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.

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

133 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. avt
    +1
    20 March 2013 09: 17
    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. +8
      20 March 2013 11: 47
      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
        0
        21 March 2013 10: 05
        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. 0
          21 March 2013 18: 00
          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
            -1
            22 March 2013 02: 04
            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. 0
              22 March 2013 12: 06
              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. +2
      20 March 2013 14: 07
      Just wondering how fast the Seawolf moves so that the self-propelled torpedoes crawl out of the TA ??? Apparently, it is standing still or max 5 knots ... And the target moves and sometimes quickly, will the adversary hit the target in such conditions? Again, after the shot, a "torpedo hole" usually occurs, the torpedo sags, and then it levels off to move towards the target, with the engine running - energy loss ... And one more thing: when the engine starts, all torpedo systems are cocked? As in Russian. Including PRS, START, etc? Can't hover over the carrier?
      1. +2
        20 March 2013 14: 20
        Quote: nnz226
        Just wondering how fast the Seawolf is moving so that the 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. +1
          20 March 2013 17: 28
          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. +1
            20 March 2013 17: 47
            The gap at "Sivulf" - EMNIP is more than 10 cm. Quite enough. After starting the torpedo engine, the spent steam and gas is discharged into the rear of the torpedo tube, and a stream of water enters the same place through the nozzle of the working propeller. The piston ring prevents the reverse flow of water and gas, causing an increase in pressure in the cavity of the apparatus behind the ring and creating an additional force that expels the torpedo. This is the self-exit formula for the TA located in the bow of the ship. By the way, it was patented by Russian scientists. And the "Seawulf" is even simpler (apparently, for the torpedo tubes located on the nose, the submarine speed should be minimal, for the "Seawulf" there is no such limitation), but almost the same formula
          2. 0
            20 March 2013 19: 13
            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. +5
    20 March 2013 09: 55
    How long is everything ..... recourse
    1. rubber_duck
      0
      20 March 2013 14: 43
      Yeah, there’s already got the 2030th. sad
  3. PLO
    +12
    20 March 2013 10: 09
    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. +6
      20 March 2013 11: 30
      the author surprised by comparing different purpose boats ...
      1. -5
        20 March 2013 15: 36
        Quote: Civil
        the author surprised by comparing different purpose boats ...


        What's so surprising about that? 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.

        Borey has none of the above. The boat, at best, is at the level of the 40-year-old "Ohio", and its weapon looks just an embarrassment against the background of Trident (both 1st and 2nd generations)

        However, you expected something different from Mr. Rogozin and his friends? This rot does not know how otherwise
        1. +3
          20 March 2013 17: 41
          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
          +2
          20 March 2013 19: 27
          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?

          Borey has none of the above. The boat, at best, is at the level of the 40-year-old "Ohio", and its weapon looks just an embarrassment against the background of Trident (both 1st and 2nd 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. 0
            20 March 2013 21: 30
            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
              0
              20 March 2013 21: 53
              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. 0
                21 March 2013 19: 03
                [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
                  0
                  22 March 2013 02: 00
                  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. 0
                    27 March 2013 10: 34
                    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, Ohio takes more of them than Boreas takes "clubs".
                    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. +3
    20 March 2013 10: 10
    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, too much importance is attached to the news of the beginning of the creation of fifth-generation submarines - it is much more important that the shipbuilders do not“ hover in the clouds ”about plans for 2030, but rather transfer the almost finished nuclear submarine K-329“ Severodvinsk ”to the fleet and build it analogue of "Kazan" on the modernized project 08851 "Ash-M". Otherwise, it is useless to talk about the fifth generation. "
  5. +11
    20 March 2013 10: 12
    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 when comparing a missile carrier with a multipurpose boat. Fuck Borey "uninhabited automatic
    devices 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.

    And the comparison of "Virginia" and "Borea" oh, how correct and appropriate ...
    1. -6
      20 March 2013 15: 27
      Quote: Greyfox
      Fuck Borey "uninhabited automatic
      devices 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.

