Military Review

Each generation has its own deviation. Rearmament of the Russian Navy

133

Submariner, instant came,

Gifts accept.
Everything in life will be fine
My friend, do not forget!


The central design bureau of marine equipment (TsKB MT) Rubin decided to celebrate the Day of the submariner (March 19 is traditionally celebrated) with knowledge of the matter - a statement about the beginning of work on the creation of fifth-generation boats caused good emotions for everyone who cares about the Russian navy . Progress and progress are always for the better. But some seafarers reasonably noticed that before stepping foot on the newly painted deck of the fifth generation nuclear-powered icebreaker, he would like to walk a little on the seas on fourth-generation submarines.

The problem is that the Russian Navy has only one fourth-generation submarine - the well-known K-535 “Yuri Dolgoruky”, the lead strategic submarine of the 955 project (the Borey cipher).
K-535 was officially included in the lists of ships of the North fleet just 2 months ago - January 10, 2013. At the moment, the nuclear-powered test is being tested, the crew is preparing to enter the first combat patrol, which, according to the plan, is due to take place in 2014.
At first glance, having such a deep and rich "groundwork" for fourth-generation submarines, it is simply blasphemous to make any promises about the next generation of equipment. However, first things first ...

History nuclear submarine fleet taken into four eraseach of which reflects crucial changes in the views of military theories on the use and effectiveness of armaments, the results of the achievements of scientific and technological progress and the emergence of new technologies - and, as a result, a radical increase in the combat capabilities of nuclear-powered ships.

The submarines of the first generation, in spite of the absolutely fantastic capabilities in comparison with the diesel engines, were in many ways experimental equipment — extremely inconvenient and dangerous to operate, with ships of imperfect design and armament. The legendary Nautilus, the Soviet firstborn of K-3 Leninsky Komsomol, the ominous K-19 - these are the representatives of the first generation of atomarin.

The accumulation of operating experience of nuclear power plants, significant scientific and industrial progress in shipbuilding, electronics, precision engineering - all this, ultimately, led to the emergence of the next, second-generation submarines. The working speeds and depths increased markedly, the submarines received new hydroacoustic complexes, which radically increased the possibilities for controlling the surrounding space.

The third generation of nuclear submarines was distinguished by increased standardization and unification of systems: Soviet industry developed a unified power plant for all future submarine projects based on the OK-650 reactor, and the Americans finally switched to high-volume construction in just two projects: a strategic and multi-purpose submarine. The atomicars have significantly increased in size, the underwater displacement of the legendary “Shark” - the strategic rocket carrier of the 941 project has reached 50 000 tons!
“K-141“ Kursk ”aircraft carrier killer, strategic submarine cruisers of the 667BDRM project, American“ Los Angeles ”and“ Ohio ”, British“ Trafalgar ”and“ Vanguard ”- third-generation submarines still form the basis of the submarine fleet of all developed countries of the world.

It is worth noting that due to the difference in views on the use of the navy, as well as due to the national characteristics of the military-industrial complex and an extraordinary “spread” in time, the submarines of the same “generation” differ greatly from each other. Sometimes it is difficult to determine if atarins belong to a particular “generation”; each project has its own individual characteristics, important advantages and disadvantages.

The fourth post of the fourth generation USS Seawolf (SSN-21) submarine

For example, Americans have achieved phenomenal successes in the field of safety of nuclear power plants. Reactor safety is the business card of the US Navy. A submarine armed with cruise missiles — a specific class of submarines that had virtually no analogues abroad — became the hallmark of the Soviet submarine fleet. Another example: no one in the world managed to create something similar to the Soviet “long torpedo” - a super-ammunition caliber 650 mm with a range of 100 km. The speed in attack mode — 70 units (≈130 km / h) —the third generation of Soviet nuclear submarines carried 8-12 of such “gifts”, half of which were equipped with SBCh. Released by a fan on homing from a safe distance, they were able to stop any aircraft grouping. The odd rocket-torpedo “Squall” is just a puppy compared to the power of a “long torpedo” (index 65-76). The mere presence on board of such weapons brought the domestic submarine fleet to a new level.

Which generation is the last atomic submarine of the twentieth century - the incredible ship "Sivulf" (sea wolf)? Created at the turn of the third and fourth generations, the Sivulf objectively surpasses any of the existing fourth-generation submarines, and in a number of parameters it meets the requirements for the fifth generation of nuclear submarines.

It is obvious that the dispute about the "generations" of submarines cannot be conducted in abstract formulations: "noise reduction", "automation of control systems", and "increased reactor safety". The combat capabilities of the boats are fully determined by specific facts related to their design features and tactics of their use.

So, the fourth generation of submarines. Only facts and key features.

"Sivulf", the first submarine of the fourth generation:

- high “tactical” speed - it’s not a secret that the submerged speed of a modern boat is determined not so much by the power of the power plant and the hull lines as by its hydroacoustic means: at high speed, the noise of incoming water makes it impossible for the boat to orient in space. With the help of thousands of hydrophones, sonars and sensors gathering information about the surrounding space, the creators of the Sivulf managed to achieve a more or less acceptable quality of the information received up to the speed of 25 nodes (for comparison: conventional third generation boats hopelessly “stall” when overclocked over 20 nodes).

- “Sivulf” is a real underwater killer, armed with a weapon with a “silencer”: its torpedo engines are launched directly in torpedo tubes and torpedoes leave the hull of the boat independently - unlike all other submarines that use compressed air blowing (very loud, unmasking sound, definitely convincing enemy acoustics in the intentions of the submarine).

- a magnificent set of working depths and speeds: maximum submerged travel - 35 nodes, maximum depth of immersion - 600 meters.

- active noise suppressors, “fancy” weapons, huge ammunition (up to 50 torpedoes, mines and cruise missiles) - “Sivulf” was created specifically for underwater hunting for promising Soviet boats. Alas, promising Soviet submarines did not appear, and no one needed “a superheroe” for 3 billion. The Americans mastered the construction of only three ships of this type (built in the period from 1989 to 2005), the remaining "white elephants" of the US Navy.

The next vivid example is four Ohio-type submarines (head, second, third and fourth hull). Four strategic submarine missile carriers were beyond the scope of the strategic offensive arms reduction treaty and were to be disposed of. However, instead of recycling, the US Navy leadership chose to upgrade and convert the extra Ohio into tactical cruise missile carriers. Formally, not being the fourth generation boat, but having Tomahawk on board the 154 - the Ohio's destructive power goes far beyond the requirements of the fourth generation submarines. Tomahawks, two airlock chambers for combat swimmers (instead of 23 and 24 missile shafts), reduced noise and a set of torpedo weapons - converted Ohio perfectly meet modern conditions: a multifunctional, invulnerable means for waging local wars. What generation are these submarines?

A seven-cell "glass" for the Tomahawk cruise missiles is inserted into each of the Ohio 22 launch pits.


When the story of the Sivulf project ended, the story began project "Virginia" - at first glance, a multi-purpose submarine of the type "Virginia" looks dimly against the background of the legendary "sea wolf". But the first impression is deceptive - the "Virginia" is a completely different boat, created for very different tasks. Hence the enormous difference in performance. To date, nine submarines of this type are in service, five more are in varying degrees of readiness. In total, the plans of Americans to build up to Virginia 30.

The US Navy is uniquely positioning its "Virginia" as the fourth generation of boats, to which they have a number of arguments:

- for the first time in world practice, a “disposable” nuclear reactor S9G was used on the submarine, which does not require recharging during the entire 30-year life cycle of the submarine - from construction to disposal;

- modular design, a system of insulated decks and combat modules, all equipment inside the boat is standardized for blocks of 19 and 24 inches wide - to facilitate the repair and modernization of the ship;

- multifunctional telescopic mast with video cameras, thermal imager and laser range finder. Everything that happens on the surface is transmitted to the monitors in the central post;

- Unmanned automatic devices for detecting mines and performing special tasks in the water column;

- a multifunctional weapon complex: torpedo tubes, 12 vertical mines for launching cruise missiles, a lock chamber for 9 combat swimmers, as well as a reduced level of internal noise make the boat a deadly enemy. One of the priorities of "Virginia" is to carry out operations in the coastal zone: covert surveillance, radio reconnaissance, landing of sabotage groups, shelling of coastal targets with cruise missiles, search and rescue missions.

If Virginia was built in Russia, it would be immediately recorded in the sixth-generation boats. And this is not a joke - domestic nuclear-powered project 955 (Borey), equated to the "fourth generation" has none of the above devices. Undoubtedly, Borey is significantly different from all its predecessors - thanks to the modest dimensions of the R-30 SLBM Bulava, they managed to get rid of the hump on the body of the submarine; for the first time, a water jet propeller was used on domestic submarines; Amphora-B-055 ”, combining all the hydroacoustic equipment of the boat. According to representatives of the TsKB MT Rubin, the Boreya hydroacoustics surpasses the hydroacoustic means of the American Virginia submarine, the recognized leader in this field.

In words, it’s great. However, one should not forget that the Borei were built twice - with their construction, ready-made sections from the unfinished third-generation submarines of the 971 Shchuka-B projects and aircraft carrier killers of the 949A project are used. In a certain sense, the submarine of the Borey project does not exist - these are slightly different in design nuclear ships carrying submarine-based missiles from 16 to 20 (and initially, the boats were calculated on BNK 12 missiles).

Of course, this does not mean that the Borey is a copy of third-generation submarines. But given the identical design of the majority of the case, it is clearly not worth waiting for any radical changes compared to the 971 and 949А projects. Another example: on the fourth-generation domestic submarines, GEMs based on the OK-650 reactor are used, almost completely unified with GEMs of the third-generation submarines — no changes have occurred in this critical area either.

"Borey" SSBN on the background of the giant nuclear "Shark" project 941

K-535 "Yuri Dolgoruky" - a boat in every sense necessary, strategic-class submarine cruisers are one of the main components of the "nuclear triad". A modern SSBN is a specific weapon. The only task is to periodically go on combat patrols and, after due time, return to their home base. Without any accidents and technical problems. More from it is not required. The emergence of submarine-launched ballistic missiles with a range of 10 thousands of kilometers allowed modern SSBNs not to even leave their territorial waters and patrol where the presence of a “likely enemy” is minimized - the Arctic, the polar seas ... if necessary, the boat can shoot straight from pier in Gadzhiyevo.
The relatively simple and cheap "Borey" with updated internal systems and a proven OK-650 reactor is the best fit for this concept.

Much more interesting is the situation with other representatives of the domestic submarine fleet - multipurpose nuclear submarines with cruise missiles of the 885 project (code "Ash"). The newest type of Russian submarines, no doubt, fits the criteria of the fourth generation. He is able to replace the multipurpose submarine "Pike-B", and the "aircraft carrier killers" project 959A "Antey".

- by analogy with the American boats, a giant spherical antenna of the hydroacoustic complex, occupying the entire nose of the boat, was installed on the Yasen,

- 10 torpedo tubes located in the middle of the boat, perpendicular to the longitudinal axis;

- 8 missile silos CM-346, with 32 ammunition cruise missiles of the Caliber complex or P-800 Onyx;

- electric motor for slow travel (sneaking mode);

- overview tele-system MTK-115-2 (allows optical monitoring at depths up to 50 m);

- on the Yasen, as well as the Virginia-type submarines, instead of the traditional periscope, there are non-penetrating masts with video cameras, the data from which are fed to the monitors of the central post via fiber-optic cable.

However, directly comparing the "Ash" with the "Virginia" would be incorrect: these boats are designed to solve various problems. The Russian submarine is much larger, with the main emphasis on actions in the open ocean. A powerful, multifunctional ship will be one of the best boats in its class.
The only snag is that not a single "Ash" has yet been enjoyed by the Russian Navy. This is despite the fact that the head boat of the project - K-329 "Severodvinsk" was built from the 1993 of the year, and from the 2011 of the year went into sea trials. Alas, the signing of the acceptance certificate is delayed - too complex construction requires a lot of time and effort to fine-tune all systems of the underwater ship.

