists more important than low noise. And the maneuverability of Sharks is largely due to the use of a bow thruster in the bow
                  2. 0
                    12 March 2013 19: 26
                    In the north, the BDR still left the base without dismounting, the BDRM — all with only two edging, and in no other way.
                    The shark thrusters have two, in the bow and in the stern. And I wrote about the maneuverability of azuha and BDM, I did not touch the shark, because therefore, their parameter does not even need to be compared.
                    1. Misantrop
                      +1
                      12 March 2013 20: 19
                      Quote: andreitk20
                      BDR in the north still left the base without dismounting

                      Here it is also necessary to take into account the experience of the steering signalmen. And the linear dimensions, of course. If the length of 667A was 128 m, the BDR was 155 m, then the BDRM was 178 m. And sudden squalls began to fly in my last years in the north, before they were much less frequent. Because of the show-off taxied on the stones, the bay is not wide in Hajiyevo. Haven't you heard the joke about "Kamchatka-style mooring" when the fleet commander was redeemed? Avachinskaya Bay is wide, there the BDR passes by itself normally. Once BDR went to Gadzhievo on a visit, the fleet commander with his retinue was met on the pier. They offered tugs, he asked okay for mooring in Kamchatka, without tugs. Allowed, everyone is interested ... Fitted in normally, only the inertia did not have time to extinguish. The only way out is the bubble into the nasal cavity. It is clear that all the garbage from under the pier was thrown out. The final picture: frozen at the pier of the BDR and ... completely wet and meeting in seaweed ... laughing Since then, the phrase "in Kamchatka" has become a household word in Gadzhiev laughing I myself was not present, they told
                      1. +1
                        12 March 2013 20: 30
                        I haven’t heard about it, but it’s hard to enter Gadzhievo even at RTM, a heavy base, for now !!!
                      2. dv-v
                        +1
                        13 March 2013 07: 48
                        bike)), in my memory, only one cap so moored - a tugboat was waiting, he finally shoved the ass to the pier. better just remember how capeang ruser hysteria with two tugs. Avachinsky is the bay, but the bay is Krasheninnikov.
      2. 0
        12 March 2013 20: 15
        The same. Etc. 667A became Project 667B, then Project 667BD, Project 667BDR and finally Project 667 BDRM. All this was accompanied by the growth of the "hump" on each subsequent project, because P-29 with each "modification" increased in size. At the same time, the new BR could not be used on the previous ship. This is an extensive development path. Compare with the United States, which during this period developed Lafayette SSBNs in the form of modifications to Madison and Franklin (almost identical boats), while the Polaris-Poseidon BR used on them were interchangeable. Those. the newer Poseidon did not require a radical redesign of the previous SSBNs. Even the new Trident 1 fits perfectly into the body of both Madison and Franklin. Those Ohio first carried Trident 1, and then were rearmed on Trident 2 without any problems.
        1. Misantrop
          +2
          12 March 2013 22: 55
          Quote: Nayhas
          Etc. 667A became Project 667B, then Project 667BD, Project 667BDR, and finally Project 667 BDRM

          They also forgot to mention AM, "pears" and "Andromeda". In other words, the Americans made a foolishness by starting to develop the F-15, F-16, F-22, F-35, etc. It was necessary to hang all the new weapons on the F-4. Or even on the "Airacobra". And call it "intensive development path" laughing Fuck, according to US fans, modern technology does not need speed or aerobatic qualities. Enough with a smart helmet and electronics wassat
          Quote: Nayhas
          Madison and Franklin (almost identical boats
          And why the hell were they designed and built, if they are identical, above them are only stars, and cooler are only boiled eggs? It is clear that a product with a "Made in USA" sticker is the ultimate dream and the highest quality. But you also have to use your own head, at least for eating. Do you really truly believe that the nuclear submarines, created a year before more than half a century ago, are tearing up everybody on the planet? Including new developments of the country from where they lured engineers throughout their history? Or maybe you know that the probability of a successful start (there is no question of further flight) of the Trident-2 rocket does not exceed 50%? And they go to all the tests fresh rockets, only from the factory. And Russia is beating all the way at landfills with those that have used all the storage periods. And if our simpletons, when the missile leaves the combat course, speak of failure, the Yankees declare a "successful test of the launch." So that no one doubts their steepness and superiority wink
          Here the BDRM is diligently watered, and call me another missile nuclear submarine on the planet, which shot in full salvo. Or, having received a fire in 5 mines instead of starting the ammunition, not only did not bend, but even did not fall out of readiness
          1. +1
            13 March 2013 00: 36
            No one doesn’t touch your BDM just from the fact that you could choose, as always, the worst.