      The Borey boat has nothing of the kind. We have a "second hand" prefabricated hodgepodge of 3rd generation boat hulls. In addition, armed with a rather primitive 30-ton Bulava missile, with an 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 the third generation boats - comparing the Borey with the same Ohio (1970s project) will not be at all in favor of the modern Russian boat
      1. +9
        20 March 2013 16: 07
        Well, compare Virginia with Ash, and Northwind with Ohio. Otherwise, we can compare the Tu-160 bomber with the F-35 fighter and prove convincingly that the Tu-160 does not have high-level pribluds, 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 laid down and when Ragozin became Deputy Prime Minister? If you want to blame someone pathetic, kick Yeltsin and his hop company.
        1. -10
          20 March 2013 16: 27
          Quote: Greyfox
          Well, compare "Virginia" with "Ash", and "Northwind" with "Ohio"

          There is not a single "Ash" in the Russian Navy. Here's what ... oops. It turns out that there is not much to compare with.

          "Ohio" - SSBN (or SSBN) of the third generation. At the same time, Northwind has no distinct advantages over Ohio. Output? 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 stripped in batches. Kursk, Tomsk, Gepard, Chabanenko, Important, Thoughtful ... only 5 new nuclear submarines, 1 completed TARKR, 1 BOD, 2 destroyers, not counting MRKs, minesweepers, diesel-electric submarines and laid down nuclear submarines (Ash and Dolgoruky are the legacy of the "dashing nineties" )
          1. +5
            20 March 2013 17: 30
            Do you even understand what you are writing? "Packs" of ships are the groundwork inherited from the USSR in a high degree of readiness, as well as the elements of the boats that went to create the "Borey". "Important", "Thoughtful" were founded during the SSOR and now belong to China (built for more than 10 years). The stuck ended and the naked ass of the 90s shone. And to listen to you, it’s time to lay a monument to Yeltsin, the shipbuilder ...
            1. +2
              20 March 2013 17: 49
              Quote: Greyfox
              "Packs" of ships are the groundwork 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" left a touch:
              "Ash" - bookmark 1993, not ready yet
              "Belgorod" - for 1999-1 year 80% readiness, not completed yet
              Quote: Greyfox
              "Important", "Thoughtful" were laid down during the SSOR and now belong to China (built for 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. +4
              21 March 2013 00: 51
              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
                +2
                21 March 2013 03: 05
                and it was exactly "Pike" ie 671 RTM, and they then thought that the more modern 971 "Pike-B" according to their NATO Akula !!!
              2. Misantrop
                0
                22 March 2013 02: 23
                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 a complete mess (for 941 it is the same), the qualifications of these experts leaves much to be desired. And yet, on the third point of comparison, I have VERY big doubts about the ability of "Ohio" to survive after its own volley ... winked
        2. +1
          21 March 2013 00: 05
          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. 0
        21 March 2013 23: 03
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        In addition, armed with a rather primitive 30-ton Bulava missile, with an 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. +2
    20 March 2013 10: 15
    Interesting material thanks, "The US Navy chose to modernize and convert the extra Ohio into carriers of tactical cruise missiles" is a good example of how you need to deal with equipment and not screw it up and cut it.
  7. +11
    20 March 2013 10: 35
    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 production in 1981.
    "Sivafle" 1989.
    All "megadivays" of "mattress" pelvis only from the TV screen or cinema.

    Who is what and "well done" everything is relative. hi
    1. +1
      20 March 2013 11: 07
      A ctos showed that on project 941 "Shark" is a water cannon ??? There are screws
      1. 0
        20 March 2013 11: 10
        What is a water cannon? Screw enclosed in a pipe.
        1. PLO
          +4
          20 March 2013 11: 29
          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 propeller / impeller and the water conduit can be located as desired

          and the screw in the ring works just like a screw, i.e. repelled by water
          1. +4
            20 March 2013 11: 34
            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
              +3
              20 March 2013 11: 51
              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. 0
                20 March 2013 12: 21
                Let civilian, but also a detailed answer http://otvet.mail.ru/question/72633806
              2. +1
                20 March 2013 14: 43
                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. 0
                9 March 2016 22: 37
                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. +4
            20 March 2013 14: 29
            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 propeller".