Conclusion

As for the loud "pre-holiday" statement of the TsDB MT "Rubin" about the beginning of the creation of fifth-generation submarines, the journalists somewhat distorted the information - the statement said about the beginning of work on shaping the appearance of the fifth-generation submarines, whose construction will begin no earlier than 2030 of the year. It is not yet clear what the ships will be and what their tasks will be. Nevertheless, the Russian shipbuilders have already thought about this topic and, in the future, are ready to create new submarines. Absolutely correct position with an eye to the future.

But, news Too much importance is attached to the beginning of the creation of fifth-generation submarines - it is much more important that shipbuilders do not “hover in the clouds” about plans for the 2030 year, and quickly transfer the practically ready-made submarine K-329 to Severodvinsk to the fleet and build its analog Kazan on the modernized project 08851 "Ash-M". Otherwise, it is useless to talk about the fifth generation.

Author:
133 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. avt
    avt 20 March 2013 09: 17 New
    +1
    The Sivulf is a real underwater killer armed with a silencer: its torpedo engines start directly in the torpedo tubes and the torpedoes leave the hull of the boat on their own - unlike all other submarines using compressed air blowing (very loud, unmasking sound, clearly convincing enemy acoustics in the intentions of the submarine) .---------------------- request We still push torpedoes with a bubble ??? I thought it already ended after the Patriotic War. Probably the torpedoes leave a bubble trail along the way. That's how it is launched, ayah ......... request
    1. alex20081308
      alex20081308 20 March 2013 11: 47 New
      +8
      Our ships use two methods of pushing torpedoes. On 971 it is hydraulic (due to a water impulse, approximately the same as in a syringe) and on the rest by compressed air. In this case, the bubble is removed by the bubbleless cistern. So everything described in the article is true.
      1. avt
        avt 21 March 2013 10: 05 New
        0
        Quote: alex20081308
        Our ships use two methods of pushing torpedoes. On 971 it is hydraulic (due to a water impulse, approximately the same as in a syringe) and on the rest by compressed air. In this case, the bubble is removed by the bubbleless cistern. So everything described in the article is true.

        That's what the Germans did in self-propelled guns during World War II, I knew, but that's what we have with the bubble so far ... request
        1. Delta
          Delta 21 March 2013 18: 00 New
          0
          Quote: avt
          That's what the Germans did in self-propelled guns during World War II, I knew, but that's what we still have with the bubble

          yes not a bubble. Pneumohydraulically push the torpedo. This method is distinguished by noise, in contrast to the method of self-exit
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 22 March 2013 02: 04 New
            -1
            Quote: Delta
            This method is distinguished by noise, in contrast to the method of self-exit
            All my life I thought that torpedoes did not belong to low-noise weapons ...
            1. Delta
              Delta 22 March 2013 12: 06 New
              0
              Quote: Misantrop
              All my life I thought that torpedoes did not belong to low-noise weapons ...

              does the self-exit method differ from the exit of torpedoes from the pneumohydraulic TA?
    2. nnz226
      nnz226 20 March 2013 14: 07 New
      +2
      It's just interesting how fast the Sivulf moves so that self-propelled torpedoes crawl out of the TA ??? Apparently, 5 nodes stand still or swing ... And the target moves and sometimes quickly, will the adversary in such conditions hit the target? Again, after the shot, a "torpedo hole" usually occurs, the torpedo sags, and then it is leveled to move toward the target, with the engine running - energy loss ... And again: and when the engine starts, all the torpedo systems are cocked? Like in Russian. Including CCH, START, etc? Does pointing to the media not happen?
      1. Delta
        Delta 20 March 2013 14: 20 New
        +2
        Quote: nnz226
        It's just interesting how fast the Sivulf moves so that self-propelled torpedoes crawl out of the TA ???

        What so surprised? As for the speed of the submarine when firing, it is usually not more than 13 knots. It seems that when self-propelled torpedoes need even lower speed. Agree - it would be foolish to use an almost silent torpedo fire at high carrier speed, which increases the noise created by the submarine.
        1. atesterev
          atesterev 20 March 2013 17: 28 New
          +1
          In order for the torpedo to emerge from the TA itself, either large gaps between the torpedo and the TA are needed, or it must be pushed out hydraulically, that is, water must be supplied instead of compressed air, and this is no longer self-propelled!
          1. Delta
            Delta 20 March 2013 17: 47 New
            +1
            The gap at Sivulf - EMNIP more than 10 cm. Quite enough. After starting the torpedo engine, the exhaust gas is discharged to the rear of the torpedo tube, and a stream of water flows there through the nozzle of the working propulsion. The piston ring prevents the backflow of water and gas, causing an increase in pressure in the cavity of the apparatus behind the ring and creating an additional force pushing the torpedo out. This is a self-exit formula for a TA located in the bow of a ship. It is patented, by the way, to Russian scientists. And at Sivulf it’s even simpler (apparently for TA located on the nose the speed of the submarine should be minimal, for the Sivulf there is no such limitation), but almost the same formula
          2. Santa Fe
            20 March 2013 19: 13 New
            0
            Quote: atesterev
            In order for the torpedo to emerge from the TA itself, either large gaps between the torpedo and the TA are needed

            Yes, Sivulf has a diameter of TA 660 mm.
            In doing so, he uses conventional 533 mm torpedoes
  2. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 20 March 2013 09: 55 New
    +5
    How long is everything ..... recourse
    1. rubber_duck
      rubber_duck 20 March 2013 14: 43 New
      0
      Yeah, there’s already got the 2030th. sad
  3. PLO
    PLO 20 March 2013 10: 09 New
    12
    such a good article ... could have been

    but tell me why did you suddenly decide to compare strategic Northwind and multipurpose Virginia?


    If the Virginia was built in Russia, it would be immediately recorded in the sixth generation boats. And this is by no means a joke - the Russian nuclear powered project 955 (Borey), equated to the “fourth generation”, does not have any of the above devices.

    why didn’t you include a water cannon and a modern hull in the above list? to say that Northwind has none of the above list?

    In words, it’s great. However, one should not forget that the Borei were built twice - with their construction, ready-made sections from the unfinished third-generation submarines of the 971 Shchuka-B projects and aircraft carrier killers of the 949A project are used. In a certain sense, the submarine of the Borey project does not exist - these are slightly different in design nuclear ships carrying submarine-based missiles from 16 to 20 (and initially, the boats were calculated on BNK 12 missiles).

    There are no boreevs with 20 missiles and most likely will not be, they said that 955A will also remain with 16 missiles

    Of course, this does not mean that the Northwind is a copy of the third generation submarines. But given the identical design of most of the case, it is clearly not worth waiting for any radical changes compared to projects 971 and 949A.

    Again, trying to compare multipurpose and strategic nuclear submarines is the height of stupidity, Borey will certainly not be used to track ships, or even less so submarines, this is not his task, Ohio and Ash can be compared with the same success
    1. Civil
      Civil 20 March 2013 11: 30 New
      +6
      the author surprised by comparing different purpose boats ...
      1. Santa Fe
        20 March 2013 15: 36 New
        -5
        Quote: Civil
        the author surprised by comparing different purpose boats ...


        What is so surprising about this? Boats allegedly belong to one, “fourth” generation

        Comparison does not imply a comparison of the performance characteristics of the ship and its weapons. The purpose of the boat (SSBN, multipurpose, strategist) in this case does not matter.

        Ownership of one generation implies a common level of technical performance, the use of common techniques and technologies (modular design, a one-time reactor with extended service life, a system of isolated decks, a multi-functional mast instead of the usual periscope, deep integration of all ship's RES - perhaps the most important difference between the 4 boats waxings, etc.

        Borea has none of the above. The boat, at best, is at the level of the 40-year-old Ohio, and its weapon looks just embarrassing against the Trident (both 1 and 2 generations)

        However, you expected something different from Mr. Rogozin and his friends? This rot does not know how otherwise
        1. atesterev
          atesterev 20 March 2013 17: 41 New
          +3
          Rogozin is only 1 year in charge of the military-industrial complex. Others grazed in this field much longer. He naturally has his own cockroaches, but he is more intelligent than his predecessors.
        2. PLO
          PLO 20 March 2013 19: 27 New
          +2
          Ownership of one generation implies a common level of technical performance, the use of common techniques and technologies (modular design, a one-time reactor with extended service life, a system of isolated decks, a multi-functional mast instead of the usual periscope, deep integration of all ship's RES - perhaps the most important difference between the 4 boats waxings, etc.

          Seriously?
          here you reminded me of a pimply
          he also recently claimed that the Fu-35 is the fifth generation, and the fact that there is no cruising supersonicity, maneuverability, so the Americans first formulated the requirements for the fifth generation, and then reformulated (so to speak, the knight's move)

          once again you have listed only that which is absent on Borea and that (solely by your assumption, for I am more than sure that you did not see the technical design of Borea in order to assert about such nuances as modular design, isolated decks, etc.
          why did you keep silent about the spherical gas and water cannon? after all, these are also the invariable attributes of modern submarines
          where did you get such deep knowledge about the BIUS submarine to claim that it does not sufficiently deeply integrate the ship's RES?

          Borea has none of the above. The boat, at best, is at the level of the 40-year-old Ohio, and its weapon looks just embarrassing against the Trident (both 1 and 2 generations)

          extremely bold statement, but can you somehow argue these fishing gears?

          However, you expected something different from Mr. Rogozin and his friends? This rot does not know how otherwise

          But what does Rogozin have to do with it? Does it have anything to do with the construction of the Boreans?
          and they turn over their tongues and slogans shout out with us today
          1. patsantre
            patsantre 20 March 2013 21: 30 New
            0
            Quote: olp
            extremely bold statement, but can you somehow argue these fishing gears?


            Compare the TTX of the trident and the maces, and the number of these missiles on their carriers. Then guess yourself?
            1. PLO
              PLO 20 March 2013 21: 53 New
              0
              TTX Trident and Clubs

              so bring these performance characteristics ..

              the number of these missiles on their carriers

              the same Americans on their promising strategic nuclear submarines want to put 16 missiles
              1. patsantre
                patsantre 21 March 2013 19: 03 New
                0
                [quote = olp] Well, bring these TTX .. ​​[/ quote]

                In Google banned?

                [quote = olp] [quote] TTX of the trident and clubs [/ quote]
                so bring these performance characteristics ..


                [quote = olp] the same Americans on their promising strategic nuclear submarines want to put 16 missiles [/ quote]

                Compare the VIs of Borea and Ohio, after which you look at the number of missiles, and the fact that the Trident is 2 times larger (this explains the much greater payload, range, etc.).
                1. PLO
                  PLO 22 March 2013 02: 00 New
                  0
                  In Google banned?

                  they just didn’t ban me


                  Compare the VIs of Borea and Ohio, after which you look at the number of missiles, and the fact that the Trident is 2 times larger (this explains the much larger payload, range, etc.)

                  1) I partially agree about the military, although you lose sight of the more powerful torpedo weapons, the much more powerful ASG which takes up a lot of space, etc.