          2. dv-v
            0
            13 March 2013 07: 54
            Well, well, what happened to the first salvo? and on the second how many and how did you prepare? at the rk-shootings where I was, ours was in the first stage.
          3. 0
            14 March 2013 14: 43
            Why fire? Depressurization of ONE RC. Like on our K-219 ...
  15. 0
    12 March 2013 17: 42
    Quote: RMRS
    By the way, about the noise - the ice is thick - a reliable defender for many kilometers around the missile carrier.
    Are you a specialist in this, so to speak? In fact, the thickness of the ice with the noise is low. Temperature layers, currents, soil characteristics and the RELIEF of ice are more affected.
    1. 0
      12 March 2013 17: 44
      I'm talking about the fact that not every American apl will climb under the ice behind it. It carried no other meaning.
      1. 0
        12 March 2013 20: 26
        What are you saying? Americans go regularly under the ice, even despite the fact that they are single-shaft and single-reactor.
        1. 0
          12 March 2013 22: 04
          Well, yes, I didn’t really hear about it (regularly), it’s dangerous for them to go there, their buildings are designed for warmer latitudes! Yes, and finding it under the ice is very problematic.
          1. 0
            12 March 2013 22: 40
            And the Union had the strength to prevent such an approach to it, even if there are such daredevils.
  16. 0
    12 March 2013 18: 09
    I believe that all such issues should be addressed by specialists. The only question is that they put the interests of the country above their own, and the country paid (and not only materially) to them generously and heartily for their work and sacrifices ...
  17. Andrey58
    +1
    12 March 2013 18: 49
    In conditions where the number of warheads and missiles is limited by international treaties, it is better to have more boats with fewer missiles. Shark - an achievement from an engineering point of view, from a military - alas. Better two borea.
    1. +2
      12 March 2013 19: 06
      Quote: Andrey58
      In conditions where the number of warheads and missiles is limited by international treaties, it is better to have more boats with fewer missiles. Shark - an achievement from an engineering point of view, from a military - alas. Better two borea.

      Of course, it is "easier" to guard two ships in different areas than one. We have multi-purpose boats heaped up. You can, of course, let you float freely, you see who will survive, until the moment when you need to "pli".
  18. CARBON
    +3
    12 March 2013 19: 19
    If the submarine can fire missiles, practically from its bases, then the superiority in low noise level of the Ohio-class SSBNs over the Akula is not the main thing. What is the safest combat patrol area in the North-White Sea. It was practically impossible for "killer submarines" to penetrate there, given the presence of herds of MPK, BPC, DEPL in the Northern Fleet. Therefore, 6 "Sharks" were in a kind of reserve. Even if she roars like a beluga, the enemy will not get her. With such a hull and weight, the boat floated up in any ice thickness in the area of ​​constant patrolling. In my opinion, all the American attempts at missile defense began because of the situation with the "undead" boats of the USSR. 200 missiles - 1200 warheads, enough to throw the United States back into the Stone Age.
    I think that the "Akula", albeit a peculiar and expensive, but the most frightening and effective type of boats created to intimidate a potential enemy.
  19. jjj
    +2
    12 March 2013 20: 21
    Project 941 boats became large not only because of missiles. Take the Americans. Their "Ohio" is also not a baby and can only enter two bases, in which the depths allow. Our sharks can enter almost all naval bases. To do this, they drain the ballast. But, by coincidence, we had only two cranes, with the help of which the rockets are loaded.
    The boat itself was interesting, but not so practical. In fact, the whole burden of the confrontation was drawn by the 667 project. And BDRM, built, by the way, after the 941 project were very, very good ships. And what noise there is. Here one interlocutor already spoke about water, temperature, currents ... So, under our foreheads it is practically impossible to find the BDRM adversary.
  20. kamakim
    0
    12 March 2013 20: 54
    sorry for the boat, they have no future ...
  21. +1
    12 March 2013 23: 53
    Maybe they will appreciate it as pompousness, but my heart is bleeding ... And in fact, another reason for lifting the moratorium on the death penalty. But for now, "sonny, this is fantastic" ... It's a pity.
  22. +1
    13 March 2013 00: 03
    The most remarkable thing about this boat is that you can put into it a liquid ICBM (now 105 tons, the cast weight is 5,5 tons), which is now being developed at the Makeev Design Bureau and that all enemies will be sad. Hello everybody
    1. 0
      13 March 2013 00: 15
      I strongly doubt it, because a rocket for the Strategic Missile Forces is being developed - it will have a diameter and length for the Strategic Missile Forces silos. And most importantly, the underwater launch is not for you from an underground mine. In the R-29 liquid family, it is wet (filled with water). And the new heavy missile is intended for "air" missiles, albeit probably from the TPK. Alas, it won't work ...