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

            ps / Immediately apologize for the harsh statement.
            1. 0
              20 March 2013 17: 55
              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 cannon", unfortunately, stuck :(
            2. PLO
              +1
              20 March 2013 20: 21
              Namely, the conical shape of the "pipe" on the screws 941 of the project ..

              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. 0
                20 March 2013 20: 45
                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
                  +4
                  20 March 2013 21: 40
                  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. 0
                    21 March 2013 00: 56
                    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 inlet diameter and outlet 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 be installed on the 941 project "Shark"SSBN" Typhoon "by NATO classification.

                    See, the photo is clickable!
                    soldier

                    The project also uses a "variable thrust vector" along the horizon wink
                    these steering wheels are clearly visible on the photos you posted
                    1. PLO
                      +3
                      21 March 2013 01: 45
                      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 uses a "variable thrust vector" along the horizon

                      exactly what is in quotes because in fact it is not OB
                      1. 0
                        21 March 2013 08: 27
                        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 schematic diagrams of "water cannons".
                        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 via "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
                        0
                        21 March 2013 09: 13
                        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 Aligoria through World Wheel History.

                        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. 0
                        21 March 2013 11: 44
                        Quote: olp
                        I do not trust illiterate people

                        That's why the dog rummaged!
                        Educated American people wrote that they had the first "water cannons" on the nuclear submarine installed and the Russians on the "Borei" stupidly copied.
                        And the General Designer, pr-t 941 did not call caissons water cannons.. Like they put a screw group in a "pipe" for protection from arctic ice. Before that, for 30 years, they walked with classic screws and they were worried about you, and most importantly, the previous ones and those under construction did not complete these protections. The main ambush is why icebreakers and Arctic ships have not been equipped with such "pipe" protections until now. Especially "Azipoda" 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 go on and on.
                      4. PLO
                        0
                        21 March 2013 14: 37
                        That's why the dog rummaged!
                        Educated American people wrote that they had the first "water cannons" on the nuclear submarine installed and the Russians on the "Borei" stupidly copied.
                        And General Designer avenue 941 did not call the caissons water cannons .. Like they put the screw group in the "pipe" to protect it from the Arctic ice. Before that, for 30 years, they walked with classic screws and they were worried about you, and most importantly, the previous ones and those under construction did not complete these protections. The main ambush is why icebreakers and Arctic ships have not been equipped with such "pipe" protections until now. Especially "Azipoda" 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 go on and on.

                        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. 0
                        21 March 2013 15: 08
                        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"?
                        You wrote about the size of the blades and inlet-outlet openings in the "pipe"! Roulette in hand and go to Severodvinsk, measure.
                        I'm talking about the consistent development of technology, and you're talking about Greek sophists.
                        Do not agree, create an article and post it to 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
                        0
                        21 March 2013 16: 04
                        What does this have to do with the "jet propulsion"?
                        You wrote about the size of the blades and inlet-outlet openings in the "pipe"! Roulette in hand and go 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. 0
                        21 March 2013 16: 51
                        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 pictures of different principles of "jet propulsion".
                        You can find a description of each on the Internet.
                        I'm not into crowbars, but you yourself started talking about the shapes and sizes of the "pipe" screws, so make an effort, find the diagrams-dimensions-device COMBINES OF WINES pr-t 941 and the greater the satisfaction 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
                        0
                        21 March 2013 17: 06
                        Unlike you, I have clearly laid out 4 schemes in pictures of different principles of "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. 0
                        21 March 2013 17: 53
                        Quote: olp
                        screw in the ring water jet

                        With respect to pr-that 941, the "ring" has dimensions of about 6 meters in diameter and about the same in 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 cover only the top of the screw, but has a clear, round shape) in the inside of which there is a screw and from this I make a verified, weighted conclusion.
                        Jet propulsion- simple construction.
                        Which can not be compared with modern 3-4 screw. (Borey and Ohio)
                      10. PLO
                        -1
                        22 March 2013 01: 35
                        With respect to pr-that 941, the "ring" has dimensions of about 6 meters in diameter and about the same in 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 cover only the top of the screw, but has a clear, round shape) in the inside of which there is a screw and from this I make 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. +1
                        22 March 2013 09: 53
                        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 deflector 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, we have become adept at 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
                        0
                        22 March 2013 15: 16
                        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 deflector in the form of horizontal rudders, which are located immediately behind the "pipe with a screw":