                  2) regarding the Mace and Trident
                  as you yourself noticed Trident 2 is almost twice as heavy as the Mace
                  while the range of Tr.-2 is 7400 km with a load of 2800 kg, and the range of the Mace is 8000 km with a load of 1135 kg

                  and where is the embarrassment here?
                  for me so specific they are at the same technical level of development and it is still unknown where the technology is cooler
                  and the author knows this very well, for it was he who wrote the article about it in due time
                  1. patsantre
                    patsantre 27 March 2013 10: 34 New
                    0
                    Quote: olp
                    2) regarding the Mace and Trident
                    as you yourself noticed Trident 2 is almost twice as heavy as the Mace
                    while the range of Tr.-2 is 7400 km with a load of 2800 kg, and the range of the Mace is 8000 km with a load of 1135 kg


                    And even though the trident is 2 times heavier, the Ohio takes them more than the Northwind takes the “club”.
                    And yet, they have warheads adjusted by GPS, which allows to achieve many times less CWO.
                    And all this despite the fact that Northwind appeared much later and was proclaimed a new generation.
  4. Russian
    Russian 20 March 2013 10: 10 New
    +3
    In a similar topic: "Russia has begun to create fifth-generation submarines," my message has caused a lot of criticism, the author of this article very accurately and correctly formulated the question regarding the creation of fifth-generation submarines:
    "However, the news about the beginning of the creation of the fifth generation submarines is given too much importance - it is much more important that shipbuilders do not" hover in the clouds "about plans for 2030, but rather transfer to the fleet the almost-completed K-329 Severodvinsk submarine and build it "Kazan" analogue on the modernized project 08851 "Ash-M. Otherwise, to conduct any talk about the fifth generation is useless."
  5. Greyfox
    Greyfox 20 March 2013 10: 12 New
    11
    If the Virginia was built in Russia, it would be immediately recorded in the sixth generation boats. And this is by no means a joke - the domestic nuclear-powered ship of the 955 project (Borey), equated to the “fourth generation”, does not have any of the above devices. Undoubtedly, the Borey is significantly different from all its predecessors - thanks to the modest dimensions of the R-30 SLBMs, the Bulava managed to get rid of the hump on the body of the submarine, for the first time a water-jet propulsion was used on domestic submarines,

    The author demonstrates blatant incompetence by comparing a missile carrier with a multipurpose boat. Fuck "Boreyu" "uninhabited automatic
    apparatus for detecting mines and performing special tasks in the water column "?
    Further, the author notes
    However, it would be incorrect to directly compare Ash with Virginia: these boats are designed to solve various problems.

    A comparison of “Virginia” and “Borea” oh how correct and appropriate ....
    1. Santa Fe
      20 March 2013 15: 27 New
      -6
      Quote: Greyfox
      Fuck "Boreyu" "uninhabited automatic
      apparatus for detecting mines and performing special tasks in the water column "?

      It was worth paying attention not to automatic devices, but to such important things as:

      - deep integration of all electronic systems and vehicle detection tools, up to a single CIUS;

      - modular design of the boat, facilitating its repair and modernization

      - a disposable reactor that does not require recharging throughout the life of the boat;

      - telescopic mast, which does not penetrate into the robust housing, instead of the usual periscope with a set of video cameras (visible and infrared ranges) and long-range meters.

      There is nothing like the Borey boat. We have a second-hand hodgepodge of 3 generation boat hulls. In addition, armed with a rather primitive 30-ton Bulava missile, with underestimated range and payload compared to the 60-ton Trident II

      The ship, which is considered to be the “fourth generation”, has no advantages over third-generation boats - comparing the Borey with the same Ohio (the 1970 project) will not be in favor of the modern Russian boat
      1. Greyfox
        Greyfox 20 March 2013 16: 07 New
        +9
        Well, compare Virginia to Ashen, and Northwind to Ohio. And then it turns out that we compare the Tu-160 bomber with the F-35 fighter and convincingly prove that the Tu-160 does not have any high-quality pribluda, and therefore
        We have a second hand
        .
        the Americans are great, and we have a complete ... oops. Can you remind you in what conditions the Americans built their boats, and in which we were in the 90 years?
        And more
        However, you expected something different from Mr. Rogozin and his friends? This rot does not know how otherwise

        What does Rogozin have to do with it? Do you even know when Borey was founded and when Ragozin became vice-premier? If you want to blatantly blame someone, kick Yeltsin and his gop company.
        1. Santa Fe
          20 March 2013 16: 27 New
          -10
          Quote: Greyfox
          So compare Virginia to Ashen, and Northwind to Ohio.

          The Russian Navy does not have a single Ashen. That's what ... oops. Compare, it turns out, especially with nothing.

          "Ohio" - SSBN (or SSBN) of the third generation. At the same time, Borey has no distinct advantages over Ohio. Conclusion? Borey is a third-generation boat.
          Quote: Greyfox
          If you want to blatantly blame someone, kick Yeltsin and his gop company.

          Under Yeltsin, ships were cut in bundles. Kursk, Tomsk, Cheetah, Chabanenko, Important, Thoughtful ... there are 5 new nuclear submarines, 1 completed TARKR, 1 BOD, 2 destroyer, not counting RTOs, minesweepers, diesel-electric submarines and laid down nuclear submarines (Ash and Dolgorukiy are legacy) )
          1. Greyfox
            Greyfox 20 March 2013 17: 30 New
            +5
            Do you even understand what you are writing? The "bundles" of ships were hurt from the USSR in a high degree of readiness, as well as the elements of the boats that went to create the Borea. "Important", "Thoughtful" were laid during the SSOR and now belong to China (they were built for more than 10 years). The stock came to an end and the naked ass of 90's shone. And listen to you, so at the time to lay a monument to Yeltsin the shipbuilder ....
            1. Santa Fe
              20 March 2013 17: 49 New
              +2
              Quote: Greyfox
              "Packs" of ships is a backlog inherited from the USSR in a high degree of readiness

              Oh no

              K-141 “Kursk” - was laid on March 22 1992 of the year. Two years later, on 16 on May 1994, the boat was launched and on December 30 of the same year it was accepted into the Northern Fleet.

              K-295 Samara. Bookmark 1993 d. Launching 1994 d. Admission to the fleet in the year 1995.
              Quote: Greyfox
              it struck a hightail from the USSR

              from the "dashing nineties" remaining hurt:
              "Ash" - bookmark 1993 year, not ready yet
              Belgorod - at 1999-1, the readiness of 80% has not been completed so far
              Quote: Greyfox
              "Important", "Thoughtful" were laid during the Soviet Socialist Republic and are now owned by China (built over 10 years)

              Who is to blame for being sold at the beginning of the 2000's
              Quote: Greyfox
              The backlog ended and the naked ass of 90's shone.

              It shines even brighter nowadays.
            2. Ascetic
              Ascetic 21 March 2013 00: 51 New
              +4
              Guys do not argue all the phallometry in real life is checked only in conditions God forbid, and since the amers still have no overwhelming superiority in qualitative characteristics, the human factor also doesn’t come to the fore in quantitative terms, and this thing is not amenable to analysis

              In the winter of 1996, the Russian embassy in London turned to the British Navy command with a request to help the sailor who underwent surgery aboard the Pike. He developed peritonitis, the treatment of which is possible only in a hospital. The "Pike" surfaced, the Glasgow destroyer approached, his helicopter took the patient and brought him ashore. The British media unanimously expressed bewilderment: while in London negotiations were underway to evacuate the patient, NATO anti-submarine maneuvers were taking place in the North Atlantic, just in the area where the Pike was located. However, the submarine managed to be detected only when it itself surfaced to the surface in order to transfer the unfortunate sailor to the helicopter ...

              So measure after that who is stronger and more powerful,
              For example, in the Strategic Missile Forces, the calculations are trained to perform the task independently, which allows it to be completed even in situations of little predictability.
              Our priority is man-machine, on the contrary.
              Well, for fans to compare as an option
              Russian experts compare strategic heavy missile submarines (TRPKs) from Russia and foreign countries. A comparative assessment was carried out according to the following parameters:

              - firepower (the number of warheads (BB), the total power of the BB, the maximum firing range of an intercontinental ballistic missile, its accuracy - KVO);

              - constructive perfection of TRPK (displacement, overall characteristics, conditional density of TRPK - the ratio of the total mass of the submarine to its volume);

              - technical reliability (the probability of failure of the submarine systems, the time of the launch of all missiles, the preparation time for the launch of the missile, the probability of a successful launch);

              - operation (TRPC travel speed both in the surface and underwater position, noiselessness characteristics, autonomous navigation time).
              link
              1. ABV
                ABV 21 March 2013 03: 05 New
                +2
                and it was precisely "Pike" ie 671 RTM, but they thought that the more modern 971 "Pike-B" according to their current NATO Akula !!!
              2. Misantrop
                Misantrop 22 March 2013 02: 23 New
                0
                Quote: Ascetic
                Well, for fans to compare as an option
                Russian experts compare strategic heavy missile submarines (TRPKs) of Russia and foreign countries
                Judging by the fact that the figures for 667BDRM are solid crap (for 941 - similarly), the qualifications of these experts leave much to be desired. And yet, on the third point of comparison, I have VERY big doubts about the possibility of “Ohio” to survive after my own volley ... winked
        2. knn54
          knn54 21 March 2013 00: 05 New
          +1
          Let's hope that with the advent of Shoigu, the situation will improve.
          It’s just that at first the Americans did something, and the rest was taken, We first got taken, and what’s left for the rest ...
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 21 March 2013 23: 03 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        In addition, armed with a rather primitive 30-ton Bulava missile, with underestimated range and payload compared to the 60-ton Trident II

        And what is the range of the 60 ton Trident II? And the American progress at the expense of the Tridents from the first to the second is staggering. Triiden-1 30 tons, range 7400 km, Triiden-2 60 tons, range 7600 km, so maybe Triiden-3 90 tons, range 11000 km, doesn’t resemble anything?
        They also say that the Americans saved on booking warheads in Triiden-2.
  6. Hemi cuda
    Hemi cuda 20 March 2013 10: 15 New
    +2
    Thank you for the interesting material, "The US Navy chose the modernization and conversion of extra Ohio into tactical cruise missile launchers" is a good example of how to deal with equipment and not shave it and cut it.
  7. Papakiko
    Papakiko 20 March 2013 10: 35 New
    11
    For the first time a jet engine was used on domestic submarines

    After this, you can put out the candles.
    Here is the first sample!



    "Sharks" went into series in 1981.
    Sivaflya 1989.
    All "megadivays" of "mattress" pelvis only from the TV screen or movie theater.

    Who is what and "well done" everything is relative. hi
    1. Edge_kmv
      Edge_kmv 20 March 2013 11: 07 New
      +1
      A ctos showed that on project 941 "Shark" is a water cannon ??? There are screws
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 20 March 2013 11: 10 New
        0
        What is a water cannon? Screw enclosed in a pipe.
        1. PLO
          PLO 20 March 2013 11: 29 New
          +4
          What is a water cannon? Screw enclosed in a pipe.

          do not confuse
          a water cannon and a screw in a ring are different things
          the water cannon has a narrowing at the end of the "pipe" due to which jet thrust is created while the screw / impeller and water conduit can be located as you like

          and the screw in the ring works just like a screw, i.e. repelled by water
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 20 March 2013 11: 34 New
            +4
            Not so different. All the difference in the length of the pipe. The screw in the ring and the screw in the pipe do not repel (the oars repel) from the water, they push it through the ring or pipe. There is a narrowing in the ring, so this is just a special case of a classic water cannon with a pipe.
            1. PLO
              PLO 20 March 2013 11: 51 New
              +3
              Not so different.

              different enough to be classified into propellers and water cannons, and on the Shark it’s propellers

              all the difference in the length of the pipe.

              it is in the length and shape of the conduit, as well as in the system of impellers, of which there can be more than one piece)

              The screw in the ring and the screw in the pipe do not repel (the oars repel) from the water

              Yes? winked and how roughly speaking a screw blade differs from an oar?
              and propeller rowing called for a reason


              so this is just a special case of a classic water cannon with a pipe.

              extremely rough approximation
              in the end no one calls fenestrons in helicopters as jet airplanes
              1. Skuto
                Skuto 20 March 2013 12: 21 New
                0
                Let civilian, but also a detailed answer http://otvet.mail.ru/question/72633806
              2. Papakiko
                Papakiko 20 March 2013 14: 43 New
                +1
                Quote: olp
                in the end no one calls fenestrons in helicopters as jet airplanes


                Do not put eggs and nails in one basket. wink

                The French company “Aerospasyal” proposed a fundamentally new design of the tail rotors of helicopters using the concept of a propeller in an annular channel. Such screws are called Fenestron.
                He represents a multi-blade screw located in the annular channel of the keel, each blade is attached using an axial hinge. The keel profile has a certain curvature and twist in order to create forces in the horizontal flight directed in the same direction as the fenestron thrust.
                By that Fenestrone unloading is achieved. For structural reasons, its diameter is reduced compared to the tail rotor. Therefore, the power consumption in hovering mode increases to 4% of engine power, but in horizontal flight it is 1-2% less than that of the tail rotor.
                Advantages fenestrone: low load on the drive system in horizontal flight; lack of a tail rotor pylon and an intermediate gear; low harmful resistance; greater flight safety during maneuvers near the ground; low vulnerability; less labor intensive maintenance.
                disadvantages can be attributed to large power requirements while hanging and a lot of noise.