      1. +1
        13 March 2013 07: 25
        Well why not dream. The diameter of the mines on the Akula is designed for 2m, the diameter of the RS-4 stylet ICBM is 18m (remember, this is the previous analogue of the newly developed ICBM); , and replacing a wet start with a dry one is not as difficult as it seems, the same Makeyevites have options. And the costs of the development of a liquid ICBM itself, in my not entirely competent opinion, will make sense if this racket is universal - mine, BZHRK, sea.
  23. 0
    13 March 2013 00: 59
    They did it, Bear with Borka ...
  24. dv-v
    +3
    13 March 2013 06: 47
    hey, the deleted person, unlike you, I served in the RPK sn, and I own the subject in more detail.
  25. +1
    13 March 2013 07: 12
    Here some people write about the cost of maintaining a year - whether it’s partly or badly - but not everything in this life is measured only by money. There are also such concepts as the honor and pride of people for their work and the country in which they live and work. I think that that HUGE team of people who participated in the creation of these boats was proud of their work. There is also such a thing as a country's defense capability. Nambas are not cut into metal boats (what are these other projects), but it is worthwhile to approach issues such as modernization — designing, setting up production and launching a new boat will cost more than upgrading existing ones. It is a pity that there are millions on the presentation of the Olympic Games (summits, deliberately killed roads, etc.), but not on defense.
  26. +2
    13 March 2013 10: 09
    Yes, a good boat was, for its tasks, namely, a GUARANTEED retaliatory strike from under the ice of the northern latitudes, namely unique survivability (two strong titanium hulls), a huge mass and special reinforcements for breaking the ice at almost any point of patrolling, good conditions for months crew stay (then we change crew, ship havchik directly to the sea and re-ice). Amer's submarine under the ice is not very effective, planes will throw chtoli onto ice buoys? magnetometers through the ice are also not ice + we are close to the magnetic pole of the earth, it also interferes. Nuclear submarines are also not particularly effective in such conditions, large background noise and constant re-reflection of sound from different surfaces, it is unrealistic to sit on the tail practically (a lot of analytical articles are on the network in this regard)
    Now let’s ponder, which project boats are capable of delivering a GUARANTEED retaliatory strike? Which boats are not constantly monitored? 667bdrm? extremely doubtful. Boreas? duck, in an interview with Medvedev, the admiral said that they were making noise on the floor of the ocean) (I understand that they’ll fix it, but even so, the boat is damp) Next, we think about it, our strategists, like Ohio at sea, the question is: what is our combat strategists stability at full enemy superiority in the seas? Answer: zero.
    And if Russia has at least one "Shark" 941 project walks under the ice, then an interesting puzzle begins, how to get it.
    And I also propose to think about the fact that the amers insisted on the prompt disposal of these particular boats, they paid for it and now insist on the complete destruction of these boats. For some reason, NATO experts do not scoff at Russian fools and 941 projects. After all, they should have said, what kind of stupid boat they have, let it sail calmly, but no. They understand that BDRM and Borei will be close by, on their territory, where they are strong, and this "Shark" will climb with its 50 thousand tons of displacement under the ice, so what? how to get it?
  27. Misantrop
    0
    15 March 2013 14: 17
    Quote: barbiturate
    Bdrm and Northwind will be at hand, on their territory
    As for Borea, I don’t know, but the BDRM carried all its military services just under the ice. So in terms of secrecy and low vulnerability, they almost do not differ from 941
  28. 0
    15 March 2013 23: 40
    Such power cannot be scrapped !!! In any scenario, re-equip and re-equip with proper equipment, and to the vastness of the world, so that the crucians do not doze !!! That's why we and "Pikes" !!! And our boats are the most beautiful in the world! !! Such contours can not be confused with anything.
  29. P-15
    +2
    28 March 2013 13: 14
    This was the first time I saw this beauty in 1986, and honestly, I was amazed at its size. Given the fact that from the hill where I was to him was at least 5 km. It’s a pity that such a boat will be put to needles. I myself did not serve in the Navy, but judging by the reviews of those who served on it, the boat was cool.
  30. +1
    9 September 2014 05: 53
    It's a shame to tears ((((
  31. 0
    2 October 2017 12: 22
    The article is great! But our power in the 80-90s-traitors and ub.lyudki.