                        I see you have everything "PSEUDO" and a reversing deflector and an OVT and a water conduit, but for some reason, with all these pseudo-jet propulsion, you have the most real good

                        Of course, we have become adept at 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 will strain a little today while sitting on the "throne" and will try to reach the required level of enlightenment in order to discover ABSORPTION for myself and draw from your messages that very creativity, logic and, of course, literacy
                        have fun I will surprise friends at leisure
                      13. PLO
                        0
                        22 March 2013 15: 38
                        There is even a "pseudo" reversing deflector 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. 0
                        22 March 2013 16: 54
                        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
                        0
                        22 March 2013 21: 58
                        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. 0
                        27 March 2013 19: 23
                        [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
                  2. 0
                    21 March 2013 01: 12



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

                    So are the water-jet propulsion devices on the "Shark" and "Borea".
    2. +1
      20 March 2013 12: 23
      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?
    3. +3
      20 March 2013 17: 47
      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)!
  8. 0
    20 March 2013 11: 07
    Quote: Vladimirets
    How long is everything ..... recourse

    It's not "pennies" to rivet on AvtoVAZ, but still they could have done it faster!
  9. 0
    20 March 2013 11: 50
    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. +2
      20 March 2013 12: 12
      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. +1
        20 March 2013 12: 31
        Quote: Delta
        A maximum speed of 50 km / h

        those. not km / h, but knots
  10. +3
    20 March 2013 12: 16
    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 were not cruise at all)))
  11. 0
    20 March 2013 14: 20
    Quote: Delta
    Hmm ... and the Regulus missiles, therefore, were not cruise at all

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

    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. +1
      20 March 2013 14: 23
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      The only American carrier of Regulus cruise missiles is the Halibat submarine

      and here again the error: not the only one. There was also "Tunny", "Barbero", Grayback "and" Grauler. "All 5 boats made 40 patrols until 64. Not much, of course, I understand)))
      1. 0
        20 March 2013 14: 32
        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 1980s began to appear "Losi" with VLS under the Tomahawks, but that's a completely different story.
        1. +1
          20 March 2013 14: 34
          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. 0
            20 March 2013 14: 41
            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. +1
              20 March 2013 14: 46
              "not at all" and "there was, but not enough" are different things. This is not to grab the tongue)))
              1. -1
                20 March 2013 14: 49
                Quote: Delta
                "not at all" and "there was, but not enough" are different things. This is not to grab the tongue

                pinch yourself in the ear

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                almost unparalleled abroad

                do you think the word "practically" was inserted by chance in the text?
                1. +1
                  20 March 2013 14: 55
                  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 accidentally inserted in the text

                  and how is "practically" translated in your interpretation? "somewhere sam-vosem"?))))
                  1. -2
                    20 March 2013 15: 59
                    Quote: Delta
                    and how is "practically" translated 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. +2
                      20 March 2013 16: 12
                      aha, and at the same time give the definition of rudeness. And follow your own. And also so that the articles and your "arguments" are still accurate and you don't have to poke your nose and ask uncomfortable questions to which you often have no answers. Lots of examples
                      1. -1
                        20 March 2013 16: 42
                        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. +3
                        20 March 2013 16: 46
                        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 through your articles and comments from the past week and pay attention to the unanswered questions for you. And at the same time on "arguments" like "this ship is unsinkable", this is a delusion "(this is generally your favorite). Who knows, maybe in a few years you will remember this and understand how immature you are still." already in words.
                      3. -2
                        20 March 2013 16: 54
                        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

                        (Before the appearance of the Exocet and Harpoon anti-ship missiles, aviation was powerless against naval air defense systems and automatic anti-aircraft guns with radar guidance. The Shrike is also not a panacea. In the 1970s, Berkut-B was unsinkable for the US Navy carrier-based aircraft.)