                As they said in the KhAI, any garbage sucked into the fenestron very quickly disables the fenestron fan. The same was confirmed by Lieutenant Colonel Verbelchuk from the military department, who served at the time in the squadron, which tested (conducted trial operation) such a version of the Mi-24.
              3. Engineer
                Engineer 9 March 2016 22: 37 New
                0
                first you figure out why the screw is enclosed in the ring, and then argue about the water cannon, otherwise you think the ring there turns out for beauty:
                and the screw in the ring works just like a screw, i.e. repelled by water
          2. Papakiko
            Papakiko 20 March 2013 14: 29 New
            +4
            Quote: olp
            and the screw in the ring works just like a screw, i.e. repelled by water

            What do you see with your own eyes looking at:



            or maybe it ?:


            This is all considered a "jet propulsion".

            And you need to be visually impaired so as not to see obvious things!
            Namely conical pipe shape on screws 941 projects..
            As a consequence and water jet propulsion!
            I have the honor! hi

            ps / Immediately apologize for the harsh statement.
            1. atesterev
              atesterev 20 March 2013 17: 55 New
              0
              Sorry, Sir, but you got ahead of me. I completely agree with you that the illiterate use of once heard expressions causes professionals to tremble in the body! My comment below is not as detailed as yours, but no less annoyed !!!

              At the same time, the word "water washer", unfortunately, took root :(
            2. PLO
              PLO 20 March 2013 20: 21 New
              +1
              Namely, the conical shape of the "pipe" on the project screws 941 ..

              taper is different

              and I advise you to look at this photo
              even from this angle it can be seen that the diameter of the screw is less than the diameter of the output section of the ring
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 20 March 2013 20: 45 New
                0
                even from this angle it can be seen that the diameter of the screw is less than the diameter of the output section of the ring

                In such a view, it’s just hard to even say that the ring is generally compressed from the back.
                1. PLO
                  PLO 20 March 2013 21: 40 New
                  +4
                  In such a view, it’s just hard to even say that the ring is generally compressed from the back.

                  here's another view
                  and indeed there is no narrowing so that it can be said that the flow rate at the exit from the ring is much faster than at the entrance is impossible, which means that this is not a water cannon

                  1. Papakiko
                    Papakiko 21 March 2013 00: 56 New
                    0
                    Quote: olp
                    and indeed there is no narrowing so that it can be said that the flow rate at the exit from the ring is much faster than at the entrance is impossible, which means that this is not a water cannon

                    For the photo TVERDO 5 good
                    For stupid perseverance TVERDO 1 belay

                    Ask someone in Severodvinsk to measure the input diameter and output diameter of the “pipe” with a tape measure, so that YOU could relax and enjoy the realization: The first water jet propeller on the submarine serially began to install on the 941 project "Shark"SSBN" Typhoon "by NATO classification.

                    See, the photo is clickable!
                    soldier

                    The project also used a "variable thrust vector" across the horizon wink
                    these steering wheels are clearly visible on the photos you posted
                    1. PLO
                      PLO 21 March 2013 01: 45 New
                      +3
                      For the photo TVERDO 5 good
                      For stupid perseverance TVERDO 1 belay

                      ha mutually

                      it is necessary to measure not the diameters of the front and rear sections of the ring, but the diameter of the rear section and the diameter of the propeller

                      and if you are so persistent, so how does a water cannon differ from a propeller for you? can you formulate some sane definition or is it a water cannon for you in any ring?


                      The project also used a "variable thrust vector" across the horizon

                      exactly what is in quotes because in fact it is not OB
                      1. Papakiko
                        Papakiko 21 March 2013 08: 27 New
                        0
                        Quote: olp
                        it is necessary to measure not the diameters of the front and rear sections of the ring, but the diameter of the rear section and the diameter of the propeller

                        Well, it remains the case for small, forward measure and make sure.
                        Quote: olp
                        is the water cannon different from the propeller? can you formulate some sane definition or is it a water cannon for you in any ring?

                        Above, I laid out several concepts of "water jets".
                        Find your own definitions and language; the Internet is rich.
                        Convincing and pulling from the darkness into the light of a stubborn occupation is not always grateful.
                        Taste aligoria through World History of the Wheel.
                        Ferris wheel

                        Roulette Wheel

                        STEERING WHEEL

                        WHEEL from a cart

                        And there is also a steering wheel, wheels for passenger cars and toys for toys and HUGE for career equipment.
                        All this is a story about WHEEL lasting more 5000 years. hi
                      2. PLO
                        PLO 21 March 2013 09: 13 New
                        0
                        haha sophistry
                        really .. if you yourself don’t know what you are talking about, our discussion is meaningless

                        Convincing and pulling from the darkness into the light of a stubborn occupation is not always grateful.
                        Taste the aligoria through World History of the Wheel.

                        do you take on a lot?
                        however reach out to eat your allegory somehow I’m not going to, I don’t trust illiterate people
                      3. Papakiko
                        Papakiko 21 March 2013 11: 44 New
                        0
                        Quote: olp
                        I do not trust illiterate people

                        That's why the dog rummaged!
                        Educated American people wrote that they had the first "water jets" installed on the nuclear submarines and the Russians stupidly copied the Boreas.
                        And the General Designer, pr-t 941 did not call caissons water cannons.. Like they put a screw band in a "pipe" to protect against Arctic ice. Before that, they went with classic screws for 30 years and were worried about you, and most importantly, the previous ones and those under construction did not complete these defenses. The main ambush is why icebreakers and Arctic vessels still do not equip such "pipe" defenses. Especially Azipods VRK.


                        The obvious things can be called differently.
                        The main thing from what goals and motives to proceed.
                        “Non-flying weapons”, “no-fly zones”, “protection of human rights”, you can continue further.
                      4. PLO
                        PLO 21 March 2013 14: 37 New
                        0
                        That's why the dog rummaged!
                        Educated American people wrote that they had the first "water jets" installed on the nuclear submarines and the Russians stupidly copied the Boreas.
                        And the General Designer, pr-t 941 did not call the caissons with water cannons .. Like, they put a screw group in a "pipe" to protect it from Arctic ice. Before that, they went with classic screws for 30 years and were worried about you, and most importantly, the previous ones and those under construction did not complete these defenses. The main ambush is why icebreakers and Arctic vessels still do not equip such "pipe" defenses. Especially the "Azipods" of WRC
                        The obvious things can be called differently.
                        The main thing from what goals and motives to proceed.
                        “Non-flying weapons”, “no-fly zones”, “protection of human rights”, you can continue further.

                        and what did you mean by that? what
                        read a textbook of the Russian language, do not get carried away in bold and underlining and maybe you will be able to express your thoughts clearly and clearly
                        so far this is not working out for you
                      5. Papakiko
                        Papakiko 21 March 2013 15: 08 New
                        0
                        Quote: olp
                        and what did you mean by that? read a textbook of the Russian language, do not get carried away in bold and underlining and maybe you will be able to express your thoughts clearly and clearly that you can’t


                        What does this have to do with the jet propulsion system?
                        You wrote about the dimensions of the blades and inlet-outlet openings in the "pipe", they wrote! Roulette in hands and forward, to Severodvinsk, measure.
                        I'm talking about the consistent development of technology, and you're talking about Greek sophists.
                        If you don’t agree, create an article and put it on the court of the public or invite “specialists” here with drawings and photo-video. hi

                        I’m not passing an exam and not making money for observing the Russian language.
                        You can look at you and find punctures in literacy.
                        Do not illuminate yourself with the holy cross of literacy ..
                      6. PLO
                        PLO 21 March 2013 16: 04 New
                        0
                        What does this have to do with the jet propulsion system?
                        You wrote about the dimensions of the blades and inlet-outlet openings in the "pipe", they wrote! Roulette in hands and forward, to Severodvinsk, measure.

                        I'm not talking about absolute sizes, but about their ratio
                        as I wrote above depends on the shape of the conduit

                        you, without even knowing what a water-jet propulsion is and how it actually differs from an ordinary propeller, are trying to educate me ..
                        it's very funny

                        Your only answer is to look on the Internet, they say you should bring this definition, but it’s easy for you to post a bunch of different nonsense from the wheel to the RSZO
                        this is again very funny

                        I’m not passing an exam and not making money for observing the Russian language.
                        You can look at you and find punctures in literacy.
                        Do not illuminate yourself with the holy cross of literacy ..

                        ahah
                        everybody has one-shots, but it's very easy to distinguish a one-time from an error
                        and people who are fond of "smart" terms (aligoria(c)), they are marked in bold and do not know how to spell them correctly; they look extremely stupid winked
                      7. Papakiko
                        Papakiko 21 March 2013 16: 51 New
                        0
                        Quote: olp
                        I'm not talking about the absolute dimensions, but about their ratio, as I wrote above, it depends on the shape of the water duct, without even knowing what the jet propulsion is and how it actually differs from the usual propeller, trying to educate me ..

                        I am surprised at you.
                        Unlike you, I clearly laid out 4 schemes in the pictures of the different principles of the "jet propulsion".
                        You can find a description of each on the Internet.
                        I’m not into scraps, but you yourself started talking about the shapes and sizes of the “pipe” screws, so make an effort, find the circuit-sizes-device WINE COMBINE pr-t 941 and the more satisfaction there will be from the realization of a simple truth.

                        About eyelids I didn’t say a word.
                        Quote: Papakiko
                        I’m not passing an exam and not making money for observing the Russian language.

                        these are my words.

                        We are waiting for the diagrams and numbers for you with the sizes of the rowing pair of 941 ave. soldier
                      8. PLO
                        PLO 21 March 2013 17: 06 New
                        0
                        Unlike you, I have visually laid out 4 schemes in pictures of different principles of the "water-jet propulsion".

                        and not a single definition of why the propeller of the 941st can be considered a water jet
                        or as I already asked you for any screw in the ring water cannon?

                        in addition, I have already posted as many as 3 photos that clearly demonstrate that this is not a jet propulsion

                        these are my words.

                        I agree, is it yours (or yours? lol ) the words
                      9. Papakiko
                        Papakiko 21 March 2013 17: 53 New
                        0
                        Quote: olp
                        screw in the ring water jet

                        Regarding Prospect 941, the “ring” has dimensions of about 6 meters in diameter and about the same length with a pronounced conical shape.
                        Quote: olp
                        in addition, I have already posted as many as 3 photos that clearly demonstrate that this is not a jet propulsion

                        Personally, I clearly observe the conical shape of the "caisson" (which does not close the screw only on top but has a clear, round shape) in the inside of which there is a screw and from this I draw a verified-weighted conclusion.
                        Jet propulsion- simple construction.
                        Which can not be compared with modern 3-4 screw. (Borey and Ohio)
                      10. PLO
                        PLO 22 March 2013 01: 35 New
                        -1
                        Regarding Prospect 941, the “ring” has dimensions of about 6 meters in diameter and about the same length with a pronounced conical shape.

                        yes generally do not give a damn about the absolute dimensions
                        main conduit shape relative to screw shape

                        Personally, I clearly observe the conical shape of the "caisson" (which does not close the screw only on top but has a clear, round shape) in the inside of which there is a screw and from this I draw a verified-weighted conclusion.
                        Water jet propulsion - simple design.

                        Before you make any conclusions, you should determine for yourself what a jet propulsion is, and already based on the definition, and draw some conclusions
                        so far from your words it follows that any propeller with any nozzle ring of absolutely any arbitrary geometric dimensions (even if the nozzle diameter is 10 times the diameter of the screw) and arbitrary taper (and one degree is enough) can be considered a jet propeller

                        here are all your pathetic considerations and arguments
                        and you still haven’t given the definition of a water-jet propulsion solely because all your reasoning does not fit into it, although it’s really easier to just look at Wikipedia and copy-paste

                        A jet propulsion device (jet) is a propulsion device in which the force propelling the vessel is created by the jet of water pushed out of it. Represents the water pump working under water.
                      11. Papakiko
                        Papakiko 22 March 2013 09: 53 New
                        +1
                        Quote: olp
                        A jet propulsion device (jet) is a propulsion device in which the force propelling the vessel is created by the jet of water pushed out of it. Represents the water pump working under water.

                        Tense up a little more and enlightenment will come good

                        I'll tell you a little:
                        There is even a "pseudo" reversing shutter in the form of horizontal rudders, which are located immediately behind the "pipe with a screw":
                        The reversing damper allows you to turn the flow forward or tilted down. This allows the ship to brake or reverse.
                        Due to the continuity of the flow for the passage of the same mass of water through a smaller cross section for the same time, the flow velocity increases, which creates an emphasis on the propulsion device.

                        Quote: olp
                        here are all your pathetic considerations and arguments

                        Of course, they’ve gotten too much in the field of “Internet rudeness”. good yes

                        I am sincerely sorry for you, for creativity and ABSORPTION in you are practically at zero.

                      12. PLO
                        PLO 22 March 2013 15: 16 New
                        0
                        Tense up a little more and come enlightenment good

                        holy holy yes
                        with your help, I will soon become a saint, I already feel how the halo ears scratch lol


                        Due to the continuity of the flow for the passage of the same mass of water through a smaller cross section for the same time, the flow velocity increases, which creates an emphasis on the propulsion device.

                        it’s just that the taper there is very small and the diameter of the outlet cross section of the water conduit is larger or coincides with the diameter of the propeller, which means that the flow rate at the outlet increases absolutely not significantly (relative to this screw without a nozzle) so that such a propeller can be considered a jet propeller


                        There is even a "pseudo" reversing shutter in the form of horizontal rudders, which are located immediately behind the "pipe with a screw":

                        I look at you all the “PSEVDO” and the reversing flap and the air and water supply and conduit, but for some reason, with all these pseudo-jet propulsions, you have the most real good

                        Of course, they’ve gotten too much in the field of “Internet rudeness”.

                        I absolutely do not respect Internet missionaries who sincerely believe that they carry the Holy lol to the uneducated Internet masses (as they sincerely believe), whose only argument is the advice to google ..
                        the most interesting thing is that people like you do not consider it to be rudeness
                        such a paradox request

                        I am sincerely sorry for you, for creativity and ABSORPTION in you are practically at zero.

                        Well, what can I do about a limited techie, to enlightened humanities with a developed creative foundation and humanitarian composition of the brain with one hundred percent ABSORBTION (my God, another clever highlighted term crying , well, at least written without errors) I am very far

                        but nothing, I’m straining myself a bit today sitting on the “throne” and will try to achieve the necessary level of enlightenment in order to discover ABSORPTION and draw from your messages the very creative principle, logic and, of course, literacy
                        have fun I will surprise friends at leisure
                      13. PLO
                        PLO 22 March 2013 15: 38 New
                        0
                        There is even a "pseudo" reversing shutter in the form of horizontal rudders, which are located immediately behind the "pipe with a screw":
                        The reversing damper allows you to turn the flow forward or tilted down. This allows the ship to brake or reverse.

                        oh my ghat, what a magnificent pearl, how could I not immediately notice it fellow
                        any sane person looking at the photos above will understand that even if the horizontal rudders bend by some miracle (which is impossible), they will be able to reverse only half of the flow (lower) while the upper one will flow quietly in the same direction
                        and if you are even a little familiar with physics (which I already doubt very much), then you will realize that moving backward under such conditions is impossible .. although I probably just have a poorly developed creative principle lol
                      14. Papakiko
                        Papakiko 22 March 2013 16: 54 New
                        0
                        Quote: olp
                        holy holy

                        As I expected, you did not pass by enlightenment and rolled on you, pierced and pierced. good

                        In this resource you can literally read one and a half pages:
                        http://www.katera-lodki.ru/ustrvod
                      15. PLO
                        PLO 22 March 2013 21: 58 New
                        0
                        As I expected, you didn’t pass by the enlightenment and it rolled on you, pierced and pierced. good

                        come on, don’t dissemble, here all your
                        to expect this you need to write correctly, and you have obvious problems with this

                        and honestly I'm disappointed
                        is that all you could write with your creativity and brain absorption? I expected more

                        however, taking into account the heresy that you wrote (reverse with the help of horizontal rudders) you really can’t answer anything sensible, so let's pretend that you didn’t say this, because no one will know winked


                        In this resource you can literally read one and a half pages:
                        http://www.katera-lodki.ru/ustrvod

                        well, at least something specific
                        Here is only one trouble. nothing (including the above diagrams) indicates that the 941th water cannons

                        there is no nozzle-steering device, the propeller and the nozzle ring are of such a shape that does NOT significantly increase the speed of the outgoing flow, i.e. it cannot be considered a water jet
                      16. Papakiko
                        Papakiko 27 March 2013 19: 23 New
                        0
                        [quote = olp] to expect this you need to write correctly, but you have obvious problems with this [/ quote]
                        [quote = Papakiko] I’m not passing an exam here and not making money for observing the Russian language. [/ Quote]

                        [quote = Papakiko]Due to the continuity of the flow for the passage of the same mass of water through a smaller cross section for the same time, the flow velocity increases, which creates propulsion.[/ Quote]

                        I bow to the sim and I will not persuade. hi
  • Papakiko
    Papakiko 21 March 2013 01: 12 New
    0



    These two combat units are related in one thing by the MLRS.
    Only difference between them 50 years.

    So the Water-jet propulsors on the “Shark" and "Borea".
  • Skuto
    Skuto 20 March 2013 12: 23 New
    +1
    maybe they wanted to say about it: The boat has backup means of movement - two DC motors in 190 kW. For maneuvering in cramped conditions, there is a thruster in the form of two folding columns with electric motors of 750 kW and rotary propellers. Are thrusters located in the bow and stern of the ship?
  • atesterev
    atesterev 20 March 2013 17: 47 New
    +3
    Actually, this is not called a water washer, but a screw in the nozzle. In any case, shipbuilders. This system is already 50 years old, and why it was recently used on submarines, I don’t understand. A water cannon is a completely different system for supplying water to a propeller (propeller)!
  • Prapor Afonya
    Prapor Afonya 20 March 2013 11: 07 New
    0
    Quote: Vladimirets
    How long is everything ..... recourse

    This is not a "penny" at AvtoVAZ riveting, but still could have been faster!
  • alex20081308
    alex20081308 20 March 2013 11: 50 New
    0
    The only question for the author. And what kind of torpedo is it with a range of 100 km and a speed of 130 km. Enlighten please. If the author means 65-76, then she has a range of up to 50 km and a speed of about 30-40 km.h
    1. Delta
      Delta 20 March 2013 12: 12 New
      +2
      50 km, at a speed of 50 knots, i.e. at an attack speed. At cruising (30-35 knots) range up to 100 km. And the maximum speed is 50 km / h. 70 knots are fantasies
      1. Delta
        Delta 20 March 2013 12: 31 New
        +1
        Quote: Delta
        A maximum speed of 50 km / h

        those. not km / h, but knots
  • Delta
    Delta 20 March 2013 12: 16 New
    +3
    the visiting card of the Soviet submarine fleet was nuclear submarines armed with cruise missiles - a specific class of submarines that had practically no analogues abroad.

    Hmm ... and the Regulus missiles, therefore, were not cruise at all)))
  • Santa Fe
    20 March 2013 14: 20 New
    0
    Quote: Delta
    Hmm ... and the Regulus missiles, therefore, were not cruise at all

    The only American carrier for Regulus cruise missiles is the Halibat submarine (operational code SSGN-587, where G-guided missle, a missile-guided boat). In 1965, it was converted into a regular SSN-587, the missiles were removed, and Halibat received diving and oceanographic equipment in return.

    In the 1960-ies for the Navy of the USSR was built:
    - 16 DEPL Ave. 651 (4 cruise missiles P-6, later P-500)
    - 6 nuclear submarine Ave. 659 (6 winged package P-5)
    - 29 nuclear submarine ave. 675 (8 covered missiles P-6)

    Compare the scale. Before the start of the 1980's, the US Navy did not build boats with the Kyrgyz Republic at all, except for the experimental Halibut


    USS Halibut (halibut), launch of a cruise missile, there were five strategic Regulas on board the boat



    Launch of anti-ship missile launcher with nuclear submarine pr.675
    1. Delta
      Delta 20 March 2013 14: 23 New
      +1
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      The only American Regulus cruise missile carrier is the Halibat submarine

      and here again a mistake: not the only one. There was also “Tanni,” “Barbero,” “Greyback,” and “Grauler.” All 5 boats completed 40 patrols until the year 64. Not much, of course, I understand)))
      1. Santa Fe
        20 March 2013 14: 32 New
        0
        Quote: Delta
        Tunney, Barbero, Grayback and Grauler

        These are diesel electric boats
        The Yankees practically did not have nuclear carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic during the Cold War - only Halibut.
        And the Soviet Navy has a hundred boats on 11 projects

        Shoots USS Tunny


        Only in the 1980's began to appear "Elk" with VLS under Tomahawks, but that's another story.
        1. Delta
          Delta 20 March 2013 14: 34 New
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          These are diesel electric boats

          But what, from the fact that they are diesel, they cease to be carriers?))) After all, the conversation was about carriers, and not just with nuclear power plants
          1. Santa Fe
            20 March 2013 14: 41 New
            0
            Quote: Delta
            the conversation was about carriers, and not just with AEU


            the visiting card of the Soviet submarine fleet was nuclear submarines armed with cruise missiles - a specific class of submarines that had practically no analogues abroad.
            1. Delta
              Delta 20 March 2013 14: 46 New
              +1
              “not at all” and “was, but not enough” - different things. This is to not grab the tongue)))
              1. Santa Fe
                20 March 2013 14: 49 New
                -1
                Quote: Delta
                “not at all” and “was, but not enough” - different things. This is to be missed by the tongue

                pinch yourself in the ear

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                almost unparalleled abroad

                Do you think that the word “practically” was accidentally inserted in the text?
                1. Delta
                  Delta 20 March 2013 14: 55 New
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  pinch yourself in the ear

                  progressing?))) is it being treated. I think it would be easier for you to admit mistakes, rather than excuse yourself from topic to topic.

                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  whether the word "practically" was inserted in the text

                  But how is translated "practically" in your interpretation? "somewhere sam vosem"?))))
                  1. Santa Fe
                    20 March 2013 15: 59 New
                    -2
                    Quote: Delta
                    But how is translated "practically" in your interpretation?

                    disappearingly few. those who are interested will figure it out
                    1 boat against the backdrop of 11 Soviet PLARK projects

                    Delta (1) 18 March 2013 22: 23 ↑ 0
                    You must be able to appeal with real arguments


                    Which incidentally Delta (1) can not do. After two or three posts, his real arguments end and he begins to be rude
                    1. Delta
                      Delta 20 March 2013 16: 12 New
                      +2
                      Yeah, and at the same time give the definition of rudeness. And follow yours. And also to ensure that the articles and your “arguments” are nevertheless accurate and that you don’t have to poke your nose and ask uncomfortable questions that you often have no answers to. Examples of mass
                      1. Santa Fe
                        20 March 2013 16: 42 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Delta
                        Yeah, and at the same time give the definition of rudeness.