                        2. I asked for a list of "useless ships" (at least in your understanding). there was no answer
                      4. +3
                        20 March 2013 17: 01
                        and that's all?))) it's yours to me and there are only two of them. Honestly, even to look for laziness to 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 hold a discussion and give specifics?
                        On the second question - the same thing. Even children know the simplest examples from history, when powerful warships were left idle, even when their state participated in wars. As the simplest example - the Italian heavy ships in WWII. And do not try to juggle - there the question sounded was it "useless ships"? no, troll, it sounded like "but you never know the ships, powerful, expensive knows history, which stood idle?" these are two big differences. And you called it useless. Aircraft carriers. Forgot? How are you trying to change the situation for yourself. But no - it will not work. Go teach materiel, history, and if you copy anything, copy it verbatim, so that you don't get kicked.
                      5. -2
                        20 March 2013 17: 14
                        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 "Satan" rusting in the mine
                      6. +2
                        20 March 2013 17: 21
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        maybe drowned, if you find a way.

                        NOT ALL ships created for combat (of any class) participated in battles. I am not a fan of alternative history and I don’t want to guess on the coffee grounds "will not sink", it is stupid. "Titanic" was also considered unsinkable))) as well as many warships. And they did find their own scrap on them.

                        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 "Satan" rusting in the mine


                        I may have mixed it, but you contradict yourself again. This means that those ships and other weapons that rust without work (well, or almost without work) do you still consider useful (well, at least in something), and the same "Nimitz" that did take part in hostilities and which by their very appearance they raise their hands to many, you consider completely devoid of common sense
                      7. -1
                        20 March 2013 17: 32
                        Quote: Delta
                        But they did find their scrap too

                        what are we talking about.
                        submarines "Permit" or "Stagen" will tear the 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. +3
                        20 March 2013 17: 37
                        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 you not "merge" (as you say) when logic breaks down on sympathy, antipathy, subjective opinion? he himself said a little higher about the "benefits" of "Tirpitz", while "Nimitz" is ONLY a basketball court laughing
                      9. +1
                        20 March 2013 17: 41
                        Quote: Delta
                        he himself said a little higher about the "benefits" of "Tirpitz", while "Nimitz" is ONLY a basketball court

                        Throughout the war, Tirpitz diverted the metropolitan fleet to himself, withstood 700 sorties of Allied aircraft, defeated the PQ-17 convoy ... this is such a "benefit" (why do you have it in quotes?)

                        And what did the 10 Nimitsev do?
                      10. +4
                        20 March 2013 17: 57
                        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 hostilities, which you know very well) - they were pulling off part of the arms race, which the USSR had entered. Against them, we created missile cruisers, submarines, the main purpose of which was to track the AUGs. And this is no longer a fantasy, it is a real use of our submarines in the past and even in the present. As for how long the Tirpitz withstood the bombing, then I'm sorry - it's not my fault that the Nimtsy never bombed))) who knows how long they would have withstood.
                      11. -1
                        20 March 2013 18: 14
                        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 are generally on the side, it was a pure game, and the number of "aircraft carrier killers" was not so much, and their tasks were to combat any surface targets (the same Tu-22M - primarily intercepting transport convoys from the New World), and thirdly, they were worth mere pennies compared to the Nimitz.

                        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 "pulled off a part of the arms race that the USSR had entered."
                        90 BOD - The Union seems to be afraid of something else))))
                      12. +2
                        20 March 2013 18: 23
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        I would like to see examples of this:
                        Quote: Delta