                        Rudeness, left unanswered, chokes on itself.
                        Quote: Delta
                        ask uncomfortable questions that you often don't have answers to. Examples of mass

                        usually from the conversation you merge first))))

                        When the dog barks, we do not get on all fours, and do not bark at her in return. Honestly, your problems are completely uninteresting to me. If there is nothing to add on the topic of the Premier League - go argue in another article, since Topwar publishes a lot of interesting things for every taste
                      2. Delta
                        Delta 20 March 2013 16: 46 New
                        +3
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Rudeness, left unanswered, chokes on itself.

                        and my answer is always there
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        usually from the conversation you merge first

                        go over your articles and comments of the past week and pay attention to unanswered questions to you. And at the same time on the “arguments” of the type “this ship is unsinkable”, this is a delusion (it’s generally your favorite). Who knows, maybe in a few years you will remember this and realize how immature you are still. “Merge” when you can’t break through the armor words already.
                      3. Santa Fe
                        20 March 2013 16: 54 New
                        -2
                        Quote: Delta
                        go over your articles and comments of the past week and pay attention to unanswered questions to you.

                        with pleasure

                        1. I suggested that you describe a situation where the A-6 and A-7 subsonic attack aircraft are being fired by the BNC 1134-B free-falling bombs. Unanswered Question

                        (Prior to the appearance of Exoset and Harpoon anti-ship missiles, aviation was powerless against naval air defense systems and radar-guided automatic anti-aircraft guns. Shrike was also not a panacea. In the 1970s, the Berkut-B was unsinkable for the US Navy deck aviation.)

                        2. I asked for a list of "useless ships" (at least in your understanding). no answer
                      4. Delta
                        Delta 20 March 2013 17: 01 New
                        +3
                        and is that all?))) these are yours to me and there are only two of them. Honestly, even looking for laziness towards you, left (supposedly by accident) without attention. As for the sinking of the "unsinkable" BOD, what is there to argue about? if your BOD is an unsinkable ship, then does it make sense to lead a discussion and give specifics?
                        On the second question - the same thing. Even children know the simplest examples from history when powerful warships remained idle, even when their state participated in wars. As a simple example, Italian heavy ships in WWII. And do not try to juggle - was there really a question of "useless ships"? No, Troll, it sounded like this: "But how many ships, powerful, expensive, does history know that stood idle?" these are two big differences. And you just called useless. Aircraft carriers. Forgot? How do you try to remake the situation for yourself. But no, it won’t work out. Go and learn the materiel, history, and if you copy anything, copy it verbatim so that you don’t kick.
                      5. Santa Fe
                        20 March 2013 17: 14 New
                        -2
                        Quote: Delta
                        if you have a BOD - this is an unsinkable ship

                        maybe drowned, if you find a way.

                        U.S. Navy deck aviation had only Mk.80 bombs and Shrike anti-radar missiles. Bercut-B has 4 air defense systems and 2 AK-630 batteries, not counting universal artillery.
                        Quote: Delta
                        Even children know the simplest examples from history when powerful warships remained idle, even when their state participated in wars.

                        Am I against it?
                        the clearest example is the super-aircraft carriers Nimitz.
                        Quote: Delta
                        Italian heavy ships in WWII

                        mixed everything in a bunch. Some of them fought, some not. In general, they fought unsuccessfully.
                        Who did the British fight in the battle at Cape Matapan?

                        In the end, the weapon may not fight, but play an important role - like Tirpitz, who defeated the PQ-17 convoy
                        Or an SSBN on combat patrol.
                        Or rusting in the Satan mine
                      6. Delta
                        Delta 20 March 2013 17: 21 New
                        +2
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        maybe drowned, if you find a way.

                        NOT ALL ships created for battle (any classes) participated in battles. I’m not a fan of alternative history and I don’t want to guess on the coffee grounds “they’ll drown, they won’t drown,” this is stupid. "Titanic" was also considered unsinkable))) as well as many warships. But they did find their scrap too.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        the clearest example is the super-aircraft carriers Nimitz.

                        I gave another example. And why did I raise this question - remember yet?

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        mixed everything in a bunch. Some of them fought, some not. In general, they fought unsuccessfully.
                        Who did the British fight in the battle at Cape Matapan?

                        In the end, the weapon may not fight, but play an important role - like Tirpitz, who defeated the PQ-17 convoy
                        Or an SSBN on combat patrol.
                        Or rusting in the Satan mine


                        I may have mixed, but again you contradict yourself. So, those ships and other weapons that rust idle (well, or almost idle) you still consider useful (well, at least in some ways), but the same "Nimitsa" who participated in the hostilities and which with one look they raise their hands to many you consider completely devoid of common sense
                      7. Santa Fe
                        20 March 2013 17: 32 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Delta
                        But they did find their scrap too

                        what are we talking about.
                        submarines "Permit" or "Stagen" will tear BOD to shreds

                        but the carrier-based aircraft of the beginning of the 70's BOD 1134-B was too tough
                        Quote: Delta
                        So, those ships and other weapons that rust idle (well, or almost idle) you still consider useful (well, at least in some ways)

                        Not just at least in something. Useful for the present.
                        And you can play basketball in your yard, you don't need Carl Vinson (CVN-70)
                        Quote: Delta
                        and who with one look raise their hands to many

                        This is your fantasy. You cannot give real examples of this.
                      8. Delta
                        Delta 20 March 2013 17: 37 New
                        +3
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Not just at least in something. Useful for the present.
                        And you can play basketball in your yard, you don't need Carl Vinson (CVN-70)

                        wassat Well, how can one not “merge” (as you say) when logic breaks down about sympathy, antipathy, subjective opinion? he himself said a little higher about the “benefits” of “Tirpitz”, and “Nimitz” at the same time - ONLY a basketball court laughing
                      9. Santa Fe
                        20 March 2013 17: 41 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Delta
                        he himself said a little higher about the “benefit” of “Tirpitz”, and “Nimitz” at the same time - ONLY a basketball court

                        Tirpitz was distracted by the fleet of the metropolis throughout the war, withstood 700 sorties of allied aircraft, defeated the PQ-17 convoy ... that’s such a “good” (why are you in quotation marks?)

                        And what did the 10 Nimitsev do?
                      10. Delta
                        Delta 20 March 2013 17: 57 New
                        +4
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Tirpitz the whole war distracted the fleet of the metropolis

                        all American aircraft carriers did the same (except for real participation in the hostilities, which you are well aware of) - they pulled back on themselves the part of the arms race that the USSR entered. Against them, we created missile cruisers, submarines, the main purpose of which was to track AUGs. And this is no longer a fantasy, it is a real use in the past and even in the present of our submarines. As for how many Tirpitz bombings have withstood, then I'm sorry - it’s not my fault that the “Nimits” have never bombed))) who knows how much they would withstand.
                      11. Santa Fe
                        20 March 2013 18: 14 New
                        -1
                        I would like to see examples of this:
                        Quote: Delta
                        and who with one look raise their hands to many

                        Quote: Delta
                        except for real participation in the hostilities that you know very well about)

                        I know that 10 Nimtsians practically did not participate in the hostilities. And generally rarely appear in areas of military conflict
                        Quote: Delta
                        Against them, we created missile cruisers, submarines, the main purpose of which was to track AUGs.

                        The main task of the USSR Navy was the fight against enemy submarines (in theory)

                        The main tasks of the USSR Navy in practice were to demonstrate the power of the USSR to Third World countries, military and political support of friendly regimes, special operations in areas of military conflict (mine clearance of the Suez Canal or Chittagong Bay in Bangladesh, and tankers in the Persian Gulf).

                        aircraft carriers generally on the side, it was a pure game, and there were not so many “killer aircraft carriers”, and their tasks were to fight against any surface targets (the same Tu-22M - primarily intercepting transport convoys from the New World), and thirdly, they cost mere pennies compared to the Nimits.

                        the same missile cruisers were created: 4 Ave. 58 (which cruisers are difficult to consider) + 4 Ave. 1134 + 4 Eagle + 3,5 Atlanta = 15 ships
                        drop in the sea against the backdrop of the 90 Large Anti-Submarine Ships of the Navy of the USSR

                        So I did not convince. Carriers were the most expensive, but somehow not very "delayed part of the arms race that the USSR entered."
                        90 BOD - The Union seems to be afraid of something else))))
                      12. Delta
                        Delta 20 March 2013 18: 23 New
                        +2
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        I would like to see examples of this:
                        Quote: Delta

                        this can only be answered with your arguments of the type "
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        The union was afraid of something else)


                        Or do you hope that I will give you mathematical formulas? bring them yourself, in support of your argument that someone was afraid of someone. EMNIP you have repeatedly used in your articles terms like “afraid” or “afraid”, of course, without any confirmation. But were you afraid or not - did you ask the Pentagon representatives? to be honest, I would, in the place of the president of ANY country, if I hadn’t been afraid, I would at least reckon with the presence of the nearby AUGs of a possible enemy. Or even more so - the adversary of the real. And you all throw caps. Then you have those unsinkable, then these useless
                      13. Santa Fe
                        20 March 2013 18: 42 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Delta
                        and who with one look raise their hands to many

                        Waiting for examples))))
                        may be Vietnam, just about the same as @ at the sight of aircraft carriers of the US Navy?))))



                        Or Serbia, to the shores of which Nimitz arrived only on the 12-th day of the war?))))
                        Quote: Delta
                        bring them yourself, in support of your argument that someone was afraid of someone

                        I gave you the distribution of ships of the Navy of the USSR by type
                        90 BOD and all 15 “carrier killers” - the conclusion is obvious, the priority was the fight against enemy submarines
                      14. Delta
                        Delta 20 March 2013 18: 49 New
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Waiting for examples

                        started trolling again? come on somehow constructively so that it is not unpleasant again. You express YOUR SUBJECTIVE opinion, I do the same. Why do not I have the right? oh, yes - rebellious Vietnamese ... well, rebellious and? undefeated and? does this mean that the American aircraft carriers lost that war?)))

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        the conclusion is obvious, the priority was the fight against enemy submarines

                        and what do the designers of these ships say? and at the same time their customer. Huh?
                      15. Santa Fe
                        20 March 2013 19: 01 New
                        0
                        Quote: Delta
                        come on somehow constructively so that it is not unpleasant again.

                        I really do. 10 Nimitsev - is there really not a single case found over 40 years when: one kind of raise their hands to many ?? At least one example, eh, Vyacheslav?
                        Quote: Delta
                        OUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION, I do the same. Why do not I have the right?

                        Without specific examples and figures, the weight of any opinion is small.
                        Quote: Delta
                        and what do the designers of these ships say?

                        They called them Big anti-submarine ships. And, by the way, they were not at all cunning: the weapons of the BOD were rebalanced in the direction of the PLO. There were no anti-ship missiles, “killer aircraft carriers”, on them (to use Rastrub-B for surface targets ... mildly doubtful, the PLUR has a completely different purpose)
                        Quote: Delta
                        Does this mean that it was the American aircraft carriers that lost the war?

                        And what do you think happens on the deck of an American aircraft carrier? Celebrate the victory?
                      16. Delta
                        Delta 20 March 2013 19: 15 New
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Without specific examples and figures, the weight of any opinion is small.

                        ABOUT! So I prove it to you for an hour. And about your arguments based on likes and dislikes, guesses and assumptions. And suddenly you didn’t like mine. Why would ...)))))))))
                        If you think that you grabbed information about the number of sorties from "nimits" and do not consider them effective, then this is "concrete numbers and examples"? no, this remains the number of sorties, and about effectiveness - this is your SUBJECTIVE opinion. Or can you somehow evaluate the effectiveness? and note - the effectiveness of the use of weapons is determined not only by specifically bombed objects.
                      17. Santa Fe
                        20 March 2013 19: 50 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Delta
                        And suddenly you didn’t like mine. Why would ...