                        this can only be answered with your own arguments like "
                        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 terms like "afraid" or "were afraid" in your articles, of course, without any confirmation. 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 were not afraid, then at least reckoned with the presence of nearby AUGs of a potential enemy. Or even more so - a real enemy. And you keep throwing your hats. Now you have those unsinkable, then these useless
                      13. -1
                        20 March 2013 18: 42
                        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 BODs and only 15 "aircraft carrier killers" - the conclusion is obvious, the priority was the fight against enemy submarines
                      14. 0
                        20 March 2013 18: 49
                        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. 0
                        20 March 2013 19: 01
                        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 Large anti-submarine ships. And, by the way, they were not at all cunning: the armament of the BOD was rebalanced towards the PLO. There were no anti-ship missiles - "aircraft carrier killers", they were not (to use Rastrub-B on surface targets ... to put it mildly, it is 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. 0
                        20 March 2013 19: 15
                        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 have picked up information on the number of sorties from "nimits" and do not consider them effective, then these are "specific figures and examples"? no, it remains the number of sorties, but about efficiency - this is your SUBJECTIVE opinion. Or can you somehow evaluate the effectiveness? and mind you - the effectiveness of the use of weapons is determined not only by specifically bombed objects.
                      17. -1
                        20 March 2013 19: 50
                        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. +1
                        20 March 2013 19: 53
                        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. By the way, you were the first to switch to "you", which speaks of the level of education
                      19. -4
                        20 March 2013 20: 22
                        Quote: Delta
                        doesn't even seem

                        Doesn't it even seem? Then let me know examples when at least one country "raised her 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 speaks of the level of education

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

                        and the figures given by you do not speak about the uselessness of "Nimitz". Quite the opposite - 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. -2
                        20 March 2013 23: 55
                        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. +1
                        21 March 2013 13: 33
                        [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]
                        it’s just you, the home professor, who’s getting out here, and I’m pointing out your shortcomings in your articles. By the way, smart people perceive criticism in a completely different way than you do. And people found a lot of shortcomings, inaccuracies in your articles. Forgot? what about "did not work", then how could it not work, 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 indicated to you that there were 5 of them. But you moved out here too, saying that there was only one atomic, which means that there was practically no It was. But here is your free approach to terminology, nothing can be done. Have you forgotten your BMT at Anchar? and there are plenty of such examples. And do not ask them to bring them, so that you do not blush later. Oh, what am I talking about - people like you don't 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. -1
                        21 March 2013 15: 38
                        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 inserted by accident.
                        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. +1
                        21 March 2013 16: 24
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        I already answered you. the word "practically" was not inserted by accident.

                        and I told you that yours "practically" does not matter. When they know the subject, they write "one". Or they specify even more - there were 5 carriers, of which one is atomic. Your articles are designed for schoolchildren - perhaps sensations pass by, and technical subtleties 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
                      25. +1
                        20 March 2013 19: 27
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        the conclusion is obvious, the priority was the fight against enemy submarines

                        Not from submarines but nuclear submarines 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.
                      26. -1
                        20 March 2013 19: 39
                        Quote: Papakiko
                        90 BOD is the total number of ship built and operated, for almost 30 years.

                        in 40 years only 15 cruisers were built - "assassin aircraft carrier"

                        Of these, 8 "cruisers" (58 and 1134) are smaller than an 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
                      27. +3
                        21 March 2013 01: 36
                        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
                      28. +2
                        21 March 2013 14: 31
                        Quote: Papakiko
                        The number of McDonald's and the Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola displacement runs across your minds and thoughts.


                        yeah ... well said
                      29. 0
                        20 March 2013 18: 28
                        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 will ask the question: what, "nimits" (well, or some other heavyweight) will cope badly with the demonstration of the flag, as the ships of the Soviet Navy did ?????????? so then you are pouring dirt on the famous Soviet Navy, which, it turns out, did not cost anything at all according to your logic. After all, if the powerful "Nimitz" has no influence even in the display of the flag, then what could the less powerful ships of the USSR do?
                      30. -1
                        20 March 2013 18: 47
                        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, "nimits" (well, or some other heavyweight) will cope badly 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
                      31. +1
                        20 March 2013 18: 54
                        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
                      32. -2
                        20 March 2013 19: 55
                        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
                      33. 0
                        21 March 2013 08: 41
                        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
                      34. +2
                        20 March 2013 18: 55
                        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
                      35. -3
                        20 March 2013 19: 56
                        Quote: Delta
                        I personally think that they, while standing in the base, have sufficient influence

                        on whom?)))
                      36. +2
                        20 March 2013 20: 02
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        on whom

                        yes at all. Oops! By the way, and on you. You talk so much about them))))
                      37. -3
                        20 March 2013 20: 27
                        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?))
                      38. 0
                        20 March 2013 22: 25
                        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
                      39. -3
                        21 March 2013 00: 01
                        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
                      40. +1
                        21 March 2013 08: 53
                        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" War Block!
                        All the power of the Air Force "mattress" will not even stand next to several Combat Blocks "Yars", "Stiletto", "Bulava" "Satan" and so on.
                        And the prices are quite INSTALL compare.