                        At least one example of this garbage:
                        Quote: Delta
                        who, by their very appearance, raise their hands to many

                        if you can’t - just say so, I don’t know any examples, this is my subjective opinion, it seems to me like that.

                        Quote: Delta
                        Or can you somehow evaluate the effectiveness?

                        Yes of course. If we are talking about real hostilities: this is expressed by the ratio of the cost of weapons / damage to the enemy.
                        Quote: Delta
                        And about your arguments based on likes and dislikes, guesses and assumptions.

                        Well, of course you’re persecuting the impudent. I still try to stick to the facts.
                      18. Delta
                        Delta 20 March 2013 19: 53 New
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        just say so, I don’t know any examples, this is my subjective opinion, it seems to me like that.

                        my opinion, I think so, doesn’t even seem

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Well, of course, you’re driving the impudent

                        and this is the question of rudeness. I remember that you were very indignant at someone else. By the way, you were the first to switch to “you”, which indicates the level of education
                      19. Santa Fe
                        20 March 2013 20: 22 New
                        -4
                        Quote: Delta
                        doesn't even seem

                        Doesn’t it even seem? Then let me know examples when at least one country "raised its hands at the sight of Nimitz." At least one example?
                        Quote: Delta
                        And about your arguments based on likes and dislikes, guesses and assumptions.

                        Of course, sorry, but you really drove away.
                        I try to present facts / figures / photos in every post
                        You have nothing but bare words.
                        Quote: Delta
                        By the way, you were the first to switch to “you”, which indicates the level of education

                        Found what to complain about))
                      20. Delta
                        Delta 20 March 2013 22: 21 New
                        +2
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        I try to present facts / figures / photos in every post

                        and the numbers given by you do not mean the uselessness of Nimitsov. Quite the contrary - about their results, far from zero
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Found what to complain about))

                        Well, you first spoke of rudeness. And then, when I just poked my nose into inaccuracy. So much for the counterargument
                      21. Santa Fe
                        20 March 2013 23: 55 New
                        -2
                        Quote: Delta
                        when I just poked my nose in inaccuracy

                        Are you talking about Halibat with Regulus? I remember you tried to curse yourself, but you didn’t succeed.
                        Quote: Delta
                        Quite the contrary - about their results, far from zero

                        Alas, Nimitz-class carrier expected more from a superweapon. In the operation against the unfortunate Yugoslavia, it fulfilled only 10% of the coalition’s sorties; it wasn’t enough for more. If an aircraft carrier does not solve anything in a small local squabble, what can be expected from it in larger conflicts?

                        Desert Storm. 141 thousand tons of explosives dumped on Iraq. (Note - no bombs! Only the mass of explosives is considered).

                        For comparison, the Nimitz ammunition cellars are designed for 1,5-1,95 thousand tons (depending on the types of ammunition). And these figures need to be divided approximately by 3 - and you will get a lot of explosives.

                        0,5 vs 141
                        As they say, check out the difference. here even 100 Nimitsev will not help
                      22. Delta
                        Delta 21 March 2013 13: 33 New
                        +1
                        [quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN] [quote = Delta] when I just poked my nose in inaccuracy [/ quote]
                        Are you talking about Halibat with Regulus? I remember you tried to curse yourself, but you didn’t succeed.
                        [quote = Delta]
                        only you vomit here, professor home, and I point out your shortcomings in the articles. By the way, smart people take criticism quite differently from you. And the shortcomings and inaccuracies in your articles were found by people immeasurably. Forgot? what about "it didn’t work out", but how it didn’t work out, if it just happened))) firstly, I pointed out to you that the States had them. And then, when you turned on the back one and said that they still had one, I further pointed out that there were five of them. But you moved out here too, saying that there was only one atomic one, which means "practically" not It was. But here is your free approach to terminology, nothing can be done. Have you forgotten the MMT at Anchar? and there are many such examples. And do not ask them to bring, lest you blush later. Oh, what am I talking about - people like you do not blush.

                        [quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN] Alas, Nimitz-class carrier expected more from the superweapon. [/ quote]
                        The Pentagon told you this, expert?

                        [quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN] In the operation against the unfortunate Yugoslavia, it completed only 10% of the coalition’s sorties, and it wasn’t enough for more. [/ quote]
                        But did you need more? do you know anything about this? and if so, where from? don’t you understand that you only substitute yourself with such answers?
                      23. Santa Fe
                        21 March 2013 15: 38 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Delta
                        firstly, I pointed out to you that the States did have them.

                        the visiting card of the Soviet submarine fleet was nuclear submarines armed with cruise missiles - a specific class of submarines, practically unparalleled abroad
                        I already answered you. the word "practically" was not accidentally inserted.
                        You did not succeed in surprising anyone - everyone who is interested in the subject of the submarine fleet knows about Halibat with the rules.
                        Quote: Delta
                        [SWEET_SIXTEEN] Alas, Nimitz-class carrier expected more from the superweapon. [/ Qoute]
                        The Pentagon told you this, expert?

                        No, that was a question for you -
                        Quote: Delta
                        who, by their very appearance, raise their hands to many

                        The results of the combat use of Nimitz can not be combined with your imagination
                        Quote: Delta
                        But did you need more?

                        It was necessary to dump 141 000 tons of explosives
                      24. Delta
                        Delta 21 March 2013 16: 24 New
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        I already answered you. the word "practically" was not accidentally inserted.

                        and I told you that your "practically" to the bulb. When they know the subject they write "one." Or specify even more - there were 5 carriers, of which one was atomic. Your articles are designed for schoolchildren - perhaps sensationalism is missed, and the technical details are useless.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        do not combine with your imagination

                        where is my fantasy before yours

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        It was necessary to dump 141 000 tons of explosives

                        next time you will be asked for sure
  • Papakiko
    Papakiko 20 March 2013 19: 27 New
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    the conclusion is obvious, the priority was the fight against enemy submarines

    Not with the submarine but the nuclear submarines, the carriers of nuclear weapons, of which there was "the darkness of cockroach."
    90 BOD is the total number of ship built and operated, for almost 30 years.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Their operation is so expensive and time-consuming that Nimitsa rusts most of her life at the base in Norfolk or at the Brementon dock

    Do you personally repair them and upgrade chtol or do you agree on all the nuances? Once you show such awareness.
  • Santa Fe
    20 March 2013 19: 39 New
    -1
    Quote: Papakiko
    90 BOD is the total number of ship built and operated, for almost 30 years.

    in 40 years, only 15 cruisers - “aircraft carrier killers” were built

    Of these, 8 "cruisers" (58 and 1134) - smaller than the American destroyer
    Quote: Papakiko
    Nimits rust most of their lives at a base in Norfolk or at Brementon's dock
    Do you personally repair them and upgrade chtol or do you agree on all the nuances?

    http://www.uscarriers.net/index.htm
    - here you can track the fate of any Nimitz.

    Nimitse position at the beginning of the 2013 year, data from Stratfor.
    9 of 10 pellets rust in the bases and docks
  • Papakiko
    Papakiko 21 March 2013 01: 36 New
    +3
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    here you can track the fate of any Nimitz.

    No need to throw stupid things.
    You watch for the mother-in-law on these resources, the accuracy will be approximately the same.
    For the first 2 months of this year, near the basing ports in the sea, 2 UDCs and 4 AUGs went off to work out various tasks.
    As of 15.03.2013/3/3. 2 AUGs and 2 UDCs were at sea. Of these, XNUMX AUGs and XNUMX UDCs are in more than a combat position in combat patrol places.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    9 of 10 pellets rust in the bases and docks

    1) Crews and air wing have a rest and study.
    2) The ship, auxiliary equipment, aircraft wing are modernized and repaired.
    3) Only that which is not used and is not applied does not break or fail.

    Stop measuring the co-factor of AUG utility.
    The number of McDonald's and the Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola displacement runs across your minds and thoughts.

    Relax Oleg.
    Life is good and diverse, enjoy every minute. drinks
  • Delta
    Delta 21 March 2013 14: 31 New
    +2
    Quote: Papakiko
    The number of McDonald's and the Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola displacement runs across your minds and thoughts.


    yeah ... well said
  • Delta
    Delta 20 March 2013 18: 28 New
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The main task of the USSR Navy was the fight against enemy submarines (in theory)

    yeah, it means that our submarines and submarines were only engaged in the fight against enemy submarines
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The main tasks of the USSR Navy in practice was to demonstrate the power of the USSR to third world countries

    once again I ask the question: what, “nimitz" (well, or some other heavyweight) will do poorly with the demonstration of the flag, as did the ships of the Soviet Navy ?????????? so then you pour dirt on the glorified Navy of the USSR, which, it turns out, was generally worth nothing according to your logic. After all, if the powerful Nimitz has no influence even in the demonstration of the flag, then what could the less powerful USSR ships have?
  • Santa Fe
    20 March 2013 18: 47 New
    -1
    Quote: Delta
    yeah, it means that our submarines and submarines were only engaged in the fight against enemy submarines

    Not only!
    Strategic nuclear forces of the country were deployed on submarines
    The submarines could carry out any tasks in the ocean: reconnaissance, tracking, destruction of surface and underwater targets, mining, special operations, landing of special forces groups
    Quote: Delta
    and what, “nimitz" (well, or what other heavyweight) will do poorly with the demonstration of the flag, as did the ships of the Soviet Navy?

    Bad.
    Their operation is so expensive and time-consuming that Nimitsa rusts most of her life at the base in Norfolk or at the Brementon dock
  • Delta
    Delta 20 March 2013 18: 54 New
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Not only!
    Strategic nuclear forces of the country were deployed on submarines
    The submarines could carry out any tasks in the ocean: reconnaissance, tracking, destruction of surface and underwater targets, mining, special operations, landing of special forces groups

    so he himself wrote that the Navy was engaged in the fight against submarines. True, indicated that in theory. Where did you see this theory? something I don’t remember such directives
  • Santa Fe
    20 March 2013 19: 55 New
    -2
    Quote: Delta
    so he himself wrote that the Navy was engaged in the fight against submarines.

    Ninety BOD. The entire Navy of the Soviet Socialist Republic was focused on the fight against American nuclear submarines.

    Even strategists have converted for this business:
    Tu-142 - Soviet long-range anti-submarine aircraft, Bear-F according to NATO classification. Built by 90 machines of this type
  • Papakiko
    Papakiko 21 March 2013 08: 41 New
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The Navy of the Soviet Socialist Republic was oriented towards the fight against American nuclear submarines; even strategists converted the case: the Tu-142 is a Soviet long-range anti-submarine aircraft, Bear-F according to NATO classification.

    It is now in space orbits that target designation satellites hang, and in those years only in this way it was possible to carry out target designation-tracking of targets. Submarine, nuclear submarine, aug and so on. etc.

    Learning is light and ignorance is darkness soldier
  • Delta
    Delta 20 March 2013 18: 55 New
    +2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Bad.
    Their operation is so expensive and time-consuming that Nimitsa rusts most of her life at the base in Norfolk or at the Brementon dock

    Again, your subjective opinion. Well, I liked it and I do trolling, not only you answer that way. And, one more thing is a misconception)))) I personally think that they, while standing in the base, have sufficient influence and try to convince them of the opposite
  • Santa Fe
    20 March 2013 19: 56 New
    -3
    Quote: Delta
    I personally think that they, while standing in the base, have sufficient influence

    on whom?)))
  • Delta
    Delta 20 March 2013 20: 02 New
    +2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    on whom

    yes at all. Oops! By the way, and on you. You talk so much about them))))
  • Santa Fe
    20 March 2013 20: 27 New
    -3
    Quote: Delta
    yes at all

    bad joke
    There are approximately 200 countries in the world.
    point at least one country influenced by Nimitsa.
    and what is the effect expressed
    Quote: Delta
    Oops! By the way, and on you. You talk so much about them

    I mock them. Was it really worth building a ship for 40 billion dollars?))
  • Delta
    Delta 20 March 2013 22: 25 New
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    bad joke

    but what’s the joke if, apart from you, the expert of the milking science speaks for some reason (about such useless and weak ones) the whole world. Another thing is WHAT they say about them. But somehow they mostly respectfully respond. And far-sighted people are also afraid. And you still won’t get smothered. By the way, but if you prove to everyone their worthlessness, then what will happen next? will you be satisfied
  • Santa Fe
    21 March 2013 00: 01 New
    -3
    Quote: Delta
    the whole world

    Do not make me laugh. the whole world talks about Hollywood actors A. Jolie and B. Pitte
    Quote: Delta
    And far-sighted people also fear

    And far-sighted people are not afraid of 865 air bases?)))
    Nimitsa just puppies compared to the power of the US Air Force
  • Papakiko
    Papakiko 21 March 2013 08: 53 New
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Nimitsa just puppies compared to the power of the US Air Force

    All together, the NIMITS are not even equal to one Poplar Battle Block!
    All the power of the “mattress” Air Force does not even stand next to several Battle Blocks “Yars”, “Stiletto”, “Mace”, “Satan” and so on.
    And the prices are quite INSTALL compare.

    The main this is the speed at which "happiness" will occur.
    And AUG is a weapon of quick, sudden, mobile, decapitation strike and so on. etc. .. For everything else there is a "classic" Air Force.
  • Delta
    Delta 21 March 2013 13: 36 New
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Do not make me laugh. the whole world talks about Hollywood actors A. Jolie and B. Pitte

    they are indifferent to me. But you are constantly writing articles about aircraft carriers. So they do not give you sleep peacefully))))

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Nimitsa just puppies compared to the power of the US Air Force

    and what, someone somewhere assured that the "Nimits" should replace the Air Force ????? will you answer the answers?
  • Santa Fe
    21 March 2013 15: 25 New
    -2
    Quote: Delta
    and what, someone somewhere assured that "Nimits" should replace the Air Force?

    and what can they offer the air force? your help?
    The Air Force does not need their help.
    In the operation against Yugoslavia, the only Nimitz arrived only on the 12 day of the war
    In Libya, the Imites were ashamed to call
  • Delta
    Delta 21 March 2013 15: 35 New
    +2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The Air Force does not need their help.

    ahh ... well, if you so decided ... then of course. We must write to the Pentagon, teach them to the mind. Maybe you do this? believe me - they are not browsing this site. How do they know how to correct ..
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    In Libya, the Imites were ashamed to call

    Did the US Department of Defense notify you of this? when you stop dreaming and speculating as argumentation?
  • Delta
    Delta 21 March 2013 18: 09 New
    +1
    Oh, by the way, expert, what do you say to that? http://www.sgan2009.ru/10_divisiy/sbornik_10_DPL.html

    this is to talk about what tasks our submarines performed and whether the aircraft carriers mattered
  • Delta
    Delta 21 March 2013 21: 44 New
    +2
    SWEET_SIXTEEN

    all? merged?
  • Santa Fe
    20 March 2013 14: 43 New
    0
    Quote: Delta
    and what, from the fact that they are diesel, they cease to be carriers?

    yes, by the end of the 1960-x submarine carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic (even diesel) in the U.S. Navy
    Quote: Delta
    the conversation was about carriers, and not just with AEU

    the visiting card of the Soviet submarine fleet was nuclear submarines armed with cruise missiles - a specific class of submarines that had practically no analogues abroad.
  • starpom
    starpom 20 March 2013 14: 42 New
    +5
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    - 29 nuclear submarine ave. 675 (8 covered missiles P-6)

    of which 9 were upgraded to MK (P-500 Basalt) and 6 to MKV (P-1000 Volcano) (they did not manage to finish one, due to the unreliability of the nuclear power plant and regular flow of steam generators there was a command to stop the operation of the 1 generation from above)

    link: http: //www.deepstorm.ru/
    1. Santa Fe
      20 March 2013 14: 53 New
      0
      Quote: starpom
      of which 9 were upgraded to MK (P-500 Basalt) and 6 to MKV (P-1000 Volcano) (they did not manage to finish one, due to the unreliability of the nuclear power plant and regular flow of steam generators there was a command to stop the operation of the 1 generation from above)


      16 diesel-electric submarines, etc. 651 were also not simple "diesel engines" - it was planned to equip them with auxiliary nuclear warheads, which, incidentally, was done on the B-68 boat (651E project)
  • Delta
    Delta 20 March 2013 14: 25 New
    0
    And here’s the Tanny shooting.
  • stalkerwalker
    stalkerwalker 20 March 2013 15: 13 New
    +3
    God be with her, with this generational classification .....! The main thing is the ability of the crew to use all the capabilities of the boat / ship both in terms of armament and the management and detection of targets in the complex. In this case, even boats of the SECOND generation, but with a trained and trained crew, will succeed in the task. And the task of the submarine forces is essentially the same: restraining the attempts of a potential enemy in peacetime, and delivering a retaliatory and fatal blow of retaliation in the event of a military conflict. And if we still exist as a country, as an ethnos, it means that our guys from the submarine know their stuff.
    Once again - all with the past holidays of submariners !!!
    1. Delta
      Delta 20 March 2013 15: 25 New
      +2
      generational classification is not in vain invented. A 2nd generation boat cannot compete with a 4th generation boat with an equal level of crew training. At least in terms of stealth (and this is still the main weapon of the submarine).
      1. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 21 March 2013 09: 30 New
        +5
        The main problem of our boats was the strong noise of the propeller (propeller), remember the case of Toshiba Kikai in the middle of the 80's. As soon as Severodvinsk and Komsomolsk received an 3 machine for more precise screw processing, the Yankees immediately howled - the notch range of Soviet submarines decreased by an order of magnitude. And let me remind you - people control the technology. People need to be taught and trained. And you can launch ICBMs at the right time from a boat of any generation, even while on the mooring at the pier in Olenaya Guba or Polyarny.
        1. Delta
          Delta 21 March 2013 13: 38 New
          0
          but why then the submarine?)))) let's keep the nuclear warheads only on silo-based ICBMs
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex 20 March 2013 16: 15 New
    +3
    - 10 torpedo tubes located in the middle of the boat, perpendicular longitudinal axis;

    Perpendicular? Is it true? Is it for salvo firing by all the gunside ports? Why are TA covers so strange? :)
  • bddrus
    bddrus 20 March 2013 17: 10 New
    +1
    the author is well done - he praised the amers believing in their advertising and justified ... l domestic boats questioning their capabilities ("it’s great in words") - they say they’re good because they’re simple and cheap (well, where can we get to the Amer’s cut)
    1. Santa Fe
      20 March 2013 17: 22 New
      0
      Quote: bddrus
      casting doubt on their capabilities (“it’s great in words”)

      What to expect if the Borey is a hodgepodge of hull structures of previous generation boats?

      Quote: bddrus
      Well, here we go to the Amer cut)

      there is one caveat -
      you can stigmatize American industrialists and top multimillionaire managers for an arbitrarily long time, but we have a fact - the US Navy regularly receives new warships, often unparalleled

      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 20 March 2013 18: 09 New
        0
        And in my opinion, these ships are no longer manufactured. There are one or two. Some problems they found ...
        1. Santa Fe
          20 March 2013 18: 30 New
          0
          Quote: Wedmak
          And in my opinion, these ships are no longer manufactured.

          will be locked-in the plans of the entire 3 destroyer of this type until the 2020 year (sounds like a joke against the background of Russian reality)

          Add-on 15 thousand ton destroyer "Zamvolt", November 2012


          LCS - there are three ships in operation (the series has been under construction since 2005 of the year), in total an order has been issued for 12 LCS


          Fourth Coronado LCS, withdrawal from the assembly shop. 2011 year
          1. Papakiko
            Papakiko 20 March 2013 19: 40 New
            0
            Mattress diligently pumps paper into the domestic market.
            Providing 300 citizens and non-citizens with work and livelihoods. All consumer goods are imported from Southeast Asia.
            This is the Russian Defense Industrial Complex (or rather fragments from the past) that works for the Defense!
            And in the "Mattress" is the Military Industrial Complex, working for the sake of making money and promoting the "Matrasovsky" "interests" in all tidy sales markets and resource projects.
            From whom in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia, etc. "Matrasovskaya" Army defended the people of the "Mattress"?
      2. bddrus
        bddrus 21 March 2013 08: 09 New
        +2
        and you don’t want to increase Russia's GDP and military budget by 10 times in order to compare at least financial capabilities? And how many Zumwaltes were planned before the quantity was adjusted twice?
      3. bddrus
        bddrus 21 March 2013 08: 11 New
        +2
        What to expect if the Borey is a hodgepodge of hull structures of previous generation boats?

        - this is your problem - you immediately expect from amers that they have everything super, and you scoop ours in advance. In this, you reminded me one to one of Latin
      4. Misantrop
        Misantrop 22 March 2013 02: 48 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        there is one caveat -
        you can stigmatize American industrialists and top multimillionaire managers for an arbitrarily long time, but we have a fact - the US Navy regularly receives new warships, often unparalleled
        And what, Gorbachev the United States collapsed into a bunch of warring states?
        Until the USSR collapsed, Severodvinsk also issued unique nuclear submarines regularly
  • Odysseus
    Odysseus 20 March 2013 18: 42 New
    +2
    Here, in contrast to the question with aircraft carriers, we can agree with the respected SWEET_SIXTEEN. The only type of submarine we have is 4 generations - Ash. I would very much like the responsible comrades not to tell tales about 2030, but would make every effort to these submarines finally appeared in our fleet.
  • super-vitek
    super-vitek 20 March 2013 19: 04 New
    0
    If I’m not mistaken, the article said that our submarines can strike back directly from the base in Gadzhievo, and the main areas of patrol are the northern seas! Based on this, I think it’s not worth it to be especially upset that the amers built 3 boats of the 4th generation .Let's build 20-30 boats of the 3+ generation, and many questions will disappear by themselves !!! And in the meantime, slowly without rush we will create an underwater analogue of PAK FA !!! Glory to the Russian Navy !!!
  • patsantre
    patsantre 20 March 2013 21: 41 New
    +1
    I wonder why the author did not write anything about the Asyut and Barracuda nuclear submarines. This is also the 4th generation, and it’s interesting to know what they are capable of.
  • spravochnik
    spravochnik 20 March 2013 23: 12 New
    +5
    - 10 torpedo tubes located in the middle of the boat, perpendicular to the longitudinal axis

    This phrase shows the author’s level of competence. She is generally not true.
    And the author and some other fans of American underwater shipbuilding know that isolated decks were used on submarines pr. 667 and 671. But it is known that on submarine pr 971 these same insulated decks were assembled into isolated functional modules that rolled into the hull and mounted on shock absorbers (i.e. modular boats and these modules are easily replaced during modernization). And it is known \ that on the last boats of this project functional with the most noisy mechanisms had the so-called "active mass".
    By the way, the "Shark" has the screws in the nozzles. Applied to domestic boat for a long time. Many dizeluhi had them. And in particular, etc. 651 had them. The American "pamp jet" is also more likely screws in nozzles than water cannons. And the real water cannon can be seen at the domestic “Alrosa”, and just like that, it seems to be on the “Borea”.
  • Engineer
    Engineer 9 March 2016 22: 44 New
    0
    Where the author read this nonsense:
    during their construction, ready-made sections from unfinished third-generation submarines of projects 971 Schuka-B and “killer aircraft carriers” of project 949A are used

    How's that? Did he see section 949? Where could this section be attached at 955? Full layman in general.