                        Home it is how fast the "blessing" will happen.
                        So the AUG is a weapon of a quick, sudden, mobile, decapitating strike, etc. and so on .. For everything else, there are "classic" Air Force.
                      41. 0
                        21 March 2013 13: 36
                        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 "Nimitz" should replace the Air Force ????? will you answer the answers?
                      42. -2
                        21 March 2013 15: 25
                        Quote: Delta
                        and what, someone somewhere assured that "Nimitz" 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
                      43. +2
                        21 March 2013 15: 35
                        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?
                      44. +1
                        21 March 2013 18: 09
                        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
                      45. +2
                        21 March 2013 21: 44
                        SWEET_SIXTEEN

                        all? merged?
          2. 0
            20 March 2013 14: 43
            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.
    2. +5
      20 March 2013 14: 42
      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. 0
        20 March 2013 14: 53
        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 pr. 651 were also not simple "diesel engines" - it was planned to equip them with an auxiliary nuclear power plant, which, by the way, was done on the B-68 boat (project 651E)
  12. 0
    20 March 2013 14: 25
    And here is the shooting "Tunney".
  13. +3
    20 March 2013 15: 13
    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. +2
      20 March 2013 15: 25
      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. +5
        21 March 2013 09: 30
        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. 0
          21 March 2013 13: 38
          but why then the submarine?)))) let's keep the nuclear warheads only on silo-based ICBMs
  14. +3
    20 March 2013 16: 15
    - 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? :)
  15. +1
    20 March 2013 17: 10
    the author is well done - he praised the amers believing their advertisements and obos ... l domestic boats questioning their capabilities ("it turns out great in words") - they say they are good because they are simple and cheap (well, where do we go to amersky cut)
    1. 0
      20 March 2013 17: 22
      Quote: bddrus
      questioning their capabilities ("it turns out great in words")

      What to expect if Borey is a prefabricated hodgepodge of hull structures of the 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. 0
        20 March 2013 18: 09
        And in my opinion, these ships are no longer manufactured. There are one or two. Some problems they found ...
        1. 0
          20 March 2013 18: 30
          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)

          Superstructure of the 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 LCS Coronado, withdrawn from the assembly shop. 2011
          1. 0
            20 March 2013 19: 40
            "Mattress" diligently pumps up the domestic market with "paper".
            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 "Mattress" is the Military Industrial Complex, which works for the sake of earning money and promoting "Matrasov" "interests" in all tasty sales markets and resource projects.
            From whom in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia, etc. "Mattress" Army defended the people of "Mattress"?
      2. +2
        21 March 2013 08: 09
        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. +2
        21 March 2013 08: 11
        What to expect if Borey is a prefabricated hodgepodge of hull structures of the 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
        +1
        22 March 2013 02: 48
        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
  16. +2
    20 March 2013 18: 42
    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.
  17. 0
    20 March 2013 19: 04
    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 !!!
  18. +1
    20 March 2013 21: 41
    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.
  19. +5
    20 March 2013 23: 12
    - 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 submarine shipbuilding know that insulated decks were used on the submarines of pr. 667 and 671. And it is known that on the nuclear submarine of pr. 971, these very isolated decks were assembled into isolated functional modules, which were rolled into the hull and attached to shock absorbers (i.e. boats are modular and these modules are easily replaced during modernization). And it is known \ that on the last boats of this project, functional ones with the most noisy mechanisms had so-called. "active mass".
    By the way, the "Shark" has screws in its attachments. They have been used on domestic boats for a long time. Many diesels had them. And in particular, etc. 651 had them. American "pamp jets" are also screws in nozzles rather than water cannons. A real water cannon can be seen at the domestic "Alrossa", and this is exactly what it looks like on the "Borea".
  20. 0
    9 March 2016 22: 44
    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.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"